The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOrient Wharf Co Town of Southold P.O Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 * * * RECEIPT * * * Date: 06/05/12 Receipt#: 134628 Transaction(s): Reference Subtotal 1 1 Application For Appeal 1000-111-9 $250.00 Check#: 31979 Total Paid: $250.00 L Name: Esseks, Hefter&Angel ( Orient Whaft Co CEA) P O Box 279 Riverhead, NY 11901 Clerk ID: LINDAC Internal ID: 1000-11179&15 ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET , STEPHEN R.ANGEL P. 0. Box 279 WILLIAM W ESSEKS CARMELA M. DI TALIA RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 MARCIA Z. HEFTER ANTHONY C. PASCA SENIOR COUNSEL THEODORE D. SKLAR PHONE (631) 369-1700 FAX: (631) 369-2065 EAST HAMPTON OFFICE ABY APPOINTMENT) NANCY SILVERMAN 34 PANTIGO ROAD LISA J. Ross WWW•EHALAW.COM EAST HAMPTON, NY 11937 MELISSA H. SIDOR PATRICIA M. CARROLL WILLIAM POWER MALONEY RECEIVED NICA B. STRUNK May 29, 2012 OF COUNSEL JUN 5 2012 Southold Town Clerk Elizabeth A.Neville Town Clerk Town of Southold ,r. PO Box 1179 . Southold,New York 11971 Re: Appeal to Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Orient Wharf Company Dear Ms.Neville: I received your letter dated May 23, 2012 returning two checks that you found relating to the Coastal Erosion Board of Review appeal regarding the Orient Wharf Company. There were actually two separate appeals; one taken in 2010 and one taken in 2011. The 2010 appeal was indeed processed by the Town Board and brought to a conclusion. The 2011 appeal, however, was rejected by the Town Board, returned to us, and never processed (see attached). Therefore, while we agree that the Town is entitled to a replacement check for the filing fee on the 2010 appeal, we see no reason why the Town would be entitled to a filing fee on an appeal that was rejected and returned to us. We are therefore enclosing a replacement check for the filing fee on the 2010 appeal. Please discuss the foregoing with the Town Attorney's Office and let us know if you disagree with our position. We are certainly not trying to withhold any fees to which the Town is entitled, but we assume the 2011 filing fee should have been returned when the appeal was rejected and returned to us. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very ii : s, /bws Anth• y C. Pasca Enclosures ,,,"iii,,,, I/��OSVFFO(i�'CO ELIZABETH A.NEVILLE,MMC /01 .0.%; Town Hall,53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK p P.O.Box 1179 y 2 Southold,New York 11971 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS \..2:-• �� O � Fax(631)765-6145 MARRIAGE OFFICER ! �� RECORDS OF MANAGEMENT OFFICER _ O.1 Me .5° o' Telephone(631)765-1800 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER ��' southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 22, 2011 Anthony C. Pasca, Esq. Esseks, Hefter&Angel, LLP P.O. Box 279 Riverhead, NY 11901-0279 RE: Appeal to Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Orient Wharf Company Dear Mr. Pasca: The Town Board received the Application for Appeal to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review on July 6, 2011. The appeal challenges a,letter issued by the Board of Trustees to the Orient Wharf Company on April 13, 2011 and has, therefore, not been filed in a timely manner as required by§111-125. Additionally, the letter does not constitute an "order, requirement, decision or determination" and is, therefore, not appealable to the Board of Review. Accordingly, the Town Board is rejecting and returning the Appeal. Very truly yours, -)11-&-ta Elizhbeth A. Neville Town Clerk EAN/Ik Enclosure cc: Members of the Town Board Members of the Board of Trustees Martin D. Finnegan, Town Attorney Lori M. Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney MARTIN D.FINNEGAN ,,,� SCOTT A.RUSSELL TOWN ATTORNEY0110OE SOU,, Supervisor martin.finnegan@town.southold.ny.us �� yo JENNIFER ANDALORO �� 44 ° ° -l0 Town Hall Annex,54375 Route 25 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY P.O.Box 1179 jennifer.andaloro@town.southold.ny.us ; G . :.: `,; � Southold, New York 11971-0959 a® �1 LORI M.HULSE �git ' i°I Telephone(631) 765-1939 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY COUf�T`l,�► 0' Facsimile(631) 765-6639 lori.hulse@town.southold.ny.us -- OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED March 30, 2011 MAR 3 1 2011 ScU thckd Ttliril Clerk Mr. Linton Duell, President Orient Wharf Company • P.O. Box 243 Orient, NY 11957 RE: Appeal to Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Orient Wharf Company Dear Mr. Duell: Enclosed please find the Findings and Determination of the Town Board of the Town of Southold in connection with the referenced matter. Please be advised that these Findings were adopted at yesterday's Town Board meeting and a copy of the resolution is also enclosed. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. , Very truly`yours, a I I It t V\ 0 J- fifer An•'1I ro Assistant Town Attorney JA/Ik - Enclosures cc: Members of the Town Board (w/o ends.) Members of the Board of Trustees (w/encls.) Ms. Elizabeth A. Neville, Town,Clerk (w/encls.) Lori M. Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney (w/o ends.) MARTIN D.FINNEGAN /��•� SCOTT A.RUSSELL TOWN ATTORNEY /ISI of SOUjOI _ Supervisor fi martin. nnegan@town.southold.ny.us y JENNIFER ANDALORO �• ~ O Town Hall Annex, 54375 Route 25 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY * if, P.O.Box 1179 jennifer.andaloro@town.southold.ny.us Southold,New York 11971-0959 LORI M.HULSE %c•� � f Telephone(631) 765-1939 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY O(1 ,�;I�f� Facsimile(631) 765-6639 lori.hulse@town.southold.ny.us •'�� OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 30, 2011 Anthony C. Pasca, Esq. Esseks, Hefter&Angel, LLP P.O. Box 279 Riverhead, NY 11901-0279 RE: Appeal to Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Orient Wharf Company Dear Mr. Pasca: Enclosed please find the Findings and Determination of the Town Board of the Town of Southold in connection with the referenced matter. Please be advised that these Findings were adopted at yesterday's Town Board meeting and a copy of the resolution is also enclosed. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. Very truly yours, 1- ifer An• - "ro A- stant To $ °I (41 Attorney JA/Ik Enclosures cc: Members of the Town Board (w/o ends.) Members of the Board of Trustees (w/encls.) Ms. Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk (w/encls.) Lori M. Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney (w/o ends.) '°""` RESOLUTION 2011-302 a ADOPTED DOC ID: 6788 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO.2011-302 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON MARCH 29,2011: WHEREAS,the Board of Trustees on August 18, 2010 granted the application of Orient Wharf Company(the "Applicant") for a permit to replace existing asphalt vehicle and access paving(an approximately 17' portion) over fill on an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck, under the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Law(the"Law") of the Town of Southold; and WHEREAS, on September 17,2010,the adjacent property owners (David and Clare Air, Timothy Frost and Margaret Minichini) submitted an application to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, as the governing Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review, seeking to appeal the determination of the Board of Trustees, or in the alternative, seeking a modification of the permit to include a requirement that Orient Wharf Company maintain a bulkhead and provide a 30-year maintenance plan; and WHEREAS,the Town Board did transmit a copy of the instant appeal to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; and WHEREAS,the Town Board conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the instant appeal with an opportunity for all interested parties to be heard; and WHEREAS,that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby finds that this action is classified as a Type II Action pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, 6 NYCRR, Section 617; and WHEREAS,the application has been reviewed pursuant to Chapter 268 (Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program ("LWRP")); now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold does hereby adopt the Findings and Determination dated March 29,2011, granting the Application of the adiacent property owners and directs the Orient Wharf Company to reapply to the Board of Trustees for further consideration; and be it further RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the proposed action is classified as a Type II Action and is not subject to review pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations for this action; and be it further RESOLVED that the Town Board has determined that this action is exempt from LWRP review; and be it further Resolution 2011-302 Board Meeting of March 29, 2011 RESOLVED that this Determination shall not affect or deprive any other agency of its properly asserted jurisdiction, separate and apart from the proceedings under the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Law considered herein. • cive.‘„,,a,,, Elizabeth A.Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [5 TO 1] MOVER: Vincent Orlando, Councilman SECONDER:Albert Krupski Jr., Councilman AYES: Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Evans, Russell NAYS: Christopher Talbot Updated: 3/29/2011 3:26 PM by Lynne Krauza Page 2 TOWN BOARD • COASTAL EROSION HAZARD BOARD OF REVIEW TOWN OF SOUTHOLD • In the matter of the Application of David and Clare Air,Timothy Frost and Margaret Minichini 2110 Village Lane DECISION Orient,NY SCTM#1000-24-2-28.1 FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION Based upon the application, documents contained in the Board's file, site inspections and testimony received at the public hearing held on January 18, 2011, the Town Board finds and determines as follows: ISSUE David and Clare Air, Timothy Frost and Margaret Minichini have filed an application with the Town Board, as the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review(the "Board"), dated September 16, 2010, requesting the following relief: 1. A reversal of the Board of Trustees August 18, 2010 determination granting the Orient Wharf Company's ("OWC") application for a permit (Trustees' Permit# 7368C) under Chapter 111 Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas of the Town Code, pursuant to the provisions of§111-9. 2. In the alternative, and should the Board affirm the Trustees determination, the applicant has requested a modification of the permit issued by the Trustees to include a requirement that the OWC maintain a bulkhead and provide a 30-year maintenance plan. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. Description of the property and applicants: The property that is the subject of this application is located on the western side of Village Avenue and is located on Orient Bay. The property consists of approximately 3,230 square feet of upland area and is improved with a wharf and marina facility. The property is located in the "M-1"Marine Zone. As confirmed by the Board of Trustees,, and acknowledged by the OWC, the portion of the property where the proposed work is to be performed is located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area as established by New York State in 1991. The OWC submitted an application to the Trustees seeking permission to replace existing asphalt vehicle and access paving (an approximate 17' portion) over fill on an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure. The parties appealing the Trustees determination are not the owners of the OWC property, but are adjacent property owners to the north and south of the property at issue. B. Trustees Procedural History: I. Application The OWC filed an application with the Board of Trustees on June 14, 2010 which requested a coastal erosion hazard area permit to replace existing asphalt vehicle and access paving (approximately 17' portion) over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure. II. Documentation in the Trustees Record In addition to the completed application,the OWC submitted the following materials in support of the application: 1. A Modification Plan prepared by Walter Bundy, dated March 26, 2010 and revised May 3, 2010 detailing the proposed project. 2. A Modification Plan, Revision"A",prepared by Walter Bundy and dated July 29, 2010 and a Modification Plan through Existing Bulkhead, Revision"A" dated July 29, 2010 indicating topographic elevations of the project area. 3. Orient Wharf Modification Plan, Revision"B" dated August 12, 2010, indicating deletion of the Outfall Pipe Modifications at the Project Area. 4. Orient Wharf Sections through Existing Bulkhead,Revision"B"dated August 12, 2010 indicating the deletion of the Outfall Pipe Modifications and the reduction in the amount of fill proposed to be removed. 5. A Site Survey prepared by Van Tuyl, dated November 19, 1978. 6. An Engineer's Drawing of the Proposed Timber Deck Structure prepared by Corwin, dated April 1, 2010 7. Dated photographs of the portion of the wharf asphalt pavement to be removed. 8. A listing of prior permits/approvals for site improvements on the property. 9. A short environmental assessment form. 10. A set,of project documents that included various materials. . 11. LWRP Consistency form. 12. Copies of a permit issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(#1-4738-03228/00002)for the proposal, effective July 13, 2010. 13. An Erosion, Sedimentation and Stormwater Runoff Form: 2 On July 19, 2010,the LWRP Coordinator submitted a written recommendation to the Trustees that the proposal was consistent with the LWRP. On July 20, 2010,the adjacent property owners submitted an analysis and argument regarding the Trustees' consideration of the OWC application which included the following: 1. The OWC application was inaccurate, unsupported, vague, cryptic, incomplete, self-serving, and disingenuous regarding the OWC's future plans, which include the creation of a new water channel where the. existing beach lies. 2. The OWC application did not meet the requirements for a coastal erosion hazard area permit and failed to address them in the application. 3. The OWC application did not meet the requirements for a wetlands permit. 4. The OWC application was not consistent with the LWRP. 5. The OWC illegally segmented SEQRA review. On August 6, 2010 the adjacent property owners submitted additional comments on the revised submission of the OWC and indicated that the revised application was also incomplete and failed to address all the issues they raised. III. Public Hearing: The Trustees held a public hearing on this application on July 21, 2010 at which time all those interested were given the opportunity to speak. Walter Bundy appeared on behalf of the OWC and presented information in support of the application,the relevant portions of such information is summarized below. Mr. Bundy provided information regarding the OWC meeting with the DEC and confirmed that the OWC did not have a maintenance permit with the DEC and that any work performed on the wharf required a DEC permit. The main purpose of the work was to provide immediate, safe access over the 17' paved area that was extremely deteriorated. Mr. Bundy also testified that underneath the 17' paved section was inappropriate fill material that the OWC was proposing to remove down to existing beam pockets(approximately 1 '/2 feet). Mr. Bundy also acknowledged that the OWC would be coming back before the Trustees in the future for modifications to the Tidal Wetlands maintenance permit to include dredging around floating docks and mooring areas, and permit maintenance and rehabilitation of the wharf facilities, and additional permits for reconstruction and maintenance of the wharf. Anthony Pasca, Esq., appeared on behalf of the applicants herein and pointed out that there were certain problems with the application as cited in the July 20, 2010 letter noted above, but that these issues were not insurmountable. Mr. Pasca also pointed out the concern of the adjacent property owners that there were many references to future applications of the OWC, but there was no reference to what was going to happen to the 3 bulkhead and that the OWC made no indication that they were going to maintain the bulkhead. Mr. Pasca also pointed out that the OWC failed to meet its burden of showing that it met the criteria set forth in Chapter 111 to obtain a Coastal Erosion Management permit. Mr. Pasca stated that failing to maintain the bulkhead underneath this area will eventually create a 17 ft. hole that acts as a funnel and will destroy the beach. Additionally,the opponents of the application presented testimony of Charles Bowman, President of Land Use Ecological Services. Mr. Bowman noted certain deficiencies in the plans submitted by the OWC and that the plan submitted would yield an opening in the wharf structure and that the impacts of that opening should be addressed and noted that based upon the application,there may be a SEQRA segmentation issue. Mr. Frost, an adjacent property owner to the south, also testified that he would prefer that the OWC compromise and agree to maintain the bulkhead. Mr. Frost acknowledged that there were concerns regarding access and egress to the wharf, silting ' and water quality in the Harbor that negatively impacts the OWC and adjacent property owners and that there was no concern with the timber decking as proposed. However, Mr. Frost was concerned that the modifications would create a reconfiguration of the shoreline. Ms. Air, an adjacent property owner to the North, stated that she and her husband supported replacing timber with asphalt on the condition that the permit require the bulkhead and pilings remain in place and be maintained for the life of the bridge. Thereafter, the agent for the OWC reiterated that the proposal was simply to replace an asphalt surface with a timber surface. Linton Duell, President of the OWC also testified that the bridge opening was closed by Floyd King who in about 1978 filled in underneath the bridge, and paved over the fill. This-method was chosen because of cost issues. Mr. Duell also testified that at that time, Floyd King owned the wharf property as well as the adjacent properties owned by Frost and Air. This matter was also discussed at the August 18, 2010 meeting of the Board of Trustees. At that time Mr. Duell testified that a modification was made to the application, namely, in lieu of the removal of all underlying fill beneath existing asphalt pavement which was proposed due to the unsuitable material that was observed,the OWC was now proposing to remove only that fill located between the existing beam pockets to allow placement of the new support beams. The Trustees passed a motion to approve the application as modified. 4 • IV Trustees Determination and Certificate of Compliance. On August 18, 2010 the Trustees issued a determination granting the Applicant's request for a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Permit based upon the following: 1. The revised proposal , as applied for, complied with the standards set forth in Chapter 275 and Chapter 111 of the Town Code; and 2. The Trustees determined that the revised proposal,as applied for, would not have a detrimental effect upon the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town. 3. The proposal was consistent with the LWRP The OWC completed the proposed work and received a certificate of compliance from the Trustees on August 31, 2010. V The Town Board Proceeding On September 17, 2010,the adjacent property owners timely filed an appeal of the Trustee's determination pursuant to Town Code Chapterl 11 with the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review(the Board) seeking the reversal of the Trustees granting of the permit without a condition that the OWC maintain the bulkhead underneath the timber decking that was installed. The Board held a duly noticed public hearing on January 18, 2011 at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to present testimony on the application. Anthony Pasca, Esq. appeared on behalf of the adjacent property owners and presented testimony on the appeal. The testimony presented on the appeal reiterated the information provided to the Trustees as set forth in Section III/IV above. Additionally, Mr. Pasca submitted photographs and additional information into the record regarding the condition of the bulkhead underneath the 17' area where the pavement was replaced with timber. John(Jack)Kelly, a property owner approximately 600 ft. north of the wharf, appeared and stated that the intent of the work performed by the OWC was to repair a roadway that was sagging and that was frequented by heavy vehicles. Mr. Kelly also stated that at some point during the 1970's that area of the wharf,which was originally open and had water flowing through, was filled. Mr. Kelly stated that prior to the filling of the 17' area, the beach area to the north and south survived. However, since the area was filled, sand has piled up on both sides of the wharf and has no way of getting out. Additionally, Mr. Kelly also stated that one of the effects of sand build up is that the properties furthers away from the wharf are losing sand, have lost sand and particularly to the south side. Finally Mr. Kelly stated that the build up of sand along the wharf makes it difficult for OWC to utilize the wharf. Claire Air,the appellant herein, also appeared and stated her concern as the adjacent property owner to the north is that the beach was there when she purchased the 5 • 1 property and that she wanted it to remain. Her concern is that if OWC fails to maintain the filled in portion of the wharf, she will lose beach area. Mr. Air, owner of the adjacent property to the north of the wharf, noted that the OWC failed to provide expert testimony from a coastal engineering firm regarding the impact of allowing this section of the bulkhead to allegedly deteriorate No other members of the public appeared in support or opposition to the application and the record was closed on March 1, 2011. APPEAL OF THE TRUSTEE'S DETERMINATION Pursuant to §111-24 the Town Board is designated as the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review and has the authority to "[h]ear and decide appeals where it is alleged • there is error in any order,requirement, decision or determination made by the Administrator in the enforcement of this chapter."See, Town Code §111-24 (B). Furthermore,the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review has the authority to "reverse or affirm,wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision or determination of the Administrator, including stop or cease-and-desist orders." See, Town Code §111-25. When considering appeals pursuant to §§ 111-24 &25,the Board is limited to the record on appeal and the arguments made before the Board of Trustees. In this instance, this Board finds,based upon the record before it,that the OWC failed to supply the Trustees with sufficient information regarding the criteria set forth in §111-9(A-C) of the Town Code to support the granting of a Coastal Erosion Management Permit to OWC. While the adjacent property owners and their representatives made general statements regarding the potential impact of the application and had a consultant present at the Trustees' public hearing that offered testimony noting certain deficiencies in OWC's application,the adjacent property owners similarly did not present sufficient information to support the denial of the permit. This Board also questions whether the replacement of pavement with timber, as proposed by the OWC qualifies as normal maintenance under §111-6. This determination should be made, in the first instance by the Trustees, based upon the information provided by the OWC. • Regarding the argument made by the adjacent property owners whether the structure qualifies as an erosion control structure under §111-15,this Board believes that the intent of the wharf was to provide access to the water, as opposed to providing protection of the shoreline. However, it is for the Trustees to determine this issue if it sees fit, in the first instance,based upon information provided by the OWC and the adjacent property owners. This Board does not have jurisdiction to consider the remaining arguments of the adjacent property owners, as they fall beyond the purview of Chapter 111. 6 • . • CONCLUSION Therefore, in the interests of justice and for the reasons set forth herein, this Board grants the appeal of the adjacent property owners pursuant to Chapter 111 of the Town Code, annuls the Coastal Erosion Management Permit granted to OWC,without prejudice, and directs the OWC to reapply to the Board of Trustees for further reconsideration in accordance herewith. Dated: March 29, 2011 7 • //,,, OFFICE LOCATION: 01 1#1.0 SO1/7 MAILING ADDRESS: Town Hall Annex ®4 Ol® \ P.O. Box 1179 54375 State Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 (cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.) Southold NY 11971 c/� Telephone: 631 765-1938 %‘4/'4e gk• Fax: 631 765-3136 IyCOMfVT`I*,•' • ' LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED VED MAR 2 9 2011 MEMORANDUM Sgk -h aF $oz,n, F'. fit To: Scott Russell, Supervisor Members of the Town Board From: Mark Terry, Principal Planner. LWRP Coordinator Date: March 28, 2011 Re: Appeal to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review (Town Board) Regarding ORIENT WHARF COMPANY/CEM SCTM# 1000-24-2-28.1 Location: 2110 Village Lane, Orient. The proposed action has been reviewed to the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization - Program (LWRP),and it is recommendation that the action is EXEMPT from LWRP review pursuant to: § 268-3. Definitions. Minor Actions, Item S. (included below). S. Engaging in review of any part of an application to determine compliance with technical requirements, provided that no such determination entitles or permits the project sponsor to commence the action unless and until all requirements of this chapter have been fulfilled; Pursuant to Chapter 268, the Board shall consider this recommendation in preparing its written determination regarding the proposed action. Cc: Martin Finnegan, Town Attorney Jennifer Andaloro, Assistant Town Attorney MAILING ADDRESS: PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS �,#�I A S0(/7 P.O.Box 1179 MARTIN H.SIDOR ',$', 1 l® Southold, NY 11971 Chair * 411V` OFFICE LOCATION: WILLIAM J.CREMERS c/a Town Hall Annex KENNETH L.EDWARDS 54375 State Route 25 JAMES H.RICH III `O . Youngs(cor.Main Rd. &Youn Ave.) DONALD J.WILCENSKI ' COUNT(� �� Southold,NY 0111 Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM RECEIVED To: Scott Russell, Supervisor MAR 292011 scto2c, d 731.72 Members of the Southold Town Board =rom: Mark Terry, Principal Planner LWRP Coordinator Date: March 28, 2011 Re: Appeal to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review (Town Board) Regarding ORIENT WHARF COMPANY/CEM SCTM #1000-24-2.-28.1 Zone: MI The proposed action has been reviewed to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation regulation 6NYCCRR Part 617 State Environmental Quality Review and it is my determination that pursuant to Part 617.5(28), the action, as proposed, is a Type II action and therefore not subject to SEQRA review. Cc; Martin Finnegan, Town Attorney Jennifer Andaloro, Assistant Town Attorney File OFFICE LOCATION: rjlr�J• SON' 'a, MAILING ADDRESS: Hall � C Town all Annex v` P.O. Box 1179 y �...w 54375 State Route 25 b s:�•�,� � Southold,NY 11971 (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave) Telephone: 631765-1938 Southold IVY 11971 Fax: 631 765-3136 COATI,Wfiv. LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM CO /111r To: Scott Russell, Supervisor ' ... i Members of the Town Board 104 gritsam MINN up OFFderi From: Mark Terry, Principal Planner 'LWRP Coordinator • Date: January 31, 2011 Re: Appeal to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review (Town Board) ORIENT WHARF COMPANY/CEM _____ _ _ _.,,.. .m. ._. , SCTM# 1000-24-2-28.1 Location: 2110 Village Lane, Orient. ORIENT WHARF COMPANY requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to replace the existing asphalt vehicle and access paving (an approx. 17' portion) over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure. Located: 2110 Village Lane, Orient. SCTM#24-2- 28.1 The proposed action has been reviewed to the policies of the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) and it is recommended that the application be found as CONSISTENT with the LWRP. Pursuant to Chapter 268, the Board shall consider this recommendation in preparing its written determination regarding the consistency of the proposed action. Cc: Martin Finnegan, Town Attorney MAILING ADDRESS: PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS J' SOij, i.„ P.U.Box 1179 MARTIN II.SIDOR �. .-, ;,�m Asa `cw Southold,NY 11971. Chair •�, �fi- OFFICE LOCATION: WILLIAM J.CREMERS y� ; ; r Town Hall Annex KFNNETII L.EDWARDSlw „ fie t1 54375 State Route 25 JAMES H.RICH-III DONALD J.WILCENSKi , + > ., (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.) 1'` ,1/4 Southold,NY Telephone: 631 7654938 Fax: 631 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLT) To: Scott Russell, Supervisor Members of the Southold Town Board From: Mark Terry, Principal Planner I,WRP Coordinator Date: January 31, 2011 Re: Orient Wharf Company Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review SCTM#1000-24-2.-28.1 Zone: MI The proposal to replace the existing asphalt vehicle access paving(approximately 17 feet) over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure(action)has been reviewed to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation regulation 6NYCCRR Part 617 State Environmental Quality Review and it is my determination that pursuant to Part 617.5.(c)(1), the action, as proposed, is a Type 11 action and therefore not subject to SEQRA review, Cc: Martin Finnegan, Town Attorney Jennifer Andaloro, Assistant Town Attorney File c SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD PUBLIC HEARING January 18, 2011 9:00 AM Present: Supervisor Scott Russell Justice Louisa Evans Councilman Albert Krupski, Jr. Councilman William Ruland Councilman Vincent Orlando Councilman Christopher Talbot * * * Town Clerk Elizabeth Neville Town Attorney Martin Finnegan This hearing was opened at 9:05 AM SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Please rise and join with me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Thank you. We are going to call the meeting to order, which is an appeal to a permit issued by the Trustees for the Orient Wharf Company. COUNCILMAN TALBOT: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold set January 18, 2011 at 9:00 AM in the Town Meeting Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold,New York 11971, as the time and place for a public hearing on the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Appeal of Clare and David Air, Timothy Frost, and Margaret Minichini in connection with Trustees' Permit #7368C issued to Orient Wharf Company, dated August 18, 2010, relating to the replacement of an existing asphalt vehicle and access paving (an approximate 17' portion) over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure located at 2110 Village Lane, Orient,New York, SCTM#1000-24-2-28.1. I have the notice that it was published in the Suffolk Times dated December 16, 2010 and the notice that it was posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board on December 13, 2010. And that is it. ANTHONY PASCA: Anthony Pasca, 108 East Main Street Riverhead. I am here representing David and Claire Air, who are here and Timothy Frost and Margaret Minichini. Tim is also here. The Air's live and own the property immediately to the north and adjacent to the Orient wharf pier and Frost and Minichini own the property immediately to the south. So I represent both neighbors directly adjacent to the wharf. I have submitted a sort of lengthy written explanation what the grounds of our appeal are. But I want to go through every word with you guys, I am assuming either you have read it or I hope you will have read it before you decide the appeal. I just want to touch on a Appeal of Air, Frost&Minichini Public Hearing 2 January 18, 2011 few points, I want to bring to your attention. And basically we are talking about a very limited appeal here. We are not challenging the work companies underlying desire to change the surface of the 17 foot span. Aesthetically, my clients have no problem with the structure, we have no problem with what they show on their plans. The only thing we appealing at this point is the Trustee's refusal to follow section 111-15 and to condition the permit on the maintenance of the rest of the rest of the structure. All the wharf company has done and they have already done the work that they were planning on doing which is to change the surface part. In their papers to the Trustee's they said, oh, yeah and the rest of it is deteriorating but they show the rest of it remaining yet they didn't propose to repair them, they didn't propose any kind of maintenance plan for the bulkhead and the fill underneath and that is what we are challenging. We asked the Trustee's to make them true to their word, they are showing that this is what they are showing to be. Make them maintain it. That is what the code requires. 111-15 is the main section that this appeal is based on and it is actually a section of town code that is based on town law. In the coastal erosion town text, the state allows the town to take over the coastal erosion code but only if the town's code has certain minimal standards. This is built into the state law and this 30 year maintenance requirement is ,a direct requirement in the ECL,which is the state code. It is ECL 34-0108 which says that of the minimum standards that a local code must have, it must have this 30 year requirement. And you have put the 30 year requirement into 111-15 b, c and d. B, I am just going to partly read or partly paraphrase, but B says that all erosion protection structures have to be designed and constructed according to generally accepted engineering principles. And it says that the protective measures must have a reasonable probability of controlling erosion on the immediate site for at least 30 years. C then says that all materials have to be designed to be capable of withstanding inundation wave impacts,weathering and other effects of storm conditions for a minimum of 30 years and then it goes on to say that an individual component can have a working life of less than 30 years but only, only when there is a maintenance program that ensures it will be regularly maintained, replaced as necessary to attain the required 30 years of erosion protection. Then D goes on to talk about talk about what a maintenance program should be, it even says that town can and will require a bond to ensure compliance with the maintenance program. So it is all built into your code. They have to design it for 30 years, if they can't design it for 30 years, they have to maintain it for 30 years and may even have to bond that maintenance program. So what we were asking the Trustees to do is just follow that code provision. It is pretty simple. And basically the Trustees said we don't that. We don't impose conditions on the permit which was kind of shocking to me because I have been before that Board many times where I have had conditions imposed on me that changed entire design of my project and all we were asking for was the condition to hold them to the design that they were proposing. If you look at their plans, so I am not making this up, they do say existing pilings and sheathing to remain. And that was shown directly on their plan. Sort of what the Trustee's said, well, they are showing it (inaudible) but they wouldn't require them to condition this permit on that 30 year maintenance plan. So that is why we are here, it is a simple request but it is extraordinarily vital for my clients and to a lot of other neighbors there because and this is something else that is sort of detailed in the written submission, if that 17 foot span breaches, that beach is gone in the first storm. It is gone, there is not question about it. The way this thing is designed, you stick 1- Appeal of Air, Frost&Minichini Public Hearing 3 January 18, 2011 a 500 foot wall, solid wall into the water at basically a perpendicular angleto the beach, if you pop a whole right on the beach, that beach is going to be gone. Everybody knows it and probably the wharf company wouldn't mind if that happens, I don't know what the Trustee's were thinking when they refused to make sure that 'this was maintained, but they refused to analyze any of it and refused to condition it. And so you know that we are not making this up, we had some pictures taken over the last couple of months, I had' those submitted last week, showed what this particular section, we are talking about a 17 foot section, how it has changed in just four months since they did the work. You know, out of three pilings that were supporting the north side,two of them are gone. You know, the sheathing is starting to come off. One of the lateral support pieces is half gone, it is dislodged and the other half, it is ridiculous, they are not maintaining it. If anything, somebody is out there helping this along or a couple of good storm events have really done some damage. So the need for the maintenance is apparent, just go down there yourself, you will see it yourselves and it is required by the code. It is really that simple. And we are not asking you to outright revoke their permit, we are just asking to require them to maintain the structure that they say they are keeping. That is all I have. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody else like to? Please. JOHN KELLY: Hi, my name is John Kelly, Jack Kelly and I live north of the wharf, about 600 feet. What was argued before the Trustee's and with other bodies was the need that the wharf company had was for a roadway that was sagging and we have heavy vehicles going out there. Septic pump during the summer months, a pumper goes out, fire engines go out and many vehicles go out. So the, what was desired was a repair to the roadway and that has been accomplished, as counsel has said. I would like to, if you don't mind,just as a refresher. I think you have seen these before. These are pictures of what the structure originally looked like. They are the same picture, just in different formats. And when the structure was built, there was an opening at that point. It was not the first iteration of that wharf. The wharf had collapsed several times and they finally got it right back in the 1850's. And sometime during the 70's is our best bet from recollections of people, that opening was filled in. prior to that, people who are long time residents of Orient used to play in it as kids. They go back and forth and there was water flowing under it and the beach property survived. What has happened since it was filled in in the 70's has been as one would expect. Pile up the sand on both sides of the wharf because it has effectively become a jetty and the sand continues to pile. The sand condition is, when the wind is blowing from the south it, sand moves up to the wharf in that direction and when it is blowing from the north it moves from the other side but it has no way of getting out, it just piles there. So this was not a, you know, something that was part of the original structure, it is not structure at all. It is cheap fill that was put in by the owner, the individual who owned both properties that the complainants own, only one on each side of the property. Also had a controlling interest in the wharf company. This was, I recall when it was, that opening was in trouble itself, it needed to be replaced, the roadway. That there was a debate, there were metal plates on it at the time because it was unsafe and the debate was what should be done and the next year, sometime over the course of the year, it was filled'in with cheap fill. So this is not a natural occurrence and Appeal of Air, Frost&Minichini Public Hearing 4 January 18, 2011 it was not part of the original structure. It was the owner of the complaining properties that did the filling in and caused this whole thing. One of the effects of the sand buildup is that the properties furthest away from that area are losing sand, have lost sand and particularly to the south side and it has piled up. So and another effect is that the, and it is less obvious (inaudible) for the wharf company to use its facility. So I just wanted to put that into the record as to what some of the history had been and this has been, you know the bridge, the roadway surfacing was absolutely necessary to be done and any further conditions on that were not produced and the only thing I guess, that is being asked for is that we perpetually maintain the property and I am unsure of how neighbors can complain to require, in the absence of a safety hazard, how they can require an operating facility to perpetually maintain something that was put there, un-permitted and so forth, it was just done, to screw up basically what had been an operating facility for 100 years before that. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Would anybody else like to address the Board? MR. PASCA: Just a couple of minutes on that. I appreciate the speakers candor about what the history of it and what the,probably,preferable desire on the wharf company and yacht club's position, is to return it to that condition but that original structure, if we take them at their word that is what it used to be. That original structure was built pre-coastal erosion hazard area law, pre-wetlands law. No permits were required, no studies were required. And to say that that was the original conditions,just because it was built with a terrible engineering design doesn't mean that we should return to a terrible engineering design now that there is a coastal erosion law and there is a wetlands law that is supposed to make sure that any structure that is built is built to the best standards possible. That is, I mean, that is why we have these things. Not to perpetuate or even return to past problems but to make sure that anything that happens now is done in a proper way. I have seen the Board's, you know, tell people who had pre-existing jetties you have got to change your design, we are not going to let you rebuild it exactly as is, we are going to make you build it to modern standards. So for, to say that that structure screwed things up, those were his words, it was unstable and causing the problem and as their own pictures showed it, there was water underneath that bridge. It shows that this thing works now, it is a solid structure. It didn't work when there was a whole popped in a 17 foot span of it. Inaudible. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Can I just ask for some clarity? Was the 17 feet that you are referencing on the photo's you submitted, I have to assume that is where the new lumber is? MR. PASCA: Yes. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. And what you are basically asking this Board is to say you don't have a problem with that, the underlying,structure there is what you want to see in terms of some sort of language in the permit that would require that that not only stay, it be maintained. Appeal of Air, Frost&Minichini Public Hearing 5 January 18, 2011 MR. PASCA: Yes. Yes. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. MR. PASCA: That is what show on their plans, so that is why I, if they had come in with an application that said we want to redesign this thing and they were honest about it and said we want to actually pop a hole in here where we would like to see it, they would never have met the standards of the code. Never in a million years. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I can appreciate that, I am not an engineer. To be candid, I looked at it and said they will have no choice but to maintain it because it is what is holding up the new lumber. MR. PASCA: It is not. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: It is not? MR. PASCA: It is not and that is why this, you know, you have got to read the fine print on the application. What they did is they supported on two ends of the timber structure, they supported it to the point where and they say it in their own application, what is underneath is now superfluous. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Oh, okay. MR. PASCA: So that is why this is a big deal. Because they changed the basic nature of it and made that part superfluous which is why they have no incentive to maintain it anymore. COUNCILMAN TALBOT: I have a question, looking at the survey dated June 9, 2010 and it shows both the properties north which ends about 20 feet or so east of where that bridge area is and then the property to the south looks like it comes right up to the southeast corner of that bridge section. It also shows on there beach grass and plantings that extend out well past or well west of that bridge. Where those, were permits granted from the Trustees to place any sand or plant any beach grass on the applicants or complainants property north and south of that bridge? MR. PASCA: No, not that I know of. COUNCILMAN TALBOT: Did they ever get any permits and plant any grass themselves out there? Beach grass or.... COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Probably natural accretion. MR. PASCA: This is natural accretion. You know, I mean since when is accretion a bad thing? The applicant, the wharf company speaks of accretion as if it is a bad thing and this is the first time I have heard of that,where you want to return to erosive conditions as Appeal of Air, Frost&Minichini Public Hearing 6 January 18, 2011 opposed to accreting condition. And it is on both sides, so it is not like there is an obvious starvation of one side, you have got both sides accreting which is never a bad thing, at least not in the coastal erosion lingo. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: The Trustees reviewed this under the coastal erosion law and under the wetland law. And when we first got the appeal, Louisa Evans and I went out and we did a site inspection, that was a couple of months ago and you know, being familiar with it, we got to see it first hand and see what was built because at that point, what had been applied for and granted by the Trustees had been built. So we got to see what was there and then I took a look because it had been a few years since I was actually was familiar with the coastal erosion law, so I went back and took a little refresher look at it and the appeal is based on that maintenance requirement for an erosion control structure but a wharf, I mean, in my opinion wouldn't be an erosion control structure. A wharf is something that was built, intended, it was originally built and is used as access into deeper water not as an erosion control structure but it is an erosion control structure. MR. PASCA: I mean, it is functioning as an erosion control structure and... COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Alright, but it is not built, the intention is not for erosion control, the intention was for access. That is the way I saw it. MR. PASCA: That might have been true if it were a pier type structure but they built it as a solid wall. I mean, this thing was designed to protect, probably I am guessing this goes back a century or more but it was designed to protect the main side of the docks and the boats that are there. It is basically a breakwater and your code defines erosion protection structure pretty generally but let's say for arguments sake, Councilman, that 111-15 doesn't apply, I am not sure what permission or what right they have to build anything there if it is not, it doesn't follow at the very minimum 111-9 which says everything has to be designed in a way that is the most reasonable, the least intrusive and doesn't, 111-9 B says it can't have the propensity to cause erosion. They have to demonstrate that. So if they were actually being honest about this application and said we want to turn this design into this design and the new design would be, it would have a bridge with a hole underneath it. They would have to show through, you know, some engineer that that design wouldn't have more of a likelihood of causing erosion. They could never do that. You know, I am a lay person but I know enough about engineering to say you pop that hole in it, that beach is gone. So there is not an engineer on this planet, who has a degree, who will say that that design is a better design than what is there now. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: But that is a question that I think this Board has to answer. Because what was done in the past, you know, was done in the past. It was built, it was an opening, they opened it (inaudible) you know, we are here today and that is what, and is it an erosion control structure? Do the Trustees have to enforce a maintenance provision in that permit? r ° Appeal of Air, Frost&Minichini Public Hearing 7 January 18, 2011 MR. PASCA: Even if it is not an erosion control structure, they still have to ensure, they have to impose conditions to make sure that it is a reasonable design. There is no, whatever you call it, they still have to do that at a bare minimum. And without any offering by the applicant which it is their burden, you sat on that Board for a long time, it is always the applicants burden to come forward with proof that their design is not going to cause this or destroy the wetlands or whatever. They never posited the idea that that hull would be breached and they never offered any analysis of what would happen if that hull was breached. They showed on their plans it would be maintained, yet they are not maintaining it. And you can't, you can't just sort of approve part of it, then they acknowledge that the other part is deteriorating but we are not going to rebuild that. And we are not going to study what happens when that thing collapses. You know, you can't have it both ways. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Can I just get clarity on 111-9, which requires that they prove that it doesn't cause erosion, the same section doesn't require that they prove that it will cause accretion. I think the intent of that law was to ensure that there wouldn't be a starvation of one side from the other. Leaving or allowing the condition to return to its pre, recent history would allow for the flow, so I don't think 111 guaranteed accretion to either side of the equation. It spoke mostly to issues and the damaging affects of erosion. MR. PASCA: I understand your question but one thing, it is not recent history. This was 30 or 40 years ago. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: In Southold... MR. PASCA: Inaudible,properties have changed in that area. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: There is no doubt. MR. PASCA: But here is the other part of it. If they were coming in and saying we are going to dismantle the whole thing, we are taking it down. You can't force us to maintain it. Say they are right, we can't force them to maintain the structure but if they are going to insist on maintaining a 600 foot structure into the water, they can't design it in a way that makes it worse. They can't exacerbate erosion by saying we are going to create a wall that is going to pull currents into this one corner and then we are going to pop a hole right in that corner. That is the problem. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Point well taken. MR. PASCA: That is the problem with their design, is that once they keep the structure they have to make sure it is designed in the most engineering appropriate way and popping that hole in the structure is not and they certainly haven't offered any proof that it would be and that it wouldn't cause more problems than not having any structure there at all. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. Thank you. • Appeal of Air, Frost&Minichini Public Hearing 8 January 18, 2011 COUNCILMAN TALBOT: I would like to, I would like to review that code as well because looking at the old pictures, obviously everybody knew it was open, whether it was closed in without permits or prior to permits being required and now I would have to review that code myself to see how it reads. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I will take a look at it now,too. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I marvel at people submitting photo's found on ebay for hearings. It reminds me of an old postcard. Would anybody like to address the Board on this issue? Please. CLAIRE AIR: I would just like one point, my name is Claire Air, I am the northerly abutter. I wanted to make one point which is that both all of us obtained our properties, the Frost's, the Air's and the wharf company obtained our properties at the point that the bridge was closed. There were two bulkheads. And when we bought our property we had a beach and we are afraid that if they don't maintain the bulkheads, we will no longer have a beach. And so I think that contrary to that gentleman, we do have an interest in them maintaining a structure that is going to maintain our beach because that is how we bought our property and that is how they bought their property. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Would anybody else like to address the Board? DAVID AIR: My name is David Air, my wife and I own the abutting property on the north side. Regarding the question about planting grass, it is my understanding that you can't plant anything that is in the area west of the existing stone walls there. That is DEC jurisdiction. At one point when we worked on our property, it took us two years to get a letter of non jurisdiction delineating that existing wall to the west, the DEC said it was not and we have the letter, it was out of their jurisdiction however, going west from that wall is their jurisdiction. It is my understanding you can't plant anything in there and we never have. Those grasses grow naturally. Our, an environmentalist consultant we had testify at the hearing with the Trustees was very clear about the importance of those grasses. I think they are, provide a benefit and a breeding ground for species that particular environment with those grasses is getting more and more difficult to find. And I think that it is in everyone's interest to preserve those if possible. That was made clear by the environmentalist from land use corporation. My wife made the point that the property owners north and south, as far as I know, every one of them took title to their property after, years after that bridge had, that closure was permanent. It may be impermanent because of poor design. The wharf company, the majority of shareholders in the wharf company, purchased their shares years after we bought our property and years after that condition existing. It is a burden for the wharf company because it inconveniences them should the consequences, the silting be a consequence of that closure. Well, that is a problem that they have. And I think there or have been for the 11 years that this controversy has been running around in that area of town and existing, for some reason the wharf company has decided not to proceed in most of us would agree is a reasonable pursuit to a solution which is to develop consensus from everyone by hiring the appropriate coastal engineering firms, tasking them with the conditions of the laws as • • Appeal of Air, Frost&Minichini Public Hearing 9 January 18, 2011 the town and the state require, the environmental concerns, the property owners rights, the historic issues because that wharf is an historic monument in an historic district. A point which was denied by the wharf company in the two years ago when their application for a previous plan to put culverts through that, they said they were not a historic monument and they are not in an historic district, they are. That consideration could be taken into account as well by appropriate engineers who would then offer a plan to develop a consensus and we could end this because I am sure there is a way that everybody could get most of their concerns addressed. For some reason, the company has decided not to pursue that. So we are here today, again, on this issue. We have been here before, Mr. Krupski knows this has been around for too long. We are all hopeful that at some point, someone in the organization will come up and take the step to hire the appropriate consultants, develop this consensus and we can bring it to a close. Right now, I think the issue before the Board is to modify the permit that was granted in ways that we think are appropriate and this instant problem will go away, that all will be solved. I believe the wharf company then can in the future,reapply to open up that space, (inaudible) request it. And then be. subject to all the appropriate reviews that the law requires and I think that will lead us possibly to another, you know, final solution here. We are hopeful. We have been waiting and we hope you take this step to ease us out of this particular issue and maybe move us forward to one where we can actually get some progress. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: One thing I want to say before we close the hearing, first if anyone wants to speak, please feel free. But we are going to keep this open for two weeks. What I think we would like to do is hold it open, subject to any written comment that wants to be submitted to the Board. Would anybody else like to address the Board at this time? Motion to adjourn. Thank you. This hearing was adjourned at 9:36 AM. * * * * * / I'. Eli s eth A.Neville Southold Town Clerk • •0 • Mme. am. - ., r.u_� s �. .14.• • 4,•414116,_ _ .;, 1, 4 _ ""- _ \ `a . ! • w wy� - ' ` A y fes. . 4. efas hated Col., ! /C I(7 MARTIN D.FINNEGAN SCOTT A.RUSSELL TOWN ATTORNEY rri Supervisor martin.finnegan@town.southold.ny.us44*®FSO% JENNIFER ANDALORO P.O. Box 1179 �, ~o l0 Town Hall Annex,54375 Route 25 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY Southold,New York 11971-0959 jennifer.andaloro@town.southold.ny.us G Q ,� LORI M.HULSE q �4 10 Telephone(631) 765-1939 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY qt, �r•� r Facsimile(631) 765-6639 lori.hulse@town.southold.ny.us '' OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEWED MEMORANDUM JAN 1 4 2011 To: Ms. Linda Cooper, Deputy Town Clerk Southold Town Clerk From: Jennifer Andaloro, Assistant Town Attorney Date: January 13, 2011 Subject: Air, Frost& Minichini/Coastal Erosion Management Appeal Orient Wharf Company Attached is a copy of Anthony C. Pasca's letter to the Town Board dated January 11, 2011, received by our office today, in connection with the referenced matter. Kindly include this letter in the referenced appeal file as part of the official record. Thank you for your attention. JA/Ik Enclosure K� c 10/ -1 it (_C3 "t ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET • P. 0. Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 WILLIAM W. ESSEKS (631)369-1700 WATER MILL OFFICE MARCIA Z HEFTER MONTAUK HIGHWAY STEPHEN R.ANGEL TELECOPIER NUMBER(631) 369-2065 P. 0. Box 570 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 CARMELA M. DI TALIA (631) 726-6633 ANTHONY C. PASCA NICA B. STRUNK THEODORE D. SKLAR NANCY SILVERMAN January 11, 2011 LISA J. Ross MELISSA H. SIDOR Via Hand Delivery Town Board of the Town of Southold 53095 Route 25 Southold,NY 11971 Re: Appeal of Air, Frost and Minichini to Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Dear Supervisor Russell and Members of the Town Board: We represent David Air and Claire Air, Timothy Frost and Margaret Minichini in the above referenced Coastal Erosion Hazard Area("CEHA") appeal from the permit issued to the Orient Wharf Company by the Town Trustees on August 18, 2010. The Town Board has noticed a hearing on the appeal to be held on January 18, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. In advance of the hearing, we wanted to supply the Town Board with more current photographs of the subject area of the wharf We are therefore enclosing eight (8) sets of photographs taken between December, 2010 and January, 2011 showing primarily the northern side of the project area, as viewed from the Air property. The reason we are asking that these photographs be included in the record is that they confirm that the Orient Wharf Company is not maintaining the portion of the wharf underneath the new"bridge,"i.e., the bulkhead and fill between the two spans of the bridge. As you know from our recent submissions in support of the appeal,the fundamental error in the CEHA permit is that the Town Trustees neither(a) conditioned the permit on the maintenance of the bulkhead and fill underneath the bridge with the code-mandated 30-year life expectancy or maintenance plan, nor(b) considered or studied the drastic erosion of the coastline that would result if the bulkhead and fill deteriorated to the point of a breach in the structure. The appellants argued to the Trustees, and now argue to this Board, that without a 30-year life expectancy or maintenance plan, the deterioration and breach of the structure was inevitable. The photographs confirm that this eventuality will likely occur sooner than anticipated. Southold Town Board January 11, 2011 Page 2 of 2 In fact,the photographs show that in only four months since the "bridge"was erected: • the easternmost piling supporting the northern bulkhead had disappeared by early December • the westernmost piling had completely cracked by early December and has now disappeared ' • the middle post--which is now the only post supporting the northern bulkhead-- is cracked and on the verge of failure • half of the lateral top rail supporting the bulkhead has disappeared since early December (it existed in the December 6t photographs but is gone in the December 29th photographs), and the remaining portion of the rail is already dislodged • many of the vertical planks (sheathing) on the northern side have disappeared or deteriorated to the point of failure. The collapse of the northern bulkhead and failure of the solid fill system is therefore inevitable and imminent. We have no idea what materials would spill out onto the beach from whatever is currently being held back by the deteriorated bulkhead. The Orient Wharf Company refuses to maintain the structure even though it depicted the bulkhead and fill as "to-remain" when the Orient Wharf Company applied for its CEHA permit. The Trustees never considered or studied the adverse affects that would occur on the coastline generally and appellants' properties specifically upon the failure of the solid fill structure. The Town Board's immediate action, as requested by appellants, is therefore necessary to ensure that no irreversible effects occur as a result of the improper CEHA permit. We will appear at the Town Board's hearing on the matter in order to address the Board's questions and discuss the matter further. Very tru • yo s, Antho , . Pasca /bws Enclosures 4.1.1"4" . -4 1 I} ,$ r. j d 1 i , 1 • pr V Y ,.. ap a -amu _ - = � '. i' ... T 1/' !. `. - 1 • L ll'+, y� • i, < I ' r Y;4' 'ill ! jfj! 3 s i 1 I ; r 444 . 1 .l € i • it r ,, � -\ •"'- - a iJ - �� I . - ilk L H Aiimr balk .. Ll i Y • - =Mr .17. ,r,#kyr•+'i9p ' t e,..,, Y i ..- .. 1 _ 1. 1it�� ' . iii ' ' ,1 „sI. ' ! i{..,R ` + ` 3 • "�{ ,tEt -As *,- 10011kklitiit.t.r. ,.1. ' 1 4.'.. ,� y . .may I. mom. I 44 la • .. UPPP' - , 4 AMMO 1110464:. - r • I . 2\'' -Yr-, . , -tlitti:—.4...\- ,..• , tr ?:"... ' 5 5 ) 55 ..,,, *, :, . . , 5 ,i.a, . '.. ^,4, 1. ,,. ',op" .-. , Jr...t � E' ti z • t �. it s 4:I° w *- : �: ,'L„f '4-. ;. is,.. ~ 4 ' • • � • r' . _ 'r t • Dec 28,^2010 3:56 PM _\ �•�• - - 0 *IS 4 '\ .2 \ \ 4%. \ . . i ►r. 'i”v i i� 4.■ \ .. .. -,-. : , i *,:1, r : , . . 1 N _ I .,,, . , irit‘ -- i 7 C -.. • l‘k .2. i‘\ 11V • .i ,s, u.;:, . -f , , . 4,,,, •,,, ,.., __ ,, , : ._ ,, ik. r.:4„,.. , '' -1,. mr- - .--, .. -- : •,,.„..,,.,,„, ,, �y_, • M I` \ . ti,b . ialf-.*: kii 41 ' \. . ' 1. ` ''''.',' . .,. . #20,_,,, ,;., ..... ...*- -," - 4 —` n • s. 40 40.0. 'IrjICPetetat'hiliAPP '' . - . 110 r Mi ' PI' -, Da ec 31 2. v 1 :07 PM f i -' -k, r L ; `C y '‘,. . ,. .4 i , li,,, . , ,.. ;. / , := •• it 1, v. , ID t' 3'xi Ili / Al .I- - _, • 1 t ' ."14. ;111. , t, k .1y ..". II li } 1 VW '' ` ,. wry '' 16 %1'.. 11.1 ' . r ,. 20t1 1 :39 PM - � • 4. gliiiimpe.r.-...- - ... ... _ .4.. .."1631"."1"."1"--".."--"..."'"i".""'_ .,. .. , . • ..,•-• .. le"'"1"1""'"6"------------------- . , - ismomilik quo ... , ., •., ., ,,-...‘,e-- ., A k/ 7 _ , co s - v - '. ttF . lit M1` .-se_;. OW/ { : :40•'..7.44.1 4711. v. - _ . . 4 •. . � F1 a toil .` r` _ � !may;. , ' T4. �.-,..y�M. y�, r _!��. tip.... +tom �. #' `• � :4 • _ : - - fir, ... _ ` ` ,~ - ,. .b -.�•. ' �, ��' _ ,.,jam_ • _ , (rt _ .'q - -n 7 :� .1 S PM SIP - } '0_ tibirk . i NO" .,- 41P1111r,"4".-- "14111141111111111.11.6111111* • rP • • ... -. "`i• Jan 7. 2011 1 :40 PM MARTIN D.FINNEGAN SCOTT A.RUSSELL TOWN ATTORNEY �dee' Supervisor martin.finnegan@town.southold.ny.us e�� S�Uriy�_ • JENNIFER ANDALORO �" A Town Hall Annex, 54375 Route 25 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY P.O.Box 1179 y Southold,New York 11971-0959 jennifer.andaloro@town.southold.ny.us Q LORI M.HULSE N.`Zit 0 a• Telephone(631) 765-1939 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CO(f(If r(,* alf Facsimile(631) 765-6639 lori.hulse@town.southold.ny.us "04° OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED JAN 1 3 2011 MEMORANDUM Southold Town Clerk To: Mr. Mark Terry, Principal Planner From: Jennifer Andaloro, Assistant Town Attorney Date: January 11, 2011 Subject: Orient Wharf Company/CEM Appeal- SEQRA Attached please find copies of the following in connection with the referenced matter: 1. Application for Appeal to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review; and 2. Sketch provided by the Applicant. Kindly prepare SEQRA and LWRP reviews for this appeal. We would appreciate these reviews as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your attention. JA/Ik Enclosures cc: Ms. Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk (w/o encls.) ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE,RMC, CMC �r 0O Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK ; J�[ * , P.O. Box 1179 N Southold,New York 11971 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER 'Zs .O It Fax(631) 765-6145 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER � l"'&-0 �,,ler Telephone (631) 765-1800 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER = UNT1,w �� southoldtown.northfork.net gio OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 3, 2010 Orient Wharf Company P 0 Box 243 Orient NY 11957 Re: Coastal Erosion Appeal Public Hearing f - Rescheduled to January 18, 2011 at 9:00 A.M. To Whom It May Concern: The Coastal Erosion Appeal filed by David and Clare Airs, Timothy Frost and Margaret Minichini of the Board of Trustees permit issued to the Orient Wharf Company has been rescheduled for Tuesday, January 18, 2011 at 9:00 A.M. at the Southold Town Hall. Enclosed herewith is a copy of the Town Board resolution adopted December 14, 2010 and a copy of the Legal Notice of Public Hearing. Very truly yours, 71 Linda J. Cooper Deputy Town Clerk Enclosures cc: Town Attorney (w/o enclosures) ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE,RMC, CMC O : Town Hall,53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK ; 4, - P.O. Box 1179 N Southold, New York 11971 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTTCS ; G ,� MARRIAGE OFFICER ,� ,aO �1 Fax (631) 765-6145 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER �� , Ii' Telephone (631) 765-1800 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER =y°OUNT'LN% southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 3, 2010 Attn: Anthony C. Pasca Esseks, Hefter& Angel, LLP P 0 Box 279 Riverhead NY 11901 Re: Coastal Erosion Appeal Dear Mr. Pasca: Enclosed herewith is a copy of the resolution and Legal Notice of Public Hearing rescheduling the hearing for the Coastal Erosion Appeal of your clients: David and Clare Air, Timothy Frost and Margaret Minichini by the Southold Town Board for Tuesday, January 18, 2011 at 9:00 A.M. in the Meeting Hall at Southold Town Hall. Very truly yours, 46�c.vGe, l_ C.ru� ti Linda J. Cooper Deputy Town Clerk Enc (2) cc: Town Attorney ` °`` RESOLUTION 2010-986 M ADOPTED DOC ID: 6450 A THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2010-986 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON DECEMBER 14,2010: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby amends Resolution No. 2010-840 to change the date of the public hearing to January 18, 2011 and to read as follows: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby sets December 11, 2010 January 18,2011 at 9:00 AM in the Town Meeting Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, as the time and place for a public hearing on the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Appeal of Clare and David Air, Timothy Frost, and Margaret Minichini in connection with Trustees' Permit#7368C issued to Orient Wharf Company, dated August 18, 2010, relating to the replacement of an existing asphalt vehicle and access paving (an approximate 17' portion) over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure located at 2110 Village Lane, Orient,New York, SCTM#1000-24-2-28.1, and directs the Town Clerk to publish notice of such appeal in The Suffolk Times not less than ten(10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to such hearing and to notify the applicant by first class mail. Q214, Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: William Ruland, Councilman SECONDER:Albert Krupski Jr., Councilman AYES: Ruland, Talbot, Krupski Jr., Evans, Russell Southold Town Board- Letter Board Meeting of October 19, 2010 fRESOLUTION 2010-840 Item#6.23 elADOPTED DOC ID: 6305 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO.2010-840 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON OCTOBER 19, 2010: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby sets December 14, 2010 at 9:00 AM in the Town Meeting Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold,New York 11971, as the time and plate for a public hearing on the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Appeal of Clare and David Air, Timothy Frost, and Margaret Minichini in connection with Trustees' Permit#7368C issued to Orient Wharf Company, dated August 18, 2010, relating to the replacement of an existing asphalt vehicle and access paving (an approximate 17' portion) over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure located at 2110 Village Lane, Orient,New York, SCTM#1000-24-2-28.1, and directs the Town Clerk to publish notice of such appeal in The Suffolk Times not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty(30) days prior to such hearing and to notify the applicant by first class mail. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: William Ruland, Councilman SECONDER: Vincent Orlando, Councilman c AYES: Ruland, Orlando, Talbot, Krupski Jr., Evans, Russell Generated October 20, 2010 Page 36 10063 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Karen Kine of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, . published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1 week(s), successively, commencing on the 16th day of December, 2010. Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this day of --,&e2010. LEGAL NOTICE - �Sh�%�%��'_ / J NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ! CH ISTINA VOLINSKI NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK - = the Town Board of the Town of Southold' set January 18,2011,at 9:00 a.m.in the No. 01-V06106050 Town Meeting Hall,53095 Main Road,1 QUaIMOd Iii Suffolk County Southold,New York 11971,as the time My Commie®Ion Expll8t Fobruaty 28, 2012 and place for a public hearing on the , Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Re- view Appeal of Clare and David Air, Timothy Frost,and Margaret Minichini in connection with Trustees' Permit , #7368C issued to Orient Wharf Com- ' pany.dated August 18,2010,relating to , the replacement of an existing asphalt ,r vehicle and access paving (an approxi- ', mate 17'portion)over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new 1 timber deck structure located at 2110 Village Lane,Orient,New York,SCTM #1000-242-28.1. ' Dated:December 14,2010 BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Elizabeth Neville Town Clerk 10,063-1T 12/16 _ _- �, Page 1 of 1 Cooper, Linda From: Legals [legals@timesreview.com] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 1:41 PM To: Cooper, Linda Subject: RE: Air, Frost, Minichini PH 1-18-11 • Hi Linda, I have received the notice and we are good to go for the 12/16 issue. Thanks and have a great afternoon! Candice From: Cooper, Linda [mailto:Linda.Cooper@town.southold.ny.us] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 12:35 PM To: Legals Subject: Air, Frost, Minichini PH 1-18-11 Please confirm receipt of this Legal Notice of Public Hearing to be published in the 12/16 edition of the Suffolk Times. Thank you. (coop • 12/13/2010 STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) LINDA J. COOPER,Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Southold,New York being duly sworn, says that on the /3 day of ,17 L, , 2010, she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York, to wit: Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, 53095 Main Road, Southold,New York. Re: 64t_ei-e Linda J. Cooper Deputy Town Clerk Swornbefore me this �1 day of Ate,-2 11. 1E41 A tLJ Notary Pu�® BONNIE!.DOROSKI Notary Public,State Of New York No.01006095328,Suffolk County Term Expires July 7,20 LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold set January 18, 2011 at 9:00 AM in the Town Meeting Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, as the time and place for a nubile hearing on the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Appeal of Clare and David Air,Timothy Frost, and Margaret Minichini in connection with Trustees' Permit#7368C issued to Orient Wharf Company, dated August 18, 2010, relating to the replacement of an existing asphalt vehicle and access paving(an approximate 17' portion) over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure located at 2110 Village Lane, Orients New York, SCTM#1000-24-2-28.1. Dated: December 14, 2010 BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Elizabeth Neville Town Clerk * * * PLEASE PUBLISH ON December 16,2010 AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO ELIZABETH NEVILLE, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, P.O. BOX 1179, SOUTHOLD,NY 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times Town Board Members Town Attorney Trustees Comptroller Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Orient Wharf Co Esseks, Hefter& Angel LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold set January 18,2011 at 9:00 AM in the Town Meeting Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, as the time and place for a public hearing on the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Appeal of Clare and David Air, Timothy Frost, and Margaret Minichini in connection with Trustees' Permit#7368C issued to Orient Wharf Company, dated August 18,2010, relating to the replacement of an existing asphalt vehicle and access paving (an approximate 17' portion) over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure located at 2110 Village Lane, Orient,New York, SCTM#1000-24-2-28.1. Dated: December 14, 2010 BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Elizabeth Neville Town Clerk * * * PLEASE PUBLISH ON December 16, 2010 AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO ELIZABETH NEVILLE, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, P.O. BOX 1179, SOUTHOLD,NY 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times Town Board Members Town Attorney Trustees Comptroller Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Orient Wharf Co Esseks, Hefter& Angel ' "°`�` RESOLUTION 2010-986 `' °�� ADOPTED DOC ID: 6450 A THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2010-986 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON DECEMBER 14, 2010: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby amends Resolution No. 2010-840 to change the date of the public hearing to January 18, 2011 and to read as follows: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby sets December 11, 2010 January 18,2011 at 9:00 AM in the Town Meeting Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold,New York 11971, as the time and place for a public hearing on the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Appeal of Clare and David Air, Timothy Frost, and Margaret Minichini in connection with Trustees' Permit#7368C issued to Orient Wharf Company, dated August 18, 2010, relating to the replacement of an existing asphalt vehicle and access paving (an approximate 17' portion) over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure located at 2110 Village Lane, Orient,New York, SCTM#1000-24-2-28.1, and directs the Town Clerk to publish notice of such appeal in The Suffolk Times not less than ten(10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to such hearing and to notify the applicant by first class mail. r 674244,4a0 Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: William Ruland, Councilman SECONDER:Albert Krupski Jr., Councilman AYES: Ruland, Talbot, Krupski Jr., Evans, Russell r'' /IO .° es. OF SO(/ry7 ELIZABETH A.NEVILLE,RMC, CMC I 'O Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK 4111 P.O.P.O. Box 1179 C,17 Southold, New York 11971 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER Fax(631) 765-6145 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICERA o, Telephone (631) 765-1800 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER 4'COU�y"rN► southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 4, 2010 Orient Wharf Company P.O. Box 243 Orient, NY 11957 Re: Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Appeal Public Hearing: December 14, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. To Whom It May Concern: The Southold Town Board, as the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review, adopted Resolution No. 2010-840 at their regular meeting held on October 19, 2010, setting the time and place for a public hearing upon the appeal of adjacent property owners, Mr. & Mrs. Airs and Timothy Frost and Margaret Minichini, of the Board of Trustees'grant of a permit pursuant to Town Code Chapter 111 issued to the Orient Wharf Company. I am enclosing a courtesy copy of the appeal submitted by Applicants' attorneys, which the Town Board will consider and hear on this date. Very truly 'yours, a Eidtia YlAilik Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk EAN/Ik - Enclosures cc: Members of the Town Board (w/o ends.) Martin D. Finnegan, Town Attorney(w/o ends.) Esseks, Hefter&Angel LLP(w/o ends.) Southold Town Board- Letter Board Meeting of October 19,2010 (648:. RESOLUTION 2010-840 Item#6.23 ADOPTED DOC ID: 6305 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2010-840 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON OCTOBER 19, 2010: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby sets December 14,2010 at 9:00 AM in the Town Meeting Hall,53095 Main Road, Southold,New York 11971, as the time and place for a public hearing on the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Appeal of Clare and David Air,Timothy Frost, and Margaret Minichini in connection with Trustees' Permit#7368C issued to Orient Wharf Company, dated August 18, 2010, relating to the replacement of an existing asphalt vehicle and access paving(an approximate 17' portion) over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure located at 2110 Village Lane, Orient,New York, SCTM#1000-24-2-28.1, and directs the Town Clerk to publish notice of such appeal in The Suffolk Times not less than ten (10)days nor more than thirty(30) days prior to such hearing and to notify the applicant by first class mail. 2,,Qqt.odiu Elizabeth A.Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: William Ruland, Councilman SECONDER: Vincent Orlando, Councilman AYES: Ruland, Orlando, Talbot, Krupski Jr., Evans, Russell Generated October 20, 2010 Page 36 0, 4Nx SOU/ ELIZABETH A.NEVILLE,RMC, CMC � 0 : Town Hall, 53095 Main Road • TOWN CLERK * 41 t P.O. Box 1179 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS � Q ,�� Southold, New York 11971 MARRIAGE OFFICER . P. �O �1 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone 31) 765-180 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER �y0OUNT1I ��,or southo dtown nor hfork.net i.i OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 4, 2010 Orient Wharf Company P.O. Box 243 Orient, NY 11957 Re: Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Appeal Public Hearing: December 14, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. To Whom It May Concern: The Southold Town Board, as the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review, adopted Resolution No. 2010-840 at their regular meeting held on October 19, 2010, setting the time and place for a public hearing upon the appeal of adjacent property owners, Mr. & Mrs. Airs and Timothy Frost and Margaret Minichini, of the Board of Trustees'grant of a permit pursuant to Town Code Chapter 111 issued to the Orient Wharf Company. I am enclosing a courtesy copy of the appeal submitted by Applicants' attorneys, which the Town Board will consider and hear on this date. Very truly yours, efaiedwil IQ,Yliaat Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk EAN/Ik Enclosures cc: Members of the Town Board (w/o ends.) Martin D. Finnegan, Town Attorney (w/o ends.) Esseks, Hefter&Angel LLP(w/o ends.) MARTIN D.FINNEGAN ��„ ,,, SCOTT A.RUSSELL TOWN ATTORNEY so I O f SQU� - Supervisor martin.finnegan@town.southold.ny.us �� o, JENNIFER ANDALORO ~O l0 2 Town Hall Annex, 54375 Route 25 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY4g 4g P.O. Box 1179 r Southold, New York 11971-0959 st jennifer.andaloro@town.southold.ny.us G Q T LORI M.HULSE \ q;1. 1 Telephone (631) 765-1939 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY s COUNTY,%';11. Facsimile(631) 765-6639 Os lori.hulse@town.southold.ny.us " OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEWED MEMORANDUM SEF 28201D To: Ms. Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk 5 l!thrthl TCAVII Clerk From: Lynne Krauza Secretary to the Town Attorney Date: September 27, 2010 RE: Coastal Erosion Hazard Appeal/Orient Wharf Company For your records, I am enclosing copies of the record of the Trustees' proceeding in connection with the referenced matter. These documents should be incorporated into the record of the Applicant's appeal to the Town Board. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your attention. Ilk Enclosures Board of Trustees 29 July 21, 2010 clay. Everything just slides down. So I would imagine it would be difficult to do the returns. And there are bulkheads on either side of the property, so it can tie into that. MR. COSTELLO: It's a fear of compromising the bluff. The other properties are bulkheaded, both of them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So there is no need to go into the bluff. Are there are any other comments? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application as applied for, and we find it consistent under LWRP. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number six, Walter Bundy on behalf of the ORIENT WHARF COMPANY requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to replace the existing asphalt vehicle and access paving (an approximately 17' portion)over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure. Located: 2110 Village Lane, Orient. This has been found to be consistent by LWRP. We have all been out there and we've looked at it. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. In the field notes, from our visit out there, just a reminder, field notes say removal of all asphalt material to a suitable upland site. And we were looking to get plans of the new deck, and we do have those. They are here. And with that, I'll ask if there is anybody here who would like to address this application. MR. BUNDY: I'm here for Orient Wharf. Walter Bundy, I'm an agent for Orient Wharf. When we were looking at this, we met with the DEC to get an understanding of what was permitted at the site. And because we found out there was a couple of issues. One of them is that Orient Wharf does not have a maintenance permit in place for a wharf facility. The DEC maintenance permit is only for the moorings and for the floating docks. So therefore anything that is done on the wharf itself has to go for a DEC permit to make that happen. What we are looking at doing was come up with a way of providing immediate, safe access over the area that is deteriorated. The landward side of that section has an existing seawall, concrete seawall, with already beam pockets from the original bridge that used to be there back in the early 1900's and that. And the seaward Board of Trustees 30 July 21, 2010 side, the waterward side, actually has the timber imprints there also, the beam pockets. When we did the investigation, we dug up part of the asphalt there, and we agree, the material directly below the asphalt, is not really suitable to be there, and we are proposing to remove, for a depth of a foot-and-a-half, remove all of that material that is down to the bottom of the beam pockets, so that whatever is left in there appears to be clean. We found asphalt, we found nails, we found metals and everything in the top layer. So it is our intention of removing that. And the Orient Wharf will be coming back to the Trustees in the future for separate projects to modify the Tidal Wetlands maintenance permit, to include dredging around the floating docks and mooring areas, and permit maintenance and rehabilitation of the actual wharf facilities, and at that time the actual wharf will be addressed in any kind of reconstruction or maintenance. All we are looking for right now is approval to put in the timber deck so we don't have to keep using the asphalt pavement. You can see the areas, it's all, just erodes. There is a lot of water also flowing down in this area, all the way down from almost 25. The water runs down through an outfall pipe here, which is adding to the problem. Our permit application did include removing the portion of the pipe that was added by the town back to the rip-rap so that it's more stabilized on that area. So that is included in the project that is proposed. But other than that there is no other modifications being made to the bulkhead structure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's a town pipe. I would assume you would have to go to Highway and work that out with Pete Harris. MR. BUNDY: Yes, we have been talking with the town to come up with some filter systems to be installed at those sites to eliminate a lot of the silt that is coming through the pipe. And the maintenance dredging that the Orient Wharf wants to do also will take out a lot of that material at a future date. TRUSTEE KING: Can you tell me what kind of decking that will be? You say timber decking. What kind of material? MR. BUNDY: I believe the wharf was, I thinking of a synthetic material, Green Harvest. Any other questions? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The project documents here has some very interesting historical photographs, and it's from 1900, which is 110 years ago, it's amazing how little has changed there, at least in the background of the photographs. MR. BUNDY: Yes, I apologize for the lengthy photos, but there was a lot of good ones and I didn't even include all of them. But there is a lot of historic photos that exist of the site. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It does look to me, at least in the photographs, it looks, at east to the south of the bridge, the beach is Board of Trustees 31 July 21, 2010 there now is considerably more than it was in 1900. MR. BUNDY: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So there definitely has been some migration of sand. MR. BUNDY: To be perfectly truthful, we just allowed the wharf to stay functional while all those issues get addressed. On an overall plan. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any comments or questions from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to just point out there are some letters in the file. There is a rather lengthy letter here from some attorneys for one of the neighbors, David and Claire Aher (sic) and Timothy Frost and Margaret Mininuci (sic) I believe. And it's very large. I know we all have a copy and assume we all had a chance to review it. And it is in the file. If there are no other comments or questions, I'll make a motion to close -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. MR. PASCA: Are you going to open the floor? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: By all means. Come on up. MR. PASCA: Anthony Pasca from Essex, Hefter& Angel. I'm the one who sent you the long lengthy letter. I do represent both neighbors, immediate neighbors to the wharf on each side. The north side is the property of Claire and David Air and on the south side Tim Frost and Ms. Minichini. We do have several concerns about the project. They are not insurmountable concerns, but we want to bring them to the Board's attention. I did a lot of that in the letter, so I'm not going to take a tremendous amount of your time going through the entire letter, but I do hope you read it and I do want to highlight some of the issues and, you know, create a discussion about it. Because as I said, I don't think these are insurmountable problems, but they have to be considered carefully, because if you start going down one path you may find yourself too far down a path to stop something that could cause serious problems. The first section of our letter we deal with, we consider inaccurate information, incomplete information, vague comments, and I'm only going to deal with one of them at this time, which is future plans that they talk about. And they talk about this over and over and over again. Their future plans, we have future plans. We want to recreate a bridge that existed 40 years ago. We want to restore water flow. We want to make the bulkhead underneath the bridge unnecessary. And what they are not saying is what will happen to that bulkhead. And it's an important question because what happens if they make that bulkhead expendable and they let it rot, they let it go out and Board of Trustees 32 July 21, 2010 they don't covenant right now to maintain it. You've got a coast line and you have four or five-hundred foot solid wall, basically, and if water is flowing this way, water is flowing this way, it's basically all funneling into this one spot, the spot right at this so-called bridge. And the bridge happens to be over a nice beach right now. Now, if you end up cutting a 17 foot hole in that spot, and this is a velocity zone, velocity flood zone, you have a heavy wave velocity action all funneled to one of these spots, that beach will be gone in the first storm. It's inevitable. So our concern is about what these future plans are and whether the future plans include maintaining that or not maintaining. Right now they have to maintain it. If you go to this timber deck structure where you say it will make the bulkhead superfluous, the question then becomes what happened to the bulkhead. Are they going to covenant to maintain it. The next section of our letter talks about the coastal erosion issues. I mean you are charged with upholding the Coastal Erosion Act and we have seen very little in their submissions about how they meet these criteria. If we right, the purpose of this project is to create that cut and basically erode the beach, it's the antithesis of what your Coastal Erosion Hazard Act is supposed to protect. It's supposed to stop erosion, not cause erosion. I'm not sure I have seen a project whose purpose is to cause erosion to a beach. It certainly can't meet your criteria. So you have to ensure if you are going forward with the project like this, that at least certainly studies are done to determine what is really going to happen there, to ensure those bulkheads will be maintained. The same is true for the Wetlands Code. We deal with that in our letter as well. If the beach is destroyed then all the wetlands adjacent to the beach will be destroyed as well. There is a seawall, I don't know if their goal is to eventually dispose of the seawall or not. But your job is protect the wetlands, not to help them cause erosion. And there my be silting problems, nobody denies that. But there are other ways of dealing with silting problems. It's called dredging. Nobody is opposed to dredging. There may be other solutions as well that can be explored. The point is you can't automatically head down a road that is going to create a 17-foot hole, funnel, basically a hole right in the funnel that will destroy a beach on purpose. It's contrary to your codes. It's contrary to the Wetlands Code, contrary to the LWRP. I'm not sure you have ever done it. This may be the first time, but we'll find out. My clients are here as well to address the Board, as is their consultants. I think he'll say a few words first. I hope Board of Trustees 33 July 21, 2010 you read our letter carefully. We don't want this to lead to litigation. I think there are ways of avoiding it but I think this Board has to take this matter very seriously. Thank you. MR. BOWMAN: Good evening, Charles Bowman, President of Land Use Ecological Services. I got called just to really go out and take a look at it and try to assess the impacts of this proposal on the natural resources, which I think is very important. I'll be honest with you, I'm very surprised that the Conservation Advisory Council, you know, recommended approval of this. I have a problem just with the plans. It shows the tidal wetlands line on it that is totally wrong. It labels areas of high marsh, extensive areas of high marsh that are landward of the open beach area as beach grass. It's not American beach grass, it's Spartina patens. It has seaside golden rod and all sorts of good wetland vegetation in it, on both sides, north and south of the roadway. The plans are wrong. The spring high water line that is shown on it, as I know the Board knows, Spartina patens salta which usually grows below spring high water, gets flooded during storm tides, moon tides, so I would even question the spring high water line. There are no elevations on the plan, so there is no way to assess what will happen when you remove that top part, create this bridge, how much water and during what tides will that flood through. No way to assess it. There is no elevations, no topography on it, no depths offshore. If you did want to assess the impact of this proposal, there has been no surveys, which I think are always required, submersion vegetation, astaira, there may be some eel grass beds there, if the beach goes away, they'll go away. I'm not saying it would but there is no information provided to say what will be the impact to this wetland system, to the beach area. The beach area is, as you all said, there for 100 years. It's grown. It's a very valuable resource for shore birds, for horseshoe crab nesting, all sorts of activities and natural resources that are important to that area. You can't lose it. It's very important. And I believe that the Board should be asking the applicant to show what that impact will be. You don't know right now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: At this time we are not reviewing the opening of that. We are reviewing just replacing the top of it. MR. BOWMAN: But that creates an opening. If you look at his plans, that creates an opening. I think that's what you have to do. I think their counsel has also brought up a very important point. Under SEQRA, you are not supposed to be segmenting applications. If there will be future plans, great, show us what you are going to do. Let us assess it. Do a natural resource inventory. Do the right things. Have a topography. Board of Trustees 34 July 21, 2010 Have some elevations. How can you possibly even make a decision when you don't know what the elevations on either side are. You don't even know where the wetlands are. I know where it is. It's not where it's on the plans. That's for sure. And I believe the Board probably saw that as well. You know, and I think all we are asking at this point is to get the right information so that it can be assessed. If you look at the sections view on the plans, okay, there are no elevations. There is no elevations of the beach, no elevation of spring high water. You don't know how much water will be coming through that top when they remove it and put the decking in;.how much water will come through. At what flood tides, at what storm tides. You don't know, you can't tell. I think it's a very reasonable expectation to have construction groins that will give elevations so that can be assessed and see what the impact to that beach area is. I think the Board would agree, the beach area is very important. Why take a chance? Why not ask for the information? In the plans it says something about storm water control, that somehow this will increase the flushing, you know, of that basin. If water does go through and increase the flushing sure, but money is better spent, as you know, doing upland improvements so you don't get the contaminants in the water to begin with. You don't want the contaminants flushed into the bay faster. That's for sure. Put the money into where you can stop it from getting into it. Is that is the real goal here? We don't know. I think all we are asking for is to have proper plans with good information, an assessment of the wetlands, proper wetlands line, topography, depth, where is the beach and be able to look at the construction drawings and say these are the tides, this is the velocity of the water that will be coming through and be able to see if it really will or won't have an impact to those beaches. Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, do we have any other pictures of this or is this the only picture? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want this? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I mean for our pictures that we took. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's all we have. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MR. BUNDY: Walter Bundy again. MS. HULSE: Sorry, sir, you already addressed the Board. Does the Board wish to continue hearing comment on this? It's going into pretty extensive comment here. MR. BUNDY: No, we have a survey with all that -- MS. HULSE: One second, Mr. Bundy. The Board has to recognize Board of Trustees 35 July 21, 2010 you want to speak again. There are other people who wish to comment, apparently, as well. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Go ahead. MR. FROST: My name is Tim Frost, I'm the owner of the adjacent shore front property to the south of the proposed project for 25 years. As our lawyer has already pointed out, the errors, omissions, inconsistencies and unsubstantiated claims with the applicant submission, I won't reiterate them, but I would encourage you to actually read the document and not just hear his testimony because he goes into significantly greater detail and enumerates a number more. Given the agenda tonight is difficult and long, in the spirit of cooperation and good will, I would rather try to seek agreement and compromise. First, there clearly are concerns that we share regarding the access and egress to the dock. Second, we share the concern about the water quality and road runoff silting in Orient harbor that negatively impacts the application and we remain willing to work with the applicant to address this issue. To best address the issue will require a comprehensive, and I would underline "comprehensive solution" that includes various departments of the town, the Trustees, the applicant, the property owners of Orient and perhaps other state agencies. Third, I do not believe that we have a concern with a new timber deck structure in and of itself. Rather, our concern is the proposed modifications that may create conditions as outlined by our consultants, allowing for significant reconfiguration of the shoreline and as evidenced by the applicant's own statement in his submission, and I quote. The replacement of the wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber bridge structure which is proposed to replicate and reconstruct the original wharf configuration and features will greatly enhance the water quality in the immediate harbor area and will also restore the natural functions of the shoreline. Will restore the natural functions of the shoreline. It's in their document. This lack of clarity and inconsistency as to intent in the application, naturally causes concerns. Definitively laying our property erosion concerns to rest will allow us to support the timber deck proposal so we don't have to take further steps to protect our rights and our interests. In fulfilling your role as Trustees, I would respectively ask that you share our concerns and exercise your authority to safeguard the wetlands and near shore of the Town of Southold by clarifying the full intent and purpose of the applicant's submission. I believe the Airs may have some additional comments regarding their concerns and some more specific ideas to offer in the spirit of good will and compromise. Thank you. Board of Trustees 36 July 21, 2010 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. Anybody else who would like to comment on this? MS. AIR: Hi, my name is Claire Air, I'm the northerly neighbor. My husband and I own, we are the abutters on the northern side. Since the engineering drawings for this project were not submitted to the Trustees file, we didn't know exactly what was proposed. The sketches that were provided and the narratives seem to contradict each other. We have no issue and can support a wooden bridge or a wooden roadway. Even though the engineering drawings still have not been presented, the project documents sketches and narratives supplied appears to indicate that the existing northern and southern bulkheads will remain in place with the existing fill. We only ask that the permit language include a requirement that these 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 have seen, all the unfiltered road runoff effluvia, would be deposited directly on our property. That would be particularly unfair as we are one of the few homeowners in Orient who has consented to the installation of the outflow pipe on our property without an easement or compensation from the town. If these changes are written into the details of the permit, something we believe the Board can do, we can support the plan and finally lay this issue to rest. Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. Anybody else? (No response). No other comment from the audience? (No response). Any questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: At this point, I would like to hear Mr. Bundy's comment. I'm just speaking for myself. MR. BUNDY: We submitted a plan that was only to get the permit. We also submitted a survey that was prepared just recently with all of the depths, all the elevations, all of the boundaries were marked and demarcated, so for someone to say none of that information exists in the file that was submitted, that is not correct. It was done by John Ehlers, and he has all of that was submitted along with it. Including the original survey from 1978 showing what existed when the tidal wetlands law went into effect and just what conditions were then. We also are only looking to keep a road surface in place and if it has to be with a rider or a condition on to it, I believe the Wharf would be acceptable to talk about that. But I was just looking at, as some of the terms were read out of our permit application, I don't even see some of the information. We had a preliminary Board of Trustees 37 July 21, 2010 that was drafted earlier which did call for the replacement of it and to create a bridge, but it was withdrawn and we have submitted an application only to replace the surface that you are riding on. And the underlying fill, which is pretty poor. So if it's necessary that when we are all said and done that once the bridge timbers are in place, you dump in some clean fill in between them all and then put the decking down, that is a moot point. Because then how do you maintain that even. So you are asking for an aspect of a project to be put on that can't really be accomplished in a very meaningful manner, without removing the timber deck to add additional fill as keeps washing away. So, you know, I would agree that we would like to resolve it all and we would be open to recommendations. MS. AIR: Can I ask a question? Are there any engineering drawings available? That would real solve a lot of problems. We could really understand what they were building and what they were keeping and what they were taking away. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't require engineering plans if we need, because we don't, it's not part of our requirements. And I believe we feel we have sufficient paperwork in the file. MS. AIR: They really only are sketches there is no north/south picture of what they are building or taking away. You know, if-- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We do have a side profile. MS. AIR: That's east/west, unless there is something new in the file. If they would guarantee to maintain the northerly and southerly bulkheads under the bridge surface, under the road surface, I think we could all get along. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right now that is not part of the application. According to the application we have before us is they are maintaining that. That's what it says in the application. So what we are talking become really doesn't pertain to what we are reviewing right now, and I think we discussed it enough and we should move on from that point. MR. BOWMAN: One other comment, if you don't mind. respectively disagree with that. Because Mr. Bundy just said if you.put fill under where the bridge is, the fill will disappear. If you take out the bad fill and put in new fill, there is nothing keeping it there. So even he is saying the water will wash that fill right through. You will get water washing on through. If there is a survey in the file that shows elevations, they are not used on his plans. All we are asking is take his plans and the survey that apparently they have and to show elevations on his profile views. You don't know what will happen unless you take the two. That's all we are asking is to have him amend his plans to show what can be done. A very reasonable expectation. Board of Trustees 38 July 21, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, I just have one other comment with regard to the pipe. I personally do not want to see that part of this application, as it is a town easement and the town maintains it, so it should be not be part of an application for somebody else. If the town wishes to shorten the pipe and do work on it then the town can go through the process it normally goes through to do work on a pipe. That's just my personal feeling. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't know if that pipe is actually part of this application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, Mr. Bundy mentioned it, that that was part of their work. But I don't want to make it part of the resolution, if we do one. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Mr. Bundy, I have a lot of photographs and historical information in the file that shows this bridge was always open from underneath I'm just curious how all the fill got there to begin with? How did it close up? MR. DUELL: My name is Linton Duel!, I'm the President of the Orient Wharf Company. The question you have about how long is the bridge, that opening been closed, I believe it was done by Floyd King who was the dominant or pre-eminent shareholder at one time before the yacht club purchased the majority of shares. I believe it was 1964, but I can't swear to it, but it was in the 60s, they had a bridge, a wooden bridge there, and at the time -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The reason I ask, I have a drawing here from 1978 that shows that was open back in 1978. MR. DUELL: Then it was '78. But at the time Floyd King decided to close it in and fill it in, because he didn't have the money to put in a new bridge. Basically it was an expedient way of going. TRUSTEE KING: On the project description it says, paragraph three, the space was filled in after November 19, 1978, because the majority shareholder at the time Floyd King did not want to incur the cost of re building the bridge and thus filled it in with who knows what. MR. DUELL: There you go. At the time Floyd King was the owner of both properties that Mr. Air and Mr. Frost presently own. And that pipe that comes down, every time we had a snowstorm, ice storm, whatever, Southold Town comes down Village Lane and part of a Orchard Street and they deposit sand on the road. The next rain, that sand all gets deposited through that pipe at the base on the north side of the dock, so if you go down there and take a look at what has accrued — TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have seen that. We are aware of the problems there and we bring it up in the storm water runoff committee, and that's where it should be taken care of. MR. DUELL: Anyway, that was the question you asked and I think I Board of Trustees 39 July 21, 2010 answered it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the Board or the audience? (No response). I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What does the Board feel we should do? TRUSTEE KING: You closed the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For what reason? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to take a longer look. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would like to take another look also. I'm concerned with all the testimony I'm hearing here. I'm uncomfortable with some of the testimony concerning the wetlands line and the potential, and I want to look at it in light of the Wetlands ordinance and Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. MS. HULSE: There is a motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let's take a roll call vote. John Bredemeyer? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In favor of tabling. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Dave Bergen? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim King? TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll vote nay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aye. (Trustee King, aye, Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye). (Trustee Doherty, nay). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I feel that we have a survey in the file that is done by a licensed surveyor that shows the wetland line. It shows the information, and that's what we require. And we reviewed that. So I feel the application is complete and I feel we can make a determination at this time. What the motion shows is that it's four to one to table. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: To the folks at the Orient Wharf, I'm not inclined to table things very often. Most people up here know that. I think there was some concerns brought up and I would like to see if we could put together some kind of elevation from north/south just so we can see and have the file complete. know the historical data shows what it shows and I happen to feel that there is good information there. And I understand what it means. But I would like to see, with the concerns brought up, those elevations and a little more details, and then I would have no problems making a decision and moving along. Board of Trustees 40 July 21, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have the Coastal Erosion here. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I understand that. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Moving on to wetland permits. WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number one, A&E KOEHLER requests a Wetland Permit to repair the existing stone rip-rap. Located: 1595 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. The report from the LWRP is that it is considered an exempt from the LWRP for being a minor action. According to the CAC the Conservation Advisory Council supported the application with the conditions the rip rap is landward of the mean high water and the location is.in compliance with public trust doctrine. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? (No response). Again anyone from the Board wish to speak on this application? I know we were all out in the field. TRUSTEE KING: There are some questions about the waterward decking. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there existing permits in there? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There are existing permits in there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we wanted to find out, we tabled it to see what existing permits there because the applicant was vague on what permits existed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There are certificates here for the construction of the deck to the existing house. TRUSTEE KING: That's what we are looking for permits for. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And any other structures that were in the area. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Trustees have the resolution, they approved the deck attached to existing house as per the plans. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we did, that was for the deck— TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That was for the deck attached to the house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, so that's included. Is there any permit for this structure we are looking at in the picture now? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not familiar with the prior actions of the Board and I don't see anything here, but let me see if I could find something. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It should be right on top. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All I see is a certificate of compliance for the deck attached to the existing house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So now the question for the Board is do we want to include this structure in this current permit process, to have both structures permitted. And would we permit something Board of Trustees 14 August 18, 2010 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: When we were there, the eel grass did not emerge on first inspection Jim and I were there. So if you don't feel that the new configuration is not there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can always say if there is eel grass in that area— TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Even if it wasn't part of the permit, if they were amenable, I'm sure we could make the contacts and information available. MR. NIELSON: Why don't we leave it that way. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It would be showing the eel grass is not in that area. Because I think your original plan was to go straight out but you found the eel grass and moved the other thing over, correct? MR. NIELSON: Correct. We also moved the tie-off piles out an additional five feet to clear the eel grass. TRUSTEE KING: The easiest place to put it would have been between those two groins, but that's where the eel grass is. So, any Board comments? Anybody else? (NO RESPONSE). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as it has been submitted, and if there is any eel grass found in that area that doesn't show in the chart, there should be some transplanting done if it is found. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing is Walter Bundy on behalf of the ORIENT WHARF COMPANY requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to replace the existing asphalt vehicle and access paving (an approx. 17' portion) over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure. Located: 2110 Village Lane, Orient. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? LINTON DUELL: This evening Mr. Bundy is in the hospital. Since he is representing the Orient Wharf Company and I am the treasurer of the Wharf Company, I•thought I'd do his job. I hope you received on Monday the modifications. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, we did. LINTON DUELL: The first part of the modification was complete removal of any —or deletion of the outfall pipe modification. That was put in, in many ways in an erroneous position, because we don't own the pipe, we don't own the rip-rap, and it doesn't go over our property. That belongs to Southold Town. So all mention of the outfall pipe was removed in those forms you are looking at now. That's part one. Part two, and I'll read what he says, Orient Wharf section existing bulkhead Division B, dated August 12, 2010, indicating deletion of the outfall pipe Board of Trustees 15 August 18, 2010 modification and the reduction in the amount of fill proposed to be removed with the project. In lieu of the removal of all underlying fill beneath existing asphalt pavement which is proposed due to the apparent unsuitable material that was observed during our reconnaissance activity, it is now proposed to remove only that fill located between the existing beam pockets to allow placement of the new support beams. Which means they'll probably do very small trenching along the lines where those beams would go. Which would decrease the amount of fill removed. Also, on item three in there, it should be an engineer's drawing which is proposed to be the timber dock structure prepared by Mr. Dave Corwin, public engineer. And that was dated April 1. the original design still stands. If you have any questions. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't have any questions. As a point of information, it was disclosed at last month's hearing this proposal does have the approval of the Conservation Advisory Council and was found to be consistent with the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, and I should have performed that reiteration I had and I just wanted to bring that forward. LINTON DUELL: I also believe if you look in our file you'll see we have a permit from the DEC, complete permit. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Any questions? (NO RESPONSE). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this application? (NO RESPONSE). Hearing and seeing no one who wishes to speak on this application, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Based on the plans submitted where the outflow pipe will remain in tact and a new project work plan dated August 17, 2010, I would make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number three, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of ROBERT McMAHON C/O DAVID MOORE requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct 55' of existing bulkhead. Located: 21225 Soundview Ave., Southold. Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application, however recommends that the bluff be stabilized with returns approximately 55 linear feet perpendicular to the bluff. LWRP report finds fhis to be consistent with LWRP, and when the Board was out there, the only comments we made out in the field is we recommended replanting the bluff. Is there anybody here who would like to speak to this application? r Jill M. Doherty,President ,0' ,QF SO(j Town Hall Annex '‘,01410 dp `\ 54375 Main Road James F.King,Vice-President 1� �� {� Dave Bergen P.O.Box 1179 * t Southold,New York 11971-0959 Bob Ghosio,Jr. ; ua k i John Bredemeyer `t Ii Telephone(631) 765-1892 - COW iii Fax(631) 765-6641 Ua 11 ''' BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE # 0576C Date August 31, 2010 THIS CERTIFIES that the replacement of the asphalt vehicle and access paving(an approx. 17' portion)over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure At 2110 Village Lane, Orient Suffolk County Tax Map #24-2-28.1 Conforms to the application for a Trustees Permit heretofore filed in this office dated 6/14/10 pursuant to which Trustees Wetland Permit#7368 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7368C dated 8/18/10 were issued and conforms to all of the requirements and Conditions of the applicable provisions of law. The project for which this certificate is being issued is for the replacement of the asphalt vehicle and access paving(an approx. 17' portion)over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure. The certificate is issued to ORIENT WHARF CO. owner of the aforesaid property. thorized Signatur / Jill M. Doherty,President s�"*tc SO(J,r, _\ Town Hall Annex James F.King,Vice-President ,� O 54375 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Dave Bergen * * l Southold,New York 11971-0959 Bob Ghosio,Jr. ca John Bredemeyer ! t �� Telephone(631)7654892 Y� i il� Fax(631)765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD / DATE OF INSPECTION: 3 O J 275 V Ch. 111 INSPECTION SCHEDULE Pre-construction, hay bale line/silt boom/silt curtain 1st day of construction '/z constructed V Project complete, compliance inspection. INSPECTED BY: r"dile e -73/2e/eme y e ✓ COMMENTS: 7077] et a �e r � rr>7�� G v-ci p/am CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE: Ok- t° /nueAr RUNOFF FLOW FROM - VILLAGE LANE j EXISTING ROAD •1/4 qty ‘ DRAIN APPROVED: BY EXISTING ROAD INTERCONNECTING �+ �r ,@T�+' I DRAIN DRAINPIPES DENOTES RU I FLOW 1® ,a:rBtD FI T 'W'SYF�� EXIST • ;1I; iOP- r '•••'• •••••••'•• •••i•i:;'••.••- �• CONN-- _.• ( / r I 11:i}::•�i t ;:r;i:° :::fi{::•;:• s _ OUTFA - ti .', ;,, - � ,L�r, NOTE: :••• AVO f�s� �� - res drawn / XISTING FENCE + •1"'�` ''' :+.:':::::Rf:TM S'1000-24-2-77 �0�011.Ott :::•.•:::.�•:•: :•:t• >• 0 0 •. • • .7$j,/..,5{ >• 4*I WAR MEMORIAL ?i ti•1-';:•:c \ - . S�Wg4 LAWN >+o�oF�t i.:jir }•:F?: \ . . 0 0 or t $CTM ft 1000-26-1-1 1 ...:.•••:+:•:•. . Pik' \ e0n��`° It LAWN '� r;_...\/2.:t..76.7"om ' '.♦ : 1p`:i F P7g . , , . ; \'\ . \tion„ Z ri " e \ �▪ +.'. �'`JO . 2.F . i:r♦r.. , . f.4 W -oNG6UR _ .: : .,,,SeN i\.\,\/ . ` .`, y� \t(�/'��(((q�� {/��.((��, .'F\((��jS.1(.,fry.•\r ff, > Foos . . ...': ,'. :\' / N. w-''o \ '` _-.�T'/ifiJT_$1664' P .: a I /�'r�Fl,`, ?y sou.`%a\ E CH BRASS' ; - Q II ' , 2',F St 8 i,. , ,.i\ ,N 't1�* i >,i w r 1 ` rrrF OUTFAle \r ,r13 11‘ PIPE ./.•••.'•°' ) is :\;\ PeR� S'1s°� ,019 ...• ♦\ '^D!� ' •f*�! 'J \ ,EXISTING BURIED . O n� 0�/ D TOWN OUTFALL P • 'J `-pFt ?! L-i ...VS 6f �• ..,• EAWALL ' ' \ `l / EACTMTY DELETED 1,! , {( • .r'`' , \ _ ...".•;.;,'...".-t y ,tat!e,tl_� - / DATNEW END P'P .,1 Nor 1 r ar P` .F--'' Pt- / %I ..ANN / b yam.'. ,',' / Nelt \\ `epi BEACHARE•ft. 1 -"Fin;3.6' BEACI A ��_I q0\�/' 1)..�' p , / / �sr. SEE SECTIO For Topo Elevations,other than those ��<° ' ' i. ADD DE'TFAI1R�' // 0�0ON shown at Project Area:see John C. \\ SSG•. A 99 .- I - /i _,�l2 / Ehlers Survey dated June 9,2010 %. y/j-, g _. f 99 // � '` '' EXISTING END OFflot ,� �^ /- / OUTFALL PIPE �` 28'0" �I ' ' �--- \` .- PROJECTAREA: EXISTING ACCESS VIA ASPHALT PAVEMENT OVER FILL TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW Inform .'TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SPANNING THE Information shown on this Sketch reflects Survey Information as prepared by John C.Ehlers,Land Surveyor, AREA SHOWN dated September 1999,M= C ---- 1@ ORIENT HAR Y!"' 1 1 AUG 1 7 2010 LI, I EXISTING BOULDER&BULKHEAD WHARF w/ FILL&ASPHALT SURFACE Sc ,i c'`J 'c'. SCALE: 1"= 30'0" 1/4 Pc—1 of ?ret,tepS ea PROPOSED 1VI011IHI ATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Drawn by: WF Bundy Modification Plan Revision "B" Date: March 26, 2010 WFB,Aug 12,2010 Revised: May 3, 2010 Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York leted outran Pipe Modifications July 29, 2010,Aug 12, 2010 SCTM#: 1000-24-2-28.1 Sketch prepared by WF Bundy,East Moriches NY 11940 Ck'd by: EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE TO BE REMOVED& REPLACED WITHA NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SUPPORTED AT EXISTING BEAM POCKETS AT EACH END EXISTING FILL TO BE REMOVED BETWEEN EXISTING +/ �,0" BEAM POCKETS TO ALLOW PLACEMENT OF NEW UPPORT BEAMS+/-18"(APPROX 21 CY)&DISPOSED OF IN AN APPROVED UPLAND SITE. EXISTING PILINGS&SHEATHING TO REMAIN_ EL:6.6' EL:6.6' EXISTING GRADE $. tater I basal Ill .:. R EL: I j: ii : i [ iiii iiiiiii : ii ! •1.e EXISTING GRADE s EXISTING BOULDER&BULKHEAD STRUCTURE w/ I::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: �— FILL EXISTS BEYOND THE SECTION BEING I EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPETE- O-B REPLACED WITH NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE "'°" "ACTIVITY DELETED' SCALE: 1"= 10'0" SECTION It THRU EXISTING BULKHEAD LOOKING WEST EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE ON BOTH t NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE ENDS OF NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE AlAS PER ENGINEER'S DRAWINGS TO BE PATCHED&PITCHED AS REQ'D 4 XISTING FILL • •:E RE • D BETWEEN ea ING EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TQBfi +i.28'0" BEAM POCKETS TO ALLOW PLACEMENT OF NEW -- .. SUPPORT BEAMS+1-18"(APPROX 21 CY)&DISPOSED F- -- - " -' TILIZED - •F IN AN APPROVE• UPLAND SITE. • CTIVITY DELETEDVP' Pe EL:6.8' - _ EXISTING PILINGS&SHEATHING TO REMAIN 1 'MEI »I MI MC Imo' 1®1 IID EL:S.e• EXISTING GRADE EXISTING GRADE :, ; j ,:,:,.,:, i a� I EXISTING CONCRETE SEAWALL AT SHORELINE F r To shown oat Elevations, seethan those EXISTS BEYOND THE NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE shown at Project Area;see John C. Ehlers Survey dated June 9,2010 SCALE: 1"= 10'0" SECTION "B" THRU EXISTING BULKHEAD LOOKING EAST Drawn by; WF Bundy ' ac renpared by John C'�EhlersSu�� SECTIONS THROUGH EXISTING BULKHEAD Date: March Revised:03 May 2010 2010 surveyor,dated September 1999&June 9 2010 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF 29 July 2010(Noted Elevations at Sections) t Wharf Company, Orient New York 12 Aug 2010(Deleted Outfall Pipe Modifications& 1 ' r:j (a �; SSQTM#: 1000.24-2-28.1 Ck'd b ; Modified Fill Removal to be ONLY at Beam Pockets) I I -i� C �� y « r Revision `B" AUG 1 7 2010 Deletedutrran Plpe Modifications&Modified Sketch prepared by WF Bundy,East Moriches NY 11940 --' Fill emowil to be ONLY at Beam Pockets cc N ASPHALT PAVEMENT REMOVAL & .' ' e RELDVE APPROXIMATELY 620 SQUARE FEET OF ASPHALT PAVEMENT. ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS � ; T 9 ORI 0 REPLACE WITH 6• x 1Y TROPICAL HARDWOOD TIMBER JOISTS AND 3' LOT 1000-24-2-27 f4'` DECKING. 315 8AI AVE 072 VILLAGE LANA '*44.7/4.,410.5 s em NEW YORK. NY 10001 fw .») . LOT 1000-24-2-28.1 (APPI.ICNJT. 2110 VILLAGE LANE) . 3fi ,a'-k ".. a ORIENT WHARF CO. INC. T Farr PO BOX 243 '‘. 1 y .�" ORIENT. NY 11957 • LOT 1000-28-2-1.1 (2190 VILLAGE LANE) �`�. I OR N0ABOX h TIMOTHY636 FROST J' > If ORIENT. 11957 i. :i COMITY SUFFOLK COUY ATLAS " • LMP 26 GRID E-47 LOCATION MAP q 1.,/, 1 /il sigeI // / i • 'Y n • i /77 • gle / I •- � � ' 1 I o m y —II ft A p V -..-_— —ter--- /—�_ S oRm+r HARBOR _ _ 0.0 WATER DEPTH FEET h --- �ilit�� / 117• -irk-' DATUM FOR SOUNDINGS AL* O.0 H o ---- + SC1M No. 10�00_24-2-28.1 Y a 6 C�.�_ ----- 888 PLAN VIEW \� SCALE 1•_so \\ \\ \\ q.1111, \ \' , L ‘ \ o I 8' x 12• TIMBER JOIST \\ $ L .. - ,. IXISTING WHARF 24' O.C. 3• x 8• TIMBER DECKING \ i ac \ i ? c--1---k � 5 _ . I : -I��I 1 i \ v ELEV 6A EXISTING STONE SEAWALL \.\\\ \\ `\ I C I GLADE \\ II AHW 2.5 -1 � I n N - �.T♦i %'5 �\ ViaALW 0.0 —} r ; — ; mita t---1{-1 \� 'fJ< '_-7-i[ *4. EXISTING GRADE EXISTING CREOSOTED SHEATHING TO REMNN ORIENT WHARF ASPHALT PAVEMENT REMOVAL ORIENT HARBOR ORIENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CROSSVIEW PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT REMOVAL APPLICANT: ORIENT WHARF CO. INC. SCALE 1"-10• DRAWN BY: CORWIN SHEET 1 OF 1 APRIL 1, 2010 2072 Village Lane E Orient,NY 11957 a V August 13,2010 j D AUG 132010 Southold Board of Town Trustees Town Hall Annex Southhold Town 54375 Route 25 Board of Trustees PO Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 RE: Application to modify the Orient Wharf Company's wharf, Orient,NY 11957 Dear Trustees: We can support this application if the permit language reflects that: 1)the current wooden sheathed north and south bulkheads and the enclosed fill level will be retained and maintained for the life of the new road structure. 2)there will be no modification of the Town's outfall pipe located on the northerly abutting(Air) property. Thank you. S. cerely, ( Clare&David 'r ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. 0. Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 WILLIAM W. ESSEKS (631) 369-1700 WATER MILL OFFICE MARCIA Z. HEFTER MONTAUK HIGHWAY STEPHEN R.ANGEL TELECOPIER NUMBER(631)369-2065 P. 0. Box 570 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY WATER MILL, N.V. 11976 CARMELA M. Di TALIA (631) 726-6633 ANTHONY C. PASCA NICA B.STRUNK THEODORE D. SKLAR NANCY SILVERMAN AU uSt 6, 2010 LISA J. Ross g MELISSA H. SIOOR 1IECEIUC I AUG - 6 2010 Via hand delivery I Southhold Town Board of Trustees Board of Trustees Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P. 0. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application of Orient Wharf Company Dear Members of the Board: As you know we are the attorneys for David and Clare Air, and for Timothy Frost and Margaret Minichini In my July 20, 2010 letter, and at the July 21, 2010 public hearing I, my clients, and our environmental consultant, Charles Bowman, pointed out numerous deficiencies in the information supplied by the applicant and the applicant's consultant, W. F. Bundy. Apparently, Mr. Bundy has now filed a "revised modification plan," revision "A" dated July 29, 2010. According to Mr. Bundy, the revised plans now show "topographical elevations" at the project area. We have reviewed the revised modification plan and find that it fails to supply the Board with the critical information the Board must have before it can render a decision under the Town's Coastal Erosion Hazard Area code, and the Wetlands code. The only thing that has been added to the plans is certain elevation points. While the inclusion of elevation points provide a start to remedying the ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW August 6, 2010 Page 2 of 3 deficient plans, it does not address the many other omissions previously identified, including the following: 1. The revised plans refer to "engineer's drawings" but, as far as we can tell, still actually provide no engineered construction plans. Such plans are necessary to allow the Trustees to make an informed decision as to what effect the construction plan will have on the bulkhead and fill underneath the bridge once the project is completed and exposed to the high velocity wave action from storm events that is typical of this FEMA velocity zone (VE9). In fact, as Mr. Bundy himself pointed out at the hearing, he believes that fill under the bridge will simply be washed out during storm events. Without engineered plans, how can the Board know what effect this project will have on the remaining structure? I note that, while the Trustees' President indicated at the hearing that the Board does not require "engineered plans" with applications, both the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area code and Wetlands code require the applicant to present such information, including an engineering analysis, as necessary to prove compliance with the code standards, and both codes even allow the Board to retain its own expert, at the applicant's expense, to analyze such plans. See § 111-15B, § 111-27G, and § 275-7D of the Town Code. Given the applicant's lack of any engineering support for its application, the Board has little choice but to require further engineered plans and to retain its own engineer, at the applicant's expense, to analyze such plans. 2. The plans still do not identify any commitment to maintain the bulkhead and fill structure underneath the proposed new bridge. In fact, the plans are ambiguous to the extent that the south side bulkhead is labeled as if it will remain, but the north side bulkhead is not. 3. The revised plans still fail to show any "long term maintenance program" to insure that the structure will be maintained, as shown on the plans, for 30 years, as required by Section 111-15 of the Town's Coastal Erosion Hazard Area code. 4. The revised plans offer no additional information about the supposed applications that the applicant will be "submitting in the near future," as previously suggested by Mr. Bundy. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW August 6, 2010 Page 3 of 3 5. The revised plans still continue to show the incorrect "property boundary" for the two properties adjoining to the project area. As I previously indicated, the Air and Frost/Minichini property extend all the way to the high water mark, yet, on the revised plans, a line incorrectly labeled "property boundary" is shown far landward of the high water line. 6. The revised plans still show the "approx tidal wet land line" instead of showing the actual tidal wetland line. 7. The revised plans still show the proposed shortening of the outfill pipe, even though the outfill pipe is a) is located on the Air's property, b) is part of the Town operated storm water system, and c) does not belong, in any fashion, to the applicant. Until the critical missing information is supplied to this Board, there can be no basis for an approval of the application under either the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area code or the Wetlands code. The Board can and must require the applicant to provide the missing information, and the Board should also retain its own consultants to review the plans, at the applicant's expense. Respect� �re urs, ys. i0 �,' -` Anthony C. Pasca ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. 0. Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 WILLIAM W. ESSEKS (631) 369-1700 WATER MILL OFFICE MARCIA Z. HEFTER MONTAUK HIGHWAY STEPHEN R.ANGEL TELECOPIER NUMBER (631)369-2065 P. O. Box 570 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 CARMELA M. Di TALIA (631) 726-6633 ANTHONY C. PASCA NICA B. STRUNK THEODORE D. SKLAR NANCY SILVERMAN LISA J. Ross August 6, 2010 MELISSA H. SIDOR RECEI VE Via hand delivery ' AUG - g2p10 Board of Trustees Town of Southold Southhold Town Board of Trustees 53095 Main Road P. 0. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application of Orient Wharf Company Dear Members of the Board: As you know we are the attorneys for David and Clare Air, and for Timothy Frost and Margaret Minichini In my July 20, 2010 letter, and at the July 21, 2010 public hearing I, my clients, and our environmental consultant, Charles Bowman, pointed out numerous deficiencies in the information supplied by the applicant and the applicant's consultant, W. F. Bundy. Apparently, Mr. Bundy has now filed a "revised modification plan," revision "A" dated July 29;2010. According to Mr. Bundy, the revised plans now show "topographical elevations" at the project area. We have reviewed the revised modification plan and find that it fails to supply the Board with the critical information the Board must have before it can render a decision under the Town's Coastal Erosion Hazard Area code, and the Wetlands code. The only thing that has been added to the plans is certain elevation points. While the inclusion of elevation points provide a start to remedying the ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW August 6, 2010 Page 2 of 3 deficient plans, it does not address the many other omissions previously identified, including the following: 1. The revised plans refer to "engineer's drawings" but, as far as we can tell, still actually provide no engineered construction plans. Such plans are necessary to allow the Trustees to make an informed decision as to what effect the construction plan will have on the bulkhead and fill underneath the bridge once the project is completed and exposed to the high velocity wave action from storm events that is typical of this FEMA velocity zone (VE9). In fact, as Mr. Bundy himself pointed out at the hearing, he believes that fill under the bridge will simply be washed out during storm events. Without engineered plans, how can the Board know what effect this project will have on the remaining structure? I note that, while the Trustees' President indicated at the hearing that the Board does not require "engineered plans" with applications, both the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area code and Wetlands code require the applicant to present such information, including an engineering analysis, as necessary to prove compliance with the code standards, and both codes even allow the Board to retain its own expert, at the applicant's expense, to analyze such plans. See § 111-15B, § 111-270, and § 275-7D of the Town Code. Given the applicant's lack of any engineering support for its application, the Board has little choice but to require further engineered plans and to retain its own engineer, at the applicant's expense, to analyze such plans. 2. The plans still do not identify any commitment to maintain the bulkhead and fill structure underneath the proposed new bridge. In fact, the plans are ambiguous to the extent that the south side bulkhead is labeled as if it will remain, but the north side bulkhead is not. 3. The revised plans still fail to show any "long term maintenance program" to insure that the structure will be maintained, as shown on the plans, for 30 years, as required by Section 111-15 of the Town's Coastal Erosion Hazard Area code. 4. The revised plans offer no additional information about the supposed applications that the applicant will be "submitting in the near future," as previously suggested by Mr. Bundy. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW August 6, 2010 Page 3 of 3 5. The revised plans still continue to show the incorrect "property boundary" for the two properties adjoining to the project area. As I previously indicated, the Air and Frost/Minichini property extend all the way to the high water mark, yet, on the revised plans, a line incorrectly labeled "property boundary" is shown far landward of the high water line. 6. The revised plans still show the "approx tidal wet land line" instead of showing the actual tidal wetland line. 7. The revised plans still show the proposed shortening of the outfill pipe, even though the outfill pipe is a) is located on the Air's property, b) is part of the Town operated storm water system, and c) does not belong, in any fashion, to the applicant. Until the critical missing information is supplied to this Board, there can be no basis for anapproval of the application under either the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area code or the Wetlands code. The Board can and must require the applicant to provide the missing information, and the Board should also retain its own consultants to review the plans, at the applicant's expense. Respe�tf� .urs, Anthony C. Pasca 5 August 2010 �� Mr. Linton Duell 1 President - d1 AUG - 5 2010 Orient Wharf Company Post Office Box 243 Southfield Town Orient,New York 11957 Board of Trustees Re: Proposed Modifications to Orient Wharf—Timber Deck Structure(aka"Bridge") Dear Mr. Duell: We are following up on comments made by us at the 21 July 2010 meeting of the Board of Town Trustees (Town of Southold). We reaffirm our desire to reach a mutually agreeable compromise with respect to your proposed modifications to the Orient Wharf. We seek a compromise that will allow the Orient Wharf Company to make needed repairs while safeguarding the existing shoreline topography and harbor ecology within what is appropriately designated as a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Along these lines, we reiterate our offered suggestion that your application be slightly revised to include the following undertakings: (i)to keep, refurbish and maintain(in place) the existing north-and south-facing wooden bulkhead sheathing; and, (ii)to withdrawal the proposal to the Trustees and Southold Town Highway Department to shorten the Village Lane, road run-off, outfall pipe(which shortening will place outfall effluvia directly onto the Airs' property)and to request that additional stone riprap be placed so as to better secure the outfall pipe to its current termination point. Towards this end, at the Trustees' meeting, we were encouraged by the apparent oral agreement by your consultant, Walter Bundy, as to the slight nature of these changes to your proposed modifications to the Orient Wharf. We respectfully request that your consultant incorporate our concerns in your submissions to the Trustees and other administrative and jurisdictional authorities. Upon receipt and positive review by our legal and environmental consultants,we will respond on an affirmative and timely basis. However, absent such modifications,we reserve the right to pursue other available remedies to safeguard the existing shoreline and protect the harbor ecology. Very truly yours, /S/ David& Clare Air, Tim Frost, Margaret Minichi 9 cc: own Trustees of the Town of Southold ///Officers—Orient Yacht Club Mr. Walter Bundy Page 1 of 1 Standish, Lauren From: Ceil Sharman [ceilsharman@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 2:21 PM To: Standish, Lauren Cc: fredsharman@gmail.com Subject: Orient Wharf debate Please convey this to the town Board: Thank you for serving the folks of Southold Town with your energy and concern! To my surprise when attending last week's meeting concerning the Water Department issue, I learned of the issues between the Ayers, Frost and Wharf Company and wish to add my support for the Wharf Company. When I first came to Orient in 1967,the beaches beside the Orient Wharf were tiny, and as I recall, water moved freely through an opening at the end of the dock. Throughout the years,my children and I seine netted for white bait on the North side of the dock. Now, however, I would never take my grandchildren there because the water is murky, polluted looking, and stagnant. Further, our boat is moored on the first finger dock,where we notice the water gets shallower and shallower each year. Other than an occasional swan, I see no evidence of horsehoe crab breeding, and far less sea life than in the past. In addition, the roadbed is hazardous because of giant holes in the fill. Sincerely, Ceil Sharman 283 Stephenson Rd. qp Orient S U !� 1, 323-8144 1-13 U JUL 2 3 2010 ;ice f I Sout,o!d Town ^J Board of Trustees 7/23/2010 July 20, 2010 2 � � � U Board of Trustees tS IN Town of Southold _ JUL 2 0 2010 (IV 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold Town Southold,NY 11971 Board of Trustees RE: Application of the Orient Wharf Company Dear Members of the Board: We are the northerly abutting property owners to this project. We have no choice other than to oppose the application due to the woeful lack of detail regarding the proposal. The applicant, up to the final submission date,today,has failed to provide the required engineering drawings that would presumably clearly show what they intend to build. In the project narrative,they say that good fill and the wooden bulkheads will remain. But they also say that the project will restore what they refer to as"the natural function of the shoreline". How will that come to pass with the bulkhead in place? They also claim that they are resorting to this project only because"the condition and integrity of the existing wooden bulkhead is incapable of containing fill". But it has contained fill for over 30 years. If it's failing, it's due to lack of maintenance by the applicant What really concerns us is if the wooden bulkhead is in such poor condition, even if left in place,will it eventually fail due to continued lack of maintenance and the additional burden of the scouring effect of the proposed shortened outfall pipe. The issue for us is the retention of our property which according to our deed runs to the "ordinary high water mark of Orient Harbor". If the pier is opened in a north/south direction,we will lose our protective wetlands and our beach.The application provides no scientific data to prove otherwise. One of the details of the project that we unequivocally oppose is the shortening of the road run-off outfall pipe. If it is shortened,according to the sketches provided,all the unfiltered pollutants and effluvia will be deposited directly onto our property. This is particularly unfair as we are the only homeowners in Orient,who,without and easement or compen- sation from the Town, have allowed the installation of the outfall pipe on our property. Project photograph`L' shows the effects of a road run-off discharge surge which,as we have noticed over the years, occurs during and after a heavy rainfall. The hole in the sand is the result of a flushing effect on the area at the end of the pipe. The depressions eventually fill in and the beach is leveled by tide and wind. Shortening the pipe to the location the applicant describes will result in undermining the existing bulkhead, weakening the structure,and hastening its inevitable failure. The applicant describes the "condition and integrity of the existing wooden bulkhead is incapable of containing fill" so the high velocity discharge during rainfall will certainly negatively impact the situation and hasten its demise. The proposal to shorten the pipe serves no purpose,unless the project intends to open the pier just west of the new end of the pipe in the belief that the road run-off will be swept into the southerly side of the bay along with the northerly protective wetlands and our beach. Lastly,the contention of the applicant that the only way to solve the problem is by removing fill and replacing it with a bridge is false.No other options have been ex- plored. There have been previous problems on the wharf where the fill became degraded or inadequate, and the solution in 2004 was to drill holes in the wharf under the clubhouse and fill with concrete to permanently stabilize the condition. Other areas of the asphalt roadway have been topped up with fill as potholes formed. Why can't it be done here? If the applicant's aim is to insure a safe roadway, they can do it more simply and within the bounds of their existing DEC maintenance permit which allows"in place and in kind replacements". Respectfully submitted, 1 46 1 Clare&Da '• • ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. 0. Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 WILLIAM W. ESSEKS (631)369-1700 WATER MILL OFFICE MARCIA Z. HEFTER MONTAUK HIGHWAY STEPHEN R.ANGEL TELECOPIER NUMBER(631) 369-2065 P. Box 570 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 CARMELA M. Di TALIA (631) 726-6633 ANTHONY C. PASCA NICA B. STRUNK THEODORE D. SKLAR NANCY SILVERMAN LISA J. Ross July $4;- 010 MELISSA H. SIDOR -- I} c1\ 1 i JUL _. I L____ $cult. Board of Trustees Board nt ':r Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application of Orient Wharf Company Dear Members of the Board: We are the attorneys for David and Clare Air, and for Timothy Frost and Margaret Minichini. The Airs own the property immediately to the north of the wharf that is the subject of the application by the Orient Wharf Company to modify its wharf by creating a new "bridge" over a 17-foot span of the wharf. Frost/Minichini own the property immediately to the south of the wharf. As such, our clients are the owners of the two properties most impacted by the applicant's proposal. Please consider this letter as part of your deliberations on the application. We also expect to attend the public hearing and address the Board directly. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 2 of 15 I. THE APPLICATION IS INACCURATE, UNSUPPORTED, VAGUE, CRYPTIC, INCOMPLETE, SELF-SERVING, AND DISINGENUOUS, PARTICULARLY ABOUT THE APPLICANT'S FUTURE PLANS, WHICH APPEAR TO INCLUDE THE CREATION OF A NEW WATER CHANNEL WHERE THE EXISTING BEACH LIES. Throughout the application materials, the applicant makes representations and statements, allegedly in support of the application, that are riddled with factual deficiencies. Many of the statements are inaccurate and false. Almost all of them are unsupported by facts or legitimate scientific or engineering principles. Numerous allegations are supported only by self-serving conclusions. Several key statements 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 application are unsupported by anything other than the applicant's own self-serving conclusions. For example, the applicant states that the "existing asphalt pavement and supporting fill has deteriorated to a point whereas safe access is no longer provided; and the condition and integritjof the existing bulkhead does not allow the asphalt pavement or the fill situated below the pavement to be repaired in a permanent manner." No engineer has certified this to be true to our knowledge. Moreover, how can anyone support such a bold claim as to state that the solid-fill structure cannot be repaired in a permanent manner? Of course the solid-fill structure could be repaired and rebuilt. Indeed, it is unclear why it is not simply proposed to be reconstructed so as to match the remaining solid-fill wharf structure. Another example of self-serving conclusions is the applicant's claim that the alleged repla?ement of the bridge that supposedly existed in 1978 is causing "silting," "a decrease of aquatic life," and "the stop of the natural transport of sand that originally flowed through the bridge opening." No scientific data is given to support the claim that the so-called closure of the bridge had these causes. What study has been undertaken to suggest that the alleged closure of the bridge in 1978 caused a decrease of aquatic life? If there are, in fact, problems, who is to say that the cause of the problems is the so-called 1978 "closure" of the bridge — as opposed to the existence of the wharf itself. And, even if the Board could assume that the ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 3 of 15 conditions in 1978 were as the applicant states, what basis is there to try to recreate a circumstance that was obviously created before the adoption of the current wetlandsregulations, coastal erosion regulations, LWRP, and floodplain development regulations? Many projects were created prior to those regulations that were ill-advised; that does not mean that this Board is under an obligation to duplicate such an ill-advised project that was abandoned more than 30 years ago. Next, one of the most troublesome aspect of the application is its vague and cryptic references to the applicant's future plans and why the proposed "bridge" is truly needed (as opposed to an "in kind" repair of the solid-fill structure). A careful review of the application materials suggests that the vagueness about the future plans is deliberate. Indeed, it appears that the applicant is cloaking its true intentions with euphemisms and mystery because, if it were forced to be forthright about its intentions, there would be no way the ultimate plans could be justified. Based on the applicant's own submissions, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the current application is just the first step of an ill-conceived plan to create a new water channel in a location that currently consists of beach front. Stated differently, the ultimate goal of the applicant's plans is to deliberately erode the existing beach on each side of the wharf(where the proposed "bridge" would be placed), for the sole benefit of the yacht club/marina, and to the direct detriment of the neighboring properties. This inevitable conclusion is supported by the following: • Throughout the application materials, the applicant raises the specter of "submitting in the near future" other "separate projects," such as "dredging around floating docks and mooring areas" and "maintenance and rehabilitation of the actual wharf facility." This confirms that the applicant has "plans" other than what it is disclosing, and it is couching those plans with euphemisms such as "maintenance and rehabilitation" of the facility. These 'uture permit applications are mentioned numerous times, yet the applicant deliberately does not describe what those applications will be (other than the dredging aspect of the application). • Perhaps the most honest glimpse of the applicant's intentions is in its statement that the applicant believes "that the replacement of the wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber bridge structure which is proposed to ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 4 of 15 replicate and reconstruct the original wharf configuration and features will greatly enhance the water quality in the immediate harbor area and will also restore the natural functions of the shoreline." "Restoring" the "natural function" of the shoreline is the applicant's euphemism for causing erosion to the area. The applicant describes the building-up of the beach over the years as if accretion were a bad thing, and its statement of an intent to "restore" the shoreline is really just another way of saying that the applicant is going to try to erode away the beach that has built up over the years. In another section, the applicant talks about "replicating the original wharf configuration and timber bridge features" in order to "restore" and "enhance" historical aspects of the wharf"pending completion of future improvements." The applicant has therefore indicated its true intent: to recreate the original configuration of a bridge, without walls underneath, so that it can also recreate the eroded state of the beach that existed more than 30 years ago. • The applicant also states, over and over, that the "intent" of the proposed bridge is to provide safe access to the wharf"without depending upon the existing filled bulkheaded [sic] which is deteriorating and requires extensive reconstruction to facilitate safe use for access." This confirms that the applicant is trying to create the predicate for a subsequent elimination of the bulkhead and fill underneath the newly-created "bridge," which is no longer "dependent" on those walls for support. • The plan to "shorten" the outfall pipe could serve no purpose unless the ultimate plan is to create a water channel under the bridge. Currently, the outfall pipe runs parallel to the entire span of what would become the bridge. The proposal is to shorten the outfall pipe so that it end just north of the new bridge and discharges precisely in the area that would become the new water channel. There is simply no reason for that unless the goal is to allow the area where the current outfall pipe is to become the new water channel. The bottom line is that the applicant is asking this Board to approve the first step of a multi-phase project, without candidly admitting what the next phases are, but while strongly implying that its ultimate goal is to create a "bridge" over a newly-openeu channel, whose sole purpose is to erode the existing beach and replicate some perceived "historic" condition of an eroded coastline. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 5 of 15 Further exacerbating the vague and unsupported statements are the inaccuracies of what the applicant does show. One of the blatant inaccuracies within the application is the applicant's incorrect description of the neighboring property boundaries. The neighboring properties own to the mean high water line, yet the Ehler;:; survey and the site plans show a boundary line that is far landward of the average high water mark. Why? The applicant is apparently trying to minimize the effects of its proposal on the neighbors by falsely showing the full extent of their actual properties. A more careful review of the applicant's own survey (the Ehlers survey) shows, however, a line denoted as the "ahwm" (average high water mark). Even assuming that line were accurate, it would mean that the Frost/Minichini property (to the south of the wharf) extends far past the so-called property boundary and actually extends past the entire length of the proposed "bridge," meaning that all activities affecting the bridge are directly adjacent to the Frost/Minichi.ni property. Similarly, the Air property (to the north of the wharf) would extends past the so-called property boundary and into the area of the proposed bridge, yet the survey disingenuously labels that property as terminating far landward of the proposed bridge. Another apparent inaccuracy is the depiction of the tidal wetland line. The tidal wetland line is shown as an "approx tidal wetland line." There is no reason for an approximation when the extent of the tidal wetlands can be determined exactly. All of these inaccuracies and unsupported, self-serving conclusions paint a picture of an applicant that is being less than candid with the Board and that is trying to "get:one past" the Board — and the public — without a proper review of the facts. The Board should not, and cannot, allow the applicant to avoid a proper review of the;application through such self-serving, unsupported, cryptic, and inaccurate statements. II. THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREA PERMIT, AS THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE APPLICATION IS TO CAUSEEROSION OF THE EXISTING BEACH. Although the applicant is seeking a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA) permit, it does not address the criteria governing such applications. A review of the CEHA requirements confirms why the applicant has not addressed them, for they ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 6 of 15 cannot be met by an application whose very purpose is to cause erosion, rather than prevent it. The application materials do not appear to clearly show the CERA line. Nonetheless, the applicant concedes that the project is located in the coastal erosion hazard area. Moreover, according to the applicant's own site plan, the bridge is located in a FEMA velocity zone (VE9). As such, it cannot be disputed that the proposed bridge would be located in a coastal high hazard area that is subject to high velocity wave action from storm events. Despite the cryptic references to the applicant's future plans, the design of the bridge and the statements about "restoring" the littoral flow that the applicant believes existed in 1978 all confirm that the applicant is attempting to create a 17- foot wide opening under the wharf precisely so that it can erode away the beach and create a water channel underneath the new "bridge." Once the true goal of the application is acknowledged, there is no way the applicant can possibly meet the CEHA standards for issuance of a permit under Town Code Chapter 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, their construction and operation will minimize or prevent damage or destruction to man-made property, private and public property, natural protective features and other natural resources." Next, section 111-9 provides that a permit can only be issued upon findings that the proposed action: A. Is reasonable and necessary, considering reasonable alternatives to the proposed activity and the extent to which the proposed activity requires a shoreline location. B. Is not likely to cause a measurable increase in erosion at the proposed site and at other locations. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 7 of 15 C. Prevents, if possible, or minimizes adverse effects on natural protective features and their functions and protective values, existing erosion protection structures and natural resources. Finally, section 111-15, applicable specifically to erosion protection structures like jetties and wharfs, provides as follows: § 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 c irotection 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. $. 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. C. All materials used in such structures must be durable and capable of withstanding inundation, wave impacts, weathering and other effects of storm conditions for a minimum of 30 years. Individual component materials ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 8 of 15 may have a working life of less than 30 years only when a maintenance program ensures that they will be regularly maintained and replaced as necessary to attain the required 30 years of erosion protection. D. A long-term maintenance program must be included with every permit application of construction, modification or restoration of an erosion protection structure. The maintenance program must include specifications for normal maintenance of degradable materials. To assure compliance with the proposed maintenance programs, a bond may be required. The proposal cannot meet the purpose of the law, the general permit standards, or the specific standards applicable to wharfs. Since the apparent purpose of the creation of the bridge is to cause erosion, it is the antithesis of the purpose of the law. Since the applicant has not explored or analyzed "alternatives," it cannot meet section 111-9's general standard "A" by demonstrating that the proposal is "reasonable and necessary." Since its purpose is to cause erosion, it obviously cannot meet the 111-9 standard "B." Since the ultimate goal is to erode away the beach near the wharf(which is defined under the code as a "natural protective feature), it also cannot meet the 111-9 standard "C." For the same reasons, it cannot meet the specific standards in 111-15A. And since the applicant has neither offered any engineering support for its proposal, nor a "long-term maintenance program," it cannot meet the standards in 111-15B, C, and D. In fact. it is unclear how the proposal could meet even a single one of the requirements for a CEHA permit, much less all of the requirements. It does'not take an engineering degree to see the dangerous design of this proposal, and the Board need only consider common sense to see the destructive erosive force this design could have on the shoreline. As it stands now, the wharf creates an approximately 400-foot-long solid wall that acts as a protecting force to northerly anc. southerly flowing currents. The applicant is proposing to open up just one 17-foot "hole" in that wall — not at the center of the wall, not at a location where water currently exists, but right at the location where the beach currently ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 9 of 15 exists. Once that "hole" is opened up, it will act as a high-velocity `valve" in the wall. The first time there are heavy winds and currents flowing in either a northeasterly or southeasterly direction, all of those currents will be funneled along that wall toward the beach and right at the very point of this "bridge," where the currents will pour through the lone 17-foot opening at high velocities. In one storm, the beach would likely be destroyed, as would the nearshore area and the associated wetlands. The Board can and must deny the requested CEHA permit. III. THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A WETLANDS PERMIT. For similar reasons, the application has failed to meet the standards of Chapter 275. All of the work on the proposed bridge is to be located directly within tidal wetlands. It is bordered on both sides by both sandy beach and vegetated wetland areas, which are visible on the aerial photographs submitted by the applicant. If the proposal is approved, and the "cut" is created in the wharf to allow water flow under the bridge, the wetland will undoubtedly be lost to the erosive forces of the water channel that will be created under the bridge. Much like the coastal protection purposes of the CEHA code, the purpose of the Wetlands code is to protect the valuable wetlands of both freshwater and tidal areas. See § 275-3. The general "standards" for wetland permits is set forth in § 275-12, include the following: § 275-12. Standards for issuance of permit. • The Trustees may adopt a resolution directing the issuance of a permit to perform operations applied for only if it determines that such operations will not substantially: A. Adversely affect the wetlands of the Town. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 10 of 15 B. Cause damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation. v.** E. Increase the danger of flood and storm-tide damage. F. Adversely affect navigation on tidal waters or the tidal flow of the tidal waters of the Town. G. Change the course of any channel or the natural movement or flow of any waters. H. Weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity. 1. Otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town. J. Adversely affect the aesthetic value of the wetland and adjacent areas. Just as it is impossible for an erosion-causing project to meet the standards of the CERA code, it is impossible for such a project to meet these standards of the Wetlands code. The intentional destruction of the wetlands area violates the very purpose of the code. More specifically, it violates each and every one of the standards of§ 275-12 quoted above, as it would: • adversely affect the wetlands of the Town, through the loss of valuable wetland areas; • cause damage from erosion, through the deliberate erosion of these wetland areas; • increase the danger of flood and storm-tide damage, by creating the "funnel" of high-velocity water currents described above; ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 11 of 15 • adversely affect the tidal flow of the tidal waters of the Town and change the course of any channel or the natural movement or flow of any waters by altering the current tidal flows of the area; • weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity, in particular the Frost/Minichini and the Airs' properties, by undermining the lateral support provided by the beginning section of the wharf and • adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town and the aesthetic value of the wetland and adjacent areas, by deliberately eroding away those valuable resource areas. In short, the applicant has not and cannot meet the wetland standards of Chapter 275. IV. THE APPLICATION IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE LWRP The applicant's refusal to acknowledge the full goal of the application (i.e., to cause erosion through the existing beach area under what would become the new "bridge") leaves its responses to the LWRP disingenuous to say the least. The applicant acknowledges that the property is located in "Reach 5" and that one of the goals is to avoid any activity that would, among other things, "disrupt tidal patterns" and "eliminate wetlands" and avoid "excessive turbidity." Yet the very purpose of creating a new bridge and water channel under the bridge is to disrupt the existing tidal pattern, to create excessive turbidity in the area. Moreover, it would have the effect of eliminating the tidal wetlands adjacent to the area. How, then, can the applicant legitimately claim that its proposal is consistent with the LWRP? All of the applicant's responses to the LWRP are disingenuous because the applicant refuses to acknowledge the full scope of its proposal. It says, for example, that the proposal "minimizes adverse effect of development," "minimizes the loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion," and "provides for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources." Yet the explanations for those answers all revolve around the benefits that the private applicant will achieve from the proposal, without any regard for the ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 12 of 15 adverse effects the proposal will have on the private properties to each side of the wharf as well.as to the publicly-available beaches and nearshore areas. In sum, the application is not consistent with the LWRP. V. THE APPLICATION CALLS FOR ILLEGAL "SEGMENTED" SEQRA REVIEW. Aside from the specific code issues, the application suffers from another fundamental State-law issue: the deliberate "segmentation" of review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The SEQRA regulations provide that "[a]ctions commonly consist of a set of activities or steps. The entire set of activities or steps must be considered the action, whether the agency decision-making relates to the action as a whole or to only a part of it." See 6 NYCRR § 617.3(b). Segmentation is defined under SEQRA as "the division of the environmental review of an action such that various activities or stages are addressed under this Part as though they were independent, unrelated activities, needing individual determinations of significance." 6 NYCRR § 617.2(ag). The SEQRA regulations expressly state that: "Considering only a part or segment of an action is contrary to the intent of SEQR," and therefore, the lead agency can only segment the review if (1) it expressly states "in its determination of significance, and any subsequent EIS, the supporting reasons" for segmented review and (2) demonstrates "that such review is clearly no less protective of the environment." See 6 NYCRR § 617.3(g)(1). Segmentation is prohibited (except as noted) because artificially breaking a project into a series of smaller actions, which may appear independent and unrelated, often distorts and inappropriately minimizes the environmental impacts of the project 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 ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 13 of 15 `project that would have a significant effect on the environment is broken up into two or more component parts that, individually, would not have as significant an environmental impact as the entire project or, indeed, where one or more aspects of the project might fall below the threshold requiring any review" Forman v. Trs. of State Univ. of N.Y., 303 A.D.2d 1019, 757 N.Y.S.2d 180 (4th Dep't 2003) (quoting Concerned Citizens for Envt. v Zagata, 243 A.D.2d 20, 22, 672 N.Y.S.2d 956 (3d Dep't 1998)). The current application violates these prohibitions against segmentation by isolating the -surface" replacement of the deck of the wharf(an asphalt to timber "bridge" structure) from all the "future applications" that the applicant mentions — over and over but never identifies with specificity. As discussed above, we can glean from the applicant's responses that this is just the first step of a process that is designed to "restore" the so-called historic "bridge" that existed. Yet by not specifically showing the full plans, the applicant is avoiding addressing the environmental impacts of the entire proposal. In short. this proposal is a prototypical segmentation of environmental review. It is therefore prohibited by SEQRA. VI. THE REQUEST TO "SHORTEN' THE TOWN'S DISCHARGE PIPE AND DIRECT STORMWATERS DIRECTLY ONTO THE BEACH VIOLATES THE NEIGHBORS' PROPERTY RIGHTS, IS UNSUPPORTED BY ANY ENGINEERING STUDIES, AND WOULD APPEAR ON ITS FACE TO VIOLATE THE COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREA AND WETLANDS STANDARDS. Although the above discussion has focused thus far mostly on the effects of the "bridge" proposal, there is a second aspect of the application that is given little attention by the applicant, but is significant in terms of its potential impacts on erosion, degradation of wetlands, and impacts on the beaches: the proposed shortening of the outfall pipe. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 14 of 15 As a threshold matter, it is unclear how the applicant can even have standing to make the proposal to shorten the outfall pipe. The pipe is apparently owned by the Town. It is located not on the applicant's property, but on the adjacent property of Clare and David Air (who we represent). They have not consented to the shortening of the pipe. Nor does there appear to be any consent by the Town. In fact, the specific proposal would have the most impact on the Airs, because, based on the applicant's own survey, the proposal is to move the outfall from an area that is between the high and low water mark (i.e., beyond the boundary of the Airs' property) to an area that is landward of the high water mark (i.e., directly on the Airs' property). The Town has not, to our knowledge, acquired the type of drainage easement that would justify a direct outwash of Town stormwaters directly onto the Airs' property. Any attempt to impose that change on the Airs at this time would likely require a formal condemnation of such an easement. In the absence of such, the proposal would subject the Town to potential liability for damages resulting from the unauthorized imposition of a drainage outfall easement as well as the specific property damage it would likely cause. In the very least, since the Airs have not consented to the application, the Board has no jurisdiction to consider the pipe shortening. The application states that the existing outfall pipe is being proposed to be reduced as 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 applicant has not explained how shortening the pipe will result in the "reduction of sediments and pollutants." Common sense dictates that shortening the pipe does not change what comes out of the pipe; it only changes where the outfall is placed. Moreover, the applicant has not addressed the issue of scouring, which inevitably results from heavy storm events. By proposing to relocate the pipe outfall, the applicant is proposing to increase scouring of the beach, thus undermining the existing bulkhead (and facilitating its eventual destruction), all under the guise of being an "improvement" to the stormwater system. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 15 of 15 • VU. THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO RE-SUBMIT A COMPLETE APPLICATION THAT ADDRESSES ALL FUTURE PLANS AND PROVIDES A DESIGN SUPPORTED BY SOUND ENGINEERING AND COASTAL EROSION PRINCIPLES THAT AVOIDS — RATHER THAN CAUSES — EROSION TO THE ADJACENT BEACHES. As submitted, the application is woefully deficient and cannot even be considered by this Board in its present form. The application should be denied, and the applicant should be required to submit a new application — on notice to the Airs and Frost:/Minichini — that is complete and accurate before this Board can even consider whether the proposal meets the criteria of the Wetlands and CEHA code. Among other things, any new application should: 1. Address all aspects of the proposal, including the next phases of the • plans. 2. Provide an analysis of all alternatives to the proposals. 3. Provide accurate information, including a new survey showing the actual adjacent property boundaries, tidal wetlands boundary, and CEHA boundary. 4. Provide properly-engineered plans and an engineering analysis of all aspects of the proposal and all alternatives. 5. Provide a new SEQRA EAF that addresses all phases of the proposal. 6. Provide a proposal for a "long-term maintenance program" as required by CEHA, and a proper erosion-control program as required by the Wetlands code. 7. Provide a complete LWRP response to all questions, addressing all aspects of the proposal. Respectf yours, Anth-i • C. Pasca ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. O. Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 WILLIAM W. ESSEKS (631)369-1700 WATER MILL OFFICE MARCIA Z. HEFTER MONTAUK HIGHWAY STEPHEN R. ANGEL TELECOPIER NUMBER(631)369-2065 P. O. Box 570 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 CARMELA M. DI TALIA (631) 726-6633 ANTHONY C. PASCA NICA B. STRUNK THEODORE D.SKLAR NANCY SILVERMAN July 20, 2010 LISA J. Ross MELISSA H. SIOOR RE, C [ l t1 11 t Board of Trustees JUL 2 0 2010 Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold Town • P. O. Box 1179 !. Board of Trustees 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. FrostIMinichini own the property immediately to the south of the wharf. As such, our clients are the owners of the two properties most impacted by the applicant's proposal. Please consider this letter as part of your deliberations on the application. We also expect to attend the public hearing and address the Board directly. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 2 of 15 I. THE APPLICATION IS INACCURATE, UNSUPPORTED, VAGUE, CRYPTIC, INCOMPLETE, SELF-SERVING, AND DISINGENUOUS, PARTICULARLY ABOUT THE APPLICANT'S FUTURE PLANS, WHICH APPEAR TO INCLUDE THE CREATION OF A NEW WATER CHANNEL WHERE THE EXISTING BEACH LIES. Throughout the application materials, the applicant makes representations and statements, allegedly in support of the application, that are riddled with factual deficiencies. Many of the statements are inaccurate ana firse.--Almost all 6f them _ - are unsupported by facts or legitimate scientific or engineering principles. Numerous allegations are supported only by self-serving conclusions. Several key statements 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 application are unsupported by anything other than the applicant's own self-serving conclusions. For example, the applicant states that the "existing asphalt pavement and supporting fill has deteriorated to a point whereas safe access is no longer provided; and the condition and integrity'ofthe existing bulkhead does not allow the asphalt pavement or the fill situated below the pavement to be repaired in a permanent manner." No engineer hascertified this to be true to our knowledge. Moreover, how can anyone support such a bold claim as to state that the solid-fill structure cannot be repaired in a permanent manner? Of course the solid-fill structure could be repaired and rebuilt. Indeed, it is unclear why it is not simply proposed to be reconstructed so as to match the remaining solid-fill wharf structure. Another example of self-serving conclusions is the applicant's claim that the alleged replacement of the bridge that supposedly existed in 1978 is causing "silting," "a decrease of aquatic life," and "the stop of the natural transport of sand that originallyflowed through the bridge opening." No scientific data is given to support the claim that the so-called closure of the bridge had these causes. What study has been undertaken to suggest that the alleged closure of the bridge in 1978 caused a decrease of aquatic life? If there are, in fact, problems, who is to say that the cause of the problems is the so-called 1978 "closure" of the bridge — as opposed to the existence of the wharf itself. And, even if the Board could assume that the ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 3 of 15 conditions in 1978 were as the applicant states, what basis is there to try to recreate a circumstance-thatwas-obviously-created-.befor-e-the-adoption-of-the-cur-r-ent-.—. ----- wetlands.regulations, coastal erosion regulations, LWRP, and floodplain development regulations? Many projects were created prior to those regulations that were ill-advised; that does not mean that this Board is under an obligation to duplicate such an ill-advised project that was abandoned more than 30 years ago. Next, one of the most troublesome aspect of the application is its vague and cryptic references to the applicant's future plans and why the proposed "bridge" is truly needed (as opposed to an "in kind" repair of the solid-fill structure). A careful review of the application materials suggests that the vagueness about the future plans is deliberate. Indeed, it appears that the applicant is cloaking its true intentions with euphemisms and mystery because, if it were forced to be forthright about its intentions, there would be no way the ultimate plans could be justified. Based on the applicant's own submissions, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the current application is just the first step of an ill-conceived plan to create a new water channel in a location that currently consists of beach front. Stated differently, the ultimate goal of the applicant's plans is to deliberately erode the existing beach on each side of the wharf(where the proposed "bridge" would be placed), for the sole benefit of the yacht club/marina, and to the direct detriment of the neighboring properties. This inevitable conclusion is supported by the following: • Throughout the application materials, the applicant raises the specter of "submitting in the near future" other "separate projects," such as "dredging around floating docks and mooring areas" and "maintenance and rehabilitation of the actual wharf facility." This confirms that the applicant has "plans" other than what it is disclosing, and it is couching those plans with euphemisms such as "maintenance and rehabilitation" of the facility. These`future permit applications are mentioned numerous times, yet the applicant deliberately does not describe what those applications will be (other than the dredging aspect of the application). • Perhaps the most honest glimpse of the applicant's intentions is in its statement that the applicant believes "that the replacement of the wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber bridge structure which is proposed to ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 4 of 15 replicate and reconstruct the original wharf configuration and features will greatly enhance the water quality in the immediate harbor area and will also restore the natural functions of the shoreline." "Restoring" the "natural function" of the shoreline is the applicant's euphemism for causing erosion to the area. The applicant describes the building-up of the beach over the years as if accretion were a bad thing, and its statement of an intent to "restore" the shoreline is really just another way of saying that the applicant is going to try to erode away the beach that has built up over the years. In another section, the applicant talks about "replicating the original wharf configuration and timber bridge features" in order to "restore" and "enhance" historical aspects of the wharf"pending completion of future improvements." The applicant has therefore indicated its true intent: to recreate the original configuration of a bridge, without walls underneath, so that it can also recreate the eroded state of the beach that existed more than 30 years ago. • The applicant also states, over and over, that the "intent" of the proposed bridge is to provide safe access to the wharf"without depending upon the existing filled bulkheaded [sic] which is deteriorating and requires extensive reconstruction to facilitate safe use for access." This confirms that the applicant is trying to create the predicate for a subsequent elimination of the bulkhead and fill underneath the newly-created "bridge," which is no longer "dependent" on those walls for support. • The plan to "shorten" the outfall pipe could serve no purpose unless the ultimate plan is to create a water channel under the bridge. Currently, the outfall pipe runs parallel to the entire span of what would become the bridge. The proposal is to shorten the outfall pipe so that it end just north of the new bridge'and discharges precisely in the area that would become the new water channel. There is simply no reason for that unless the goal is to allow the area where the current outfall pipe is to become the new water channel. The bottom line is that the applicant is asking this Board to approve the first step of a multi-phase project, without candidly admitting what the next phases are, but while strongly implying that its ultimate goal is to create a "bridge" over a newly-opened.channel, whose sole purpose is to erode the existing beach and replicate some perceived "historic" condition of an eroded coastline. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 20j0 Page 5of15 Further exacerbating the vague and unsupported statements are the inaccuracies of what the applicant does show. One of the blatant inaccuracies within the application is the applicant's incorrect description of the neighboring property boundaries. The neighboring properties own to the mean high water line, yet the Ehlers survey and the site plans show a boundary line that is far landward of the average high water mark. Why? The applicant is apparently trying to minimize the effects of its proposal on the neighbors by falsely showing the full extent of their actual properties. A more careful review of the applicant's own survey (the Ehlers survey) shows, however, a line denoted as the "ahwm" (average high water mark). Even assuming that line were accurate, it would mean that the Frost/Minichini property (to the south of the wharf) extends far past the so-called property boundary and actually extends past the entire length of the proposed "bridge," meaning that all activities affecting the bridge are directly adjacent to the Frost/Minichini property. Similarly, the Air property (to the north of the wharf) would extends past the so-called property boundary and into the area of the proposed bridge, yet the survey disingenuously labels that property as terminating far landward of the proposed bridge. Another apparent inaccuracy is the depiction of the tidal wetland line. The tidal wetland line is shown as an "approx tidal wetland line." There is no reason for an approximation when the extent of the tidal wetlands can be determined exactly. All of these inaccuracies and unsupported, self-serving conclusions paint a picture of an applicant that is being less than candid with the Board and that is trying to "get'one past" the Board— and the public —without a proper review of the facts. The Board should not, and cannot, allow the applicant to avoid a proper review of the;application through such self-serving, unsupported, cryptic, and inaccurate statements. II. THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREA PERMIT, AS THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE APPLICATION IS TO CAUSEEROSION OF THE EXISTING BEACH. Although the applicant is seeking a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA) permit, it does not address the criteria governing such applications. A review of the CEHA requirements confirms why the applicant has not addressed them, for they ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 6 of 15 cannot be met by an application whose very purpose is to cause erosion, rather than prevent it. The application materials do not appear to clearly show the 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 applicant's future plans, the design of the bridge and the statements about "restoring" the littoral flow that the applicant believes existed in 1978 all confirm that the applicant is attempting to create a 17- foot wide opening under the wharf precisely so that it can erode away the beach and create a water channel underneath the new "bridge." Once the true goal of the application is acknowledged, there is no way the applicant can possibly meet the CERA standards for issuance of a permit under Town Code Chapter 111 (and NY Environmental Conservation Law Article 34). The "purpose' section of the code(§111-4) confirms that one of the goals of the CERA requirements is to regulate "the construction of erosion protection structures in coastal areas subject to serious erosion to assure that when the construction of erosion protection structures is justified, their construction and operation will minimize or prevent damage or destruction to man-made property, private and public property, natural protective features and other natural resources." Next, section 111.9 provides that a permit can only be issued upon findings that the proposed action: A. Is reasonable and necessary, considering reasonable alternatives to the proposed activity and the extent to which the proposed activity requires a shoreline location. B. Is not likely to cause a measurable increase in erosion at the proposed site and at other locations. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 7 of 15 • C. Prevents, if possible, or minimizes adverse effects on natural protective features and their functions and protective values, existing erosion protection structures and natural resources. Finally, section 111-15, applicable specifically to erosion protection structures like jetties and wharfs, provides as follows: 111-15. Erosion protection structures. The following requirements apply to the construction, modification or restoration of erosion protection structures: A. The construction, modification or restoration of erosion protection structures must: (1) Not be likely to cause a measurable increase in erosion at the development site or at other locations. (2) Minimize and, if possible, prevent adverse effects upon natural protective features, existing erosion protection structures and natural resources such as significant fish and wildlife habitats. 13. All erosion protection structures must be designed and constructed according to generally accepted engineering principles which have demonstrated success or, where sufficient data is not currently available, a likelihood of success in controlling long-term erosion. The protective Measures must have a reasonable probability of controlling erosion on the immediate site for at least 30 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 ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 8 of 15 may have a working life of less than 30 years only when a maintenance program ensures that they will be regularly maintained and replaced as necessary to attain the required 30 years of erosion protection. D. A long-term maintenance program must be included with every permit application of construction, modification or restoration of an erosion protection structure. The maintenance program must include specifications for normal maintenance of degradable materials. To assure compliance with the proposed maintenance programs, a bond may be required. The proposal cannot meet the purpose of the law, the general permit standards, or the specific standards applicable to wharfs. Since the apparent purpose of the creation of the bridge is to cause erosion, it is the antithesis of the purpose of the law. Since the applicant has not explored or analyzed "alternatives," it cannot meet section 111-9's general standard "A" by demonstrating that the proposal is "reasonable and necessary." Since its purpose is to cause erosion, it obviously cannot meet the 111-9 standard "B." Since the ultimate goal is to erode away the beach near the wharf(which is defined under the code as a "natural protective feature), it also cannot meet the 111-9 standard "C." For the same reasons, it cannot meet the specific standards in 111-15A. And since the applicant has neither offered any engineering support for its proposal, nor a "long-term maintenance program," it cannot meet the standards in 111-15B, C, and D. In fact it is unclear how the proposal could meet even a single one of the requirements for a CEHA permit, much less all of the requirements. It does not take an engineering degree to see the dangerous design of this proposal, and the Board need only consider common sense to see the destructive erosive force this design could have on the shoreline. As it stands now, the wharf creates an approximately 400-foot-long solid wall that acts as a protecting force to northerly and southerly flowing currents. The applicant is proposing to open up just one 17-foot "hole" in that wall — not at the center of the wall, not at a location where water currently exists, but right at the location where the beach currently ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 9 of 15 • exists. Once that "hole" is opened up, it will act as a high-velocity "valve" in the wall. The first time there are heavy winds and currents flowing in either a northeasterly or southeasterly direction, all of those currents will be funneled along that wall toward the beach and right at the very point of this "bridge," where the currents will pour through the lone 17-foot opening at high velocities. In one storm, the beach would likely be destroyed, as would the nearshore area and the associated wetlands. The Board can and must deny the requested CEHA permit. III. THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A WETLANDS PERMIT. For similar reasons, the application has failed to meet the standards of Chapter 275. All of the work on the proposed bridge is to be located directly within tidal wetlands. It is bordered on both sides by both sandy beach and vegetated wetland areas, which are visible on the aerial photographs submitted by the applicant. If the proposal is approved, and the "cut" is created in the wharf to allow water flow under the bridge, the wetland will undoubtedly be lost to the erosive forces of the water channel that will be created under the bridge. Much like the coastal protection purposes of the CERA code, the purpose of the Wetlands code is to protect the valuable wetlands of both freshwater and tidal areas. See § 275-3: The general "standards" for wetland permits is set forth in § 275-12, include the following: 275-12. Standards for issuance of permit. The Trustees may adopt a resolution directing the issuance of a permit to perform operations applied for only if it determines that such operations will not substantially: A. Adversely affect the wetlands of the Town. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 , Page 10 of 15 B. Cause damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation. I:** E. Increase the danger of flood and storm-tide damage. F. Adversely affect navigation on tidal waters or the tidal flow of the tidal waters of the Town. G. Change the course of any channel or the natural movement or flow of any waters. H. Weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity. 1. Otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town. J. Adversely affect the aesthetic value of the wetland and adjacent areas. Just as it is impossible for an erosion-causing project to meet the standards of the CEHA code, it is impossible for such a project to meet these standards of the Wetlands code. The intentional destruction of the wetlands area violates the very purpose of the code. More specifically, it violates each and every one of the standards of§ 275-12 quoted above, as it would: • adversely affect the wetlands of the Town, through the loss of valuable wetland areas; • cause damage from erosion, through the deliberate erosion of these wetland areas; • increase the danger of flood and storm-tide damage, by creating the "funnel" of high-velocity water currents described above; ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 11 of 15 • adversely affect the tidal flow of the tidal waters of the Town and change the course Of any channel or the natural movement or flow of any waters by altering the current tidal flows of the area; • weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity, in particular the FrostfMinichini and the Airs' properties, by undermining the lateral support provided by the beginning section of the wharf, and • adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town and the aesthetic value of the wetland and adjacent areas, by deliberately eroding away those valuable resource areas. In short, the applicant has not and cannot meet the wetland standards of Chapter 275. IV. THE APPLICATION IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE LWRP The applicant's refusal to acknowledge the full goal of the application (i.e., to cause erosion through the existing beach area under what would become the new "bridge") leaves its responses to the LWRP disingenuous to say the least. The applicant acknowledges that the property is located in "Reach 5" and that one of the goals is to avoid any activity that would, among other things, "disrupt tidal patterns" and. "eliminate wetlands" and avoid "excessive turbidity." Yet the very purpose of creating a new bridge and water channel under the bridge is to disrupt the existing tidal pattern, to create excessive turbidity in the area. Moreover, it would have the effect of eliminating the tidal wetlands adjacent to the area. How, then, can the applicant legitimately claim that its proposal is consistent with the LWRP? All of the applicant's responses to the LWRP are disingenuous because the applicant refuses to acknowledge the full scope of its proposal. It says, for example, that the proposal "minimizes adverse effect of development," "minimizes the loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion," and "provides for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources." Yet the explanations for those answers all revolve around the benefits that the private applicant will achieve from the proposal, without any regard for the ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 12 of 15 adverse effects the proposal will have on the private properties to each side of the wharf as wel .as to the publicly-available beaches and nearshore areas. In sum, the application is not consistent with the LWRP. V. THE APPLICATION CALLS FOR ILLEGAL "SEGMENTED" SEQRA REVIEW. Aside from the specific code issues, the application suffers from another fundamental State-law issue: the deliberate "segmentation" of review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The SEQRA regulations provide that "[a]ctions commonly consist of a set of activities or steps. The entire set of activities or steps must be considered the action, whether the agency decision-making relates to the action as a whole or to only a part of it." See 6 NYCRR § 617.3(b). Segmentation is defined under SEQRA as "the division of the environmental review of an action such that various activities or stages are addressed under this Part as though they were independent, unrelated activities, needing individual determinations of significance." 6 NYCRR § 617.2(ag). The SEQRA regulations expressly state that: "Considering only a part or segment of an action is contrary to the intent of SEQR," and therefore, the lead agency can only segment the review if (1) it expressly.states "in its determination of significance, and any subsequent EIS, the supporting reasons" for segmented review and (2) demonstrates "that such review is clearly no less protective of the environment." See 6 NYCRR § 617.3(g)(1). Segmeitation 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 ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 13 of 15 ''project that would have a significant effect on the environment is broken up into two or more component parts that, individually, would not have as significant an environmental impact as the entire project or, indeed, where one or more aspects of the project might fall below the threshold requiring any review" Forman v. Trs. of State Univ. of N.Y., 303 A.D.2d 1019, 757 N.Y.S.2d 180 (4th Dep't 2003) (quoting Concerned Citizens for Envt. vZagata, 243 A.D.2d 20, 22, 672 N.Y.S.2d 956(3d Dep't 1998)). The current application violates these prohibitions against segmentation by isolating the `surface" replacement of the deck of the wharf(an asphalt to timber "bridge" structure) from all the "future applications" that the applicant mentions — over and ever -- but never identifies with specificity. As discussed above, we can glean from the applicant's responses that this is just the first step of a process that is designed to "restore" the so-called historic "bridge" that existed. Yet by not specifically showing the full plans, the applicant is avoiding addressing the environmental impacts of the entire proposal. In short., this proposal is a prototypical segmentation of environmental review. It is therefore prohibited by SEQRA. VI. THE REQUEST TO "SHORTEN" THE TOWN'S DISCHARGE PIPE AND DIRECT STORMWATERS DIRECTLY ONTO THE BEACH VIOLATES THE NEIGHBORS' PROPERTY RIGHTS, IS UNSUPPORTED BY ANY ENGINEERING STUDIES, AND WOULD APPEAR ON ITS FACE TO VIOLATE THE COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREA AND WETLANDS STANDARDS. Althoukh the above discussion has focused thus far mostly on the effects of the "bridge" proposal, there is a second aspect of the application that is given little attention by the applicant, but is significant in terms of its potential impacts on erosion, degradation of wetlands, and impacts on the beaches: the proposed shortening of the outfall pipe. • ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 14 of 15 As a threshold matter, it is unclear how the applicant can even have standing to make the proposal to shorten the outfall pipe. The pipe is apparently owned by the Town. It is located not on the applicant's property, but on the adjacent property of Clare and David Air (who we represent). They have not consented to the shortening of the pipe. Nor does there appear to be any consent by the Town. In fact,the specific proposal would have the most impact on the Airs, because, based on the applicant's own survey, the proposal is to move the outfall from an area that is between the high and low water mark (i.e., beyond the boundary of the Airs' property) to an area that is landward of the high water mark (i.e., directly on the Airs' property). The Town has not, to our knowledge, acquired the type of drainage easement that would justify a direct outwash of Town stormwaters directly onto the Airs' property. Any attempt to impose that change on the Airs at this time would likely require a formal condemnation of such an easement. In the absence of such, the proposal would subject the Town to potential liability for damages resulting from the unauthorized imposition of a drainage outfall easement as well as the specific property damage it would likely cause. In the very least, since the Airs have not consented to the application, the Board has no jurisdiction to consider the pipe shortening. The application states that the existing outfall pipe is being proposed to be reduced as part of an "improvement" to "further aid in the reduction of sediments and pollutants associated with the Village Lane road run-off currently being experienced at the site." There is zero support for this position. The applicant has never explained why a shorter pipe — which discharges near the high tide mark — is preferable to a longer pipe — which discharges closer to the low water mark. The applicant has not explained how shortening the pipe will result in the "reduction of sediments and pollutants." Common sense dictates that shortening the pipe does not change what comes out of the pipe; it only changes where the outfall is placed. Moreover, the applicant has not addressed the issue of scouring, which inevitably results from heavy storm events. By proposing to relocate the pipe outfall, the applicant is proposing to increase scouring of the beach, thus undermining the existing bulkhead (and facilitating its eventual destruction), all under the guise of being an "improvement" to the stormwater system. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW July 20, 2010 Page 15 of 15 VII. THE.APPLICANT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO RE-SUBMIT A COMPLETE APPLICATION THAT ADDRESSES ALL FUTURE PLANS AND PROVIDES A DESIGN SUPPORTED BY SOUND ENGINEERING AND COASTAL EROSION PRINCIPLES THAT AVOIDS — RATHER THAN CAUSES — EROSION TO THE ADJACENT BEACHES. As submitted, the application is woefully deficient and cannot even be considered by this Board in its present form. The application should be denied, and the applicant should be required to submit a new application — on notice to the Airs and Frost/Minichini — that is complete and accurate before this Board can even consider whether the proposal meets the criteria of the Wetlands and CEHA code. Among other things, any new application should: 1. Address all aspects of the proposal, including the next phases of the plans. 2. Provide an analysis of all alternatives to the proposals. 3. Provide accurate information, including a new survey showing the actual adjacent property boundaries, tidal wetlands boundary, and CEHA boundary. 4. Provide properly-engineered plans and an engineering analysis of all aspects of the proposal and all alternatives. 5. Provide a new SEQRA EAF that addresses all phases of the proposal. 6. Provide a proposal for a "long-term maintenance program" as required by CEHA,'and a proper erosion-control program as required by the Wetlands code. 7. Provide a complete LWRP response to all questions, addressing all aspects of the proposal. Respectf yours, Anther C. Pasca New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region One SUNY @ Stony Brook, 50 Circle Road, Stony Brook, NY 11790-3409 alba Phone: (631)444-0365 Fax: (631)444-0360 Website:www.dec.nv.4ov Alexander B.Grannis Commissioner July 13, 2010 Orient Wharf Company 2110 Village Lane Orient, NY 11957 Re: Permit #1-4738-03228/00002 Dear Permittee: In conformance with the requirements of the State Uniform Procedures Act (Article 70, ECL) and its implementing regulations (6NYCRR, Part 621) we are enclosing your permit. Please carefully read all permit conditions and special permit conditions contained in the permit to ensure compliance during the term of the permit. If you are unable to comply with any conditions, please contact us at the above address. Also enclosed is a permit sign which is to be conspicuously posted at the project site and protected from the weather. E C E Sincerely, Agete -400:AcCXX r Jkl 21 2010 Kendall P. Klett Boa of Vu tees Environmental Analyst cc: file Walter Bundy Ilk sae NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 111111/ Facility DEC ID 1-4738-03228 Permit Components NATURAL RESOURCE PERMIT CONDITIONS GENERAL CONDITIONS, APPLY TO ALL AUTHORIZED PERMITS NOTIFICATION OF OTHER PERMITTEE OBLIGATIONS NATURAL RESOURCE PERMIT CONDITIONS- Apply to the Following Permits: TIDAL WETLANDS 1. Regul ed Activities Authorized By This Permit This permit ONLY authorizes those regulated activitie.`structures identified under the section titled "SAP Authorized Activity". The Departthent does not iss after-the-fact or as-built permits. This permit does not authorize activities, or legitimize tie exist of structures,which would have required a permit but for which no permit or other auth zation has been granted by the Department. 2. f isposal Locations All excavated material shall be appropriately disposed of as per the project plan witht mal disturbance and/or impact to vegetatedmarshareas Disposal of excess material beyond the approved project site will require further written approval from the Department(permit, modification,ametltinent). 3 Wtiirage of Equipment, Materials The storage o£construction equipment and materials shall be conned to the upland areas. a. 4. (%nformance With Plans All activities authorized by this permit must be in strict conformance with ilie approved plans submitted by the applicant or applicant's agent as part of the permit application: Such approved plans were prepared by WF Bundy, last revised on 5/3/10. 5. Notice of Commencement At least 48 hours prior to commencement of the project,the permittee and contr Y.": Sri NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Nur Facility DEC ID 1-4738-03228 PERMIT Under the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Permittee and Facility Information Permit Issued To: Facility: ORIENT WHARF COMPANY ORIENT WHARF CO PROPERTY C/O THOMAS MURRAY 2110 VILLAGE LN PO BOX 243 ORIENT, NY 11957 ORIENT,NY 11957 (631) 323-3864 Facility Location: in SOUTHOLD in SUFFOLK COUNTY Village: Orient Facility Principal Reference Point: NYTM-E: 726.2 NYTM-N: 4557.4 Latitude: 41°08'1.1.0" 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 Perl)it 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 stmt compliance-With the ECL, all applicable regulations, and all conditions included as papf of this permit. Permit Administrator.JOHN A 0. LAND, Deputy Regis • .i Permit Administrat'r Address: ,,i •EC ° ' GION 1 HEAD• • 'TERS iiil `Cri ONY BROOK . 1 CIRCLE RD : ° t0 ,NY 11 '0 -3409 Authorized Signature: _ A a Date Q C/ 0 jp, Page 1 of 5 a as NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION W Facility DEC ID 1-4738-03228 GENERAL CONDITIONS - Apply to ALL Authorized Permits: 1. Facility Inspection by The Department The permitted site or facility, including relevant records, is subject to inspection at reasonable hours and intervals by an authorized representative of the Department of Environmental Conservation(the Department) to determine whether the permittee is complying with this permit and the ECL. Such representative may order the work suspended pursuant to ECL 71- 0301 and SAPA 401(3). The permittee shall provide a person to accompany the Department's representative during an inspection to the permit area when requested by the Department. A copy of this permit, including all referenced maps, drawings and special conditions,must be available for inspwction by the Department at all times at the project site or facility. Failure to produce a copy of the peiit upon request by a Department representative is a violation of this permit. p, 2. �lationship of this Permit to Other Department Orders and Determinations Unless expressly pro ed for by the Department, issuance of this permit does not modify, supersede or rescind any order or determination previously issued by the Department or any of the terms, conditions or requirements contained in such order or determination. 3. Apphe$ions For Permit.Renewals,Modifications or Transfers The permittee must submit a separate-written application to the Department for permit renewal,modification transfer of this perr iit. Such application must include any forms or Supplolpecital **Ration thgtae Department requires. p. Any renewal, modification or transfer granted by the Department must be in writing. Submission of appllvations for permit renewal, modification or transfer are to be submitted to: Regional Permit Administrator NYSDEC REGION 1 HEADQUARTERS. sty-W.4 stiWia' IN so CIRCLE RD STONY BROOK,NY111790.3409 4. Submission of Renewal Application The permittee must submit a renewal application at least 30 days before permit expiration for the following permit authorizations: Tidal Wetlands. 5. Permit Modifications,Suspensions and Revocations by the Department T1td'Department reserves the right to modify,suspend or revoke this permit. The grounds for modification, suspension or revocation include: - a. materially false or inaccurate statements in the permit application or supporting papers; b. failure by the permittee to comply with any terms or conditions of the permit; c. exceeding the scope of the project as described in the permit application; Page 4of5 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATIONSri Nur 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 Atlfacent'Area. My 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 andier protected buffer areas. 12. Precautions Against Contamination of Waters All necessary precautions shall be taken to preclude contamination of any wetland or waterway by suspended solids, sediments, fuels solvents, lubricants, epoky coatings,paints, concrete, leachate or any other environmentally deleterious materials associated with the project. 13. State May Require Site Restoration If upon the expiration or revocation of this permit,the project ereby authorized has not been completed, the applicant shall,without expense to the State, and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservation may require,remove all or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore the site to its former condition. No claim shall be made against the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration. 14. State May Order Removal or Alteration of Work If future operations by the State of New York require an alteratitt In the posit o ftif he structure or work herein authorized,or if, in the apinioti of the Depart of Environmental Conservatto1i;ffshall cause unreasonable obstruction tutliffree navigation of "t'cl waters or flood flows or endanger the health safety or welfare of thepeo4ple of the State, or cause losdpr destruction of the natural resources of the State, tfie"'o er^itiayi ordered by the Department,m remove or alter the structural work, obstructions, or hazards caused thereby without expense to the State, and ic 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 Environtri'et to 'Cit is rvation to Deinke; ettieg4 t`- i ,p 'eture or fill and restorts;;fprnler 9P,P4itn?1:Lh a ave 1qr .vud acit taf the W4gr tIcse._N+o-claim shall be made ag'ra#nst the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration. 15. State Not Liable for Damage The State of New York shall in no case be liable for any damage or injury to the structure or work herein authorized which may be caused by-or result froi `itture operations undertaken by the State for the conservation or improvement of navigation, or forfler purposes, and no claim or right to compensation shall accrue from any such damage. Page3of5 v 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; e. noncompliance with previously issued permit conditions, orders of the commissioner, any provisions of the Environmental Conservation Law or regulations of the Department related to the permitted activity. 6. Permit Transfer Permits are transferrable unless specifically prohibited by statute, regulation or another permit condition. Applications for permit transfer should be submitted prior to actual transfer of ownership. NOTIFICATION OF OTHER PERMITTEE OBLIGATIONS Item A: Permittee Accepts Legal Responsibility and Agrees to Indemnification The permittee„excepting state or federal agencies,expressly agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Department of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York, its representatives, employees, and agents ("DEC") for all claims, suits, actions, and damages, to the extent attributable to the permittee's acts or omissions in connection with the.pennittee's undertaking of activities in connection with, or operation and maintenance of, the facility or facilities authorized by the permit whether in compliadce or not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. This indemnification does not extepd to any claims, suits, actions, or damages to the extent attributable to DEC's own negligent or • intentiopal acts or omissions, or to any claim$,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,-armittee'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 pennitted's agent with respect to the permitted activities, and such persons shall be subject to the same - sanctionsfor violations of the Environmental Conservation Law as those prescribed for the permittee. Item C:Permittee Responsible for Obtaining.-Other Required Permits The pennittee is responsible for obtaining any other permits, approvals, lands,easements and rights-of- way that may be required to cavy 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 mil real or personal property held or vested in a person not party to the permit. Page 5 of 5 RETURN THIS FORM TO:COMPLIANCE Or Fax to: 631-444-0297 Bureau of Habitat-NYSDEC 50 Circle Road W Stony Brook, NY 11790-3409 PERMIT NUMBER: EXPIRATION DATE: PERMITTEE NAME& PROJECT ADDRESS: CONTRACTOR NAME&ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Dear Sir- Pursuant to the special conditions of the referenced permit,you are hereby notified that the authorized activity shall commence on • . We certify that we have read the referenced permit and approved plans and fully understand the authorized project and all permit conditions.We have inspected the project site and can complete the project as described in the permit and as depicted on the approved plans. We can do so in full compliance with all plan notes and permit conditions.The permit, permit sign,and approved plans will be available at the site for inspection in accordance with General Condition No. 1. (Both signatures required) PERMITEE: DATE • CONTRACTOR: DATE THIS NOTICE MUST BE SENT TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS AT LEAST TWO DAYS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE PROJECT AND/OR ANY ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES. FAILURE TO RETURN THIS NOTICE,POST THE PERMIT SIGN, OR HAVE THE PERMIT AND APPROVED PLANS AVAILABLE AT THE WORK SITE FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT-MAY SUBJECT THE PERMITTEE AND/OR CONTRACTOR TO APPLICABLE SANCTIONS AND PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT CONDITIONS. Cut along this line c x x x x x x • NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION RETURN THIS FORM TO:COMPLIANCE Or Fax to: 631-444-0297 Bureau of Habitat-NYSDEC ale 50 Circle Road NOW Stony Brook,NY 11790-3409 PERMIT NUMBER: EXPIRATION DATE: PERMITTEE NAME&PROJECT ADDRESS: • CONTRACTOR NAME&ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Pursuant to special conditions of the referenced permit,you are hereby notified that the authorized activity was completed on .We have fully complied with the terms and conditions of the permit and approved plans.(Both signatures required) PERMITEE: DATE CONTRACTOR: DATE THIS NOTICE, WITH PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE COMPLETED WORK AND/OR A COMPLETED SURVEY,AS APPROPRIATE,MUST BE SENT TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS WITHIN 30 DAYS OF COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. 95-20-1(11/03)—9c1 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NISI 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, PP PP , contact the Regional Permit Administrator listed below. Please refer to the permit number shown when contacting the DEC. Regional Permit Administrator Permit Number /-4"238— 032928, R ROGER EVANS Expiration Date //ix/ 02-0/6 NOTE: This notice is NOT a permit VILLAGE LANE - / EXISTING ROAD /INTERCONNECTING , EXISTING ROAD fico DRAIN PIPES DRAIN 4 q.... DENOTES RUNOFF FLOW •..„. ASPHALT PAVEMENT ••••,... VILLAGE LANE Axe .., ...• •,•,(Bouso, .....9 - -- . .. . . .. . 7 ..;.:;.:..:•::::::•::.7 pRoesg .. -- ..... .. •..•. • .— • • •• • • •• • • EXIST ROAD DRAIN .„, ...• sol* ... CONNECTED TO ..,' - -.••••••••• S.' .. OUTFALL PIPE ... ..... .... - NOTE. 'Eby .- '-"I ... ....., 4 se' % Structures not drawn • itt as:to... li • tb scale or located - 4 '."" I I EXIST CONC CURB 1 ./ • •..•.• .•. •.•...•• 1 I. ;,::•:::::,.?.:•:.:"..y.::::':-..;:::: . a;EXISTING FENCE -.4::.•.!;•:•.::•,:y.:::f:.; 4.4 .. -;:::.,..-ii:‘:-/:•/.•-• qtrm#:1000-24-2-27 P. . .... / ../ . . . ..,... ... .. — .... ......-..• .••• WAR MEMORIAL ........... ------- ------1-;-7- Ct.- V714:;X:'•':::t.Y.t:,:k:::.::: E,), f::::•:.;•/1•••":!..:i::::. LAWN It i SCTM IP 1000-26-1.1,j :•;L:-.,::fil.::•:f.:-.:;:-.;:•:f. .:•:r:.:::-;g:".••(•:•::: Ali:ECOF EXISI1NG 04i t f;•;.g::.•t•f.:Y:C4:'..:-:; terkelfWes, , • It LAWN f•‘;;;i:'::'ir I: "' •4 • L F.F1/4 VIPS- . - • • • , • . • , ...ctc, i EPsloe 0569 s , • • e . • GRASS ii ) --1 • ..., • • • • • EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO , 4 .1 - si ..--'''' ....- ..... BE SHORTENED TO COINCIDE WITH • i ..-- EXISTING RIPRAP WHICH WILL BE .---- v.,1/4'?, I. ' . '. b.! ...- --- RE-UTILIZED AT NEVV END OF PIPE t4 r 4; , 11tot 1 .....----.. St.-- 11 A_r )._.., ri - - _,_ _---- \es- Ansp„-- ,.--- , -74,.. -.....iik, „;;;,;: :7:-:-.-:,-. ..:.; , .._ --- - BEAcFpw€A ,,..o.;-- d) ---- „ <,,, ,,...„ , ,-70 BEACH AREA .....; :..,....r.,n;:7:In ,,0":,' is-' •-• ‘ $‘ ii "...::P.”&b,;<- -,: - SEE SECTIONSFOR i\tler.,.. ye .- “A.. I, r,., i..inc.',..;i:'.,' F. ADDITLONAL DETAIL,. ff......: ;:"4= 0 ::f.,' , %- • *4.- --;:r 0* .,..-7 mit• A99 EXISTING END OF % ll -- • ....,......- ---- ... .... ...• OUTFALL PIPE 5,, 28'o” ..... ....... • ..- 'PROJF C T AREA; • EXISTING ACCESS VIA ASPHALT PAVEMENT OVER FILL TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW tH21E: Information shown on this Sketch reflects Survey Infommtion as prepared by John C.Ehlers,Land .....-TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SPANNING THE AREA SHOWN Surveyor,dated September 1999&May 2010 • NYS DEC ORIENT45100ff PER TERMS TIONS OF .-1.n zgz,Pk EXISTING BOULDER&BULKHEAD WHARF w/ PERMIT NO.1"173r-t'A-' 9- es-7/oI I FILL&ASPHALT SURFACE BATF "fi3/i 0 ten • ' "e'r.ikkk /•13 SCALE: 1"= 30' 0" Itt 44 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF ft. Modification Plan Drawn by: WF Bundy Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Date: March 26, 2010 Revised: May 3,2010 SCTM#: 1000-24-2-28.1 Sketch prepared by WF Bundy,East Moriches NY 11940 Ck'd by: V ILL..,.�L L./WIC fie EXISTING ROAD DRAIN INTERCONNECTING , EXISTING ROAD DRAIN PIPES DRAIN t> ss DENOTES RUNOFF FLOW ASPHALT PAVEMENT VILLAGE LANE ,-,1 BOW' ,aII. - • EXIST ROAD DRAIN Pf\OPE- - **-1 ' V* CONNECTED TO -- - •• . ,. - OUTFALL PIPE ...•' '=. , NOTE: !•'V - 4 i \\ Structures not drawn • .:; :.:�;., ;. II -r % to scale or located I EXIST CONC CURB , Mr::;•:f:: .• .•:• :. .::, ;EXISTING FENCE *;.:•::::::::;';if1 :�:::�::i. ` ?'•.,.••••••• '::SC`J M#:1000-24-2-27 �`. ' `• ?:},:{j'::;:1:;:'r'„ WAR MEMORIAL lriS�11' rrelY LAWN �.•.,•._ ..'. ...'..',',.` < I SCTM#'1000-26-1-1.1 ••••... .......••,......... bF.EXISTING' es I '•ii :;/Q., .:•:•:;:•:t : ` LAWN , ; :,1' :•;:: rpo..'. I z P 5°1/4`SI' �Fh fMd 71 w 20 t S � � 1{ '1 W S\NGBU %V. eAI PROOF N' /AREA() EXISTING .4 .1 a IW `.\\ R7)- O N 6 EACH GRASS . .1 a -- 1 I AREAriF EXuuTIMG O ) 9 U . y `. wRY��; 't i ai � } 9E7ACHGRAsS � � ,l „+'- \`. �: OUTFNI�L `I�, .1 l I 'X•(�QP'�' ' pp.F�+� Na�l�. .` .`\ EXISTING BURIED PP : .Pft�E- _ 0 10Eb�gi EXISTING RIP RAP&PROPOSED rIi! f - .SEAWALL .- �aq END OF OUTFALL PIPE a:I I . � : " �,`fl�� i q Q „• p.� •\ (4a �. 3 f 1 N Er • l"20 .�1 •••••••:%r:7-.-:-.,-.4). .:� —' BEACH A 4.p10_� yl v •BEACH AREA „ig3' ail c� • ` 11 c ix**,4_ s.tx „ N`y� 4 1. -- P‘�V -� EXISTING END OF �, �� --' �� OUTFALL PIPE •\ 28'0" . . .�' � - PROJECT ARFA• EXISTING ACCESS VIA ASPHALT PAVEMENT OVER FILL TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW NOT!. --TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SPANNING THE Information shown on this Sketch reflects Survey Information as prepared by John C.Ehlers,Land •- AREA SHOWN Surveyor,dated September 1999&May 2010 NYSDEC ORIENT HARED AS PER TERMS ONDITIONS OF EXISTING BOULDER& BULKHEAD WHARF w! PERMIT NO. 7 o3a18 'OA I FILL&ASPHALT SURFACE • -� DATF -77/37/.1 SCALE: 1"= 30'0" 1/4 4 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Existing Site Plan Drawn by: WF Bundy Orient Wharf CompanyOrient New York Date: March 26, 2010 P Y, Revised: May 3, 2010 SCTM#: 1000-24-2-28.1 Sketch prepared by WF Bundy,East Moriches NY 11940 Ck'd by: EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE TO BE REMOVED& REPLACED WITH A NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SUPPORTED AT EXISTING BEAM POCKETS AT EACH END EXISTING FILL TO BE REMOVED TO LEVEL BELOW • EXISTING BEAM POCKETS+/-18"(APPROX 20 CY) +1.28'0" AND DISPOSED OF IN AN APPROVED UPLAND SITE. EXISTING PILINGS&SHEATHING TO REMAIN EXISTING GRADE '. ' !` , EXISTING BOULDER&BULKHEADSTRUCTUREw/ •::;:::::•:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::.::: EXISTING ! EXISTING GRADE 00 FILL EXISTS BEYOND THE SECTION BEING 7 EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SHORTENED (SEE MODIFICATION PLAN) NYSDEC gpPROVED AS PER TERMS « » SCALE: 1" = 10' 0" AND CONDITIONS OF SECTION A THRU EXISTING BULKHEAD LOOKING WEST -,siva PERMIT ��>��/O � � DATE—�,• - 3-P3 EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE ON BOTH NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE ENDS OF NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE AS PER ENGINEER'S DRAWINGS TO BE PATCHED& PITCHED AS REQ'D - EXISTING FILL TO BE REMOVED TO LEVEL BELOW EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO BE +1.28'0" EXISTING BEAM POCKETS+/- 18"(APPROX 20 CY) SHORTENED& EXISTING RIPRAP UTILIZED / - •ND DISPOSED OF IN AN APPROVED UPLAND SITE. 4T NEW END OF PIPE (SEE PLAN) j�/ EXISTING PILINGS&SHEATHING TO REMAIN .: 1:v::Ii%i:';::I rciI•1 :•):nEXISTING GRADE EXISTING GRADE <f ''�i� "��' EXISTING CONCRETE SEAWALL AT SHORELINE .1 EXISTS BEYOND THE NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE I SCALE: 1" = 10'0" SECTION «B» THRU EXISTING BULKHEAD LOOKING EAST • Information shown on this Sketch reflects Survey Information as prepared by John C.Ehlers,Land Surveyor,dated September 1999 SECTIONS THROUGH EXISTING BJLL KHEAD Drawn by: WF Bundy PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT.WHARF Date: March 26, 2010 Revised: 03 May 2010 Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Ck'd by: SCTM#: 1000-24-2-28.1 Sketch prepared by WF Bundy, East Moriches NY 11940 UPDATED—WFB— May18 44 Slv, i L Project Docum ittsc 4 2010 ` Sm:t;jodTc J Pear^ of Trustees PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York SCTM#: 1000-24-2-28.1 %feet qt.existing r-!tl.ss rsot over filled-earth with Proposed Location of Project Site 4 • Orient YG'tgiv (Existing) PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Table of Contents Key Plan & Site Information Plan of Orient Wharf Modifications Plan Sections — Proposed Modifications Plan Showing Regulatory Boundaries Project Description Project Photographs Referenced Agency Maps: NYSDEC Tidal Wetland Map # 726-556 Town of Southold LWRP Map FEMA FIRM (Firmette downloaded from FEMA website) Referenced Owner Provided Surveys: November 19, 1978 Site Survey prepared by Van Tuyl May 2010 Site Survey prepared by John Ehlers Page Modified May 18,2010 Prepared by WF Bundy, East Moriches NY 11940 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York SCTM#: 1000-24-2-28.1 Property Information 7' Property Situated at: cji tbs.. Orient, New York Rr ~ t Mt• Town of Southold w lid" Y t l s � k .L Y T } � 4 X11 % Suffolk County, New York SCTM #: 1000-24-02-28.1 t ,,,,, Property Classification: Social Organization ' ' Zoning District "M-1" Marine f` " 'n, Proposed Activities; Replacement of Asphalt with Timber Decking r Purpose of Activities: Replace existing access over deteriorated 44 44, asphalt pavement on fill with new timber deck SLIN structure Property Services Information: Key Plan Postal District: Southold No Scale School District: Southold Fire District: Southold Site Situated within: Electrical Service: LIPA FEMA Flood Zones: VE9, AE7 and LiMWA apply Water Service: SCWA Coastal Barrier Resource Area (CBRA) Zone Property Siting Data: Groundwater Management Zone IV Tide Range: +/- 2.5' NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands Zones: LZ, SM NYSDEC & Southold Town Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (GENA) Zone Southold Town Historic Preservation Zone Southold Town Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP)Area (Reach 5) Southold Town Stormwater Management Program Area Prepared by WF Bundy,East Moriches NY 11940 Drawn by: WF Bundy Date: March 29, 2010 Revised: 18 May 2010 Ck'd by: RUNOFF FLOW FROM - • VILLAGE LANE y P�EXISTING ROAD 1, /'C DRAIN /ja`JV\ / ��/INTERCONNECTING EXISTING ROAD DRAIN teDRAIN PIPES ' DENOTES RUNOFF FLOW ♦� ASPHALT PAVEMENT �� VILLAGE LANE ROPER BO�NOPR'ES' ' ' {:..'•••;'.':'afr'{'. N. EXIST ROAD DRAIN - P —. ?.;.;:.?:::.r.:::`.. S CONNECTED TO �.' . — ,.OUTFALL PIPE NOTE: /1/1/ ti — ' • �� Structures not drawn •r•". ...:• lee rj 1 to scale or located • '.'•.':"' ' `. . II r EXIST CURE • ♦EXISTING FENCE 'ii:'• ::% :i }+: U '••-_i.+':•�i•'r}.`.[.:r._Sf•.'•• #•1000-24-2-27 ` 'i. WAR MEMORIAL ;'.?•`'. `'r,'` lirkt LAWN Wei, I SCTM#:1000-26-1-11 ` ` LAWN ;'•!::.::.:t:';:•::;'..::::..:::::;:.;:f�li�}ii +`�. I UR1EO s 4' at2p ,, 1 .1 w P ,11NGB • ' . o . EX\S ��'Op � /e Ar-A 1I0Ci'•`.I !.. ... . .Cl'C • 1 : . • ♦FRry ,S EAcamAss. . .r ► 1 ,�(3 o.y. .iaatiN6a t j B ACWZ'aR/CS5 O `% • �` . A, OUTFA L I .1 a l '$ .%-'\; UNO I� I oCj �l' • • PIPE , C ] 1 QRO.. ,�6p� let, i toes:- ,‘ �'; '•^ �� .� EXISTING BURIED PP .PR��! NO--". • Wit'^ y F '''SEAWALL r; 1f9i. �. EXISTING RIP RAP&PROPOSED - 1p1 k �'^`:` s'- - END OF OUTFALL PIPE N �.�+i • -9• � �s eP i i `y �1N�' 9.t;.-• \` ey2 d'$' i I - – BEACH A 20‘;'...-- Nays.' • 07• O BEACH AREA (� :'%'. ' ` - .' �.lMa%' csg0�i \ F� I ..:,A'..ti..:::. i \'. ' c . �� Erle.. ey.. ;.!n..,::r....aixo n 4a -/ p4-...- EXISTING EXISTING END OF �� ' OUTFALL PIPE \` 28.0" -- �.' 11 - PROJFCT ARFA' EXISTING ACCESS VIA ASPHALT PAVEMENT OVER FILL TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW NOTE: .'TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SPANNING THE Information shown on this Sketch reflects Survey AREA SHOWN Information as prepared by John C.Ehlers,Land Surveyor,dated September 1999&May 2010 ORIENT HARBOR I EXISTING BOULDER& BULKHEAD WHARF w/ FILL&ASPHALT SURFACE Asekti, SCALE: 1"= 30'0" x!4I PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Existing Site Plan Drawn by: WF Bundy Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Date: March 26, 2010 Revised: May 3, 2010 SCTM#: 1000-24-2-28.1 Sketch prepared by WF Bundy,East Moriches NY 11940 Ck'd by: RUNOFF FLOW FROM VILLAGE LANE ,J� EXISTING ROAD N, , ///'S DRAIN 4'INTERCONNECTING EXISTING ROAD ^ DRAIN DRAIN PIPES \ DENOTES RUNOFF FLOW ♦\ ASPHALT PAVEMENT \\ ` Ez/SLLAGET ROAD �NANE PryOPERNBOiNpAR-ES. .... ,';;J;:y'.1 \� CONNECTED TO �.- - — \ OUTFALL PIPE "� •• NOTE: Structures not drawn .;!;:::;t..;;? :';i:';i \\ to scale or located kflt - ems.' • I EXIST 60NC CURB I' • •{ •••••.•`: i�EXISTING FENCE •!'.r:" 'r `:i',7 CT. # 1000-24-2-27 .`On \Qi ., WAR MEMORIAL WAQ LAWN t!*kW 4 7RCTM# 1000-.2R-1-1 1 �!?i'.•' C:oWW . ` LAWN •` '%:i.:.'.'`rC ...••` s I S . ' X20, , r 1tNG cO500.- se0111A- c ev �aie:; ;; SrOINC7 '/4 ! , i gX,s. ResBGRASS 1� 1 4.O,F,EXi, HiG \N, : r '.\ \\� ` O��O�Ryti { i a t BEACF�Z"iRA3S ��pN�,' • ' . • • Pws RO�S�OP glUNp v�i S/ • \• I EXISTING BURIED Vile 0 ...' EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO ! BE SHORTENED TO COINCIDE RE-UTILIZED RIPRAP NEW HICH WILL BEH '� I�' 'E � - ��'/ �Ne%1' - ``` 20 ��.Ljti, I \\'v '. xi�i ..`�^� ;t: i '-■71 y BEACH...Alt ' a`120\2i�0�'SJNai) • i�'�. • 7 BEACH AREA `" \�Fh(9, e t1 1*:-.g:-i . ' - SEE SECTIONS-FOR PN > /As ., SSG GGA 0� Sk • F.. ADDIT9NAL DETAIL -, �a�20'0'� EXISTING END OF y/ • I ..- , OUTFALL PIPE •` 28'0" -- • - pROJFCT ARFA EXISTING ACCESS VIA ASPHALT PAVEMENT OVER FILL TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW NOTE: ,'TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SPANNING THE Information shown on this Sketch reflects Survey ' AREA SHOW N Information as prepared by John C.Ehlers,Land Surveyor,dated September 1999&May 2010 ORIENT HARBOR I EXISTING BOULDER& BULKHEAD WHARF w/ FILL&ASPHALT SURFACE SCALE: 1" = 30' 0" 1/41/4 .° PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Modification Plan Drawn by: WF Bundy Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Date: March 26, 2010 Revised: May 3, 2010 SCTM#: 1000-24-2-28.1 Sketch prepared by WF Bundy,East Moriches NY 11940 Ck'd by: EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE TO BE REMOVED& REPLACED WITH A NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SUPPORTED AT EXISTING BEAM POCKETS AT EACH END EXISTING FILL TO BE REMOVED TO LEVEL BELOW EXISTING BEAM POCKETS +/- 18" (APPROX 20 CY) +l-28'0" AND DISPOSED OF IN AN APPROVED UPLAND SITE. EXISTING PILINGS& SHEATHING TO REMAIN EXISTING GRADE :• : r •:! I� I ` 7 'f.. ::; ; EXISTING GRADE EXISTING BOULDER&BULKHEAD STRUCTURE w/ FILL EXISTS BEYOND THE SECTION BEING j EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE a SHORTENED (SEE MODIFICATION PLAN) SCALE: 1" = 10' 0" SECTION «A, f THRU EXISTING BULKHEAD LOOKING WEST EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE ON BOTH NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE ENDS OF NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE AS PER ENGINEER'S DRAWINGS TO BE PATCHED&PITCHED AS REQ'D EXISTING FILL TO BE REMOVED TO LEVEL BELOW EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO BE +1.28'0" EXISTING BEAM POCKETS+/- 18" (APPROX 20 CY) SHORTENED& EXISTING RIPRAP UTILIZED •ND DISPOSED OF IN AN APPROVED UPLAND SITE. AT NEW END OF PIPE (SEE PLAN) EXISTING PILINGS&SHEATHING TO REMAIN ir gr ;..:::f; {%rf '�:i ::ii{:;`: :%'..r'•. 11 • EXISTING GRADE EXISTING GRADE '�• EXISTING CONCRETE SEAWALL AT SHORELINE EXISTS BEYOND THE NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SCALE: 1" = 10' 0" SECTION B" THRU EXISTING BULKHEAD LOOKING EAST NOTE: Information shown on this Sketch reflects Survey Information as prepared by John C.Ehlers, Land Surveyor,dated September 1999 SECTIONS THROUGH EXISTING BULKHEAD Drawn by: WF Bundy PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Date: March 26, 2010 Revised:03 May 2010 Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Ck'd by: SCTM#: 1000-24-2-28.1 Sketch prepared by WF Bundy,East Moriches NY 11940 RUNOFF FLOW FROM - - ''J.----" ' VILLAGE LANE ,/ EXISTING ROAD DRAIN EXISTING ROAD +/INTERCONNECTING DRAIN DRAIN PIPES DENOTES RUNOFF FLOW ASPHALT PAVEMENT ;.:):::;::.;::::.:7::;:::::::::::::::- .`,'........; . ,.,:.. • L VILLAGE 41LANE PROPE�nep„owes.1, - i i EXIST E E JJ CONNECTEDTO /" -OUTFALL PIPE - -, . . ., . , - 4iStructures not drawn + „ SIIVIPp��p ‘ to scae or located .+ + ",+a`.x rEXIST60NC CURBkik1ill'::::`,•:: ` EXISTINGFENCE•:r'•+r.;:'`+r`'£(7T' # 100024-2-27 ` % /��•'`• 44.° ../ WAR MEMORIAL +.:. we eA ! VO wgtt. LAWN id SCTM#•1000-26-1-11 :•'.••• . ..: ' P.A13 t3'` air , 15` ` LAWN a 1� Ii ►o F I FEMA AE 7 w• fir; , S t ,21 Z L fit a,` 7 ' ' , j LU . Nt. * i 1 w r GeUR\E e w ��F a EX\SS\N N•:. •e/it1 ` ,FRry \hie fi CH.GGRASS ij .• Bp . ?!3 ] a tAA)`EXf,4ING LAN • FF+bq�• < N. UNpgR�� t 1 a F I %BEACN oR4S'S '•�� PNS /- ., • t i t t • oOa�• rl I a t � pJ lfy 20N i PR'x� t20p �� % �/ `• �C'4,F •.�\: .0 .� V EXISTING BURIED PROPER 4 Y'•7o] ` y E SEAWALL EXISTING RIP RAP 8.PROPOSED1! ENDOF OUTFALL PIPE Nom, , ,4",,, t �.•.., N��'/ ' 41 ``.• <��v N d f 1 '¢rte gP ee�5' /, '�2p ��I .Cwsz ...�c BEACH�A a`I 201��/ uNe`I)•••• �` 7p BEACH AREA II 3 Ra�t�zx rxq 3 • / Irr,i c� // , �. o �` ' F;(05019 SG I w'.n . gas 7 . .. .. i / lot/ %. Qy� iia'\3:r..s',^av:se;`;:IN ::< Z. ii-- /// 0-7,-- EXISTING EXISTINGENDOF "�� set ' ' 1^- OUTFALLPIPE . 28'0" /�/ /// `• -- 'ROJFCT ARFA• EXISTING ACCESS VIA ASPHALT PAVEMENT OVER FILL TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW NOTE' .'TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SPANNING THE Information shown on this Sketch reflects Survey // AREA SHOWN Information as prepared by John C.Ehlers,Land Surveyor,dated September 1999&May 2010 FEMA FIRM Panel 68 of 1026 Map#: 36103C0068H ORIENT HARBOR Town of Southold, Com#: 360813 I EXISTING BOULDER & BULKHEAD WHARF w/ FILL &ASPHALT SURFACE rirsok SCALE: 1" = 30' 0" 1/4 �a PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF MAPPED CEHA, FLOOD ZONE & TIDAL WETLAND BOUNDARIES Drawn by: WF Bundy Orient Wharf CompanyOrient New York Date: March 26, 2010 p y� Revised: May 3, 2010 SCTM#: 1000-24-2-28.1 Sketch prepared by WF Bundy,East Moriches NY 11940 Ck'd by: Project Description PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Prepared by Walter Bundy,East Moriches NY: March 23,2010 Updated as per March 31,2010 NYSDEC Ike-Application Hearing Revised&Clarified:May 18,2010 The following Project Information is provided concerning the Proposed Modifications to Orient Wharf by the Orient Wharf Company,Orient New York. Proiect Location Information: I. The Orient Wharf(SCTM #: 1000-24-2-28.1) is situated within the Town of Southold at 2110 Village Lane in Orient Hamlet 11957; and is owned and operated by the Orient Wharf Company. Orient Wharf is situated on the north-eastern shoreline of Orient Harbor. Location Maps showing the location of the site are enclosed as Attachments in the Photo Documentation provided. 2. The Orient Wharf project site is situated within designated NYSDEC Tidal Wetland; Southold Town Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CERA) Program, Floodplain Management Program (FMP), Historic Preservation Program, Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) (Reach 5), Stormwater Management Program; and Southold Town Trustee Program Areas. As such, permits and approvals shall be requested from all involved agencies having jurisdiction. Proiect Description: The Project proposed includes the following and supports the sketches and plans prepared for the Proposed Modifications to Orient Wharf: 1. Existing wooden bulkhead structure with fill and asphalt vehicle and access paving (an approximate 17' 0"portion)to be modified with a new timber deck structure as per Engineer's drawings (to be prepared at a later date) which is proposed to replace the existing deteriorated fill and asphalt surface. The location of the proposed wharf modifications at the Orient Wharf is noted on the attached drawings and the timber decking structure shall utilize the existing beam pockets from the original bridge structure. Coincidently, it is that portion of Orient Wharf that had the original bridge removed and replaced with the filled structure that exists today, which is having the existing asphalt surface removed and replaced with a timber structure due to a continuing deterioration of the asphalt access pavement and the supporting fill beneath the paving. 2. The wharf structure both seaward and landward, of the area having the asphalt pavement replaced by a timber deck structure, will remain as exists except for some minor asphalt repair work to blend the asphalt pavement surfaces with the height of the new timber deck surface. The wharf structure seaward of the area has an existing enclosed filled structure with stone and cement retaining walls; and the opposite side of the timber decking will connect to an existing seawall that exists at the shoreline, enabling the proposed new timber deck structure to span the 2 existing supporting structures with no additional support piers or pilings needed. Project Description PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Assessment of Conditions and Proposed Action: 1. Orient Wharf is an active shipping pier, harbor and mooring facility on the north-eastern shoreline of Orient Harbor accessible off of Village Lane in Orient The pier which extends into the harbor dates back to the 1800s. The site is owned by the Orient Wharf Company, a local for profit enterprise. Orient Wharf was created when a group of Orient farmers and fishermen got together in the early 1800s and built or had built a small dock for the purpose of commerce. The original docks were not substantial and crumbled or were destroyed by storms and during circa 1838 they made a better effort and continued to build and expand outwards from the shore. In 1851 by an act of the State of New York the Orient Wharf Co. was incorporated,which exists through today. 2. The wharf structure as it exists today consists of two (2) existing enclosed filled structures with stone and cement retaining walls, with a connecting timber wharf structure; at the shoreline, an existing seawall structure is connected to the wharf structure by a wooden bulkhead structure with fill which connects the main wharf structure to the shoreline abutting the existing seawall. The wooden bulkhead structure with fill replaced the original timber bridge that connected the wharf to the shoreline. It is important to note that the bridge existed as of November 19, 1978, as per a sealed survey prepared by Van Tuyl, a copy of which is contained in the files of the Orient Wharf Company. A copy of the 1978 survey is attached. 3. The space was filled in after November 19, 1978 because the majority shareholder at the time, Floyd King did not want to incur the cost of re-building the bridge and thus filled it in with who knows what? The result over a quarter of a century is the silting of the harbor, a decrease of aquatic life, and the end of lateral replenishment of the coastline. The dock is now one big jetty. Over the years, the coastal environment in the immediate area has changed, with the shorelines to the north and south of the wharf being impacted differently, partly in the believe that the current wooden bulkhead structure with fill that replaced the original timber bridge has been partially at fault. 4. The shoreline on the northern side of the wharf has grown approximately 100'; and the currents which used to flow through the bridge opening cleansing the water no longer occurs; and the Town has a drainage outfall pipe adjacent to the side of the wharf that empties road runoff from the adjacent Village Lane into the harbor adding to the source of silt and pollutants to Orient Harbor. The shoreline on the southern side of the wharf has also grown in the immediate area of the wharf; but further south, the area has been experiencing erosion causing property owners to construct bulkheads to protect their properties. The closure of the original timber bridge span with a filled bulkhead appears to have caused the stop of the natural transport of sand that originally flowed through the bridge opening. 5. The section of the wooden bulkhead structure with fill (an approximate 17' 0" portion) that connects the main wharf structure to the shoreline requires rehabilitation and no longer provides safe access to the wharf facility. Instead of simply replacing the existing structure in kind, the Orient Wharf Company and its consultants recommends the replacement of the current method of access (asphalt pavement over fill) with a new timber deck structure which connect into existing beam pockets from the original bridge structure. The intent of the timber deck structure is to provide immediate and long-term safe access for vehicles and pedestrians to the Orient Wharf Facility; without depending upon the existing filled bulkheaded which is deteriorating and requires extensive reconstruction to facilitate safe use for access. The placement of the new timber deck structure allows continued safe access to Orient Wharf and allows the entire wharf facility to be addressed as a unit in its future permit submittals identified above. The location of the proposed wharf modifications coincide with the location of the original location for the timber bridge structure at the Orient Wharf. Project Description PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Consistency with Local and State Coastal Proerams: 1. As previously identified above; the Orient Wharf project site is situated within designated NYSDEC Tidal Wetland; Southold Town Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CERA) 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. Based on an evaluation of the various permits and approvals necessary; wetlands, coastal erosion and historic district permits and approvals are required from the Town of Southold, a tidal wetland permit is necessary from the NYSDEC, and the same application submitted to the NYSDEC will be utilized for the NYSDEC,COE,NYDOS consistency review associated with structures in navigatable waters. 2. The Orient Wharf Company will also be submitting in the near future, separate projects to modify their existing Tidal Wetlands Maintenance Permit to include dredging around the floating docks and mooring areas that exist at Orient Wharf; and to permit maintenance and rehabilitation of the actual wharf facility. The intent of the future modifications are two-fold; to further enhance the water quality of the site by removing sediment and silt that has accumulated, and to also increase the ability of boats to utilize the facilities without "bottoming out". The intent of the timber deck structure is to provide immediate and long-term safe access for vehicles and pedestrians to the Orient Wharf Facility; without depending upon the existing filled bulkheaded which is deteriorating and requires extensive reconstruction to facilitate safe use for access. The placement of the new timber deck structure allows continued safe access to Orient Wharf and allows the entire wharf facility to be addressed as a unit in its future permit submittals identified above. 3. As stated previously, it is believed by the Orient Wharf Company and its consultants that the section of the wooden bulkhead structure with fill (an approximate 17' 0" portion) that connects the main wharf structure to the shoreline requires rehabilitation and no longer provides safe access to the wharf facility. Instead of simply replacing the existing structure in kind,the Orient Wharf Company and its consultants recommends the replacement of the current method of access (asphalt pavement over fill) with a new timber deck structure which connect into existing beam pockets from the original bridge structure. The location of the proposed wharf modifications coincide with the location of the original location for the timber bridge structure at the Orient Wharf, thereby replicating the original wharf configuration and timber bridge features, historical aspects of Orient Wharf are being restored and enhanced,pending completion of future improvements. 4. The Orient Wharf Project is consistent with 10 of thel3 General Coastal Policies identified in Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town of Southold; including: Policy 1, minimizes adverse effects of development; Policy 2, preserve historic resources; Policy 3, enhance visual quality; Policy 4, minimize the loss of natural resources from flooding and erosion; Policy 5, protect and improve water quality; Policy 6, protect and restore the quality and function of Town ecosystem; Policy 8, minimize environmental degradation; Policy 9, provide for recreational use of coastal waters; Policy 10, protect the Town's water dependent uses and promote sound siting; and Policy 11, promote sustainable use of living marine resources. 5. The intent of the timber deck structure is to provide immediate and long-term safe access for vehicles and pedestrians to the Orient Wharf Facility; without depending upon the existing filled bulkheaded which is deteriorating and requires extensive reconstruction to facilitate safe use for access. The placement of the new timber deck structure allows continued safe access to Orient Wharf and allows the entire wharf facility to be addressed as a unit in its future permit submittals identified above; thereby directly supporting many of the LWRP Policies noted above. UPDATED-WFB May 18, 2010 Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York SCTM#: 1000-24-2-28.1 feet ot expitinc, rIUCCSS ot ( th it ilk opo• , won ot PI()put • 41 • Orient (L 11:1?! IL pno10612 IRO Ohl 11\1 D I ROI/ GOGGLE W II'S (/) 1// /7 'OM Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York The photographic information that follows is provided for the Proposed Modifications to Orient Wharf. The photographic information provided consists of current and historical photographs, and digital copies of historic postcards. The photographs and postcards were provided by the Orient Wharf Company and digital maps were obtained through the NYSDEC, County and Town websites. Aerial Photographs: Current Aerial Photographs of Eastern Suffolk County and Orient showing the Project Site at Orient Wharf and its location in relation to Eastern Suffolk County, Southold Town and Orient Hamlet. This section also contains two (2)historic aerials obtained from the Orient Wharf Company. Current Proiect Site Photographs: Photograph Key Map and twelve (12) Site Photographs (Photographs A through L) depicting current site conditions and adjacent areas to Orient Wharf. Drainage Unit Photographs: Three (3) Photographs showing the existing Drainage Units and grate configurations that are situated on Village Lane adjacent to the Entry into Orient Wharf. Historic Photographs and Information: Historical photographs are digital copies of historic postcards and photographs provided by the Orient Wharf Company. Referenced Agency Maps: NYSDEC Tidal Wetland Map Town of Southold LWRP Map FEMA FIRM(Firmette downloaded from FEMA website) Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Aerial Photographs: pp oa • e 0 0 C hs A (above) and B (Below): Current Aerial Photog. ego County showing the Project Site at Orient Whorl n to Eastern Suffolk County. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM GOGGLE.II PV/All ED 2,1/H) .y f.: cI_- A .01 r/ • . _. .. Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Aerial Photographs: (Continued) s C 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. Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Aerial Photographs: (Continued) is r Y Project Site at Orient Wharf and the Village Lane area of Orient which is the main route to Orient Wharf. Project Photographs PROPOSED ITO Orient WhMODIFICATarf CompanyONS, Orient NewORIENT YorkWHARF Aerial Photographs: (Continued) N 1W } is #Y �k „, ). S • -...,‘;‘;.A.:-r ^ +"15,. ,,rc ' Y.4..g'IP %s m . ..��. s ,-a T'•z ti ." .eat .,f • '� -4, derig•_ .'° ,� J J ":�� ",a k - z'' * i0; :ai' YFp ^' it d5 +.4..1:' fi 'f,5 ' ' t ',: tT ,; Vet Ji / LI Y it .1 • .» A a fa (NOTE: Date ofAerial to be confirmed) Aerial Photograph E: Aerial Photograph t . . scanned from Orient Wharf Company records showing Orient Wharf. Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Aerial Photographs: (continued) ORIENT, LL ,, Aerial Photograph F: Aerial Photograph dated 1960 scanned from Orient'Wharf Company recordsaho'ing Orient Wharf. i .._ I � w - 3' a t••^ , y .- ' ~ vti. .. 4......•r . - .r.. ". • *mop pis - _T 11M1.r�� _ .*� c atter ,. - ^ y� "`t•••-,. : _ _..`AA. .4— ! 1 4 j I 4 i � Iti el . A to :k Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Current Project Site Photographs: Photograph Key Map 4. • 'lirN. EASTNORCAO SWAMI =NIECTINI ME GRAM PINS _.................,..............„.....,AN:74:11a ASPHALT PAVEUNIT �iIG,9 V!1 i AQ 1 AIi1F F. ::+:r:r... % ♦ EIST ROAD ORAN . ,;a?:;;:?,;a;p . ♦ MOTE: 'eti`�'t'? +a i, v : a : �► �IM�TPIPS • �� add,„„ r,r ♦ _ nna �� :inib OrEd6'Ir' i s rir r r r r +1r ••n;:a : a vr'i! ; W, WA'4,9.,,.,ACP �MCd1C CSR •rw' i+vrr� ; )•• \ : v11>C. .A.A y; i�� E]SOTMKLPEY >:�:ri:•:. ii �•:f I { .1 '.:nv ,. •i? +ti?iri?i+i �6<fI•+ `:'=!til.:i: +;in`Vi rr r •! ' ++ MMR�YDItlK ••'.t;r• . r r VZ r v s�r LAM •6"4141, I,�R6y�• + :A y."r rr) �{11� n 1 ; LAWN •aoor. N-'+ •�.F J r 3 g 7• also se►W►L� 1 p 103911Nog° j +'P yr •1 • ag S ,7 1 Al�kOf .�. p : . tinned " r. ��. jj� AaH*RA33 :�,ei� ,ci `` yOUTIRLL ' t �1 117 7. • PIPS • I COSTING Matt n , • SUCH MEA +,....rer I „I Ksitk, MOETNOEIDOP + j 1 OUINILLPPS I 11'P" I PROJECT AREA II .EXISTING WOODEN BULKHEAD STRUCTURE w/FILL TO SE REGIONED(APPROX it 0" PCRTiCNJAND REPLACED wVATNER BRIDGE STRl1CTl .AS PER ENDNEER'S taint Yowl an Ns SINES 0i.dsSump DRAW NGS REPLICATING THE ORDINAL labnoSnn r pgmnd er C.US..Laid &AWN.HAS Sainte tele WHARF CONFIC3URATION ORIENT HARBOR EXBTING BOULDER&BUUCFEAD WHARF I 4 STRUCTURE W FILL 8ASPHALT SURFACE "00--,k, SCALE 1"= 30'IT 0 PROPOSED MODIFIC ONS AT ORIENT WHARF Drawn by WF Bundy �OTOGGRA��P� Date Mardi 23,2010 o,,,., C Cid by. �Wharf Comp Orient New York SCENE 0.1000.24-2.2S 1 Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Current Project Site Photographs: (Continued) Photograph A: Photograph dated March 18, 2010 taken from the Village Lane Entry looking west into the Orient Wharf, with Orient Harbor shown in the background. The area of the existing earth-filled bulkhead structure to be spanned with a new timber deck is shown by the dashed red line in the photograph. Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Current Project Site Photographs: (Continued) 1. Photograph B (Above): Photograph dated March 18, 2010 taken from the bulkheaded area proposed to be spanned with a new timber deck showing the immediate shoreline area to the south of the site. Photograph C (Below): Photograph dated March 18, 2010 taken from the adjacent bulkheaded area showing the area proposed to be spanned with a new timber deck and the immediate shoreline area to the south of the site. apilliel [�.1 !ry{7a a tin a. Y ¢ s- 111-. a3 }„i,ke' JT } 't + � • ;y tj , - Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Current Project Site Photographs: (continued) 4 , e W.• ' , t! N� 3„ 4 �* Photograph D (Above): Photograph dated March 18, 2010 taken from the bulkheaded area showing the area proposed to be spanned with a new timber deck and the immediate shoreline area to the north of the site. Photograph E (Below): Photograph dated March 18, 2010 taken from the adjacent wharf area showing the area proposed to be spanned with a new timber deck and the immediate shoreline area to the north of the site. m r. is. �., y t t _ .r ydRratipt 1 —•.. t Yom, Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Current Project Site Photographs: (Continued) C,r s c� � ro^ r.si 5- V t i "71 1 "11 i my 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. � uti i if i :‘ lot,4...„ I0 St„,,, r Y , Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Current Project Site Photographs: (Continued) Photograph H (Left): Photograph dated March 18, 441 44* s' "°°' ' 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 I (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 utilized to anchor the new end of the shortened outfall pipe. Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Current Project Site Photographs: (Continued) Photograph J (Right): Photograph dated March 18, 2010 +'` "- looking west taken from the southern side of the portion % of earth-filled bulkheaded area to be spanned with a new timber deck. The dashed line shows the area to be replaced with the new timber bridge structure. Photograph K (Left): Photograph dated March 18, 2010 looking west taken from the southern side of the portion of earth-filled bulkheaded area to be spanned with a new timber deck structure. Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Current Proiect Site Photographs: (continued) Photo¢raph L (Below): Photograph dated March 18,2010 taken from the northern side of the portion of earth-filled bulkheaded area to be spanned with a new timber deck structure showing the immediate beach area to the north. Note the existing Town-owned Outfall pipe shown in the right hand portion of the photograph which is proposed to be shortened to coincide with the edge of the existing seawall as shown in Photograph I above. � fu Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Drainage Unit Photographs: Photographs taken on March 23, 2010 showing the f 3 Existing Drainage Units and grate configuration on Village Lane adjacent to the Entry onto Orient Wharf. a, F "'Y Ste= Y . ,�" t ai+ ' . • YJY , • • ry • ,,.,.. ;.�„r.— . , _ _ r .D' e Unit B Note: Arrows depict direction of flow of road runoff Drainage Unit C Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Historic Photographs and Information: The following historical photographs are digital copies of historic postcards and photographs provided by the Orient Wharf Company. a t 5 r a . ..„,,t a a E t zed A v , 4 1;14143 . . ' .•.. A I it!' " ' - '' " T-le 5. A %, .,. ?k NAI L 1. ' �ry' i a�� *1 I C g — 1"1 . tl lets, J. `t32 r . t 'k Y f A ; P "1 2' t y Y. . ii� j* M 2i�'� 'Nt �` r vktA, 1. + . P f7 s. 1'g{,sir „d 4 S. , — h k aria1 '1Ai'YeaQ f" a. Historic Photograph A (Above): Postcard from circa 1900 scanned from Orient Wharf Company records which shows a photograph taken from the Orient Harbor shoreline looking south onto the Orient Wharf which is shown in the background. The opening in the Wharf shown in the photograph is the location of the existing bulkheaded area proposed to be spanned with a new timber deck. Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Historic Photographs and Information: (Continued) say isms and-.W . —faMneto Otata.tat West. N• Y. " 1 , • 4 b 1 t is R b..+. Historic Photograph B (Above): Postcard from circa 1900 scanned from Orient Wharf Company records which shows a photograph taken from the Orient Wharf looking east onto the shoreline of Orient Harbor. The area to the left of the photograph is the area shown in current Photograph F. Historic Photograph C (Below): Postcard from circa 1900 scanned from Orient Wharf Company records which shows a photograph taken from the Orient Wharf looking east onto the shoreline of Orient Harbor. The area to the left of the photograph is the area shown in current Photograph C. Note the exposed seawall. Bay Minna and GttMn Ortat. L. I., N. Y. i q f.: x 1 f f.; • _psi.. . ..vr. Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Historic Photographs and Information: (continued) y SM -irm n 1 �Y4 t • frAu; y e,(t d X.111 �r'..ivy" ry r K 1± 4•11-":4N is c"u Nr‘ 4 .� Rs iJ s p� i� 44. E k � >Uyea y y _ !wacam ,r4.r.*iskor • dyne 474, tallik • ' hy�i fsj ' . �+ Historic 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 Wharf which is shown in the background. Note the existing bridge in the foreground of the photograph. Project Photographs PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Historic Photographs and Information: (continued) C k _ y n e' t* a w- `yb a'3 s 1 • -app' x ,'4,,,,,;„s;,. .„,. .,,,,,,,, 1 c #tom pi y '�s ilt S Historic 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 Wharf which is shown in the background. Note the horse drawn carriage and schooner tied up to the Wharf. r i 4' 3" e £ Y R P r' fp ix x, �, > ° :ass Lr �e a ep c rr ksr °' ' 4 ' tci ilYCx X sr i �Kr a ..A. • ago .4 , iril# 4 is m- • 4i } T Z = y14t� i? ps' •• 4N1), ..,;;:-.L .. . kittt 4 e. µ t y R P 9 ` f lit p e !Y L E G E N D °iv0`i°A'A...:wu.sarroaerofas&veto,d carwn.swca rub ow omen low MAP 114.5: REACH 5 —�_. Reach boundaries 4 . 0 mendicant com e "`a"`mFilthmdW 'thirst LongIsland Sound II Marine Zoning tOnen o'nt a Mif111a '4:S' iii�. 4 L' 2 /. aft Boat ramp A �} te ..of Spacial Concern � � �P' + rt3'r l s 71111 + F'lY- MLStmf!,: * um«wmaei(eslifr,. : .--1.t-F.z-,.:Dit°°`''carrit):: 1 - '« Igim NationalN/0mM LandmarkY,,,,,site,'-' , . ■ Park District .: ■ Pubic Open Space(landed Access) 53[ I �. iSusie Park O`r7 • a 35 ■ Town Park y T`i."t 17 3 p .5 , Dam Pon.) j - ��` � '�e, y,a t a - 61 ---+'------) r o4 .&, e - s ^"^"� beau: i own• b UMW •�" .74.'.'L'.e. ...�.r « � ' `� a' I I \ ' S �� iiuTA`SC1 4 _ .\ a — A � ia } '` -" ' anintPa. Satapm, SC15 < i , � : rritigzuaai . _ a ' ' rQnentHir .�Eit,' « L «i= o '. / St."--' n- �,QneMdHart r, } °i i .::i i SCFWHa «* n ' � \\ kiN - , ..Aka _ ..'" '» a '' A$Ct4;y. tR«ckSwrtiw l :� , X617 "ASGt8 r.. „ s �� r a �� ASCi9 Long Beach Point REACH 5 p • Yi( -` fij \ GRE PORT " �11 (V} SHE 7E�ISLAND(T) Yww,Waw W.wCtlYP.MOP}�sT.WML k �^ ��se a' � www�s.y 1•YO�ywfw I.fwF Map of Southold Town Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP)Area (Reach 5) PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York __ tiTii /y ..awl •.-u. a eea uran0e •roglam - :et a :a .: F, W .e rls Allo liy +�• !< MAP SCALE 1" = 500' k r w `, 50 0 500 1000 t 4 In LX0252 ;. 4 LIMIT OF MODERATE` i C x X FEET �2�. WAVE•ACTION �' r A "=21==1s, METE .} +," 4' +l;sii`1i�t - t 1 ' x i ser -"‘ ?N(l {' r t f fa s . �, �� y liii illllllllltPn x S, ;F * , . o , . IrNIFi�IP111 PANEL 0068H E • ' i FIRM a eZONEAE r ak z FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP Mat Mme+:• ,.'. i "? � ``'^ ; y�• 'yA,a�'"; lac I' � ii, , 11 for SUFFOLK COUNTY,NEW YORK (ALL JURISDICTIONS) • ' SKIPPERS N ti , t - v "•,h., W� Y` re ,y* :11_11,0 6 'm111ili CONTAINS: ,� ), t ,t vy= :i;. a t°x S. ,tP IE. COMMUNITY NUMBER •ROTECTED ' a a,441/4h 1 " v . ilu SOUTHOLD,TOWN OF 360613 LEGEND 991. ZONE AE .1 ( RI lit _ - �� - El at �/,��.'. 1 . t L Za•O+�NE�7a.•a•4°� r g♦ y^ _ •L ��' � , yTY. �.YT4 .•^ _ ,,,W THIS INCLUDESB WNOPAESCD THECOASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM ESTABLISHED UNDER THE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES ACT OF 19$ANO/OR SUBSEOUENT ENABLING LEGISLATION wit PANEL 68 OF 1026 el 1 . : MAP SUFFIX: H Si N,Z. L° ® (SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT) t ,, 4f t, cg Notice Is User The Map Number shown below should be V •' •q� f °_t ti'L fgT�'j' used MPlaong map orders' o Community Number O L •* .A 11.11 Mown t above should be used on osurance applications for the �ELs>;. LX02494 r .�, d fe 11111 Subled communtty LX0251• ' c " I� ^, MAP NUMBER LX0250 vi ; ICUs �� 36103C0068H EE �.• ti _ ;;;;; &mc,N � MAP REVISED ;` �: al SEPTEMBER 25,2009 a. Federal Emergency Management,\gooey �t f. •N ..` , at - This is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. It was extracted using F-MIT On-Una. This map does not relent changes \^Z. +, • maps or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the title block. For the latest product Information about National Flood Insurance iis Program food check the FEMA Flood Map Stora stb ..mac.fama.gov LS Jill M.Doherty,President Town Hall,53095 Main Rd. aes James F.King,Vice-President ( P.O.Box 1179 Dave Bergenyt� Southold,NY 11971 Bob Ghosio,Jr. ,\,`S, a Piv Telephone(631)765-1892 John Bredemeyer r,,i Fax(631)765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 72 HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK, TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT FOR A PRE-CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION. FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL BE CONSIDERED A VIOLATION AND POSSIBLE REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT. INSPECTION SCHEDULE Pre-construction, hay bale line 15t day of construction ''A constructed Project complete, compliance inspection. -- P c 7---2',:sii t , ., BOARD OF SO CPIt8u TOWN TRUSTEES , SOU'1'I1f3xa NEW a T PERMIT NO.73(073611C :DATE: �U�-•°r " �.2oi� , ,., '( ' '''''(._ ' ISSUED TO: ORIENT WI1 CJ... , PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2110 VILLAGE LANE,ORIENT %' 1 j t AVrill3R1 �rION ..7 ` Pursuant to the provisions of iliaptecr 1175 rnutior Cltiatfter.111'of thee`:1Wei r Cede of die 1'owtt of `' Southold and in accordance with the Resolution of the Board bf "t't steet a`dbpttl#'atte ineetr?tg held-,. y �' APPS M.X410 in consideration of ppllcation fee at the sum of$500 00 paid by Orient Wharf Co.and subject `M. Ej the Terms and'Conditions as stated'in'ddie lt8aOh ba,"the So ithald Towii Beini o£'Frustees\aut erizes and Penni Jdi ffilleniing; Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to replace the existing asphalt vehicl 7-C and access pavingada roa� ,11' 1130 id oVejr flitattieOa iandett'ltulldiead ° t ' pP � � ) � , structure with a new timber deck structure, and as depicted on the Otani by fV.F,- d last revised . , S ‘ IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the said Board of Trustees hereby causes RSCorporate Seal to be affixed, and these presents to be subscribed by,a tr ority-of the said Board_as o/f this date. 7cC 1'e m ' p�s f f*' 4' , ' i ., a :9 f \ n 't` jd `:.. , y,,,, i I E .^ 'ri'pe'r—l�iz I'4114.0111,_ air r 3 °a D ti A. r v; \( f :j.,,, , ci I � �. z \ / �, --- / Le\ ms..-,,:ay V 1 �_ � .,Ywyr • TERMS AND CONDITIONS The Permittee, Orient Wharf Co.,2110 Village Lane,Orient,NY, as part of the consideration for the issuance of the Permit does understand and prescribe to the following: 1. That the said Board of Trustees and the Town of Southold are released from any and all damages,or claims for damages, of suits arising directly or indirectly as a result of any operation performed pursuant to this permit, and the said Permittee will,at his or her own expense,defend any and all such suits initiated by third parties,and the said Permittee assumes full liability with respect thereto,to the complete exclusion of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold. 2. That this Permit is valid for a period of 24 months,which is considered to be the estimated time required to complete the work involved,but should circumstances warrant, request for an extension may be made to the Board at a later date. 3. That this Permit should be retained indefinitely,or as long as the said Permittee wishes to maintain the structure or project involved,to provide evidence to anyone concerned that authorization was originally obtained. 4. That the work involved will be subject to the inspection and approval of the Board or its agents,and non-compliance with the provisions of the originating application may be cause for revocation of this Permit by resolution of the said Board. 5. That there will be no unreasonable interference with navigation as a result of the work herein authorized.. 6. That there shall be no interference with the right of the public to pass and repass along the beach between high and low water marks. 7. That if future operations of the Town of Southold require the removal and/or alterations in the location of the work herein authorized,or if, in the opinion of the Board of Trustees, the work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to free navigation,the said Permittee will be required,upon due notice,to remove or alter this work project herein stated without expenses to the Town of outhold. 8. That the said Board will be notified by the Permittee of the completion of the work authorized: t 9. That the Permittee will obtain all other permits and consents that may be required supplemental to this permit,which may be subject to revoke upon failure to obtain same. /',,,,,iii.i�- Jill M.Doherty,President 4, SOUjyO Town Hall Annex James F.King,VicePresident l� 4 54375 Main Road Dave Bergen ; P.O. Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Bob Ghosio,Jr. as John Bredemeyer .' . $ Telephone(631) 765-1892 COW � Fax(631)765-6641 i BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 18, 2010 Mr. Walter Bundy 237 Walden Court East Moriches, NY 11940 RE: ORIENT WHARF CO. 2110 VILLAGE LANE, ORIENT SCTM#24-2-28.1 Dear Mr. Bundy: The Board of Town Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on Wed., August 18, 2010 regarding the above matter: WHEREAS, Walter Bundy on behalf of ORIENT WHARF CO. applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of Chapter 275 of the Southold Town Code, the Wetland Ordinance, and Chapter 111 Coastal Erosion Management, applications dated June 14, 2010, and, WHEREAS, said applications were referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council and to the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Coordinator for their findings and recommendations, and, WHEREAS, the LWRP Coordinator issued a recommendation that the applications be found Consistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program policy standards, and, WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said applications on August 18, 2010 at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and, WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and, 2 WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application, and, WHEREAS, the structure complies with the standards set forth in Chapter 275 and Chapter 111 of the Southold Town Code, and, WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will not affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town, and, NOW THEREFORE BE IT, RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees has found the applications to be Consistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, and, BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees APPROVES the applications of ORIENT WHARF CO. to replace the existing asphalt vehicle and access paving (an approx. 17' portion) over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure, and as depicted on the plans prepared by W.F. Bundy last revised August 12, 2010. Permit to construct and complete project will expire two years from the date the permit is signed. Fees must be paid, if applicable, and permit issued within six months of the date of this notification. Inspections are required at a fee of$50.00 per inspection. (See attached schedule.) Fees: $50.00 Very truly yours, fs. Jill Doherty, Presid frit Bo rd of Trustees JMD/Ims Jill M. Doherty,President �". %1 $004;--.. y$OOT� _ Town Hall Annex \ 54375 Main Road James F.King,Vice-President is"�� `; P.O.Box 1179 Dave Bergen . 4 41 t Southold,New York 11971-0959 Bob Ghosio,Jr. John Bredemeyer �` �O Telephone(631) 765-1592 1 \ �s Fax(631)765-6641 AUNTY, ,i BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COASTAL EROSION MANAGEMENT PERMIT Permit#7368C Date: August 18, 2010 SCTM#24-2-28.1 Name of Applicant/Agent: Walter Bundy Name of Permittee: Orient Wharf Co. Address of Permittee: 2110 Village Lane, Orient Property Located: 2110 Village Lane, Orient DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY: TO REPLACE THE EXISTING ASPHALT VEHICLE AND ACCESS PAVING (AN APPROX. 17' PORTION)OVER FILL AT AN EXISTING WOODEN BULKHEAD STRUCTURE WITH A NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE. CONDITIONS: N/A INSPECTIONS: FINAL The Coastal Erosion Management Permit allows for the activities as indicated on the plan prepared by W.F. Bundy last revised August 12, 2010. Jill . Doherty, Presiden Boa d of Trustees JMD:lms �g�fF�eO11.4t Jill M. Doherty,President Town Hall,53095 Main Rd. James F.King,Vice-President ; ,r, P.O. Box 1179 Dave Bergen ®�, Southold,NY 11971 Bob Ghosio,Jr. � �,t Telephone(631)765-1892 John Bredemeyer /0 1 �',,ji� Fax(631)765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Q,�f,Qr4{ (n\Cu U CO . Please be advised that your application dated l01 I l0 has been reviewed by this Board at the regular meeting of ' g115‘ 110 and your application has been approved pending the completion of the following items checked off below. Revised Plans for proposed project Pre-Construction Hay Bale Line Inspection Fee ($50.00) 1st Day of Construction ($50.00) 1/2 Constructed ($50.00) J Final Inspection Fee ($50.00) Dock Fees ($3.00 per sq. ft.) Permit fees are now due. Please make check or money order payable to Town of Southold. The fee is computed below according to the schedule of rates as set forth in Chapter 275 of the Southold Town Code. The following fee must be paid within 90 days or re-application fees will be necessary. You will receive your permit upon completion of the above. COMPUTATION OF PERMIT FEES: TOTAL FEES DUE: $ 5?'?. 00 BY: Jill M. Doherty, President Board of Trustees -- o�g�►fF0(�co Peter Young,Chairman ; Town Hall,53095 Main Rd. Lauren Standish,Secretary yyeh P.O.Box 1179 4P i‘ Southold,NY 11971 et os Telephone(631)765-1892 111 ,.I'. 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 0 t y ' - T K p..--,M zgaT 4 . tlaT 4w ....> V a- ■ . --� L - c o� • r i �« neer - ' bHn „irrti se ki °'ate ' Y t 11y e s ,..t.-7:,41,...A4$'....tt, t'` t .4 Ite.&' Y5 'd' , ,, `¢Y ,t z n a a.� l':4:4„,.s 4 .n Y�R,.Y S „i”8� a A. z'..5 6„y •.- �.1,�.��, ¢ 444--- . IV . Fih t'-,_ Y �' JOINT APPLICATION FORM ,' (151] ,--4,41 For Permits/Determinations to undertake activities affecting streams,waterways •`•* waterbodies,wetlands,coastal areas and sources of water supply. New York Separate Permits/Determinations must be obtained from each involved agency US Army Corps of State prior to proceeding with work. Please read all Instructions. Engineers(USACE) 1.Check All That Apply: 2. Name of Applicant(use full name) Applicant must be(check all that apply): Orient Wharf Company ® Owner 0 Operator 0 Lessee NYS Department of Environ- mental Conservation Street Address Taxpayer ID(If applicant is NOT an individual): MI Stream Disturbance 2110 Village Lane J� deli/ � Excavation and Fill in Navigable 5fC/ ,s Waters Post Office City State Zip Code Telephone(daytime) Email U Docks,Moorings or Platforms Orient, NY 11957 631-323-2580 ...Dams Dams and Impoundment 3. Name of Facility or Property Owner,if different than Applicant Structures :R 401 Water Quality Certification Street Address 1U Freshwater Wetlands '. 4, rdal Wetlands :❑Coastal Erosion Management Post Office City State Zip Code Telephone(daytime) Email �0 Wild,Scenic and Recreational ._.—. . � Rivers 4•.cQte dflf Agent tidy Name Company Name' ❑Water Supply Wad i Ill Long Island Well Street Address ■Aquatic Vegetation Control 237 Walden Court •Aquatic Insect Control Post Office City State Zip Code Telephone(daytime) Email ❑Fish Control East Moriches NY 11940 631-878-3102 wlbundvan,aol.com US Army Corps of Engineers 5. Project/ Fadlity Name Property Tax Map Section/Block/lot Number MI Section 404 Clean Water Act Orient Wharf SCTM#: 1000-24-2-28.1 "V 'on 10 Rivers and Harbors Project Location- Provide directions and distances to roads,bridges and bodies of waters: Act 0.43 Miles south of Main Road (SR 25)at 2110 Village Lane within the Hamlet of .Nationwide Permits)-Identify Orient at Orient Harbor shoreline,Town of Southold Number(s): Preconstruction Notification- Street Address, If applicable 0 Y / ❑ N 2110 Village Lane NYS Omce of General Services Post Office City State Zip Code Telephone,if applicable Email (State Owned Lands Under Water) Orient NY 11957 !■ Utility Easement(pipelines, conduits,cables,etc.) Town ofSout cold Wutolk ;`• Docks,Moorings or Platforms I Name of USGS Quadrangle Map Stream/Water Body Name Orient Orient Harbor NYS Department of State Location Coordinates: Enter NYTMs in kilometers,OR Latitude/Longitude in degrees,minutes,seconds ' 1 Coastal Consistency Concurrence NYTM-E I NYTM-NLatitude Lo itude 141°08' 12.10"N 172°18' 17.52"W 6. If applicant is not the owner,both must sign the application. I hereby affirm that information provided on this form and all attachmentssubmitted herewith is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. False statements made herein are punishable as a Class A misdemeanor pursuant to Section 210.45 of the Penal Law. Further,the applicant accepts full responsibility for all damage,direct or indirect,of whatever nature,and by whomever suffered,arising out of the project described herein and agrees to indemnify and save harmless the State from suits,actions,damages and costs of every name and description resulting from saki project. In addition,Federal Law,18 U.S.C.,Section 1001 provides for a fine of not more than$10,000 or imprisonment for not more than 5 years,or both where an applicant knowingly and willingly falsifies,conceals,or covers ' up a material fact;or knowingly makes or uses a false,fictitious or fraudulent statement. Sign, re of :pill..nt a Printed Name Title Date l -- �� 7 5. LintonNDuell President,Orient Wharf Co. of r �� Pri 9WAbove Title Da S'••r-�• - f � Printed Name Title Date , I v![�. A Walter Bundy Documentation Preparer .J 11 For Agency Use Only DEC Application Number: USACE Number: 1 JOINT APPLICATION FORM - PAGE 2 OF 2 Submit this completed page as part of your Application. 7. Project Description and Purpose: Provide a complete narrative description of the proposed work and its purpose. Attach additional page(s) if necessary. Include:description of current site conditions and how the site will be modified by the proposed project;structures and fill materials to be installed;type and quantity of materials to be used(i.e.,cubic yds or square ft of fill material below ordinary high water,or of structures below mean high water);area or excavation or dredging,volumes of material to be removed and location of dredged material disposal or use;work methods and type of equipment to be used;pollution control methods and mitigation activities proposed to compensate for resource impacts;and where applicable,the phasing of activities. The existing wooden bulkhead structure with fill and asphalt vehicle and access paving (an approximate 17' 0" portion) is to be replaced with a new timber deck structure as per Engineer's drawings and specifications. The new timber deck structure is proposed to replace the existing deteriorated fill and asphalt surface. The wharf structure both seaward and landward,of the area having the asphalt pavement replaced by a timber deck structure, will remain as exists except for some minor asphalt repair work to blend the asphalt pavement surfaces with the height of the new timber deck surface. The wharf structure seaward of the am has an existing enclosed filled structure with stone and cement retaining walls; and the opposite side of the timber decking will connect to an existing seawall that exists at the shoreline, enabling the proposed new timber deck structure to span the 2 existing supporting structures with no additional support piers or pilings needed. Proposed Use: U Private U Public L Commercial Will Project Occupy Federal, State or Municipal Land? U Yes it No If yes,please specify. Has Work Begun on Project? U Yes IJ No If Yes,explain. Proposed Start Date` June 15,2010 Estimated Completion Date: June 30,2010 8. List Previous Permit/Application Numbers(if any)and Dates: 9. WIN this project require additional Federal,State,or Local Permits 12 Yes 0 No If Yes,please list: including zoning changes?Southold Town Trustees Permits for Wetlands,CEHA.LWRP and Historic District reviews and approvals are anticipated. 10. Based on the permits and determinations requested and project location,check all the boxes corresponding to each of the Agencies and Offices to which you are filing an application. For Agency addresses and areas covered, refer to the Agency Contact Information on the Application Instructions-Page 2. ® NYS Department of Environmental Conservation CION 1 Stony Brook REGION 5 Ray Brook REGION 7 SyracuseREGION 2 Long Island City ®REGION 5 Warrensburg Sub-Office REGION 7 Cortland Sub-Office RREGION 3 New Peitz ❑REGION 6 Watertown REGION 8 Avon REGION 4 Schenectady OREGON 6 Utica Sub-Office REGION 9 Buffalo ❑REGION 4 Stamford Sub-Office REGION 9 Allegany Sub-Office ® US Army Corps of Engineers ® NYS Department 0 NYS Office of General ®NY District,NYC 0 N District,Watervliet 0 Buffalo District of State Services For Agency Use Only DETERMINATION OF NO PERMIT REQUIRED Agency Project Number has determined that No Permit Is required from this Agency for the project described In (Agency Name) this application. Agency Representative: Name(printed) Title Signature Date New York State Department of Environmental Conservation _ `/ PERMISSION TO INSPECT PROPERTY By signing this permission form for submission with an application for a permit(s) to the Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC"), the signer consents to inspection by DEC staff of the project site or facility for which a permit is sought and, to the extent necessary, areas adjacent to the project site or facility. This consent allows DEC staff to enter upon and pass through such property in order to inspect the project site or facility,without prior notice, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday. If DEC staff should wish to conduct an inspection at any other times, DEC staff will so notify the applicant and will obtain a separate consent for such an inspection. Inspections may take place as part of the application review prior to a decision to grant or deny the permit(s) sought. By signing this consent form,the signer agrees that this consent remains in effect as long as the application is pending, and is effective regardless of whether the signer,applicant or an agent is present at the time of the inspection. In the event that the project site or facility is posted with any form of"posted" or"keep out" notices,or fenced in with an unlocked gate, this permission authorizes DEC staff to disregard such notices or unlocked gates at the time of inspection. The signer further agrees that during an inspection, DEC staff may, among other things, take measurements, may analyze physical characteristics of the site including, but not limited to, soils and vegetation (taking samples for analysis), and may make drawings and take photographs. Failure to grant consent for an inspection is grounds for, and may result in, denial of the 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, 1 affirm under penalty of perjury that I am authorized to give consent to entry by DEC staff as described above. I understand that false statements made herein are punishable as a Class A misdemeanor pursuant to Section 210.45 of the Penal Law.* Linton Duell,President,Orient Wharf Co. Print Name and Title Signature Date *The signer of this form must be an individual or authorized representative of a legal entity that: • owns fee title and is in possession of the property identified above; • maintains possessory interest in the property through a lease,rental agreement or other legally binding agreement;or • is provided permission to act on behalf of an individual or legal entity possessing fee title or other possessory interest in the property for the purpose of consenting to inspection of such property. A-7- r. M..- rrr ..•. -- y.m.m -.- .r__- . v . ..._ m.n nnm'•rre..a _ ppp 16'3" i . — Mali i 4 - N 4 1 SrN E r �e f sr. _ • ,.....sttua_ • _ . 3 117 I II ara^ L _ °I)e, • at. _ tar WI artr \\*s s• Nora COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Q i SOUTHU➢ SECTION NO rr — _ ____ un-- ..me..m.m.w. riA> Rea Property Tax Sate kem Y 024 E N vim- mu . O m. —_ - _ __ r.v Oi,.•-!q w.°m�r_ un N wnu. n__ name 1000 PROPERTY NW -- rr.n r�rnr • ..' r rew ww.rw - awm.mlesam w.•. v r.. ww.eu rw rwnr r r.. �• J� rtr•emr•u maims. ° us. _ .. _. . _ Ngo..6.. —J OFFICE LOCATION: i SOO: MAILING ADDRESS: Town Hall Annex its 4' 4 P.O. Box 1179 54375 State Route 25 1 Southold, NY 11971 (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY 11971 �n ac Telephone: 631 765-1938 • "P)), �O Q� Fax: 631 765-3136 11 CCjJ .j,��`;11 LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM i [ To: Jill Doherty, President f Town of Southold Board of Trustees „� L From: Mark Terry, Principal Planner L "" ' a LWRP Coordinator = P Date: July 19, 2010 Re: Proposed Wetland Permit for ORIENT WHARF COMPANY SCTM#24-2-28.1 Walter Bundy on behalf of the ORIENT WHARF COMPANY requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to replace the existing asphalt vehicle and access paving (an approx. 17' portion) over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure. Located: 2110 Village Lane, Orient. SCTM#24-2-28.1 The proposed action has been reviewed to Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town of Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Policy Standards. Based upon the information provided on the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form submitted to this department, as well as the records available to me, it is my recommendation that the proposed action is CONSISTENT from LWRP. Pursuant to Chapter 268, the Board of Trustees shall consider this recommendation in preparing its written determination regarding the consistency of the proposed action. Cc: Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIF"'T WHARF �oggFFO1,f. G Jill M.Doherty,President en . + Town Hall,53095 Main Rd. James F.King,Vice-President ,q,. '� P.O.Box 1179 Dave Bergen �tt' Southold,NY 11971 Bob Ghosio,Jr. -- 40 ��.' Telephone(631)765-1892 John Bredemeyer 4 - 1,,,'' Fax(631)765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Office Use Only ✓('osstal Erosion Permit Application VWetland Permit Application Administrative Permit _Amendment/Transfer/Exlension x loco ved Applicati. i I ss f mo�erved Fee:S rlt1`�-r a♦ , ) L� S L1 �V L Completed Applica.. T EOM!b i I Li/ — - Incomplete \ SEQRA Classification: I ! j Type i_Type II Unlisted U i.' JUN 1 4 2010 ; Coordination:(date sent) I VLWRP Consistency Assessment Form rj a-\1 -"CAC Referral Sent: _-6Sc '"e'd f Inspection: 1W cS Trus ice,r{ 1r .es /Date of Receipt of CAC Report Lead Agency Determination: Technical Review: (PG6HGHearing Held: elI,4l1LD Resolution: Name of Applicant Orient Wharf Company Po 6 9-'12 Address 2110 Village Lane Orient,NY 11957 Phone Number( ) (631)323-2580 Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000- 242-28.1 Property Location: 2110 Village Lane,Orient,NY 11957 0.43 Miles south of Main Road(SR 25)at 2110 Village a within the Hamlet of Orient at / .f)rient Harbor shoreline Tnwp of. i (provide LILCO Pole#, distance t+ d'ss, - - _ .` lo /.on) AGENT: Walter Bundy �1 / 1,1 0/0 (If applicable) Address: 237 Walden Court,East Moriches,NY 11940 Email: wlbundv6i aoLcom (631)843102 a C Phone: (OkaQ\fib ) PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Board of Trustees Applica..ion GENERAL DATA Land Area(in square feet): +1-3,230 Square Feet(Upland Area minus Wharf Structures) Area Zoning: Property Classification: Social Organization; Zoning District: "M-1" Marine Previous use of property: Wharf&Marina Facility Intended use of property: Wharf& Marina Facility(No Change in Intended Use) Covenants and Restrictions: Yes Int No If"Yes",please provide copy. Prior permits/approvals for site improvements: ency Date Southold Trustees 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 fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with to be replaced with a new timber deck structure as ': . . . . . . . .. :ted fill and asphalt surface. See attached documents for additional information. DBOPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIF'yT WHARF Board of Trustees Applica..ion WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA The existing filled wooden bulkheaded structure proposed to be Purpose f the ptpposed ape:Mons: resu aced wrt�t new umber king 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 existing bulkhead dun not allow the aspl.alt pavement ox the MI situated 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 will be filled? 0.0 cubic yards Depth of which material will be removed or deposited: 1.5 feet (Maximum Depth) Proposed slope throughout the area of operations: No Slope Exists or Proposed Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: Site reconnaissance activities identified that the top 12 to 14 inches of existing fill immediately below the asphalt pavement surface consists of unclean fill containing cement, steel, other metals and asphalt chunks. Due to the above, as part of the proposed tim • • , _ • • - •. • _ . . - _ .• .• ber deck structure will have all asphalt, and fill materials removed p down too a level below the existing beam pockets; and then remov eme tht titee dt,it any, n t o wetly and tdtll taw ers of the town that may result by ement o e ec t 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. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIF*7 WHARF Board of Trustees Applic, on COASTAL EROSION APPLICATION DATA Purposes of proposed activity: Replacement of deteriorated asphalt pavement over fill with a new timber deck structure Are wetlands present within 100 feet of the proposed activity? No XXX Yes Wetlands situated on Adjacent Property Does the project involve excavation or filling? No XXX Yes If Yes,how much material will be excavated? 31.0 (cubic yards) How much material will be filled? 0'0 (cubic yards) Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: All asphalt and fill materials removed down to a level below the existing beam pockets will be removed from the site and disposed of at approved upland sites. Describe the nature and extent of the environmental impacts reasonably anticipated resulting from implementation of the project as proposed. (Use attachments if necessary) The existing asphalt pavement and supporting fill has deteriorated to a point whereas safe access is no longer provided; and the condition and integrity of the existing bulkhead does not be repaired in a permanent manner. Due to the above, as part of the proposed timber decking work, the area having the asphalt pavement replaced by a timber deck structure will have all asphalt, and fill �� w . i i i �i siva a i t � •. i i: i i i K: i i i i. . ' �;• : � � i i removed from the site and disposed of at approved upland sites. Approximately 31.0 cubic yards of material is anticipated to be removed and disposed of at approved upland disposal sites. The removal of the unsuitable material will prevent it from causing future deterioration of the adjacent wetlands and shoreline. scoofolor 4. co--, Jill M. Doherty,President Town Hall,53095 Main Rd. James F.King,Vice-President �, P.O. Box 1179 Dave Bergen ` ®y 2'tt Southold,NY 11971 d� Bob Ghosio,Jr. 'T/ t~ Telephone(631)765-1892 John Bredemeyer `- CI # ��,'� Fax(631)765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD {gip BOARD OF TRUSTEES: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Q U i Ii JUL 2 1 2010 D; In the Matter of the Application of Lr ORIENT WHARF CO. 0 r tte° " Tri`!ees COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, N oretre y , residing at fJha- 27P \AIA(Q Vs.) 4=5_,) t KAc iM62,1/4( kI c , tom` 4` 4-0 being duly worn, deposse and say: That oA the I�ay of S v , 2010, I person11 pasted the property known as �,►.14> \\\ �..� chic l�I�tAG.43 lar' U(Z it U' by placing the Board of Trustees official poster where it can easily be seen, and thatt I have checked( to be sure the poster has remained in place for eight days prior to the date of the public hearing. Date of hearing noted thereon to be held Wed. Jul 21 2010 on or bout 6:Us 1 Dated: � eta. (signature) Sworn to b fore me this a1St1a ofcti4tj200'0 Notary Public / LAURA.I.DUBOIS Notary Public,State of New York No.4953089 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires July 3,20 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF (SCTM#: 1000-24-2-27; 1000-25-3-12.1 & 1000-26-1-1.1) PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS Name: Address: Timothy Frost P.O. Box 636, Orient, NY 11957 (SCTM#: 1000-26-1-1.1) • Timothy & Nina Frost P.O. Box 636, Orient, NY 11957 (SCTM#: 1000-254-12.1) David & Clare Air 315 8th Avenue, Apartment 12-B, New York, NY 10001 (SCTM#: 1000-24-2-27) STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK t residing at22,1 V.6pYdlCs�.l 4j being duly sworn, deposes and says that r n the day of \u ,201 O, deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice • set forth in the Board of Trus Application,directed to each of the above named persons at the addresses set opposite there respective names;that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the address of said persons as shown on the current • assessment roll ofsfi}}e Town of Southold;that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at the"( IVIp,(Lct3. ,that said Noticgs were mailer to�each ofpaid p u by (certified)4cg a..red)mail. Ce uv,A')ec elver (Ge �s� O.1Ll, T Raver .,t5 \re5'izs as 47 / ! L� • Sworn to efore me this a. Day of �1 u 20 it a A cLQ . Notaryl, •lic LAURA J.DUBOIS Notary Public,State of New York No.4953089 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires July 3,20� PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER (SCTM#: 1000-24-2-27; 1000-25-3-12.1 & 1000-26-1-1.1) BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the matter of applicant: Orient Wharf Company SCTM# 1000-24-2-28.1 YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to request a Permit from the Board of Trustees to: Replace existing deteriorated asphalt pavement over fill with a new timber deck structure 2. That the property which is the subject of Environmental Review is located adjacent to your property and is described as follows: 2110 Village Lane, Orient, NY 11957; 0.43 Miles south of Main Road (SR 25) at 2110 Village Lane within the Hamlet of Orient at Orient Harbor shoreline,Town of Southold 3. That the project which is subject to Environmental Review under Chapters 96,111 and/or 275 of the Town Code is open to public comment on: DATE: Wednesday,July 21,2010 on or about 6:00 PM You may contact the Trustees Office at 765-1892 or in writing. The above-referenced proposal is under review of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold and does not reference any other agency that might have to review same proposal. PROPERTY OWNERS NAME: Orient Wharf Company MAILING ADDRESS: 2110 Village Lane,Orient,NY 11957 PHONE #: (631)323-2580 AGENT: Walter Bundy • MAILING ADDRESS: 237 Walden Court,East Moriches,NY 11940 PHONE#: (516)885-7764(cell) Enc: Copy of sketch or plan showing proposal for your convenience. Copy of Modification Plan,Revised May 03,2010; prepared by WF Bundy,East Moriches NY 11940, is attached. RUNOFF FLOW FROM .. .. ').>.- VILLAGE LANE 04, EXISTING ROAD N, my\ DRAIN • de I INTERCONNECTING EXISTING ROAD 't, DRAIN PIPES DENOTES RUNOFF FLOW •sb ASPHALT PAVEMENT ..• ....• .....•. :..•.::::.. .'-';;?•:;*.:•;.:?•::-.t:.:::::::::::::"•::-/ . . ............. ••••••••••••••••••••••• .-.......•....... ..,....................., ••••• • " • -•• :,17,.:V6ft. .•:•9,,..??..; • ' " ' • • " •.•••• ••••••••••• • • •• • •-• '•• • • •• •• " • " • •-• ------- ...--.77---ytt ."?-.:•::•.;:. •?•:2;1::: ;.; r.n ...........„{. . . VILLAGE LANE EXIST ROAD DRAIN CONNECTED TO en :*••• OUTFALL PIPE .... id VIA.11freve la•, _64.44.... W. tee Vet ›.t; .-. - .... ...- -- - ,.. 4 ..- ‘ • • •• ... .0 ,,bsSES ... ,-4130014:-..• ". NOTE: Structures not drawn to scale or located I EXIST GONC CURBPftaPtal..... ..." I/ ... 0 ylaISTING FENCE % " WAR MEMORIAL 1 ...........,..,.:.-!,:.;;;-:;...": ...., ....... •„:•••••••:wi-•-•:::f::;:.: ":'•Vir.t..:;;V:•.:7::•:.; ..r.:-.z.:;:-..:•:;::tiai• • •• ••••• ••••• ..-••••........ • ••••A'••••••••••;•y:::.:::: -..-- 'IOFZikiiilieee st. WALLAWN ."P0414e lI s y 4$ CTM# 1000-26-1-11 :.r;..."••:•'•-:•‘;•••1••:;:••:::•::Y•:;•.*:::::...:..::f:-.•YI••.•:::.•.t,!.•.•::•::•• •• ft --::).:5-:is-'-%-:::-f• :-.:::,:•::::::yr.-.:•,-.:-.2 .1144444,1::, . 4'4 LAWN Xlie '.1.•":".'clA61.„, ' s, . r•se,' it • ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ .3/4.-..,' I-- ' '., 049' "..."..."„': .".."..'„'‘'W.:: z b , ".".."."," -tat ,,‘,,,...,,,‘,,:-.., Iv Ill . • • • • • • • • • • • .. - / e Nck.ao ''''''' , ,i; ej lauftkep*J‘tiS3- , , , , , , , , . . . . . . ... . . . ... ., ... • 4. `.. • 4%70 • ‘ ... ‘ \ ‘ '.. \ %. 4. • 4. N. ‘ 4.. 1 ... ... l • ... S. ja ..#0 S. 4% %/1111;r4414ilrig/ .1 (14 . I .4 .4 .4 / / / / e f,.., -4 > i eiasittiG- „. „. •„. , ., • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .4 4, ‘ ''. • N. 4. • .4 N. % PE-,... .,:- I , ,•,•‘• • •_,c_e_z_e_d • • • • • • • • .e.• ,C. e ‘ • 'MI SEACHASRASS`,`'‘ b Li 3f nualinar,•;,•,',•,• • • ow- , • en. ,.. , , , , , , , , ,' in < t ,, ,',',/,',/,', , , , , , , , , ycti„vp . • , S. .-yet i././../,',',"..','..' 404 z . ...-1./...' c„."...', ...8..W'f,110, Mai. ‘ ..".' .., ' ., '44N" m ' " 1 '9 13- I i ,,,,, , ,/,,,,,e, , , , ,-,-,-, ,/,' -_ ltl. Ntr' ,, ..-- . ,•st •, i.,•,•,‘„‘,‘,•,‘, c Ck) ' S. l •.....,...\ • •\ • • % N • • 4 4• t F .j././•e•/.: /%1•1'4'4.'‘'%/N./%/N.1.‘e'flerr.‘ ' p.faCe °AO'. S. • .._ 1. ", .../,........-,11 t •',/,',/,',/,',/,',/,'./....„.1 4cfn-0-1.; , sooN0 se.;,.." • • ... PIPE • ‘`‘',i.1 0 '. ,./."." '.-v4n. •• '4c..., , ' . .c.,4„..,:sikre•il 7 ,,, , , , , , , , , , . r. , pectil...' 1 eels,.-. , ,‘ 'EXISTING BURIED • - , ,,,,,,IA0 ,.., 1% No.....• EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO ././„ • •,41 i , /sEAwALL aide- -- • i ,-,-,,,-,.,.., ,• • -,,;,...,,,, ...,:,-- - BE SHORTENED TO COINCIDE WITH ,`...".."2.2.2. 'IP ii i Lf ,-,-,•,•,•,' , 2,•:-1.,•,•„• „,e,...- . -- EXISTING RIPRAP WHICH WILL BE ... • " " ''. ` •• ••‘ " ' ,..480....' . --... „1:4* .t,,,, ., . ., , ...‘06,,,y,,,...., , ote RE-UTILIZED AT NEW END OF PIPE 6 . i , 7:11;#. tar' 1' /,' ' St," _ 91........ ...-- • c . ct& ... .g.. I. .\se' i - It • i 0 -' y101;-- BEACII,ARfir 202'"... ,..jel) ••••"re --... ‘\ e°7 BEACH AREA se;...." •,. 0,(.. - SEE SECT1016eFOR Ø .,---* OF3S' • '1)4* '' t9 66 it 99 , ET .- ••• . Q %. 4. a "te A99 ''' # ....' EXLSTING END OF % "ION ''' , ---- •""/Ai... ... OUTFALL PIPE • -- . • ,•''' • .- iiROJECT ARFA- I EXISTING ACCESS VIAASPHALT PAVEMENT 1101E. % ,,,„TOIVMEBRERFILDLETCOK BSETRIJECPTLAURCEEDSPWAINTHNINNGEWTHE Intomation shown on this Sketch reflects Survey Infomialion as prepared by John C.Ehlers,Land AREA SHOWN Surveyor,dated September 1999&May 2010 ORIENT HARBOR EXISTING BOULDER&BULKHEAD WHARF w/ _ FILL&ASPHALT SURFACE ,eekek SCALE: 1"= 30'0" '1/4.k PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS Plan Drawn by: WF Bundy ch 26,2010 Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Date: Mar Revised: May 3, 2010 SCTM#: 1000-24-2-28.1 Sketch prepared by WF Bundy,East Moriches NY 11940 Ck'd by. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIFNT WHARF PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS Name: Address: STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ,residing at ,being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the day of , 20_, deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth in the Board of Trustees Application, directed to each of the above named persons at the addresses set opposite there respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the address of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold;that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at ,that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified)(registered)mail. Sworn to before me this Day of ,20 Notary Public PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WIIARF NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER BOARD OF TRUSTEES. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the matter of applicant: SCTM# YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to request a Permit from the Board of Trustees to: 2. That the property which is the subject of Environmental Review is located adjacent to your property and is described as follows: 3. That the project which is subject to Environmental Review under Chapters 96,111 and/or 275 of the Town Code is open to public comment on: DATE: You may contact the Trustees Office at 765-1892 or in writing. The above-referenced proposal is under review of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold and does not reference any other agency that might have to review same proposal. PROPERTY OWNERS NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE#: AGENT: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE #: Enc: Copy of sketch or plan showing proposal for your convenience. .' )POSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF „ Town of Southold Erosion, Sedimentation & Storm-Water Run-off ASSESSMENT FORM --I !- i' PROPERTY LOCATION S.C.TaI.k THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS MAY REQUIRE TIM S1SNM510II OF A - - sr: 1000 24 2 28.1 weir /law- '- is Ott:rig SY A DEEPEN RI TIE-STATE OF NENF YOAK SCOPE OF WORK - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ITEM# / WORK ASSESSMENT Yea No e. What in the Total Area ofthe Protect Parcels? • 1 WE tins Project Retain AN stoma-Water ISmgf (Include Total Nes of e1 Parcels bated MIN +/-475 SF Generated bye Two(2')ince Radek on Site? the Scope of Work for Proposed Construction) (sy.tam= (This Item von Include ad/runoff created by Me b. What it the Total Area of Land Clearing dewing and(aroone ruction activities as wet as ad/ 1�A CI and/or Ground Distortional brthe proposed +/-475 SF Site improvements and the permanordaeadon of construction actvky+ impervious surfaces.) IAP.mast 2 Does the Site Plan and/or Survey PROVIDE-ERIN PROIFfl DESCRIPTION iron eowban=vas Jrainagestructuresbegoarng e g Loo io ?lass Existing wooden bulkhead structure with fill & alma anal Includeeel Prelessee Grade end MA Controlling Surf asphalt vehicle & access paving (approx. 17' 0" JBBace wear Row. portion) to be modified with a new timber deck 3 �egirnent the Site�prengoesinetbewee tond/or Survey daubs the N/A Ill structure replacing the existing deteriorated fill & control site erosion end WON water aediages. This asphalt surface. Wharf structure seaward & Mani ra'at be maintained dsaghout the Ste landward of the area of the new timber deck structure Construction ' will remain as exists except for some minor asphalt 4 NMI this Project Require any Lad Fang,Grading or Eneca me n where there is a theme to the Non II t/ repair work to blend the asphalt pavement surfaces Existing Grade Involving more than 200 Cubic Yards — with the height of the new timber deck surface. ("Weds in'law Pan's° Structure seaward is an existing enclosed filled 5 womb APplicoMr Require Lad Diswbkg Activities MI structure with stone and cement retaining walls; and Encompassing'(5.000s.FJ1lquao Area n Excess8eeFaetotGlamdg Suface?Five Thousandw the opposite side of the timber decking will connect to 6 is yore a NaMS water Cases Running through the tan existing seawall at the shoreline. Site? is this Prefect vain the Trustees)t,pdiction II Enna uou alarm remaemseve: or within One Hundred(1001 feet ofa Wetiend or Subduce da=PPP Y NOW far as Condudon adult.unciae ad fir? dm.araae of one(t)a mare ansa;inaadlea raa.lYnes of len wren one ern that 7 where be Site preparation on egging Grade gives mpad da lager cannon plan Met ill Wmsby=ab as armor sues ata= which Exceed Fifteen(16)feetoiVertical Rise to e MOAN Oemeudon_SMaa Nvastg sal ti werE tea eat one et)sae%Nem One Hundred(1g0')of Hodaadd Die ns? M DEC has deYmerd that a SPOES pinata ns ukedforetam tater Medic= (=PPP%era mat Se lNrhaan Regimeaane claw WOES Gamna Wast 8 WE Driveways,Pairing Areas or other impervious e for No=Wader OYeharon Sea Carsmaam natty-Pena Ne.G0.O4e401.) Surfaces be Sloped to Direct Stern-Wafer Ru-Off it I.The SWPPPrWa=wed Korb the=MOMclaw Nd.7M Nd sid be noandkr In the dream ora ram dglsW-way? awnredbthe Oepimwdptabthe eannnsarddsaemrd= =AN a she SWPPPski Sea=11*aodenendsedrentma dmatesandthere 9 Wel yds Protect Require the Placarnert of Mass. required.poolartnehilke can wear nnenaganad wed=that tel be used=far Removal of Vegetation adbr the Construction Many IN oaabuded b rakers Oe po*ifl In taxi durdadagesad b aeras (tem Wain the Town ....J sntharetamsandwrdaaedampem kiat..terSWPPPdW .*at WaleaRaa grApr �. sus.amar wanes dpoaronwWdr art'.Remy be spaded b sea the Aree7lna aw.araaawre.rrr.ersr..-sAwerJ quay den weaaadrrga. NOM NAryMires te Oua4esOre enough Rae lPawned vibe Chu*aeh A Al SWPPP.t t require M pasteeMnatla Moms=sr raaa-rrapsbs) In a Rex=dee aerrYWat elle aabaaaase Is WMar Lea S.P.iamb ane, earrparateMbe pawed by wad Deign Pruhaatard and In NeWIrak •SarnMeN Orrig,Orateaaa ErSen Calot ha S RapiadhyawTeta at Mt le aaweedgeete I.the pMdplas and practices at Storm waerklaraparad eaaewaaed in=SWelledfor RA=Piot b Musa ef Pas=lag Pante. pat ArA.eraadnfllardYrAaaasaaW/aarmYM1aespeOaneYNApgwtwg STATE OF NEW YORK, //�� Notary PubliclESOtate q York COUNTY OF... T.:C .„...SS No.01131.16185050 That Walter Bundy o Qualifiedin Suffolk ,, on.Ofire isi ezi lima.'__.-.....-.being y sworn,deposes std says o P�4 And that he/she is the Agent for the Orient Wharf Company _._.pane. adlo salts. _._...._.... .__ ._..._._.... .lo•rar.Coieador,/giriLthorpsrardilser,anal�.«......_._. Owner and/or reptesentafivve of the Owner or Owners,and is duly authorized to perform or law performed the said work and to make and file this application;that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his .. , . r`, helieh and that the work will be performed in the manner set forth in the appliaRm filed herewith. Sworn to beForer this; e of ag Notary Public /��1 ..... A�/^_, liar FORM -06!10 V PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIFA/T WHARF PROJECT ID NUMBER 617.20 SEAR APPENDIX C STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART 1 -PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) 1.APPLICANT/SPONSOR 2.PROJECT NAME Orient Wharf Company Modifications to Orient Wharf 3.PROJECT LOCATION: Municipardy Orient,Town of Southold County Suffolk 4.PRECISE LOCATION: Street Addess and Road Intersections, Prominent landmarks etc -or provide map 2110 Village Lane,Orient,NY 11957; 0.43 Miles south of Main Road(SR 25)at 2110 Village Lang within the Hamlet of Orient at Orient Harbor shoreline,Town of Southold(See Map) 5.15 PROPOSED ACTION: 0 New 0 Expansion ®MOdifcation/alteration 6.DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: Existing asphalt vehicle and access paving over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with to be replaced with a new timber deck structure as per Engineer's. The existing asphalt pavement and supporting fill has deteriorated to a point whereas safe access is no longer provided; and the condition and integrity of the existing bulkhead does not allow the asphalt pavement or the fill situated below the pavement to be repaired in a permanent manner. Due to the above, as part of the proposed timber decking work, the area having the asphalt pavement replaced by a timber deck structure will have all asphalt, and fill materials removed down to a level below the existing beam pockets; and then removed from the site and disposed of at approved upland cites 7.AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially 0.011 acres Ultimately 0.011 acres Project Area is+/-476 Square Feet 6.WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS? ®Yes ❑ No If no,describe briefly: 9.WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? (Choose as many as apply.) nResidential D Industrial ®Commercial ❑Agriculture Park/Forest/Open Space ®Other (describe) Property Classification: Social Organization; Zoning District: "M-1" Marine 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING. NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (Federal, State or Local) ®Yes n No If yes, list agency name and permit / approval: NYSDEC Permit/Approval 11.DOESANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? [JYes ®No If yes, list agency name and permit I approval: 12. AS A RE ULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/ APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? Ekes LINO NOT APPLICABLE I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant / Sponsor N: - in o i 1 uell,Orient arf Company Date:IIII Signature l ;,./ ! - z rh d If the action is a Costal Area,and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment PART N- IMPACT ASSESSMENT(To be completed by Lead Agency)• A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR PART 617A? If yes,coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF. ❑Yes ©No • B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR,PART 617.67 If No,a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. El Yes ©No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING:(Answers may be handwritten,If Iegtle) Cl. Existing alt quaky,surface or groundwater quality or quantity,riolse levels,existing traffic pattern,solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: INo C2.Aesthetic,agricultural,archaeological,historic,or other natural or cultural resources;or community or neighborhood character?Explain briefly: No C3. Vegetation or fauna,fish,shellfish or wildlife species,significant habitats,or threatened or endangered species?Explain briefly: No C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted,or a change In use or Intensity of use of land or other natural resources?Explain briefly: INo • C5. Growth,subsequent development,or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?Explain briefly: INo C6. Long term,Whgtt term,cumulative,or other effects not identified in C1-05? Explain briefly: No C7. Other knpactsjindudirg changes in useof either quantity or type of energy? Explain briefly: INo D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA(CEA)? (If yes,explain briefly: DYes Q No E. IS THERE,OR IS THERE UKELY TO BE,CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? If yes explain: Yes Q No PART SI-DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE(To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above,determine whether Us substantial,large,Inportantorotheiwiseise significant Each effect should be assessed in connection with its(a)setting(I.e.urban or rural);(b)probability of occurring;(c)duration;(d)Irreversibility;(e) geographic scope;and(f)magnitude. If necessary,add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail.to show that all relevant adverse impede have been Identified and adequately addressed. If question d of part II was dtedud yes,thedetemlinationofsignifcancemustevaluatethepotentialImpactoftheproposedactionontheemlronmentalcharaacteristk of the CEA. Check this box Ifyou have Identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse Impacts which MAY occur.Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. Chedr this box If you have determined,based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation,that the proposed actior WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental Impacts AND provide,on attachments as necessary,the reasons supporting this determination. Board of Trustees Name of Lead Agency Date Jill M. Doherty President Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(If different fromh responsible officer) PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Board of Trustees Application County of Suffolk State of New York Mr-WM=14410sY 2/Aii a/' _I eb OF// BEING DULY SWORN DEPOSES AND AFFIRMS THAT HE/SHE IS THE APPLICANT FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PERMITS)AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF HIS/HER KNOWLEDGE AND BF.T.TRF, AND THAT ALL WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION AND AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF TRUS 1'EES. 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 TRUS 1 EES, THEIR AGENT(S)OR REPRESENTATIVES(S), TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY TO INSPECT THE PREMISES IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION. S . ; SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS / (Q DAY OF *r,� ,20/() LAUREN DIew Notary Public, NewYork n " "gqtQuapedainHdc otaryPublic Commission Expires April y, ii_ PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Board of Trustees Application . AUTHORIZATION (where the applicant is not the owner) 1, Linton Duell,President,Orient Wharf Cotesiding at .4K 493 j (print owner of property) (mailing address) do hereby authorize (Agent) Walter F.Bundy to apply for permit(s) from the Southold Board of Town Trustees on my behalf. (4:17 11 / Le.01S = signature) • I PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF APPLICANT/AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the sort of town officers and employees.The purpose of this form is to provide inforination which can aktt ttte town of possibkconfli _ofhttete$UUad allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. Bundy,Walter F.; for: Orient Wharf Company YOUR NAME: (Last name,first name,middle initial,unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity,such as a company.If so,indicate the other person's or company's name.) NAME OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax grievance Building r� - . Vace Change of Zone Coastal Erosion x Approval of plat Mooring ng Exemption from plat or official map Oth"rHistorical,Wetlands,LWRP „rather-,name t�activity.) Do you personally(or through your company,spouse,sibling,parent or child)have a relationship.with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship"includes by blood,marriage,or business interest."Business interest"means a business, including a partnership,in which the town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of(or employment by)a corporation in which the town officer or employee owns more than 5%of the shares. Mai YES NO If you answered"YES",complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold Title or position of that person Describe the relationship between yourself(the applicant/agent/representative)and the town officer or employee.Either check the appropriate line A)through D)and/or describe in the span provided. The town officer or employee or his or her spouse,sibling,parent,or child is(check all that apply): A)the owner of greater than 5%of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant • (when the applicant is a corporation) B)the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a noncorporate entity(when the applicant is not a corporation); C)an officer,director,partner,or employee of the applicant or D)the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP Submitted this day of 200 Signature Print Name Walter F. Bundy Form TS 1 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Town of Southold LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM A. INSTRUCTIONS 1. All applicants for permits* including Town of Southold agencies, shall complete this CCAF for proposed actions that are subject to the Town of Southold Waterfront Consistency Review Law. This assessment is intended to supplement other information used by a Town of Southold agency in making a determination of consistency. *Except minor exempt actions including Building Permits and other ministerial permits not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. 2. Before answering the questions in Section C, the preparer of this form should review the exempt minor action list, policies and explanations of each policy contained in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. A proposed action will be evaluated as to its significant beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area(which includes all of Southold Town). 3. If any question in Section C on this form is answered "yes" 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 Planning Department, all local libraries and the Town Clerk's office. B. DESCRIPTION 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): Town Board ❑ Planning Board❑ Building Dept. 0 Board of Trustees 0 1. Category of Town of Southold agency action(check appropriate response): (a) Action undertaken directly by Town agency(e.g.capital ❑ construction,planning activity,agency regulation,land transaction) ❑ (b) Financial assistance(e.g.grant,loan,subsidy) (c) Permit,approval,license,certification: I-1 Nature and extent of action: �� Review and Approval of Proposed Project PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Location of action: 2110 Village Lane,Orient,NY 11957 Site acreage: 0.011 Acres (Project Area is+1-476 Square Feet) Present land use: Wharf& Marina Facility(No Change in Intended Use) Property Classification: Social Organization; Zoning District: "M-1" Marine Present zoning classification: 2. If an application for the proposed action has been filed with the Town of Southold agency, the following information shall be provided: (a) Name of applicant Orient Wharf Company 2110 Village Lane,Orient,NY 11957 (b) Mailing address: (c) Telephone number:Area Code( ) (631)3234580 (d) Application number,if any: Will the action be directly undertaken,require funding,or approval by a state or federal agency? Yes El No❑ If yes,which state or federal agency? NYSDEC C. Evaluate the project to the following policies by analyzing how the project will further support or not support the policies. Provide all proposed Best Management Practices that will further each policy. Incomplete answers will require that the form be returned for completion. DEVELOPED COAST POLICY Policy 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space,makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location,and minimizes adverse effects of development. See LWRP Section III—Policies; Page 2 for evaluation criteria. O Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Applicable It is believed by the Orient Wharf Company and its consultants that the section of the wooden bulkhead structure with fill (an approximate 17' 0" portion) that connects the main wharf structure to the shoreline requires rehabilitation and no longer provides safe access to the wharf facility. Instead of simply replacing the existing structure in kind, the Orient Wharf Company and its consultants recommends the replacement of the current method of access (asphalt pavement over fill) with a new timber deck structure which connect into existing beam pockets from the original bridge structure. Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III—Policies Pages 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Applicable PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIFNT WHARF 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 hridge features,historical aspects of Orient Wharf are hero _restored and —eehen=ed,pendP- ng com letion-of future.improvements Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III-Policies Pages 6 through 7 for evaluation criteria Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Applicable The location of the proposed wharf modifications coincide with the lot.atiun of the in igival location fur the timber bridge structure at the Orient Wharf. It is— believed by the Orient Wnarf Company and Its consultants that the placement of 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 restored and enhanced. Attach additional sheets if necessary NATURAL COAST POLICIES Policy 4. Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. See LWRP Section HI-Policies Pages 8 through 16 for evaluation criteria ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Applicable The section of the wooden bulkhead structure with fill that connects the main wharf structure to the shoreline has been experiencing severe erosion of the fill below the asphalt pavement and no longer provldi% sale access to the Wharf fac0lky. Instead of simply replacing the esisdng structure In kind, the Orient Wharf Company audits consultants rw mruends the replacement of the ca..eut method of a..cvsa(asphalt pavvulcnt oie. fill) with a new limbs. deck al.utlme wl.:a.l. wuuwt— without dapanding ono the evicting filled hplirheydad whirl' in detariorntin sod ni. g Irn4 attPnaiva rernnstrnctinn to facilitate continued safe use for access. Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section HI -Policies Pages 16 through 21 for evaluation criteria ® Yes ❑ No ❑Not Applicable The intent of the timber deck structure is to provide immediate and long-term safe access for vehicles and pedestrians to the Orient Wharf Facility; without depending upon the existing filled bulkheaded which is deteriorating and requires extensive reconstruction to facilitate safe use for access. The placement of the new timber deck structure allows continued safe access to Orient Wharf and allows the entire wharf facility to be addressed as a unit in its future permit submittals identified below. Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystems including Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and wetlands. See LWRP Section IH-Policies; Pages 22 through 32 for evaluation criteria. ❑ 0 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Yes No Not_.pplicable The Orient Wharf Company will be submitting in the near future, separate projects to modify their • the forilifina withnnt"hnttnming not»_ Attach additional sheets if necessary 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 0 Not Applicable Not Applicable to Proposed Project Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. See LWRP Section HI—Policies; Pages 34 through 38 for evaluation criteria. ❑ Yes ❑ No [] 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 HI—Policies; Pages 38 through 46 for evaluation criteria. ® Yen No❑ Not Applicable The pier which extends into the harbor dates back to the 1800s. The site is owned by the Orient Wharf Company, a local for profit enterprise. Orient Wharf is an active shipping pier, harbor and mooring facility on the north-eastern shoreline of Orient Harbor accessible off of Village Lane in Orient and Though privately owned. the wharf provides Orient residents access to Orient Harbor and adjacent cog still wgters Attach additional sheets if necessary TRANSMITTAL FROM: Walter F. Bundy 237 Walden Court East Moriches, New York 11940 Telephone: (631)878-3102 email: wibundy@aol.com DATE: Monday, August 02, 2010 TO: Town of Southold Town Trustees Town Hall Annex Building , 54375 Route 25 �>> P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 AUG 2 2010 cc: Linton Duell, President, Orient Wharf Compan Drew Dillingham, Professional Engineer F` .;`1,,- SUBJECT: PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Submittal of Revised Modification Plan & Sections indicating Topographic Elevations at Project Area COMMENTS: As per comments received during the July 21, 2010 Trustees Meeting; attached for inclusion into the documentation submitted for Orient Wharf are the following revised sketches: 1) Orient Wharf Modification Plan, Revision "A" dated July 29, 2010 indicating the topographic elevations at the Project Area 2) Orient Wharf Sections through Existing Bulkhead, Revision "A" dated July 29, 2010 indicating the topographic elevations at the Project Area Should you have any questions or comments concerning the attached information or the Orient Wharf submittal, please do not hesitate to contact me at 631-878-3102 or by email at wfbundy©aol.com. Thank you, Wal r'ey,/e n be/ -If of,�y Orient Wharf Company f' � II RUNOFF FLOW FROMD' VILLAGE LANE fie EXISTING ROAD • \IL. ///S DRAIN ,�.,/INTERCONNECTING EXISTING ROAD DRAID DRAIN PIPES \ DENOTES RUNOFF FLOW ♦\ ASPHALT PAVEMENT ♦\ EXISTROADGDRAINAN` _ PRQp= . ....BoUtEs� \♦ CONNECTED TO - .„ — \ . OUTFALL PIPE NOTE: y 4 — ' �. 4 — N` Structures not drawn :i: t 1 :i.'':z`:':?:• II • to scale or located S:i ::• •:. .-;{! ;{;i{.::: eple♦0:4 .I I • EXIST CONC CURB fO. - ;EXISTING FENCE -:::{ : ,. ::::'-`::_: be \\,�� i WAR MEMORIAL`.`•:'.i; _•:i:::?{i: > Iry� F LAWN I ,,SCTM I-10110-2B-1-11 :'ti.:(:`Cv:ir;,`+ ±.30F ISi1NG a LAWN , .:':, ' fie � , .44 it >. '' ►0 2 } vlPu' r` cTrY ` 'e�070Ii-� j I �SStN09URtED SFA 14F F,A OF UGIASSTISNG 't1 2 J` pR ` CH R 'Il ) a 1 t REA 3F.OGTINGD\-7 N`� T `` ,E ..• • •` PIPE r Pp ell". ' ..°-- `•� ''� °' 1 r EXISTING BURIED pP ; -. 10� EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO tE? I SEAWALL �; t' ^''" lMs�'L�. �.- BE SHORTENED TO COINCIDE WITH - '',jf 1 l .,' � . r'` �>t�� -- RE-UTILIZED NEW ENDOFPPE " 1-, - .r {1...�4•'a `,.✓ ,,,,� "5FN% ' `o%e..--* ',• `♦'`(�dy , �:1. �yrt�' "'c�.m4s9Y/ �_+'EAcIJ$t, ' 42t1'.?- tlali� ��i Bio BFACH AR I lM�� \ �� 5�-- s r e 1 - 'EE SECTIOtWFOR pp . �.. For Tope Elevations,other than those fey II ' _h ADWTIflNAL DETMLS. 'ON shown at Project Area:see John C. '- �G1: • �� - Ll '.-. biers Survey dated June 9,2010 `„,.. 1. . 1%♦ ' �. ��Nt.�. a'STING END OF Ewe' -tea ., --� - QOUTFALL PIPE ', 28'0" .'�' �` -- 'PROJECT ARF-; EXISTING ACCESS VIA ASPHALT PAVEMENT OVER FILL TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW Information shown on this Sketch reflects Survey .TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SPANNING THE Information as prepared by John C.Ehlers,Land Surveyor, h AREA SHOWN . _. September 1999,May 2010&June 2010 ORIENT A RBOR I EXISTING BOULDER&BULKHEAD WHARF w/ FILL&ASPHALT SURFACE ersa, SCALE: 1"= 30'0" 1/4 '' PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Modification Plan Revision "A" Drava'by: WF WFB,July 29,2010 Date: March 261 I, it $-ient Wharf'Company, Orient New York ded Elevations at Project Area Revised: May 3, 1 ; - SCTM#: 1000-24-2 -28.1 Sketch prepared by WF Bundy,East Moriches NY 11940 July29,SV Ck d by: ' i AUG - 2 L0'0 1 EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE TO BE REMOVED& REPLACED WITH A NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE SUPPORTED AT EXISTING BEAM POCKETS AT EACH END EXISTING FILL TO BE REMOVED TO LEVEL BELOW EXISTING BEAM POCKETS+/-18"(APPROX 20 CY) +1.28'0" AND DISPOSED OF IN AN APPROVED UPLAND SITE. EXISTING PILINGS&SHEATHING TO REMAIN _ Q EXISTING GRADE Li m(( S O-$ I �1l i i i i ;i;.; ,.•i;c i;: : : i ati EXISTING GRADE EXISTING BOULDER&BULKHEAD STRUCTURE w/ FILL EXISTS BEYOND THE SECTION BEING f EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE A SHORTENED(SEE MODIFICATION PLAN) SCALE: 1"= 10'0" SECTION_ if1 51 THRU EXISTING BULKHEAD LOOKING WEST . hu - 2 za)o , 1 EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE ON BOTH L—T ENDS OF NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE Sat` o ees I NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE — Eoard of Truste1 AS PER ENGINEER'S DRAWINGS TO BE PATCHED&PITCHED AS REQ'D EXISTING FILL TO BE REMOVED TO LEVEL BELOW EXISTING TOWN OUTFALL PIPE TO BE +l-28'0" EXISTING BEAM POCKETS+/-18"(APPROX 20 CY) T NEWSHORTENED& PIPEING(SEIPL AP UTILIZED Q ,I �a ND DISPOSED STIING PILINGS&SHEATHING TO REMAIN OVED UPLAND SITE. AT NEW END OF PIPE(SEE PLAN) g.^__ _, St f S,_ _ 4 +�;.��- ' •—�I � EXISTING GRADE • . ISTINGG DE arilltr�a�i pal I For Topo Elevations,other than those EXISTING CONCRETE SEAWALL AT SHORELINE shown at Project Area;see John C. EXISTS BEYOND THE NEW TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE Hers Survey dated June 9,2010 I ASCALE: 1"= 10'0" SECTION ��B�� THRU EXISTING BULKHEAD LOOKING EAST it If 1 NlIE. WFB,July 29,2010 Information shown on this Sketch reflects Survey ded Elevations at Project Area Information as prepared by John C.Ehlers,Land Surveyor,dated September 1999&June 9 2010 inrw -w SECTIONS THROUGH EXISTING BULKHEAD Drawn by: W :undy Date: March 26,2010 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Revised: 03 May 2010 29 July 2010(Noted Elevations at Sections) Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Ck'd by: SCTM#: 1000-24-2-28.1 Sketch prepared by WF Bundy,East Moriches NY 11940 TRANSMITTAL FROM: Walter F. Bundy 237 Walden Court East Moriches, New York 11940 Telephone: (631)878-3102 email: wfbundy©aol.com DATE: Monday, June 14, 2010 TO: Town of Southold Town Trustees Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 h Southold, NY 11971 J cc: Linton Duell, President, Orient Wharf Company Drew Dillingham, Professional Engineer I i 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'`+SMITTAL FROM WalterF. Bundy ,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 material to approved upland sites. As identified in the attached documentation; the existing filled wooden bulkheaded structure proposed to be resurfaced with new timber decking is currently covered with asphalt pavement and is utilized for all vehicular and pedestrian access to the wharf facility. As identified by the accompanying photographs, the existing asphalt pavement and supporting fill has deteriorated to a point whereas safe access is no longer provided; and the condition and integrity of the existing bulkhead does not allow the asphalt pavement or the fill situated below the pavement to be repaired in a permanent manner. The new timber decking will replace the existing deteriorated asphalt pavement and supporting fill. The Orient Wharf Company would like to commence project activities immediately; therefore a Town Trustee permit or approval to proceed is requested at your earliest convenience. Should you have any questions or comments concerning the attached submittal, please do not hesitate to contact me at 631-878-3102 or by email at wfbundy©aol.com. Thank you, Wafter Bun• on b =If • - Orient Wharf Company TRANSMITTAL FROM: Walter F. Bundy 237 Walden Court East Moriches, New York 11940 Telephone: (631)878-3102 email: wfbundy@aol.com DATE: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 TO: Town of Southold Town Trustees D [ (� �' Q pj 2 Town Hall Annex Building ✓ t5 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 JUN 2 3 2010 Southold, NY 11971 Soufhhold Town cc: Linton Quell, President, Orient Wharf Company Board of Trustees Drew Dillingham, Professional Engineer SUBJECT: PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Submittal of Southold Town Trustees Permit Application and Supporting Documentation COMMENTS: Attached for inclusion into the documentation submitted for Orient Wharf are the following items: 1) Completed Erosion, Sedimentation & Storm-Water Run-off ASSESSMENT FORM 2) November 19, 1978 Site Survey prepared by Van Tuyl, which was inadvertently excluded from previous submittal. Should you have any questions or comments concerning the attached information or the Orient Wharf submittal, please do not hesitate to contact me at 631-878-3102 or by email at wfbundyna.aol.com. Thank you, Waft r B /' ; o hip he Orient Wharf Company 1 TRANSMITTAL FROM: Water F. Bundy 237 Walden Court East Moriches, New York 11940 • Telephone: (631)878-3102 email: wfbundy@aol.com DATE: Monday, August 16, 2010 TO: Town of Southold IECEOVErni Town Trustees Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 AUG 1 7 2010 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Southhold Town Board of Trustees cc: Linton Duel!, President, Orient Wharf Company Drew Dillingham, Professional Engineer SUBJECT: PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORIENT WHARF Orient Wharf Company, Orient New York Submittal of Revised Modification Plan & Sections indicating Project Modifications and Submittal of Engineers Drawing for Proposed Timber Deck COMMENTS: As per comments received during the July 21, 2010 Trustees Meeting; attached for inclusion into the documentation submitted for Orient Wharf are the following revised sketches and the prepared Engineer's Drawing of the Proposed Timber Deck Structure: 1) Orient Wharf Modification Plan, Revision "B" dated August 12, 2010 indicating the deletion of the Outfall Pipe Modifications at the Project Area. 2) Orient Wharf Sections through Existing Bulkhead, Revision "B" dated August 12, 2010 indicating the deletion of the Outfall Pipe Modifications and the reduction in the amount of fill proposed to be removed at the Project Area. In lieu of the removal of all underlying fill beneath the existing asphalt pavement, which was proposed due to the apparent unsuitable material that was observed during reconnaissance activities; it is now proposed to remove only that fill located between the existing beam pockets to allow placement of the new support beams. TRANSMITTAL FROM Walter F. Bundy Proposed Modifications to Orient Wharf Page 2 3) Engineers Drawing of the Proposed Timber Deck Structure, prepared by Corwin, dated April 1, 2010. Should you have any questions or comments concerning the attached information or the Orient Wharf submittal, please do not hesitate to contact me at 631-878-3102 or by email at wfbundy@aol.com. Thank you, Waite Burr ; on • , • r. the Orient Wharf Company // I 08/07 '10 TUE 12:28 FAX 631 765 6145 SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK •.. Trustees 2001 ELIZABETHA.NEVILLE TOWN HALL, 53095 MAIN ROAD TOWN CLERK P.O. BOX 1179 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS SOUTHOLD NY 11971 MARRIAGE OFFICER FAX:MANAGEMENTRECORDS 631-765-.{614S 0 FREEDOMNFORMATIONOFFICER southoldtownE'LJ v lS a 7�8'0JE nn 2 II V LS q `, JUL �;' - 7 2(110 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLE ' Southhold Town TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Board of Trustees APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete section I of this form and give to Town Clerk's Office (agency Freedom of Information Officer). One copy will be returned to you in response to your request, or as an interim response. SECTION I. 7guiree-c TO: StmfOl_e Tak o(Department or Officer,iown,that has the information you are requesting). RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: (Describe the record sought. If possible, supply date, file title,tax map number, and any other pertinent information). ___O –lam — lA) W.F Cil • E1 Signature of Applicant: /5,,,,,,,..."'N &— Printed Name:1U1"/L1 , T1�_ °a - rte_ Address: 26 t– U` y tn4C C,-e " r ' N^7 Mailing Address(if different from above)): �0 Lf 8 /� i1 97 1\1'1 10 00 Telephone Number: b Si 11 ti 1Y1 \ Date: `j / 5j 2_vl 0 APPROVED OW] IMNIED* [ ] APPROVED WITH DELAY* JUL 6 2010 Elizab .Neville Date D��mA� I° Clefts Freedom of Information Officer s® Accepting Clerk's Initials_ , *If delayed or denied, see reverse side for explanation. ; . ; ( pCO ..... E �I � JUN 2 3 2010 DF _ !I 5 i ` i Southhold Town Board of Trustees I Ii 1 - t %LT:- _ 1 i I I d { GU a D --- ti11 V I .. L--- 142,;'t/.'h,, /1 C 7 ctup + tt I - ccrlcrel� over rc��dl e J C - _ I r- 1 ii. /.., 1 D 0 c'1/7 �.._. _ ill .1, i1 -- t cIe iv1 40 4 r i UNAUTHORI1ED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY IS A VIOLATION.OF .. SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW. COPIES OF THIS SURVEY MAP NOT SEARING /� THE LAND SURVEYOR'S INKED SEAL OR ,/ I , J ' P b EMSOSSEDlEAL SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED i%�� f•y'':!? i�.,iYJ />✓1J /'; i,f�?}}•i tt✓ f.�, fy. �A.',,., I T / . ! /� TO RE A VALID TRUE COPY. / /tom �._ GUARANTEES INDICATED HEREON SHALL RUN �\_ r? J kJ C:-. PC (z/-.? /may 72-a / / 7- c.---- .- ONLY TO THE PERSON FOR WHOM THE SURVEY " y� J 1$PREPARED, AND ON HIS BEHALF TO THE / ^�.�•^""� ( TITLE COMPANY, OVERNMENTAL AGENCY AND (•„_.,. . e-'1.....-.-. �yr•�A•F� _ LENDING INSTITUTION F SWLD H RLON. AND ___ _-. „__ -�,_ TO THE ASSIGNEES OF TaF LENDING INSTF -,I e.� /r IUTION.GUARANTEES ARE NOT TRANSFEMIL , I•:i / 7 •{ <1:'/(y y e i...:l N r TO ADDITIONAL IHSTII TIONS OR fUKWUEM . c' / / OWNERS. KT., Y e 4 c_7 .-, r 4.- /\f P,_ Ifs' le.., re k y 14 ' f y o oer/ 'A'e5 /i"Jdt'aa. -/"e'ec crC -/7c `?JG._ r n:: E:'G-4't..'ir, .2 - ri't`7YJ'G": -* /'000 e a — cif PRO ATE /R--" /� .SG✓Rb(E"VEG ,'(^R 7.116- S!""�- /F.—A/. r 1/0-/A F C, O/�"gi'--- f AT //sr NT ! i N / sere el t4 ye " 147. it 1 0 \ Q / • t" eyrt •e'er lx // • 2. -l' F,/ five 540 Wil Fir -74e 1!.: 17%p L �7Lff ;4tl -74-a g• kflt-2 .:r �%/tom - �'„ "' y /'t: `* /Coo, and ar ' 1, 4. 6/F_�c':4.-. , C "r ' C Fel -C 4 ; s r' • I1N i 1 1; II I; Ii _, I� GI Ir r '+ 2 r Nr " r f 1- / y S. 8 2' a;3 4 n it �\ - r-- GC, NG' 1-e JCC'. L1'(9 ' -- 1 n- _. -... w L5' y/ _ I it 0 , ✓n _ k- 14 /.` / a) _ o, len f' . //e�`rt conn t( i / I _ '] t +/ 6 {yr_a Cc3N! r 7 CG: r t \\ C-\ Re4y -et /T i IN I 1 I v. •;i �` \ LI i-ri{ . '( (/t/ ,,_, 7. 7L I C tl 1r /, . 4 . 1,. r -. j _ J i .. f /Fi . � , x 1 5t. , 8 zt, '".3 s 00 frk,, J, — ",: / L I • .r l Y'c r '. 1 . • .. . , w \ , . SURVEY MAP "THE ORIENT WHARF° SITUATE; ORIENT TOWN: SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY SURVEYED 05-10-2010 REVISED 06-04-2010 SUFFOLK COUNTY' TAX * 1000 - 24 - 2 - 28.1 Q ERITIFIED TO: ORIENT WHARF COMPANY JUN 1 4 2010 ✓'S It Southold Toa Board of Tr;tt r orieICI ® • g Fixed l� F,^ Y l Docks 588°38'351E . °, _ 19.46' I LL � Lba0� " Fbat 1(1\1_ ° . t S88°24101"E 194.86' et p qday—.- U (� w. & ov lf1 $ Asphalt Qm. line g s wkACe wooi w Pie" ..—..._.,� 589°29'46"W P4a"am 316.11' ® dent 1HI � GRAPHIC x ?, x I 1 / ]/. I Flx • I ,' x x f I / / / / II o Harbor / / ¶ Ml / I tE]-21Q ® �1IleJ111t / I l I :!.2:.9 l/ I / it I! i x 9 Hp1115 9 E1•-%3j �l•1,� E1•-26 / / / /i1•1 z1 IT / / % 7�z/1 E] 1 /21/ El 'F5132 � ; � i66S5S5S59A Ca � �- � E1--26 / Elid5 /�5 °/ jm a Q125,125,000V3J / l/ / CI eE � / / / / K ,•2:Q' Sr /1 / / I E - eiV / E ))) 1 . / / z / / k WINS ell] 1.10111111.1111111" /� z 3 �/3 % // / �Q11f' 4E] I • �k10.2e01W i 1_— E1--2.< /x1 5f ��5L///`'E1-X'_F G ty:11 _.._ e • 'JrI"E 1444.86' ' swe 205.0A I O 9 sus, 0 W p • Asphalt Surface over Stone Pieri \ fit mw C -.../�/ \ ten, �.{3ts3/4pe 'f x ` \x ♦ ` �E13 � � f Seix'1213 ` El•- 5 , x l cp x- (•_ vo ) ital ♦ � ,p iii \ % \ \ o%,81 9 ` +y.\E1.29 x` • \ \\\ „s • \ \ �j f� E1--�2 2 \. El•X rIl 1111 Harbor � �\ 41• 5 �El•2.0 814 1 GRAPHIC SCALE 16=50' JOHN C • N S -.03.5 r x 61.2:9 I 1 ,. x E1•-2.5I x % /El-_1141 / I , , 1 , / I / / , / /E1.2 i5 E ,/ / / /I / ...-2.9 Iiii x EI--1.31 _ , ,. 4.E , x% / l /� 1.3.5 x , / E1--0.6 / c , I , ,x U , , I �1 ,,4- (/ .0 E I x El 4E1-2 :x x3.2 S� / a i s; / ❑-- .8 / R / Q, m IIYKJIffY /x c F vse h^ E f,,�� k e E3•f.b .2. 2 / I tD'Y/ J. / ,�1 x, Al~ / � �C E] 1 61.1.6 i / , x , i O�-1.9 X34 x1 O 100ME efl 1. 13 P ,, 1`lf/ x -Agog'• , , �,' .a ow1ip11 ro�"'� ♦• 0\0,4 JAI+�� / p G r ,.6� e4"1'QO"W 120.E o ��0.O �IfIP . \ly�plttai t �, J El .5. N p \ K \E149 \ x\ S • OA \\ \ ♦ •' \ \ \ S \\ E1-_'zx2 \ O\ \\61.14N \ 90 \ El• .5 E1•2.6 X>1 o�(04 •s*,pF NEby Y y4-OaN G €1/44 Q _ 4PT p F� * 3 p . C. c!,), i ¢ .At p JOHN C. EHLERS LAND SURVEYOR