Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 Air, Clare & David;Frost, Timothy;Minichini, MargaretNICA B. STRUNK LISA J. Ross ESSEKS, HeFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN Street P. O. BOX 279 RIVERHeAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 (63~) 369 1700 TELECOPIER NuMBer (63I) 369-2065 September 16, 2010 WATER MIlL OFFICE MONTAUK HIGHWAY P, O. Box 570 WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 (631) 726 6633 RECEIVED Hand Delivered Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk Southold Town Clerk's Office 53095 Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 SEP 17 $oud~old Tow. Clerl~ Re: Appeal to Coastal Erosion Hazard Board qf Review Dear Mrs. Neville: We are filing an appeal on behalf of Clare and David Air, Timothy Frost, and Margaret Minichini from an August 18, 2010 CEHA permit to the Town Board, in its capacity as the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review. Although we were unable to find any "checklist" of materials required tbr the application, other than the one page application form and $250.00 filing fee, we have taken the liberty to prepare eight (8) copies (one (1) original and seven (7) copies) of the following documents for the Town Board's review: 1. Application form dated September 15, 2010; 2. Transactional Disclosure Forms (2); 3. Addendum; 4. Board of Trustees August 18, 2010 CEHA permit (Exhibit A); and 5. Record of Board of Trustees file, to the extent applicants were able to obtain such documents (Exhibit B). We are also enclosing a check in the amount of $250.00 as the filing fee for the application. September 16, 2010 Page 2 of 2 Please let me know if the Town Board requires any additional information or application materials. / }n~yc~[7- ~,~ ,~. Pasca -- /bws Enclosures TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPLICATION FOR APPEAL. TO THE COASTAL EROSION HAZARD BOARD OF REVIEW DATE 9/15/10 Fee: $250.00 NAME OF APPLICANT: David and Clare Air & Timothy Frost and Margaret~'-/~nichini ** ADDRESS: 2072 village Lane ar~ 2190 Village Lane, Orient, N~ ** DATE OF DECISION APPEALED FROM August 18, 2010 SPECIFIC CHAPTER/SECTION INVOLVED sections 111-9, 111-15 THE ALLEGED ERRORS IN THE DETERMINATION ARE: Failure %0 ~lition pexmit ~o re-surface wharf on ~ntenance of the bu/kb~. *~ INTERPRETATION THAT IS CLAIMED TO BE CORRECT: N/A RELIEF SOUGHT: Revocation of pexmit o.r, alternatively, m6d~f,~c~ion of pezmit to impose appropriate cc~ditiop~ to e~sure ~ainte~ance of h~l kh~x~. ** **See ~a~aclt~n fDr additional infonuatic~. *COPY OF THE ENTIRE BOARD OF TRUSTEE FILE INCLUDING ANY RELEVANT MAPS MUST BE ATrACHED TO THIS APPEAL SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT APPLICANT/AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE TRANSAt:flONAL DISCLOSURE FORM NAME OF APPLICATION: (Check ~11 that ~pply,) NO XXX If you ~msw~red "YES", campl~t~ ~h~ bnlnnce ofthi~ form and d~e and si~n where indicated, Nnm~ of Im~on employed by lhe Town of Southold Title or position of ~hat pe~on Deson'~ th~ relationship between yourself (linc appli~ant/~t/mp~$entatlve) and the town officer or employs, Eilh~ che~k ~he h~op/~pdnte line A) through D)nnd/or des~'ibe in ~he spnce prov/ded. The town offi~r or ~-nployee or his or h~r ~uae, sibling, paint, or child is (ehe~k rill thnt apply): DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP Form TS 1 Submittcdthis ~of $C~lt~ 20t'~0 Sep 15 10 09:58a Frost 16172169400 APPLICANT/AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORi%t YOURNAME: Frost, T:imDthy and M_inichini, Margaret NAME OF APPLICAT/O~: (Ch¢ckal] that apply.) Tax gfievanc~ Building Change of Zone Co'al Erosion Approval of plat Moodng ~cmpfion ~m plat or official map Pl~ing 0f"O~e', ~ ~ activity.). Do you pem~lly (~ fl~ou~ your ~y, spout, siblin~ p~nt, or ~hild) ~v= a relationship ~i~ ~y o~c~ or employee of ~ To~ af Sou~eld7 "R~la~h~" indud~ by bl~d, m~¢, ~ busM~a in~ "Busings inte~$t" iuciud~fi a pum:mhip, in whiCh ~e {o~ o~ c~ or employe~ ~as evs~ a p~i~ ox~r ship of (or ~playment by) a ~omtion in w~i~h thc ~ o~¢er or {mploy a~ o~ mom ~ 5% of ~e If you ~w~ "~S", ~mpl~ ~e balan~ of~is ~ ~d ~te ~d si~ whc~ in~cat~. N~ af p~n ~mploycd by ~e To~ of Sou~old D~cHb~ ~¢ relationship be~'e~n youm¢lf (~e appli~enu'mp~mtive) ~d ~e ~o~ o~r or ~mploy~. E{~ cheok thC appropriate IM¢ A) ~mu~ D) ~dlor ~b~ in ~¢ spac~ pmvidod. ~ to%~ o~ or ~ploy¢~ or h{~ ~ her ap~a~, ~%l[ng, pmn~ or emir is (~ ali ~al apply): A} ~ o~¢r af~a~ ~ ~% of~e ~l~ of~¢ co.orate stock of~¢ applier B) tM [~al or ~¢ia[ o~ of~y int~r~ in · no~¢o~mle ~ti~ (when __.C) ~ o~c~r, dlr¢~or, p~cr, or employe~ of ~a applic~t; or ~.D) ~ at.al appli~L DESCPJPTION OF RELATIONSH/P Form TS I Submitted this Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review (Town Board) Appeal of Trustees' August 18, 2010 Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Permit Issued to the Orient Wharf Company I. Appellants and Subject Property/Owner The Appellants on this appeal are: A. David and Clare Air, as owners of the property immediately to the north of the wharf property that is the subject of this appeal. The Air property is located at 2072 Village Lane (SCTM #1000-24-2-27). B. Timothy Frost and Margaret Minichini, as owners of the property immediately to the south of the wharf property that is the subject of this appeal. The Frost/Minichini property is located at 2190 Village Lane (SCTM #1000-26-1-1.1). Appellants were not the applicants with respect to the subject permit being challenged on this appeal. Rather, this appeal involves a parcel of property claimed to be owned, controlled, or used by the Orient Wharf Company, which was the applicant before the Trustees. The Orient Wharf Company's property is improved as a wharf and marina, with associated docks and structures. The wharf property is located at 2110 Village Lane (SCTM #1000-24-2-28.1). Although not the permit holder or owner of the subject wharf, appellants have standing to bring this appeal because they are aggrieved by the Trustees' Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Permit at issue. As the owners of the two properties on both sides of the subject wharf- including on both sides of the particular area of the wharf that is the subject of the 8/18/10 permit - and as the parties entitled to notice of the application before the Trustees, Appellants have presumptive standing under New York law. Moreover, as described below, they are aggrieved in fact, in a manner different than that from the public at large, due to the potential catastrophic damage that will be caused to their properties if the permit is not revoked or modified as requested herein. Additional information about the property and area is contained in the "Background Facts" section below (sec. V). II. August 18, 2010 Decision/Permit Appealed From This appeal seeks a revocation/modification of a permit issued by the Board of Trustees, exercising its Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA) jurisdiction, on August 18, 2010. A copy of the permit is annexed hereto as Exhibit A. The 8/18/10 permit authorized the Orient Wharf Company to replace an approximately 17-foot asphalt span of the solid-fill wharf (with wooden bulkheads on each side and fill in between) with a new timber deck structure, as depicted on certain plans of W.F. Bundy last revised on 8/12/2010. Said plans are annexed to the permit in Exhibit A. Although the plans show the bulkhead adjacent to the new timber deck as "to remain," the permit was not conditioned on the bulkhead being maintained, nor was a 30-year maintenance plan proposed or approved as required by the Town's Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Law (see further discussion below). The issue was raised by Appellants due to the significant environmental and coastal erosion impacts that would be created by the project if the bulkhead and fill underneath the new timber deck were ultimately breached, which would cause significant loss of adjacent upland and property damage to the Appellants' properties. The failure to protect against such impacts was a blatant violation of the standards of the CEHA Law. It should be noted that the subject permit was jointly issued under the Trustees' wetlands and CEHA jurisdiction. Since there no appeal may be taken to the Town Board from a wetlands permit, this appeal only seeks review of the 8/18/10 permit insofar as it was issued as a CEHA permit. Appellants reserve the right to seek judicial review of the wetlands permit, as well as the CEHA permit to the extent the relief requested herein is not granted. III. Sections Involved and Alleged Errors in the Permit on Appeal This appeal involves the basic requirements and purposes of Chapter 111 of the Code of the Town of Southold (Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas), as well as the specific standards in sections 111-9 (Issuance of Permit) and 111-15 (Erosion Protection Structures). The appeal also involves the corresponding State-law provisions set forth in NY Environmental Conservation Law Article 34. The errors committed by the Trustees relating to the issuance of the permit to the Orient Wharf Company all revolve around the Trustees' refusal to condition the permit to resurface the 17-foot span of the wharf on the maintenance of the bulkhead and fill underneath that 17-foot span. Without such a condition, the proposed work approved by the permit (a) could not satisfy the minimal standards of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area law, (b) violated the express requirements of the law for a 30-year maintenance program, and (c) violated SEQRA. A further explanation of the grounds of this appeal will follow in sections VI below. IV. Record Before Trustees A copy of the record of the application to the Trustees, insofar as Appellants were able to obtain such record, is annexed hereto as Exhibit B. To the extent additional documents may be made available, they will be provided. Additionally, since the Appellants were not the applicants before the Trustees, the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Board of Review should requisition the entire Board of Trustees' file to ensure that a complete record of the proceedings before the Trustees be incorporated into this Board's review process. V. Background Facts Relevant to Appeal a. The Orient Wharf and Projeet Area The Orient Wharf Company claims to own and maintain the "Orient Wharf," an approximately 30-foot-wide solid-fill wharf]jetty structure extending more than 600 feet in a westerly direction from Village Lane. About 500 feet of the wharf extends beyond the mean high water mark into Orient Harbor, with the remaining portion located in the "upland" area between Village Lane and the water. Appellants own the properties immediately to the north and south of the wharf. The subject permit only involves a 17-foot span of the 600+-foot wharf, but that span is in a critical location adjacent to the sandy beach, where the wharf begins to extend into Orient Harbor. In fact, as depicted on the Orient Wharf Company's own plans, the 17-foot span is located between the high and low-tide lines to the north of the wharf and just landward of the high-tide line to the south of the wharf. In other words, the span is at the critical juncture of the coastline where the beach is subject to regular tidal action. Perhaps more important from an erosion standpoint, according to the Orient Wharf Company's own site plan, the project area is also located in a FEMA velocity zone (VE9). As such, it cannot be disputed that the proposed work would be located in a coastal high hazard area that will be subject to high velocity wave action from storm events. The Orient Wharf Company's application materials submitted to the Trustees did not appear to clearly show the CEHA line, but it is believed that the entirety of the 17-foot span portion of the wharf at issue is located within the coastal erosion hazard area. The Orient Wharf Company conceded as much by applying for a coastal erosion hazard area permit from the Trustees. b. T~e Application to the Trustees The Orient Wharf Company's application to the Trustees sought a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area permit to change the configuration of the 17-foot span (and only that 17-foot span) from a solid-fill asphalt-paved structure into a timber- surfaced "bridge" structure that was fully supported on each end of the bridge but was not supported by (or dependent on) the bulkhead and fill underneath the timber surface. Originally, the application also sought additional relief involving an "outfall pipe" that was not even located on the Orient Wharf Company's property, but the application was amended to exclude that request after Appellants Clare and David Air demonstrated that they owned the property on which the pipe was located and that the pipe was controlled by the Town, and thus the Orient Wharf Company had no right to make any unilateral changes to an outfall pipe that was neither controlled nor owned by that entity. The Orient Wharf Company's original application materials were vague and deliberately cryptic with respect to the ultimate fate of the bulkhead/fill structure underneath the proposed "bridge." While the plans submitted to the Trustees did not show the bulkheads as being removed (and labeled them as "to remain") the application materials conceded that they were "deteriorating" but did not propose to repair them, maintain them, or connect them to the new timber "bridge." Worse, a careful review of the Orient Wharf Company's written explanations submitted in support of its application revealed that the application to replace the asphalt pavement with a "bridge" was just the first step of a plan to create a new water channel in a location that currently consists of a sandy upland beach and wetlands. In other words, the ultimate goal of the "bridge" plan 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 was supported by the following aspects of the original application: Throughout the application materials, the Orient Wharf Company raised 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." 4 Perhaps the most honest glimpse of the Orient Wharf Company's intentions was in its description of an allegedly historic "bridge" (over water) that supposedly existed at this are of the wharf at some time before 1978, and in its statement that "the replacement of the wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber bridge structure" was "proposed to replicate and reconstruct the original wharf configuration and features...." The Orient Wharf Company also stated, over and over, that the "intent" of the proposed bridge was 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 Orient Wharf Company was trying to create the predicate for a subsequent elimination of the bulkhead and fill underneath the newly- created "bridge," which would no longer be "dependent" on those walls or the fill for support. In short, the Orient Wharf Company asked the Trustees to approve the first step of a multi-phase project, without candidly admitting what the next phases were, but while strongly implying that its ultimate goal was to create a "bridge" over a newly-opened channel, to erode the existing beach and replicate some perceived "historic" condition of an eroded coastline that existed long before the CEHA code was adopted to protect against such erosion, and long before Appellants acquired their properties in their current condition. c. The Unda'sputed Erosive Impacts o£a Breach o£ the Bulkhead Once Appellants learned of the Orient Wharf Company's proposal, they demonstrated, without rebuttal by the Orient Wharf Company, that a breach of the solid-fill structure in the area underneath the proposed "bridge" would have catastrophic erosive effects and would substantially damage Appellants' upland properties, along with the foreshore area and the associated wetland areas, thereby re'drawing the coastline through deliberate erosion. It does not take an engineering degree to understand the destructive erosive effects that would be created by a solid-fill wharf that was "opened" at the most critical junction where the wharf meets the beach. As it stands now, the wharf creates a more than 600-foot-long solid wall, generally perpendicular to the shoreline. About 500 feet of the wharf extends into Orient Harbor. The 500-foot seaward section currently protects the shoreline, by shielding against northerly and southerly flowing currents, as evidenced by signs of accretion at the critical junction where the wharf meets the beach. 5 If the Orient Wharf Company were ever successful in opening up or breaching just this 17-foot section of the otherwise solid structure, it will have essentially created a "valve" in the wall, at the worst possible location, namely, the fulcrum between the wharf and beach. Because that "valve" would be located at the landward end of the 500-foot section, where the beach currently exists, once that "valve" is opened up, it will act as a high-velocity channel - with corresponding erosive forces - between two areas of existing beachfront. If that "valve" is created, the first time there are heavy winds and currents flowing in either a northeasterly or southeasterly direction, those currents will be essentially funneled between the essentially-perpendicular 500-foot seaward section of the wall and the beach toward the very fulcrum of this '`bridge" and opening, where the currents will then be accelerated through the lone opening at high velocities due to the convergent nozzle effect of larger currents being directed through a smaller opening. In one heavy storm, the beach would likely be destroyed, as would the nearshore area and the associated wetlands. A visual depiction of the dangerous conditions that would be created by such a breach, including the "funnelnig' of currents toward and under the '`bridge" is shown in figure 1: h Diagram Showing Potential Current Ftow Under Breached "Bndge' Thus, the "bridge" is proposed to be located literally at the point where it would cause the most damage to the coastline, to the foreshore area, to the wetlands, and to Appellant's properties. Any breach of the wharf underneath the "bridge" would transform the wharf from an erosion-protection structure into an erosion-causing structure. The funneling action created by the solid jetty will exacerbate any erosion that would be caused by natural storm events, rather than protect against such erosion. This concept was essentially proved by the Orient Wharf Company's own application materials, which described the condition of the once "open" bridge and stated that there was originally water under the bridge, and far less beach on each side of the wharf than exists now, after the bridge was closed and the jetty has been a "solid" wall for over 30 years. In other words, when the "bridge" was allegedly open more than 30 years ago, the shoreline eroded, yet when the bridge was closed, the shoreline accreted. The company's own materials therefore proved the erosive forces that would be created by a "re-opening~' of the bridge in that critical jdncture. All of this information was presented to the Trustees, both in writing and at the Trustees' hearing, by Appellant's counsel and their environmental consultant. Nobody (whether the Trustees or Orient Wharf Company representatives) questioned the claim by Appellants that the breach of the wharf under the "bridge" would cause severe erosion to the beach, damage to upland properties, and loss of the foreshore area and associated wetlands. The Trustees' Refusal To Condition Permit On the Maintenance of the Bulkhead Violated the CEHA Law Standards When the matter was under consideration by the Trustees, Appellants argued that the Trustees could easily avoid all of the potentially catastrophic property damage by simply conditioning the proposed work on the maintenance of the bulkhead. Appellants informed the Trustees that they would not object to the proposed timber deck if that work was conditioned on maintaining the bulkhead. Appellants argued that, under the Town's CEHA law, the standards of § 111-15 governing erosion protection structures (which are defined as including wharfs and jetties) mandate that such structure be designed to have a 30-year life expectancy and have a 30-year maintenance plan in place. Appellants further argued that, in the absence of any condition requiring maintenance of the bulkhead, it would have to be presumed that the bulkhead - which the Orient Wharf Company conceded was "deteriorating" and in need of "extensive reconstruction" - will soon fail, that the wharf under the new "bridge" will eventually be breached, and that the project will therefore cause erosion, thereby violating the fundamental standards governing CEHA permits. Instead of taking the simple, code-mandated step of conditioning its permit on the maintenance of the bulkhead, the Trustees ignored the issue, buried their heads in the sand, and approved the permit without any condition relating to the bulkhead. Worse, in response to Appellants request for a condition relating to the bulkhead, the Trustees' president advised Appellants on the record that the Trustees were without any authority to impose conditions on the permit, as if the Trustees' only choice was to approve the proposed work "as is." The Trustees' decision violated the CEHA law on several levels and cannot be sustained under the Southold Town Code and New York Law: Without a Commitment or Condition to MMnt~in tl~e Build, earl, the Project Violates the Standards of the CELIA Law Unless the Orient Wharf Company committed to maintaining the bulkhead, and unless the CEHA permit was conditioned on the maintenance of the bulkhead, it must be presumed that the already "deteriorating" bulkhead will ultimately be breached and that such breach will cause significant erosion to the coastline and damage to upland properties, the foreshore area, and associated wetlands. Once that ultimate effect of the project is acknowledged, there is no way the project can qualify for a CEHA permit under Town Code Chapter 111 and NY Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Article 34, the State law on which the Town's CEHA law is based and under which it is governed, because the entire code is aimed at preventing, not causing erosion. First, the "purpose" section of the Town's code (§ 111-4) confirms that one of the goals of the CEHA 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." (Emphasis added) 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. 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. [Emphasis added] Finally, section 111-15, applicable specifically to erosion protection structures like jetties and wharfs, provides as follows: § 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 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 years. The State CEHA standards, on which the Town's CEHA law is based, has similar requirements. For example, under § 34-0108(3), which sets forth the minimal standards applicable to local CEHA codes (see § 34'010511]), the State law requires that the localities regulate development "including placement of erosion protection structures," so that (a) "there will be no measurable increase in erosion to the development site or at other locations" and (b) "so as to minimize adverse effects upon natural protective features," and (c) so as to ensure that they "have a reasonable probability of controlling long-term erosion on the immediate site for a period of at least thirty years...." The proposal cannot meet any of the standards of the Town Code (or the comparable State requirements): · §111-4: Since the purpose of the project is to facilitate and cause erosion, its purpose is the exact opposite of the purpose of the CEHA law, which is to 9 "minimize or prevent damage or destruction to man-made property, private and public property, natural protective features and other natural resources." · § lll'9(A): Since the Orient Wharf Company never explored or analyzed "alternatives" - which would have included the obvious alternative of simply maintaining the bulkheads - the company failed to meet its burden of proving that the project is "reasonable and necessary" considering feasible alternatives. · § lll-9(B): Since the project will ultimately cause erosion, it obviously cannot meet a standard that that it is "not likely to cause a measurable increase in erosion at the proposed site and at other locations." · § 111-9(C): Since the ultimate effect (if not intent) is to erode away the beach near the wharf (which is defined under the code as a "natural protective feature), the project cannot be found to "prevent" or at least "~ninimize' the "adverse effects on natural protective features and their functions and protective values, existing erosion protection structures and natural resources." · § lll-15(A)(1): For the same reason, because it will cause erosion, the project cannot be found to "Not be likely to cause a measurable increase in erosion at the development site or at other locations." · § 111-15(A)(2): Likewise, it cannot meet the standard that it "Minimize and, if possible, prevent adverse effects upon natural protective features...." · §lll-15(B): Finally, since the Orient Wharf Company has already admitted that the bulkhead is "deteriorating" and in need of "extensive" repairs, which it is not proposing to do now or ever, the project obviously cannot meet the requirement that it be constructed with "a reasonable probability of controlling erosion on the immediate site for at least 30 years." Therefore, the project - without a condition requiring the maintenance of the bulkhead - violates literally all of the standards of the Town's CEHA law, as opposed to being required to meet every single one of them. Of course, the project could easily be modified to satisfy the criteria simply by including a condition/commitment to maintaining the bulkhead. If the permit were conditioned on maintaining the bulkhead, then the inevitable erosion that would be caused by the breach of the wharf at this critical juncture would be eliminated. Such a project would not "cause" erosion and could be found to "minimize" damage to properties and natural protective features. Additionally, the Trustees' president was incorrect to suggest that the Trustees lacked the power to "condition" the permit on anything other than what the applicants were proposing. Under section 111-27(C)(6), all permits are to contain the "conditions" of the approval, and the Trustees routinely include conditions in their approval, even conditions requiring substantial design changes. 10 Moreover, even if the Trustees lacked the "power" to include any conditions, then the Trustees should have denied the permit until the Orient Wharf Company provided the required commitment to maintain the bulkhead, since, in the absence of that commitment, the project could not meet the CEHA standards. One way or the other, whether as a voluntary offer or an involuntary condition imposed by the Trustees, the maintenance of the bulkhead had to be a requirement of any permit in order to satisfy the CEHA standards. Without a 30-Year Design or Maintenance Program, the Project Violates the Standards o£ the GEHA Law. In addition to failing to meet the permit standards, the project failed to meet the express maintenance standards requiring any erosion protection structure to be designed or maintained for a life expectancy of 30 years. The 30'year requirement is a "minimum standard" set forth in the State CEHA law. Under those minimum standards, all erosion protection structures must be designed in a manner that they "have a reasonable probability of controlling long-term erosion on the immediate site for a period of at least thirty years and that a long-term maintenance program is provided for such structures," except where, if the project is constructed of materials with a "working life of less than thirty years," the project may include a "maintenance program that assures that they will be regularly maintained and replaced as necessary to attain the required thirty years of erosion protection." (See ECL § 34-010813] Id], defined as a minimal standard applicable to local codes at ECL § 34-010511]). The Town's code does, in fact, include the 30-year maintenance requirement in § 111-15(B), (C), and (D), which require a 30'year design, 30-year life expectancy, and 30-year maintenance program, including a bond requirement if necessary: § 111-15. Erosion protection structures. The following requirements apply to the construction, modification or restoration of erosion protection structures: B. 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 ll measures must have a reasonable probability of controlling erosion on the immediate site for at least 30 years. 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 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. Therefore, Appellants' demand that the Trustees require the Orient Wharf Company to commit to maintaining the structure that was shown on its plans was nothing but a demand that the code requirements be followed. The Trustees, for some inexplicable reason, suggested that they had no power to require ongoing maintenance of the structure. Yet the code not only gives the Trustees such power, it obligates the applicants to maintain such structures and prohibits the Trustees from approving a permit if the proposal fails to meet such minimal standards. Given this statutory requirement, there can be no excuse for failing to require the Orient Wharf Company to maintain the structure for 30 years and to provide a maintenance plan and bond to ensure such a 30-year life expectancy. Without a Condition to Maintain the Bulkhead, the Failure to Consider the EtYects of the Inevitable B~'each of the ~ha~f Violated SEQRA and Amounted to Illegal Segmentation Aside from the specific code issues, the Orient Wharf Company's application suffered from another fundamental State-law issue: the deliberate "segmentation" of review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), as well as the failure to consider the potential environmental impacts of the project. The Trustees undertook no SEQRA review of the application, instead adopting a resolution - before the hearing even opened - that declared the 12 application to be exempt from SEQRA review, without any explanation. Under the Town Code, however, all regulated CEHA activities are subject to SEQRA review under § 111-33: § 111-33. Environmental review. All regulated activities are subject to the review procedures required by the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law. The applicant may be required to submit information necessary for compliance with SEQR in addition to information required under this chapter. The Trustees' refusal to perform SEQRA review was compounded by the fact that the Orient Wharf Company's application, on its face, constituted illegal SEQRA "segmentation." 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 of 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 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 the threshold requiring any review" Form3n v. Tra of State Univ. ofN. Y., 303 A.D.2d 1019, 757 N.Y.S.2d 180 (4th Dep't 2003) (quoting Concerned Citizens for Envt. v Z3g3t~, 243 A.D.2d 20, 22, 672 N.Y.S.2d 956 (3d Dep't 1998)). Here, the Orient Wharf Company's application violated 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 Orient Wharf Company mentioned - over and over - but never identified with specificity. As discussed above, we can glean from the Orient Wharf Company'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 Orient Wharf Company is avoiding addressing the cumulative environmental impacts of the entire proposal. In short, this proposal is a prototypical segmentation of environmental review. It is therefore prohibited by SEQRA. The Trustees' CEHA Permit Must Be Revoked and/or Modified to Require the Maintenance of the Bulkhead as a Condition of Any Permit As Appellants argued to the Trustees, they are not invariably or unalterably opposed to any improvements being made by the Orient Wharf Company to its wharf. Appellants are only opposed to alterations that have the potential to cause erosion. Appellants' concern could easily be addressed - while at the same time allowing the Orient Wharf Company to perform the exact work authorized by its permit - simply by adding a condition that requires the permit holder to repair the bulkhead and comply with the 30-year maintenance requirement set forth in both New York law and the Town Code. If that condition is added to the permit, and the Orient Wharf Company is required to repair the deteriorating bulkhead and provide a compliant 30-year maintenance program, including a bond, Appellants' concerns about erosion will be addressed, and the CEHA law standards can be satisfied. In the absence of any such conditions, however, the only solution is a full revocation of the permit and a requirement that the Orient Wharf Company restore the wharf to its prior condition. 14 Legal analysis submitted by Essek~&~ngel, LLP..-. A~4~ony C. Pasca Attorneys for Appel]ants 108 East Main Street PO Box 279 Riverhead, NY 11901 631-369-1700 15 Exhibit A ^u[,31, 2010 Jill M. Dohe:rty, P~:~idem Jam~ F. King, ¥ice-P~idem Dav~ Bo/o (~hoeio, Jr. John No. 7538 Town Hall, 53095 Main Rd. P.O. Box I 179 Southold, NY !1971 Te~vho~e (63 I) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-664l P. 7/!1 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 ½ constructed Project complete, compliance inspection. AUG 31,2010 05:36A Mary S page 7 2010 7:51AM No. 7538 F. 6/]i Jill M. Doherty, Presidcr~t Jame~ F. King. Vice-Pre~/dent Dave Bergen Bob Gho~io, Jr. John Bredemeyer Town Hall Annex 54375 M.a/n Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 1197L0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COASTAL EROSION MANAGEMENT PERMIT Permit #7368C Date: August 18, 2010 SCTMf124~2-28.1 Name of ApplicanUAgent: 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 E~ULKHEAD 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, P_residen~/ BoaYd of Trustees JMD:lms AUG 31,2010 05:36A Mary S page 6 2010 ?:5lAM No. 7538 P. 5/11 TERMS AND CONDiiTIONS Thc Permittee, ~)rient Wharf Co.. 2110 Villasz¢ Lane. Orient. NrY, as part of the consideration for the issuance of the Permit does understand and prescribe to the following: That the said Board of Truatecs and the Town of Southold are released fi:om any and all damages, or claims for damages, of suits arising directly or indirectly aa a result of any operation performed ~t to this Permit, and the said Pezmltte~ will, at his or her own expense, defend any and all such suits iuifiated by third pa-tics, and the said Permittee assanaes full liability with respect thereto, to the complete exclusion of the ]Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold. 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. That this P~rmit should be retained indefinitely, or as long as the ~aid Pexmittee wishes to maintain the structure or project involved, to provide evidence to anyone concerned that authorization was originally obtained. That the work inwlv~l will be subject to the inspection and approval of the Board or its agents, and non-complianc~ with the provisions of the originating application may be cause for revocation of this Permit by resolution of the said Board. That there wiB be no unreasonable interference with navigation as a~msult of the work herein authorized..: That there shall be no interference with the right of the phallic t6 Pass find rep~5~long the beach between liigh and low water marks, That if future operations of the Town of Southold mqaire the removal and/or alterations in the location of the work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Board of Tmstens, the work shall cause unreaso~ble obstruction to free navigation, the said Permittee will be ~requi~d._, upon due notice~ 11o remove or alter tiffs work project herein stated without . exp~es to tl~ Town ~f ~0~thokL - ~. That the said Board will be notified by the Permittee of the completi~.n 0f tl~_! .-*e~r. k authorized. .,, .?. That the Permittee will obtain ali other permits and consents that may be required supplemental to this permit, which may be subject to revoke upon failure m obtain same. AUG 31,2010 05:36A Mary S [~ge 5 Aug. 31. ~©10 7:50AM N0,7538 P. ~Wgtl~d Permit and CO?~ t~,o~_lan~rmii to. repla~-ettlii eltisting ~d ace.s p~m~ (an ap~ox.-~.~$n~ ~,~x~ ~ ~o~ ~ad- strange w~ a new ~mber d~ structure, and ~ ~piet~ on..~g~g~pr~ed by W~. a~y ~st re.ed ~ WI~q~S ~I~OF, ~e s~d, Board ofT~ 5emby ~ ~io S~I ~ ~c a~x~ ........... J.~ ~,,,,~. ,~ ~ .... . . , .~.:::. , AUG 31,2010 05:35A Mary S page 4 Aug. 3]. 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 Cod~, 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, ~ Bo§rd of TruStees JMD/Ims AUG 31,2010 05:35A Mary S page 3 Au~.~l, ~11 I:~OAM No.?5S8 P. 2/11 Jill M. Dohor~¥, President Jame~ F, King, Vice~Pre~ide~t Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. John Brederaeyer Tow~ HaH Annex 54375 M~dn Road P.O. Box 1179 $outhold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 August 18, 2010 BOAtlI) OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 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 dudng 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, ~- ~ ~ page 2 AUG ~1,_0~0 05:34A Mary S ~, ~ ~ / I~ERCONNECTING DRAIN ~ D~IN PIPES ~%~ ~ST I APPROVED BY WAR MEMORIAL % Inftomlafio~ shown on this Sketch reflects Survey Irdormat~oa as pmpam¢l by John C. Ehlem, Land Sueceyor, dated Se~m~ber 1999 ORIENT I EXISTING ACCESS VIAASPHALT PAVEMENT OVER FILL TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW .""'TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE 8PANNING 'THE AREA SHOWN LDER & BULKHEAD WHARF w/ FILL & ASPHALT SURFACE .... ~,-- SCALE: 1" = 30'0" PROPO~I~'~--~ODIFICATIONS TO oRIENT WHARF Drawn by'. WF Bundy Modification Pl~n ~~--~ Date: March 26, 2010 [ WFI~.Aug 12,2010 ~ Revised: May 3, 2010 Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York ~_.~a, Pipe Modifica0ons) July 29, 2010, Aug 12. 2010 Ck'd by: SCTM #: ! 000-24-2-28. I Sketch prepared by WF Bundy,w East Moric~es NY 11~ AUG 31,2010 05:37A Mary S page 8 EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH A NEW TIMBER DECK ~I~.UCTURE SUPPORTEDAT EXISTING BEAM POCKETS AT EACH END EXISTING GRADE EL: 2~8' FILL EXISTS BEYOND THE SECTION BEING ",i REPLACED WITH NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE E~ ~ SCALE: 1" = 10'0" EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE ON BOTH ~ //~ NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE ENDS OF N;:W TIMBER DECK STRU,.,C,TURE A~ PER ENGINEF-R'S DRAWINGS \ TO BE PATCHED & PITCHEDAS REQ D {"'- ~ ............................. ~ '~' '\ +1. ~" e. // ~' BEAM POCKETS TO ALLOW PLACEMENT OF ~,,,..~,_,~_.~_~.v,~_.~_~_~~ .... ,~ . ", '" ,'" / , ~ SUPPORTBEAMS+/-tB"(APPROX21 CY)&DIS, POBED,,,-J ~CTIVITY DELETED' ,,-~u ~ ~. // ~ INANAPPROVE_D UPLAND SITE, ~' .... ' _ '_'"'--I~_ .... ' '~ ~" ' ' ~ "' -- -EXtBTINGPILINGS&SHEATHINGTOREMAN '.','.'.'.'.'.'.'.',.,:,,,:,: NOTE: ~ EXISTING CONCRETE SEAWALLAT SHORELINE For T0¢o Elevalion$, other than these sh.ow~ al Project Area; see John C. EXISTS BEYOND THE NEW TIMBER DECK SIRUCTURE Ehlers Su~ey dale~ June g, 2010 SCALE: 1" = 10' 0" SECTION'~I:~'~ THRU EXISTING BULKHEAD LOOKING EAST NOTE; Drawn by: WI: Bundy Infor;mallon strewn ~1 f~'is Skelch reflects Buwey InlormaBor~ as prepared by John C. Ehlers, Land Date: March 26. 2010 Surveyor. dated 8ectembe¢ lS99 & June 9 2010 Revised: 03 May 2010 29 July 2010 (Noted Elevalions at Sections) 12 Aug 2010 (Deleted Ou~all Pipe Modifications & Modified Fit[ Removat to be ONLY a{ Beam Pockets) C.~cl by: SECTIONS THROUGH EXISTING BULKHEAD PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF ~.-=-==-==~_t;~_Wh_a~[f Company, Orient New York ~.lj~ .,~., , FIB ernest Io ~ ONLY el B~m Po~els PLAN VIEW AHW 2.5 ALW 0.0 CROSS'VIEW PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT REMO\ A.HW 2.5 ALW OPJ ENT HAF~OR 0.0 WATER DEPTH FEET DATUM FOR SOUNDINGS ALW 0.0 -41¸ o. DA'vlD NR (2072 ¥1LL~E LANE) LOT 1D00-24-2-28.1 (APPUCANT, 2110 ~ ~ L~ ~26--2-~.t (2~ ~E ~ CROSS'VIEW PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT REMOVAL SCALE HAGSTROM SUFFOLK COUNTY ATtAS MAP 26 GRID E--47 LOCA'RON MAP L ORIENT WHARF ASPHALT PAVEMENT REMOVAL ORIENT HARBOR ORIENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPLICANT: ORIENT WHARF CO. INC. DRAWN BY: CORWlN SHEET 1 OF 1 APRIL 1, 2010 Exhibit B W FB~ May 18, Z.'Q~.q, L~ ~ L'~ ~ 'U 1~ I /~! , / ~ . . ~ Project D~ PROPO, Ctcn a~tr}ntr,r' ~ ~"IONS T6 ~' Orient Wh~ &w York 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 Key Plan No Scale Site Situated within: FFMA Flood Zones: VEg, AZ7 and LiMWA apply Coastal Barrier Resource Area (CBRA) Zone Groundwater Management Zone IV NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands Zones: LZ, SM Property_ Information Orient, New York Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York SCTM #: 1000-24-02-28.1 Property Classification: Social Organization Zoning District: "M-I" Marine Replacement of Asphalt with Timber Decking Purpose of Activities: Replace existing access over deteriorated asphalt pavement on fill with new timber deck structure Property Services Information: Postal District: Southold School District: Southold Fire District: Southold Electrical Service: LIPA Water Service: SCWA Property Siting Data: Tide Range: +/- 2.5' 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 Rundy Date: March 29, 2010 Revised: 18 May 2010 Ck'd by: DENOTES RUNOFF FLOW ASPHALT PAVEMENT *.. EX,ST.OAO D~A~N / ~2 ~ ' -- ~ ~ CONNECTED TO ~' ~ . ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~/ ~ Structures not dra~  ~ W~ ME~RI~ ~WN /~ ~M ~ ~0~-1.1 .~,7o ~..' -,.,...- · · > x -.'" ."-. OUTFAL,.L ." " PiPE -'~ EXISTING RIP RAP & PRo~POS'ED'.' ", END?F OUTFALL PiPE '~'i-~i x .. ~'07 BEACH AREA EXISTING END OF OUTFALL PIPE Information as prepared by John C Ehlers, Land Surveyor, dated Sep ember 1999 & May 2010 28'0" EXISTING ACCESS VIA ASPHALT PAVEMENT OVER FILL TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW ~ ~ 'TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SPANNING THE AREA SHOWN 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 # 1000~24-2-214.1 Ck'd by: Sketch prepared by WF Bundy, Easl Mobches NY 11940 .Z>~~ INTERCONNECTING EXISTINGDRAiNROAD z.~ DRAIN PIPES EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO BE SHORTENED TO COINCIDE WITH x EXISTING RIPRAP WHICH WILL BE RE-UTILIZED AT NEW END OF PIPE xx 'Poz BEACHAREA EXISTING END OF OUTFALL PIPE DENOTES RUNOFF FLOW ASPHALT PAVEMENT % p~FALL PIPE ~ / NOTE: ~ ' ~ ~ ~/ ~x St~tyms~otdrawn / x to ~le or located ~ EXISTING BURIED NOTE: Information as prepared by John C. Ehlers, Land information shown on this Sketch regects Survey Surveyor, dated September 1999 & May 2010 EXISTING ACCESS VIA ASPHALT PAVEMENT OVER FILL TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW ~..-'TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SPANNING THE AREA SHOWN 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 Date: March 26, 2010 Revised: May 3, 2010 Ck'd by: Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York SCTM #: 1000-24-2-28.1 Sketch prepared by WF Bundy, East Moriche$ NY 11940 EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH A NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SUPPORTED AT EXISTING BEAM POCKETS AT EACH END , ~ +/- 28' 0" EXISTING PILINGS & SHEATHING TO REMAItN ~ EXISTING GRADE -- EXISTING BOULDER & BULKHEAD STRUCTURE w/ FILL EXISTS BEYOND THE SECTION BEING REPLACED WITH NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE ======================================= EXISTING FILL TO BE REMOVED TO LEVEL BELOW EXISTING BEAM POCKETS +/- 18" (APPROX 20 CY) AND DISPOSED OF IN AN APPROVED UPLAND SITE. EXISTING GRADE ' ~ EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO BE SHORTENED (SEE MODIFICATION PLAN) SCALE: 1" = 10' 0" ¢¢A~ ~,ECTION THRU EXISTING BULKHEAD LOOKING WEST NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE AS PER ENGINEER'S DRAWINGS EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO BE +/- 28' 0" EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE ON BOTH ENDS OF NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE TO BE PATCHED & PITCHED AS REQ'D <, EXISTING FILL TO BE REMOVED TO LEVEL BELOW ~EXlSTING BEAM POCKETS +/- 18" (APPROX 20 CY) SHORTENED & EXISTING RIPRAP UTfLIZED AT NEW END OF PIPE (SEE PLAN)~ EXISTING GRADE __ ~ · AND DISPOSED OF IN AN APPROVED UPLAND SITE. ~7,~ EXISTING PILINGS & SHEATHING TO REMAIN EXISTING GRADE ~ EXISTING CONCRETE SEAWALL AT SHORELINE EXISTS BEYOND THE NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SECTION NOTE: Information shown on this Sketch reflects Survey Information as prepared by John C, Ehlers, Land Surveyor. da ed S(,ptember' 1999 Drawn by: WF Bundy Date: March 26, 2010 Revised: 03 May 2010 Ck'd by: Sketch prepared bvWF Bu'~dy, East Moriches NY 11940 SCALE: 1" = 10' 0" ~B~ THRU EXISTING BULKHEAD LOOKING EAST SECTIONS THROUGH EXISTING BULKHEAD PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York SCTM #: 1000-24-2-28.1 DRAIN DRAIN INTERCONNECTING DRAIN PIPES DENQTES RUNOFF FLOW ASPHALT PAVEMENT EXIST ROAD DRAIN CONNECTED TO OUTFALL PIPE Structures not drawn \ to scale or located EXIST ~ONC CURS ///~EXISTING FENCE WAR MEMORIAL LAWN SCTM #: 1000-26-1-1.1 ..' ,.' .. OUTFA~L PIPE EXISTING RIP RAP & PROPOSED! END OF OUTFALL PIPE "x '~oz BEACHAREA EXISTING END OF -~ '-- OUTFALL PIPE x NOTE: Information shown on this Sketch reflects Survey Information as prepared by John C. Ehlers, Land Surveyor, dated September 1999 & May 2010 ORIENT HARBOR Z 28' 0" LAWN s~~ ...........,.. .... .- .. :-...': ...:: ... (.-.:: .: ..:::: .. :: ...: :: :. ::: :-: ::: ::~ ::: :: J :: :. ::: ::: :: ::: :. :'....:: ~: :.: ......... · ...A~I~A..Q.F,E~I~.~'Ii~/G-..... ., /. .. ...-.-,.' -' BEAGR-~8'S",." ~ '~ ~].""" *-EXISTING BURIED ...i SEAWALL "'i · . - ~ PROJECT AREA: EXISTING ACCESS VlAASPHALT PAVEMENT OVER FILL TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW .. -TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SPANNING THE AREA SHOWN FEMA FIR~ Panel 68 of 1026 Map ~: 36103C0068H Town of Southold, Corn ~: 360813 EXISTING BOULDER & BULKHEAD WHARF wi FILL & ASPHALT SURFACE SCALE: 1" = 30' 0" PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF MAPPED CEHA, 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 24-2 281 Sketch prepared byWF Bundy, Easl Moriches NY 11940 Ck'd by: Fro]ecl l~escnpt~on PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WtL4RF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Prepared by Walter Bund3', East Moriches NY: March 23, 2010 Updated as per March 31,20]0 NYSDEC Pre-Application Hearing Revised & Clarified: May 18, 2010 The following Project Information is provided concerning the Proposed Modifications to Orient Wharf by thc Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York. Project Location Information: 1. The Orienl 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 Documenlation provided. 2. The Orient Wharf projecl 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. Project 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 lo replace the existing deteriorated fill and asphalt surface. The location of the proposed wharf modifications al 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 Ne~ York Pro|ect 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 confnTned 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 al 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 sile 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 imerconnecled drainage basins and is then routed thxough an underground outfall pipe down to the shoreline where it exits adjacent to the western wall of Orient Wharf's bulkheaded slructure. The existing Southold Town outfall pipe is proposed to be shortened to coincide with the location of all associaled existing riprap (location of rip rap is at original end of ouffall pipe before it was lengthened by the Town) and will be re-utilized for the armoring of the proposed new end of the ouffall pipe. All coordination with the Town for lhis activity shall be performed by Orient Wharf representatives. Future Town implemenled drainage improvements associated with the exisling Town outfall pipe are being sought by Orient W2qarf Company represenlatives. 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-offcurrently being experienced at the site. 7. The Orient Wharf Company will also be submitting in the near furore, separate projects to modify their existing Tidal Wetlands Maintenance Permil to include dredging around the floating docks and mooring areas thal 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 sile by removing sediment and silt thal has accumulated, and to also increase the ability of boats to utilize the facilities without "bottoming out". The intenl of the timber deck structure is to provide immediate and ]ong~lenn safe access for vehicles and pedestrians to the Orienl Wharf Facility; withou! depending upon the existing filled bulkheaded which is deteriorating and requires exlensive reconstruclion te faciiilale safe use for access. The piacemeni of the new limber deck sh-ucmrc allows continued safe access lo Orient Wharf and allows the enlire wharf facility to be addressed as a mail in its future pernxit submittals identified above. l'ro]ect l~escrlpt~on PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New Yorl~ Assessment ot' Conditions and Proposed Action: 1. Orient Wharf is an active shipping pier, harbor and mooring facility on the north-eastern shoreline of Oriem Harbor accessible off of Village Lane in Orient. Thc pier which extends into the harbor dates back to the 1800s. The site is owned by the Orient Yv~harf 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 desh-oyed by storms and during circa 1838 they made a better effort and continued to build and expand oulwards fi.om 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 relaining walls, with a connecting timber wharf swacture; 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 o£November 19, 1978, as per a sealed survey prepared by Van Tnyl, a copy of which is contained in the files of thc Orient XYharf Company. A copy of the 1978 survey is attached. 3. The space was filled in after November 19, 1978 because the majority shareholder at thc time, Floyd King did not want to incur thc cost of re-building the bridge and thus Filled it in with who knows what? Thc 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 immcdiale area has changed, with the shorelines to the north and south of the wharf being impacted differently, Partly in thc believe that thc current wooden bulkhead structure with fill that replaced the original timber bridge has been partially at fault. 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 fi.om the adjacent Village Lane into the harbor adding to the source of silt and pollutants to Orient Harbor. The shoreline on the southem side of the wharf has also grown in the in~nediate 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 transporl of sand that originally flowed through the bridge opening. 5. The sec6on 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 structare 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 sat~ 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 Orienl Wharf and allows the entire wharf facility to be addressed as a unit in ils future permit submittals ;,t~..~,;G.~,4 ~!~ .... The lc,,- lc. nrt~r, aq~-d -.~hnrf modifica!ions coincide with lhe location of the ,,~,.,,,,,, ........... at,,,n of the r-~v .......... original localion for the timber bridge struclure al the Orient Wharf. Projecl Description PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Consistency with Local and State Coastal Programs: I. As previously identified above; the Orient Wharf project site is situated with/n designaled NYSDEC Tidal Welland; 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 jurisdiation. 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 wilt 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-fuld; 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 lo Orient Wharf and allows the entire wharf facility to be addressed as a unit in its future permit submittals identified above. 3. As staled 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 replacemenl of the current method of access (asphalt pavement over fill) with a new timber deck structure which cormecl 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 axe being restored and enhanced, pending completion of future improvements. 4. The Orient Wharf Project is consistent with 10 of thel3 General Coastal Policies identified in Chaplet 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, prolect and improve water quality; Policy 6, protect and re,ore 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 permil submittals identified above; thereby directly snpporling many of the LWRP Policies noted above. 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 bioaccumulafion), oil spills, excessive turbidity, waste disposal (including boat wastes) and stormwater and road runoff." 7. The LWRP Impact Assessment for Reach 5 fimher 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 detrimenlal 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 waler quality in the immediate harbor area and will also restore the natural fnnctions 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 lo include dredging around the floating docks and mooring areas that exisl 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 sill that has accmnulated, 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. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORI~Arl/' WHARF Jill M. Doherty, President James F. King, Vice-President Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. John Bredemcyer Town Hall, 53095 Main Rd. P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone (631 ) 765-1892 Fax (631) 76S~,641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Office Use Only {~wCOasml Erosion Permit Application efland Permit Application Administrative Permit omT Amendment/Trans far/Extension ired AppLica~ leted Appli~--~'"'~~3 _~eomplete __SEQRA Classification: Type ! Type I! Unlisted Coordinafion:(date sent) ~_~AC Refu"rral Sent:~ ~_Receipt ofCAC Repor'c __Lead Agency Determination: ~Technical Review:. ~Resolufion: $outhdd Te ';;; Name of Applicant Orient ~/harf 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 Lane within the Hamlet of Orient at (PrOvide LILCO Pole fl, distance ~//e/r~ss~~ lo. on) / . AGENT: Walter Bandy /Y~~/~' (If applicable) ~ / Address: 237 Walden Court, East Moriches, NY 11940 Email: wfbundy(~aol.com (631) 878-3102 wgOPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORI/Enr'U WHARF Board of Trustees Application 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-l" Marine Previous use of property:_ Wharf & Marina Faeility Intended use ofpropetty:. 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: A ency Southol~ Trustees Date March 2002 NYSDEC March 2002 --. No prior permits/approvals for site improvements. Has any permit/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 fall at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with to be replaced with a new timber deck structure as l- f~ng ........... ~,~, ..... ~ 1-- vj.~se~cedhe~:~:mg de~,crioruted fiil and asphalt surface. See attached documents for additional infomation. ~°ROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIF~fT WHARF Board of Trustees Application WETLAND]TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA ?urgo~ se of the p ,ro. posed operations: The existing filled wooden bulkheaded structure proposed to be resurfacell with new tiinber decking is currently covered with asphalt pavement 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~i~g bulkhwd &,~ .ok allo. ibc ~phali pavcmc.~ o, ~hc ~il ~tuat,~l below 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 wilt 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 Marmex in which material will be removed or deposited: Site reconnaissance activities identified that the top 12 to 14 inches of existing f'ffi immediately below the asphalt pavement surface consists of unclean fill containing cement, steel, other metals and asphalt chunks. Due to the above, as part of the proposed timber ~": ...... ,. ,~ ..... ~..:-- ,~A ~sp~o~, ........ , p! b3 r ........ re aced '" ~mber deck structure will have all asphalt, and fill materials removed down to a level below the existing beam pockets; and then removed from th{ aite and disoosed of at apnraved uoland sites. Statement of the eflreet, ii'any, on the wetlands am] tidal 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. t' R OPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIF n~I' WHARF Board of Trustees Applic~ ~on COASTAL EROSION APPLICATION DATA Purposes of proposed activity: Renlacement of deteriorated asphalt pavement over fill with a new timber deck structure Are wetlands present within 100 feet of the proposed activ/ty? No XXX Yes Wetlands situated on Adjacent Property Does the project involve excavation or filling? No XXX Yes If Yes, how much material w/Il be excavated? How much material will be filled? 31.0 (cubic yards) 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 allc, w th .... halt r,.~v~mt~nt ar tho fill eft,aiM below tho p~vem_en~ tn 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 ifil ma/eriala remavecl down In n level below the exintinE beam packets; ~n removed from the site and disposed of at approved upland sites. Approximately 31.0 cubic yards of material is ~nticipated to be removed and disposed of at approved upland disposal sites. The removal of ~he unsuitable material will prevent it from causing future deterioration of the adjacent wetlands and shoreline. ~ 9PLk~ED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIEN'/v WHARF Town of Southold Erosion, S .edimentation & Storm-Water Run-off ASSESSMENT FORM P~oP~rY Loca'no~ S.C:r.M-qB:. THE FOLLOWIlNG ACTIONS MAy REQUIRE THE SUBMISSION OF A 1000 24 2 28.1 mstrnt se~u. ~ L~ G~-~l Wn:U BY A DEmGN PROFF~IONAL IN THE STATE OF NL=W YORK. SCOPE OF WORK - PROI'O~ED CON5'I'KUCIION i'i'~:M # / 'WORKASS~ { Yes No [ a. Whal Is the Tot~ Ama of the Pmjoct ~? ' (lnOudeTo~lAmaofa~Paro~loca~dwlllalo +/-475SF' ~ Willfl~ia~aetaloAIIStom~WaterRtm4~ the S~ope of V~rk br Pnnx~,ea C. omauc~} Generated by a Two (2') Inch Ralo~ on ~e? b, WhaikiheTofal^maofLandC~eav~J ~.t~ms} cloarh~and~acEvifiesaswe~as~q0hlsltomv~illoclodealirun'°ffmlodby'~e N/A amito~ C-~ound Dls~2)ence lot the proposed +/- 475 SF ~"~"~ 2 D0e~ the Site Plan and/°r Survey Show A/I Proposed PROVIDE-P, RIF. F P~O]FACT DF. qcRII~ION {~=~m~a~,~P-.~,.~ DralnageS~uctureslncBc~ngS~,e& Location? This r~ Existing wooden bulkhead structure with fill & m~rnshal{inc{ude~P,=msedOradeCh~uesand N/A ~sphalt vehicle & access paving (approx. 17' 0" StopesCo,~omng~W~e~F~w. ~ortion) to be modified with a new timber deck 3 uo~S~.~S~-~yd~=~=o~o. and sediment consol practices ~at w~l be used to N]A ~tructure replacing the existing deteriorated ~i & c~,u~si~emslonands~mwat~r~scha~s. ~s ~sphalt surface. Wharf structure seaward & #em must be malo~ined throug~o~ 6~e Entire Construc~on Period. andward of the area oft{he new timber deck stractare ~ill remain as exists except for some minor asphalt 4 w~l~his Project Require any Land Fi~ng, Gra~ng or ~epaJr work to blend the aspbalt pavement surfaces ~stlogGradelovofvJngmoee~an2OOCublcYa~s ~th the height of the new timber deck surface. Ctructure seaward is an existing enclosed i'filed 5 W~thh~sApp~afio~Requ~kendDlstorbt~Acgvtfie~ ~tructare with stone and cement retaining walls; and Ena°mpa's~loOanAmaloEx~essofFNe~°usand (5,000 S.F.) Squaro Fe~l ~ Grou~ ~ugace? Ihe opposite side of the timber decking will connect to 6 Isthor0 a NaturalWatef CotwseV-~nning~0q~ha~ an existing seawall at the shoreline. S~e? Islh}s Project within tY~TnJ.~esJu~sur~on ~'~ ~e,~rm u~c ~e~'~' ~qulmme0~s: or with{n One Hundrod (100'} fe~ of a Wet~and or~ -- am ~a~t o{ e lavge¢ common ~an Ii, at w~ u{flmet~y ~lu~b one or mum ac~es of rand; wh~h Exceed F]ff.,e~ n (15) feet of Ver6cal Rise to Indud~g Ca~e~=uon acflv~es invo{ving soil ~ u~ r~ss then ~ne (1 } acm whe~ One Hundred (100 ) o( ~ Distance? ~ ,.t~ for sum~ Wa~r D~c. haru~ ~ Co,~mc~n ~. o.~alt N~ 6P~.le.e01.) SorPaces be Sloped to Direct ~o~n-Water Run-OffL~ z ~ sw~ ~, ~.~,~.=. e.~.~.~ ~.~ ~.~ 9 Wi{{ this Pro{ect Require bhe Precemeni of Material. STATE OF NEW YORK, <~ D~'_ O ~.. CONNED. BUNCH COUNTY OF ._...c~....C.L.~.L~_..~._.. SS Notsry Pub}ic. State of ~4e~ York No. 01BU6185050 ,.. Qualified in Suffork Couni? / · mt ~,,. .............. ~'~,~7,g',~'~';~-~ ................ ucmg oury sv,~m, ocpo~s aha sa~ And that he/she is the Agenl for the Orient Wharf Company .................................. 7~i~:'f~:'~?,~_.} ................................................... Owner and/or representative of the Owner or Ownc~, and is dtdy authorized to perform or have pcrfcarned thc said work and to ~hake and file tt~s application; ~ all statements contained ia fi~ application are tree to the best of his knowled~oSii~t belief; and al the work will be performed m the n~anner aet fo~ in the application fikd herewith. _ .,//7 ~ 7 FORM - 06/10 ',~ PROJECT ID NUMBER OROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIFn~T WHARF  617.20 SEQR APPENDIX C STATE ENVIRONMENTAl_ QUALITY REVIEW SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION ( To be completed by Applicant cr Project Sponsor) 1~ APPLICANT / SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME Orient V~narf Company Modifications to Orient Vgharf 3.PROJECT LOCATION: Orient, Town of Southold cou.~, Suffolk Mun~perm/ 4. PRECISE LOCATION: Sb'eet Addess and Road IntemeclJcns, Prominent landmarks etc -or provide mad ' 2110 Village Lane, Orient, NY 11957; 0.43 Miles south of Main Road (SR 25) at 2110 Village Lam within the Hamlet of Orient at Orient Harbor shoreline, Town of Southold (See Map) PROPOSED AC ON: [] N.w 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: Existing asphalt vehicle and access paving over fall at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with to be replaced with a new timber deck structure as per Engineer's. The existing asphaR 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 i replaced by a timber deck structure will have aH asphalt, and fill materials removed down to a level below the existing beam pockets; and then removed from the site and disposed of at ~??rnved .?land 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially 0.011 ac~es Ul§matel¥ 0.0l I a~es Project Area is +/- 476 Square Feet 8. IAflLL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS? L~ NO ~f no, desc~be briefly: Prope~ Class~cafion: Social O~an~fion; ~n~g D~ct: "M-I" Ma~e ~e~ ~ No , yes. ,~ ~gen~ ~ a.0 ~, / ~ppm~a~: ~SDEC Permit / Approval ~Yes Il yes, list ~en~ name and pe~it / approval: 12. AS A RESULT OF ~OSED ACTION WILL ~ISTING PERMIT/ APPROVAL REQUIRE MOD FICATION? ~.~ ~ No NOT ~PLICABLg I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Signature . . /~.~ ~ 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 A~]ency) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.47 ff yes, coorcrrnate the mw;.,w process and uce the FULL EAF. r--j Yes r~JNo B. WILL ACTION R~ COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNUSTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.67 If No, a negative declarafio~rl may be superseded by another ira/Dived agency. J--T"J Yes [Z]No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WiTH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwfffteo, if legible) C1: Exlatirlg air quarry, sudace or groulxlwater quality or quanti~, ~ levels, e]dsfing ~alfic pattern, son waste production of disposal, potential for erosion, drainage o~ flooding problems? E.~plain briefly:. C2. Aesthe§c, agIfcnttural, archaeological; historic, or other nalural or culkiral resources; or community or ~etghborhood character? Expls~, briefly: C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: C6. Longterm, sho~tterm, cumulative, or other effecls not idenlified in Cl~C5? ExplainbrJefly: C7. Other impac~s,(induding changes in use of either quantily or type of energy? Explain D. VVILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHAPJ~.CTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVtRON MENTAL AREA tCEAI? ~lf }ms, explain bdefl~/: E. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAl_ IMPACTS? If ~/es explain: r-i [Z]No :~ART III * DI: I t:RMINATION OF SIGNIRCANCE (To be o0mpleted by Agency) INSI~UCTIONS: F~reachadversee~ec~identi~edab~ve~determinewhe~heritissubs~antia~r~e~imp~ant~r~the~cesig~n~ Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) seffing (i.e. u~ban or rural); (b) probability of occurfieg; (c) duration; (d) irrevem~ility; (e) geographic scope; and (0 magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. If question d of part .~ was checked ye.s, the determination of significance must evaluate the potential impac~ of the proposed action on the environmental charac[eristics of the CEA. ~k ~',~ box if you h~ve ~enti~ed. on~ or more potentially large or significant adveme Impects which fiLo, y o~ur. 'thee proceed direc~y to the FULd / ~ChLe~k .t?~s_box Jf.~'~u have ?et~rm,ned. based on the information and analysis above and eny supporting documentation, that the proposed ac~iorJ Name of Lead Agency Date · Jill M. Dohedy President Signature of Responsible OrE(er in lead Agency Signalure of Preparer (If different ~rom Jesponsible officer) P gt OPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Board of Trustees Application County of Suffolk State of New York Viea.~-r'~l~am~ ~ //~',,~/'~' _~.,37) '~;Z~'~ l l BEINGDULY SWORN DEPOSES AND AFFIRMS THAT HE/SIm IS THE APPLICANT FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PERMIT(S) AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF H/S/HER KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND THAT ALL WORK WII.I. BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN ]'HIS 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 1N CONJUNCTION WITH REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION. DAY OF ~ ~. ,20 lO Notary Public LAUREN M. STANDISH N0~U Public, State of New York No. 01ST6164008 Qualified in S~Iolk Ceanh' . PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIEnrT WHARF Board of Trustees Application AbTHOI~IZA~ION (where the applicant is not the owner) I, L~ton DueH, Pr~iden~ 06ent Wha~ CoTesiding at f~- ~/~ (print owner of property) {m~i~ing ~ddress) Walter F. Bundy do hereby authorize (Agent) to apply for permit(s) from the Southold Board of Town Trustees on my behalf. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIEI~IT WHARF APPLICANT/AGENTfREPRESENTATIVE TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics l~ohibit~ conflicls of inte~sl on the part of town 6fficers and employees, qlae ouroose of this form is Io ~-ovide information which can alert lhe town of possible conflicts ofinten~l and allow it to take whatever netlon is ~ to avoid same. .' Bandy, Walter F.; for: Orient Wharf Company YOUR NAMEE: (la~ frame, fwat name, xpiddle inilial, unless you am applying in lbe name of someone else or other entity, such as a company. If so, indicat~ the othe~ pe..~on's or company's name.) NAME OF APPLICATION: (Cheek all lhat apply.) Tax grievance Building Variance Trustee XX Change of Zone Coastal Erosion _ ~ Approval of plat Mooring Exemption from plat or official map Planning Other (lf~Other-. name t~ activity.) Historical, Wetlands, LWRP Do you personally (or through your company, spouse, sibling, parent, or child) have a relationship :,vith any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship" includes by blood, marriage, or bu.4iness internist. "Business interest' means a business, including a parinership, in which thc town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of(or employment by) a corporation in which the town officer or employee owns mom th~m 5% of the shares. YES NO : If you answered "YES", complete the balance of this form and date and sign wffaytc indicated. Name of person employed by the To,a~q of Souffold Title ot position of that pemon Describe thc relalionship between yourself (the applican~JagenlIrepresenlative) 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, paint, or child is (check all ltmt apply): __?) the owner of greater thm~ 5% of thc shares of the corporale s~ock of the applicont (when the applicant is a corporation); __.B) the legal or beneficial owner of any interesl in a non-corporate entity (when the applicant is not a corporation); __.C) an officer, director, pm'met, or employee of the applicant; or __.D) the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP Submitled this day of Signature 200 Form TS I Town of Southold PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIEIWIf WHARF LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM INSTRUCTIONS All applicants for perm/ts* 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. 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 Waterfxont Revitalization Program. A proposed action will be evaluated as to its signiflcam beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area (which includes all of Southold Town). 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~ listing both supporting 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 Plmming Department, all local libraries and the Town Clerk's office_ B. DESCR[P~ON OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION SCTM# 1000-24-2-28.1 PROJECT NAME Proposed Modifications to Orient Wharf The Application has been submitted to (check appropriate response): TownBoard [] Planning Board ~-] BuilclingDept. ~] Board ofTrnstecs 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 mmsaction) (b) Financial assistance (e.g. grant, loan, subsidy) (c) Pema~t, approval, license, certification: Nature and extent of action: Review and Approval of Proposed Project r'ROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO OR1EnrT WHARF Location of action: 2110 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~. pe.rty Classification: Social Organization; Zoning District: UM-l" Marine Present zon/ng cmssifi~ation: 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 2110 Vifiage Lane, Orient, NY 11957 (b) Mailing address: (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 [~ No ~-] If yes, which state or federal agency~ NYSDEC C. Evaluate the project to the fo0owing 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 HI - Policies; Page 2 for evaluation criteria. ~]Yes ~ No [~]Notnpplicable It is believed by the Orient Wharf Company and its consultants that the section of the wooden bulkhead structure with fall (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 f'dl) with a new timber deck structure which connect into existing beam pockets from the original bridge structure. Allach additional sheels if necessary Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section l]I- Policies Pages 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria ~ Yes ~ No F~ Not Applicable s~I~OPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIEnrT WHARF The location of the proposed wharf modifications coincide with ,he location of the original location for the timber bridge structure at the Orient Wharf~ thereby replicating the original wharf eonfiEUrutlon and timber bridge features., historical a.~pec£q of Orient Wharf are heinE rentnred and 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 ~-] Yes [] No ~-1 Not Applicable The location of the proposed wharf modifications coincide will, ih~ io~aiion of Ibc os ~ginal io~aiiuu i'or ihe limber bridge sis uc4ure ai ihe Orleni Vv-narf. Il i~ beiicved by the Orient Wl~arf Company and its consultants that tl~e placement ti the new timber 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 historical aspects of Orient Wharf are being restnred and enhanced. Attach additional sheets if n~cessary NATURAL COAST POLICIES Policy 4. Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 8 through 16 for evaluation criteria ~ Yes ~ No ~ Not Anplicable The section of the wooden bulkhead structure with fill that connects the main wharf stru~:~re to the shoreline has been experiencing severe erosion of the fill below the asphalt pavement and no longer provides safe access to the wiaar~ JaciiiW. instead oi simpiy repmcing the cxlsiing slruciur~ in kind, ihe Grieni 'v~'harf Company and iCs consul/anls recommends ibc repiaL~men~ of ARach additional sh~ts ifa~es~ Policy 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section - Policies Pages 16 through 21 for evaluation criteria [] Yes otnpplicable 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 Ill - Policies; Pages 22 through 32 for evaluation criteria. PROPOSED MODIF1C. dTIONS TO ORIE~I' WHARF Yes No No, _ ~pplirable The Orient YVharf Company will be submitting in the near future, separate projects to modify their Attach additional sheets ffneeessaty Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section HI - Policies Pages 32 through 34 for evaluation criteria. ~] Yes [] No ~-~ Not Applicable Not Applicable to Prop6sed Project Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. See L~RP Section HI - Policies; Pages 34 through 38 for evaluation criteria. ~ Yes ~-] No [~] 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 111 - Policies; Pages 38 through 46 for evaluation criteria. ~ YeJ~] 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 Villaagc Lane in Orient and Thoglgh privately owned, the wharf provides Orient residents access to Orient Harbor and adjacent Attach additional sheeks if necessary LEGEND Long Island Sound Long Beach Point REACH 5 Plum bland Map of Southold To~vn Local Watet~'ont Revitalization Program (LWRP) Area (Reach 5) PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York 1" 500' 50 0 500 1000 ~ FEET d METEF PANEL 0068H FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP lot SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK (ALL JURISDICTIONS) CONTAINS: COMMUNITY NUMBER SOUTHOLD, TOWN OF 360813 PANEL 68 OF 1026 MAP SUFFIX: H  MAP NUMBER 36103C0068H MAP REVISED SEPTEMBER 25, 2009 TRANSMITTAL FROM: Walter B dy 237 Waldcn Court ]~ast Moriches, Ncw York 11940 Telephone: (631) 878-3102 email: wfbundy@aol.com DATE: Monday, June 14,2010 TO: CC: Town of Southold Town Trustees Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 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 TR~' ~ISMITTAL FROM W'a/tdr~ ~d~j/ ~posed Modifications to Orient Wharf Page 2 material for a depth of approximately 18 inches (the depth of the existing beam pockets) and transport all matedal 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 Odent 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 wfbundy@aol.com. Orient Wharf Company TRANSMITTAL FROM: 237 Walden Coul~ East Moriches, New York 11940 Telephone: (631) 878-3102 email: wff)undy@aol.com DATE: Wednesda¥~ June 23~ 2010 TO: CC: Town of Southold Town Trustees Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 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 inclusion into the documentation submitted for Odent Wharf are the following items: 1) Completed Erosion, Sedimentation & Storm-Water Run-offASSESSMENT 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 Odent Wharf submittal, please do not hesitate to contact me at 63%878-3102 or by email at wfbundy@aol.com. Thank you, Wa~r B,~/~; o/n~?e~ ~he Orient Wharf Company TOV'IN, ~i=i=OLK GOUN'I"¢, ~ o ~? ~o?o° ~P. APHIG E ~L.E Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York SCTM #: 1000-24-2-28.1 rro]ect rnotograpns PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York The photographic information that follows is provided for the Proposed Modifications to Or/em 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 Pro|ect 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 arc digital copies of historic postcards and photographs provided by the Orient Wharf Company. Referenced Agency Maps: NYSDEC Tidal Wetland Map Town of Southold LWR_P Map FEMA FIRM (Firmette downloaded from FEMA website) Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT IIrHARF Orient ~tl'l~arf Company, Orient New York Aerial Photographs: Project Photograpl~s PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Aerial Photographs: (Continued) Aerial Photograph C: Current Aerial Photograph of Orient Hamlet showing the Project Site at Orient Wharf and the Village Lane area of Orient which is the main route to Orient Wharf. l'roject l'hotographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Aerial Photographs: (Continued) 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 d~e~ scanned from Orient Wharf Company records showing Orient Wharf. Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIF1CA TIONS TO ORIE.~VT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Aerial Photographs: (Continued) ORIENT L.I. Aerial Photograph F: Aerial Photograph dated 1960 scanned from Orient Wharf ComPany recor~t§?'gho~mg Orient Wharf. rroj ect J'notograpns PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Current Proiect Site Photographs: Photograph Key Map VILLAGE LANE ORIENT HARBOR PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS AT ORIE. NT Dm~,nby WF Bundy PHOTOGRAPH KEY PLAN D~ ~,o, 73~ ~o~o Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York l'roject l'hotographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient kVharf Company, Orient New York Current Proiect Site Photographs: (Continued) PhotoRraph 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 pholograph. Project Photographs PROPOSED 310D1FICATIONS TO ORJENT WHARF Orient Wharf Coral)any, Orient New York Current Proiect Site Photographs: (Continued) PhotoRraph B (Above): Photograph dated March 18, 2010 taken from the bulkheaded area proposed to be spanned ~vith a ne~v timber deck showing the immediate shoreline area to the south of the site. Photoo~raph 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 MODIF1CA TIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Compan); Orient A~ew York Current Proiect Site Photographs: (Continued) Photograph D (Above): Photograph dated March 18, 2010 taken from the bulkheaded area sho~ving the area proposed to be spanned with a new timber deck anti the immediate shoreline area to the north of the site. Photograph E (Below): Photograph dated March 18, 21)10 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. Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Current Proiect Site Photographs: (Continued Photograph 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. Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Current Pro[ect Site Photoeral hs: (Continued) 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. Photograph ! (Right): 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 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 ntilizcd to anchor the new end of the shortened outfall pipe. Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Current Proiect Site Photographs: (Continued) Photoeral~h ,I (Right): Photograph dated March 18, 2010 Ira)king west taken from the southern side of the portion of earth-filled bulkheadcd area to be spanned with a uew timber deck. The dashed line shows the area to be replaced with thc 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. Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Current Proiect Site Photographs: (Continued) Photoaraph L (Below): Photograph dated 1Vlarch 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 I above. Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient gVharf 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. Note: Arrows depict direction of flow of road runoff Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WtL4RF Orient Wharf Company, Orient Ne~ York Historic Photographs and Information: The following historical photographs are digital copies of historic postcards and photographs provided by the Orient Wharf Company. Historic Photograph A (Above): Postcard from circa 1900 scanned from Orient Wharf Company records which shows a photograph taken from the Orient tlarbor 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 WIIARF Orient ~Ttarf Company, Orient New York Historic Photographs and Information: (Continued) ltistoric 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. Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WttARF Orient Vr'harf Company, Orient New York Historic Photographs and Information: (Continued) llistoric Photos, raph D (Abose): Copy of photograph from ch-ca 1900 scanned from Orient Wharf Company records which sh(ms a pholograph laken from lhe Orient Ilarbor shoreline looking north onto lhe Oricnl ~Yharf ~hich is sho~n in lhe background. Nole the existing bridge in the foreground of thc photogr:~ph. Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Historic Photographs and Information: (Continued) ltistoric Photograph 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 Wharfwhmh Is sho n in the background. Note the horse drawn carriage and schooner tied up to the Wharf.  .JOINT APPLICATION FORH ~ For Permits/Determinations to undertake activities affecting streams, waterways waterbodies, wetlands, ~ast~l areas and sources of water supply. New York Separate Permits/Determinations must be obtained from each involved agency US Amy Corps of State prior to proceeding with work. Please read all instructions. Engineers (USACEI 1. Check All That Apply: 2. Name of Applicant (use full r~me) Applicant must be (check all t~t apply): Orient Wharf Company [] owner [] Ope~tor [] Lessee NYS Department of Environ- ~ Stream Disturbance 2110 Village Lane /// Riv¢~ Walter ]~u~ ndy [] A~ua~c vegetation Control 237 Walden Court [] rah Co.t~ol East Moriches ~ 11940 631~878-3102 wOaund¥(~aol.com -'~ secdo~ 4¢~ oean Water Act Orient Wharf SCTM #: 1000-24-2-28.1 Act 0.43 ]Vliles south of Main Road (SR 25) al 2110 Village Lane ~thin the Hamlet of [] r~auonwide Per. it(s) - ~e.ti~y Orient at Orient Harbor shoreline, Town of Southold [] ¥ /[~ N 2110 Viliage Lane state owned L~nds Under Water) Orient NY 11957 cond~, c~h~. etc.) 'lown ol $outhold Su~olk Orient Orient Harbor 41° 08' 12.10" N 72~ 18' 17.52" W Dat~/ Walter Bandy Doenmenlafion Preparer For Aqency Use Only D[C Application Number: USAQ_ Number: ~ .,q ~3OZNT APPLICATION FORM - PAGE 2 OF 2 SubmR this c~rnpleted p~ge ~s part c~ your Application. The existing wooden bulkhead structure with fill aud asphalt vehicle and access paving (an approximate 17' 0" portion) is to be replaced with a new timber deck structure as per Engineer's drawimgs and specifications. The new timber deck structure is proposed to replace the existing deteriorated l'dl 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 cemenl retaining walls; and the opposile side of the timber decking will connect to an existing seawall thal exists al the shoreline, enabling the proposed new timber deck slructure to span 1he 2 existing supporting structures with no additional support piers or pilings ueeded. proposed Use: ~ privHte b-] Publ~: [] Cornrnerdal Will Project Occupy Federal, State or Municipal Land? Has Work ~gun on project? L~ Ye~ JX~ Ho If Yes, explain. p,,pose~ start oate: June 15, 2010 IF~timoteU Completion Date: June 30, 2010 incIodir~ 2orlin§ ch~nge~? Soutbold Town Trustees Permits for Wetlands, CEHA. LWRP and l~istorlc District reviews and approvals are anticipated. E~REGION 7 Syracuse E~IREGiON 7 CortJand Sub-Or, ce [~JREGION S Avon [~REG]ON 9 Buffalo For A~3ency Use O~ly DETERMINATION OF NO PERMIT REQUIRED (Agency Name) Agency gepresent~tiYe: Name (printed) Date New York State Departmen! of Environmental Conservation PERMISSION TO INSPECT PROPERTY By signing this permission form for submission with an application for a permit(s) to the Deparm~enl 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, a~eas adjacent to the project site or facility. This consent allows DEC staffto 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 wS]l so notify the applicant and will obtain a separate consent for such au inspection. Inspections may lake place as part of the application review prior to a decision to granl 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, applican! 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 staffto disregard such notices or unlocked gates at the time of inspection. The signer further agrees thai during an inspection, DEC staffmay, among other things, lake measurements, may analyze physical characteristics of the sile including, but not limiled lo, soils and vegetation (tak3ng sarnp]es for analysis), and may make drawings and take photographs. Failure to grant consent for an inspection is grounds for, and ma), result in, denial of the permit(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, NY 11957. By signing this form, I q[firm under penalty of perjury lhal ] 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 ,~ecgon 210.45 of the Penal Law.* Linton Duell, President, Orient Wharf Co. Prinl Name and Title Signature Date *Thc signer of this form rausl b~ an individual or a~thorizerl representative of a legal ~nlih,_' th:al: owm fcc thlc and is in pos~c~ion of thc propcny idcnlificd abovc: maintains pos.se.~sor?_, inleresl in the property through a l¢~se, rental agrecmenl or other legally binding agxeernent: or is provided permission lo acl on behalf of an individual or legal enfip,.~ possessin~ fee title or oilier posscssoo~ interest in the property for thc purpose ofcons~:nling lo inspection o[~ucb properS_-. 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.ny.qov Alexander B. Grannis Commissioner July 13, 2010 Odent 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. cc: file Walter Bundy Kendall P. Klett Environmental Analyst I~EW Y~)RK 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: ORIENT WHARF COMPANY C/O THOMAS MURRAY PO BOX 243 ORIENT, NY 11957 (631) 323-3864 Facility: · ORIENT WHARF CO PROPERTY 2110 VILLAGE LN ORIENT, NY 11957 Facility Location: in SOUTHOLD in SUFFOLK COUNTY Facility Principal Reference Point: NYTM-E: 726.2 Viliage: Orient 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 17' 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 str~iet compliance With the ECL, all applicable regulations, and all conditions included as par~ of this permit. e= t^dminis tor:JO : Address: N~ ~C/R}EGION 1 HEADQ~RTERS · / ~ ~$/TONY BROOK/[~) CIRCLE RD ./ _~ ~,~ / B~ROOK, NY 11/290 -3409 / Author/zedSignature: ~// ~~ j/Date~ ,~l~/ (~) Page 1 of 5 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMlgNT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Facility DEC l~ 1-4738-03228 Permit Components NATURAL RESOURCE PERMIT CONDmONS GENERAL CONDmONS, AUTHORIZED ~S NOTIFICATION OF ~:R PERMITTEE OBLIGATIONS NAT~'REsOuRCE PERMIT 'CONDITIONS.- Apply to th~'~liowing Permits: TIDAL WETLANDS '~ 1. R_ _e~u~ Activities Authorized By This. poi'mit This permitQNLY those m~l~ated activiti~ structures identified under the section tiffed "SAP Authorized Activity". The Departn~, t does not iss.~/after-the-fact or as-built permits. This permit does not authorize.activities, or legitimize~e existence of structures, which would have required a peamit but.for which no permit or other . '~ auth .,~.~zafion has been'granted by the Department. ' ~ 2. ~]sposal Locations All excavated material shall be appropriately disposed of as per the project ~ the approved project sitE~e further written approval from the Department (permit. 3. ~i~age of Equipment, Materials The sto~nstmction equipn~ej![~i~d~materials shall be ~ co,ned to the upland areas. - '~'~ ~ ~ 4. 120nformanee With Plans All activities authorized by this permit must be in strict conformanc~ with ]~e approved plans subnmtted bythe applicant or applicant's agent as part of the permit applic ~a~on~ Such ~roved plans were prepared by WF Bundy, last revised on 5/3/10. ;~ ~. NOtiCe o_f_C_g~.~9~me~_ bt_l__eas_t_.~8_ h_0_urspLi_'0139_~_mm_~_ .ceAn._~t_ 9.f the prgj~kth_e.. _l.~_mi..'tree. are fully aw~e~ of and understand.all terms and conditions of this l~mdt Within 30 daya o~6mpletion of.project, th&l~p~ttom portion of the form must also be signed and returned, along with p~graphs of the completed W~c~. - . ' :~ 6. Post Permit Sign~"'T~j~-mit sign enclosed with this permit shall be post.~e~.,f~"c°uspicuous location on the worksite ~.equately protected froTM the weather. :.:~: 7. Failure to Meet Permit Condifi6fig~:~._.~:..e..~t~j~.~_[~t~e~f6 meet all the condifious-ofthis pefLmt is a violation of this permit and grounds for an order to immediately cease the permitted activity at the project site. 8. Use of Treated Wood The useofwood treated with Pentachlorophenol or other wood treatment not specifically approved by the Department for use in wetlands and/or marine waters, is strictly protu'oited rathe construction of slructures that will be in contact with tidal waters. Page 2 of 5 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 contamiriation of any wetland or waterwa9 by suspended solids, sediments, fuets) solvents, lubricants, epoxy coatings, paints, concrete, leachate or any other environ_mentally deleteridus 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 Enviromnental Conservation may require, remove all or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore the site to its fbrmer condition. No claim shall be made against the State of New York on account of any such removal or altetfition. 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 opini6n o£the Departmefff~f Environmental Conservation it shall cause unreasonable obstruction toth~ ~ree navigation of s. aid waters or flood flows or endanger the healtlS; safety or welfare of the people of the State, or cause los~'or destruction of the natural resources of the State, th~ OWner may be 0i:dered by the Department to remove or alter the structural work, obstructions, or hazards caused thereby without expense 1o 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 Envirommental Conservation may require, remove all~or any portiotf-of the uncompleted Structure or fill and restore ~o its former condition the navigable and flood capacity 0f 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 tnjury to the structure or work herein authorized which may be caused byx)r result from:future operations undertaken by the State for the conservation or ~mprovement 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 1-4738-03228 GENERAL CONDITIONS - Apply to ALL Authorized Permits: ' 1. Facility Inspection. by The Department T~e~ p~ed site or facility, including relevant records, is subject to inspection at reasonable ~Ota-s,m~t'~/~il~'~' affthori~..~.: representative of the Department of Environmental C0nservafion,(tlle Departmen0 to determine whetheftl~e~p~ _ermittee is complying with this. permit and the ECL~ Siich representative may order the work suspended i~ii~._uant to ECL 71- 0301 and SA.PA 401(3). The permittee ~ll provide a person to accompany the Department's representative durin'~:~i~n mspectton to the penm. ~t:~area when requested by the Department. A copy o~s permit, including all referenced maps, drawings and special condi~a~ons, must be ~ail,a~le for iusp~.~on by the Department at all. times at the project site or facility. Failure to produce a co~? of the pe~t upon request by a Depm tment representative is a violation of this pemait. 2. R~lationship ofthi~ Permit to Other Department Orders and Deternunations Unless expressly prov}~ded forby the Department, issuance of this permit does notmodify, super...ede or rescin.d any o.~:~er or d~termination previously issued by the Depaxtment or any of the~er~s, ~o¢?ta?~ ~r_. ~ Appli~_' ~i~or Permit.Renew~Ig;<M~difications or Transfers The penm~ec~t a sep~tten application tothe Departn~n~for~..e}'tmt renewal, m0dificatt0~r~la~asfe~ of lhi. 's p~_"t S~oh appncation must ~o~ae any fo~m~ ~3~~~~e Vepa,tment teq~.: An~enewal, modification or transfer granted by the Dep~e~ust be in writing. Submission of eppf~tiuns for p~mit renewal, moditicatio, o~ tr~fer a~e to be =bmitted to: ,~ Regional Permit Administrator .- 4. Submi.qsi~i~.of Renewal Application The permittee must submit a renewal applicafi~at least 30 days before p~ expiration for the following permit authorizations: Tidal Wetlands. 5. permit Mo~ffieaffog~s, Suspensions and Revocations by the Department ~Department reserves the fight to moc[/~,..:=.smpend or revoke tiffs perrmt. The grounds fo[._.m., o~tificatton, suspension 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 permat application; Page 4 of 5 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 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; 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 Indenmification The permittee,.excepting state or federal agencies, expressly agrees to indemnify and hold harmles~ the Department of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York, its representatives, employe~s, and agents ("DEC") for all claims, suits, actions, and damages, to the extent attributable to the permittee'sacts 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 indenmification 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: P~rmittee'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 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 parry to the permit. Page 5 of 5 :ETURN 'I~HI9 F(~RM TO: COMPLIANCE Bureau of Habitat-NYSDEC 50 Circle Road Stony Brook, NY 11790-3409 ERMIT NUMBER: ERMI'F]-EE NAME & PROJECT ADDRESS: Or Fax to: 631-444-0297 EXPIRATION DATE: ONTRACTOR NAME & ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: ear Sir: ursuant 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 .=rmit conditions. We have inspected the project site and can complete the project as described in the permit and as depicted on the' 3proved plans. We can do so in full compliance with all plan notes and permit conditions. The permit, permit sign, and approved plans will available at the.site for inspection in accordance with General Condition No. 1. (Both signatures required) PERMiTEE: DATE CONTRACTOR: DATE r~lS NOTICE MUST BE SENT TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS A T LEAST TWO DA YS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE PROJECT ND/OR ANY ASSOCIA TED AC TIVITIES. FAILURE TO RETURN THIS NOTICE, POST THE PERMIT SIGN, OR HA VE THE PERMIT AND PPROVED PLANS AVAILABLE A T THE WORK SITE FOR THE DURA TION OF' THE PROJECT MA Y SUBJECT THE PERMITTEE ND/OR CONTRACTOR TO APPLICABLE SANCTIONS AND PENAL TIES F'OR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT CONDITIONS. ut along this line NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION ETURN THIS FORM TO:COMPLIANCE Bureau of Habitat- NYSDEC 50 Circle Road Stony Brook, NY 11790-3409 Or Fax to: 631-444-0297 --RMIT NUMBER: ERMITTEE NAME & PROJECT ADDRESS: EXPIRATION DATE: ~)NTRACTOR NAME & ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Jrsuant 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 reqbired) PERMITEE: DATE CONTRACTOR: DATE -IlS NOTICE, WITH PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE COMPLETED WORK AND/OR A COMPLETED SURVEY, AS APPROPRIATE, MUST BE =.NT TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS WITHIN 30 DA YS OF COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. 95-20-1 (11/03) -9d New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NOTICE 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/'-" q":P-.~- C).E,,2.,,"tg'/42:z:~,R Expiration Data ;?~ ¢-//',,~.0/.~'-- Regional Permit AdminiStrator ROGER EVANS NOTE: This notice is NOT a permit EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH A NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SUPPORTED AT EXISTING BEAM POCKETS AT EACH END EXISTING PILINGS & SHEATHING TO REMAIN EXISTING GRADE EXISTING BOULDER & BULKHEAD STRUCTURE w/ FILL EXISTS BEYOND THE SECTION BEING REPLACED WITH NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE NYsDEC APPROVED AS PER TERMS AND cONDITIONS OF NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE AS PER ENGINEER'S DRAWINGS +/- 28' 0" EXISTING FILL TO BE REMOVED TO LEVEL BELOW ' EXISTING BEAM POCKETS +/- 18" (APPROX 20 CY) AND DISPOSED OF IN AN APPROVED UPLAND SITE. EXISTING GRADE -~-% EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO BE SHORTENED (SEE MODIFICATION PLAN) SCALE: 1"= 10'0" SEOTION ¢~A~ THRU EXISTING BULKHEAD LOOKING WEST XISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO BE HORTENED & EXISTING RIPRAP UTILIZED T NEW END OF PiPE (SEE PLAN)~ EXISTING GRADE EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE ON BOTH ENDS OF NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE TO BE PATCHED & PITCHED AS REQ'D EXISTING FILL TO BE REMOVED TO LEVEL BELOW EXISTING BEAM POCKETS +/- 18" (APPROX 20 CY) .AND DISPOSED OF IN AN APPROVED UPLAND SITE. .,/// EXISTING PILINGS & SHEATHING TO REMAIN EXISTINg3 GRADE '--'-- EXISTING CONCRETE SEAWALLAT SHORELINE _ EXISTS BEYOND THE NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SECTION NOTE: Information shown on this Sketch reflects Survey Information as prepared by John C, Ehlers, Land Surveyor, dated September 1999 Drawn by: WF Bundy Date: March 26, 2010 Revised: 03 May 2010 Ck'd by: Sketch prepared by WF Bundy, East Moriches NY 11940 SCALE: 1" = 10' 0" THRU EXISTING BULKHEAD LOOKING EAST SECTIONS THROUGH EXISTING BULKHEAD PROPOSED MODIFICAT!ONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York SCTM #: 1000-24-2-28.1 ~LLJ~i~J~ASPHALT PAVEMENT EXIST ROAD DRAIN CONNECTED TO OUTFALL PIPE NOTE: \ Structures not drawn \ to scale or located EXIST ~;ONC CURB .//~EXISTING FENCE WAR MEMORIAL SCTM #: 1000-26-1-1,1 -~ ' PIPE~'" EXISTING RIP RAP & PROPOSED · END?F OUTFALL PIPE '< "' x x x ~.¢Ozo BEACH AREA EX,ST, N EN;,? OUTFALL PIPE Z 28' 0" LAWN EXISTING ACCESS VIAASPHALT PAVEMENT OVER FILL TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW ...--TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SPANNING THE AREA SHOWN Existing Site Plan rawn by: WF Bundy Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York ate: March 26, 2010 evised: May 3, 2010 SCTIVl #: 1000-24-2-28.! k'd by: Sketch prepared by WF Bundy, East Modches NY 11940 lforrn~tion shown on this Sketch reflects Survey lforrnation as p[epared by John C. Ehlers, Land ;urveyor, dated September 1999 & May 2010 NYSDEC ORIENT HARBEIR~D AS PER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT NO/-'f'7 ~ -O3~J EXISTING BOULDER & BULKHEAD WHARF w/ · FILL & ASPHALT SURFACE o~ .f'.~ SCALE: 1": 30' 0" PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF VILLAGE LANE ~ / EXISTI~( r~c~ar~ EXISTING R / INTERCONNECTING , ~ D~IN PIPES D~IN ~% DENOTES RUNOFF FLOW EXIST ROAD DRAIN CONNECTED TO OUTFALL PIPE ASPHALT PAVEMENT EXIST GONC CURB NOTE: Structures not drawn tb scale or located ~. //~EXISTING FENCE WAR MEMORIAL SCTM #: 1000-26-1-1,1 :-XISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE T~ SHORTENED TO COINCIDE WITH -DqSTING RIPRAP WHICH WILE BE :~E:UTILIZED AT NEW END OF PIPE xxx ~O70 BEACH AREA EXISTING END OF OUTFALL PiPE NOTE: Information shown on this Sketch reflects Survey information as prepared by John C. Ehlers, Land Surveyor, dated September 1999 & May 2010 NYSDEC ORIENT~IiI~i~ PER TERMS AF',]D'~ONDITIONS OF 28' 0" LAWN ===== ====================================::-. ,..-.'... , ,... · · ...-~ ..... .~ ~ SEE SECTIO~FOR ~ ' ' ~Xe~s . ' ~ ADDITI~ DETAILS~ / oO~O~ / / EXISTING ACCESS VlAASPHALT PAVEMENT OVER FILL TO BE REPLAOED WITH NEW .''TIMBER DECK 8TRUOTURE SPAN~ING THE AREA SHOWN EXISTING BOULDER & BULKHEAD WHARF w/ TE ~,~3//O Z"~ FILL & ASPHALT SURFACE SCALE: 1" = 30' 0" PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Modification Plan )rawn by: WF Bundy Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York )ale: March 26, 2010 [evised: May 3, 2010 SCTM #: 1000-24-2-28.1 ;k'd by: Sketch prepared by WF Bundy, East Modches NY t 1940 Jill M Doherty, President James F. King, Vice-President Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. John Bredemeyer PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone (63 [) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 Southold Town Board of Trustees Field Inspection/Worksession Report Date/Time: ORIENT WHARF COMPANY requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to replace tile 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 Villagb Lane, Orient. SCTM#24-2-28.1 Ty~q._ 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 P/'Chapt. 111 other Type of Application: ¢~Wetland /'Coastal Erosion __Amendment __Administrative__Emergency Pre-Submission __Violation Info needed: Modifications: Conditions: Present Were: ,--~.King __/J.Doherty ~/~J. Bredemeyer / D. Bergen__/''' B.Ghosio, __ D. D2enkowski __other Form filled.~out in the)%1d by / Mailed/Faxed to: Date: Peter Young, Chairman Lauren Standish, Secretary Town Hall, 53095 Main Rd. P.O. Box l 179 Southold, NY' 11971 Telephone (631 ) 765-1892 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 ESSEK$, HeFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT ]~AW July 20, 2010 Board of Trustees Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application of Orient Wharf Company Dear Members of the Board: We are the attorneys for David and Clare Air, and for Timothy Frost and Margaret Minichini. The Airs own the property immediately to the north of the wharf that is the subject of the application by the Orient Wharf Company to modify its wharf by creating a new "bridge" over a 17'foot span of the wharf. Frost/Minichini own the property immediately to the south of the wharf. As such, our clients are the owners of the two properties most impacted by the apphcant's proposal. Please consider this letter as part of your deliberations on the apphcation. We also expect to attend the public hearing and address the Board directly. ESSEK$, HEfTEr & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 2 of 15 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 apphcation, that are riddled with factual deficienci~- '~%~r~y-of the statemen-t~ ~r~ lii~-l~l~-~n-d false. Alm~st-e/ll-6f ~h~m are unsupported by facts or legitimate scientific or engineering principles. Numerous allegations are supported only by self-serving conclusions. Several key sta[ements are 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 apphcation are unsupported by anything other than the apphcant's own self-serving conclusions. For example, the apphcant states that the "existing asphalt pavement and supporting fill has deteriorated *,;o 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 sohd-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 replasement of the bridge that supposedly existed in 1978 is causing "silting," "a d;ecrease 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 "clos ,~e" 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 July 20, 2010 Page 3 of 15 conditions, in 1978 were as the applicant states, what basis is there to try to recreate a circumstan4e that-was obviously.created before the adoption o£ the current wetlands regulations, coastal erosion regulations, LWI~P, 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, one of the most troublesome aspect of the apphcation is its vague and cryptic references to the applicant's future plans and why the proposed "bridge" is truly neede0. (as opposed to an "in kind" repair of the solid-fill structure). A careful review of the apphcation materials suggests that the vagueness about the future plans is dehberate. Indeed, it appears that the applicant is cloaking its true intentions wi~:h 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 apphcation 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 rehabilitation of the actual wharf facility." This confirms that the applicant has "ptans'~ other than what it is disclosing, and it is couching those plans with ¢~iphemisms such as "maintenance and rehabilitation" of the facility. These' ~hture permit applications are mentioned numerous times, yet the applic~,~nt dehberately does not describe what those apphcations will be (other than the dredging aspect of the application). Perhaps the most honest glimpse of the applicant's intentions is in its statemant that the applicant beheves "that the replacement of the wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber bridge structure which is proposed to ESSEKS, HErTEr & ANGEL, LLP July 20, 2010 Page 4 of 15 replicate and reconstruct the original wharf configuration and features will greatly- enhance the water quahty in the immediate harbor area and will also restore the natural functions of the shoreline." "Restoring" the "natural functi~a" of the shoreline is the apphcant'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 "rephcating 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 wails underneath, so that it can also recreate the eroded state of the beach that existed more than 30 years ago. The apphcant 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 recons*~ruction to facilitate safe use for access." This confirms that the apphc~nt is trying to create the predicate for a subsequent ehmination of the bulkhead and fill underneath the newly-created "bridge," which is no longer "depe~i,:~ent" on those wails for support. The plan to "shorten" the outfall pipe could serve no purpose unless the ultima.te 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. Thh pr,¢posal 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 w}Sere the current outfall pipe is to become the new water channel. The bottom hne 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'opene'd.-channel, whose sole purpose is to erode the existing beach and replicate some perceived "historic" condition of an eroded coasthne. Essek$, HEfTeR & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 20t0 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' apphcation is the applicant's incorrect description of the neighboring property bouhdaries. The neighboring properties own to the mean high water line, yet the Ehle~:S survey and the site plans show a boundary line that is far landward of the average high water mark. Why? The apphcant 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 hne denoted as the "ahwm' (average high water mark). Even assuming that line were accurate, it would mean that the Frost/Minichmi 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/Minichini property. Similarly, the Air property (to the north of the wharf) would ex~ends 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 hne." There is no reason for an approximaltion 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 kpplicant 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 thai application through such self-serving, unsupported, cryptic, and inaccurate statements. II. THE )~PPLICATION 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. Althot(gh the applicant is seeking a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA) v~*~, ~t ~,u~o ........ eoS ~..e ....... a governing s~h,,~ ~*~'*~'°'~nllo~f4nn~ A review of the CE~ requirements confirms why the app~cant has not addressed them, for they July 20, 2010 Page 6 of 15 · ESSEK$, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP cannot be met by an application whose very purpose is to cause erosion, rather than prevent it. The apphcation 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 (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 apphcant's future plans, the design of the bridge and the statements about "restoring" the httoral flow that the apphcant believes existed in 1978 all confirm that the apphcant 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 CEI-IA standards for issuance of a permit under Town Code C?lapter 111 (and NY Environmental Conservation Law Article 34). The "purpose' section of the code' (§ 111'4) confirms that one of the goals of the CEHA 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, theft construction and operation will minimize or prevent damage or destruction to man-made property, private and pubhc 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 ~lternatives 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. ESSEk$, HEFTEr ~ ANGEL, LLP July 20, 2010 Page 7 of 15 ,~. 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 structure s like jetties and wharfs, provides as follows: .S., 111' 15. Erosion protection structures. The following requirements apply to the construction, modification or restoration of erosion protection structure s: A. The construction, modification or restoration of erosion Vrotection structures must: (1') Not be likely to cause a measurable increase in erosion at the development site or at other locations. (2) Minimize and, ff possible, prevent adverse effects upon natural protective features, existing erosion protection structures and natural resources such as significant fish .qnd wildlife habitats. B. All erosion protection structures must be designed and donstructed according to generally accepted engineering principles which have demonstrated success or, where Sufficient data is not currently available, a likehhood of success in controlling long-term erosion. The protective ineasures must have a reasonable probabihty of controlling erosion on the immediate site for at least 30 years. C. All materials used in such structures must be durable and capable of withstanding inundation, wave impacts, we,~,l~****s ~,.~, o~h~, 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 progn'am 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 eve~cy 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 comphance 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 th~ 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 lll-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 lll-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 lll-15B, C, and D. In facti it is unelea~ how the proposal could meet even a single one of the requirements !hr 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 app'roximately 400'foot'long sohd wall that acts as a protecting force to northerly and. southerly flowing currents. The apphcant 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 COUNSEL(3~S AT LAW July 20, 20i0 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 wohtd likely be destroyed, as would the nearshore area and the associated wetlands. The Beard 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 are as, which are visible on the aerial photographs submitted by the apphcant. 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 hke the coastal protection purposes of the CEHA code, the purpose of the Wetlands' gode 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: ESSEKS, HefteR ~ ANGEL, LLP July 20, 2010, Page lOof15 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 ].ands in the vicinity. L Otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town. J. Adversely affect the aesthetic value of the wetland and adjacent areas. Just a~ 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 ihe code. More specifically, it violates each and every one of the standards of § 275-12 quoted above, as it would: adversi.qy affect the wetlands of the Town, through the less 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; E$$EK$, 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 apphcant'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 apphcant acknowledges that the property is located in "Reach 5" and that one of the goals is to av6id any activity that would, among other things, "disrupt tidal patterns" and "ehminate 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 apphcant legitimately claim that its proposal is consistent with the LWRP? All of the applicant's responses to the LWRP are disingenuous because the applicant ref~tses to acknowledge the full scope of its proposal. It says, for example, that the p~oposal "minimizes adverse effect of development," "minimizes the loss of life, structui'es, and natural resources from flooding and erosion," and "provides for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, pubhc lands, and public resources." Yet the explanations for those answers all revolve around the benefits that the prix!ate applicant will achieve from the proposal, without any regard for the E$SEKS, HEFTER ,:~ ANGEL~ LLP July 20, 2010 Page 12 of 15 , adverse effects the proposal will have on the private properties to each side of the wharf as weD. as to the publicly-available beaches and nearshore areas. In sram the application is not consistent with the LWRP. 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 Enviremnental Quahty 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 cf it." See 6 NYCRR § 617.3(b). Segmentation is defined under SEQRA as "the division of the environmental review of an sction such that various activities or stages are addressed under this Part as thougli they were independent, unrelated activities, needing individual determinations of significance." 6 NYCRR § 617.2(ag). The SEQRA regulations expressly stare 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]ftation is prohibited (except as noted) because artificially breaking a project into a s~ries 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 ....... -'~" .... "- ~":--~' ~ p,~tc~,um,y de[e,m,u~,wu* a subsequent action ... The second danger occurs when a Essek$, HEFTEr & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 20i0 Page 13 ell5 ,project that would have a significant effect on the environment is broken up into two or more component parts that, individually, would not have as significant an environmental impact as the entire project or, indeed, where one or more aspects of the project might fall below the threshold requiring any review" Forman v. Trs. o£$tate Univ. o£N.Y., 303 A.D.2d 1019, 757 N.Y.S.2d 180 (4th DeFt 2003) (quoting Conce~'ned C~'tizens£orEnvt. vgagata, 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 apphcant mentions - over and ever -- but never identifies with specificity. As discussed above, we can glean from thc 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 apphcant is avoiding addressing the environmental impacts of the entire proposal. In shot'/', this proposal is a prototypical segmentation of environmental review. It is therefore prohibited by SEQRA. THE REQUEST TO "SHORTEN" THE TOWlxFS 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 apphcation that is given httle attention by [he 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 14of15 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 o'f the pipe. Nor does there appear to be any consent by the Town. In facfil the specific proposal would have the most impact on the Airs, because, based on the apphcant'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 leas',;, since the Airs have not consented to the apphcation, the Board has no jurisdictiop 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 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 apphcant ha's 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 fi'om heavy storm events. By proposing to relocate the pipe outfall, the apphcant is pt'oposing to increase scouring of the beach, thus undermining the existing bulkhead (and facilitating i~s eventual destruction), all under the guise of being an "improvement" to the stormwater system. ESSEKS, Hefter & ANGEL, LLP 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 apphcant 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 whet.her the proposal meets the criteria of the Wetlands and CEHA code. Among ether things, any new application should: 1. Address a_~ aspects of the proposal, including the next phases of the plans. 2. Provide an analysis of all alternatives to the proposals. 3. ., rowde 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. Respe c~2 yours, Anth~ C. Pasta 7/21/2010 My name is Clare Air. My husband David and I are the northerly abutters to the Wharf Co. We're here tonight because we are concerned about our property. Since the engineering drawings for this permit were not in the Trustees f'de, we didn't know exactly what was being proposed in the application. We have no issue with and can support a wooden bridge or roadway. Even though the engineering drawings have still not been presented, the project document sketches and narrative supplied indicate the existing bulkheads will remain in place with the existing fill within. We only ask that the permit language include a requirement that the bulkheads and pilings remain in place and be adequately maintained for the life of the bridge. Our only other objection to the proposal is the shortening of the outfall pipe. As drawn on the sketches we've seen, all the unfiltered road run off effluvia would be deposited onto our property. That would be particularly unfair as we are one of the few homeowners in Orient Village who've consented to the installation of the outfall pipe on our property without any easement or compensation from the Town. If these changes are written into in the details of the permit, something we believe the board has the power to do, we can support the plan and finally lay this issue to rest. Thank you. TRANSMITTAL FROM: WMtex F. 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 '= ~'' i~; ,,~ l~ P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 cc: Linton Duell President, Orient Wharf CompanY, L Drew DiIhngham, .... Professional Engineer r Souh0!d 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 Odent Wharf submittal, please do not hesitate to contact me at 631-878-3102 or by email at wfbundy@aol.com. Thank you, Walt, er Bun_dy,;,/on bej~ ~h~ Orient Wharf Company / VILLAGE LANE ~ 'fl ~'/ FJ(ISTIN~G ROAD ......... ~ ~ / I~ERCONNECTING ~ ~ DENO~S RUNOFF FLOW ASP~LT PAVEMENT EXIST ROAD DRAIN CONNECTED TO OUTFALL PIPE NOTE: .~ Stmotures not drawn x le scale or Iocaled EXIST ~;ONC CURB ~/~XISTINO FENCE WAR MEMORIAL SCTM #: 10aO-2~-1-1,1 EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO BE SHORTENED TO COINCIDE WITH EXISTING RIPRAP WHICH WILL BE RE-UTILIZED AT NEW END OF PIPE For Topo Elevations shown at Project Area; see .lehn C. dated June ~ END O~ ~ OUTFALL PiPE 28' 0" NOTE: Information shown on b~ls Sketch reflects Survey Infom~ation as prepared by John C. Ehlem, , May 2010 & June 2010 EXISTING ACCESS VIA ASPHALT PAVEMENT OVER FILL TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW .~"TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SPANNING THE · " AREA SHOWN ORIENT EXISTING BOULDER & BULKHEAD WHARF wi FILL & ASPHALT SURFACE  SCALE: 1" = 30' 0" PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Modification Plan evision Drawn by: WF Bundy ~-.--~---~___~ ~ ~¥~.7 --~; ~ .... ....... ~' WFB July 2~ 2010 ~ Date' March 26 2010 ~ ~ ~ ~r!,?]~! wna~ t~ompany, urlen[ mew ]~or[< XA~ed Elevations at PmjectArea Rewsed May3 2010~,i '~ ...... SCTM# 1000-2zl-2-281 Sketch-re--redb WFBund East"'-- Ckd by. ,~ ......... EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH A NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SUPPORTEDAT EXISTING BEAM POCKETS AT EACH END + EXISTING PILINGS & SHEATHING TO REMAIN~ .'' '"!.:::::::'?i'i !..-..::i:i:i:[:i:i:i:i.! ": EXISTING BOULDER & BULKHEAD STR~.',:.:.;.:ili~i~i~i~i!i:i;ili~i:i FILLEXISTSBEYONDTHESECTIONBEING~--- ' ' ' ' "'" ' ' '~,~'"'"'"'"' ....... ' ..... REPLACED WITH NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE EXISTING FILL TO BE REMOVED TO LEVEL BELOW EXISTING BEAM POCKETS +/- 18" (APPROX 20 CY) AND DISPOSED OF IN AN APPROVED UPLAND SITE. ~ EXISTING GRADE ~' EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO BE SHORTENED (SEE MODIFICATION PLAN) ~i il, ~SCALE: 1" = 10'0" ~ ~: r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <-SECTION /~ THRU EXISTING BULKHEAD LOOKING WEST ~/ ; ~ - ~ 20~0 ~'~'~.~ ~STNGASPHALTSURFACEONBOTH ~J ~' ~ N~TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE ENDS OF N~ T MBER DECK STRUCTURE ~, AS PER E~INEER'S D~WINGS ~ TO BE PATCHED & PITCHEDAS REQ'D ~: o' ~,~ rru ~ b~ ~,~ ~ :~ ~ + ,, / ~ISTING FILL TO BE REMOVED TO L~EL BELOW EXIS~N~WN-OUT~EE'~E TO--BE . · ~ I- 28 0 / ~ ~ISTING B~M POCKETS +/- 18" (APPROX 20 CY) SHORTENED & ~ISTING RIP~P UTILIZED ~ISTING CONCR~E S~WALLAT SHORELINE ~ISTS BEYOND THE N~ TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE I~ ~HI SCALE: 1" = 10' 0" Drawn by: WF Bundy Date: March 26, 2010 Revised: 03 May 2010 29 July 2010 (Noted Elevations at Sections) Ck'd by: Sketch prepared by WF Bundy, East Moriches NY 11940 SE CTIONS THR 0 UGH EXIS TING B ~I~ KHE~ID PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York SCTM #: 1000-24-2-28.1 ANTHONY C. N]CA B. STRUNK THEODORE ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUN!~ELOR~ AT LAW August 5, 2010 WATER MILL OFFICE MONTAUK HIGHWAY P. O. BOX 570 WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 (631) 726-6633 Board of Trustees Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, i~ 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 M~nlchini 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 informRtion supplied by the applicant and the applicant's consultant, W. F. Bandy. Apparently, Mr. Bandy 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 deficient plans, it does not address the many other omissions previously identified, including the following: August 5, 2010 Page 2 of 3 1. The revised plans still provide no engineered construction plans that would 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 b~mself po/nted out at the hearing, he believes that any fill under the bridge will simply be washed out during store events. Without engineered plans, how can the Board know what effect this project will have on the remaining structure? 2. The plans still do not identify any comm~.tment to maintain the bulkhead and fill structure underneath the proposed new bridge. In fact, the plans are ambiguous to the extent that the north side bulkhead is labeled as flit will remain, but the south side b~lkhead is not. 3. The revised plans still fail to show any ~long term maintenance progr9m' 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. 5. The revised plans still cont'mue to show the incorrect "property boundary" for the two properties a~oining to the project area. As I previously indicated, the Air and Frest/l~4~n;chinl 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 Ai~s property, b) is part of the Town operated storm water system, and c) does not belong, in any fashion, to the applicant. August 5, 2010 Page 3 of 3 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. Respectfully yours, Anthony C. Pasea /laws 5 August 2010 Mr. Linton Duell President Orient Wharf Company Post Office Box 243 Orient, New York 11957 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 nm-off, ouffall 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 sh6reline and protect the harbor ecology. Very truly yours, /S/ David & Clare ' Air, T,,~ ..~u=t, Margme[ l¥Illll¢llllll CC: Town Trustees of the Town of Southold Officers- Orient Yacht Club Mr. Walter Bundy 2072 Village Lane Orient, NY 11957 August 13, 2010 Southold Board of Town Trustees Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 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 mainta'med 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. Sincerely, Clare & David Air TRANSMITTAL FROM: WMter F. B dy 237 Walden Court East Moriches, New York 11940 Telephone: (631) 878-3102 email: wfbundy@aol.com DATE: Monday, August t6, 2010 TO: CC: Town of Southold Town Trustees Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Linton Duell, President, Orient Wharf Company Drew Dillingham, Professional Engineer AUG 1 7 2010 $outhhol~ Towtl Board of Trustees 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 ..-..nr~w r-.-~-nrnnosed to remove only that fi!! located be.~.een the existing wv-...h~m 1-'v~'-v-vnnrl~f~ to allow placement of the new support beams. 3) TRANSMITTAL FROM Walter F. Buddy Proposed Modifications to Orient Wharf Page 2 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 Odent Wharf submittal, please do not hesitate to contact me at 631-878-3102 or by email at wfbundy@aol.com. Thank ~/~~~Walte Bun he Orient Wharf Company you, ; on ~ VILLAGE LANE '//' EXISTING ROAD ~ INTERCONNECTING EXISTING R ~ D~IN PIPES D~IN ~% DENO~S RUNOFF FLOW ~ ~ ~ ~~ ASPHALT PAVEMENT ~ x VIL~GE ~NE CONNECTED TO %~ OUTFALL PIPE NOTE: ~ to ~ or Io~t~ ~ EXIST ¢ONC CURB SEAWALL For Topo Elev~ions, other than ~o~ , ~ ~ ADDIT~ DETAIL~ sh~n at Proje~ Ama; ~e John C. ~ '~ ~9 /// .~ ~ ~ Ehlem Su~ey dated June 9, 2010 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~IS~NG END OU~L PIPE 28' 0" ~ISTING ACCESS VlAASPHALT PAVEMENT OVER FILL TO BE REP~CED WITH NEW ~: .~IMBER DECK STRUCTURE SPANNING THE I~fo~afion sh~n on ~ Ske~h ~ Suwey Info~ation as pm~ by John C. ~nd Su~yor, AR~ SHOWN ~ 2Ol o ORlfiNl , ~,',~ ~ISTING BOULDER & BULKH~D WHARF w/ , FILL & ASPHALT SURFACE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Drawn by: WF Bundy Modification Plan ~evision "B"~"~ Date: March 26, 2010 {' WFB, Aug 12, 2010 '~ Revised: May 3, 2010 Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York ~u~an Pipe Modifi. cationy Ck'd by: July 29, 2010, Aug 12, 2010 SCTM #: 1000-24-2-28.1 Sketch prepared byWF Bundy, East Moriches NY~11940 EXISTINGASPHALT SURFACE TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH A NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SUPPORTED AT EXISTING BEAM POCKETS AT EACH END EXISTING PILINGS & SHEATHING TO RE_M_AI_N _~ EXISTING GRADE EL: 2.8' EXISTING BOULDER & BULKHEAD STRUCTURE w/ FILL EXISTS BEYOND THE SECTION BEING REPLACED WITH NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE ~ +1- 28'0" ~ ~"~ACTIVITY DELETED~)~) .... ~ ~ ~ SCALE: 1" = 10' 0" ?~ ::~;:,,~ <, ,, EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE ON BOTH q ........................... ENDS OF NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE .......... ~_ _~ % ~ +, e., ~,, ~ ~ B~M POCKETS TO ALLOW P~CEMENT OF NEW EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIP~ ~ , ~ ,-.~v / ~ SUPPORT B~MS ~PPROX 21 C~ & DISPOSED ~ ..... ~ .... ~--~ _ EL:6.6' ~ ~ EL:6.6' ~ _ ~I~TING PILINGS~H~THINGTO REM~ NOTE: :':':':":" '" ...... ":':" ' ' ' ' ' ''~"~'~ ~ISTtNGCONCRETES~WALLATSHORELINE For Topo Elevations, other ~an ~ose ~ISTS B~OND THE NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE sho~ at Pro, ct Ama; see John C. Ehiem Su~y dated June 9, 2010 ~ SCALE: 1" = 10' 0" SECTION"B" THRU EXISTING BULKHEAD LOOKING EAST Information shown on this Sketch reflects Survey Drawn by: WF Bundy Information aa prepared by John C. Ehlem, Land Date: March 26, 2010 Surveyor, dated September 1999 & June 9 2010 Revised: 03 May 2010 29 July 2010 (Noted Elevations at Sections) 12 Aug 2010 (Deleted Outfall Pipe Modifications & Modified Fill Removal to be ONLY at Beam Pockets) Ck'd by: Sketch prepared by W.-': Bundy, East Moriches NY 11940 SECTIONS THR 0 UGH EXISTING BULKHEAD PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York SCTM #: 1000-24-2-28.1 hvision "B" ~ ,Aug 12, 2010 ~ ted Outfall Pipe Modifications & Modified e ONLY at Beach Pockets ,~ ~ 2.5 ALW 0.0 0.0 WATE~ DEPTH FEET DATUM FOR SOUNDINGS ALW 0.0 9' x 12' TIMBER J 24' O.C. PLAN VIEW ;ir CROSS'VIEW PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT REMOVAL LOT 1000-24-2-27 DA'~lO NR (2072 t, ILLA~E LANE} 315 8TH AVE LOT 1000-24-2-2~.1 (APPLICANT, 2110 V1LLAGE LAN~ ORIENT ~VHARF CO. INC. PO 80X 243 ORIENT, NY 11957 LOT 100)-26-2-1.1 (2190 Vtt. LAGE LANE') NINA & TIMOTHY FROST PO BOX ORIENT, NY 11957 ./ HAGSTROM SUFFOLK COUNTf ATLAS MAP 26 GRID E-'¢7 LOCATION MAP ORIENT WHARF ASPHALT PAVEMENT REMOVAL ORIENT HARBOR ORIENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPLICANT: ORIENT WHARF CO. INC. DRAWN BY: CORWlN SHEET 1 OF 1 APRIL 1, 2010