The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-7368 Silleck, Mary From: Tomaszewski, Michelle Sent: Friday,January 20, 2017 9:18 AM To: Silleck, Mary Subject: RE: Frost Hi Mary, This has been an ongoing issue for many years.Tim Frost sued the Trustees over Orient Wharf Company and lost. Check and see if your office has a file on it under Litigation for Frost or Orient Wharf. Mr. Frost came to see Scott the other day and Scott told Bill and the TB the other day that there was too much of a history and too many details to discuss that day during work session and that he'd meet with Bill to explain it. Thank you, Michelle L.Tomaszewski Secretarial Assistant Southold Town Supervisor's Office Phone: 631-765-1889 Fax: 631-765-1823 From:Silleck, Mary Sent: Friday,January 20,2017 9:09 AM To:Tomaszewski, Michelle<michellet@town.southold.ny.us> Subject: Frost Do you have any info on this for Bill? Mary Silleck Secretary to the Town Attorney Town of Southold Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 (Main Road) P.O.Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971 Office: (631) 765-1939 Fax: (631)765-6639 1 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION MEMORANDUM To: Members of the Board of Trustees From: Jennifer Andaloro, Assistant Town Attorney Date: January_, 2013 Subject: Outstanding Article 78 Actions The following is a brief status update of Article 78 proceedings against the Board of Trustees that remain outstanding as of this date. I have included in bold text the updated portions of this Memorandum. 1. Gerard Schultheis and Carolyn Schultheis v. Lawrence Tuthill and the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold Date Filed —August 18, 2004 Issue. Plaintiff is claiming ownership of the creek bed of School House Creek. Trustees granted a permit to co-defendant Tuthill to construct a dock and pier. Status. Both plaintiffs and defendants have submitted motions for summary judgment. The Court denied all parties' motions for summary judgment in a decision dated 10/17/11. The Court has decided, however, to reconsider the motions and has allowed the parties to resubmit the motions. The Court has denied these motions and the case has been marked for trial the week of 1/14/13. 2. Robert G. Bombara and Margaret M. Bombara v. Town Board of the Town of Southold and Board of Town Trustees of the Town of Southold Date Filed — February 11, 2009/October 11, 2011 J Issue. The Trustees denied Bombara's application for a wetlands permit to construct a single-family dwelling on North Sea Road. Simultaneously with its wetlands permit denial, the Trustees denied the Petitioners' application for a Coastal Erosion Permit under Chapter 111. Petitioners appealed the Coastal Erosion denial to the Town Board. In January, 2010, the Town Board confirmed the Trustees denial but granted Petitioners a variance on the condition that no construction, including cantilevering, was to occur within 8 feet of the landward toe of the identified natural protective feature on the site. This determination was not challenged by Petitioners. Thereafter, Petitioners made a second application to the Trustees in June 2011 for a wetlands permit. This application was denied on 8/24/11 based on the Applicant's failure to comply with the Town Board's conditions and because the proposal did not comply with Chapter 275. Petitioners have filed two separate Article 78 proceedings/ declaratory judgment actions against the Town. In the first action, Petitioners challenge the original Trustees' denial of a wetlands permit and claim that the Trustees did not have jurisdiction over the application because all construction was proposed outside of the 100' wetland boundary. In the alternative, Petitioners claim that the denial was unsupported by the record, arbitrary and capricious and that the determination was a violation of their constitutional rights. In the second Article 78, the Petitioners claim that the Trustees acted arbitrarily in the denial of their June 2011 wetlands permit application and that the determination violated their constitutional rights. Status. Both matters have been fully submitted to the Court, and we await a decision and/or the scheduling of oral argument. In the meantime, Petitioner has submitted a revised application that complies with the Town Board's conditions and the Trustees granted approval in October 2012. We are waiting to hear from counsel whether this matter can be discontinued in light of recent events. 3. David Air, Clare Air, Timothy Frost, Margaret Minichini and Erica Kleine v. Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold and Orient Wharf Company Date Filed — December 15, 2010/August 10, 2011 Issue. Petitioners challenged the Trustees' grant of a wetlands permit to an adjacent property owner, the Orient Wharf Company, for repairs to a Wharf structure. In conjunction with its wetlands application, the Orient Wharf Company was issued a Coastal Erosion Permit that was appealed to the Town Board by the Petitioners. The Town Board remanded the matter back to the Trustees for further consideration on the issue of whether the Trustees had jurisdiction under the Coastal Erosion Law(Chapter 111) as it appeared that the work proposed by the Orient Wharf Company was normal maintenance. 2 Kl . Subsequently, the Trustees issued the Orient Wharf Company a letter stating that the Trustees did not have jurisdiction under Chapter 111. After the required 30-day period in Chapter 111, the Petitioners filed an appeal with the Town Clerk, which was rejected as untimely and for jurisdictional purposes. Petitioners filed a second Article 78 action against the Town challenging the determination of non-jurisdiction. Status. On 6/14/12, the Court denied Petitioners' petition and the action was dismissed. Petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal in August 2012 and will have six months to perfect same. 4. Joseph Battaglia and Heidi Battaglia v. Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold Date Filed — March 9, 2011 Issue. Petitioners have challenged a condition within a Trustees' decision concerning the repair of a dock and compliance with the Code. Status. On 7/28/11, the Court denied the petition and dismissed the action. Petitioners perfected their appeal but have since agreed to accept the Trustees' decision and have withdrawn their appeal. This matter is now closed. 5. James Orioll and Susan Magg v. Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold Date Filed — March 23, 2012 Issue. Plaintiffs have filed an Article 78 petition via an Order to Show Cause challenging a February 22, 2012 decision of the Board of Trustees denying their application for a wetlands permit to construct a catwalk, ramp and float. Status. The Town has filed its answer and supporting documentation. A Settlement Stipulation has been fully executed and plaintiffs' counsel will send same to the Court for So Ordering. This matter is now closed. JA/lk cc: Members of the Town Board 3 ' ' ,.. ;• ,� � �, ro. „' � < ,®_ °.® •' .. OncriL l Property sf alt N/A i r t' DatrJ?t,1oJ3 rvnwd rw4Q lit,W�nrlg_. Slluaic. 2110 V illagc I znc,Onent,NY,11957n <1i4 2.1`01_28.1 1nhRtS�Fadti•fs.----------dnSrl;,'tIIJ___- i^` e ....,.,,,,m,,t.„ _ ,Y,,,r,._..,�..p...« ,..nom.-..".„,.a»...............-- _ _.fp,.,, .r,--•..,.,Mg-•e, .^-...,.-..^-,<..W..... ...,.....r•,..,-.�- o--<-o..-z wY,7'.-. _ :§y.�.,``,w-'."'^ ":`,R.w.wr ,MT.• "1;•x`t' '....,E"q","T1:"'�'`,"a'_:-tiYt-.�.n �. ', i' •: :. `_.. - �< ��t-« 'b.". ,...--a--rq,7'n-...-.w-..i...' f>- ,,, '.a-.,)y-..;..,..,,,�,•.,.:>rw�,Y`,, e;<:.^6•^+^•e'±rti'T'Y-'�"_`:7';:^','. ,.,<�,.....�.,•a i -�.'r�C '�° �:w` vk.9. f3(_'r •..c3 "^sv?'�3,?'> r>^.'��v ,,K". �t>-• .4.0. Y. a,r E t, •��4 m nX• :F s`r �3 t bN nx h. '� �,w% _Wit.",. •4�=zc,;`; Dm X,E 5 vT, re yd`:' new, g. .�ti.•tn ,w[;<. `lp, uA'" ^ „a N^.1 ?"': ,�<�,�. ',to t°"IS ,k•• 33 •- Aic v3a.. �+,, <<yy "F..- r,�, <•# „af` •E,.n x Y:§'>.s .-<,ai<:i ,r7' <>. "i". ••�C'f=>( -,d,•, ',:,�f,x-,, xz�>.c:;::33 tA°'..:.ss. i;�%ix"�`":La,:'. 'y r rrv,(i,' :..$.� t•^-, =•PA^`< Y uY_s'•i`n 1f-q. r°� b h>�a a L k'•i`a 4 M'� �i 'J.f Y ry.:3"• ;'',,,rG.'�. -.'�.S 3 ;:3elt;oerx., "9,. $,- ''."opa,q- f aq�t" _"'.r t°3 �.''�✓: ,.^+Y"'t "n.Fr.:�,.aR:.; ...i,='v:Y $, 'aF a 'f.,y_ 1`i"''a•'a` �FSn '�'• A�3F, ':�u' cc .3,"'�l`, t.Y' v ','Yy.: 'T.y.b✓'•M.<^ �={•. :.'n :7�-f { 4.�..��Na ',; b a� � :�`': °�;�:•,,�* :die ..t ,� a.,✓.�. s- :.•Eat'"�'.�.s. �^,•i ,r'� ;'g,,,'sf �,>L-= �" "#: «�'��na v�;,':. :,� ,,f�,f.r�i;s.,. -r.�at'�..3..� �3,.r-�„r'�.'A,.R. �a„w�;.s°t"xur<,. f•('.e t' ,l• «:L .i�+ !4y�� '::ES*'''�,•,`a,. �., -;x''.'',:�' ,.<�, 'i' � ..�.:c* a`,r`• 'Rr ':rX�'F�"'�',ev :�.;"�,^�Y,r";.r„iR=. .,{�; .p � '' .,..� 't. L.". <.X..,py,. .•.,F I.NS,v"�y'tro,r hi=:~.(;.e.,,� x��'2/="°¢� .: `ar"ov;y;, ^�� ;$ 's. 0.� "��>'%aT'r+< "a''°';^�'°4., .7„s;„ '�:.�:�' �•.,,,; '._�.,.;;# ;a3,C x .,�•`,_ "+"ha.a . ¢.�..%.q”°ta �V ♦ �, Q".;.&B.kk�` � �,5�' „y+�-a�'�'_� .., �> �,�, �''v' �< - .Yr, t ..,�: ;�' r.' �•,,,�''- _ +;� �...ei e,^ ,.r_°E,��. �"'s,�r•, b,;�+,�'.a„°�?� <<;; .er' •fi"” :�. ,r, ^"r�u:'°e'ta,4 ,wa r.<w s» `� 3 �= ,i.e r�.` �` � �r: >.Ts. �*k',, .•r Pt,Y `,�,��q." _r°> ,R,<:� ;>,M ...a<' [ t'�y: :i,=-;�_" >`�=xy`; <f5>7':".rr•✓if".;'"`�;s•i=''^' m"9} +�-iyyi��w:5t?,:`y-�t��:>, �,°"`> '*,�;Y"ave• �`y'; F ;T:.tt_ ,?a�">tt.i'A"-`t"�"t¢�''� ;ris..'<',,z�';,,r„'Y�;sxi=.,t,�a�-.�:�9 aad �Si-i?."-F�::�,r�;'.•a-y;d;��y,"�` a-�ts.�=,. _z�:{a:� `X,- '�„xa',:•`,«., '^1�.�..'� -L^'•=?� :e�.r"y "'�� 'i.,;}:� _ "•�-_n�3u�''`•: ��.iT��r,.i��..�.Ss,.';^�'s`• t,, 's`.a',*r jw:.�. �t:;,`ra�'i§. ,,�'``h q Si `;� sss � I � � � <. . ..d.a'F,';`'`'j�+5,6:#t,,; •,�'-�t „k;µ...,� ,�ti�Fs, "�,",.;',';re,_�.'.3 Ha<bales lined with � �:°_, " , .�• 4.,dk°h F_x tai.fr�.'"="",-a's�'�'�'.'t.e,.,�:w,;;a:^; .;. tiiltahon I'encin�to alloM1e 1-;�'r �, .T.._-�: j i=`•a... r ,�:,t .,Py.��..3.;`" y«'fi xEt3��r,,•..- 1=,>>,'a:»i,''• ��,, '�•, , e'<i�' fXCCSS l5'aCCr to drain from -' -� ,_,,�... "Alldie spoil mto the harbor . �' k#. 'ti#:�+w 3S_ �,,r,,r,'±< .n,yu.rR.gkp7',•'�'k:p^ f F;r,,a'7<,n:'�ty,. "3.<.� �. „i 777M7 7, ';�'x t's. d `'Y." ,33 ,aJ 'A •;�`.. v.^,t'",`x�'^,•i,�P�°,,ti•;.. „ �`.fj m In mix, gow :,�_:&tax ki�r� .,�.'�'e��'�q'a 'iei"'':�'2;,i="°``,g'„'a4 ;�� ' ..t`y.�a�°�yY1.,a*' ":�'.`•. 'zr,� i i z_ �:�' M`, ,eSg� 'y`4 t� < lxt .��, ':� ,Js�.. `°�" Y �'i'{�:��,*• •3t+? ''C'- ,s: ' �.:o;<, <•d>„,��'-v'�;t.stTT._,r>� ?a•,.t;: ::rM1'�"�": ``r..� t �.!�.`w°; `M�r•`' W,�' °'' '�. '�v`;� .%„•.,�'�`_M .,�,�"`x.,-Y.;,�-.wy. �:�,;'�-._`-�£ Yy • at• - %,... ss'°tee ,e. i": - -.�;��`->', .< .:.-"°;'''zw'i ,rY�g'.�°*�,#, "�ats'�''"'`;,`�-` `:'>'�m`.:'w,`R'-.a'< :'d'• i, .�`• zW��1,., •�..' -a r* -��' ,a '1. .�. ';: .,. 'I ��•�:'L .'"t,.in:`y&�`hpF.£Z4a�„.py'�� f"Y k''♦�; `'r EY°a'q� `P�kr°».�^� r'�.,��`, ,t' +tyr •x�, r.:'� :fE, '.arc '.-Y��' «.$�'S.' ,�.-� ^ � ...'V) n'4, <'a'-F: : t'�' :t4 i4,ans9.' �:1'.•-.at"1^ �"J :,�'�io s f�'{°• s 3.��< - 5 T -:�';�t.°`.-"�r"i'. ;.'=. :t-t:, t:��}r ..s>_§ e .. °-:�"<r\�':_ "t+'`c .t. «%S..,g.:�.�<<��z`a�,3," z=A•»�i»X•»'„R:£ Y � 6 ErR _i h n oV° .t4. - - vY_ rte'::, ,.�.p,.•' .,g .��'<q5 '•-0gr3” �� :�4'�f ;�yV�^�*,,ly .Sa 2.t:'( Ha}'biles secured to lbe j Ys`r` „>a✓ ta-a•• :s.fv.��T z,P-�„"•"'v-`,�''e.'' ''ns. ��<r , ., , ;'' � aM1raod rcuifo,cements "'� .'•' �,-�'s=e:. �.; „�:. '��-� .< `w- '-��'-``= �_"::=n:`-. , 5 ,',`>'�t:�ra�..'F.te " � ," k•,.F ,,<�,`�".s`g ,�'t>.t�t'r 3s.: :{ c1 -a,� '< ,:%2satlh;arf-_'3.ya%. ..ri• '-h ?'iri:1.""t `E� rx' > -'G<f<. _ s'��wi �'�3�'•- "; „��. Ori.�� '��' r"z'�"a <t•.�� i 3i'.,;,. �Suttollitil�.rl�ri�nrn�nt��l �onsultl�I�� rw.,.,4.t c Nr •` '`}f xtjF °� �. Y .ro.'•3,�4'"'': i1r,.rs',.;....a+ 'a"d�"'c��w* r �. " xi. r r`^y�,'" � 'i�"' °*.... "'' � rr�..'.'�n 'f �_� •�a s+w�" «:xn� �` 4 1� y !"�^* �i '1 +°' '•"F✓ '\ 't r• fi�* 4.r'C -� 't" ax �,, e ' •3 x'x' a�S°`y yy"z. .j ` i w ��r�. C..� � �`f ! Y,"T pt�X• V N��L '•`S�.T �`� ��Y�'�y�'_"�� ;„. t�,.i�� p� F� l �lY�"y��y, aI �� $x$ �:'� �; {x 1. .} .�.+`� ..ice 1t� L�` i Y� �,.-�S•Y,�'1�ba K � � � � 4 � V f �(f X �� Mp..4, pw 3^•'"' t -"' .r t "" e `�` ,�r /`i -X,, •"� J� +^xw:"..#„ r �.n� '.:� ,� '" �`•�,R fix �` `Y' `r�,w r�^_ � � *+t��4" ft�€+� �rt�,? '�c �." �� i%r `1`^' � f�..• 1 k.tia {tom �� y � ._ ,�,` \\ tx » � � ,�\ i��r �� ,>r � -r ;�U��pp3Nf' 1�`,.. ty � �;€�'�. � t, t j ;��i i J�j' �.�'� -� • y•n S�� ". 1 •.�� "� L aN F. � `.5 t •� �\ �r � ''{,i i r � mi�„� . aw-�w�. ,'t s:•'X � ?,M.., L "'..•` '" v F) .r a A 5'" � L 5� fv� "` �'.• � ' x3 �}�'`'�. ��"`'�""u p""� l..r „". ._fr '�` '•,F. �y �� ,x-, '.� � 1. , �� ;.. . • ,�, +"„ gyp.:'. ..`•. :a - �. y .,..z i• .- .fir•"'.. 3"'a X`...f / '; f`�.. � ur New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region One SUNY @ Stony Brook, 50 Circle Road, Stony Brook, NY 11790-3409 V Phone: (631)444-0365 Fax: (631)444-0360 Website:www.dee.ny.gov Joe Martens Commissioner December 23, 2013 Orient Wharf Company C/O Linton Duell, Treasurer PO Box 243 D E C F Orient, NY 11957-0243 DEC 2 7 ?0113 LD) Re: Permit#1-4738-03228/00004 { t ,r Dear Permittee: In conformance with the requirements of the State Uniform Procedures Act (Article 70, ECL) and its implementing regulations (6NYCRR, Part 621)we are enclosing your permit. Please carefully read all permit conditions and special permit conditions contained in the permit to ensure compliance during the term of the permit. If you are unable to comply with any conditions, please contact us at the above address. This permit must be kept available on the premises of the facility at all times and presented upon request. Also enclosed is a permit sign which is to be conspicuously posted at the project site and protected from the weather. Sincerely, Kendall P. Klett Environmental Analyst cc: file; BOH-TW Suffolk Environmental Hammarth/ 2 (9) Check made payable to the Town of Southold in the amount of$250.00 covering the requisite application fee By way of this correspondence, and on behalf of the property owner, 1 respectfully request for the commencement of review of the attached application, and the subsequent scheduling of this matter before the next available Town of Southold Board of Trustees meeting for permit issuance. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact this office at any time. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely, James F. Laird enc. CC: J. Tuthill NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Now Facility DEC ID 1-4738-03228 PERMIT Under the Environmental Conservation Law ECL Permittee and Facility Information Permit Issued To: Facility: ORIENT WHARF COMPANY ORIENT WHARF CO PROPERTY C/O LINTON DUELL,TREASURER 2110 VILLAGE LNISCTM 1000-24-2-28.1 PO BOX 243 ORIENT,NY 11957 ORIENT,NY 11957-0243 (631)323-3864 Facility Application Contact: SUFFOLK ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING INC PO BOX 2003 BRIDGEHAMPTON,NY 11932-2003 (631) 537-5160 Facility Location: in SOUTHOLD in SUFFOLK COUNTY Village: Orient Facility Principal Reference Point: NYTM-E: 726.2 NYTM-N: 4557.4 Latitude: 41'08'11.0" Longitude: 72118'17.9" Project Location: 2110 Village Lane Authorized Activity: Applicant proposes to dredge to-5'mean low water an irregular area seaward of mean low low water, adjacent to existing pier and in the vicinity of existing docks and floats. Resulting 2,150 cubic yards of dredge spoil will be temporarily dewatered in a 40 cubic yard capacity roll off dumpster located on existing pier seaward of the timber bridge,then disposed of off site at an approved upland location.All work must be completed in accordance with plans stamped "NYSDEC Approved" on 12/23/13. Permit Authorizations Tidal Wetlands-Under Article 25 Permit ID 1-4738-03228/00004 New Permit Effective Date: 12/23/2013 Expiration Date: 12/22/2018 Water Quality Certification-Under Section 401 - Clean Water Act Permit ID 1-4738-03228/00005 New Permit Effective Date: 12/23/2013 Expiration Date: 12/22/2018 Excavation&Fill in Navigable Waters-Under Article 15,Title 5 Permit ID 1-4738-03228/00006 New Permit Effective Date: 12/23/2013 Expiration Date: 12/22/2018 Page 1 of 6 Am MEN NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Facility DEC ID 1-4738-03228 NYSDEC Approval By acceptance of this permit,the permittee agrees that the permit is contingent upon strict compliance with the ECL, all applicable regulations, and all I ions inc u d as part of this permit. Permit Administrator:JO WIELA De y Regional Permit Administrator Address: SD REG N, ADQUARTERS UNY ST OOK150 CIRCLE RD ST O BR 11790-3 09 Authorized Signature: Date Distribu ' ist SUFFOLK ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING INC Permit Components NATURAL RESOURCE PERMIT CONDITIONS WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION SPECIFIC CONDITION GENERAL CONDITIONS,APPLY TO ALL AUTHORIZED PERMITS NOTIFICATION OF OTHER PERMITTEE OBLIGATIONS NATURAL RESOURCE PERMIT CONDITIONS - Apply to the Following Permits: TIDAL WETLANDS; WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION; EXCAVATION & FILL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. Post Permit Sign The permit sign enclosed with this permit shall be posted in a conspicuous location on the worksite and adequately protected from the weather. 2. Conformance With Plans All activities authorized by this permit must be in strict conformance with the approved plans submitted by the applicant or applicant's agent as part of the permit application. Such approved plans were prepared by Suffolk Environmental, last revised 9/10/13. 3. Notice of Maintenance Dredging For maintenance dredging projects, the permittee shall submit a Notice of Commencement prior to each dredging occurrence, specifying the disposal site(including an Page 2 of 6 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Facility DEC ID 1-4738-03228 updated site plan). Upon completion, a Notice of Completion shall be submitted to the address indicated on that notice form,including the amount of material dredged and deposited at the approved disposal site. 4. Dredging Once Per Year Dredging shall be undertaken no more than once in any calendar year unless specifically authorized by the department. 5. Return Water Discharge Return water discharge from the disposal site outfall shall not scour the shoreline or disturb tidal wetland vegetation. 6. Return Water Turbidity The dredge material overflow weir and return water discharge must be configured so that water with the lowest possible turbidity is returned to the waterway. The discharge outfall shall be monitored by the permittee or his agent and, if a visible plume becomes evident,the discharge shall cease immediately until the problem is corrected. 7. Inspect Diked Disposal Area Before dredging begins,the permittee and contractor shall inspect the diked disposal area to confirm that it is structurally sound and ready,with sufficient area to contain the dredged material. Any necessary repair to the diked area must be completed before dredging begins. 8. Filter Fabric Curtain Around Dredging Area A filter fabric(turbidity) curtain weighted across the bottom and suspended at the top by floats shall be positioned to enclose the work site before commencing dredging. The curtain shall remain in place and in functional condition during all phases of the dredging operations and remain in place for two hours after dredging termination and turbidity inside the curtain no longer exceeds ambient levels. 9. Grade Channel Side Slopes All side slopes of the dredge channel will have a maximum of 1:3 slope. 10. Prohibition Period for Fish,Shellfish,Birds To protect spawning finfish, shellfish and nesting shorebirds,including threatened and/or endangered species,no regulated activities may occur between -April and September 30,inclusive, of any calendar year. stnJv 1. No Dredging near Tidal Wetland No dredging shall occur within 65 linear feet of the seaward edge of the high marsh. 12. No Side-casting or Temporary Storage Excavated sediment shall be placed directly into the approved disposal/dewatering site or conveyance vehicle. No side-casting(double dipping)or temporary storage of dredged material is authorized. 13. Leave a Uniform Bottom Elevation All dredging shall be conducted so as to leave a uniform bottom elevation free of mounds or holes. 14. Dredgings to Remain On-Site/Within Wetland Dredge material approved to remain on-site and/or within the NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands jurisdiction shall,be retained so as not to enter any water body, tidal wetlands, or protected buffer areas. Off-site,upland disposal of dredged material beyond NYSDEC Tidal Wetland jurisdiction requires the additional guidance of the Division of Materials Management(631) 444-0375 and is not covered by this permit. - Page 3 of 6 Adh anhr NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Facility DEC ID 1-4738-03228 15. No Disturbance to Vegetated Tidal Wetlands There shall be no disturbance to vegetated tidal wetlands or protected buffer areas as a result of the permitted activities. 16. No Interference With Navigation There shall be no unreasonable interference with navigation by the work herein authorized. 17. State Not Liable for Damage The State of New York shall in no case be liable for any damage or injury to the structure or work herein authorized which may be caused by or result from future operations undertaken by the State for the conservation or improvement of navigation, or for other purposes, and no claim or right to compensation shall accrue from any such damage. 18. State May Order Removal or Alteration of Work If future operations by the State of New York require an alteration in the position of the structure or work herein authorized,or if,in the opinion of the Department of Environmental Conservation it shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of said waters or flood flows or endanger the health, safety or welfare of the people of the State, or cause loss or destruction of the natural resources of the State, the owner may be ordered by the Department to remove'or alter the structural work,obstructions, or hazards caused thereby without expense to the State, and if,upon the expiration or revocation of this permit,the structure, fill, excavation, or other modification of the watercourse hereby authorized shall not be completed,the owners, shall,without expense to the State, and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservation may require,remove all or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore to its former condition the navigable and flood capacity of the watercourse. No claim shall be made against the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration. 19. State May Require Site Restoration If upon the expiration or revocation of this permit,the project hereby authorized has not been completed,the applicant shall,without expense to the.State, and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservation may lawfully require,remove all or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore the site to its former condition. No claim shall be made against the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration. 20. Precautions Against Contamination of Waters All necessary precautions shall be taken to preclude contamination of any wetland or waterway by suspended solids, sediments,fuels,solvents, lubricants, epoxy coatings,paints,concrete,leachate or any other environmentally deleterious materials associated with the project. WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 1. Water Quality Certification The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation hereby certifies that the subject project will not contravene effluent limitations or other limitations or standards under Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217)provided that all of the conditions listed herein are met. Page 4 of 6 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Facility DEC ID 14738-03228 GENERAL CONDITIONS - Apply to ALL Authorized Permits: 1. Facility Inspection by The Department The permitted site or facility, including relevant records, is subject to inspection at reasonable hours and intervals by an authorized representative of the Department of Environmental Conservation(the Department)to determine whether the permittee is complying with this permit and the ECL. Such representative may order the work suspended pursuant to ECL 71- 0301 and SAPA 401(3). The permittee shall provide a person to accompany the Department's representative during an inspection to the permit area when requested by the Department. A copy of this permit,including all referenced maps,drawings and special conditions,must be available for inspection by the Department at all times at the project site or facility. Failure to produce a copy of the permit upon request by a Department representative is a violation of this permit. 2. Relationship of this Permit to Other Department Or and Determinations Unless expressly provided for by the Department,issuance of this permit does not modify, supersede or rescind any order or determination previously issued by the Department or any of the terms, conditions or requirements contained in such order or determination. 3. Applications For Permit Renewals,Modifications or Transfers The permittee must submit a separate written application to the Department for permit renewal,modification or transfer of this permit. Such application must include any forms or supplemental information the Department requires. Any renewal,modification or transfer granted by the Department must be in writing. Submission of applications for permit renewal,modification or transfer are to be submitted to: Regional Permit Administrator NYSDEC REGION 1 HEADQUARTERS SUNY @ STONY BROOK150 CIRCLE RD STONY BROOK,NY11790 -3409 4. Submission of Renewal Application The permittee must submit a renewal application at least 30 days before permit expiration for the following permit authorizations: Tidal Wetlands,Water Quality Certification, Excavation&Fill in Navigable Waters. 5. Permit Modifications,Suspensions and Revocations by the Department The Department reserves the right to exercise all available authority to modify, suspend or revoke this permit. The grounds for modification, suspension or revocation include: a. materially false or inaccurate statements in the permit application or supporting papers; b. failure by the permittee to comply with any terms or conditions of the permit; c. exceeding the scope of the project as described in the permit application; d. newly discovered material information or a material change in environmental conditions,relevant technology or applicable law or regulations since the issuance of the existing permit; Page 5 of 6 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION NOW Facility DEC ID 1-4738-03228 e. noncompliance with previously issued permit conditions, orders of the commissioner, any provisions of the Environmental Conservation Law or regulations of the Department related to the permitted activity. 6. Permit Transfer Permits are transferrable unless specifically prohibited by statute,regulation or another permit condition. Applications for permit transfer should be submitted prior to actual transfer of ownership. NOTIFICATION OF OTHER PERMITTEE OBLIGATIONS Item A: Permittee Accepts Legal Responsibility and Agrees to Indemnification The permittee,excepting state or federal agencies, expressly agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Department of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York,its representatives,employees, and agents ("DEC")for all claims, suits, actions, and damages,to the extent attributable to the permittee's acts or omissions in connection with the permittee's undertaking of activities in connection with,or operation and maintenance of,the facility or facilities authorized by the permit whether in compliance or not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. This indemnification does not extend to any claims, suits, actions, or damages to the extent attributable to DEC's own negligent or intentional acts or omissions, or to any claims, suits, or actions naming the DEC and arising under Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules or any citizen suit or civil rights provision under federal or state laws. Item B: Permittee's Contractors to Comply with Permit The permittee is responsible for informing its independent contractors,employees, agents and assigns of their responsibility to comply with this permit, including all special conditions while acting as the permitteds agent with respect to the permitted activities, and such persons shall be subject to the same sanctions for violations of the Environmental Conservation Law as those prescribed for the permittee. Item C: Permittee Responsible for Obtaining Other Required Permits The permittee is responsible for obtaining any other permits, approvals,lands, easements and rights-of- way that may be required to carry out the activities that are authorized by this permit. Item D: No Right to Trespass or Interfere with Riparian Rights This permit does not convey to the permittee any right to trespass upon the lands or interfere with the riparian rights of others in order to perform the permitted work nor does it authorize the impairment of any rights,title, or interest in real or personal property held or vested in a person not a party to the permit. Page 6 of 6 NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION RETURN THIS FORM TO:COMPLIANCE Or Fax to: 631-444-0297 Bureau of Habitat-TW em 50 Circle Road Stony Brook, NY 11790-3409 PERMIT NUMBER- EXPIRATION DATE: PERMITTEE NAME&PROJECT ADDRESS: CONTRACTOR NAME&ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Dear Sir: Pursuant to the special conditions of the referenced permit,you are hereby notified that the authorized activity shall commence on . We certify that we have read the referenced permit and approved plans and fully understand the authorized project and all permit conditions.We have inspected the project site and can complete the project as described in the permit and as depicted on the approved plans. We can do so in full compliance with all plan notes and permit conditions.The permit,permit sign,and approved plans will be available at the site for inspection in accordance with General Condition No.1. (Both signatures required) PERMITEE: DATE CONTRACTOR: DATE THIS NOTICE MUST BE SENT TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS AT LEAST TWO DAYS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE PROJECT AND/OR ANY ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES. FAILURE TO RETURN THIS NOTICE,POST THE PERMIT SIGN, OR HAVE THE PERMITAND APPROVED PLANS AVAILABLE AT THE WORK SITE FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT MAY SUBJECT THE PERMITTEE AND/OR CONTRACTOR TO APPLICABLE SANCTIONS AND PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT CONDITIONS. Cut along this line X X X X X X X NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION RETURN THIS FORM TO:COMPLIANCE Or Fax to: 631-444-0297 Bureau of Habitat-TW 50 Circle Road Stony Brook, NY 11790-3409 PERMIT NUMBER: EXPIRATION DATE: PERMITTEE NAME&PROJECT ADDRESS: CONTRACTOR NAME&ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Pursuant to special conditions of the referenced permit,you are hereby notified that the authorized activity was completed on .We have fully complied with the terms and conditions of the permit and approved plans. (Both signatures required) PERMITEE: DATE CONTRACTOR: DATE THIS NOTICE, WITH PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE COMPLETED WORK AND/OR A COMPLETED SURVEY,AS APPROPRIATE,MUST BE SENT TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS WITHIN 30 DAYS OF COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. 9520.1(8181)-96 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation rNOTICE v The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has issued permit(s) pursuant to the Environmental Conservation Law for work being conducted at this site. For further information regarding the nature and extent of work approved and any Departmental conditions on it, contact the Regional Permit Administrator listed below. Please refer to * the permit number shown when contacting the DEC. Regional Permit Administrator Permit Number FMER EVANS Expiration Date NOTE: This notice is NOT a permit TOWN BOARD COASTAL EROSION HAZARD BOARD OF REVIEW TOWN OF SOUTHOLD -------------------------------------------- In the matter of the Application of David and Clare Air, Timothy Frost and Margaret Minichini 2110 Village Lane DECISION Orient,NY SCTM#1000-24-2-28.1 -------------------------------------------- FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION Based upon the application, documents contained in the Board's file, site inspections and testimony received at the public hearing held on January 18, 2011,the Town Board finds and determines as follows: ISSUE David and Clare Air, Timothy Frost and Margaret Minichini have filed an application with the Town Board, as the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review(the "Board"), dated September 16, 2010,requesting the following relief: 1. A reversal of the Board of Trustees August 18, 2010 determination granting the Orient Wharf Company's ("OWC") application for a permit (Trustees' Permit#7368C)under Chapter 111 Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas of the Town Code,pursuant to the provisions of§111-9. 2. In the alternative, and should the Board affirm the Trustees determination, the applicant has requested a modification of the permit issued by the Trustees to include a requirement that the OWC maintain a bulkhead and provide a 30-year maintenance plan. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. Description of the property and applicants: The property that is the subject of this application is located on the western side of Village Avenue and is located on Orient Bay. The property consists of approximately 3,230 square feet of upland area and is improved with a wharf and marina facility. The property is located in the"M-1"Marine Zone. As confirmed by the Board of Trustees, and acknowledged by the OWC, the portion of the property where the proposed work is to be performed is located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area as established by New York State in 1991. The OWC submitted an application to the Trustees seeking permission to replace existing asphalt vehicle and access paving(an approximate 17' portion) over fill on an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure. The parties appealing the Trustees determination are not the owners of the OWC property,but are adjacent property owners to the north and south of the property at issue. B. Trustees Procedural History: I. Application The OWC filed an application with the Board of Trustees on June 14, 2010 which requested a coastal erosion hazard area permit to replace existing asphalt vehicle and access paving(approximately 17' portion) over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure. II. Documentation in the Trustees Record In addition to the completed application, the OWC submitted the following materials in support of the application: 1. A Modification Plan prepared by Walter Bundy, dated March 26, 2010 and revised May 3, 2010 detailing the proposed project. 2. A Modification Plan, Revision"A",prepared by Walter Bundy and dated July 29, 2010 and a Modification Plan through Existing Bulkhead, Revision"A" dated July 29, 2010 indicating topographic elevations of the project area. 3. Orient Wharf Modification Plan, Revision`B" dated August 12, 2010, indicating deletion of the Outfall Pipe Modifications at the Project Area. 4. Orient Wharf Sections through Existing Bulkhead, Revision`B" dated August 12, 2010 indicating the deletion of the Outfall Pipe Modifications and the reduction in the amount of fill proposed to be removed. 5. A Site Survey prepared by Van Tuyl, dated November 19, 1978. 6. An Engineer's Drawing of the Proposed Timber Deck Structure prepared by Corwin, dated April 1, 2010 7. Dated photographs of the portion of the wharf asphalt pavement to be removed. 8. A listing of prior permits/approvals for site improvements on the property. 9. A short environmental assessment form. 10. A set of project documents that included various materials. 11. LW" Consistency form. 12. Copies of a permit issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(#1-4738-03228/00002) for the proposal, effective July 13, 2010. 13. An Erosion, Sedimentation and Stormwater Runoff Form. 2 1 On July 19, 2010, the LWRP Coordinator submitted a written recommendation to the Trustees that the proposal was consistent with the LWRP. On July 20, 2010,the adjacent property owners submitted an analysis and argument regarding the Trustees' consideration of the OWC application which included the following: 1. The OWC application was inaccurate,unsupported, vague, cryptic, incomplete, self-serving, and disingenuous regarding the OWC's future plans,which include the creation of a new water channel where the existing beach lies. 2. The OWC application did not meet the requirements for a coastal erosion hazard area permit and failed to address them in the application. 3. The OWC application did not meet the requirements for a wetlands permit. 4. The OWC application was not consistent with the LWRP. 5. The OWC illegally segmented SEQRA review. On August 6, 2010 the adjacent property owners submitted additional comments on the revised submission of the OWC and indicated that the revised application was also incomplete and failed to address all the issues they raised. III. Public Hearing.- The earing.The Trustees held a public hearing on this application on July 21, 2010 at which time all those interested were given the opportunity to speak. Walter Bundy appeared on behalf of the OWC and presented information in support of the application, the relevant portions of such information is summarized below. Mr. Bundy provided information regarding the OWC meeting with the DEC and confirmed that the OWC did not have a maintenance permit with the DEC and that any work performed on the wharf required a DEC permit. The main purpose of the work was to provide immediate, safe access over the 17' paved area that was extremely deteriorated. Mr. Bundy also testified that underneath the 17' paved section was inappropriate fill material that the OWC was proposing to remove down to existing beam pockets (approximately 1 Meet). Mr. Bundy also acknowledged that the OWC would be coming back before the Trustees in the future for modifications to the Tidal Wetlands maintenance permit to include dredging around floating docks and mooring areas, and permit maintenance and rehabilitation of the wharf facilities, and additional permits for reconstruction and maintenance of the wharf. Anthony Pasca, Esq., appeared on behalf of the applicants herein and pointed out that there were certain problems with the application as cited in the July 20, 2010 letter noted above, but that these issues were not insurmountable. Mr. Pasca also pointed out the concern of the adjacent property owners that there were many references to future applications of the OWC,but there was no reference to what was going to happen to the 3 bulkhead and that the OWC made no indication that they were going to maintain the bulkhead. Mr. Pasca also pointed out that the OWC failed to meet its burden of showing that it met the criteria set forth in Chapter 111 to obtain a Coastal Erosion Management permit. Mr. Pasca stated that failing to maintain the bulkhead underneath this area will eventually create a 17 ft. hole that acts as a funnel and will destroy the beach. Additionally,the opponents of the application presented testimony of Charles Bowman,President of Land Use Ecological Services. Mr. Bowman noted certain deficiencies in the plans submitted by the OWC and that the plan submitted would yield an opening in the wharf structure and that the impacts of that opening should be addressed and noted that based upon the application, there may be a SEQRA segmentation issue. Mr. Frost, an adjacent property owner to the south, also testified that he would prefer that the OWC compromise and agree to maintain the bulkhead. Mr. Frost acknowledged that there were concerns regarding access and egress to the wharf, silting and water quality in the Harbor that negatively impacts the OWC and adjacent property owners and that there was no concern with the timber decking as proposed. However, Mr. Frost was concerned that the modifications would create a reconfiguration of the shoreline. Ms. Air, an adjacent property owner to the North, stated that she and her husband supported replacing timber with asphalt on the condition that the permit require the bulkhead and pilings remain in place and be maintained for the life of the bridge. Thereafter, the agent for the OWC reiterated that the proposal was simply to replace an asphalt surface with a timber surface. Linton Duell, President of the OWC also testified that the bridge opening was closed by Floyd King who in about 1978 filled in underneath the bridge, and paved over the fill. This method was chosen because of cost issues. Mr. Duell also testified that at that time, Floyd King owned the wharf property as well as the adjacent properties owned by Frost and Air. This matter was also discussed at the August 18, 2010 meeting of the Board of Trustees. At that time Mr. Duell testified that a modification was made to the application,namely, in lieu of the removal of all underlying fill beneath existing asphalt pavement which was proposed due to the unsuitable material that was observed,the OWC was now proposing to remove only that fill located between the existing beam pockets to allow placement of the new support beams. The Trustees passed a motion to approve the application as modified. 4 IV. Trustees Determination and Certificate of Compliance. On August 18, 2010 the Trustees issued a determination granting the Applicant's request for a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Permit based upon the following: 1. The revised proposal , as applied for, complied with the standards set forth in Chapter 275 and Chapter 111 of the Town Code; and 2. The Trustees determined that the revised proposal, as applied for, would not have a detrimental effect upon the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town. 3. The proposal was consistent with the LWRP The OWC completed the proposed work and received a certificate of compliance from the Trustees on August 31, 2010. V. The Town Board Proceeding On September 17, 2010, the adjacent property owners timely filed an appeal of the Trustee's determination pursuant to Town Code Chapterl l l with the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review(the Board) seeking the reversal of the Trustees granting of the permit without a condition that the OWC maintain the bulkhead underneath the timber decking that was installed. The Board held a duly noticed public hearing on January 18, 2011 at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to present testimony on the application. Anthony Pasca, Esq. appeared on behalf of the adjacent property owners and presented testimony on the appeal. The testimony presented on the appeal reiterated the information provided to the Trustees as set forth in Section IIUIV above. Additionally, Mr. Pasca submitted photographs and additional information into the record regarding the condition of the bulkhead underneath the 17' area where the pavement was replaced with timber. John(Jack)Kelly, a property owner approximately 600 ft. north of the wharf, appeared and stated that the intent of the work performed by the OWC was to repair a roadway that was sagging and that was frequented by heavy vehicles. Mr. Kelly also stated that at some point during the 1970's that area of the wharf, which was originally open and had water flowing through, was filled. Mr. Kelly stated that prior to the filling of the 17' area,the beach area to the north and south survived. However, since the area was filled, sand has piled up on both sides of the wharf and has no way of getting out. Additionally, Mr. Kelly also stated that one of the effects of sand build up is that the properties furthers away from the wharf are losing sand,have lost sand and particularly to the south side. Finally Mr. Kelly stated that the build up of sand along the wharf makes it difficult for OWC to utilize the wharf. Claire Air, the appellant herein, also appeared and stated her concern as the adjacent property owner to the north is that the beach was there when she purchased the 5 property and that she wanted it to remain. Her concern is that if OWC fails to maintain the filled in portion of the wharf, she will lose beach area. Mr. Air, owner of the adjacent property to the north of the wharf, noted that the OWC failed to provide expert testimony from a coastal engineering firm regarding the impact of allowing this section of the bulkhead to allegedly deteriorate No other members of the public appeared in support or opposition to the application and the record was closed on March 1, 2011. , APPEAL OF THE TRUSTEE'S DETERMINATION Pursuant to §111-24 the Town Board is designated as the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review and has the authority to "[h]ear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order,requirement, decision or determination made by the Administrator in the enforcement of this chapter."See, Town Code §111-24 (B). Furthermore, the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review has the authority to "reverse or affirm,wholly or partly, or may modify the order,requirement, decision or determination of the Administrator, including stop or cease-and-desist orders." See, Town Code §111-25. When considering appeals pursuant to §§ 111-24 &25,the Board is limited to the record on appeal and the arguments made before the Board of Trustees. In this instance, this Board finds,based upon the record before it, that the OWC failed to supply the Trustees with sufficient information regarding the criteria set forth in §111-9(A-C) of the Town Code to support the granting of a Coastal Erosion Management Permit to OWC. While the adjacent property owners and their representatives made general statements regarding the potential impact of the application and had a consultant present at the Trustees' public hearing that offered testimony noting certain deficiencies in OWC's application, the adjacent property owners similarly did not present sufficient information to support the denial of the permit. This Board also questions whether the replacement of pavement with timber, as proposed by the OWC qualifies as normal maintenance under §111-6. This determination should be made, in the first instance by the Trustees,based upon the information provided by the OWC. Regarding the argument made by the adjacent property owners whether the structure qualifies as an erosion control structure under §111-15, this Board believes that the intent of the wharf was to provide access to the water, as opposed to providing protection of the shoreline. However, it is for the Trustees to determine this issue if it sees fit, in the first instance,based upon information provided by the OWC and the adjacent property owners. This Board does not have jurisdiction to consider the remaining arguments of the adjacent property owners, as they fall beyond the purview of Chapter 111. 6 CONCLUSION Therefore, in the interests of justice and for the reasons set forth herein,this Board grants the appeal of the adjacent property owners pursuant to Chapter 111 of the Town Code, annuls the Coastal Erosion Management Permit granted to OWC, without prejudice, and directs the OWC to reapply to the Board of Trustees for further reconsideration in accordance herewith. Dated: March 29, 2011 7 Jill M. Doherty,President �pf so Town Hall Annex James F.King,Vice-President �� 54375 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Dave Bergen lxf Southold, New York 11971-0959 Bob Ghosio,Jr. John Bredemeyer �� Telephone(631) 765-1892 (�CO ' Fax(631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE # 0576C Date August 31. 2010 THIS CERTIFIES that theE01acement of the asphalt vehicle and access paving(an approx. 17' portion) over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure At 2110 Village Lane, Orient Suffolk County Tax Map #24-2-28.1 Conforms to the application for a Trustees Permit heretofore filed in this office dated 6/14/10 pursuant to which Trustees Wetland Permit#7368 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7368C dated 8/18/10 were issued and conforms to all of the requirements and Conditions of the applicable provisions of law. The project for which this certificate is being issued is for the replacement of the asphalt vehicle and access paving(an approx. 17' portion) over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure. The certificate is issued to ORIENT WHARF CO. owner of the aforesaid property. ?tharized Signatur 0 0 Jill M.Doherty,President *QF SOpjy Town Hall Annex James F.King,Vice-President h0� �� 54 Main Road P..O.O. Box 1179 Dave Bergen Southold,New York 11971-0959 Bob Ghosio,Jr. John Bredemeyer '.� Telephone(631) 765-1892 �yOUNi'1, Fax(631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD t� DATE OF INSPECTION: 9-30 - / 1'Ch. 275 V' Ch. 111 INSPECTION SCHEDULE Pre-construction, hay bale line/silt boom/silt curtain 15` day of construction % constructed Project complete, compliance inspection. INSPECTED BY: 7 r,�T/ee cl- -9�(zme COMMENTS: CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE: 0 �� iSsve _ TRANSMITTAL FROM: Walter Bundy 237 Walden Court East Moriches, New York 11940 Telephone: (631) 878-3102 email: wfbundy@aol.com DATE: Monday, August 16, 2010 TO: Town of Southold ® �p Town Trustees U D Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 AUG 1 7 2010 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Southhold Town Board of Trustees cc: Linton Duel[, President, Orient Wharf Company Drew Dillingham, Professional Engineer SUBJECT: PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Submittal of Revised Modification Plan & Sections indicating Project Modifications and Submittal of Engineers Drawing for Proposed Timber Deck COMMENTS: As per comments received during the July 21, 2010 Trustees Meeting; attached for inclusion into the documentation submitted for Orient Wharf are the following revised sketches and the prepared Engineer's Drawing of the Proposed Timber Deck Structure: 1) Orient Wharf Modification Plan, Revision "B" dated August 12, 2010 indicating the deletion of the Outfall Pipe Modifications at the Project Area. 2) Orient Wharf Sections through Existing Bulkhead, Revision "B" dated August 12, 2010 indicating the deletion of the Outfall Pipe Modifications and the reduction in the amount of fill proposed to be removed at the Project Area. In lieu of the removal of all underlying fill beneath the existing asphalt pavement, which was proposed due to the apparent unsuitable material that was observed during reconnaissance activities; it is now proposed to remove only that fill located between the existing beam pockets to allow placement of the new support beams. TRANSMITTAL FROM Walter F. Bundy Proposed Modifications to Orient Wharf Page 2 3) Engineer's Drawing of the Proposed Timber Deck Structure, prepared by Corwin, dated April 1, 2010. Should you have any questions or comments concerning the attached information or the Orient Wharf submittal, please do not hesitate to contact me at 631-878-3102 or by email at wfbundy@aol.com. Thank you, Waite Bun ; on If the Orient Wharf Company TRANSMITTAL FROM: WalterF. Bundy 237 Walden Court East Moriches, New York 11940 Telephone: (631) 878-3102 email: wfbundy@aol.com DATE: Monday, August 02, 2010 TO: Town of Southold Town Trustees Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 cc: Linton Duell, President, Orient Wharf Company -- Drew Dillingham, Professional Engineer SUBJECT: PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Submittal of Revised Modification Plan & Sections indicating Topographic Elevations at Project Area COMMENTS: As per comments received during the July 21, 2010 Trustees Meeting; attached for inclusion into the documentation submitted for Orient Wharf are the following revised sketches: 1) Orient Wharf Modification Plan, Revision "A" dated July 29, 2010 indicating the topographic elevations at the Project Area 2) Orient Wharf Sections through Existing Bulkhead, Revision "A" dated July 29, 2010 indicating the topographic elevations at the Project Area Should you have any questions or comments concerning the attached information or the Orient Wharf submittal, please do not hesitate to contact me at 631-878-3102 or by email at wfbundy@aol.com. Thank you, Wal r Bundy n be If of Orient Wharf Company l% , RUNOFF FLOW FROM VILLAGE LANE D/ EXISTING ROAD ♦ 1//� DRAIN fAR INTERCONNECTING EXISTING ROAD DRAIN `�E DRAIN PIPES DENOTES RUNOFF FLOW ♦� ASPHALT PAVEMENT VILLAGE AGE I e_NIF nR\Es, '— BpUP10 i EXIST ROAD DRAIN PROP CONNECTED TO - �� ,._OUTFALL PIPE N0TE: 5-�..- • ♦♦ Structures not drawn If ♦ to scale or located EXIST CONC CURB %11 ♦ AXISTING FENCE000 i WAR MEMORIAL - t �WqL� LAWN - SCTM s:1000-28-1-1.1 AT26AOF�EXISaTING BEAp A35 _ -' I >;'`;'::':;'• %.: y LAWN '•`i: ::.:.iS: .... 10 zu XV4G \3 ` �RppFR�Y AREA OF EX n s EACH GRASS h t ~ t I AREA OF EXISTING \vA �.°j`, I� a t BEACH GRASS OUTF7�L r I 1 ROxS\O SUN^tel i SJ �I� PIPE •� F EXISTING BURIED wP PR'pEi -, rpN0'r��i EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO r I SEAWALL BE SHORTENED TO COINCIDE WITH EXISTING RIPRAP WHICH WILL BE G JNa�I�. RE-UTILIZED AT NEW END OF PIPE GG t G s�`%� 5 o Ir oE � 3.8' EACHARfA20i� 0708FACH ARSECTIO For opo Elevations,other than those I ENv:8.8'r ADDIT11 DEFTAI 2Q10E� ' shown at Project Area;see Jahn C. hlem Survey dated June 9,2010 i STING END OF ENv ky;Z.O. A OUTFALL PIPE ` 28'0" .' 'PROJECT AREA- EXISTING ACCESS VIA ASPHALT PAVEMENT OVER FILL TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW NOTE: 'TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SPANNING THE Information shown on this Sketch reflects Survey AREA SHOWN Information as prepared by John C.EJders,Land Surveyor, ted September 1999,May 2010&June 2010 ORIENT RBOR EXISTING BOULDER&BULKHEAD WHARF w/ FILL&ASPHALT SURFACE SCALE: V= 30'0" .: PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Modification Plan Drawn b : WF wFs,Juy 29,2D10 y Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York ded Elevations at Protect Area Date: March 26;2010 Revised: May 3,2010 ---- SCTM#: 1000-242-28.1 Sketch prepared by WF Bundy,East Moridres NY 11940 July 29;2010 Ck'd by: EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE TO BE REMOVED 8 REPLACED WITH A NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SUPPORTED AT EXISTING BEAM POCKETS AT EACH END EXISTING FILL TO BE REMOVED TO LEVEL BELOW EXISTING BEAM POCKETS+/-18"(APPROX 20 CY) +1-28'0" AND DISPOSED OF IN AN APPROVED UPLAND SITE. EXISTING PILINGS 8 SHEATHING TO REMAIN _ EL:5.6' t4SHIORTENETOD EXISTING GRADE A EL:2. ' EXISTING GRADE EXISTING BOULDER 8 BULKHEAD STRUCTURE w/FILL EXISTS BEYOND THE SECTION BEING STING WN OUTFALL PIPE TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE (SEE MODIFICATION PLAN) SCALE: 1"= 10.0" SECTION "A" THRU EXISTING BULKHEAD LOOKING WEST EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE ON BOTH NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE ENDS OF NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE AS PER ENGINEER'S DRAWINGS TO BE PATCHED 8 PITCHED AS REO'D EXISTING FILL TO BE REMOVED TO LEVEL BELOW EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO BE 211 EXISTING BEAM POCKETS+/-18"(APPROX 20 CY) SHORTENED 8 EXISTING RIPRAP UTILIZED A q ND DISPOSED OF IN AN APPROVED UPLAND SITE. AT NEW END OF PIPE(SEE PLAN) EL:5.6' EL:5.6' _ _ STING PILINGS 8 SHEATHING TO REMAIN EL:3.8 FROSTING GRADE ISTING GRADE EL:1.6• For Topo Elevations,other than those EXISTING CONCRETE SEAWALLAT SHORELINE shown at Project Area;see John C. EXISTS BEYOND THE NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE hlers Survey dated June 9,2010 SCALE: 1"= 10'0" SE "CTION B THRU EXISTING BULKHEAD LOOKING EAST a n tF n on this Sketch rellecb Survey WFB,July 29,2010 repared by John C.Ehlers,Land A ded Elevations at Project Area September 1999 8 June 9 2010 Bundy SECTIONS THROUGH EXISTING BULKHEAD Date: March26, 2010 Revised: 03 May 2010 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF 29 July 2010(Noted Elevations at Sections) Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Ck'd by: SCTM#: 1000-24-2-28.1 Sketch prepared by WF Bundy,East Moriches NY 11940 Jill M. Doherty,President Town Hall,53095 Main Rd. James F.King,Vice-President 02 P.O.Box 1179 Dave Bergen y �*' Southold,NY 11971 Bob Ghosio,Jr. 'W5Ql '0� Telephone(631)765-1892 John Bredemeyer � Fax(631)765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 72 HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK, TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT FOR A PRE-CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION. FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL BE CONSIDERED A VIOLATION AND POSSIBLE REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT. INSPECTION SCHEDULE Pre-construction, hay bale line 1St day of construction % constructed Project complete, compliance inspection. BOARD OF SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK PERMIT NO. 7368&7368C DATE: AUGUST 18.2010 ISSUED TO: ORIENT WHARF CO. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2110 VILLAGE LANE,ORIENT SCTM#24-2-28.1 AUTHORIZATION Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 275 and/or Chapter 11 I of the Town Code of the Town of Southold and in accordance with the Resolution of the Board of Trustees adopted at the meeting held on August 18.2010 in consideration of application fee in the sum of$500.00 paid by Orient Wharf Co. and subject t theTerms and Conditions as stated in the Resolution,the Southold Town Board of Trustees authorizes and permi the following: Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to replace the existing asphalt vehicl and access paving(an approx. 17'portion) over till at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure, and as depicted on the plans prepared by W.F. Bundy last revised August 12, 2010. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the said Board of Trustees hereby causes its Corporate Seal to be affixed, and these presents to be subscribed by a majority of the said Board as of this date. �p�gOfF014. * �� Sa �. TERMS AND CONDITIONS The Permittee, Orient Wharf Co.,2110 Villaee Lane,Orient,NY,as part of the consideration for the issuance of the Permit does understand and prescribe to the following: 1. That the said Board of Trustees and the Town of Southold are released from any and all damages, or claims for damages, of suits arising directly or indirectly as a result of any operation performed ptirsuant to this permit,and the said Permittee will,at his or her own expense, defend any and all such suits initiated by third parties, and the said Permittee assumes full liability with respect thereto, to the complete exclusion of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold. 2. That this Permit is valid for a period of 24 months,which is considered to be the estimated time required to complete the work involved,but should circumstances warrant, request for an extension may be made to the Board at a later date. 3. That this Permit should be retained indefinitely,or as long as the said Permittee wishes to maintain the structure or project involved,to provide evidence to anyone concerned that authorization was originally obtained. 4. That the work involved will be subject to the inspection and approval of the Board or its agents, and non-compliance with the provisions of the originating application may be cause for revocation of this Permit by resolution of the said Board. 5. That there will be no unreasonable interference with navigation as a result of the work herein authorized. 6. That there shall be no interference with the right of the public to pass and repass along the beach between high and low water marks. 7. That if future operations of the Town of Southold require the removal and/or alterations in the location of the work herein authorized,or if, in the opinion of the Board of Trustees, the work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to free navigation,the said Permittee will be required,upon due notice,to remove or alter this work project herein stated without expenses to the Town of Southold. 8. That the said Board will be notified by the Permittee of the completion of the work authorized. 9. That the Permittee will obtain all other permits and consents that may be required supplemental to this permit, which may be subject to revoke upon failure to obtain same. 0 Jill M.Doherty,President �a SOUry Town Hall Annex James F. King,Vice-President h0� �� 54375 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Dave Bergen Southold,New York 11971-0959 Bob Ghosio,Jr, co -Ic John Bredemeyer %, �� Telephone(631) 765-1892 ('CO e1� Fax(631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 18, 2010 Mr. Walter Bundy 237 Walden Court East Moriches, NY 11940 RE: ORIENT WHARF CO. 2110 VILLAGE LANE, ORIENT SCTM#24-2-28.1 Dear Mr. Bundy: The Board of Town Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on Wed., August 18, 2010 regarding the above matter: WHEREAS, Walter Bundy on behalf of ORIENT WHARF CO. applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of Chapter 275 of the Southold Town Code, the Wetland Ordinance, and Chapter 111 Coastal Erosion Management, applications dated June 14, 2010, and, WHEREAS, said applications were referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council and to the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Coordinator for their findings and recommendations, and, WHEREAS, the LWRP Coordinator issued a recommendation that the applications be found Consistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program policy standards, and, WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said applications on August 18, 2010 at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and, WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and, 2 • • WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application, and, WHEREAS, the structure complies with the standards set forth in Chapter 275 and Chapter 111 of the Southold Town Code, and, WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will not affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town, and, NOW THEREFORE BE IT, RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees has found the applications to be Consistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, and, BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees APPROVES the applications of ORIENT WHARF CO. to replace the existing asphalt vehicle and access paving (an approx. 17' portion) over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure, and as depicted on the plans prepared by W.F. Bundy last revised August 12, 2010. Permit to construct and complete project will expire two years from the date the permit is signed. Fees must be paid, if applicable, and permit issued within six months of the date of this notification. Inspections are required at a fee of $50.00 per inspection. (See attached schedule.) Fees: $50.00 Very truly yours, Jill Doherty, PrIsidnt Bo rd of Trustees JMD/Ims Jill M. Doherty,President OF SOUJyO Town Hall Annex James F. King,Vice-President ,`0 54375 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Dave Bergen Southold,New York 11971-0959 Bob Ghosio,Jr. w John Bredemeyer '.� �Sqz Telephone(631) 765-1892 Fax(631) 765-6641 Ulm, BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COASTAL EROSION MANAGEMENT PERMIT Permit#7368C Date: August 18, 2010 SCTM#24-2-28.1 Name of Applicant/Agent: Walter Bundy Name of Permittee: Orient Wharf Co. Address of Permittee: 2110 Village Lane, Orient Property Located: 2110 Village Lane, Orient DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY: TO REPLACE THE EXISTING ASPHALT VEHICLE AND ACCESS PAVING (AN APPROX. 17' PORTION) OVER FILL AT AN EXISTING WOODEN BULKHEAD STRUCTURE WITH A NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE. CONDITIONS: N/A INSPECTIONS: FINAL The Coastal Erosion Management Permit allows for the activities as indicated on the plan prepared by W.F. Bundy last revised August 12, 2010. Jill . Doherty, Presiden Boa d of Trustees JMD:Ims �o�Ogyt:FO(,�coG • Jill M. Doherty,President ti rod Town Hall,53095 Main Rd. James F. King,Vice-President �. ¢�' P.O. Box 1179 Dave Bergen Dy '� `C Southold,NY 11971 Bob Ghosio,Jr. Telephone(631)765-1892 John Bredemeyer Fax(631)765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: A U C4 U n (, 00 . Please be advised that your application dated 61mlo has been reviewed by this Board at the regular meeting of 0 and your application has been approved pending the completion of the following items checked off below. Revised Plans for proposed project Pre-Construction Hay Bale Line Inspection Fee ($50.00) 1St Day of Construction ($50.00) /2 Constructed ($50.00) V Final Inspection Fee ($50.00) Dock Fees ($3.00 per sq. ft.) Permit fees are now due. Please make check or money order payable to Town of Southold. The fee is computed below according to the schedule of rates as set forth in Chapter 275 of the Southold Town Code. The following fee must be paid within 90 days or re-application fees will be necessary. You will receive your permit upon completion of the above. COMPUTATION OF PERMIT FEES: TOTAL FEES DUE: $ Sn. nl) BY: Jill M. Doherty, President Board of Trustees O Peter Young,Chairman Town Hall,53095 Main Rd. Lauren Standish,Secretary P.O. Box 1179 .F Southold,NY 11971 Q �a Telephone(631)765-1892 l�l Fax(631)765-6641 Conservation Advisory Council Town of Southold At the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council held Wed., July 14, 2010, the following recommendation was made: Moved by Doug Hardy, seconded by Jack McGreevy, it was RESOLVED to SUPPORT the Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit applications of ORIENT WHARF COMPANY to replace the existing asphalt vehicle and access paving (an approx. 17' portion) over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure. Located: 2110 Village Lane, Orient. SCTM#24-2-28.1 Inspected by: Doug Hardy Vote of Council: Ayes: All Motion Carried -�` ��x� •-,, y 4 Vis..:•- - :.., rt - k apy�b *Y R{ 1 'A b `Jr�' �1 ,•3.p .y;t� ��yyr.�y�. 07/ 14/2010 10' 41 R„ i R �• � F 44.s ti FL Jill M.Doherty,President OgyFFO(,t �' CO P.O. Box 1179 James F. King,Vice-President 'Y2 Southold,NY 11971 Dave Bergen as Telephone(631)765-1892 Bob Ghosio,Jr. Fax(631)765-6641 John Bredemeyer y .JIp! # dap Southold Town Board of Trustees Field InspectionlWorksession Report Date/Time: -7 / ORIENT WHARF COMPANY requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to replace the existing asphalt vehicle and access paving (an approx. 17' portion) over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure. 2110 Village Lane, Orient. SCTM#24-2-28.1 Type of area to be impacted: _Saltwater Wetland _Freshwater Wetland _Sound _Bay Distance of proposed work to edge of wetland Part Town Code proposed work falls under: hapt.275 ✓Chapt. 111 _other Type of Application: '�Wetland -*Coastal Erosion Amendment _Administrative_Emergency _Pre-Submission Violation Info needed: Modifications: Conditions: �/J1�v� 4 Q r �� lAkKWf 7-,) Present Were: ✓,King YJ.Doherty ZJ. Bredemeyer D. Bergen/ B.Ghosio, D. Dzenkowski other Form filled out in the field by Mailed/Faxed to: Date: 70INT APPLICATION FORM For Permits/Determinations to undertake activities affecting streams,waterways FM-1 waterbodies,wetlands, coastal areas and sources of water supply. New York Separate Permits/Determinations must be obtained)from each involved agency US Army Corps of state prior to proceeding with work. Please read all instructions. Engineers(USAGE) 1.Check All That Apply: 2. Name of Applicant(use full name) Applicant must be(check all that apply): Orient Wharf Company ® Owner operator Lessee NYS Department of Environ- mental Conservation Street Address Taxpayer ID(If applicant is NOT an individual): stream Disturbance 2110 Village Lane >> ��j` hof Excavation and Fill in Navigable /! C/ Waters Post Office City State Zip Code Telephone(daytime) Email Docks,Moorings or Platforms Orient, NY 11957 631-323-2580 Dams and Impoundment 3. Name of Facility or Property Owner,if different than Applicant Structures 401 water Quality Certification Street Address Freshwater Wetlands idal Wetlands Coastal Erosion Management Post Office City State Zip Code Telephone(daytime) Email Wild,Scenic and Recreational Rivers 4 C ntacUAgent Name Company Name VVa�ter Bundy Water Supply Long Island Well Street Address Aquatic Vegetation Control 237 Walden Court Aquatic insect Control ❑ Fish Control Post Office City State Zip Code Telephone(daytime) Email East Moriches NY 11940 631-878-3102 wfbund ol.com US Army Corps of Engineers 5. Project/ Facility Name Property Tax Map Section/Block/Lot Number Or Section 404 Clean Water Act Orient Wharf I SCTM#: 1000-24-2-28.1 ection 10 Rivers and Harbors Project Location- Provide directions and distances to roads,bridges and bodies of waters: Act 0.43 Miles south of Main Road (SR 25)at 2110 Village Lane within the Hamlet of Nationwide Permit(s)-Identify Orient at Orient Harbor shoreline,Town of Southold Number(s): Preconstruction Notification- Street Address,if applicable ❑ y / ❑ N 2110 Village Lane NYS Office of General Services Post Office City State Zip Code Telephone, if applicable Email (State Owned Lands Under Water) Orient NY 11957 Utility Easement(pipelines, 7�wn/Vill e/cry cyun conduits,cables,etc.) l own o�outhold Jut�olk Docks,Moorings or Platforms Name of USGS Quadrangle Map Stream/Water Body Name Orient Orient Harbor NYS Department of State Coastal Consistency Location Coordinates: Enter NYTMs in kilometers,OR Latitude/Longitude in degrees,minutes,seconds 11 NYFM-E NM-N Latitude Longitude concurrence 41°08' 12.10"N 72 18' 17.52"W 6. If applicant is not the owner,both must sign the application. i hereby affirm that information provided on this form and all attachments submitted herewith is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Faise statements made herein are punishable as a Class A misdemeanor pursuant to Section 210.45 of the Penal Law. Further,the applicant accepts full responsibility for all damage,direct or indirect,of whatever nature,and by whomever suffered,arising out of the project described herein and agrees to indemnify and save harmless the State from suits,actions,damages and costs of every name and description resulting from said project. In addition,Federal Law,18 U.S.C.,Section 1001 provides for a fine of not more than$10,000 or imprisonment for not more than 5 years,or both where an applicant knowingly and willingly falsifies,conceals,or covers up a material fact;or knowingly makes or uses a false,fictitious or fraudulent statement. Signre of ppli, nt Printed Name Tntk- Date Linton Duell President,Orient Wharf Co. (C�/ Si au a of Oy Pr APRAbove Title Da 7� Si Printed Name Title Dale i Walter Bundy Documentation Preparer (, (� For Aoenty Use Only DEC Application Number: USACE Number: •INT APPLICATION FORM — PAGE 2.2 Submit this completed page as part of your Application. 7. Project Description and Purpose: Pmvide a complete narrative description of the proposed work and its purpose. Attach additional page(s) if necessary. Include:description of current site conditions and how the site will be modified by the proposed project;structures and fill materials to be installed;type and quantity of materials to be used (Le.,cubic yds or square R of fill material below ordinary high water,or of structures below mean high water);area of excavation or dredging,volumes of material to be removed and location of dredged material disposal or use;Work methods and type of equipment to be used;pollution control methods and mitigation activities proposed to compensate for resource impacts;and where applicable,the phasing of activities. The existing wooden bulkhead structure with fill and asphalt vehicle and access paving (an approximate 17' 0" portion) is to be replaced with a new timber deck structure as per Engineer's drawings and specifications. The new timber deck structure is proposed to replace the existing deteriorated fill and asphalt surface. The wharf structure both seaward and landward,of the area having the asphalt pavement replaced by a timber deck structure, will remain as exists except for some minor asphalt repair work to blend the asphalt pavement surfaces with the height of the new timber deck surface. The wharf structure seaward of the area has an existing enclosed filled structure with stone and cement retaining walls; and the opposite side of the timber decking will connect to an existing seawall that exists at the shoreline, enabling the proposed new timber deck structure to span the 2 existing supporting structures with no additional support piers or pilings needed. Proposed Use: Li Private Public Commercial Will Project Occupy Federal,State or Municipal land? YesNo If yes, please specify. Mas work Begun on Project? Li Yes IXINC If Yes,explain. Proposed Start Date: June 15,2010 Estimated Completion Date: June 30,2010 8. list Previous Permit/Application Numbers(if any)and Dates: 9. Will this project require additional Federal,State,or Local Permits ® Yes U No If Yes,please list: including zoning changes?Southold Town Trustees Permits for Wetlands,CERA.LWPP and Historic District reviews and approvals are anticipated. 10. Based on the permits and determinations requested and project location,check all the boxes corresponding to each of the Agencies and Offices to which you are filing an application. For Agency add�and areas covered, refer to the Agency Contact Information on the Application Instructions-Page 2. INNYS Department of Environmental Conservation REGION 1 Stony Brook REGION 5 Ray Brook REGION 7 Syracuse REGION 2 Long Island City REGION 5 Warrensburg Sub-Office REGION 7 Cortland Sub-Office RRREGION 3 New Paltz REGION 6 Watertown REGION 8 Avon EGION 4 Schenectady OREGION 6 Utica Sub-Office REGION 9 Buffalo REGION 4 Stamford Sub-Office REGION 9 Allegany Sub-Office ® US Army Corps of Engineers r;1 NYS Department ❑ Office NYS Oce of General NY District, NYC ONY District,Watervliet Buffalo District of State Services For Agency Use Only DETERMINATION OF NO PERMIT REQUIRED Agency Project Number has determined that No Permit is required from this Agency for the project described in (Agency Name) this application. Agency Representative: Name(printed) Title Signature Date New York State 1 Department of Environmental Conservation • _ Imbue PERMISSION TO INSPECT PROPERTY Now By signing this permission form for submission with an application for a permit(s) to the Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC'), the signer consents to inspection by DEC staff of the project site or facility for which a permit is sought and, to the extent necessary, areas adjacent to the project site or facility. This consent allows DEC staff to enter upon and pass through such property in order to inspect the project site or facility,without prior notice, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday. If DEC staff should wish to conduct an inspection at any other times, DEC staff will so notify the applicant and will obtain a separate consent for such an inspection. Inspections may take place as part of the application review prior to a decision to grant or deny the permit(s) sought. By signing this consent form,the signer agrees that this consent remains in effect as long as the application is pending, and is effective regardless of whether the signer,applicant or an agent is present at the time of the inspection. In the event that the project site or facility is posted with any form of"posted" or"keep out" notices, or fenced in with an unlocked gate, this permission authorizes DEC staff to disregard such notices or unlocked gates at the time of inspection. The signer further agrees that during an inspection, DEC staff may, among other things, take measurements, may analyze physical characteristics of the site including, but not limited to, soils and vegetation (taking samples for analysis), and may make drawings and take photographs. Failure to grant consent for an inspection is grounds for, and may result in, denial of the pen-nit(s) sought by the application. Permission is granted for inspection of property located at the following address(es): Orient Wharf Facility situated at 2110 Village Lane,Orient,NV 11957 By signing this,form, I affirm under penalty ofperjury that I am authorized to give consent to entry by DEC staff as described above. 1 understand that false statements made herein are punishable as a Class A misdemeanor pursuant to Section 210.45 of the Penal Law.* Linton Duell,President,Orient Wharf Co. Print Name and Title Signature Date *The signer of this form must be an individual or authorized representative of a legal entity that: • owns fee title and is in possession of the property identified above: • maintains possessory interest in the property through a lease,rental agreement or other legally binding agreement;or • is provided permission to act on behalf of an individual or legal entity possessing fee title or other possessory interest in the property for the purpose of consenting to inspection of such property. S .nw.w. ••�-.—• rrw s smw -� .�.`.ar u. .-- �. ••-• rr .� nwnmma R.a,m uin _ me 4 O wm� � SIIi( SI, IN wm f X gel 1 S _ _ ooi¢E COUNTY OF SIIFFOtI( Q E �• Sg1fNOLo McPON No E : w-- — w w m w, . aed r apsrr tai s�mce ki r Y 024 c . V 1000 PRLPEFLY YIP D.... nof 06/07 '10 TUE 12:28 FAX 631 765 6145 SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERIC ++4 Trustees IA 001 ELIZABETHA.NEVILLE TOWN HALL, 53095 MAI7V ROAD TOWN CLERK P.O.BOX 1179 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS SOUTHOLD NY 11971 MARRIAGE OFFICER FAX: 631-765-.6145 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER TELEPHONE: X18`00_ FREEDOM OF INFORMA TION OFFICER southoldtown c�r� fz n nn VD OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLE Southhold Tows TOWN OF SOUTHOLD _Board of Trustees APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete section I of this form and give to Town Clerk's Office (agency Freedom of Information Officer). One copy will be returned to you in response to your request, or as aninterim response. SECTION I. TO: "OW*7 0 .L (Department or Officer, if known,that has the information you 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). fig W 2Tr F, Siv_ttaturr of An.•l:.--+- ^ 1 211 • Date I W ------- 0 4 71 - ) -7 1. J I In W �� W Received From 0 — ar a 00 mm Address --- — --- Odd F 5 S . Dollars$ p y f For F- 0U. Z HOW PAID �� 03 _ �# OPMT OF CASK- - y 4Q�j ACCOUNT O AMT PAID J CHLCK / __ ED MOMYORIIFR� 8 BADGE CRI Oit cnRO❑ DUE is'pD'rr`10tIC1 ICI Wit . ... wcceptmg-C Jerk-s Initials_ , *If delayed or denied, see reverse side for explanation. a OFFICE LOCATION: v3 So MAILING ADDRESS: Town Hall Annex P.O. Box 1179 54375 State Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY 11971 Cn Telephone: 631 765-1938 �O Fax: 631 765-3136 0'--UNTY LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM To: Jill Doherty, President Town of Southold Board of Trustees From: Mark Terry, Principal Planner LWRP Coordinator Date: July 19, 2010 Re: Proposed Wetland Permit for ORIENT WHARF COMPANY SCTM#24-2-28.1 Walter Bundy on behalf of the ORIENT WHARF COMPANY requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to replace the existing asphalt vehicle and access paving (an approx. 17' portion) over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure. Located: 2110 Village Lane, Orient. SCTM#24-2-28.1 The proposed action has been reviewed to Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town of Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Policy Standards. Based upon the information provided on the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form submitted to this department, as well as the records available to me, it is my recommendation that the proposed action is CONSISTENT from LWRP. Pursuant to Chapter 268, the Board of Trustees shall consider this recommendation in preparing its written determination regarding the consistency of the proposed action. Cc: Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney �OPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORV WHARF ��O�gpfFQl,(. Jill M. Doherty,President Town Hall,53095 Main Rd. James F. King,Vice-President fi P.O.Box 1179 Dave Bergen ip Southold,NY 11971 Bob Ghosio,Jr. a "Telephone(631)765-1892 John Bredemeyer1 ya Fax(631)765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Office Use Only ✓Coastal Erosion Permit Application Wetland Permit Application Administrative Permit _Amendment(f rens fedExlension _ tved Applieatio ' 1 - ivedFee:S —Completed Applica i1 _Incomplete _SEQRA Classification: Type I_Type 11 Unlisted Coordination:(date sent) --;7LWRP Consistency Assessment Form -- ./CAC Referral Sent: �'� /Date of Inspection: � - - --- - --,-_ — _Receipt of CAC Report _Lead Agency Determination: _Technical Review- �he Hearing Held: I l� Resolution: Name of Applicant Orient Wharf Company Address 2110 Village Lane Orient,NY 11957 Phone Number:( ) (631)323-2580 Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000 - 24-2-28.1 Property Location: 2110 Village Lane,Orient,NY 11957 0.43 Miles south of Main Road (SR 25)at 2110 Village L ne within the Hamlet of Orient at Orient Harbor s "n es."plall' (provide LILCO Pole#, distance tto ss to on) AGENT: Walter Bundy / 0//0I/ (If applicable) Address: 237 Walden Court,East Moriches,NY 11940 Email: wfbundv0aol com Phone: (631)8'&3102 C LO �OPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIEWT WRIRF Hoard of Trustees Applic on GENERAL DATA Land Area(in square feet): +/-3,230 Square Feet(Upland Area minus Wharf Structures) Area Zoning: Property Classification: Social Organization; Zoning District: "M-1" Marine Previous use of property: Wharf& Marina Facility Intended use of property: Wharf& Marina Facility(No Change in Intended Use) Covenants and Restrictions: Yes XXX No If"Yes",please provide copy. Prior permits/approvals for site improvements: Agency Date Southold Trustees March 2002 NYSDEC March 2002 No prior permits/approvals for site improvements. Has any pennit/approval ever been revoked or suspended by a governmental agency? No Yes If yes,provide explanation: A previous permit application was submitted to the Trustees and NYSDEC in March 2008 but was withdrawn by the Orient Wharf Company for Proposed Wharf Modifications including placement of culverts at the landward portion of the wharf. Project Description(use attachments if necessary): Existing asphalt vehicle and access paving (an approximate 17' 0" portion) over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with to be replaced with a new timber deck structure as Engineer-Isper ted fill and asphalt surface. See attached documents for additional information. OPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORI WHARF Board of Trustees Applic on WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA Purpose of the proposed The existing filled wooden bulkheaded structure proposed to be ergtions: resurfaced with new timber $9ckmg �s currently covered wfM asphaft pavemeat and is utilized for all vehicular and pedestrian access to the wharf facility. The existing asphalt pavement and supporting fill has deteriorated to a point whereas safe access is no longer provided; and the condition and integrity of the e ' low the pavement to be repaired in a permanent manner. Area of wetlands on lot: 0 square feet Percent coverage of lot: 100 % Closest distance between nearest existing structure and upland edge of wetlands: 5 feet Wetlands situated on Adjacent Property Closest distance between nearest proposed structure and upland edge of wetlands: 5 feet Wetlands situated on Adjacent Property Does the project involve excavation or filling? No XXX Yes Excavation of Existing Apparent Unsuitable Fill If yes, how much material will be excavated? 31.0 cubic yards How much material will be filled? 0.0 cubic yards Depth of which material will be removed or deposited: 1.5 feet (Maximum Depth) Proposed slope throughout the area of operations: No Slope Exists or Proposed Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: Site reconnaissance activities identified that the top 12 to 14 inches of existing fill immediately below the asphalt pavement surface consists of unclean fill containing cement, steel, other metals and asphalt chunks. Du—eto7ffie--a1 6ve, as part of the proposed tim ber deck structure will have all asphalt, and fill materials removed down to a level below the existing beam pockets; and then removes from th ite d��sed of tap roved u lend sites. Statement o t e eect, ifany, on tie we�lands an�Udal waters of the town that may result by reason of such proposed operations(use attachments if appropriate): The removal of the unsuitable material will prevent it from causing future deterioration of the adjacent wetlands and shoreline. �OPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIRlIARF Board of Trustees Applic on COASTAL EROSION APPLICATION DATA Purposes of proposed activity: Replacement of deteriorated asphalt pavement over fill with a new timber deck structure Are wetlands present within 100 feet of the proposed activity? No XXX Yes Wetlands situated on Adjacent Property Does the project involve excavation or filling? No XXX Yes If Yes,how much material will be excavated? 31.0 (cubic yards) How much material will be filled? 0.0 (cubic yards) Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: All asphalt and fill materials removed down to a level below the existing beam pockets will be removed from the site and disposed of at approved upland sites. Describe the nature and extent of the environmental impacts reasonably anticipated resulting from implementation of the project as proposed. (Use attachments if necessary) The existing asphalt pavement and supporting fill has deteriorated to a point whereas safe access is no longer provided; and the condition and integrity of the existing bulkhead does not allow the asphalt pavement or the fill situated below the pavement be repaired in a permanent manner. Due to the above, as part of the proposed timber decking work, the area having the asphalt pavement replaced by a timber deck structure will have all asphalt, and fill mnterinls removed down to a level below the existing beam pocketrAndAbjcn removed from the site and disposed of at approved upland sites. Approximately 31.0 cubic yards of material is anticipated to be removed and disposedof at approved upland isposa si es. The removal of the unsuitable material will prevent it from causing future deterioration of the adjacent wetlands and shoreline. • FO(,�coG • � s Jill M. Doherty,President h Town Hall,53095 Main Rd. James F. King,Vice-President P.O. Box 1179 Dave Bergen Gy 'F Southold,NY 11971 Bob Ghosio,Jr. � Telephone(63 1)765-1892 John Bredemeyer 1 �' Fax(631)765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TRUSTEES: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ---1 -------------------------------------------------------------- PI In the Matter of the Application of ORIENT WHARF CO. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING residing at fclba- wlj lZfifr�J lent ll � being duly orn, depose and say::/ That thel�ay of J u (p , 2010, I person 11 sted the pfoperty known as y by placing the Joard of Trustees official poster where it can easily be seen, and Nat I have dheckedl to be sure the poster has remained in place for eight days prior to the date of the public hearing. Date of hearing noted thereon to be held Wed. July 21 2010 on or bout 6: Dated: (signature) Sworn to b Fore me this Wd, of�wl�(2002� �a c� Notary Public LAURA J.DUBOIS Notary Public,State of New York No.4953089 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires July 3,20—U— POSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIEJVRF SCTM#: 1000-24-2-27. 1000-25-3-12.1 & 1000-26-1-1.1 PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS Name: Address: Timothy Frost P.O. Box 636, Orient, NY 11957 (SCTM#: 1000-26-1-1.1) Timothy & Nina Frost P.O. Box 636, Orient, NY 11957 (SCTM#: 1000-25-3-12.1) David & Clare Air 315 8w Avenue, Apartment 12-B, New York, NY 10001 (SCTM#: 1000-24-2-27) STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK /� residing at2?i1 V.4Y�YAm+.� C ouILT being duly sworn, deposes and says that n the '-j day of 20%0 deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth in the Board of Trus Application,directed to each of the above named persons at the addresses set opposite there respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the address of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of tl a Town of Southold;that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at that said Notic were maileq to each of d p by (certified)frees)mail. i2 v 7 w H ► q,ev- yes �re5�7o n� �• St Sworn to Pcfpre me this a( Day of a 20 ib CkG Notary P lic LAURA I DUBOIS NotaryPuNoc4 tate of New York 53089 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires July 3,2YAL POSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIEjVRF NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER (SCTM#: 1000-24-2-27; 1000-25-3-12.1 & 1000-26-1-1.1) BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the matter of applicant: Orient Wharf Company SCTM# 1000-24-2-28.1 YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to request a Permit from the Board of Trustees to: Replace existing deteriorated asphalt pavement over fill with a new timber deck structure 2. That the property which is the subject of Environmental Review is located adjacent to your property and is described as follows: 2110 Village Lane, Orient, NY 11957; 0.43 Miles south of Main Road (SR 25) at 2110 Village Lane within the Hamlet of Orient at Orient Harbor shoreline,Town of Southold 3. That the project which is subject to Environmental Review under Chapters 96,111 and/or 275 of the Town Code is open to public comment on: DATE: Wednesday,July 21,2010 on or about 6:00 PM You may contact the Trustees Office at 765-1892 or in writing. The above-referenced proposal is under review of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold and does not reference any other agency that might have to review same proposal. PROPERTY OWNERS NAME: Orient Wharf Company MAILING ADDRESS: 2110 Village Lane, Orient, PHONE #: (631)323-2580 AGENT: Walter Bundy MAILING ADDRESS: 237 Walden Court,East Moriches,NY 11940 PHONE #: (516)885-7764 (cell) Enc: Copy of sketch or plan showing proposal for your convenience. Copy of Modification Plan,Revised May 03,2010; prepared by WF Bundy, East Moriches NY 11940, is attached. RUNOFF FLOW FROM — � VILLAGE LANE • EXISTING ROAD \ � DRAIN EXISTING ROAD INTERCONNECTING DRAIN DRAIN PIPES ♦ DENOTES RUNOFF FLOW �♦ ASPHALT PAVEMENT \\ VILLAGE AGE i e__N_F_ OPERTM BOiNpPR�Es. \ EXIST ROAD DRAIN PR _ \ CONNECTED TO ' OUTFALL PIP= NOTE: • �� Structures not drawn II r to scale or located ' EXIST&ONC CURB 7)EXISTING FENCE .� WAR MEMORIAL S . LAWN + SCTM#jW(I-20-1-1.1 OF.EXISTING 5s`• LAWN /Md ^vy t ' LU v, A �CMe;10 70 / II ; ! tSStNGgORtEpSEp WNL Al �` `OpF\ryeps@ACFLCS+RASS ...+j aNb 9EA , ry� t EIFtEJ►,dF.EXiSTING V�N� q�'Y ♦ '1 i m t 1 1. OUTFL ' I 1 t Oxt\Q. ,. UNppPyi oNe�l' PIPE `�� ",� '♦ Z .� j EXISTING BURIED EXISTING SHO IDSFatIVALL SHORTENED COINCIDE WITH 1 t ETO EXISTING RIPRAP WHICH WILL BE RE-UTILIZED AT NEW END OF PIPE "070 BEACH AREA .`.,y� _f-, BEA%F)gR�A�IMe'g0�� 9�NeTl i Fhl II SEE SECTIOpIS'FOR ADDIT19Nl�DETAI�Si' le EXISTING END OF' OUTFALL PIPE �` 28.0- PRO SECT ARFA-. EXISTING ACCESS VIA ASPHALT PAVEMENT OVER FILL TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW NOTE' ,-TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SPANNING THE Information shown on this Sketch reflects Survey AREA SHOWN Infornation as prepared by John C.Ehlers,Land Surveyor,dated September 1999&May 2010 ORIENT HARBOR EXISTING BOULDER&BULKHEAD WHARF w/ FILL&ASPHALT SURFACE SCALE: 1"= 30'0" .; PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Modification Plan Drawn by: Bundy Date: Marchh 26, 2010 Pan Orient Wharf Com Orient New York 2 y' Revised: May 3, 2010 SCTM#: 1000-24-2-28.1 Sketch prepared by WF Bundy,East Moriches NY 11940 Ck'd by: OPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORI(f NWARF PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS Name: Address: STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK residing at being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the day of 20_, deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth in the Board of Trustees Application, directed to each of the above named persons at the addresses set opposite there respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the address of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold;that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified)(registered)mail. Sworn to before me this Day of 20 Notary Public �OPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORlJJ WIIARF NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the matter of applicant: SCTM# YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to request a Permit from the Board of Trustees to: 2. That the property which is the subject of Environmental Review is located adjacent to your property and is described as follows: 3. That the project which is subject to Environmental Review under Chapters 96,111 and/or 275 of the Town Code is open to public comment on: DATE: You may contact the Trustees Office at 765-1892 or in writing. The above-referenced proposal is under review of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold and does not reference any other agency that might have to review same proposal. PROPERTY OWNERS NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE #: AGENT: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE#: Enc: Copy of sketch or plan showing proposal for your convenience. POSED MODIFICATIONS TO OPIE R'HARF 0 '=W Town of Southold Erosion, Sedimentation & Storni-WaterRun-off ASSESSMENT FORM PVAWMM LOCATtdw a.C.TALR TM 01011.11.01111111110111ACTpNa MAY FAMIM TM tp1aNlMaloN ofA 1000 24 2 28.1Tfia�- -1ssN— -ter SCOPE OF WORK - PROPOM CONSTRUMON ITEM# / WORK ASSESSMENT Yes No a. What Is the Tote)Area of the PMW Facels? ' 1 Will ids Protect Retain AN Sloan-Wader Run-M (Include Tam Arae of or Fee located wide +/-475 SF Oenashed by a Two(20)Inch RekQed an SM? the Scope of Wal for Proposed Construction) tai rAww) (Thisthen will n M k dan Include d r oRerealad ails ❑ MA b. WIdo Told Area Lost Clearing clesekV wxft construction sctivow as wet ae so mWor Ground Disturbance lorthe proposed +/-475 SF Site h provemerms eget the permsradaeation of construction activNyt lrpavtorn surkcea) {s.r.{A�e) 2 Dies Uro Site plan www suvey show M Proposed U%GAMMMWWP�.Maribs DrainaNa Strictures IaNmting Size a Location?This a xisting wooden bulkhead structure with fill & hash ahetl included Proposed Grade a1H"QBB and Surf phalt vehicle & access paving (approx. 171 0» Slopes V 'Water Flow. rtion) to be modified with a new timber deck 8 Does thB she Pbn 8nd/or sunny desalt the aasmn and sadlmertcarod pr ecticar that will be used to N/A a tructurils e replacing the existing deteriorated 511 & ccnhaWOWWandatdrrruwaderasdwryes. The phalt surface. Wharf structure seaward & Morn m st be ahaYMained thmnexhy oul th a Entire andward of the area of the new timber deck structure Construction ' 1 remain as exists except for some minor asphalt 4 Will this Prgerx d FT Require aril Lana Goading or P P Excevat on where two Is a chaps to the Natural f pair work to blend the asphalt pavement surfaces Exaft Grads Involving more then 200 Cuticvsds with the height of the new timber deck surface. of Material wommyPal cd? fracture seaward is an existing enclosed filled 5 Will mb A111060060"Reprice hand Dia wbft AdNMw tructure with stone and cement retaining wails; and (5 o000 .F.)S an sea t rGro a d Five ceouaad — ✓ (5,000 S.F.)3grwre Foal or Ground Surface? he opposite side of the timber decking will connect to 6 Is there a Naiad Water Casae RumkV deonugh the a existing seawall at the shoreline. Slee? n tete Pm(ea vMtirlr tlw Truwdeas j<rrtedcOm orwWn One Hundred(100)"da Weiland a El SubdwbndaSVW"kr gt*GdOraa0aabuWonacOMdeekwditsW Beach? QYYshwxwddr(1)anrr aasc kaAdke dYOabaxaedaa Mnerr sae sur 7 VM yw e W Site ar Grade M psdda 111190r MMM plan tlnw as darWdr cheat our a more was oflnt which Exceed FMeenn(1 )*a*ofVadcd Rho to bdMug Doneaoen aotlsass kwsbagsd daaahahoadbatlan ane(t)aasrMrr Ong Hurxled(100�eM Flodaordd Diwar40a7 a M DEC has drlrrrrihad eat a SPDES pondtle rapist bream wemrdachnars. (MwPP's Mrs asatar Ilbraaran Ragiiawseb dict aPitlB 4hhsrw ParmR 8 VM Mwemays,Par"Areae or other Impervious for Mew Waiter Dacawaw ata Carbucwwh mM ty•Pwradt ere.OP44eam4 Surfaces be Sloped to Direct 36rmWaler Rue" ❑ ✓ 1.The9YMPPP andaDrePnad pdtbManbrawdMPld.Tlr Nd whalM lip andira In the direction ate Town dam! 2.The ad b M Dsparhnsw the arMmnrntrhrdd ax recean aatlrll.. z.TMSVPPPPsMrdssaraaMamwahand sadmrasdatialpraoewsandwthas 9 VWOft pralectRaquMthe PlapanwaafMaterial, rspiad,pcwaonwudw ab mr wwareraraeahrd praolbw are be used andira Rernoval of Vegetation andlor tie Construction of wmdany a cand 10 re 1 M patuana In I vMardbdWW WA b aaww hemWithiWithin the Town R•ighWiMey or Reed shedder a, IN, sweh Mklrhr are aprdaar ornapeontbadgbMfw SWMP" Area?�p,,,,,,w arura.rrrmaMw.egrwrl saiaotskme stsoadpoatlahwldM maY raaearrby bs aasoad balledM NOME act AN ftawaaaadaaaagh MMk-wwdMha Clwdc Mrk 3.AN dwarm wear dbdrrpes. In a as a ad 60 sesNUMIM Aa dehabowsa bwewh rrra iJ.a t Me in ase, 9.AlI3WPPPsMrpis Mpabhxrsrudan sltmwwer rhahapsnrwprswas a8lrrmitrslar.aasre,arno.a Erawar Csebd PlrrksraerI brMlr s of mmporrrs*4 be Prspread byagrrMed DeAp Phstab Lbansedataavak atdwrdrdEMb*SdmftodrarasMwPdaubbu GFAOvMdWMPala. saw bbrMetlpsababMprkhelpas ampratlmsdebm,WearMawararA 0407E Aaaarrk(I).rWrarrow+t«taa.stbraa+.drasoarsbaApasaeae SIATEOFNEW YO1IlZ ( � NotaryPuublicfESttateofNewYprk COUNTY OF...........(.. .:.»»�7.............»...SS No.OlbU6185050 t C•'+.ar� ay JO�SvSuffolk a o m (y / That I, Walter Bundy _»............ ..._.......___...........being dsworn,deposes and says o7Eirarmi4 Oa^w d k W NirY sipin➢» And thaz he/she is Agent for the Orient Wharf Company .(Garr,Caiaaoy AOM.OapaW oats.aaj_. Owner and/or representative of the Owner or Ownrn,and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and fete this application;that all statements contained m this application ate ave w the beat of his belief,and that the work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed herewith. J Swom�Jto befom 10c:this; ». ..._....day of...l .................. ,2010 Notary Public .»` ?1 f...... .... 5 S 5�1.».»......». ...... . ».... _ f .»»..._.... :...:»...... FORM - 06110 OPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORI WHARF x17.20 SEAR PROJECT ID NUMBER APPENDIX C STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART 1 -PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) 1.APPLICANT/SPONSOR 2.PROJECT NAME Orient Wharf Company Modifications to Orient Wharf 3.PROJECT LOCATION: Municipality Orient,Town of Southold c0unty Suffolk 4.PRECISE LOCATION: Street Addess and Road Intersections. Prorninent landmarks etc -or orovide map 2110 Village Lane,Orient,NY 11957; 0.43 Miles south of Main Road (SR 25)at 2110 Village Lan within the Hamlet of Orient at Orient Harbor shoreline,Town of Southold(See Map) 5.IS PROPOSED ACTION: ❑ New ❑Expansion ®Modification/alteration 6.DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: Existing asphalt vehicle and access paving over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with to be replaced with a new timber deck structure as per Engineer's. The existing asphalt pavement and supporting fill has deteriorated to a point whereas safe access is no longer provided; and the condition and integrity of the existing bulkhead does not allow the asphalt pavement or the fill situated below the pavement to be repaired in a permanent manner. Due to the above, as part of the proposed timber decking work, the area having the asphalt pavement replaced by a timber deck structure will have all asphalt, and fill materials removed down to a level below the existing beam pockets; and then removed from the site and disposed of at 7.AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially 0.011 acres Ultimately 0.011 acres Project Area is+/-476 Square Feet 8.WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS? ®Yes ❑ No ff no,describe briefly: 9.WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? (Choose as many as appy.) ❑Residential ❑Industrial ®Commercial ❑Agrk:ulture ❑Perk/Forest/Open Space ®Other (describe) Property Classification: Social Organization; Zoning District: "M-1r' Marine 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (Federal, State or Loral) ®res ❑No 8 yes, list agency name and permit I approval: NYSDEC Permit/Approval 11.DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ❑Yes ®No H yes, list agency name and permit / approval: 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/ APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? es ❑No NOT APPLICABLE I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant I sponsor " in o uell, Orient arf Company Date: Signature_ y J v If the action is a Costal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment PART II- IMPACT ASSESSMENT To be completed by Lead Agency) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR,PART 617.44 If yes,coordinate the review process and use the FULL FAF. ❑Yes ©No B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR,PART 617.6? If No,a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. . Yes ©No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING:(Answers may be handwritten.If legible) C1. Existing sk quality.surface or groundwater quality or quantity,noise levels,existing traffic pattern.said waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: No C2 Aestheft egricuMural.archaeological,historic,or other natural or cultural resources;or community or neighborhood character?Explain briefly. No C3. Vegetation or fauna.fish,shetiflsh or wildlife species,significant habitats,or Ihreatened or endangered spades?Explain briefly. No C4. A commmay's existing plana or goals as officially adopted,or a change In use or hienaiy of use of land or other naturalresouroes? _ Explain fxfefly: No C6. Granth,subsequent development,or related adMties lately to be Induced by tine proposed action?Explain briefly: No CO. Long term.short term.wmulafive,or other effects not identified in C1.C6? Explain briefly. No C7. Otltar cts,lincluding clumes In use of elder quantity or of in No D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA(CEA)? ti yes,explain briefly: Yes 0✓ No E IS THERE,OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? ff Iain: 0 Yes 0 No PART III-vETEmmkirim OF SIGNIFICANCE(To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: Foreach adverse effect Identifiec!abom determinewhather it Is substantial,large,Importantorotherwise significant Each effect should be assessed in connection with its(a)setting(i.e.urban or neap;(b)probability of occurring;(c)duration;(d)Irreversibility;(e) geographic scope;and(f)magnitude. If necessary,add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been Identified and adequately addressed. Nquestion d of part ti was checired yes.the determination ofaignifcance mustevatuate the potential Impactoft he proposed action on the environmental charartedeft of the CEA Checkthis box Ifyou have Identified one or more polentlasyiarge ortlgM6cantadverse Mhpaclswhidh MAYoavr.Then prooteddirsodytotheFULI &4F and?or prepare a positive declaration. Check gigs box If you have determined,based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation,that the proposed actlor WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide, on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting determination. - Board of Trustees Name of Lead Agency Date Jill M. Doherty President nt or Type Name of ResponsibW Officer in Lead Agency Tl6e of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer In Lead.Agency Signature of Preparer(If different from responst - cer) OPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIE WHARF Board of Trustees Application County of Suffolk State of New York 1%/1/P1y - l>iF 1I BEING DULY SWORN DEPOSES AND AFFIRMS THAT HE/SHE IS THE APPLICANT FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PERMrr(S)AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF HIS/HER KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND THAT ALL WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION AND AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES. THE APPLICANT AGREES TO HOLD THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND THE TOWN TRUSTEES HARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND CLAIMS ARISING UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF SAID PERMIT(S), IF GRANTED. IN COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEES, THEIR AGENT(S)OR REPRESENTATIVES(S), TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY TO INSPECT THE PREMISES IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION. Si SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS I DAY OF 20/0 LAUREN M.STANDISH 0 , 1 Notary Public,Stateof New York No.O1ST616T616 4008 Notary Publicm0ulified in Suffdk Cou�y Eames Apd 9.2D �OPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORI*WIIARF Board of Trustees Application a AUTHORIZATION (where the applicant is not the owner) p I Linton Duell,President,Orient Wharf Co-residing at A47 LSCC DG L13 (print owner of property) (mailing address) do hereby authorize (Agent) Walter F. Bundy to apply for permit(s) from the Southold Board of Town Trustees on my behalf. (. ' signature aOPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIV WHARF APPLICANT/AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM Tic Town of S Ilmold Code of Ethics prohibits maids of interest on the RM of lows QMc=and emobvices.The mvoose of s __ ,_f____ _ 1 = M dm....,....s,,=iblc,.mni.k of,,, wd allow it 4o take whatever acbOn rs neC0.4M to avoid same. YOUR NAME: Bundy,Walter F.; for: Orient Wharf Company (Last name,first name,ipiddle initial.unless you aro applying in the name of someone else or other entity,such as a company.If so,indicate theother person's or company's name.) NAME OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax grievance Building -- — Variance Trustee Change of Zone Coastal Erosion xx Approval of plat Mooring Exemption from plat or official map Planning Other Historical,Wetlands,LWRP (lf"Other,name the activity) Do you personally(or through your company,spouse,sibling,parent,or child)have a relationship with any officer or employe of the Town of Southold? "Relationship"includes by blood,marriage,or business interest."Business interest"means a business, including a partnership,in which the town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of(or employment by)a corporation in which the town officer or employee owns more than 5%of the shares. YES NO xxX If you answered"YES",complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold Title or position of that person Describe the relationship between yourself(the applicant/agent/representative)and the town officer or employee.Either check the appropriate line A)through D)and/or describe in the space provided. The town officer or employee or his or her spouse,sibling,parent,or child is(check all that apply): A)the owner of greater than 5%of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant . (when the applicant is a corporationx _B)the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a noncorporate entity(when the applicant is not a corporation); C)an officer,director,partner,or employee of the applicant;or _D)the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP Submitted this day of 200_ Signature Print Name Walter F Bondy Form TS I Town of Southold 41 OPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORI#WHARF LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM A. INSTRUCTIONS 1. All applicants for permits* including Town of Southold agencies, shall complete this CCAF for proposed actions that are subject to the Town of Southold Waterfront Consistency Review Law. This assessment is intended to supplement other information used by a Town of Southold agency in making a determination of consistency. *Except minor exempt actions including Building Permits and other ministerial permits not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. 2. Before answering the questions in Section C, the preparer of this form should review the exempt minor action list, policies and explanations of each policy contained in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. A proposed action will be evaluated as to its sigmficant beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area(which includes all of Southold Town). 3. If any question in Section C on this form is answered "yes" or"no", then the proposed action will affect the achievement of the LWRP policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency review law. Thus, each answer must be explained in detail, listine both sunportine and non- supporting facts. If an action cannot be certified as consistent with the LWRP policy standards and conditions,it shall not be undertaken. A copy of the LWRP is available in the following places: online at the Town of Southold's website(southoldtown.northfork.net), the Board of Trustees Office,the Planning Department, all local libraries and the Town Clerk's office. B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION SCTM# 1000-242-28.1 - PROJECT NAME Proposed Modifications to Orient Wharf The Application has been submitted to(check appropriate response): Town Board ❑ Planning Board❑ Building Dept. 0 Board of TrustmFxl 1. Category of Town of Southold agency action(check appropriate response): (a) Action undertaken directly by Town agency(e.g. capital ❑ construction,planning activity,agency regulation,land transaction) ❑ (b) Financial assistance(e.g.grant, loan,subsidy) (c) Permit,approval, license,certification: Fil Nature and extent of action: Review and Approval of Proposed Project OPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIIS WHARF Location of action: 2 0 Village Lane,Orient,NY 11957 Site acreage: 0.011 Acres (Project Area is+/-476 Square Feet) Present land use: Wharf& Marina Facility(No Change in Intended Use) P petty Classification: Social Organization; Zoning District: "M-1" Marine Present zoning class icahon: 2. If an application for the proposed action has been filed with the Town of Southold agency, the following information shall be provided: (a) Name of applicant: Orient Wharf Company (b) Mailing address: 2110 Village Lane,Orient,NY 11957 (c) Telephone number:Area Code( ) (631)323-2580 (d) Application number,if any: Will the action be directly undertaken,require funding,or approval by a state or federal agency? Yes ❑X No❑ If yes,which state or federal agency? NYSDEC C. Evaluate the project to the following policies by analyzing how the project will further support or not support the policies. Provide all proposed Best Management Practices that will further each policy. Incomplete answers will require that the form be returned for completion. DEVELOPED COAST POLICY Policy 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure,makes beneficial use of a coastal location,and minimizes adverse effects of development. See LWRP Section III—Policies; Page 2 for evaluation criteria. 0 Yes ❑ No n Not Applicable It is believed by the Orient Wharf Company and its consultants that the section of the wooden bulkhead structure with fill (an approximate 17' 0" portion) that connects the main wharf structure tot e shoreline requires rehabilitation and no longer provides safe access to the wha facility. n� of simply replacing the existing structure in kind, the Orient Wharf Company and its consultants recommends the replacement of the current method of access (asphalt pavement over fill) with a new timber deck structure which connect into existing beam pockets from the original bridge structure. Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III—Policies Pages 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Applicable OPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORI WHARF The location of the proA wharf modifications coincide wit a location of the original location for the timber bridge structure at the Orient Wharf, thereby replicating the original wharf configuration and timber bridge features, historical aspects of Orient Wharf are being restored and cub-need,pending completion of fature impmvements. Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section HI-Policies Pages 6 through 7 for evaluation criteria 0 Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Applicable The location of the proposed wharf modifications coincide VT ith the location of the al iginal location flux the timber bridge structure at the Orient Whart ft is e ev y the Oiient WhaffCompany and Us consa n s that the placement of the new mer deck structure will greatly enhance the visual and scenic vistas in the immediate harbor area and will also visually replicate the original wharf configuration and timber bridge features, therefore hostorical ar; meta of Orient Wharf are being restored and enhanced- Attach additional s1heets if necessary NATURAL COAST POLICIES Policy 4. Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. See LWRP Section IH-Policies Pages 8 through 16 for evaluation criteria ® Yes El No ❑ Not Applicable The section of the wooden bulkhead structure with fill that connects the main wharf structure to the shoreline has been experiencing severe erosion of the fill below the asplilill pavement and no longer pMMes BE access To 1111 WKW falliqr. existing structure in Idud, t. Orient Wharf eumpamy VMd its 001131110013 recommends the replacement of AbW UU..CUA method of access,, . ove. fill) Mth a nein timbe. deck st.wtum wbich couneci into e2bling beam pockels from the original b idge st mein e; The intent of the timber deek strueture is to pro4ride immediate and long toFm safe mosess for. 4robiales and pedieWs" to AS Orient Wb-Ff Facility; mrithout depending upon the existing filled hulkheaded which *a deterionting and regnim extensive reconstruction to facilitate continued safe use for access. Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section IH -Policies Pages 16 through 21 for evaluation criteria ® Yes ❑ No E]Not Applicable The intent of the timber deck structure is to provide immediate and long-term safe access for vehicles and pedestrians to the Orient Wharf Facility; without depending upon the existing filled bulkheaded which is deteriorating and requires extensive reconstruction to facilitate safe use for access. The placement of the new timber deck structure allows continued safe access to Orient Wharf and allows the entire wharf facility to be addressed as a unit in its future permit submittals identified below. Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystems including Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and wetlands. See LWRP Section IH-Policies; Pages 22 through 32 for evaluation criteria. ® ❑ ❑ OPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORI IiHARF Yes No No�ipficable The Orient Wharf Company will be submitting in the near future, separate projects to modify their existing Tidal Wed-nAll Maintenance permit to inchvAc Amd1gina aronnil the floating Blocks anal mnnrino areas that eXest at Orient MlharA a-A to pem*t —sent=-;ce%nd rebabilitation of the actual who facility The intent of the future modifications are twoJolld- to further enhance the water quallity of the site 4 removing sediment and silt that has accumulated,and to also increase the ability of boats to utilize the facilities wiihimit"bottoming out" Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 32 through 34 for evaluation criteria. ❑ Yes [:] No 0 Not Applicable Not Applicable to Proposed Project Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. See LWRP Section HI-Policies; Pages 34 through 38 for evaluation criteria. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑X Not Applicable Not Applicable to Proposed Project PUBLIC COAST POLICIES Policy 9. Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III-Policies; Pages 38 through 46 for evaluation criteria. nn ® YesD No❑ Not Applicable The pier which extends into the harbor dates back to the 1800s. The site is owned by the Orient Wharf Company, a local for profit enterprise. Orient Wharf is an active shipping pier, harbor and mooring facility on the north-eastern shoreline of Orient Harbor accessible off of Village Lane in Orient and Though privately owned. the wharf provides Orient residents access to Orient Harbor and adjacent coastal maters. - Attach additional sheets if necessary TRANSMITTAL FROM: Walter F. Bundy 237 Walden Court East Moriches, New York 11940 Telephone: (631) 878-3102 email: wfbundy@aol.com DATE: Monday, June 14, 2010 TO: Town of Southold Town Trustees Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 cc: Linton Duell, President, Orient Wharf Company Drew Dillingham, Professional Engineer SUBJECT: PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Submittal of Southold Town Trustees Permit Application and Supporting Documentation COMMENTS: Attached for review, approval and issuance of Town Trustee permits on behalf of the Orient Wharf Company, is one (1) original and two (2) copies of the Permit application and supporting documentation for the proposed modifications to Orient Wharf for the Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York. Included in the attached submittal is a copy of the NYSDEC permit application submitted to the NYSDEC. The project for which Trustee approval is sought includes the replacement of the existing asphalt vehicle access paving at Orient Wharf (an approximate 17' 0" portion) with a new timber deck structure. Additionally, please note that site reconnaissance activities to confirm the location and condition of the existing beam pockets from the original bridge, identified that the fill immediately below the existing asphalt pavement was composed of material that appears unsuitable for a coastal environment. Therefore, since some of the underlying filled surface would have to be disturbed to place the new deck supports, it is proposed to remove all such TRWSMITTAL FROM WalterE Bundy IMMposed Modifications to Orient Wharf Page 2 material for a depth of approximately 18 inches (the depth of the existing beam pockets) and transport all material to approved upland sites. As identified in the attached documentation; the existing filled wooden bulkheaded structure proposed to be resurfaced with new timber decking is currently covered with asphalt pavement and is utilized for all vehicular and pedestrian access to the wharf facility. As identified by the accompanying photographs, the existing asphalt pavement and supporting fill has deteriorated to a point whereas safe access is no longer provided; and the condition and integrity of the existing bulkhead does not allow the asphalt pavement or the fill situated below the pavement to be repaired in a permanent manner. The new timber decking will replace the existing deteriorated asphalt pavement and supporting fill. The Orient Wharf Company would like to commence project activities immediately; therefore a Town Trustee permit or approval to proceed is requested at your earliest convenience. Should you have any questions or comments concerning the attached submittal, please do not hesitate to contact me at 631-878-3102 or by email at wfbundv(CDaol.com. Thank you, Walter Bun on b If t Orient Wharf Company TRANSMITTAL • FROM: Walter F. Beady 237 Walden Court East Moriches, New York 11940 Telephone: (631)878-3102 email: wfbundy@aol.com DATE: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 TO: Town of Southold Town Trustees Town Hall Annex Building D �-- C 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 JUN 2 3 2010 Southold, NY 11971 southhold ees cc: Linton Duell, President, Orient Wharf Company Board of hos} Drew Dillingham, Professional Engineer SUBJECT: PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Submittal of Southold Town Trustees Permit Application and Supporting Documentation COMMENTS: Attached for inclusion into the documentation submitted for Orient Wharf are the following items: 1) Completed Erosion, Sedimentation & Storm-Water Run-off ASSESSMENT FORM 2) November 19, 1978 Site Survey prepared by Van Tuyl, which was inadvertently excluded from previous submittal. Should you have any questions or comments concerning the attached information or the Orient Wharf submittal, please do not hesitate to contact me at 631-878-3102 or by email at wfbundyCa?aol.com. Thank you, Watt r B ; 0 h o he Orient Wharf Company RUNOFF FLOW FROM �D VILLAGE LANE f EXISTING ROAD �- -- - ---------.-.- .. __ DRAIN APPROVED BY INTERCONNECTING T•� c(,�T ��++Q EXISTING ROAD DRAIN PIPES l i'•RUS EES DRAIN DENOTES RU F FLOW PH P }yam 7 t4CS� RIES- EXIST "p"ro OP CONN / UTFA I PIPE NOTE: :.:. . . urea i drawn ...::::. ......:..: sated 5. y`.r�e \` •;: XISTING FENCE :•F)c._`CTM#;1000-242-27 y'.,{ \ / WAR MEMORIAL k/g�-ANG SEq LAWN -y ' SCTM#' 1000-26-1-1.1 A'�&4 OF EXISTING Yeti 1 BEAE S LAWN fi } r O/0 1 > X1gS1 \\ "?o \Fy*B AREA OF EXISTING I" i a i \\ `FRIY \.So�gEACH GRASS h 'I 1 AREA EXISTING 0015 \ eO(gy��@yj 11.j = I N BEACH GRASS OUTFALL 1� i < I �,�'�\QP O JNiPµ`f c�J PIPE EXISTING BURIED PPP QRS ER i8 ' 1p10��t�' TOWN OUTFALL P y t SEAWALL \Nem E;ACTMTY DELETED Eey�� ED AT NEW END O�MPGc�PRia' �Sui _.r:i Elev.- �38' BEACFj,AR€A y2p�Os oNey�.�. \ 07BEACH AREA '•: :'-. -. 8 i \N`s� 5 'FOR ti'A1. NOTE. F6 1 5 6•+ SEE SECTIOpIS 1 ev: . SP pE i For Topo Elevations,other than those I w ADDIT�DETAIL O shown at Project Area;see John C. \\�So«A�� 1 �„y z �� Ehlers Survey dated June 9,2010y� '�-� [-� EXISTING END Of E�,, Eley 28• �' OUTFALL PIPE �` 28'0' � � PROJECT AREA: EXISTING ACCESS VIA ASPHALT PAVEMENT OVER FILL TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW NQIE. .'TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SPANNING THE Information shown on this Sketch reflects Survey AREA SHOWN Information as prepared by John C.Ehlers,Land Surveyor, dated September 1999,May(2M"-June 2010 ORIENT HARBOR EXISTING BOULDER& BULKHEAD WHARF w/ " FILL&ASPHALT SURFACE SCALE: 1"= 30' 0" .: PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Drawn by: WF Bundy Modification Plan Revision "B" Date: March 26, 2010 WFB,Aug 12,2010 Revised: May 3, 2010 Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York leted Outfall Pipe Modifications Ck'd by: July 29, 2010,Aug 12, 2010 SCTM#: 1000-24-2-28.1 Sketch prepared by WF Bundy,East Moriches NY 11940 EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE TO BE REMOVED& REPLACED WITH A NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SUPPORTED AT EXISTING BEAM POCKETS AT EACH END EXISTING FILL TO BE REMOVED BETWEEN EXISTING +1 28'0" BEAM POCKETS TO ALLOW PLACEMENT OF NEW SUPPORT BEAMS+/-18"(APPROX 21 CY)&DISPOSED OF IN AN APPROVED UPLAND SITE. EXISTING PILINGS&SHEATHING TO REMAIN EL:5.6, EL:8.8' EXISTING GRADE EL:2. ' EXISTING GRADE EXISTING BOULDER&BULKHEAD STRUCTURE w/ FILL EXISTS BEYOND THE SECTION BEING EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SmaACTIVITY DELETED'LAN) SCALE: 1"= 10'0" SECTION "A" THRU EXISTING BULKHEAD LOOKING WEST EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE ON BOTH NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE ENDS OF NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE AS PER ENGINEER'S DRAWINGS TO BE PATCHED&PITCHED AS REO'D XISTING FILL E REM ED BETWEEN EXI ING EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO BE +1.28'0" i BEAM POCKETS TO ALLOW PLACEMENT OF NEW 3HOF--"" ' —""—"" """"TILIZED SUPPORT BEAMS+/-1 B"(APPROX 21 CY)&DISPOSED TNEACTIVITY DELETED FINANAPPROVE UPLAND SITE. EL:es' EXISTING PILINGS&SHEATHING TO REMAIN EL:7.8' EXISTING GRADE EXISTING GRADE EL:1.8' tl4IE: EXISTING CONCRETE SEAWALLAT SHORELINE For Topo Elevations,other than those EXISTS BEYOND THE NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE shown at Project Area;see John C. Ehlers Survey dated June 9,2010 SCALE: 1" = 10'0" SECTION taB�� THRU EXISTING BULKHEAD LOOKING EAST NOTE: SECTIONS THROUGH EXISTING BULKHEAD Drawn by: WF Bundy Information shown on finis sketch .Ehler survey Date: March 26,2010 Information as preps ed by John C.Ehlers,Land Revised:03 May 2010 Surveyor,dated September 1999&June 9 2010 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF 29 July 2010(Noted Elevations at sections) Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York 12 Aug 2010(Deleted Outfall Pipe Modifications& SCTM#: 1000.24-2-28.1 Modified Fill Removal to be ONLY at Beam Pockets) Ck'd by: ReVISl011 'B'r f�WFB,Aug 12,2010 Deleted Outfall Pipe Modifications&Modified Sketch prepared by WF Bundy,East Moriches NY 11940 IFill Femoval to be ONLY at Beam Pockets % Mum ASPHALT PAVEMENT REMOVAL 616f m• N ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS wrw F O R I REMOVE APPROXIMATELY 620 SOUARE FEET OF ASPHALT PAVEMENT. REPLACE WITH 6' x 12' TROPICAL HARDWOOD TIMBER JOISTS AND 3' LOT lDDO-24-2-27 Las. DECKING. DAVID NR (2072 VILLAGE LANE) 315 STH AVE NEW YORK. NY 10001 _ 5 ii:"• LOT 1000-24-2-28.1 (APPLICANT. 2110 VILLAGE LANE onefif T.C. ORIENT WHARF CO. INC. MT N 41' 08' 12' It 7 PO BOX 243 LONG W 77 18' 1B' ORIENT, NY 11957 LDC=M LOT 1000-26-2-1.1 (2190 VILLAGE LANE) NINA & TIMOTHY FROST L PO Box 636 f E N T e ORIENT. NY 11957 HAGSTROM SUFFOLK COUNTY ATLAS u MAP 26 GRIDE-47 K LOCATION MAP O057b+c�wr a nqf R d h f141T / 140 II C I 412' `° ♦ ry ^ ./ 1y yt-i III li 8 ORIENT HARBOR I I.I.IIII nT TER DEPTH FEET nDATUMO SALW 0.0 26' I SCTM No. 1000-24-2-2a.1- 26.1 ✓� PLAN VIEW \ �, SCALE 1•-50' N EXISTING WHARF GRADE 6' x 12' TIMBER JOIST ` 3' x 8' TIMBER DECKING 6.0 \ \ 24' O.C. EXISTING STONE SEAWALL AHW 2.5 _ - - GRADE \ \ � *gm ALW 0.0 -- — d D05T61G CREOSOTED SHEATHING TO REMAIN EXISTING GRADE � ORIENT WHARF ASPHALT PAVEMENT REMOVAL ORIENT HARBOR ORIENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CROSSVIEW PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT REMOVAL APPLICANT: ORIENT WHARF CO. INC. SCALL; 1'-10' DRAWN BY: CORWIN SHEET 1 OF 1 APRIL 1 , 2010 2072 Village Lane Orient,NY 11957 �I August 13, 2010 �LIAUG 1 3 ?^ i� Southold Board of Town Trustees " f Town Hall Annex southhold Town 54375 Route 25 „Boated o�Trustees PO Box 1179 " Southold,NY 11971 RE: Application to modify the Orient Wharf Company's wharf, Orient,NY 11957 Dear Trustees: We can support this application if the permit language reflects that: 1)the current wooden sheathed north and south bulkheads and the enclosed fill level will be retained and maintained for the life of the new road structure. 2)there will be no modification of the Town's outfall pipe located on the northerly abutting(Air)property. Thank you. S(' cerely, v� Clare&David it ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. O. Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 WILLIAM W. ESSEKS (631) 369-1700 WATER MILL OFFICE MARCIA Z. HEFTER MONTAUK HIGHWAY STEPHEN R.ANGEL TELECOPIER NUMBER(631) 369-2065 P. O. Box 570 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 CARMELA M. DI TALIA (631) 7266633 ANTHONY C. PASCA NICA B. STRUNK THEODORE D. SKLAR NANCY SILVERMAN LISA J. Ross August 6, 2010 MELISSA H. SIDOR Via hand delivery Southhold loom Board of Trustees Board of Trustees Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application of Orient Wharf Company Dear Members of the Board: As you know we are the attorneys for David and Clare Air, and for Timothy Frost and Margaret Minichini In my July 20, 2010 letter, and at the July 21, 2010 public hearing I, my clients, and our environmental consultant, Charles Bowman, pointed out numerous deficiencies in the information supplied by the applicant and the applicant's consultant, W. F. Bundy. Apparently, Mr. Bundy has now filed a "revised modification plan," revision "A" dated July 29, 2010. According to Mr. Bundy, the revised plans now show "topographical elevations" at the project area. We have reviewed the revised modification plan and find that it fails to supply the Board with the critical information the Board must have before it can render a decision under the Town's Coastal Erosion Hazard Area code, and the Wetlands code. The only thing that has been added to the plans is certain elevation points. While the inclusion of elevation points provide a start to remedying the ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW August 6, 2010 Page 2 of 3 deficient plans, it does not address the many other omissions previously identified, including the following: 1. The revised plans refer to "engineer's drawings" but, as far as we can tell, still actually provide no engineered construction plans. Such plans are necessary to allow the Trustees to make an informed decision as to what effect the construction plan will have on the bulkhead and fill underneath the bridge once the project is completed and exposed to the high velocity wave action from storm events that is typical of this FEMA velocity zone (VE9). In fact, as Mr. Bundy himself pointed out at the hearing, he believes that fill under the bridge will simply be washed out during storm events. Without engineered plans, how can the Board know what effect this project will have on the remaining structure? I note 'hat, while the Trustees' President indicated at the hearing that the Board does not require "engineered plans" with applications, both the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area code and Wetlands code require the applicant to present such information, including an engineering analysis, as necessary to prove compliance with the code standards, and both codes even allow the Board to retain its own expert, at the applicant's expense, to analyze such plans. See § 111-15B, § 111-27G, and § 275-71) of the Town Code. Given the applicant's lack of any engineering support for its application, the Board has little choice but to require further engineered plans and to retain its own engineer, at the applicant's expense, to analyze such plans. 2. The plans still do not identify any commitment to maintain the bulkhead and fill structure underneath the proposed new bridge. In fact, the plans are ambiguous to the extent that the south side bulkhead is labeled as if it will remain, but the north side bulkhead is not. 3. The revised plans still fail to show any "long term maintenance program" to insure that the structure will be maintained, as shown on the plans, for 30 years, as required by Section 111-15 of the Town's Coastal Erosion Hazard Area code. 4. The revised plans offer no additional information about the supposed applications that the applicant will be "submitting in the near future," as previously suggested by Mr. Bundy. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW August 6, 2010 Page 3 of 3 5. The revised plans still continue to show the incorrect "property boundary" for the two properties adjoining to the project area. As I previously indicated, the Air and Frost/Minichini property extend all the way to the high water mark, yet, on the revised plans, a line incorrectly labeled "property boundary" is shown far landward of the high water line. 6. The revised plans still show the "approx tidal wet land line" instead of showing the actual tidal wetland line. 7. The revised plans still show the proposed shortening of the outfill pipe, even though the outfill pipe is a) is located on the Air's property, b) is part of the Town operated storm water system, and c) does not belong, in any fashion, to the applicant. Until the critical missing information is supplied to this Board, there can be no basis for an approval of the application under either the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area code or the Wetlands code. The Board can and must require the applicant to provide the missing information, and the Board should also retain its own consultants to review the plans, at the applicant's expense. Respectf urs, Anthony C. Pasca ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET R. O. BOX 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 WILLIAM W. ESSEKS (631) 369-1700 WATER MILL OFFICE MARCIA Z. HEFTER MONTAUK HIGHWAY STEPHEN R.ANGEL TELECOPIER NUMBER (631) 369-2065 P. O. BOX 5570 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 CARMELA M. D1 TALIA <631) 726-6633 ANTHONY C. PASCA MICA B. STRUNK THEODORE D. SKLAR NANCY SILVERMAN LISA J. Ross August 6, 2010 MELISSA H. SIDOR Via hand delivery Ll /1U6 Board of Trustees Town of SoutholdSauthhold Town 53095 Main Road Board of Trustees P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY" 11971 Re: Application of Orient Wharf Company Dear Members of the Board: As you know we are the attorneys for David and Clare Air, and for Timothy Frost and Margaret Minichini In my July 20, 2010 letter, and at the July 21, 2010 public hearing I, my clients, and our environmental consultant, Charles Bowman, pointed out numerous deficiencies in the information supplied by the applicant and the applicant's consultant, W. F. Bundy. Apparently, Mr. Bundy has now filed a "revised modification plan," revision "A" dated July 29, 2010. According to Mr. Bundy, the revised plans now show "topographical elevations" at the project area. We have reviewed the revised modification plan and find that it fails to supply the Board with the critical information the Board must have before it can render a decision under the Town's Coastal Erosion Hazard Area code, and the Wetlands code. The only thing that has been added to the plans is certain elevation points. While the inclusion of elevation points provide a start to remedying the ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW August 6, 2010 Page 2 of 3 deficient plans, it does not address the many other omissions previously identified, including the following: 1. The revised plans refer to "engineer's drawings" but, as far as we can tell, still actually provide no engineered construction plans. Such plans are necessary to allow the Trustees to make an informed decision as to what effect the construction plan will have on the bulkhead and fill underneath the bridge once the project is completed and exposed to the high velocity wave action from storm events that is typical of this FEMA velocity zone (VE9). In fact, as Mr. Bundy himself pointed out at the hearing, he believes that fill under the bridge will simply be washed out during storm events. Without engineered plans, how can the Board know what effect this project will have on the remaining structure? I note that, while the Trustees' President indicated at the hearing that the Board does not require "engineered plans" with applications, both the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area code and Wetlands code require the applicant to present such information, including an engineering analysis, as necessary to prove compliance with the code standards, and both codes even allow the Board to retain its own expert, at the applicant's expense, to analyze such plans. See § 111-15B, § 111-27G, and § 275-71) of the Town Code. Given the applicant's lack of any engineering support for its application, the Board has little choice but to require further engineered plans and to retain its own engineer, at the applicant's expense, to analyze such plans. 2. The plans still do not identify any commitment to maintain the bulkhead and fill structure underneath the proposed new bridge. In fact, the plans are ambiguous to the extent that the south side bulkhead is labeled as if it will remain, but the north side bulkhead is not. 3. The revised plans still fail to show any "long term maintenance program" to insure that the structure will be maintained, as shown on the plans, for 30 years, as required by Section 111-15 of the Town's Coastal Erosion Hazard Area code. 4. The revised plans offer no additional information about the supposed applications that the applicant will be "submitting in the near future," as previously suggested by Mr. Bundy. ESSEKS, HEFTER be ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW August 6, 2010 Page 3 of 3 5. The revised plans still continue to show the incorrect "property boundary" for the two properties adjoining to the project area. As I previously indicated, the Air and Frost/Minichini property extend all the way to the high water mark, yet, on the revised plans, a line incorrectly labeled "property boundary" is shown far landward of the high water line. 6. The revised plans still show the "approx tidal wet land line" instead of showing the actual tidal wetland line. 7. The revised plans still show the proposed shortening of the outfill pipe, even though the outfill pipe is a) is located on the Air's property, b) is part of the Town operated storm water system, and c) does not belong, in any fashion, to the applicant. Until the critical missing information is supplied to this Board, there can be no basis for an approval of the application under either the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area code or the Wetlands code. The Board can and must require the applicant to provide the missing information, and the Board should also retain its own consultants to review the plans, at the applicant's expense. Re sp ectfytillr-yours, .r�. Anthony C. Pasea 5 August 2010 C7Town Mr. Linton Duell President i3UGOrient Wharf Company Post Office Box 243 SoutOrient, New York 11957 Board Re: Proposed Modifications to Orient Wharf—Timber Deck Structure(aka "Bridge") Dear Mr. Duell: We are following up on comments made by us at the 21 July 2010 meeting of the Board of Town Trustees (Town of Southold). We reaffirm our desire to reach a mutually agreeable compromise with respect to your proposed modifications to the Orient Wharf. We seek a compromise that will allow the Orient Wharf Company to make needed repairs while safeguarding the existing shoreline topography and harbor ecology within what is appropriately designated as a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. Along these lines, we reiterate our offered suggestion that your application be slightly revised to include the following undertakings: (i) to keep, refurbish and maintain (in place) the existing north- and south-facing wooden bulkhead sheathing; and, (ii)to withdrawal the proposal to the Trustees and Southold Town Highway Department to shorten the Village Lane, road run-off, outfall pipe (which shortening will place outfall effluvia directly onto the Airs' property) and to request that additional stone riprap be placed so as to better secure the outfall pipe to its current termination point. Towards this end, at the Trustees' meeting, we were encouraged by the apparent oral agreement by your consultant, Walter Bundy, as to the slight nature of these changes to your proposed modifications to the Orient Wharf. We respectfully request that your consultant incorporate our concerns in your submissions to the Trustees and other administrative and jurisdictional authorities. Upon receipt and positive review by our legal and environmental consultants, we will respond on an affirmative and timely basis. However, absent such modifications, we reserve the right to pursue other available remedies to safeguard the existing shoreline and protect the harbor ecology. Very truly yours, /S/ David & Clare Air, Tim Frost, Margaret Minichiwg) ccA404) n Trustees of the Town of Southold icers— Orient Yacht Club Mr. Walter Bundy Page 1 of 1 Standish, Lauren From: Ceil Sharman Iceilsharman@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 2:21 PM To: Standish, Lauren Cc: fredsharman@gmail.com Subject: Orient Wharf debate Please convey this to the town Board: Thank you for serving the folks of Southold Town with your energy and concern! To my surprise when attending last week's meeting concerning the Water Department issue, I learned of the issues between the Ayers, Frost and Wharf Company and wish to add my support for the Wharf Company. When I first came to Orient in 1967, the beaches beside the Orient Wharf were tiny, and as I recall, water moved freely through an opening at the end of the dock. Throughout the years, my children and I seine netted for white bait on the North side of the dock. Now, however, I would never take my grandchildren there because the water is murky, polluted looking, and stagnant. Further, our boat is moored on the first finger dock, where we notice the water gets shallower and shallower each year. Other than an occasional swan, I see no evidence of horsehoe crab breeding, and far less sea life than in the past. In addition, the roadbed is hazardous because of giant holes in the fill. Sincerely, Ceil Sharman 283 Stephenson Rd. Orient i li 323-8144 ��, 7/23/2010 July 20, 2010 D E C 2 0 W 2 Board of Trustees J�J L QlS 2010 L� D Town of Southold 2 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southhold Town Southold,NY 11971 1Board of Trustees RB: Application of the Orient Wharf Company Dear Members of the Board: We are the northerly abutting property owners to this project. We have no choice other than to oppose the application due to the woeful lack of detail regarding the proposal. The applicant,up to the final submission date,today,has failed to provide the required engineering drawings that would presumably clearly show what they intend to build. In the project narrative,they say that good fill and the wooden bulkheads will remain. But they also say that the project will restore what they refer to as"the natural function of the shoreline". How will that come to pass with the bulkhead in place? They also claim that they are resorting to this project only because"the condition and integrity of the existing wooden bulkhead is incapable of containing fill". But it has contained fill for over 30 years. If it's failing,it's due to lack of maintenance by the applicant. What really concerns us is if the wooden bulkhead is in such poor condition, even if left in place,will it eventually fail due to continued lack of maintenance and the additional burden of the scouring effect of the proposed shortened outfall pipe. The issue for us is the retention of our property which according to our deed runs to the "ordinary high water mark of Orient Harbor". If the pier is opened in a north/south direction, we will lose our protective wetlands and our beach. The application provides no scientific data to prove otherwise. One of the details of the project that we unequivocally oppose is the shortening of the road run-off outfall pipe. If it is shortened, according to the sketches provided, all the unfiltered pollutants and effluvia will be deposited directly onto our property. This is particularly unfair as we are the only homeowners in Orient, who,without and easement or compen- sation from the Town, have allowed the installation of the outfall pipe on our property. Project photograph `L' shows the effects of a road run-off discharge surge which, as we have noticed over the years, occurs during and after a heavy rainfall. The hole in the sand is the result of a flushing effect on the area at the end of the pipe. The depressions eventually fill in and the beach is leveled by tide and wind. Shortening the pipe to the location the applicant describes will result in undermining the existing bulkhead, weakening the structure, and hastening its inevitable failure. The applicant describes the "condition and integrity of the existing wooden bulkhead is incapable of containing fill" so the high velocity discharge during rainfall will certainly negatively impact the situation and hasten its demise. The proposal to shorten the pipe serves no purpose, unless the project intends to open the pier just west of the new end of the pipe in the belief that the road run-off will be swept into the southerly side of the bay along with the northerly protective wetlands and our beach. Lastly,the contention of the applicant that the only way to solve the problem is by removing fill and replacing it with a bridge is false. No other options have been ex- plored. There have been previous problems on the wharf where the fill became degraded or inadequate, and the solution in 2004 was to drill holes in the wharf under the clubhouse and fill with concrete to permanently stabilize the condition. Other areas of the asphalt roadway have been topped up with fill as potholes formed. Why can't it be done here? If the applicant's aim is to insure a safe roadway, they can do it more simply and within the bounds of their existing DEC maintenance permit which allows"in place and in kind replacements". Re sp ectfully submitted, �X Clare& Dav' ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. 0. Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 WILLIAM W. ESSEKS (631) 369-1700 WATER MILL OFFICE MARCIA Z. HEFTER MONTAUK HIGHWAY STEPHEN R. ANGEL TELECOPIER NUMBER (631) 369-2065 P. 0. BOX 5570 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 CARMELA M. DI TALIA (631) 7266633 ANTHONY C. PASCA NICA B. STRUNK THEODORE D. SKLAR NANCY SILVERMAN LISA J. Ross __ July 20, 2,010 MELISSA H. SIooR L!, Board of Trustees Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold; NY 11971 Re: Application of Orient Wharf Company Dear Members of the Board: We are the attorneys for David and Clare Air, and for Timothy Frost and Margaret Minichini. The Airs own the property immediately to the north of the wharf that is the subject of the application by the Orient Wharf Company to modify its wharf by creating a new "bridge" over a 17-foot span of the wharf. Frost/Minichini own the property immediately to the south of the wharf. As such, our clients are the owners of the two properties most impacted by the applicant's proposal. Please consider this letter as part of your deliberations on the application. We also expect to attend the public hearing and address the Board directly. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 2 of 15 I. THE APPLICATION IS INACCURATE, UNSUPPORTED, VAGUE, CRYPTIC, INCOMPLETE, SELF-SERVING, AND DISINGENUOUS, PARTICULARLY ABOUT THE APPLICANT'S FUTURE PLANS, WHICH APPEAR TO INCLUDE THE CREATION OF A NEW WATER CHANNEL WHERE THE EXISTING BEACH LIES. Throughout the application materials, the applicant makes representations and statements, allegedly in support of the application, that are riddled with factual deficiencies. Many of the statements are inaccurate and false. Almost all of them are unsupported by facts or legitimate scientific or engineering principles. Numerous allegations are supported only by self-serving conclusions. Several key statements a:-e vague and cryptic, including with respect to the applicant's future plans. Ultimately, the application is a disingenuous and incomplete presentation of the so-called reasons supporting the request. Without addressing each and every deficiency, the following will address some of the more egregious examples: First, numerous points made throughout the application are unsupported by anything other than the applicant's own self-serving conclusions. For example, the applicant states that the "existing asphalt pavement and supporting fill has deteriorated to a point whereas safe access is no longer provided; and the condition and integrity of the existing bulkhead does not allow the asphalt pavement or the fill situated below the pavement to be repaired in a permanent manner." No engineer has certified this to be true to our knowledge. Moreover, how can anyone support such a bold claim as to state that the solid-fill structure cannot be repaired in a permanent manner? Of course the solid-fill structure could be repaired and rebuilt. Indeed, it is unclear why it is not simply proposed to be reconstructed so as to match the remaining solid-fill wharf structure. Another example of self-serving conclusions is the applicant's claim that the alleged replacement of the bridge that supposedly existed in 1978 is causing "silting," "a decrease of aquatic life," and "the stop of the natural transport of sand that original]v flowed through the bridge opening." No scientific data is given to support the claim that the so-called closure of the bridge had these causes. What study has bet+n undertaken to suggest that the alleged closure of the bridge in 1978 caused a decrease of aquatic life? If there are, in fact, problems, who is to say that the cause of the problems is the so-called 1978 "closure" of the bridge — as opposed to the existence of the wharf itself. And, even if the Board could assume that the ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 3 of 15 conditions in 1978 were as the applicant states, what basis is there to try to recreate a circumstance that was obviously created before the adoption of the current wetlands regulations, coastal erosion regulations, LWRP, and floodplain development :•egulations? Many projects were created prior to those regulations that were ill-advised; that does not mean that this Board is under an obligation to duplicate such an ill-advised project that was abandoned more than 30 years ago. Next, one of the most troublesome aspect of the application is its vague and cryptic references to the applicant's future plans and why the proposed "bridge" is truly needed !as opposed to an "in kind" repair of the solid-fill structure). A careful review of the application materials suggests that the vagueness about the future plans is deliberate. Indeed, it appears that the applicant is cloaking its true intentions wi0i euphemisms and mystery because, if it were forced to be forthright about its intentions, there would be no way the ultimate plans could be justified. Based on the applicant's own submissions, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that. the current application is just the first step of an ill-conceived plan to create a new water channel in a location that currently consists of beach front. Stated differently, the ultimate goal of the applicant's plans is to deliberately erode the existing beach on each side of the wharf(where the proposed "bridge" would be placed), for the sole benefit of the yacht club/marina, and to the direct detriment of the neighboi•ir,.g properties. This inevitable conclusion is supported by the following: • Throughout the application materials, the applicant raises the specter of "submitting in the near future" other "separate projects," such as "dredging around. floating docks and mooring areas" and "maintenance and rehabilitation of the actual wharf facility." This confirms that the applicant has "plans" other than what it is disclosing, and it is couching those plans with euphemisms such as "maintenance and rehabilitation" of the facility. These.' future permit applications are mentioned numerous times, yet the applicant deliberately does not describe what those applications will be (other than 0.e dredging aspect of the application). • Perhaps the most honest glimpse of the applicant's intentions is in its statement that the applicant believes "that the replacement of the wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber bridge structure which is proposed to ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 4 of 15 replicate and reconstruct the orieinal wharf configuration and features will greatly enhance the water quality in the immediate harbor area and will also restore the natural functions of the shoreline." "Restoring" the "natural function" of the shoreline is the applicant's euphemism for causing erosion to the area. The applicant describes the building-up of the beach over the years as if accretion were a bad thing, and its statement of an intent to "restore" the shoreline is really just another way of saying that the applicant is going to try to erode away the beach that has built up over the years. In another section, the applicant talks about "replicating the original wharf configuration and timber bridge features" in order to "restore" and "enhance" historical aspects of the wharf"pending completion of future improvements." The applicant has therefore indicated its true intent: to recreate the original configuration of a bridge, without walls underneath, so that it can also recreate the eroded state of the beach that existed more than 30 years ago. • The applicant also states, over and over, that the "intent" of the proposed bridge is to provide safe access to the wharf"without depending upon the existing filled bulkheaded [sic] which is deteriorating and requires extensive reconstruction to facilitate safe use for access." This confirms that the applicant is trying to create the predicate for a subsequent elimination of the bulkhead and fill underneath the newly-created "bridge," which is no longer "depennent" on those walls for support. • The plan to "shorten" the outfall pipe could serve no purpose unless the ultimate plan is to create a water channel under the bridge. Currently, the outfall pipe runs parallel to the entire span of what would become the bridge. The proposal is to shorten the outfall pipe so that it end just north of the new bridge and discharges precisely in the area that would become the new water channel. There is simply no reason for that unless the goal is to allow the area where the current outfall pipe is to become the new water channel. The bottom line is that the applicant is asking this Board to approve the first step of a mult -phase project, without candidly admitting what the next phases are, but while strongly implying that its ultimate goal is to create a "bridge" over a newly-opened channel, whose sole purpose is to erode the existing beach and replicate some perceived "historic" condition of an eroded coastline. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 5 of 15 Further exacerbating the vague and unsupported statements are the inaccuracies of what the applicant does show. One of the blatant inaccuracies within the application is the applicant's incorrect description of the neighboring property boundaries. The neighboring properties own to the mean high water line, yet the Ehlers survey and the site plans show a boundary line that is far landward of the average high water mark. Why? The applicant is apparently trying to minimize the effects of its proposal on the neighbors by falsely showing the full extent of their actual properties. A more careful review of the applicant's own survey (the Ehlers survey) shows, however, a line denoted as the "ahwm" (average high water mark). Even assuming that line were accurate, it would mean that the Frost/Minichini property (to the south of the wharf) extends far past the so-called property boundary and actually extends past the entire length of the proposed "bridge," meaning that all activities affecting the bridge are directly adjacent to the Frost/Minicbi.ni property. Similarly, the Air property (to the north of the wharf) would extends past the so-called property boundary and into the area of the proposed bridge, yet the survey disingenuously labels that property as terminating far landward of the proposed bridge. Another apparent inaccuracy is the depiction of the tidal wetland line. The tidal wetland"line is shown as an "approx tidal wetland line." There is no reason for an approximation when the extent of the tidal wetlands can be determined exactly. All of these inaccuracies and unsupported, self-serving conclusions paint a picture of an applicant that is being less than candid with the Board and that is trying to "get-one past" the Board — and the public — without a proper review of the facts. The Board should not, and cannot, allow the applicant to avoid a proper review of the.application through such self-serving, unsupported, cryptic, and inaccurate statements. II. THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREA PERMIT, AS THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE APPLICATION IS TO CAUSEEROSION OF THE EXISTING BEACH. Although the applicant is seeking a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CERA) permit, it does not address the criteria governing such applications. A review of the CEHA requirements confirms why the applicant has not addressed them, for they ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 6 of 15 cannot be met by an application whose very purpose is to cause erosion, rather than prevent it. The application materials do not appear to clearly show the CEHA line. Nonetheless, the applicant concedes that the project is located in the coastal erosion hazard area. Moreover, according to the applicant's own site plan, the bridge is located in a FEMA velocity zone NEW. As such, it cannot be disputed that the proposed bridge would be located in a coastal high hazard area that is subject to high velocity wave action from storm events. Despite the cryptic references to the applicant's future plans, the design of the bridge and the statements about "restoring" the littoral flow that the applicant believes existed in 1978 all confirm that the applicant is attempting to create a 17- foot wide opening under the wharf precisely so that it can erode away the beach and create a water channel underneath the new "bridge." Once the true goal of the application is acknowledged, there is no way the applicant can possibly meet the CEHA standards for issuance of a permit under Town Code Crapter 111 (and NY Environmental Conservation Law Article 34). The "purpose' section of the code (§111.4) confirms that one of the goals of the CERA requirements is to regulate "the construction of erosion protection structures in coastal areas subject to serious erosion to assure that when the construction of erosion protection structures is justified, their construction and operation will minimize or prevent damage or destruction to man-made property, private and public property, natural protective features and other natural resources." Next, section 111.9 provides that a permit can only be issued upon findings that the proposed action: A. Is reasonable and necessary, considering reasonable alternatives to the proposed activity and the extent to which the proposed activity requires a shoreline location. B. Is not likely to cause a measurable increase in erosion at the proposed site and at other locations. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 7 of 15 C. Prevents, if possible, or minimizes adverse effects on natural protective features and their functions and protective values, existing erosion protection structures and natural resources. Finally, section 111-15, applicable specifically to erosion protection structures like jetties and wharfs, provides as follows: 9 111-15. Erosion protection structures. The following requirements apply to the construction, modification or restoration of erosion protection structures: A. The construction, modification or restoration of erosion ;protection structures must: (1) Not be likely to cause a measurable increase in erosion at the development site or at other locations. (2) Minimize and, if possible, prevent adverse effects upon natural protective features, existing erosion protection structures and natural resources such as significant fish and wildlife habitats. B. All erosion protection structures must be designed and constructed according to generally accepted engineering principles which have demonstrated success or, where ufficient data is not currently available, a likelihood of success in controlling long-term erosion. The protective measures must have a reasonable probability of controlling erosion on the immediate site for at least 30 years. ,. All materials used in such structures must be durable and capable of withstanding inundation, wave impacts, weathering and other effects of storm conditions for a minimum of 30 years. Individual component materials ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 8 of 15 may have a working life of less than 30 years only when a maintenance program ensures that they will be regularly maintained and replaced as necessary to attain the required 30 years of erosion protection. D. A long-term maintenance program must be included with every permit application of construction, modification or restoration of an erosion protection structure. The maintenance program must include pecifications for normal maintenance of degradable materials. To assure compliance with the proposed :maintenance programs, a bond may be required. The proposal cannot meet the purpose of the law, the general permit standards, or the specific standards applicable to wharfs. Since the apparent purpose of the creation of the bridge is to cause erosion, it is the antithesis of the purpose of the law. Since the applicant has not explored or analyzed "alternatives," it cannot meet section 111.9's general standard "A" by demonstrating that the proposal is "reasonable and necessary." Since its purpose is to cause erosion, it obviously cannot meet the 111-9 standard "B." Since the ultimate goal is to erode away the beach near the wharf(which is defined under the code as a "natural protective feature), it also cannot meet the 111.9 standard "C." For the same reasons, it cannot meet the specific standards in 111-15A. And since the applicant has neither offered any engineering support for its proposal, nor a "long-term maintenance program," it cannot meet the standards in 111-15B, C, and D. In fact. it is unclear how the proposal could meet even a single one of the requirements for a CEHA permit, much less all of the requirements. It does not take an engineering degree to see the dangerous design of this proposal, and the Board need only consider common sense to see the destructive erosive force this design could have on the shoreline. As it stands now, the wharf creates an appfoximately 400-foot-long solid wall that acts as a protecting force to northerly an('. southerly flowing currents. The applicant is proposing to open up just one 17•foot "hole" in that wall — not at the center of the wall, not at a location where water currently exists, but right at the location where the beach currently ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 9 of 15 exists. Once that "hole" is opened up, it will act as a high-velocity "valve" in the wall. The first time there are heavy winds and currents flowing in either a northeasterly or southeasterly direction, all of those currents will be funneled along that wall toward the beach and right at the very point of this "bridge," where the currents will pour through the lone 17-foot opening at high velocities. In one storm, the beach would likely be destroyed, as would the nearshore area and the associated wetlands. The Board can and must deny the requested CEHA permit. III. THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A WETLANDS PERMIT. For similar reasons, the application has failed to meet the standards of Chapter 275. All of the work on the proposed bridge is to be located directly within tidal wetlands. It is bordered on both sides by both sandy beach and vegetated wetland areae, which are visible on the aerial photographs submitted by the applicant. If the proposal is approved, and the "cut" is created in the wharf to allow water flow under the bridge, the wetland will undoubtedly be lost to the erosive forces of the water channel that will be created under the bridge. Much like the coastal protection purposes of the CEHA code, the purpose of the Wetlands code is to protect the valuable wetlands of both freshwater and tidal areas. See § 275-3. The general "standards" for wetland permits is set forth in § 275.12, include the following: 1 275-12. Standards for issuance of permit. The Trustees may adopt a resolution directing the issuance of a permit to perform operations applied for only if it determines that such operations will not substantially: A. Adversely affect the wetlands of the Town. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 10 of 15 B. Cause damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation. ,.** E. Increase the danger of flood and storm-tide damage. F. Adversely affect navigation on tidal waters or the tidal flow of the tidal waters of the Town. G. Change the course of any channel or the natural movement or flow of any waters. 14. Weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity. 1. Otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and g0neral welfare of the people of the Town. J. Adversely affect the aesthetic value of the wetland and adjacent areas. Just as it is impossible for an erosion-causing project to meet the standards of the CERA code, it is impossible for such a project to meet these standards of the Wetlands code. The intentional destruction of the wetlands area violates the very purpose of the code. More specifically, it violates each and every one of the standards of§ 275-12 quoted above, as it would: • adversely affect the wetlands of the Town, through the loss of valuable wetland areas; • cause damage from erosion, through the deliberate erosion of these wetland areas; • increa.se the danger of flood and storm-tide damage, by creating the "funnel' of high-velocity water currents described above; ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 11 of 15 • adversely affect the tidal flow of the tidal waters of the Town and change the course of any channel or the natural movement or flow of any waters by altering the current tidal flows of the area; • weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity, in particular the Frost/Minichini and the Airs' properties, by undermining the lateral support provided by the beginning section of the wharf, and • adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town and the aesthetic value of the wetland and adjacent areas, by deliberately eroding away those valuable resource areas. In short, the applicant has not and cannot meet the wetland standards of Chapter 275. IV. THE APPLICATION IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE LWRP The applicant's refusal to acknowledge the full goal of the application (i.e., to cause erosion through the existing beach area under what would become the new "bridge") leaves its responses to the LWRP disingenuous to say the least. The applicant acknowledges that the property is located in "Reach 5" and that one of the goals is to avoid any activity that would, among other things, "disrupt tidal patterns" and "eliminate wetlands" and avoid "excessive turbidity." Yet the very purpose of creating a new bridge and water channel under the bridge is to disrupt the existing tidal pattern, to create excessive turbidity in the area. Moreover, it would have the effect of eliminating the tidal wetlands adjacent to the area. How, then, can the applicant legitimately claim that its proposal is consistent with the LWRP? All of t'.ie applicant's responses to the LWRP are disingenuous because the applicant refines to acknowledge the full scope of its proposal. It says, for example, that the ptopasal "minimizes adverse effect of development," "minimizes the loss of life, structure,, and natural resources from flooding and erosion," and "provides for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources." Yet the explanations for those answers all revolve around the benefits that the private applicant will achieve from the proposal, without any regard for the ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 12 of 15 adverse effects the proposal will have on the private properties to each side of the wharf as well as to the publicly-available beaches and nearshore areas. In sum, the application is not consistent with the LWRP. V. THE APPLICATION CALLS FOR ILLEGAL "SEGMENTED" SEQRA REVIEW. Aside from the specific code issues, the application suffers from another fundamental State-law issue: the deliberate "segmentation" of review under the State Envirenmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The SEQRA regulations provide that "[alctions commonly consist of a set of activities or stops. The entire set of activities or steps must be considered the action, whether the agency decision-making relates to the action as a whole or to only a part of it." See 6 NYCRR § 617.3(b). Segmentation is defined under SEQRA as "the division of the environmental review of an action such that various activities or stages are addressed under this Part as though they were independent, unrelated activities, needing individual determinations of significance." 6 NYCRR § 617.2(ag). The SEQRA regulations expressly state that: "Considering only a part or segment of an action is contrary to the intent of SEQR," and therefore, the lead agency can only segment the review if (1) it expressly states "in its determination of significance, and any subsequent EIS, the supporting reasons" for segmented review and (2) demonstrates "that such review is clearly no less protective of the environment." See 6 NYCRR § 617.3(g)(1). Segme:Itation is prohibited (except as noted) because artificially breaking a project into a aeries of smaller actions, which may appear independent and unrelated, often distorts and inappropriately minimizes the environmental impacts of the project cf a whole. As one court explained: Segmentation is disfavored, based on two perceived dangers. "First is the danger that[,) in considering related actions separately, a decision involving review of an earlier action may be 'practically determinative' of a subsequent action ... The second danger occurs when a ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 13 of 15 project that would have a significant effect on the environment is broken up into two or more component parts that, individually, would not have as significant an environmental impact as the entire project or, indeed, where one or more aspects of the project might fall below she threshold requiring any review" Forman v. Trs. of State Univ. of N.Y., 303 A.D.2d 1019, 757 N.Y.S.2d 180 (4th Dep't 2003) (quoting Concerned Citizens for Envt. vZagata, 243 A.D.2d 20, 22, 672 N.Y.S.2d 956 (3d Dep't 1998)). The ciw'rent application violates these prohibitions against segmentation by isolating the "surface" replacement of the deck of the wharf(an asphalt to timber "bridge" struel ure) from all the "future applications" that the applicant mentions — over and over -- but never identifies with specificity. As discussed above, we can glean from the applicant's responses that this is just the first step of a process that is designed to "restore" the so-called historic "bridge" that existed. Yet by not specifically showing the full plans, the applicant is avoiding addressing the environmental impacts of the entire proposal. In short; this proposal is a prototypical segmentation of environmental review. It is therefore prohibited by SEQRA. VI. THE REQUEST TO "SHORTEN" THE TOWN'S DISCHARGE PIPE AND DIRECT STORMWATERS DIRECTLY ONTO THE BEACH VIOLATES THE NEIGHBORS' PROPERTY RIGHTS, IS UNSUPPORTED BY ANY ENGINEERING STUDIES, AND WOULD APPEAR ON ITS FACE TO VIOLATE THE COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREA AND WETLANDS STANDARDS. Although the above discussion has focused thus far mostly on the effects of the "bridge" proposal, there is a second aspect of the application that is given little attention by the applicant, but is significant in terms of its potential impacts on erosion, degradation of wetlands, and impacts on the beaches: the proposed shortening of the outfall pipe. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 14 of 15 As a threshold matter, it is unclear how the applicant can even have standing to make the proposal to shorten the outfall pipe. The pipe is apparently owned by the Town. It is located not on the applicant's property, but on the adjacent property of Clare and David Air (who we represent). They have not consented to the shortening of the pipe. Nor does there appear to be any consent by the Town. In fact, the specific proposal would have the most impact on the Airs, because, based on the applicant's own survey, the proposal is to move the outfall from an area that is between the high and low water mark (i.e., beyond the boundary of the Airs' property) to an area that is landward of the high water mark (i.e., directly on the Airs' property). The Town has not, to our knowledge, acquired the type of drainage easement that would justify a direct outwash of Town stormwaters directly onto the Airs' property. Any attempt to impose that change on the Airs at this time would likely require a formal condemnation of such an easement. In the absence of such, the proposal would subject the Town to potential liability for damages resulting from the unauthorized imposition of a drainage outfall easement as well as the specific property damage it would likely cause. In the very least, since the Airs have not consented to the application, the Board has no jurisdiction to consider the pipe shortening. The application states that the existing outfall pipe is being proposed to be reduced as port of an "improvement" to "further aid in the reduction of sediments and pollutants associated with the Village Lane road run-off currently being experienced at the site." There is zero support for this position. The applicant has never explained why a shorter pipe — which discharges near the high tide mark — is preferable to a longer pipe — which discharges closer to the low water mark. The applicant has not explained how shortening the pipe will result in the "reduction of sediments and pollutants." Common sense dictates that shortening the pipe does not change what comes out of the pipe; it only changes where the outfall is placed. Moreover, the applicant has not addressed the issue of scouring, which inevitably results from heavy storm events. By proposing to relocate the pipe outfall, the applicant is proposing to increase scouring of the beach, thus undermining the existing bulkhead (and facilitating its eventual destruction), all under the guise of being an "improvement" to the stormwater system. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 15 of 15 VII. THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO RE-SUBMIT A COMPLETE APPLICATION THAT ADDRESSES ALL FUTURE PLANS AND PROVIDES A DESIGN SUPPORTED BY SOUND ENGINEERING AND COASTAL EROSION PRINCIPLES THAT AVOIDS — RATHER THAN CAUSES — EROSION TO THE ADJACENT BEACHES. As submitted, the application is woefully deficient and cannot even be considered by this Board in its present form. The application should be denied, and the applicant should be required to submit a new application — on notice to the Airs and Frost!Minichini — that is complete and accurate before this Board can even consider whether the proposal meets the criteria of the Wetlands and CEHA code. Among other things, any new application should: 1. Address all aspects of the proposal, including the next phases of the plans. 2. Provide an analysis of all alternatives to the proposals. 3. Provide accurate information, including a new survey showing the actual adjacent property boundaries, tidal wetlands boundary, and CEHA boundary. 4. Provide properly-engineered plans and an engineering analysis of all aspects of the proposal and all alternatives. 5. Provide a new SEQRA EAF that addresses all phases of the proposal. 6. Provide a proposal for a "long-term maintenance program" as required by CEHA, and a proper erosion-control program as required by the Wetlands code. 7. Provide a complete LWRP response to all questions, addressing all aspects of the proposal. Respectf yours, l Anth C. Pasca E.SSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. O. BOX 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 WILLIAM W. ESSEKS (631) 369-1700 WATER MILL OFFICE MARCIA Z. HEFTER MONTAUK HIGHWAY STEPHEN R. ANGEL TELECOPIER NUMBER(631) 369-2065 P. 0, BOX 570 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 CARMELA M. DI TALIA (631) 726-6633 ANTHONY C. PASCA NICA S. STRUNK THEOOORE D.SKLAR C� NANCY SILVERMAN Jul 20, 2010 LISA J. Ross y MELISSA H. SIOOR _ U ! Board of Trustees JUL 2 U 201U Town of Southold 1 53095 Main Road soutnma Town P. O. Box 1179 Board of Trustees Southold, NY 11971 LL Re: Application of Orient Wharf Company Dear Members of the Board: We are the attorneys for David and Clare Air, and for Timothy Frost and Margaret Minichini. The Airs own the property immediately to the north of the wharf that is the subject of the application by the Orient Wharf Company to modify its wharf by creating a new "bridge" over a 17-foot span of the wharf. Frost/Minichini own the property immediately to the south of the wharf. As such, our clients are the owners of the two properties most impacted by the applicant's proposal. Please consider this letter as part of your deliberations on the application. We also expect to attend the public hearing and address the Board directly. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 2 of 15 I. THE APPLICATION IS INACCURATE, UNSUPPORTED, VAGUE, CRYPTIC, INCOMPLETE, SELF-SERVING, AND DISINGENUOUS, PARTICULARLY ABOUT THE APPLICANT'S FUTURE PLANS, WHICH APPEAR TO INCLUDE THE CREATION OF A NEW WATER CHANNEL WHERE THE EXISTING BEACH LIES. Throughout the application materials, the applicant makes representations and statements, allegedly in support of the application, that are riddled with factual deficiencies. Many of the statements are inaccurate and false. Almost all of them are unsupported by facts or legitimate scientific or engineering principles. Numerous allegations are supported only by self-serving conclusions. Several key statements a.re vague and cryptic, including with respect to the applicant's future plans. Ultimately, the application is a disingenuous and incomplete presentation of the so-called reasons supporting the request. Without addressing each and every deficiency, the following will address some of the more egregious examples: First, numerous points made throughout the application are unsupported by anything other than the applicant's own self-serving conclusions. For example, the applicant states that the "existing asphalt pavement and supporting fill has deteriorated to a point whereas safe access is no longer provided; and the condition and integrityof the existing bulkhead does not allow the asphalt pavement or the fill situated below the pavement to be repaired in a permanent manner." No engineer has certified this to be true to our knowledge. Moreover, how can anyone support such a bold claim as to state that the solid-fill structure cannot be repaired in a permanent manner? Of course the solid-fill structure could be repaired and rebuilt. Indeed, it is unclear why it is not simply proposed to be reconstructed so as to match the remaining solid-fill wharf structure. Another example of self-serving conclusions is the applicant's claim that the alleged replacement of the bridge that supposedly existed in 1978 is causing "silting," "a decrease of aquatic life," and "the stop of the natural transport of sand that originally flowed through the bridge opening." No scientific data is given to support the claim that the so-called closure of the bridge had these causes. What study has been undertaken to suggest that the alleged closure of the bridge in 1978 caused a decrease of aquatic life? If there are, in fact, problems, who is to say that the cause of the problems is the so-called 1978 "closure" of the bridge — as opposed to the existence of the wharf itself. And, even if the Board could assume that the ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 3 of 15 conditions in 1978 were as the applicant states, what basis is there to try to recreate a circumstance-that-was obviously created before-the adoption of the-current ----- - wetlands regulations, coastal erosion regulations, LWRP, and floodplain development regulations? Many projects were created prior to those regulations that were ill-advised; that does not mean that this Board is under an obligation to duplicate such an ill-advised project that was abandoned more than 30 years ago. Next, cne of the most troublesome aspect of the application is its vague and cryptic references to the applicant's future plans and why the proposed "bridge" is truly needed: (as opposed to an "in kind" repair of the solid-fill structure). A careful review of the application materials suggests that the vagueness about the future plans is deliberate. Indeed, it appears that the applicant is cloaking its true intentions with euphemisms and mystery because, if it were forced to be forthright about its intentions, there would be no way the ultimate plans could be justified. Based on the applicant's own submissions, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the current application is just the first step of an ill-conceived plan to create a new water channel in a location that currently consists of beach front. Stated differently, the ultimate goal of the applicant's plans is to deliberately erode the existing beach on each side of the wharf(where the proposed "bridge" would be placed), for the sole benefit of the yacht club/marina, and to the direct detriment of the neighboring properties. This inevitable conclusion is supported by the following: • Throughout the application materials, the applicant raises the specter of "submitting in the near future" other "separate projects," such as "dredging around. floating docks and mooring areas" and "maintenance and rehabi�itation of the actual wharf facility." This confirms that the applicant has "plans" other than what it is disclosing, and it is couching those plans with euphemisms such as "maintenance and rehabilitation" of the facility. These future permit applications are mentioned numerous times, yet the applicant deliberately does not describe what those applications will be (other than the dredging aspect of the application). • Perhaps the most honest glimpse of the applicant's intentions is in its statement that the applicant believes "that the replacement of the wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber bridge structure which is proposed to ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 4 of 15 replicate and reconstruct the original wharf configuration and features will greatly enhance the water quality in the immediate harbor area and will also restore the natural functions of the shoreline." "Restoring" the "natural function" of the shoreline is the applicant's euphemism for causing erosion to the area. The applicant describes the building-up of the beach over the years as if accretion were a bad thing, and its statement of an intent to "restore" the shoreline is really just another way of saying that the applicant is going to try to erode away the beach that has built up over the years. In another section, the applicant talks about "replicating the original wharf configuration and timber bridge features" in order to "restore" and "enhance" historical aspects of the wharf"pending completion of future improvements" The applicant has therefore indicated its true intent: to recreate the original configuration of a bridge, without walls underneath, so that it can also recreate the eroded state of the beach that existed more than 30 years ago. • The applicant also states, over and over, that the "intent" of the proposed bridge is to provide safe access to the wharf"without depending upon the existing filled bulkheaded [sic] which is deteriorating and requires extensive reconstruction to facilitate safe use for access." This confirms that the applicant is trying to create the predicate for a subsequent elimination of the bulkhead and fill underneath the newly-created "bridge," which is no longer "dependent" on those walls for support. • The plan to "shorten" the outfall pipe could serve no purpose unless the ultimate plan is to create a water channel under the bridge. Currently, the outfall pipe runs parallel to the entire span of what would become the bridge. The proposal is to shorten the outfall pipe so that it end just north of the new bridge and discharges precisely in the area that would become the new water channel. There is simply no reason for that unless the goal is to allow the area where the current outfall pipe is to become the new water channel. The bottom line is that the applicant is asking this Board to approve the first step of a multi-phase project, without candidly admitting what the next phases are, but while strongly implying that its ultimate goal is to create a "bridge" over a newly-openedchannel, whose sole purpose is to erode the existing beach and replicate some perceived "historic" condition of an eroded coastline. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 5 of 15 Further exacerbating the vague and unsupported statements are the inaccuracies of what the applicant does show. One of the blatant inaccuracies within the application is the applicant's incorrect description of the neighboring property boundaries. The neighboring properties own to the mean high water line, yet the Ehlers survey and the site plans show a boundary line that is far landward of the average high water mark. Why? The applicant is apparently trying to minimize the effects of its proposal on the neighbors by falsely showing the full extent of their actual properties. A more careful review of the applicant's own survey (the Ehlers survey) shows, however, a line denoted as the "ahwm" (average high water mark). Even assuming that line were accurate, it would mean that the Frost/Minichini property (to the south of the wharf) extends far past the so-called property boundary and actually extends past the entire length of the proposed "bridge," meaning that all activities affecting the bridge are directly adjacent to the Frost/Minich.ini property. Similarly, the Air property (to the north of the wharf) would extends past the so-called property boundary and into the area of the proposed bridge, yet the survey disingenuously labels that property as terminating far landward of the proposed bridge. Another.apparent inaccuracy is the depiction of the tidal wetland line. The tidal wetland'hne is shown as an "approx tidal wetland line." There is no reason for an approximation when the extent of the tidal wetlands can be determined exactly. All of these inaccuracies and unsupported, self-serving conclusions paint a picture of an applicant that is being less than candid with the Board and that is trying to "get'one past" the Board — and the public — without a proper review of the facts. The Board should not, and cannot, allow the applicant to avoid a proper review of the;application through such self-serving, unsupported, cryptic, and inaccurate statements. II. THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREA PERMIT, AS THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE APPLICATION IS TO CAUSEEROSION OF THE EXISTING BEACH. Although the applicant is seeking a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA) permit, it does not address the criteria governing such applications. A review of the CEHA requirements confirms why the applicant has not addressed them, for they ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 6 of 15 cannot be met by an application whose very purpose is to cause erosion, rather than prevent it. The application materials do not appear to clearly show the CERA line. Nonetheless, the applicant concedes that the project is located in the coastal erosion hazard area. Moreover, according to the applicant's own site plan, the bridge is located in a FEMA velocity zone (VE9). As such, it cannot be disputed that the proposed bridge would be located in a coastal high hazard area that is subject to high velocity wave action from storm events. Despite the cryptic references to the applicant's future plans, the design of the bridge and the statements about "restoring" the littoral flow that the applicant believes existed in 1978 all confirm that the applicant is attempting to create a 17- foot wide opening under the wharf precisely so that it can erode away the beach and create a water channel underneath the new "bridge." Once the true goal of the application is acknowledged, there is no way the applicant can possibly meet the CERA standards for issuance of a permit under Town Code C•rapter 111 (and NY Environmental Conservation Law Article 34). The "purposesection of the code(§111-4) confirms that one of the goals of the CERA requirements is to regulate "the construction of erosion protection structures in coastal areas subject to serious erosion to assure that when the construction of erosion prote-,tion structures is justified, their construction and operation will minimize or prevent damage or destruction to man-made property, private and public property, natural protective features and other natural resources." Next, section 111.9 provides that a permit can only be issued upon findings that the proposed action: A. Is reasonable and necessary, considering reasonable alternatives to the proposed activity and the extent to which the proposed activity requires a shoreline location. B. Is not likely to cause a measurable increase in erosion at the proposed site and at other locations. _ ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 7 of 15 C. Prevents, if possible, or minimizes adverse effects on natural protective features and their functions and protective values, existing erosion protection structures and natural resources. Finally, section 111-15, applicable specifically to erosion protection structures like jetties and wharfs, provides as follows: 9 111-15. Erosion protection structures. The following requirements apply to the construction, modification or restoration of erosion protection structures: A. The construction, modification or restoration of erosion €.protection structures must: (1) Not be likely to cause a measurable increase in erosion at the development site or at other locations. (2) Minimize and, if possible, prevent adverse effects upon natural protective features, existing erosion protection structures and natural resources such as significant fish and wildlife habitats. 13. All erosion protection structures must be designed and constructed according to generally accepted engineering principles which have demonstrated success or, where sufficient data is not currently available, a likelihood of success in controlling long-term erosion. The protective measures must have a reasonable probability of controlling erosion on the immediate site for at least 30 ears. C. All materials used in such structures must be durable and capable of withstanding inundation, wave impacts, weathering and other effects of storm conditions for a minimum of 30 years. Individual component materials ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 8 of 15 may have a working life of less than 30 years only when a ;maintenance program ensures that they will be regularly maintained and replaced as necessary to attain the required 30 years of erosion protection. D. A long-term maintenance program must be included with every permit application of construction, modification or restoration of an erosion protection structure. The maintenance program must include specifications for normal maintenance of degradable materials. To assure compliance with the proposed :maintenance programs, a bond may be required. The proposal cannot meet the purpose of the law, the general permit standards, or the specific standards applicable to wharfs. Since the apparent purpose of the creation of the bridge is to cause erosion, it is the antithesis of the purpose of the law. Since the applicant has not explored or analyzed "alternatives," it cannot meet section 111-9's general standard "A" by demonstrating that the proposal is "reasonable and necessary." Since its purpose is to cause erosion, it obviously cannot meet the 111-9 standard "B." Since the ultimate goal is to erode away the beach near the wharf(which is defined under the code as a "natural protective feature), it also cannot meet the 111-9 standard "C." For the same reasons, it cannot meet the specific standards in 111.15A. And since the applicant has neither offered any engineering support for its proposal, nor a "long-term maintenance program," it cannot meet the standards in 111.15B, C, and D. In fact: it is unclear how the proposal could meet even a single one of the requirements for a CEHA permit, much less all of the requirements. It does not take an engineering degree to see the dangerous design of this proposal, and the.Board need only consider common sense to see the destructive erosive force this design could have on the shoreline. As it stands now, the wharf creates an approximately 400-foot-long solid wall that acts as a protecting force to northerly and southerly flowing currents. The applicant is proposing to open up just one 17-foot "hole" in that wall — not at the center of the wall, not at a location where water currently exists, but right at the location where the beach currently ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 9 of 15 exists. Once that "hole" is opened up, it will act as a high-velocity "valve" in the wall. The first time there are heavy winds and currents flowing in either a northeasterly or southeasterly direction, all of those currents will be funneled along that wall toward the beach and right at the very point of this "bridge," where the currents will pour through the lone 17-foot opening at high velocities. In one storm, the beach would likely be destroyed, as would the nearshore area and the associated wetlands. The Board can and must deny the requested CEHA permit. III. THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A WETLANDS PERMIT. For similar reasons, the application has failed to meet the standards of Chapter 275. All of the work on the proposed bridge is to be located directly within tidal wetlands. It is bordered on both sides by both sandy beach and vegetated wetland area:, which.are visible on the aerial photographs submitted by the applicant. If the proposal is approved, and the "cut" is created in the wharf to allow water flow udder the bridge, the wetland will undoubtedly be lost to the erosive forces of the water channel that will be created under the bridge. Much h6 the coastal protection purposes of the CERA code, the purpose of the Wetlands code is to protect the valuable wetlands of both freshwater and tidal areas. See § 275-3. The general "standards" for wetland permits is set forth in § 275-12, include the following: § 275-12. Standards for issuance of permit. The Trustees may adopt a resolution directing the issuance of a permit to perform operations applied for only if it determines that such operations will not substantially: A. Adversely affect the wetlands of the Town. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 . Page 10 of 15 B. Cause damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation. E. Increase the danger of flood and storm-tide damage. F. Adversely affect navigation on tidal waters or the tidal 'flow of the tidal waters of the Town. G. Change the course of any channel or the natural movement or flow of any waters. H. Weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity. 1. Otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and r=rneral welfare of the people of the Town. J. Adversely affect the aesthetic value of the wetland and adjacent. areas. Just as it is impossible for an erosion-causing project to meet the standards of the CEHA code, it is impossible for such a project to meet these standards of the Wetlands code. The intentional destruction of the wetlands area violates the very purpose of the code. More specifically, it violates each and every one of the standards of§ 275-12 quoted above, as it would: • adversely affect the wetlands of the Town, through the loss of valuable wetland areas; • cause damage from erosion, through the deliberate erosion of these wetland areas; increase the danger of flood and storm-tide damage, by creating the "funnel' of high-velocity water currents described above; ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 11 of 15 • adversely affect the tidal flow of the tidal waters of the Town and change the course bf any channel or the natural movement or flow of any waters by altering the current tidal flows of the area; • weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity, in particular the Frost/Minichini and the Airs' properties, by undermining the lateral support provided by the beginning section of the wharf, and • adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town and the aesthetic value of the wetland and adjacent areas, by deliberately eroding away those valuable resource areas. In short, the applicant has not and cannot meet the wetland standards of Chapter 275, IV. THE APPLICATION IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE LWRP The applicant's refusal to acknowledge the full goal of the application (i.e., to cause erasion through the existing beach area under what would become the new "bridge") leavas its responses to the LWRP disingenuous to say the least. The applicant acknowledges that the property is located in "Reach 5" and that one of the goals is to avoid any activity that would, among other things, "disrupt tidal patterns" and "eliminate wetlands" and avoid "excessive turbidity." Yet the very purpose of creating a new bridge and water channel under the bridge is to disrupt the existing tidal pattern, to create excessive turbidity in the area. Moreover, it would have the effect of eliminating the tidal wetlands adjacent to the area. How, then, can the applicant legitimately claim that its proposal is consistent with the LWRP? All of the applicant's responses to the LWRP are disingenuous because the applicant refu&es to acknowledge the full scope of its proposal. It says, for example, that the proposal "minimizes adverse effect of development," "minimizes the loss of life, structure„ and natural resources from flooding and erosion," and "provides for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources." Yet the explanations for those answers all revolve around the benefits that the private applicant will achieve from the proposal, without any regard for the ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 12 of 15 adverse effects the proposal will have on the private properties to each side of the wharf as well.as to the publicly-available beaches and nearshore areas. In sum; the application is not consistent with the LWRP. V. THE APPLICATION CALLS FOR ILLEGAL "SEGMENTED" SEQRA REVIEW. Aside from the specific code issues, the application suffers from another fundamental State-law issue: the deliberate "segmentation" of review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The SEQRA regulations provide that "[a]ctions commonly consist of a set of activities or steps. The entire set of activities or steps must be considered the action, whether the agency decision-making relates to the action as a whole or to only a part of it." See 6 NYCRR § 617.3(b). Segmentation is defined under SEQRA as "the division of the environmental review of an action such that various activities or stages are addressed under this Part as though they were independent, unrelated activities, needing individual determinations of significance." 6 NYCRR § 617.2(ag). The SEQRA regulations expressly state that: "Considering only a part or segment of an action is contrary to the intent of SEQR," and therefore, the lead agency can only segment the review if (1) it expressly,states "in its determination of significance, and any subsequent EIS, the supporting reasons" for segmented review and (2) demonstrates "that such review is clearly no less protective of the environment." See 6 NYCRR § 617.3(g)(1). Segmentation is prohibited (except as noted) because artificially breaking a project into a series of smaller actions, which may appear independent and unrelated, often distorts and inappropriately minimizes the environmental impacts of the project cf a whole. As one court explained: Segmentation is disfavored, based on two perceived dangers. "First is the danger that[,] in considering related actions separately, a decision involving review of an earlier action may be 'practically determinative' of a subsequent action ... The second danger occurs when a ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 13 of 15 <project that would have a significant effect on the environment is broken up into two or more component parts that, individually, would not have as significant an environmental impact as the entire project or, indeed, where one or more aspects of the project might fall below she threshold requiring any review" Forman v. Trs. of State Univ. of N.Y., 303 A.D.2d 1019, 757 N.Y.S.2d 180 (4th Dep't 2003) (quoting Concerned Citizens forEnvt. vZagata, 243 A.D.2d 20, 22, 672 N.Y.S.2d 956 (3d Dep't 1998)). The cu,.,.-rent application violates these prohibitions against segmentation by isolating the ' surface" replacement of the deck of the wharf(an asphalt to timber "bridge" structure) from all the "future applications" that the applicant mentions — over and over -- but never identifies with specificity. As discussed above, we can glean from the applicant's responses that this is just the first step of a process that is designed to "restore" the so-called historic "bridge" that existed. Yet by not specifically showing the full plans, the applicant is avoiding addressing the environmental impacts of the entire proposal. In short. this proposal is a prototypical segmentation of environmental review. It is `herefore prohibited by SEQRA. VI. THE :REQUEST TO "SHORTEN" THE TOWNS DISCHARGE PIPE AND DIRECT STORMWATERS DIRECTLY ONTO THE BEACH VIOLATES THE NEIGHBORS' PROPERTY RIGHTS, IS UNSUPPORTED BY ANY ENGINEERING STUDIES, AND WOULD APPEAR ON ITS FACE TO VIOLATE THE COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREA AND WETLANDS STANDARDS. Althoukh the above discussion has focused thus far mostly on the effects of the "bridge" proposal, there is a second aspect of the application that is given little attention by the applicant, but is significant in terms of its potential impacts on erosion, degradation of wetlands, and impacts on the beaches: the proposed shortening of the outfall pipe. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 . Page 14 of 15 As a threshold matter, it is unclear how the applicant can even have standing to make the proposal to shorten the outfall pipe. The pipe is apparently owned by the Town. It is located not on the applicant's property, but on the adjacent property of Clare and'David Air (who we represent). They have not consented to the shortening of the pipe. Nor does there appear to be any consent by the Town. In fact, the specific proposal would have the most impact on the Airs, because, based on the applicant's own survey, the proposal is to move the outfall from an area that is between the high and low water mark (i.e., beyond the boundary of the Airs' property) to an area that is landward of the high water mark (i.e., directly on the Airs' property). The Town has not, to our knowledge, acquired the type of drainage easement that would justify a direct outwash of Town stormwaters directly onto the Airs' property, Any attempt to impose that change on the Airs at this time would likely require a formal condemnation of such an easement. In the absence of such, the proposal would subject the Town to potential liability for damages resulting from the unauthorized imposition of a drainage outfall easement as well as the specific property damage it would likely cause. In the very least, since the Airs have not consented to the application, the Board has no jurisdiction to consider the pipe shortening. The application states that the existing outfall pipe is being proposed to be reduced as part of an "improvement" to "further aid in the reduction of sediments and pollutants associated with the Village Lane road runoff currently being experienced at the site." There is zero support for this position. The applicant has never explained why a shorter pipe — which discharges near the high tide mark — is preferable to a longer pipe — which discharges closer to the low water mark. The applicant has not explained how shortening the pipe will result in the "reduction of sediments and pollutants." Common sense dictates that shortening the pipe does not change what comes out of the pipe; it only changes where the outfall is placed. Moreover, the applicant has not addressed the issue of scouring, which inevitably results from heavy storm events. By proposing to relocate the pipe outfall, the applicant is proposing to increase scouring of the beach, thus undermining the existing bulkhead (and facilitating its eventual destruction), all under the guise of being an "improvement" to the stormwater system. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 15 of 15 VII. THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO RE-SUBMIT A COMPLETE APPLICATION THAT ADDRESSES ALL FUTURE PLANS AND PROVIDES A DESIGN SUPPORTED BY SOUND ENGINEERING AND COASTAL EROSION PRINCIPLES THAT AVOIDS — RATHER THAN CAUSES — EROSION TO THE ADJACENT BEACHES. As submitted, the application is woefully deficient and cannot even be considered by this Board in its present form. The application should be denied, and the applicant should be required to submit a new application — on notice to the Airs and Frost,/Minichini — that is complete and accurate before this Board can even consider whether the proposal meets the criteria of the Wetlands and CEHA code. Among other things, any new application should: 1. Address all aspects of the proposal, including the next phases of the plans. 2. Provide an analysis of all alternatives to the proposals. 3. Provide accurate information, including a new survey showing the actual adjacent property boundaries, tidal wetlands boundary, and CEHA boundary. 4. Provide properly engineered plans and an engineering analysis of all aspects of the proposal and all alternatives. 5. Provide a new SEQRA EAF that addresses all phases of the proposal. 6. Provide a proposal for a "long-term maintenance program" as required by CEHA, and a proper erosion-control program as required by the Wetlands code. 7. Provide a complete LWRP response to all questions, addressing all aspects of the proposal. Respectf . yours, Anth C. Pasca New York State Department of Environmental Conservation - Division of Environmental Permits, Region One SUNY @ Stony Brook, 50 Circle Road, Stony Brook, NY 11790-3409 Phone: (631)444-0365 Fax: (631)444-0360 - Website: www.dec.nv.gov Alexander B.Grannis Commissioner July 13, 2010 Orient Wharf Company 2110 Village Lane Orient, NY 11957 Re: Permit #1-4738-03228/00002 Dear Permittee: In conformance with the requirements of the State Uniform Procedures Act (Article 70, ECL) and its implementing regulations (6NYCRR, Part 621) we are enclosing your permit. Please carefully read all permit conditions and special permit conditions contained in the permit to ensure compliance during the term of the permit. If you are unable to comply with any conditions, please contact us at the above address. Also enclosed is a permit sign which is to be conspicuously posted at the project site and protected from the weather. Sincererl�y�� JUL 2 � 2010 `,J Kendall P. Klett Southold sown Environmental Analyst Board Of Trustees ronmeny cc: file Walter Bundy NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Facility DEC ID 1-4738-03228 PERMIT Under the Environmental Conservation Law ECL Permittee and Facility Information Permit Issued To: Facility: ORIENT WHARF COMPANY ORIENT WHARF CO PROPERTY C/O THOMAS MURRAY 2110 VILLAGE LN PO BOX 243 ORIENT, NY 11957 ORIENT,NY 11957 (631) 323-3864 Facility Location: in SOUTHOLD in SUFFOLK COUNTY Village: Orient Facility Principal Reference Point: NYTM-E: 726.2 NYTM-N: 4557.4 Latitude: 41°08'11.0" Longitude: 72°18'17.9" Project Location: 2110 Village Lane Authorized Activity: Replace asphalt pavement covering existing 28' x 1T bulkhead structure used for access to wharf facility with timber decking. Remove 31 cubic yards of existing fill and dispose of at approved upland site. Remove seaward most 20 linear feet of existing outfall pipe. All work to be completed in accordance with plans stamped "NYSDEC Approved" on 7/13/10. Permit Authorizations Tidal Wetlands-Under Article 25 Permit ID 1-4738-03228/00002 New Permit Effective Date: 7/13/2010 Expiration Date: 7/12/2015 NYSDEC Approval By acceptance of this permit, the permittee agrees that the permit is contingent upon strict compliance with the ECL, all applicable regulations, and all conditions included as part of this permit. Permit Administrator:JOHN A W LAND, Deputy Regi Permit Administrat r Address: EC GION 1 HEAD RTERS S ONY BROOK CIRCLE RD TO OOK,NY 11 0 -3409 Authorized Signature: Datee �QO V Page 1 of 5 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Facility DEC ID 1-4738-03228 Permit Components NATURAL RESOURCE PERMIT CONDITIONS GENERAL CONDITIONS, APPLY TO ALL AUTHORIZED PERMITS NOTIFICATION OF OTHER PERMITTEE OBLIGATIONS NATURAL RESOURCE PERMIT CONDITIONS- Apply to the Following Permits: TIDAL WETLANDS 1. Regulated Activities Authorized By This Permit This permit ONLY authorizes those regulated activities/structures identified under the section titled "SAP Authorized Activity". The Department does not issue after-the-fact or as-built permits. This permit does not authorize activities, or legitimize the existence of structures, which would have required a permit but for which no permit or other authorization has been granted by the Department. 2. Disposal Locations All excavated material shall be appropriately disposed of as per the project plan with minimal disturbance and/or impact to vegetated marsh areas, Disposal of excess material beyond the approved project site will require further written approval from the Department(permit, modification, amendment). 3. Storage of Equipment,Materials The storage of construction equipment and materials shall be confined to the upland areas. 4. Conformance With Plans All activities authorized by this permit must be in strict conformance with the approved plans submitted by the applicant or applicant's agent as part of the permit application. Such approved plans were prepared by WF Bundy, last revised on 5/3/10. 5. Notice of Commencement At least 48 hours prior to commencement of the project, the permittee and contractor shall sign and return the top portion of the enclosed'notification form certifying that they are fully aware of and understand all terms and conditions of this permit. Within 30 days of completion of project, the bottom portion of the form must also be signed and returned, along with photographs of the completed work. 6. Post Permit Sign The permit sign enclosed with this permit shall be posted in a conspicuous location on the worksite and adequately protected from the weather. 7. Failure to Meet Permit Conditions Failure of the,permittee to meet all the conditions of this permit is a violation of this permit and grounds for an order to immediately cease the permitted activity at the project site. s. Use of Treated Wood The use of wood treated with Pentachlorophenol or other wood treatment not specifically approved by the Department for use in wetlands and/or marine waters, is strictly prohibited in the construction of structures that will be in contact with tidal waters. Page 2 of 5 AUL dbww NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Facility DEC ID 1-4738-03228 9. No Dredging or Excavation No dredging, excavating or other alteration of shoreline or underwater areas is authorized by this permit, nor shall issuance of this permit be construed to suggest that the Department will issue a permit for such activities in the future. 10. No Disturbance to Vegetated Tidal Wetlands There shall be no disturbance to vegetated tidal wetlands or protected buffer areas as a result of the permitted activities. 11. No Construction Debris in Wetland or Adjacent Area Any debris or excess material from construction of this project shall be completely removed from the adjacent area(upland) and removed to an approved upland area for disposal. No debris is permitted in wetlands and/or protected buffer areas. 12. Precautions Against Contamination of Waters All necessary precautions shall be taken to preclude contamination of any wetland or waterway by suspended solids, sediments, fuels, solvents, lubricants, epoxy coatings, paints, concrete, leachate or any other environmentally deleterious materials associated with the project. 13. State May Require Site Restoration If upon the expiration or revocation of this permit,the project hereby authorized has not been completed, the applicant shall, without expense to the State,and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservation may require, remove all or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore the site to its former condition. No claim shall be made against the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration. 14. State May Order Removal or Alteration of Work If future operations by the State of New York require an alteration in the position of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Department of Environmental Conservation it shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of said waters or flood flows or endanger the health,safety or welfare of the people of the State, or cause lowor destruction of the natural resources of the State,the owner may be ordered by the Department to remove or alter the structural work,obstructions, or hazards caused thereby without expense to the State, and if, upon the expiration or revocation of this permit, the structure, fill, excavation, or other modification of the watercourse hereby authorized shall not be completed, the owners, shall, without expense to the State, and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservation may require, remove all or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore to its former condition the navigable and flood capacity of the watercourse. No claim shall be made against the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration. . 15. State Not Liable for Damage The State of New York shall in no case be liable for any damage or injury to the structure or work herein authorized which may be caused by or result from future operations undertaken by the State for the conservation or improvement of navigation, or for other purposes, and no claim or right to compensation shall accrue from any such damage. Page 3 of 5 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Facility DEC ID 14738-03228 GENERAL CONDITIONS - Apply to ALL Authorized Permits: 1. Facility Inspection by The Department The permitted site or facility, including relevant records, is subject to inspection at reasonable hours and intervals by an authorized representative of the Department of Environmental Conservation(the Department) to determine whether the permittee is complying with this permit and the ECL. Such representative may order the work suspended pursuant to ECL 71- 0301 and SAPA 401(3). The permittee shall provide a person to accompany the Department's representative during an inspection to the permit area when requested by the Department. A copy of this permit, including all referenced maps, drawings and special conditions, must be available for inspection by the Department at alltimes at the project site or facility. Failure to produce a copy of the permit upon request by a Department representative is a violation of this permit. 2. Relationship of this Permit to Other Department Orders and Determinations Unless expressly provided for by the Department, issuance of this permit does not modify, supersede or rescind any order or determination previously issued by the Department or any of the terms, conditions or requirements contained in such order or determination: 3. Applications For Permit Renewals,Modifications or Transfers The permittee must submit a separate written application to the Department for permit renewal, modification or transfer of this permit. Such application must include any forms or supplemental informationthe Department requires. Any renewal, modification or transfer granted by the Department must be in writing. Submission of applications for permit renewal, modification or transfer are to be submitted to: Regional Permit Administrator NYSDEC REGION 1 HEADQUARTERS SUNY @ STONY BROOK150 CIRCLE RD STONY BROOK,NY11790=3409 4. Submission of Renewal Application The permittee must submit a renewal application at least 30 days before permit expiration for the following permit authorizations: Tidal Wetlands. ' 5. Permit Modifications, Suspensions and Revocations by the Department The Department reserves the right to modify, suspend or revoke this permit. The grounds for modification, suspension or revocation include: a. materially false or inaccurate statements in the permit application or supporting papers; b. failure by the permittee to comply with any terms or conditions of the permit; c. exceeding the scope of the project as described in the permit application; Page 4 of 5 Aft NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 'Raw Facility DEC ID 1-4738-03228 d. newly discovered material information or a material change in environmental conditions, relevant - technology or applicable law or regulations since the issuance of the existing permit; e, noncompliance with previously issued permit conditions, orders of the commissioner, any provisions of the Environmental Conservation Law or regulations of the Department related to the permitted activity. 6. Permit Transfer Permits are transferrable unless specifically prohibited by statute, regulation or another permit condition. Applications for permit transfer should be submitted prior to actual transfer of ownership. NOTIFICATION OF OTHER PERMITTEE OBLIGATIONS Item A: Permittee Accepts Legal Responsibility and Agrees to Indemnification The permittee, excepting state or federal agencies, expressly agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Department of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York, its representatives, employees, and agents ("DEC") for all claims, suits, actions, and damages, to the extent attributable to the permittee's acts or omissions in connection with the.permittee's undertaking of activities in connection with, or operation and maintenance of, the facility or facilities authorized by the permit whether in compliance or not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit.. This indemnification does not extend to any claims, suits, actions, or damages to the extent attributable to DEC's own negligent or intentional acts or omissions, or to any claims, suits, or actions naming the DEC and arising,under - Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules or any citizen suit or civil rights provision under federal or state laws. Item B: Permittee's Contractors to Comply with Permit The permittee is responsible for informing its independent contractors, employees, agents and assigns of their responsibility to comply with this permit, including all special conditions while acting as the permittee's agent with respect to the permitted activities, and such persons shall be subject to the same sanctions for violations of the Environmental Conservation Law as those prescribed for the permittee. Item C: Permittee Responsible for Obtaining Other Required Permits The permittee is responsible for obtaining any other permits,approvals, lands, easements and rights-of- way that may be required to cant'out the activities that are authorized by this permit. Item D: No Right to Trespass or Interfere with Riparian Rights This permit does not convey to the permittee any right to trespass upon the lands or interfere with the riparian rights of others in order to perform the permitted work nor does it authorize the impairment of any rights, title, or interest in real or personal property held or vested in a person not a party to the permit. Page 5 of 5 RETURN THIS FORM TO:COMPLIANCE Or Fax to: 631-444-0297 Bureau of Habitat-NYSDEC 50 Circle Road Stony Brook,NY 11790-3409 PERMIT NUMBER: EXPIRATION DATE: PERMITTEE NAME & PROJECT ADDRESS: CONTRACTOR NAME&ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Dear Sir: Pursuant to the special conditions of the referenced permit, you are hereby notified that the authorized activity shall commence on . We certify that we have read the referenced permit and approved plans and fully understand the authorized project and all permit conditions.We have inspected the project site and can complete the project as described in the permit and as depicted on the approved plans. We can do so in full compliance with all plan notes and permit conditions.The permit, permit sign,and approved plans will be available at the.site for inspection in accordance with General Condition No. 1. (Both signatures required) PERMITEE: DATE CONTRACTOR: DATE THIS NOTICE MUST BE SENT TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS AT LEAST TWO DAYS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE PROJECT AND/OR ANY ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES. FAILURE TO RETURN THIS NOTICE, POST THE PERMIT SIGN, OR HAVE THE PERMIT AND APPROVED PLANS AVAILABLE AT THE WORK SITE FOR. THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT MAY SUBJECT THE PERMITTEE AND/OR CONTRACTOR TO APPLICABLE SANCTIONS AND PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT CONDITIONS. Cut along this line ac X X X x x X NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION RETURN THIS FORM TO:COMPLIANCE Or Fax to: 631-444-0297 _ Bureau of Habitat-NYSDEC v 50 Circle Road - Stony Brook, NY 11790-3409 PERMIT NUMBER: EXPIRATION DATE: PERMITTEE NAME& PROJECT ADDRESS: CONTRACTOR NAME&ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Pursuant to special conditions of the referenced permit,you are hereby notified that the authorized activity was completed on .We have fully complied with the terms and conditions of the permit and approved plans.(Both signatures required) PERMITEE: DATE CONTRACTOR: DATE THIS NOTICE, WITH PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE COMPLETED WORK AND/OR A COMPLETED SURVEY,AS APPROPRIATE, MUST BE SENT TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS WITHIN 30 DAYS OF COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. 95.20-1 11103 —9d New York State Department of Environmental Conservation vNOTICE r The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has issued permit(s) pursuant to the Environmental Conservation Law for work being conducted at this site. For further information regarding the nature and extent of the approved work and any Department conditions applied to the approval, contact the Regional Permit Administrator listed below. Please refer to the permit number shown when contacting the DEC. Permit Number Regional Permit Administrator — — O �a8 ROGER EVANS Expiration Date 7// Avzo/S NOTE: This notice is NOT a permit VILLAGE LANE EXISTING ROAD • � �_n � DRAIN J{fi INTERCONNECTING EXISTING ROAD DRAIN `�F DRAIN PIPES DENOTES RUNOFF FLOW ♦� � ASPHALT PAVEMENT VILLAGE AGE I ANF fiBOUNDAR�ES� + EXIST ROAD DRAIN ?ROPE= + CONNECTED TO .' + _�.. OUTFALL PIPE + ':'[;•:,,:. '.,�.•.;.. '��A/,�' � � NOTE: :'''•'"' +'' 4 r + �� Structures not drawn '.�:':;: .:y,:;i.?,:'_.:.. Y• g't:1 .�� I ♦ EXIST 60NC CURB to scale or located - +. ri•.' ,`.:'!`::'.'}' /EXISTING FENCE .. 10 :: :CGTM#' 00 2 -24- -27 J..�x. `� �/ 'i i:•.:::?? ::::d•. ? } / ' °.}+y?t,!�?:j;{%:,';':'+`,1 ':•;.l•; ,YY. WAR MEMORIAL W� LAWN Y'1i, SCTM 1000-)6-1-1.1 :{'•S ` `'> "` A'kg— bF,EX ISpTING' TSN ► C$EA001 $S 7 :j� ii::::•::: ;;; LAWN P� o v � i�1rY `CMa� o f \S\It4G ED SEPW J� �%pF N 6/e AREA OF EXISTING :i t gEACHGRA$S it ¢ I AREA OFEXiSfING �`N� ,` ♦ UNpgRY�\ II .1 a I BEACH GRASS j�PNO 1 ♦� ♦ OUTFA�L It �Ne/lam ♦♦ PIPE ] I QRS gO�N t`�sv� EXISTING 0. EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO :j SEAwALLBURIED BE SHORTENED TO COINCIDE WITH LL BE REIING RIPRAP ILIZEDATTWHICH I NEW END FPPE /NGP� i 5J/e/)��// `♦�/?�dJ'? �`.': • ..I,>•�.� —.1 S ' ls / oN BE o Bh'e� A �\ 070 BEACH AREA ..yIt I, SEE SECTIO II ,y ADDIT!AL DETAILSiN��/ .Lp10�i\e��i EXISTING END OF OUTFALL PIPE ♦ 281w, PRO IEQI AREA- EXISTING ACCESS VIA ASPHALT PAVEMENT NOTE: OVER FILL TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW Information shown on this Sketch reflects Survey .,'TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SPANNING THE.. Information as prepared by John C.Ehlers,Land AREA SHOWN Surveyor,dated September 1999&May 2010 NYSDEC ORIENTIIR PER TERMS (TIONS OF PERMIT NO.�''{��P'(�3aa�,Ob� EXISTING BOULDER& BULKHEAD WHARF w/ AT10 e(2 FILL&ASPHALT SURFACE E 7./3 A`3 SCALE: 1" = 30'0" PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Modification Plan Drawn by: Bundy Date: Marchh 26, 2010 Pan Orient Wharf Com Orient New York 2Ys Revised: May 3, 2010 SCTM#: 1000-24-2-28.1 Sketch prepared by WF Bundy,East Moriches NY 11940 Ck'd by: VILLAGL LANE EXISTING ROAD „ ♦ �_^ � DRAIN EXISTING ROAD INTERCONNECTING r DRAIN DRAIN PIPES DENOTES RUNOFF FLOW ♦;` ASPHALT PAVEMENT GE '..".•:'••�''i:':''"�` ♦ EX�SLROAAD DRA HANE PROPERTY gOiNDAR�ES� i )�;::• ;�`; '; �� CONNECTED _ .. OUTFALL PIPE NOTE: Structures not drawn to scale or located EXIST GONC CURB i EXISTING FENCE �;•;':;(,:;:;y;•::i..:-;'•':;`; 1000-24-9-27 � \/ ,. F.,�'• •`•i:'..;;:'•.::,.{i{::,:;:`;'.• r. WAR MEMORIAL LAWN �bi° EXISTING SCTM#: 1000-26-1-1 1 EA6k{�OASS:7 ` LAWN � � I <�Me�?p� Lu - GgURtEOSEP`r'IP�L `SSR oFh i h a a EXISTM Op e AREA OF EXISTING + .+ a rSo�EACH GRASS a� :j ¢ l AREAOF EXISTING �p1E �NpgRr`, +� .j a 1. E�ACHGRASS Ilk f Co t E( < t pyo, ♦` �� .. OUTFALL R� ♦ PIPE + 1 - O N i EXISTING BURIED ?P ROQ: O��ic�i P R \ EXISTING RIP RAP&PROPOSED Y 6 SEAWALL END OF OUTFALL PIPE ?� _ t ;.•y �' �\\V'+i' �i i Y i ♦\ 9<y2 - [. ♦ - \Nig P i ej), ♦�`(�`;J-2p 1 +• —_.I J.a:.,•.. .._,_--- BEACH A /1 .1.01D 0 N \\ ` 7p BEACH AREA +I - \�e�I ets Ni3 ' ep h �� ay2.�� EXISTING END OF OUTFALL PIPE \ 28-0•- `� � PRO I TAR A EXISTING ACCESS VIA ASPHALT PAVEMENT NOTE. OVER FILL TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW Information shown on this Sketch reflects Survey .'TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SPANNING THE Information as prepared by John C.Ehlers,Land ' AREA SHOWN Surveyor,dated September 1999 8 May 2010 NYSDEC ORIENT HAID AS PER TERMS ONDITIONS OF EXISTING BOULDER& BULKHEAD WHARF w/ PERMIT NO. -17 F-03°?a8 FILL &ASPHALT SURFACE DATE. 7L( 4Q_42tr a -0 SCALE: 1" = 30'0" PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Existing Site Plan Drawn by: Bundy Orient Wharf Company,Date: March h 2 26, 2010 p y, Orient New York Revised: May 3, 2010 SCTM#: 1000-24-2-28.1 Sketch prepared by WF Bundy;East Moriches NY 11940 Ck'd by: EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH A NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SUPPORTED AT EXISTING BEAM POCKETS AT EACH END EXISTING FILL TO BE REMOVED TO LEVEL BELOW ' EXISTING BEAM POCKETS+/- 18"(APPROX 20 CY) 28'0" AND DISPOSED OF IN AN APPROVED UPLAND SITE. EXISTING PILINGS & SHEATHING TO REMAIN EXISTING GRADE EXISTING GRADE EXISTING BOULDER &BULKHEAD STRUCTURE w/ FILL EXISTS BEYOND THE SECTION BEING EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SHORTENED(SEE MODIFICATION PLAN) NYSDEC APPROVED AS PER TERMS « » SCALE: 1" = 10' 0" AND CONDITIONS OF SECTION A THRU EXISTING BULKHEAD LOOKING WEST -,A/c�a LOOKING — PERMIT N/�3�/0 DAT 3J3EXISTING IOF NEW TIMBER DECKS STRUCTURE NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE ' AS PER ENGINEER'S DRAWINGS TO BE PATCHED&PITCHED AS REO'D EXISTING FILL TO BE REMOVED TO LEVEL BELOW EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO BE +1-28'0" EXISTING BEAM POCKETS+/- 18"(APPROX 20 CY) SHORTENED& EXISTING RIPRAP UTILIZED - ND DISPOSED OF IN AN APPROVED UPLAND SITE. AT NEW END OF PIPE (SEE PLAN) EXISTING PILINGS&SHEATHING TO REMAIN EXISTING GRADE EXISTING GRADE EXISTING CONCRETE SEAWALL AT SHORELINE EXISTS BEYOND THE NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SCALE: 1" = 10' 0" SECTION «B„ THRU EXISTING RIII KHEAD LOOKING EAST NOTE: Information shown on this Sketch reflects Survey Information as prepared by John C.Ehlers,Land Surveyor,dated September 1999 SECTIONS THROUGH EXISTINGBULKHEAD DrawsBundy Date: Maarchh 26, 2010 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF 2 Revised: 03 May 2010 Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Ck'd by: SCTM#: 1000-24-2-28.1 Sketch prepared by WF Bundy, East Moriches NY 11940 „ / ' / I / I / / / ' 9. 1 i Replacement of+/- 17 feet of existing Access via Asphalt Pavement overfilled-earth with Proposed Timber Deck - Location of Project Site Y-, Orient Wharf (Existing) + PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Table of Contents Key Plan & Site Information Plan of Orient Wharf Modifications Plan Sections — Proposed Modifications Plan Showing Regulatory Boundaries Project Description Project Photographs Referenced Agency Maps: NYSDEC Tidal Wetland Map # 726-556 Town of Southold LWRP Map FEMA FIRM (Firmette downloaded from FEMA website) Referenced Owner Provided Surveys: November 19, 1978 Site Survey prepared by Van Tuyl May 2010 Site Survey prepared by John Ehlers Page Modified May 18, 2010 Prepared by WF Bundy, East Moriches NY 11940 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York SCTM#: 1000-24-2-28.1 •,� Property Information Property Situated at: y>e Orient, New York --• 1r Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York SCTM #: 1000-24-02-28.1 y„ Property Classification: Social Organization • i a:.., Zoning District: "M-1" Marine Proposed Activities: b f0• ' y Replacement of Asphalt with Timber Decking '- /• Purpose of Activities: Replace existing access over deteriorated 9 asphalt pavement on fill with new timber deck structure Property Services Information: Key Plan Postal District: Southold No Scale School District: Southold Fire District: Southold Site Situated within: Electrical Service: LIPA FEMA Flood Zones: VE9, AE7 and LiMWA apply Water Service: SCWA Coastal Barrier Resource Area (CBRA) Zone Property Siting Data: Groundwater Management Zone IV Tide Range: +/- 2.5' NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands Zones: LZ, SM NYSDEC & Southold Town Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA) Zone Southold Town Historic Preservation Zone Southold Town Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP)Area (Reach 5) Southold Town Stormwater Management Program Area Prepared by WF Bundy,East Moriches NY 11940 Drawn by: WF Bundy Date: March 29, 2010 Revised: 18 May 2010 Ck'd by: RUNOFF FLOW FROM VILLAGE LANE EXISTING ROAD \ '�_ DRAIN EXISTING ROAD 7�S INTERCONNECTING DRAIN `�F DRAIN PIPES DENOTES RUNOFF FLOW ♦� � ASPHALT PAVEMENT �� VILLAGE AGE I ANE OU gN�P� EXIST ROAD DRAIN PROPE��. i V CONNECTED TO OUTFALL PIPE NOTE: ♦ Structures not drawn to scale or located EXIST 60NC CURB `r,`�:� �\ ::• EXISTING FENCE 'r'i:.i;:e:•:;'::':�:'�':. 1:YY� i WAR MEMORIAL LAWN SCTM#: 1000-26-1-1.1 ':::,;'i::•:•::::'r':. ARE OF EXISTING; BEASIlf"S _a ` LAWN q ' oOFh/e, `C�.�•y�Ma Lu URtEO Sep' P`� e , A `o\o� II :a a gXlgtVgGg `ki ��OpF �h\ey AREA OF EXISTING Il ..t EACH GRASS I .1 a �. AREA OF EXISTING ID V0, ♦ UA0��/ II .j = F BEACH GRASS CPN Rr I' r• •NES, -'. \�� ♦ . - ` OUTFALL I I' C j. ROx(\OP.00UN�p,Ry sv SJ'e�li PIPE Q R \ics `�\` �.��. ♦: ..1 r. EXISTING BURIED ` E SEAWALL EXISTING RIP RAP&PROPOSED END OF OUTFALL PIPE `♦ l �O �` 4y� \\ •. .: •1 � � SP�i ata iJi i �. ��`(2idy2 ♦�\ (. :I_� -:1 t i '_ BEACHAf;r6A 201"��'� �\ 0/0BEACHAREA EXISTING END OF OUTFALL PIPE �` 28-0-1 �>PROJECT AREA' EXISTING ACCESS VIA ASPHALT PAVEMENT OVER FILL TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW NOTE: .'TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SPANNING THE Information shown on this Sketch reflects Survey AREA SHOWN Information as prepared by John C.Ehlers,Land Surveyor,dated September 1999&May 2010 ORIENT HARBOR EXISTING BOULDER& BULKHEAD WHARF w/ FILL &ASPHALT SURFACE SCALE: 1" = 30' 0" PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Existing Site Plan Drawn by: WF Bundy Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Date: March 26, 2010 Revised: May 3, 2010 SCTM#: 1000-24-2-28.1 Sketch prepared by WF Bundy,East Moriches NV 11940 Ck'd by: RUNOFF FLOW FROM /l�7 VILLAGE LANE ,/ EXISTING ROAD DRAIN 00,EXISTING ROAD 1(�!S INTERCONNECTING DRAIN `�F DRAIN PIPES DENOTES RUNOFF FLOW ♦� / ASPHALT PAVEMENT �� •/ VILLAGE I DNFE AR+ES� •♦�lt< gpUND �l EXIST ROAD DRAIN PRt;PE� i �♦ CONNECTED TO OUTFALL PIPE NOTE: :�.:;'•:•::•`:7::`:.:i; ..'�.-r'- I �1 Structures not drawn -.;', ?. ':;;::'•'•' �.;..:..a.;...!:.?. + � to scale or located •: r{:.;} ,_;�r:1:-:��!' r � EXIST 60NC CURB / EXISTING FENCE 4 Qi i !. .Y WAR MEMORIAL •� A K'ACC LAWN X , SCTM#: 1000-26-1-1.1 `:1[pr'i'.:};••"•'?'. Al2H OFEXISTINGf BEASICVSS ` ` LAWN q t7j h 'moo;° ��Sk4e`4<�M11 Lu r EXtstNtIG tEDSEPW 'O P� �RopF Fh\ey AREA OF EXISTING Ij•:+ r o,�EACH GRASS AREAOFEXISTING pPBEACH GRASSov i x ��NE �pN� CRY . 1 an 1 .3 WOO 16 `�♦ 1,\\ PIPE EXISTING BURIED QROde QEi�� p10 EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO I F SEAWALL �a1 BE SHORTENED TO COINCIDE WITH EXISTING RIPRAP WHICH WILL BE RE-UTILIZED AT NEW END OF PIPE iQR�� ay2Oi°BEACH AREA ~i .ate.. BEA%HASEE SECTIO �IMa/201�� t55JNeJI InADDITIPWALDETAIRLSPi99 ��/ 2010�1e� EXISTING END OF OUTFALL PIPE �� 28'0" .PROJECT AREA: EXISTING ACCESS VIA ASPHALT PAVEMENT OVER FILL TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW NOTE: .'TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SPANNING THE Information shown on this Sketch reflects Survey ' AREA SHOWN Information as prepared by John C.Ehlers, Land Surveyor,dated September 1999&May 2010 ORIENT HARBOR � _ EXISTING BOULDER& BULKHEAD WHARF w/ FILL&ASPHALT SURFACE SCALE: 1" = 30' 0" PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Modification Plan Drawn by: WF Bundy Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Date: March 26, 2010 Revised: May 3, 2010 SCTM#: 1000-24-2-28.1 Sketch prepared by WF Bundy,East Moriches NY 11940 Ck'd by: EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE TO BE REMOVED& REPLACED WITH A NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SUPPORTED AT EXISTING BEAM POCKETS AT EACH END EXISTING FILL TO BE REMOVED TO LEVEL BELOW _ EXISTING BEAM POCKETS +/- 18" (APPROX 20 CY) +l•28'0" AND DISPOSED OF IN AN APPROVED UPLAND SITE. EXISTING PILINGS & SHEATHING TO REMAIN EXISTING GRADE .' .. . . . . . . . EXISTING GRADE EXISTING BOULDER&BULKHEAD STRUCTURE w/ FILL EXISTS BEYOND THE SECTION BEING - \ EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SHORTENED(SEE MODIFICATION PLAN) » SCALE: 1" = 10' 0" « SECTION A THRU EXISTING BULKHEAD LOOKING WEST EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE ON BOTH NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE ENDS OF NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE AS PER ENGINEER'S DRAWINGS TO BE PATCHED & PITCHED AS REQ'D im LL TO BE REMOVED TO LEVEL BELOW EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO BE +1.28-0" EAM POCKETS +/- 18" (APPROX 20 CY) SHORTENED&EXISTING RIPRAP UTILIZED ED OF IN AN APPROVED UPLAND SITE. AT NEW END OF PIPE (SEE PLAN) PILINGS& SHEATHING TO REMAIN EXISTING GRADE EXISTING GRADE RETE SEAWALL AT SHORELINE D THE NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SCALE: 1" = 10' 0" SECTION "B» THRU EXISTING BULKHEAD LOOKING EAST NOTE: Information shown on this Sketch reflects Survey Information as prepared by John C.Ehlers, Land Surveyor,dated September 1999 SECTIONS THROUGH EXISTING BULKHEAD Drawn by: WF Bundy PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Date: March 26, 2010 Revised: 03 May 2010 Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Ck'd by: SCTM#: 1000-24-2-28.1 Sketch prepared by WF Bundy, East Moriches NY 11940 RUNOFF FLOW FROM VILLAGE LANE -�/ EXISTING ROAD DRAIN / E /INTERCONNECTING EXISTING ROAD DRAIN DRAIN PIPES DENOTES RUNOFF FLOW ASPHALT PAVEMENT VILLAGE AGE I ANF TMgo�NOAR�Es. ' ';: •':.i '.'.•:"r::? EXIST ROAD DRAIN PROPEL ' - E�1NE ::.:'s:}%):'.;<: <.% CONNECTED TO �.i A0_00 ZON OUTFALL PIPE IF OTE: .�_� • ' Structures not drawn ': > I to scale or located .l )'`` ` r li EXIST CONIC CURB Y Y I •::.::..i..'::..::' d EXISTING FENCE ♦� :'1 \ WAR MEMORIAL 1 I'l/ACC LAWN %^i:� , SCTM#: 1000-26-1-1.1kfi '::•:Vii.':.::�:•.•::•::. ABEAOFE XIS$SG ♦ ♦ ► LAWN f i::d:? r• ... '�A -.. 2 �qy • FEMA AE 7 �� i Joao �CdIl �I:LIa�`07 0 �► *` I I j > EX\S-C\NG lu BVR\EO SEI`W P �ROp AREA OFEXISTING II :� I �FR�y �,�S� EACH GRASS 4 I AREA OF EXISTING SNE 60UV� 4 .'j = BEACH GRASS �pNp 00020 OUT R4�L II .1 ¢ 1. OY�(%VP, OUNOp,F� `e 1 R e Nuc PIPE f.j f Fk . Ea(! /N� Z � 1'. EXISTING BURIED pF\OP :I f SEAWALL N,28 EXISTING RIP RAP&PROPOSED .y 1. �\-�i' END OF OUTFALL PIPEOprAN ��• 1 \e ' 2 \�\•;. '`�r..., -. BEACH�A / ?p �\ o;O BEACH AREA I� _ // ,\14\, / csSJN' PFM 9 as ' EXISTING END OF OUTFALL PIPE �� 28-0-1 PROJECT AREA: \ EXISTING ACCESS VIA ASPHALT PAVEMENT OVER FILL TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW NOTE: ,-TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SPANNING THE Information shown on this Sketch reflects Survey AREA SHOWN Information as prepared by John C.Ehlers,Land Surveyor,dated September 1999&May 2010 FEMA FIRM Panel 68 of 1026 Map#: 36103CO068H ORIENT HARBOR Town of Southold, Corn#: 360813 EXISTING BOULDER& BULKHEAD WHARF w/ FILL&ASPHALT SURFACE SCALE: 1" = 30'0" ..' PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF MAPPED CERA, FLOOD ZONE & TIDAL WETLAND BOUNDARIES Drawn by: WF Bundy Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Date: March 26, 2010 Revised: May 3, 2010 SCTM#: 1000-24-2-28.1 Sketch prepared by WF Bundy, East Moriches NY 11940 Ck'd by: Project Description • PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WI74RF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Prepared by Walter Bundy,East Moriches NY: March 23,2010 Updated as per March 31,2010 NYSDEC Pre-Application Hearing Revised&Clarified:May 18,2010 The following Project Information is provided concerning the Proposed Modifications to Orient Wharf by the Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York. Proiect Location Information: 1. The Orient Wharf(SCTM #: 1000-24-2-28.1) is situated within the Town of Southold at 2110 Village Lane in Orient Hamlet 11957; and is owned and operated by the Orient Wharf Company. Orient Wharf is situated on the north-eastern shoreline of Orient Harbor. Location Maps showing the location of the site are enclosed as Attachments in the Photo Documentation provided. 2. The Orient Wharf project site is situated within designated NYSDEC Tidal Wetland; Southold Town Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA) Program, Floodplain Management Program (FMP), Historic Preservation Program, Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) (Reach 5), Stormwater Management Program; and Southold Town Trustee Program Areas. As such, permits and approvals shall be requested from all involved agencies having jurisdiction. Proiect Description: The Project proposed includes the following and supports the sketches and plans prepared for the Proposed Modifications to Orient Wharf: 1. Existing wooden bulkhead structure with fill and asphalt vehicle and access paving (an approximate 17' 0"portion)to be modified with a new timber deck structure as per Engineer's drawings (to be prepared at a later date) which is proposed to replace the existing deteriorated fill and asphalt surface. The location of the proposed wharf modifications at the Orient Wharf is noted on the attached drawings and the timber decking structure shall utilize the existing beam pockets from the original bridge structure. Coincidently, it is that portion of Orient Wharf that had the original bridge removed and replaced with the filled structure that exists today, which is having the existing asphalt surface removed and replaced with a timber structure due to a continuing deterioration of the asphalt access pavement and the supporting fill beneath the paving. 2. The wharf structure both seaward and landward, of the area having the asphalt pavement replaced by a timber deck structure, will remain as exists except for some minor asphalt repair work to blend the asphalt pavement surfaces with the height of the new timber deck surface. The wharf structure seaward of the area has an existing enclosed filled structure with stone and cement retaining walls; and the opposite side of the timber decking will connect to an existing seawall that exists at the shoreline, enabling the proposed new timber deck structure to span the 2 existing supporting structures with no additional support piers or pilings needed. Project Description PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF . Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Proiect Description: (Continued) 3. The existing filled wooden bulkheaded structure proposed to be resurfaced with new timber decking is currently covered with asphalt pavement and is utilized for all vehicular and pedestrian access to the wharf facility. As identified in the accompanying photographs, the existing asphalt pavement and supporting fill has deteriorated to a point whereas safe access is no longer provided; and the condition and integrity of the existing bulkhead does not allow the asphalt pavement or the fill situated below the pavement to be repaired in a permanent manner. 4. During the reconnaissance activities performed by the Orient Wharf Company to determine the actual deck connection requirements, it was confirmed that all existing beam pockets from the original bridge structure existed on both the seaward wharf structure and the landward seawall; enabling the deteriorated existing filled wooden bulkheaded structure to be totally bridged by the new timber deck structure. The reconnaissance activities also identified that the top 12 to 14 inches of existing fill immediately below the asphalt pavement surface consists of unclean fill containing cement, steel, other metals and asphalt chunks. 5. Due to the above, as part of the proposed timber decking work, the area having the asphalt pavement replaced by a timber deck structure will have all asphalt, and fill materials removed down to a level below the existing beam pockets; and then removed from the site and disposed of at approved upland sites. Approximately 31.0 cubic yards of material is anticipated to be removed and disposed of off site, at approved upland disposal sites. The removal of the unsuitable material will prevent it from causing future deterioration of the adjacent wetlands and shoreline. 6. The site contains a Southold Town drainage outfall pipe which directs all road runoff associated with Village Lane and Orchard Street and their immediate adjoining private properties along their entire length along Village Lane from approximately 200' south of Route 25; down to the Orient Wharf site where the road runoff enters several interconnected drainage basins and is then routed through an underground outfall pipe down to the shoreline where it exits adjacent to the western wall of Orient Wharf s bulkheaded structure. The existing Southold Town outfall pipe is proposed to be shortened to coincide with the location of all associated existing riprap (location of rip rap is at original end of outfall pipe before it was lengthened by the Town) and will be re-utilized for the armoring of the proposed new end of the outfall pipe. All coordination with the Town for this activity shall be performed by Orient Wharf representatives. Future Town implemented drainage improvements associated with the existing Town outfall pipe are being sought by Orient Wharf Company representatives. Upon completion, it is believed that the improvements will further aid in the reduction of sediments and pollutants associated with the Village Lane road run-off currently being experienced at the site. 7. The Orient Wharf Company will also be submitting in the near future, separate projects to modify their existing Tidal Wetlands Maintenance Permit to include dredging around the floating docks and mooring areas that exist at Orient Wharf; and to permit maintenance and rehabilitation of the actual wharf facility. The intent of the future modifications are two-fold; to further enhance the water quality of the site by removing sediment and silt that has accumulated, and to also increase the ability of boats to utilize the facilities without "bottoming out". The intent of the timber deck structure is to provide immediate and long-term safe access for vehicles and pedestrians to the Orient Wharf Facility; without depending upon the existing filled bulkheaded which is deteriorating and requires extensive reconstruction to facilitate safe use for access. The placement of the new timber deck structure allows continued safe access to Orient Wharf and allows the entire wharf facility to be addressed as a unit in its future permit submittals identified above. Project Description PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Assessment of Conditions and Proposed Action: 1. Orient Wharf is an active shipping pier, harbor and mooring facility on the north-eastern shoreline of Orient Harbor accessible off of Village Lane in Orient. The pier which extends into the harbor dates back to the 1800s. The site is owned by the Orient Wharf Company, a local for profit enterprise. Orient Wharf was created when a group of Orient farmers and fishermen got together in the early 1800s and built or had built a small dock for the purpose of commerce. The original docks were not substantial and crumbled or were destroyed by storms and during circa 1838 they made a better effort and continued to build and expand outwards from the shore. In 1851 by an act of the State of New York the Orient Wharf Co. was incorporated, which exists through today. 2. The wharf structure as it exists today consists of two (2) existing enclosed filled structures with stone and cement retaining walls, with a connecting timber wharf structure; at the shoreline, an existing seawall structure is connected to the wharf structure by a wooden bulkhead structure with fill which connects the main wharf structure to the shoreline abutting the existing seawall. The wooden bulkhead structure with fill replaced the original timber bridge that connected the wharf to the shoreline. It is important to note that the bridge existed as of November 19, 1978, as per a sealed survey prepared by Van Tuyl, a copy of which is contained in the files of the Orient Wharf Company. A copy of the 1978 survey is attached. 3. The space was filled in after November 19, 1978 because the majority shareholder at the time, Floyd King did not want to incur the cost of re-building the bridge and thus filled it in with who knows what? The result over a quarter of a century is the silting of the harbor, a decrease of aquatic life, and the end of lateral replenishment of the coastline. The dock is now one big jetty. Over the years, the coastal environment in the immediate area has changed, with the shorelines to the north and south of the wharf being impacted differently, partly in the believe that the current wooden bulkhead structure with fill that replaced the original timber bridge has been partially at fault. 4. The shoreline on the northern side of the wharf has grown approximately 100'; and the currents which used to flow through the bridge opening cleansing the water no longer occurs; and the Town has a drainage outfall pipe adjacent to the side of the wharf that empties road runoff from the adjacent Village Lane into the harbor adding to the source of silt and pollutants to Orient Harbor. The shoreline on the southern side of the wharf has also grown in the immediate area of the wharf, but further south, the area has been experiencing erosion causing property owners to construct bulkheads to protect their properties. The closure of the original timber bridge span with a filled bulkhead appears to have caused the stop of the natural transport of sand that originally flowed through the bridge opening. 5. The section of the wooden bulkhead structure with fill (an approximate 17' 0" portion) that connects the main wharf structure to the shoreline requires rehabilitation and no longer provides safe access to the wharf facility. Instead of simply replacing the existing structure in kind, the Orient Wharf Company and its consultants recommends the replacement of the current method of access (asphalt pavement over fill) with a new timber deck structure which connect into existing beam pockets from the original bridge structure. The intent of the timber deck structure is to provide immediate and long-term safe access for vehicles and pedestrians to the Orient Wharf Facility; without depending upon the existing filled bulkheaded which is deteriorating and requires extensive reconstruction to facilitate safe use for access. The placement of the new timber deck structure allows continued safe access to Orient Wharf and allows the entire wharf facility to be addressed as a unit in its future permit submittals identified above. The location of the proposed wharf modifications coincide with the location of the original location for the timber bridge structure at the Orient Wharf. Project Description PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York + Assessment of Conditions and Proposed Action: (Continued) 6. The area of Orient in which Orient Wharf is situated within is identified as Reach 5 in the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) planning documents. The Impact Assessment noted for Reach 5 states that "any activity that would degrade water quality, disrupt tidal patterns, increase sedimentation, or eliminate wetlands would adversely affect the birds and shell-fish found in this area." It is also noted that "all species of fish and wildlife may be affected by water pollution, such as chemical contamination (including food chain effects resulting from bioaccumulation), oil spills, excessive turbidity, waste disposal (including boat wastes) and stormwater and road runoff." 7. The LWRP Impact Assessment for Reach 5 further identifies that "development of harbor facilities and construction of breakwalls or bulkheads would result in the loss of productive areas which support the fish and wildlife resources of Long Beach Bay. Construction of these and other "hard" shoreline structures are particularly detrimental to tidal wetland habitats, which have suffered extensive cumulative losses from bulkheading, and remain susceptible to additional substantial losses as sea level rises where shorelines have been hardened. Alternative strategies for the protection of shoreline property should be examined, including innovative,vegetation-based approaches." 8. It is believed by the Orient Wharf Company and its consultants that the replacement of the wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber bridge structure which is proposed to replicate and reconstruct the original wharf configuration and features will greatly enhance the water quality in the immediate harbor area and will also restore the natural functions of the shoreline. Thereby, addressing impacts identified by the Town's LWRP. 9. The Orient Wharf Company will also be submitting in the near future, separate projects to modify their existing Tidal Wetlands Maintenance Permit to include dredging around the floating docks and mooring areas that exist at Orient Wharf; and to permit maintenance and rehabilitation of the actual wharf facility. The intent of the future modifications are two-fold; to further enhance the water quality of the site by removing sediment and silt that has accumulated, and to also increase the ability of boats to utilize the facilities without "bottoming out". The intent of the timber deck structure is to provide immediate and long-term safe access for vehicles and pedestrians to the Orient Wharf Facility; without depending upon the existing filled bulkheaded which is deteriorating and requires extensive reconstruction to facilitate safe use for access. The placement of the new timber deck structure allows continued safe access to Orient Wharf and allows the entire wharf facility to be addressed as a unit in its future permit submittals identified above. Project Description PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Consistency with Local and State Coastal Programs: 1. As previously identified above; the Orient Wharf project site is situated within designated NYSDEC Tidal Wetland; Southold Town Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA) Program, Floodplain Management Program (IMP), Historic Preservation Program, Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) (Reach 5), Stormwater Management Program; and Southold Town Trustee Program Areas. As such, permits and approvals shall be requested from all involved agencies having jurisdiction. Based on an evaluation of the various permits and approvals necessary; wetlands, coastal erosion and historic district permits and approvals are required from the Town of Southold, a tidal wetland permit is necessary from the NYSDEC, and the same application submitted to the NYSDEC will be utilized for the NYSDEC, COE,NYDOS consistency review associated with structures in navigatable waters. 2. The Orient Wharf Company will also be submitting in the near future, separate projects to modify their existing Tidal Wetlands Maintenance Permit to include dredging around the floating docks and mooring areas that exist at Orient Wharf; and to permit maintenance and rehabilitation of the actual wharf facility. The intent of the future modifications are two-fold; to further enhance the water quality of the site by removing sediment and silt that has accumulated, and to also increase the ability of boats to utilize the facilities without "bottoming out". The intent of the timber deck structure is to provide immediate and long-term safe access for vehicles and pedestrians to the Orient Wharf Facility; without depending upon the existing filled bulkheaded which is deteriorating and requires extensive reconstruction to facilitate safe use for access. The placement of the new timber deck structure allows continued safe access to Orient Wharf and allows the entire wharf facility to be addressed as a unit in its future permit submittals identified above. 3. As stated previously, it is believed by the Orient Wharf Company and its consultants that the section of the wooden bulkhead structure with fill (an approximate 17' 0" portion) that connects the main wharf structure to the shoreline requires rehabilitation and no longer provides safe access to the wharf facility. Instead of simply replacing the existing structure in kind,the Orient Wharf Company and its consultants recommends the replacement of the current method of access (asphalt pavement over fill) with a new timber deck structure which connect into existing beam pockets from the original bridge structure. The location of the proposed wharf modifications coincide with the location of the original location for the timber bridge structure at the Orient Wharf, thereby replicating the original wharf configuration and timber bridge features, historical aspects of Orient Wharf are being restored and enhanced,pending completion of future improvements. 4. The Orient Wharf Project is consistent with 10 of the13 General Coastal Policies identified in Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town of Southold; including: Policy 1, minimizes adverse effects of development; Policy 2, preserve historic resources; Policy 3, enhance visual quality; Policy 4, minimize the loss of natural resources from flooding and erosion; Policy 5, protect and improve water quality; Policy 6, protect and restore the quality and function of Town ecosystem; Policy 8, minimize environmental degradation; Policy 9, provide for recreational use of coastal waters; Policy 10, protect the Town's water dependent uses and promote sound siting; and Policy 11, promote sustainable use of living marine resources. 5. The intent of the timber deck structure is to provide immediate and long-term safe access for vehicles and pedestrians to the Orient Wharf Facility; without depending upon the existing filled bulkheaded which is deteriorating and requires extensive reconstruction to facilitate safe use for access. The placement of the new timber deck structure allows continued safe access to Orient Wharf and allows the entire wharf facility to be addressed as a unit in its future permit submittals identified above; thereby directly supporting many of the LWRP Policies noted above. ' P ' P P P •s Wz� Replacement of+/- 17 feet of existing Access via Asphalt Pavement overfilled-earth with Proposed Timber Deck Location of Project Site o� w Orient Wharf (Existing) AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM GOGGLE MAPS(DATED 2010) Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York The photographic information that follows is provided for the Proposed Modifications to Orient Wharf. The photographic information provided consists of current and historical photographs, and digital copies of historic postcards. The photographs and postcards were provided by the Orient Wharf Company and digital maps were obtained through the NYSDEC, County and Town websites. Aerial Photographs: Current Aerial Photographs of Eastern Suffolk County and Orient showing the Project Site at Orient Wharf and its location in relation to Eastern Suffolk County, Southold Town and Orient Hamlet. This section also contains two (2)historic aerials obtained from the Orient Wharf Company. Current Proiect Site Photographs: Photograph Key Map and twelve (12) Site Photographs (Photographs A through L) depicting current site conditions and adjacent areas to Orient Wharf. Drainage Unit Photographs: Three (3) Photographs showing the existing Drainage Units and grate configurations that are situated on Village Lane adjacent to the Entry into Orient Wharf. Historic Photographs and Information: Historical photographs are digital copies of historic postcards and photographs provided by the Orient Wharf Company. Referenced Agency Maps: NYSDEC Tidal Wetland Map Town of Southold LWRP Map FEMA FIRM(Firmette downloaded from FEMA website) Y I l r 1 � l Q ` Q 0 p Aerial P ographs A (above) and B (Below): Current Aerial Photographs of Ea�tet'n Suffolk County showing the Project Site at Orient Wharf and its 1,_iocation in relation to Eastern Suffolk County. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM GOGGLE MAPS to.4TED 2010) : rim Wnirf EW M.non q'), P h rI.4nE H.QnI• 1Y1 i,.. z f a rj �Y o.M 1y JY TAI. V6Mq V d•YY:M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 11 1 a a IMAM �zJ-R III .o Ali 1 41SJJ)*r ozq1o) r 40, t ari ` 1 �. SAIo Y � 4: > AA On nt r Location of Project Site 9 3+• ' " w: _ r e ,Rephke`me6o eel of existing eces ya A.s, averdent over -eurib • hito'. Proposed Timber eck ; � '�\ .•� ,y/ 1' � •. -��.cam-�'.r�r� i Orient Wharf r rw (ENowtrnape 0 0 �ror� ASt10 ✓ Imagery Date Feb 28 200St 06'22 16"N 7 2 18'10 86"W eie� a m Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Aerial Photographs: (Continued) Location of Projecti r feet of existing Access viaAsp� haft Pavement i r \ filled-earth iii • i Timber Deck r rf AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM GOGGLE MAPS(DATED 2010) A i Project Site at Orient Wharf and the Village Lane area of Orient which is the main route to Orient Wharf. Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF = Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Aerial Photographs: (Continued) (NOTE: Date of Aerial to be confirmed) Aerial Photograph E: Aerial Photograph dated 19XX scanned from Orient Wharf Company records showing Orient Wharf. Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wkarf Company, Orient New York Aerial Photographs: (Continued) ORIENT, L. I. Aerial Photograph F: Aerial Photograph dated 1960 scanned from Orient Wharf Company records showing Orient Wharf. o., r - , _, Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Current Project Site Photographs: Photograph Key Map l \ 1 ` \ Pholo Drain C EMS I ING ROAD EIUSIINGROAO ItiIE ROONN EC7WG DRAIN DRAIN • DRAIN PIPES \ ASI MALT PAVErlRT P,"OralnIR VI I AGE I Aua - • \ \ \ EA6T ROAD DRAW NOTE ` \ \ OONNECTEO TO - . - Sauwet nd drawn OU PALL PIPE _l:� .._< • � � to rrak er bcaad ,,y 601 CWCCURa JI k ♦ .r EXbTWFG EN CE O E.b. I I I. .l YMR►lE►10 / I S r / L" rl 0 / HlotoA S Wq�� 9 �IAYtN AREA OF "i J ; SCTMt IOODd6Fl1 EXISTING _F LAWN BEACH GRASS ' •` �Af R` ,.V'!' i i ` 1 iE�gt1N0 SUµ1ED SEP'N ��r AREA OF `•` '!1 EX07ING y j AREA OF BEACH ORASF ' I EXISTING - •♦ BEACH GRASS F PipELL . ri i Photo M �IO..K ♦ 1 I EAISTEIGEURIID ` Photo EEAWAu `` BEACHAREA - ♦`BFACMARfA 1 ♦ PDQ ♦ EIUATNG END of 64V? OUTPALL RIE 73'7" PRO_rECTAREA EXISTING WOODEN BULKHEAD STRUCTURE w!FILL TO BE REMOVED(APPROX 18'0" POR TION)AND REPLACED W A T IMBER tlQ7E BRIDGE STRUCTURE AS PER ENGINEER Irr'NnatOl dwwon ERs SkW rAads SNwoy DRAWINGS REPLICATING THE ORIGINAL IrbmNtm s p�aa0 W Min C ENea.lard Sural eaad Sepen001989 WHARFCONFIGURATION ORIENT HARBOR ` EXISTING BOULDER 8 BULKHEAD WHARF TSTRUCTURE w/FILL8 ASPHALT SURFACE LE — I SCALE t"= 30 J* PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS AT ORIENT WHARF Drawn by WF Bundy PHOTOGRAPH KEY PLAN Digs DMarch 23.21010 Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Current Proiect Site Photographs: (Continued) Photograph A: Photograph dated March 18, 2010 taken from the Village Lane Entry looking west into the Orient Wharf, with Orient Harbor shown in the background. The area of the existing earth-filled bulkhead structure to be spanned with a new timber deck is shown by the dashed red line in the photograph. Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Current Proiect Site Photographs: (Continued) Photograph B (Above): Photograph dated March 18, 2010 taken from the bulkheaded area proposed to be spanned with a new timber deck showing the immediate shoreline area to the south of the site. Photograph C (Below): Photograph dated March 18, 2010 taken from the adjacent bulkheaded area showing the area proposed to be spanned with a new timber deck and the immediate shoreline area to the south of the site. Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Current Project Site Photographs: (Continued) Photograph D (Above): Photograph dated March 18, 2010 taken from the bulkheaded area showing the area proposed to be spanned with a new timber deck and the immediate shoreline area to the north of the site. Photograph E (Below): Photograph dated March 18, 2010 taken from the adjacent wharf area showing the area proposed to be spanned with a new timber deck and the immediate shoreline area to the north of the site. - r a a Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Current Proiect Site Photographs: (Continued) Photoeraph F (Above): Photograph dated March 18, 2010 taken from the wharf looking east showing the area proposed to be spanned with a new timber deck in the background and the immediate shoreline area to the north of the site. Note: See Historic Photograph B for a view from circa 1900. Photograph G (Below): Photograph dated March 18, 2010 taken from the wharf looking east showing the immediate shoreline area to the south of the site. Note: See Historic Photograph C for a view from circa 1900. Y u 1 _ f li Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Current Project Site Photographs: (continued) 1 1 ' Photograph H (Left): Photograph dated March 18, 2010 looking west taken from the northern side of the portion of earth-filled bulkheaded area to be spanned with a new timber deck structure. Note the existing Town-owned Outfall pipe shown in the right .� hand portion of the photograph. i �► fill Photograph I (Right): Photograph dated March 18, 2010 looking west taken from the _ northern side of the portion of earth-Tilled ~ '" ' bulkheaded area to be spanned with a new timber deck structure showing the immediate beach area adjacent. Note the existing Town- owned Outfall pipe and existing riprap — shown in the right hand portion of the photograph. The existing riprap will be utilized to anchor the new end of the shortened outfall pipe. i r Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Current Proiect Site Photographs: (Continued) Photograph J (Right): Photograph dated March 18, 2010 looking west taken from the southern side of the portion of earth-filled bulkheaded area to be spanned with a new timber deck. The dashed line shows the area to be replaced with the new timber bridge structure. Photograph K (Left): Photograph dated March 18, 2010 looking west taken from the southern side of the portion of earth-filled bulkheaded area to be spanned with a new timber deck structure. a. Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Current Proiect Site Photographs: (Continued) Photoaraah L (Below): Photograph dated March 18, 2010 taken from the northern side of the portion of earth-filled bulkheaded area to be spanned with a new timber deck structure showing the immediate beach area to the north. Note the existing Town-owned Outfall pipe shown in the right hand portion of the photograph which is proposed to be shortened to coincide with the edge of the existing seawall as shown in Photograph l above. low` s >♦ µ b41 t; Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Drainage Unit Photographs: Photographs taken on March 23, 2010 showing the Existing Drainage Units and grate configuration on Village Lane adjacent to the Entry onto Orient Wharf. Draina2e a OWL i A. Note: Arrows depict direction of flow of road runoff Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Historic Photographs and Information: The following historical photographs are digital copies of historic postcards and photographs provided by the Orient Wharf Company. The Boob, Orient, L I. , •tea - - Historic Historic Photograph A (Above):(Above): Postcard from circa 1900 scanned from Orient Wharf Company records which shows a photograph taken from the Orient Harbor shoreline looking south onto the Orient Wharf which is shown in the background. The opening in the Wharf shown in the photograph is the location of the existing bulkheaded area proposed to be spanned with a new timber deck. Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Historic Photographs and Information: (Continued) V Z t _ MI —1 Napo �•� r Historic Photograph B (Above): Postcard from circa 1900 scanned from Orient Wharf Company records which shows a photograph taken from the Orient Wharf looking east onto the shoreline of Orient Harbor. The area to the left of the photograph is the area shown in current Photograph F. Historic Photograph C (Below): Postcard from circa 1900 scanned from Orient Wharf Company records which shows a photograph taken from the Orient Wharf looking east onto the shoreline of Orient Harbor. The area to the left of the photograph is the area shown in current Photograph C. Note the exposed seawall. aar Nn,n Md C4nt&W Ort•nt. L. 1.. N. V. M moo r Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Historic Photographs and Information: (Continued) e PAW . ..i R OAMI Historic Photoeraah D (Above): Copy of photograph from circa 1900 scanned from Orient Wharf Company records which shows a photograph taken from the Orient Harbor shoreline looking north onto the Orient Wharf which is shown in the background. Note the existing bridge in the foreground of the photograph. Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Historic Photographs and Information: (Continued) Historic Photoeraph D (Above): Copy of photograph from circa 1900 scanned from Orient Wharf Company records which shows a photograph taken from the Orient Harbor shoreline looking north onto the Orient Wharf which is shown in the background. Note the horse drawn carriage and schooner tied up to the Wharf. . . « � \\� � . ° \ \ « z :�� » � � ` . w � ��aw ° . ��y . �� / �\\ . . � � \�§ / �» . \. . . L E G E N D ———— Reachao nes MAP II.IS: REACH 5 ❑ S,aneeaNClJVaIFiiM1aMWMYbXaRaan Long Island Sound - A4nneZm,rg OrieriYPoint Manna / � / •,/ -.. 10, Areas OI Special Concern ^ U15 * UMervt,keedsees i ASC13 ® Nattmal Nalual Lanemad / J Park am"d ■ PWec Open Space l Ui ed Accessi ■ County Pan, ■ Stale Pa* \ i ■ Town P.* ■ Goe Lou.se - a �! � 5 o Dam Pond * � � ORIENT NORTH Ica.. I11= :iz-- ♦ \ ASC17 ASC16 \� OnenlP.M Rate Park .,ASC15 \Y� Onent Harbor -ASC17 Orient Harbor - * / Plum Island SCFWH sgrcn�em Neer * ASC14 ineunsanrmol �>_e • ASC 18 i 1,r, ASct9 Long Reach Point REACH 5 - / Zlum Gut t GREENPORT(V) SHELTER ISLAND (T) eC+FWH " Map of Southold Town Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Area (Reach S) PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York anon aoo a Insurance Program a -bL)U-(D.36-bb2U. m MAP SCALE 1" = 500' 500 100 1. LXD252x 50 0 FEET LIMIT OF MODERATE WAVEAGTION O METE Y AE v ur c 6) s ° m PANEL OOBBH h 9 s FIRM ZONE AE Fee a FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (EL 7) y 3 m p for SUFFOLK COUNTY,NEW YORK ® (ALL JURISDICTIONS) $KIPPERS NE m CONTAINS: P COMMUNITY NUMBER SOUTHOLD,TOWN OF 360813 ROTECTED AREA O ED 11-16-1991 ZONE AE R$ LEGEND) (EL 6) a 0 ,NOTE- ZONE AE TN9 VAP INLWWS 9W NpW E$OFTRECMa STFL .RnlEa RESOURCES SYSTEMESTABLISHED UNDER TRE COASTAL MES 9RIER ROURCES ACT OF ted ONDine SVBMWEM (EL 7) ENOBUNO IE[YBIATIW + ® PANEL 68 OF 1026 Z ® MAP SUFFIX: H t (SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT) NMice to User. The Map Number eaawn bela.R Num OF er show above placing me, prtl n tM1e Coaununay Number ZONEYE A SNpw aBpvMurpty mhe aRc.appliotipas the EL 9) LX0249 �^ suaren=m,muaitY LX0251 L :;y a oEeAl`F MAP NUMBER y o 36103CO068H X , LX0250 � Npd'1� 96 5�� f KING STREET ® c+xa se�''� MAP REVISED SEPTEMBER 25,2009 2 ; Federal Emergency Management Agency m A 't Z This is an official copy ora portion ofthe at»te referenced Rood map. It _ waB extracted using F-MIT On-Line. This map does not reflect changes A or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the 0 tltle Mock. For the letter product information about National Flood Insurance Program Rood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www.msC.fema.gm SURVEY MAP ORMT WHARF" SITUATE: ORIENT TOWN: SOUTHOLD W ; E SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY SURVEYED 05-10-2010 REVISED 06-09-2010 s SUFFOLK GOUNTY TAX # 1000 - 24 - 2 - 28.1 CERT RIDE®TO: ORMWWHAUCOLPANY Vj I i! JUN i 4 2010 1 s Board of rd of T r El--,x Harbor ' �mg / Dwel •-e!e I r _ Ill I p cN pyo El-_X.e 61-Ne . ` e 19.46' �u7 � ��.�Qlp$41E {�, - W ' o 4 �0 -_ -- w wprt Qmmv pw9 • �M 2 �. ilrce:�.- — d„IlraHH•- I'E 194.86' � - - - 05 I✓ 1.4 B..e,- ?4-1'00" �?J Asphalt Surface over Stone Pler 582o u.0 n.wi.5 e $ y PI 589'29'46"W caevo� 316.11' \ 6 orient Harbor v HEIR 6 9wel�m9 p NEW YQ F,t,SS W DS GRAPHIC 50ALE r=50JOHN C EHLERS LAND SURVEYOR NOTES, 6 EAST MAIN STREET N.Y.S.LIC.NO.50202 RIVERHEAD,N.Y. 11901 369-8288 Fax 369-8287 ELEVATIONS REFERENCE NGVD '29 DATUM 0 50 100 150 REE—C.\Documents and Settings\Owner\My Docaments\My Dropbox\10\10-124.pro OFJUN 2 3 2010 � � F,Sout ` i olawn ---__----- _ Boardoard off Trustees -----" --- — AT ! -- '- �� fi'' . I IT y,CH 7 r' P;. I clot NC {t OyC✓ yu�Ap Fp � ; � .� I _ T e � 1 - 1 I —_�_._.�-._.�-- -"_`----- =r:�-- - _ ,C}a - -_. ._• L' i �.\ .- _, ---_- . f l L - — - - — ___.— _ n ,✓ L fa T — r• 7T A � - -- _ _ � - - �✓ f ' ' c - - ° I Y / - rr� II r, II f fll � IA, � I 1 f 1IF v �� r , _ � 1 \Y rjP e 1 :.. ^JjY -�! r � ,a ✓ ' � ;', � f� 1;'+r �7 �ly. - �� i IINAUI'SURVEY ASA VIOLATION OR ADDITION `1 IG YNIF SURVEY IS A VIGUYIOR OF 1 SECTION RO1 OF THE NEW YORK STATE Q1 EDUCATION UW. 1 a COPIES A Oi THIS RV SURVEY MAP NOT LEAFING / THE LAND SURVEYORS NOT E CO 51 f / _ r 2 i /-l) ;"9 �- TO POE fO VALID TRUE HGI Af[ONFIOfAfC t;,fF� Lei P:"I' ,.1'{ !r / .� ! 9 /'�.� TO Af A VALID iAUE COPY, GUARANTEES INDICATED HTAEGN SHALL AUN ONLY TO iNf PFI60N FOR WHOM THE SURVEY _ • '` l:F �\ t Y [.� Y'/ ✓ I IS gFPA EO• AIVD On HIS C[iIALF 1G THE LEN IN AF9GNLEF OF Ll .FYI r, � GiY C� rG J I I� TITLE COMPANY GOVHI.XIUV AL AGENCY AND E_f '� I' /•.— .- f C_ ` L':y.Y.._ ✓ A` LENDING INFTIiIITICN 411E0 N.IIW N.AND - _ L LVICING INSTb 1 J TU ION GUARANTEES AE 11.1 TRANSFERABLE lV t/ , 1 I/ �. r / , 1O ADDITIONAL INSn11rt1o15 OR SURWWb OWNUR. _ LL ..Lhc ,_�tl 'f; �7,�w G, l7l:C1'7T `r'IA �'� t'�t� ,;r J cw o - s { r , ` ! , , ail "`i.'7Y �r C � , -- D EWE j JUN 23 2010 SDuthheld Town Board of Trustees FEW L/Rv'E1-CEO I O� /%N7 , V Y" CP c I a I ----_ Knr YC iG - o1-c"✓ —Yct�iol Y- T,. _}`-- - qv —. n �Nta,,af= ,G CA —cc, — P� r.,rlrst ,.I+,,e , I � q , W7 •,J � � G tc .� ��__ - I �,/� �, � _ _,_ `�___..._...__ L —,_ I 1 - �.—_ `_ _ __ � _ _ ._.._ _.. _t/ Ln -/I r J ___--� _ 'C`.,. � v''✓^ - ]L -F_!.)F.D l'] _ } �� ., I '� � � ., i / Yr�' , oL rn Y• _ — _,r� r ;' _til C)erl LT '_•c cn( f ' " .h/7 ^ rW� ' �!}/� 2J c2 ^{� ✓ G'> ri / A, - I v'- 1 {{100 G'I \ l - .r E r 'N' �/� ✓/ _, r >�' � "_ l( C K ^'~ C; P i/ � �� Y" it ✓ ,, IL � r.- ,,,nc k I ,,, "'"`"'-`-_^ -�': .,` _--_..."__..^_ -'-r•-..' 1-�� t.-'�_�._, t � w L: r rY. { _-__,�-_ _._ I -- ' 1 .- � Y'a f l, �i�e� ' �' r -u. � , e5• � _ 11 1� - rf „I >^/ y. d•r Ca >?� era- _41' to THIS RIZEDSURVEY ALTERATION OR AODIIIOX TO THIS SURVEY IS A VIOLATION YIORK Oi LY SECTION HIDA OF THE NEW YORK STALE EDUCATION LAW. COPIES Of THIS SURVEY MAP NOT IEARINO THE LAND SURVEYOR'S INKED SEAL OR 4' {' I✓a'-! '/✓ //1 J J EMR053MlIAL SHALL NOT RE CONSIDERED ,�;�� G�Ye 7 6/1.,,,/4 f �/• / ! Cl '!:� TOM A VALID TRUE COPY. GUARANTEES INDICATED HEIEON SHALL RUN //' f ONLY TO THE PERSON FOR WHOM THE SURVEY } } IS JH PREPARED, On HIS CALF TO THE NCOMPANY, IEMAAND I—� LEDINGNSTITD ICIIG=U HRION AND , TO THE ASSIGNEES OF T4 LO DING INSTI- I' IUEION.GWM SANTEES E 11.1I 7RAN PAIIE r/ tl,�! } ti� {f✓ i/{�G` ff c' 4' ,^) TO ADDITIONAL INSTIRUTIONS OR EU6W WNY r Iv/ :''�✓'<7 P(e peV/-�i'er / d'7C�/Gfd r� t:E� C/NE' s�l[7 !N/9 can 69C' �!-(pp'1� fr7lK G, c�l.[�7`z/ •f;! >y i77rx�f. •`, "��q'fS( J- `' r,lr,t✓:. `.7 �}! .S'�" Y