Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Jones, Alexandra
DiSalvo, Diane From: Jonathan Perry <jperryl2nyc@me.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 1:09 PM To: DiSalvo, Diane Subject: Application for Alexandra Jones Attachments: Letter to Jones 3-9-16.pdf Hi Ms. DiSalvo, Could you please add the attached letter to Ms.Jones Application file. I was recently contacted by the US Army Corps of Engineers regarding this issue. I assume that she will reactivate the application. If you have any questions please contact me. Please also confirm receipt of the letter. Jonathan Perry Jonathan Perry 435 East 571h Street Apt 14B New York,NY 10022 Ms.Alexander Jones March 9,2016 36 Blacksmith Court Huntington Station,NY 11746 Dear Ms.Jones, I made a most disturbing discovery this past weekend. I discovered that your house located at 1230 Bayberry Road is for sale.When you initially came to my front door you asked permission to build a dock on my land underwater.You clearly stated that you wanted to have a place to keep your boat for the purposes of fishing in the bay.Under those circumstances I agreed that I would deed you the land under water in front of your upland property at no charge.Your only expense would be for all the administrative costs associated with obtaining the appropriate permits,and the fabrication and execution of the deed. With the potential sale of your property it is clear to me that your motivation centered about your potential financial gain.With the gift of my land,your property would clearly command a higher resale value.Under this new set of circumstances I can no longer give you the land underwater in front of your property.I would, however be willing to sell you this property.The cost of the land would be Twenty Thousand Dollars.If you are interested in purchasing the property please have your attorney contact Mr.Cardinale. Jonathan Perry DiSalvo, Diane From: Born, Sabrina Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 9:59 AM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth; DiSalvo, Diane Cc: Doroski, Bonnie; Neville, Elizabeth; Rudder, Lynda; Smith, Jennifer Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Request for Public Records Please respond directly to the applicant and provide a copy of the response to the Town Clerk's Office as well. Thank you, say WAI vanes Account Clerk Typist Southold Town Clerk's Office 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Ph: 631-765-1800 ext. 1226 Fax: 631-765-6145 From: noreply@civicplus.com [mailto:noreply@civicplus.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 9:50 AM To: Neville, Elizabeth; Rudder, Lynda; Doroski, Bonnie; Born, Sabrina Subject: Online Form Submittal: Request for Public Records Request for Public Records First Name Jonathan Last Name perry Address 1 750 Aborn Lane City Cutchogue State NY Zip 11935 Mailing Address Field not completed City Field not completed. State Field not completed. 1 Zip Field not completed. Phone Number 212-223-0320 Email Address iperry12nyc(D-me com Records I would like any and all documents submitted to the Trustees regarding the fabrication of a dock by Ms. Alexandra Jones with a local address of 12309 Bayberry Rd, Cutchogue, NY Department Other Signature of person Jonathan Perry making the request Do you agree? I Agree Email not displaying correctly?View it in your browser 2 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Division of Environmental Permits,Region 1 SUNY 0 Stony Brook.50 Circle Road,Stony Brook.NY 11790 P:(631)444-Q3651 F:(631)444-0360 www.dec.ny.gov May 2, 2016 Mr. Alexandra Jones 1230 Bayberry Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 RE: Permit No.: 1-4738-04449/00001 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 for the referenced activity. 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 and a Notice of Commencement/Completion of Construction. Please note, the permit sign and Notice of Commencement/ Completion of Construction form are sent to either the permittee or the facility application contact, not both. Sincerely, Laura F. Star Environmental Analyst LFS/Is NEWYORK Department of Environmental Conservation ft NEW YORK STATE 1pEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION law Facility DEC ID 1-4738-0"49 PERMIT Under the Environmental Conservation Law CL Permittee and Facility Information Permit Issued To: Facility: ALEXANDRA JONES JONES PROPERTY 1230 BAYBERRY RD 1230 BAYBERRY RDISCTM 1000-118-2-9 CUTCHOGUF,NY 11935 CUTCHOGUE,NY 11935 Facility Application Contact: COLE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PO BOX 471 MANORVILLE,NY 11949-0471 (631)369-9445 Facility Location: in SOUTHOLD in SUFFOLK COUNTY Village: Cutchogue Facility Principal Reference Point: NYTM-E: 715.092 NYTM N: 4541.444 Latitude: 40°59'45.0" Longitude: 72°26'33.9" Project Location: 1230 Bayberry Road Authorized Activity: Construct stairs and landings. 'Construct a 4'x 18'fixed dock with a ramp and a 6'x 20'float. All authorized activities must be in strict conformance with the attached plans stamped NYSDEC approved on May 3,2016. (LFS) Permit Authorizations Tidal Wetlands-Under Article 25 Permit ID 1-4738-04449/00001 New Permit Effective Date: 5/3/2016 Expiration Date: 5/2/2021 NYSDEC Approval By acceptance of this permit,the permittee agrees that the permit is contingent upon strict compliance with the ECL, all applicable regulations,and all conditions included as part of this permit. Permit Administrator:LAURA J SCOVAZZO,Deputy Regional Permit Administrator Address: NYSDEC Region 1 Headquarters SUNY @ Stony Brook150 Circle Stony Brook, 11790-3 9 Authorized Signature: Date 15--l-- Page 5 /Page 1 of 6 ANU • e G 4 SHORT FORM ORDER INDEX NO. 17139/2014 /PP�EEMERT-STATE OF NEW YORK I.A.S. TERM PART 37 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. JOSEPH FARNETI Acting Justice Supreme Court MOTION DATE: SEPTEMBER 30,2016 NASSAU POINT LAGOON, INC., 1663 FINAL SUBMISSION DATE: FEBRUARY 16,2017 MTN.SEQ.#: 001 BRIDGE LLC, JAMES D. WEEDEN, MOTION: MD JUSTINE K. WEEDEN, JOHN WOLLEBEN, PATRICIA WOLLEBEN, JOYCE A. MOTION DATE:JANUARYS,2017 FINAL SUBMISSION DATE: FEBRUARY 16,2017 SAMPIERI, NORA FLOTTERON, JOSEPH MTN.SEQ.#: 002 FLOTTERON, III, DENNIS J. HICKEY, CROSS-MOTION: XMD KATHLEEN A. HICKEY, RICHARD W. CORAZZINI, CHERYL ANN CORAZZINI, PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEY: ROBERT A. LOVE, JR.;JOAN E. LOVE, ESSEKS, HEFTER &ANGEL, LLP KATHERINE F. PERRETTA, JANET E. 108 EAST MAIN STREET DOWNING, RICHARD DOWNING, PHILIP P.O. BOX 279 BUFFA, MARIA BUFFA, and JANE A. RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 NELSON, 631-369-1700 Plaintiffs, ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS JENNIFER J. BURRELL''- AND JONATHAN PERRY; -against- WICKHAM, BRESSL.ER & GEASA, P.C. 13015 MAIN ROAD JENNIFER J. BURRELL, JONATHAN P.O. BOX 1424 PERRY, and JOHN CRONIN, as EXECUTOR MATTITUCK, NEW YORK, 11,952 OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERTA G. 631-298-8353 SINNOTT, SELF-REPRESENTED.D DANT: ROBERT H. STURDY-' " Defendants. 8200 NASSAU POINT RSA z CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK '11935 ROBERT H. STURDY, BARRY SMALL, and 631-734-6776 COLLEEN FRENCH, Additional Defendants. Upon the following papers numbered 1 to 16 read on this motion FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER Notice of Motion and supporting papers 1-3 ; Affidavit in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting papers 4, 5 ; Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion Jor Summary Judgment 6 ; Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting papers 7, 8 ; Notice of Cross-motion and supporting papers 9, 10 , NASSAU POINT LAGOON, INC. v. BURRELL, ET AL. FARNETI, J. INDEX NO. 17139/2014 PAGE 2 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion and in Support of Cross-motion and supporting papers 11, 12 ; Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of Cross- motion 13 ; Affirmation in Further Support of Motion and supporting papers 14, 15 ; Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Motion for Summary Judgment 16 ; it is, ORDERED that this motion (seq. #001) by plaintiffs for an Order, pursuant to CPLR 3212, granting plaintiffs summary judgment as follows: (1) on plaintiffs' first cause of action, the first and second counterclaims of defendants JENNIFER J. BURRELL and JONATHAN PERRY ("Burrell" or "Perry" and collectively the "Burrell-Perry Defendants") and the counterclaim of Additional Defendant ROBERT H. STURDY ("Sturdy"), awarding summary judgment to plaintiffs and the additional defendants (and/or their successors) to be the owners in fee to the center line of the Lagoon with respect to the portion of the Lagoon that abuts each of their respective properties, dismissing the Burrell-Perry Defendants' first and second counterclaims, dismissing Sturdy's counterclaim, and appointing a referee to determine the exact location of the property lines for each of the plaintiffs' bottomlands to the center of the Lagoon; (2) on plaintiffs' second cause of action, granting.plaintiffs a declaration that they (and/or their successors) have, with respect to the Lagoon, all of the rights of riparian owners, including the right to dredge the Lagoon to preserve reasonable access to Peconic Bay; and (3) on plaintiffs' third cause of action, granting plaintiffs (and/or their successors) injunctive relief prohibiting the Burrell-Perry Defendants from any further interference with plaintiffs' (and/or their successors) attempts to dredge the Lagoon, including the portion of the Lagoon constituting the inlet to Peconic Bay in its entirety, is hereby DENIED for the reasons set forth hereinafter. The-Court has received opposition to this application from the Burrell-Perry Defendants, as well as,from Sturdy; and it is further ORDERED that this cross-motion (seq. #002) by the Burrell-Perry Defendants for an Order, pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b), granting the Burrell-Perry Defendants leave to amend their answer, is hereby DENIED for the reasons set forth hereinafter. The Court has received opposition to this cross-motion from plaintiffs. NASSAU POINT LAGOON, INC. v. BURRELL, ET AL. FARNETI, J. INDEX NO. 17139/2014 PAGE 3 I. The Pleadings (A) The Complaint In sum and substance, plaintiffs' first cause of action seeks a judgment, pursuant to Article 15 of the RPAPL, declaring the rights and legal relations between the parties as to ownership of the land under the waters of the Lagoon. Plaintiffs seek to have the Court declare each of them the owners of the underwater lands adjacent to their properties to the midpoint of the Lagoon. There is a further request that the Court fix the exact property lines by appointing a referee for that purpose. The second cause of action seeks a declaration, pursuant to CPLR 3001, that the underwater lands within the Lagoon and Inlet (presumably the Channel) are burdened by a navigational lrlimitation use that provides plaintiffs the right to use the wat sof the Lagoonand to take any reasonable and necessary action to ensure reasonable access to Peconic Bay. The third cause of action seeks a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from unreasonably interfering or infringing on plaintiffs' right to use and access the waters of the Lagoon. Plaintiffs fail to assert any allegations as to the nature of the defendants' interference with their rights. The pleadings themselves hint at conflicts without stating non-hearsay allegations of any type amounting to interference sufficient to justify the invocation of the Courts powers. It is questionable as to whether the matters presented rise to the level of a justiciable controversy. It does not appear that any other individual or entity is making an adverse claim to title to the underwater lands of the Lagoon and Channel. However, there is appellate support for the proposition that another entity could assert such a position. The State contends that there is no justiciable controversy as to it because it has not claimed any right or interest in Stewart Pond. According to the State, the proper defendants are those members of the public who have actually asserted the common-law right of public entry on navigable waters by fishing on Stewart Pond. NASSAU POINT LAGOON, INC. v. BURRELL, ET AL. FARNETI, J. INDEX NO. 17139/2014 PAGE 4 The anglers would clearly be proper defendants in a trespass action (see, e.g., Adirondack League Club v Sierra Club, 201 AD2d 225, appeal dismissed 84 NY2d 978), but that does not necessarily preclude plaintiffs from pursuing the remedy provided by RPAPL article 15 against the State. Regardless of whether the State has formally asserted a claim that Stewart Pond is navigable and open to public use, this action against the State is proper if it appears from the public records, or from the allegations of the complaint, that the State might make such a claim (see, RPAPL 1501 [1]) (Hanigan v State, 213 AD2d 80, 82-83 [3d Dept 1995]). Neither the State of New York nor the Town of Southold have been made a party to this action by the litigants. The Court is concerned with the characterization by the defendants of the municipal entities as somehow disinterested in these proceedings. Unlike the Hanigan matter, there are no indicia of a claim by the State of any interest in the underwater lands of the Lagoon or Channel. As it pertains to the Town of Southold, the recent representatives of the Town have sought not to contradict or challenge the assertion of private ownership. Under these circumstances, a controversy, ripe for adjudication, is at the least illusive. Plaintiffs do claim, however, that they possess certain rights due to an alleged unbroken chain of title dating back to the year 166.5. They further claim that there has never been an exclusion of the underwater lands in any of the conveyances through which they claim their respective interests. Plaintiffs assert that they, as a matter of law, possess ownership interests to the center, line of the Lagoon and Channel to the extent that their properties are adjacent to ies,of water. I _is apparrtY a9ted ndi ]" intift lf=,3 those od., M .. _ "tte� 5rdh � and Brr: FLC:r etk�e u,pCa w.er.adjac t c fi j .' th t'fIidi Bu fl- ery�`� of rid fs a e fii1 a :d'o u exs djac�£r t th s� th- `-.r t.i.�.,.1^":..'e& ,..r,,. .` °si,.. �+ .;,:J}�.:''T...�.. :'sy�s-7't:§ y}.'.^�;: ,q..g [5��,p,...ji,'►'�.{,a.�}��..-j{.}q{��`+d �".y-i.:'.ro"A^.":Ka *7 .._ '.S...aV= . •'ti :.ZYy..' i��,a.a.. P 4:�!• '.V.�`,�44 .T.�r 'GIi^R.vSLtii7 side° tW. Tinel T.h `rem 64 ofrvt i - l i •L.. `!. '! ;'rti`. .baa k.r ".�..�?R'?.'a ^t..n:'�=.';.'.-.:9:..m.a. ". - tz-• ark-pp�1�n ouvraer 'aclt c tNto fih al: 'Con n .� _ ._ . (B) First Counterclaim The Burrell-Perry Defendants likewise allege a controversy concerning the ownership interest in and to the land under the waters of the subject Lagoon and Channel. NASSAU POINT LAGOON, INC. v. BURRELL, ET AL. FARNETI, J. INDEX NO, 17139/2014 PAGE 5 (C) Second Counterclaim The Burrell-Perry Defendants allege that dredging undertaken by or on behalf of the plaintiffs has undermined the lateral support of the Burrell-Perry Defendants' bulkhead and caused erosion of their upland parcel into the Channel, all to their detriment. II. Burrell-Perry Defendants' Cross-Motion to Amend The Burrell-Perry Defendants by cross-motion seek to amend their counterclaims and assert an additional claim of ownership by adverse possession./ While leave to amend pleadings may be freely given upon a motion to amend or supplement pleadings, it is required that "[a]ny motion to amend or supplement pleadings shall be accompanied by the proposed amended or supplemental pleading clearly showing the changes or additions to be made to the pleading" (CPLR 3025 [b]). The affidavit in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and in support of the Burrell-Perry Defendants' cross-motion to amend makes no reference to the proposed new pleading by exhibit designation or otherwise. There is a document labeled as an Amended Verified Answer annexed to the affidavit as Exhibit "H"; however it is in no manner verified nor are any amendments referenced by the affiants. Therefore, the cross-motion to amend is hereby DENIED for failure to comply with 2014 NY SI p Op 32284[U]requirement (see CPLR 3025 [b]; BBM Constr. Corp. v Hersko, [Sup Ct, Kings County 2014]; Musachio v Musachio, On 3 N Slip Op 32088[U] & [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 2013]; Karl's Plumbing g 41 Misc 3d 1223[A] [Sup Ct, Queens County 2012]). III. Factual/Procedural History and Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment Perry asserts that this litigation arises from the Town of Southold's grant of a dredging permit for the north side of the Channel adjacent to the 1663 Bridge LLC property. There was at the time of the motion and cross-motion a pending appeal of the Order of Justice Santorelli, which dismissed Perry's Article 78 challenge to the dredging permit. Justice Santorelli's denial of the Article 78 proceeding and dismissal of the action has been affirmed by Order of the Appellate Division, Second Department dated Perry v Patricia A. Brennan Qualified Personal Residence Trust, 153 AD3d 522 [2d Dept 2017]). The Second Department did not reach the issue of ownership of the underwater lands within the Channel. The dredging permit issued by the NASSAU POINT LAGOON, INC. v. BURRELL, ET AL. FARNETI, J. INDEX NO. 17139/2014 PAGE 6 Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold authorized dredging of the northern half of the Channel adjacent to the 1663 Bridge LLC upland. Also, it would seem from the record that the current Channel as created in 1933 was brought into being as a result of the dredging of a portion of the upland owned without question by the predecessor to 1663 Bridge LLC. It is worth noting that the most recent dredging controversy concerned the Channel and not the Lagoon. It is not clear what the position of the Trustees of the Town of Southold would be with respect to the Lagoon. Perry asserts the existence of triable issues of fact. Perry asserts a certified chain of title of all the lands under the water of the Channel based upon a certified search by Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (Exhibit "B" to Perry's Affidavit). Plaintiffs oppose this assertion by the Burrell-Perry Defendants in that prior conveyances to plaintiffs' predecessors undermines the deed upon which the Burrell-Perry Defendants rely. Plaintiffs contend the land went into private ownership before New York State took title to the public lands, and plaintiffs further contend that New York State did not take title to the land beneath the Lagoon. Neither New York State nor the Town of Southold is a party to this action. Perry further claims title to all the underwater lands of the Lagoon based upon the assertion of the payment of taxes for a period of ten years.- The uncertified Property Record Card of the Town of Southold indicates upland acreage of 5.25 acres and an entry for the Lagoon of 7 acres for which Perry has paid real property taxes. Tearskterest�q # ,f�Setk�,od.deyo�lefo the n,�r Pate �d tai mamas no.:ie 3k a e a r a, ey is Ali,-1$ = pe if c #� f; ae out and�,i a er 1aq I ien " e t o f ds tn;yp t a e-!ow rs .r by ttl'e`w c rd j :s :$t aaa � A n+ ei�nlr g;ctt � t %C rti f 4m-b -:ToW,,n of S .ut�� "p 4�tI�e4G�a%�rfi'•'b`'f"appeals held: As Q^t'". Wil? e �a d� 'a�'� tb`=;�'t��j���wi��indiv�yal�c�vur� ab 'af 1".- o",cI i rn r ere ere _ ;as.T eep, n,' rte;€, s;y.. , .. ...,. . d ..,,�'?•:.rw C' w .n' '+' � eker+�f dn'k y k e}trustee .mart ewG3 ng� charter�tathe rsyeri time (Trustees, etc. of Southampton v Mecox Bay Oyster Co., 116 NY 1, 12 [1889]). Je ice= o� s��t rtar� iiher�l"ri of underwater lands k t to S i ere :na a d tioUId �t�``t�67''ba er Tined by NASSAU POINT LAGOON, INC. v. BURRELL, ET AL. FARNETI, J. INDEX NO. 17139/2014 PAGE 7 untenable i to aicq' oftitl :4vecifrornimpxec+setl © qia conveyance. In the constrfi 6"t'taoaibltc{ go t' i # d�frhe pump°a pati; a oiaii�=c. n, ltstti'e practical S?« .5 t v"+*,'q;,a—" a riG ?sM. ;,cYw-•z" h int 're i i'n t h'a Ydceiver ffo 'n H./OC— has been j � Mllb aGquiesoob;" �aeesiere rpe°1on .-. �.....y:+.'. 'Ahthe sert, s�o�yeA „.-.— ... � f" s;•:t< � .F��_..w it d�trmipa#...0. glias existing there ri' e': 'nd the strict leter'o irisf 'ii{` neciTriea`fr1 ,wporfap. 'C ¢ E. ";^ n . , . '?:.~ M.r ted.• 2 ants, �.,.¢F. .�^{�q;":r .a.s,.: ,•'S:,";r',•`t Hr,..;x.;.:r't,ti„4i ,;n',rn l,:fi��''.a-in};- i 5...»i::ivrzx',,:°`_,'a:.1, (Id. at 5). utkierrts t�iaf tie Tcwn.� Southold recognizes an ackno l.e g•e, as n 4.t doe e C t? Q# tl c The -�sa.+.� '--. ..-... .e'er.. �x amen ;szed':-:1's..arro ^vir*t�.�M� .': �aj;...�c: .,' ;.s^A..••r Ex i s taacb o riofaEkit' �ge°-PerYs: tlal eru Vicat of . bafi 'e Joe 2:2� 2{—1`1' t e ..::P.':ST-9s.=L.O' " y-TI�`.Yl':.'R i•R Y««T`*.^.. f.v- u datW15%t�'la`nds�of,the:�Lagoon wexe p d to p � s t" �=a itton, .> . :0 Perry simultaneously asserts deeded rights, as well as an possession claim to the underwater lands of the Lagoon. While Perry's motion to amend his counterclaims to include a cause of action for adverse possession has been denied as set forth above, Perry's assertion of actions taken by him or on his behalf are instructive as to the nature of the relationship between and among these parties, and'the current tenor of the environment spawning this latest installment of litigation. The Burrell-Perry Defendants caused shellfish harvesting complaints to be lodged against third-parties with both Town and State law enforcement authorities. Perry admits to posting no trespassing signs, and claims no dredging has ever taken place within the Lagoon and Channel without his consent. Perry makes it a point to explain that in the past there has been contribution by the Association to the cost of maintaining the bulkhead on the northern side of his upland abutting the south side of the Channel. Although Perry alleges that dredging causes a loss of lateral support to his adjacent bulkhead that results in erosion to the upland Perry property south of the bulkhead, he makes no allegation that any such dredging has ever occurred, let alone resulted in damage as he speculates. This theoretical concern is not the stuff of which justiciable controversy is made. NASSAU POINT LAGOON, INC. v. BURRELL, ET AL. FARNETI, J. INDEX NO. 17139/2014 PAGE 8 Obviously, dredging below the depth of the bulkhead vertical sheets or planks may very well result in a loss of property behind the bulkhead. This can also be caused by gaps between the planks and general deterioration of the bulkhead due to age. In the process of opining about the possible effects of dredging, Perry explains that-the upland bulkhead has not been replaced in over thirty years. He goes on to claim that it is entirely inequitable for plaintiffs to have the benefit of the Perry bulkhead to help keep the Channel open without contributing to its required maintenance by reason of dredging and other damage. The fact is there is no proof in this record that dredging has caused any damage to the Burrell-Perry Defendants' upland or even that any dredging immediately adjacent to the Burrell-Perry Defendants' property has ever occurred. The Burrell-Perry Defendants oppose the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion in two respects: (a) lack of specific description in the instrument of conveyance into the plaintiffs; and (b) lack of title by reason of ownership of abutting property. lainffs co> tptns a of Perry..c�a � , aj� .tvfhee s.:intp.t� .p .¢ ;d 6 n .,. : -.I nds'wad' ce. -rtct91 ti .l.i'l ' ::a � 'ii specific r E :r :r n . plain iffs= experts e� oie3. tbtne dei p Y rfrsttn a ;.�.�.: >.. . -_� 4 �-.. , g the adjacent=toeChp� ?oeas_ 6° a :fi =hi�tg.ar"di sk.;.. `seeded to the dredg � pe, itti =° i � 1 ;t 'oft �a � It �e,n : t "` "" ',s Atfidav� 'erty concedes or adjtt-pr., r=t�i"oierserEchlbit.Ya toP,e:rry:s: ,�—. _ .r more a � .etake-su th1'. t o i } 'I> ►d`(''� nC L ha eater lands : v. '«,•., v. .c a-ttyb"d✓'" `..`} ;".aft.:. :i`?'h '` a'9'"°`h°`lr'vt��°."-`.' ':�.w{- .d ':.3.f:�, £'' `' `` a °utirlgand`owner. Perry of one-half'the`vvGftitn�l�d� ta����� �t�Mflit,11— ; contradiicts�himself'b-yt-- 'as t ng#1 ; t t.I a i�JWa- n`or,x-eLte, cline yo rship at �cF '�., �p.,•;�egtx.'",,.-{Y..r. .,..! T commons:-Pe `fa lsv d`= I:a that" }?a,, te en i�iao-ccc�x� ext;assaotwbeti rthe disc watu�s.ion�in��clet�i" �' �>���,or;rioii=navigable eiwas;;ori~tida` oniinicfi= at�rways. ,' „ ` Perry further seeks to undermine 1663 Bridge LLC's claim of title by asserting that the deed into his predecessors only includes the lands under the waters of the Peconic Bay, not the Channel. He alleges that waters under the Channel are excluded by implication. This is somewhat tortured logic at best. There��.an addition,;al..Q.Q,�npiioation�of the--ana"""M�ing to the Lagoon an annel jn tha Y�h�.Coastal'Survey;Yo` 'y1F838 slit th La goon as completely la ie dwtthocrt any'indid tion_of a channel."Perry ao}c any mention of theaf chat thewo,ri final oritl'appears,fio'liaverbeen°to lfyl a iiilocked, ,g-,.-..a�P E " �. .{.. f... . .. ��: � �un'� the waters and thereforei =ax Ingle owiaer owned`thef 6trffie j/}oia ala tt :t that owner woil''dLLhavet'carnpie titleto'fii`e land 7u1naer those viafers. If there NASSAU POINT LAGOON, INC. v. BURRELL, ET AL. FARNETI, J. INDEX NO. 17139/2014 PAGE 9 were multiple owners adjacent to the completely landlocked body of water they would then own to the center line of the body of water adjacent to their respective upland. The same holds true if the body of water is non-tidal and/or man-made rather than naturally occurring. om The surfaGezaf a wate4r�isa : ,nd;� ti ss_ud?fr ownership ofh�� . dyude aE t ¢s: .aye°tK.. ;. waterwa �"} r , o t,t reser�a lq„�usw f ruwhich-it was yen ed. This {»1 .:°,. Qr.. �1 ad:.r:..- a �� ,,=Yf-?:'t .e. ;:.''t'^.�`ta',M'» mairin 'ir ] tYiiet]gerrkal; :- �ti gts.of cjacent .-•Y,�W- ,'"rt?''�:"�;s%+1c,'`'-i:...=fir}ia e:,r.c.;:::._' ._�--=- an �upartd Whatever the nature of the interest of a riparian owner in the submerged lands in front of his upland bordering on a public navigable water, his title is not as full and complete as his title to fast land which has no direct connection with the navigation of such water. It is a qualified title, a bare technical title, not at his absolute disposal, as is his upland, but to be held at all times subordinate to such use of the submerged lands and of the waters flowing over them as may be consistent with or demanded by the public right of navigation (Lewis Blue Point Oyster Cultivation Co. v Briggs, 229 US 82, 89 [1913], quoting Scranton v Wheeler, 179 US 141, 163 [19001). -,: , �- -f#fie pfs tr s$ pc� 'tlaei�nca�e�:1 'd�°� �:,_ _. : K�- the �� � a i"l ;e . _e. �. �somewha fu��� :1e 5sutrrn�,ra{y ctaim y L goon- �u _.: �Iri,; � s,- � '- are � thssmption seems_to£be�b'ased on is'" ul' orec a7rri �y a verse :. ?:...pt . raidstheriipadrioaes inohttwfrncl`tanj`ri`sIaut`ppioffraaiisth_e-treec_Q nndyrthaer pGeagoon. : CIairns #.,J Lthereris no,@uthority,cited by the plaintiffs for the WMA-0-010-M-4_ _ -v Q .tli a 'an,-Channel are �:anere:aae_1.ari�ctsw hider `.s " ��a efts^arm --The 1�eld far b[ic trta'stµ J e e v� .� ._ rn�wh t .i ing� ? +at s�> .. �-� a oveaaChnsu is-the=desire'otfe'Burrell-Perry Defendants to have the � - ��c ate®`n=ari�rtfs members contribute to the cost of rebuilding the Burrell-Perry Defendants' bulkhead. Under the circumstances presented herein, the Court is unaware of any legal mechanism to compel contribution by the plaintiffs or the additional defendants. NASSAU POINT LAGOON, INC. v. BURRELL, ET AL. FARNETI, J. INDEX NO. 17139/2014 PAGE 10 The Court is aware of a previous holding by Justice Paul Baisley, Sr. in a Memorandum Decision dated Decemberbetween and among these parties 91, under Index No. 25110/ 1987, that contribution could not be compelled and their predecessors. The 1987 action was commenced at or around the time the Burrell-Perry Defendants' bulkhead was completed. Perry is no doubt aware of this prior holding given that his predecessors-in-interest, including members of the Burrell (his wife's) family, were included among the plaintiffs in that case. The first undertaking is the characterization of the waters as they exist at the present time. As described by all parties, the Lagoon and Channel are both subject to tidal flow. There was at one timea natural inlet whichwas man-made ands the sole means of access to the Lagoon. The new Channel transverses Lot 108 of the subdivision, which is owned by 1663 Bridge LLC. The Lagoon itself is a public waterway open to use by all (see Lagoon Association of Nassau Point v Sturdy, Sup Ct, Suffolk County, Dec. 3, 1991, Baisley, J., Index No. 25110/1987). The law is clear that the right to dredge exists for upland riparian owners and that courts will intervene only to the extent of balancing the rights of other riparian and adjacent upland owners. Those seeking td reasonably maintain the waterway are required to act reasonably taking into consideration the riparian and property rights of affected upland riparian owners. There is a prohibition against undermining an adjacent bulkhead or causing damage to adjacent or other upland riparian property rights. Given the nature of marine bulkhead and dredging contracting, it is doubtful that any reputable marine bulkhead or dredging contractor would undertake their activities in a manner that would undermine the integrity of an adjacent property owner's fast land. No credible allegations to the contrary have been made by any party herein. The hypothetical concerns of the parties do not constitute a justiciable controversy. The Burrell-Perry Defendants' Me hor tthat Chathe nnel plaintiffs fail to demonstrate prima facie ownership ofhe lands under the in the absence of any common-law rights, and that the deeds into plaintiffs preclude the ownership. It is unclear from the Burrell-Perry Defendants' argument whether their contentions are based upon the facts herein concerning the nature and character of the Lagoon. The Lagoon was once a landlocked body of water with no appreciable navigable access to the Peconic Bay according to the 1838 Coastal Survey. The centerline ownership argument could then be made if the body of water is or was fully enclosedtidal waters of Peconic Bay. None of the parties have addressed that issue sufficiently and in all likelihood with good reason. The Cobrt has not been provided with any NASSAU POINT LAGOON, INC. v. BURRELL, ET AL. FARNETI, J. INDEX NO. 17139/2014 PAGE 11 sufficient non-hearsay allegations of fact concerning the 180-year-old coastal survey. The deed-into-grantee argument is also problematic. It is well- settled that a grantee can not receive what the grantor did not possess to convey. There is an additional wrinkle in that the Channel at least anecdotally was originally formed by nature. There was a later man-made expansion of the Channel; the parties do not address the issue of a man-made channel versus its natural occurrence. To further complicate matters, it would appear that the Lagoon has always been a tidal body of water subject to the ebb and flow of Peconic Bay. It would seem that at low tide in or around the early 1800's the Lagoon and Peconic Bay would be separated by a spit of land, but that at high tide the Lagoon and Peconic Bay would be connected. The Lagoon, by definition, was therefore subject to the tidal influence of Peconic Bay, and was and is neither a landlocked nor man-made body of water. The deed into plaintiff 1663 Bridge LLC conveys lands under the Peconic Bay by its terms. The deed is silent as to a specific conveyance of lands under either the Channel or the Lagoon. The interpretation of the language of deeds as it pertains to the conveyance of underwater lands as either riparian or littoral in nature requires an analysis of the predecessor deeds and the language dating back to the original conveyance and each successive conveyance in the c ai � tw®r c%iI I V ante` ili o . an. r em,C Accor gin; flPerry.psinceplaintififs�fail.ed totdemotr`atepimafaie R € ', the existence o iparianri t ;_ u{ , ryJtaadgxn ho } {v utd a x+, •� t ix a :C denieIT s grfltsM` shat ba"�s" lavuarFcat s ►ri2� cl as ratter o l i f„ p #i fs heBur>.>.'ef1 eIN'tDefe;slants.,wand the additional defend�n s, •as wel as their predecessors- and successors-in-interes . This case is solely about access and uaei of the Channeltion and the right to reasonably and the Lagoon for the dredge to maintain the quality and nature purpose of preserving the customary uses of the waterway. ` � adetermiried�that�th:e"Id if "int M' as � i p•'�'g1. 355-s`°•�'�^:R4^i*i"�'j....;w�, a ;��' '1`r'.i.'7.�'ay less owner soropexty'b .urided°b�'/ anavrgabl'ewaterva I 3`a zih.x.na ,J��,,.,1+-Nr. y¢!`p ,r<.- ,< h'.`)L- e nam riparia rigfrts,Ytn�h'ich aclude..the�ngFit of access to i- igab e er�t++F"^''='S-" �"• zt water an Ehe tighttomieh�sacess. ._pr ' t>~ aie�ali ytbuilding TFGT,ar.� s 1NhaC-ing= `� NASSAU POINT LAGOON, INC. v. BURRELL, ET AL. FARNETI, J. INDEX NO. 17139/2014 PAGE 12 (Klein v Aronshtein =r 751°` 2tl=`�"apt20c14]w citns omitted]). arishaan eing denied Howev4 r In addition, Perry contends that Sturdy's claims are without merit. There is by Perry's argument no current issue in controversy. Perry misses the point that,riparian rights as a general concept exist. Any specific assertion of the rights for a particular purpose such as dredging is subject'to a balancing of the rights of all riparian owners and the adjoining property owner whose property must be protected and preserved from being structurally undermined or damaged. Despite the assertion by the Burrell-Perry Defendants, financial contribution to bulkhead costs is not an issue within this action. No pleading is made on behalf of the Association seeking contribution rnotparticipation tubers of the members of the Association or any other riparian owners Association. Perry further claims that no governmental entity has an interest in these waters. The Court is not of that opinion. The United States, the State of New York, and the Town of Southold all have an ongoing and continued interest in the Channel and Lagoon. The Army Corps of Engineers, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Town of Southold all have an interest in the Channel and Lagoon. There is no evidence in this record that any governmental entity-has waived its respective interest, nor could they. No municipal, state or federal sovereign may be bound or,estopped based upon the alleged agreement or acquiescence of an individual purporting to represent that entity. A single representative or member rgovernment of collateral estop'nd pelfuture (see assertions of governmental interest in the nature Karedes v Colella, 100 NY2d 45 [2003]; Charter Sch. for Applied Tech. v Board of Educ. for City Sch. Dist. of City of Buffalo, 105 AD3d 1460 [4th Dept 2013]; Matter of Newburgh v McGrane, 82 AD3d 1225 [2d Dept 2011]): The Town's expressed intention not to oppose the asneo ion °othe privabranch of goverte ownership nmenoutt more in no way binds or hinders the Tow y- from asserting its interests, regulatory or otherwise. There is no current controversy of which the Court is aware as between and among the riparian owners. This this) Court issuon is born e an advisory opinion an understandable but misguided attempt to have opinion concerning a controversy that may or may not occur in the future. Such a finding would not only be inappropriate but would serve no purpose for any actual future controversy would be subject to the assertion of the rights of the parties NASSAU POINT LAGOON, INC. v. BURRELL, ET AL. FARNETI, J. INDEX NO. 17139/2014 PAGE 13 then affected and to be balanced by the court. That issue does not currently exist. The plaintiffs failed to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the PPA since the evidence proffered was insufficient to demonstrate, as a matter of law, an unreasonable interference with their riparian rights (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853, 476 NE2d 642, 487 NYS2d 316 [1985]; Town of Hempstead v Oceanside Yacht Harbor, 38 AD2d 263, 264, 328 NYS2d 894 [1972], affd 32 NY2d 859, 299 NE2d 895, 346 NYS2d 529 [1973]). In any event, we note that the PPA raised issues of fact, inter alfa, as to the level of interference, if any, with the plaintiffs' right of access to navigable waters (see Town of Hempstead v Oceanside Yacht Harbor, supra) (Zupa v Paradise Point Assn., Inc., 31 AD3d 538, 538 [2d Dept 2006]). The Burrell-Perry Defendants' and the plaintiffs' assertions are contradicted by Sturdy as to the meaning and efficacy of the earliest transfers as between the Indian grantors, the Colonial grantees, the State of New York, the Trustees of the Town of Southold, and any successor grantees. The title search submitted by the Burrell-Perry Defendants pertains only to the dredged canal (the Channel), and by its terms is subject to: Rights of the United States Government to establish harbor, bulkhead or pierhead lines or to change or alter any such existing lines and to remove or compel the removal of fill and improvements thereon including buildings or other structures, from land now or formerly lying below the high water mark of Great Peconic Bay, the Lagoon and the Canal without compensation. Riparian rights and easements of others over the Great Peconic Bay, the Lagoon and the Canal, however, this search does not insure any riparian rights or easements in favor of the owner of the premises herein. , J. NASSAU POINT LAGOON, INC..v. BURRELL, ET AL. PAGE FARNETITI 14 INDEX NO. 17139/2014 Rights of the United States uGovernment,Town of Soushold, or tate of New York and County ofolk any of their departments or agencies to regulate and control the use of the piers, bulkheads, land under water and land adjacent thereto (see Exhibit "B"). There is no similar analysis shown for the underwater lands of the Lagoon. 1V. Sturdy's Submissi= Sturdy submits a Memorandum of Law in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and in support of Sturdy's "motion" for summary judgment. Sturdy requests summary judgment in his favor in the body of his submission but fails to properly notice a cross-motion for summary judgment. Sturdy's papers are accepted by the Court as opposition to the present motions of the other parties herein. Sturdy requests summary judgment in his memorandum as follows: (1) on Sturdy's counterclaim, plaintiffs' firstcause actio ng and the first and second counterclaims of the Burrell Perry Defendants, summary judgment to Sturdy declaring the lands Nunder the Lagoon and the atural Inlet to the high watermark (as shown o the 1919 Van Tuyl Survey, submitted as Exhibit "C" to the Pomerantz affidavit) to be owned whether that sovereign held in trust for the public, and not any private landowner, be the State of New York or the Town of Southold,first dismissing and second couns' first terclaims; unterclaims; cause of action and the Burrell-Perry Defendants' (2) on plaintiffs' second cause of action, grannthey tiinngrplaintiffs (aneir successors) presumably the defendants too) a declaratall of theyg t of riparian owners, including the have, with respect to the Lagoon, right to dredge the Lagoon to preserve reasonable access to Peconic Bay; and (3) on plaintiffs' third cause of action, grad{heplaintiffs eir (ands)heir successors) (and presumably the other defendants an injunctive relief prohibiting the Burrell-Perry Defendants from any further interference with plaintiffs' (and their successors) attempts to dredge the Lagoon, including the portion of the Lagoon constituting the inlet to Peconic Bay in its entirety. NASSAU POINT LAGOON, INC. v. BURRELL, ET AL. FARNETI, J. INDEX NO. 17139/2014 PAGE 15 The Second Department has clearly stated that: Since [defendant] failed to serve the plaintiffs with a notice of cross motion (see, CPLR 2215), it was not entitled to the affirmative relief requested in its September 7, 1993, affirm,ation in opposition to the plaintiffs' cross motion (see, Matter of Barquet v Rojas-Castillo, 216 AD2d 463; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 713, CPLR C2215:1, at 124) (Thomas v Drifters, Inc., 219 AD2d 639, 640 [2d Dept 1995]). Sturdy's requests for su I mary judgment are therefore DENIED in the absence of a properly noticed cross-motion. Sturdy's submission while observational in tone does impact upon the Court's legal analysis. In reference to the inlet or Channel, it is .asserted that a portion of the Channel is upon lands owned by 1663 Bridge LLC as having been conveyed into private ownership before the Andros Patent. It is further ositon alleged that since April 1 , 1994, the Town o{ kent souSouhldnclear) that the has taken theL ago�on and (precisely how that legal position has been entrance are privately owned. In or about June 22, 2011, the Town stated that it would not challenge private ownership of the Channel and Lagoon. Sturdy alleges that regardless of the fact that the Town conveyed title to William Wells in 1667, the Town had no ownership interest for the purpose of conveyance from a public to a private entity until the Andros Patent,! which did not issue until 1676, nine years later. While certainly an interesting historic note, the more im, oar�t issue 'fieiisPt nt accordingto Sturdyconcerns what in fact was conveyedt : ` ;Ar,,,; lands under the waters to,the_Towmof4S d#tid e N&York York State convey at e ` eieI iia sim`Iras ,withid' thold Attorn y .:y. . ..,! e cohve �h al ositictr�,tha, Anr,i -ateiitr tdt°rf te� 5. hastaken � �,- oma-.' �LlL at:W �`- h T tt�4f; Mo unefld Plaintiffs assert that there is no evidence supporting the Tuthill estate's claim that School House Creek is a man-made body of water. They assert that School NASSAU POINT LAGOON, INC. v. BURRELL, ET AL. FARNETI, J. INDEX NO. 17139/2014 PAGE 16 House Cree[C,j.n,,fa.ctjs.a tidal body of water; that owriership,of land under.�tidal;watermust.be traced back to when the Ehdlis�i Crown:ciaimed�ownersiip of a' a `Ihncf iti the.-ea�.ty4�GQl4nies;-and%,that,-,Ander Viand grant known as:the,Southold,.I :ater�:f,ziYssue in 1676 by the DUk`e-af ,YOrlc's appointed agent, Governor Edmund m arshes Andros, title tot' lQdies ofiwater and'm locatatkth�er f:So fhold�ntrritedo the Town's Trustees (Schultheis v Estate of Tuthill, 2012 NY Slip Op 30556[U], at **3 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 2012]). While the evolution and devolution of the competing claims and rights is certainly interesting from a historical perspective, the Court herein is concerned with the fundamental principle that riparian rights do not impact upon title. As noted, regardless of title to the underwater lands there are certain rights which are not dependent upon title to the underwater lands for the purpose of asserting riparian protections by upland owners. leads tfoummination de T .e Io a pror,�ress` rrf #.canpe that for the pe�xQreoi" Iid oertarr� � CKto�ties;t , r. z +` M vant to the g ssa ndv a rt. e irrele of tide tate ater�la d t eie. 1 . 5 m Via. a ; ire. ,. is deterrf-up0tio e rrri iit j t er u`tar cor o srt t no real fa` eiviti c_ P�A_ Arid luesf o $e.emin,a ►o _.Qr µ - ,� }y -yyyry +��/_ ri ati fan. e►�nlater s in no way t V +:LF1''e;'i Qr:t i p r„d d'°• ' ,. issue ink. The det. r . ,! ' w r.-% 'C t :+•" Ate:-..r...ro4.... .r"R .'k i, I�l�d� dim ts-tT-uVdr- ge -es .`, Erg o , -1 & a'at w rs at least as�tD:4 e-41 :yet cht nb t : =1?.afiie5=h ei :, iit mrt end the g. �. .. ILI aid t# T 'authold AQu. ,eaia r�o -pes ,a:-eta 1e of Nerrk: � ..v., . -rare~ aintiffs�and the are no �con of`sftt titt �ifier rtc: ' a�s ' �.r..,.`�:' vs where Bun , d- ai,firf anu6e 6on ' rret -, erh I think that if the grant had been intended to include lands under water language appropriate to effect that purpose would have been employed, as in many of the colonial grants and charters which have been brought before the courts for construction. In De Lancey v. Piepgras, 138 N.Y. 26, 33 N.E. 822, it was held that a patent from the crown of Great Britain issued in 1666 creating the Manor of Pelham and conveying a tract of NASSAU POINT LAGOON, INC. v. BURRELL, ET AL. FARNETI, J. INDEX NO. 17139/2014 PAGE 17 land upon the mainland bounded by Long Island Sound, with all the islands in the sound not previously granted or disposed of, lying before the tract upon the mainland, did not pass title to the land under water adjoining the islands referred to. Nor does the reference in the Symes grant to the "Pooles Ponds Waters Watercourse Rivers Rivoletts Runns & Streams of Water Brooks ffishing," etc., operate to enlarge the grant so as to include the lands under water here in question, inasmuch as all of the words quoted are limited and qualified by the phrase "within the Bounds and Limitts aforesaid." Sage v. Mayor, 154 N.Y. 61, 47 N.E. 1096. The case of Starke-Belknap v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., supra, is distinguishable in that the royal grant there under consideration by its express terms included "ferries" and "the fishing in Hudson's River, so far as the bounds of the said lands extend upon the same." It was held in that case that the use in the grant of the terms quoted warranted the lower court in finding that the grant included the coves and bays which were appurtenant to the upland. I have considered with care the arguments advanced and authorities cited in the briefs submitted by counsel for the Symes Foundation and the Victory Dry Dock Company, but am unable to agree with their conclusion that the grant here in question included lands under water. The question whether the Symes grant included lands under water was not so involved in Smith v. Staten Island Land Co., 175 A.D. 588, 162 N.Y.S. 681, or in the unreported case of Crown Lands Corporation of Staten Island v. Corbin Land Co. as to make the decisions in those cases controlling in the instant case (In re City of NY, 116 Misc 179, 183-184 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1921]. There are different methods of analysis employed by the courts with respect to the conveyance of underwaterwithin the rant to ands. There re general body of water, the applied. When reference was made wit g conveyance was valid only to the high water mark and any conveyance of the foreshore was deemed void, even land grant were incapable of transfer to attempted. The courts recognizedthat certain NASSAU POINT LAGOON, INC. v. BURRELL, ET AL. FARNETI, J. INDEX NO. 17139/2014 PAGE 18 private interests in the absence of some public purpose. In this case, an express transfer was voided. The general rule is that where the boundary of a Crown grant is a body of navigable water, it runs from the high water mark. It was said in Matter of Mayor, etc., of New York (182 N.Y. 361, 365): "While the king had the power to convey the tideway on the shores of the high seas and navigable rivers, he will not be presumed to have done so by merely bounding the conveyance upon the sea or the river; such conveyance will carry title only to high-water mark. Other words must be employed in the conveyance which would clearly indicate his purpose and intent to convey the lands under water in order to pass the title thereto" (in re CITY OF NY, 281 AD 315, 328 [1 st Dept 1953]). The Second Department in N. Hempstead v Eldridge, 111 AD 789 (2d Dept 1906), after a thorough examination of the history of the boundaries, between what are now Jamaica, Flushing and Hempstead, found that e is of absence of any specific grant of underwater lands, the application concepts interpretation and'construction including lines to be drawn by direction (i.e., south, north) were interpreted to mean along the waters and the landthe coast and not truly s were not unwavering, as the crow flies lines. mentioned or specifically conveyed, the court reached its result as follows: My conclusion is that the land under water described in the complaint is not included within the boundaries of either of the Colonial patents to the town of Hempstead, and is not shown to be the property of the plaintiff, and for this reason the complaint should be dismissed (N. Hempstead, 111 AD at 801). As to the issue of Indian deeds, the the varourts hous Indian ave held that were grant of the Crown that was controlling, and that subject to more formal grants of the Crown and the sovereign: But Indians could, by themselves alone, create no lawful claim. (Town of Southampton v. Mecox Bay Oyster Co., NASSAU POINT LAGOON, INC. v. BURRELL, ET AL. FARNETI, J. INDEX NO. 17139/2014 PAGE 19 116 N. Y. 1, where the same proviso was in the patent; Clarke Estate v. City of New York, 165 App. Div. 873.) The Duke of York's Laws (March 1, 1665) (1 Colonial Laws [Comp. Stat. Rev. Comm.], 40) provide: "No Purchase of lands from Indians After the first day of March, 1664, shall be Esteemed a good Title without leave first had arid obtained from the Governour and after leave so obtained, The Purchasers shall bring the Sachem and right owner of such Lands before the Governoure to acknowledge satisfaction and payment for the said Lands whereupon they shall have a grant from the Governoure And the Purchase so made and prosecuted is to be entered upon record in the Office & from that time to be valid to all intents and purposes." The Colonial Laws (Vol. 1 [Comp. Stat. Rev. Comm.], p. 149, chap. 9), October 23, 1684, also provide: "noe Purchase of Lands from the Indians shall bee esteemed a good Title without Leave first had and obtaineid from the Governour signified by a Warrant under his hand and Seale and entered on Record in the Secritaries office aft New Yorke and Satisfaction for the said Purchase acknowliged by the Indians from whome the Purchase was made which is to bee Recorded likewise which purchase soe made and prosecuted and entered on Record in the office aforesaid shall from that time be Vallid to all intents and purpoases." The parties have introduced many Indian deeds and none of them covers the locus in quo. It is not presumable that Indian deeds covering the place have been discovered and withheld from-the court. If any Indian deed known to exist includes the parcel, the court, in the absence of overruling adverse evidence, could infer from the record of it title in one claiming under it. But if none of the deeds covers the locality, it should not be imagined that the Indians made other grants that did, and base on that fancy a presumption of confirmation, to the end that the plaintiff be compelled to show affirmatively that such is not the fact. That would be piling a supposition upon a hypothesis and requiring the plaintiff to prove its non-existence. There must be, as regards the proviso, some point of at least momentary rest for the town of NASSAU POINT LAGOON, INC. v. BURRELL, ET AL. FARNETI, J. -INDEX NO. 17139/2014 PAGE 20 Oyster Bay and those claiming under it. Otherwise, no one could ever trace title to the Andros patent. The person in possession in such case could always object that the claimant had not looked far enough, and that further search would discover that, before 1677, the date of the patent, there had been a prior conveyance of the beach falling within the-proviso. So search would never be definite, although in reason nothing discoverable could be expected. Two Indian deeds are invoked to show title out of the plaintiff (Oyster Bay v Stehli, 169 AD 257, 259-261 [2d Dept 1915], affd 221 NY 515 [1917]). The case law contains references to the recording of Indian deeds not for the purpose of conveying title for the completeness of chains of title, but often as confirmatory documents-as to what was intended to be transferred. The descriptions of the contents of the Indian deeds was used by subsequent grantors and grantees as evidence of the extent of future conveyances and was looked to assist in the resolution of disputes as to ownership often in the context of actions for ejectment or trespass. "The said John Palmer also obtained a deed from the Indians, covering the same property ctobe b9,d11685! andteecorded at nt, which deed is dated October 6, 1685, acknowledged O the request of Captain Palmer on the 27th day of October, 1685. This Indian deed was executed by the marks of two Indians named Pamon and Tackpousha" (Jamieson & Bond Co. v Reynolds, 174 AD 78, 83 [2d Dept 1916]). Where there are conflicts between deeds and patents, the courts have interpreted-the intentions of the grantor and grantee in certain circumstances. The courts have considered antecedent conveyances to identify the point at which a grantor may have taken liberties in conveying that which had not been previously conveyed (see Oyster Bay, 169 AD 257). Moreover, the New York State Constitution as it existed in 1777 placed limitations upon the ability to contract for the purchase of land from Indian tribes. However, as to existing transactions with Indian tribes there was a saving clause, to wit: Section 36, to preserve prior dealings, and Section 37, a prohibition against future purchases. There was no federal constitution in effect to prohibit the impairment of contracts until March 4, 1789, the effective date of the United States Constitution (see Pharaoh v Benson, 69 Misc 241 [Sup Ct, Queens County 1910]). r a NASSAU POINT LAGOON, INC. v. BURRELL, ET AL. FARNETi, J. INDEX NO. 17139/2014 PAGE 21 There has been proffered a general proposition that the Towns derived their title to lands from the Andros and Dongan Patents, the respective governors at the time of the issuance of the patents. However, both the Andros and the Dongan patents purport to be confirmatory of existing rights, and the Andros patent contained the recital: "Whereas there is a certain Towne in the East Riding of Yorkshire upon Long Island commonly called and known by the name of. South Hampton," etc. That charter was evidently granted to secure from the town recognition'of the authority of the Duke of York. It appears that an order was made by the General Court of Assizes under Governor Nicolis in 1670, requiring the towns of Southampton, Southold-and Oysterbay to give their reasons why they had delayed having their grants or patents renewed or confirmed. The rights of the original settlers were recognized and confirmed by the Andros and Dongan charters, and any divisions of the common lands made prior thereto do not appear thereafter to have been questioned. However, in view of the fact that under the Andros and Dongan charters the legal title vested in the body corporate and not in the equitable owners, it would seem that partition could not be made as among tenants in common, but that a transfer by the holder of the legal title was necessary to vest title in the allottees (See Sanger v. Merritt, 120 N.Y. 109, 24 N.E. 386), and it may well be doubted whether land could be transferred by parol after the Andros charter (Shinnecock Hills & Peconic Bay Realty Co. v Aldrich, 132 AD 118, 122-123 [2d Dept 1909]). Where there is conflict as to what was intended by a prior grantor and grantee, the courts have always been mindful of the inexactitude of prior dealings. In the words of Justice Humphrey of the Nassau County Supreme Court, "[i]t is not easy to find out what was running in the minds of men more than two hundred years dead. The best we can do is to review what they said; what they put into writing, and give some reliance on"what the historians say of them" (People v Foote, 141 Misc 409, 410-411 [Sup Ct, Nassau County 19311). NASSAU POINT LAGOON, INC. v. BURRELL, ET AL. FARNETI, J. INDEX NO. 17139/2014 PAGE 22 V. Conclusion On a motion for summary judgment the Court's function is to determine whether issues of fact exist not to resolve issues of fact or to determine matters of credibility (see Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395 [1957]; Tunison v D.J. Stapleton, Inc., 43 AD3d 910 [2007]; Kolivas v Kirchoff, 14 AD3d 493 [2005]). Therefore, in determining the motion for summary judgment, the facts alleged by the nonmoving party and all inferences that may be drawn are to be accepted'as true (see Doize v Holiday Inn Ronkonkoma, 6 AD3d 573 [2004]; Roth v Barreto, 289 AD2d 557 [2001]; Mosheyev v Pilevsky, 283 AD2d 469 [2601]). The failure of the moving party to make such a prima facie showing requires denial of the motion regardless of the insufficiency of the opposing papers (see Dykeman v Heht, 52 AD3d 767'[2008]; Sheppard- Mobley v King, 10 AD3d 70 [2004]; Celardo v Bell, 222 AD2d 547 [1995]). Once the movant's burden is met, the burden shifts to the opposing party. to establish the j existence of a material issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Zuckerman v New York, 49 NYS2d 557 [1980]). However, mere allegations, unsubstantiated conclusions, expressions of hope or assertions are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see Zuckerman v City of New York, supra; Blake v Guardino, 35 AD2d 1022 [1970]). Given the labyrinth of Indian, Colonial, State, Local and Federal legal concepts and analysis, this Court concludes that no party herein has sufficiently asserted any current infringement of a justiciable right or any immediate likelihood of the infringement of any such right. Furthermore, this action is rife with unanswered questions of fact. Summary judgment is clearly not warranted in the circumstances. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The foregoing constitutes the decision and Order of the Court. Dated: December 12, 2017 - � � ON EPH FAR NETI -- ----- - - --- - - -- — g.Tstice Supreme Court FINAL DISPOSITION X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION John M. Bredemeyer III, President ��o�OguFFOt1, Town Hall Annex Michael J. Domino, Vice-President z7Y�� ti�� 54375 Route 25 Glenn Goldsmith P.O. Box 1179 A. Nicholas Krupski Southold, NY 11971 Charles J. SandersoL`Yv Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 4, 2016 Alexandra Jones 36 Blacksmith Court Huntington Station, NY 11746 RE: 1230 BAYBERRY ROAD, CUTCHOGUE SCTM# 1000-118-2-9 Dear Ms. Jones: As per your written request dated April 1, 2016, the Wetland Permit Application for the above-referenced property has been Withdrawn. As requested, enclosed is refund check#1136 in the amount of$250.00. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the office. Sincerely, John M. Bredemeyer III, President yam• Board of Trustees Y..u�4.h5.'Z"'N::"E' i.'.f'wlp;t?sa1. .'.�. :ry.`�' 'Y.l.'� ..t, t}"....�'".R"'!"w '...1' � 'P'i�..:q:"_'&x.q.,,..tn.... _.+,v'FT—_ �t'v, _T•..",�+ _"_. • a—T-e—•—_..»..Y re .a N .k TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 1136 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES P.O.BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD,NY 11971 { 50-666•214 a lf'Kn_n J,rG nesI $ a�� , GCS DOS 8 + Bndgehampton NaaonA Bank �r 94870 MAIN ROAO EEEIII SOUTHOLD,NY 1 1 97 WKIA €rte -0w�wr bridgenb com c /�CGi( ✓G r' 11100 L b36111 � .00 2 La,06667m: 0500035704 ,° L'.».....�........�._...—.�.4....._.._.......Lx�...�...� ....-.._�_...._s...�x......__. ._......._.«.�6L.«�—........—. _._..-..a...�..�—.... ..... ..... �«X'.. �*va �� ».«. ..fi.«-P...µi k .. ..a......tw+-.s' i IT19 It- M, !. APR-- - a fT 4 I James F.King,President hof s0�ry Town Hall Annex Bob Ghosio,Jr.,Vice-President ��� ��'� 54375 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Dave Bergen Southold,New York 11971-0959 John Bredemeyer G Q Telephone(631)765-1892 Michael J.Domino '`O Fax(631) 765-6641 UNT`1 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES 1 �` TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PD C. E V# S i � Office Use Only F E 0 17 2016 Coastal Erosion Permit Application Wetland Permit Application Administrative Permit —Amendment/Transfer/Extension Boad Stir of Tr j ste el Received Application: O �7, f T Received Fee:$ --- Completed Application ' ( � _Incomplete ne _SEQRA Classi tcatton:� b�` d' ! Type I Type II Unlisted _ Coordination:(date sent) ZLWRP Consistency Assessment-Form CAC Referral Sent:_ Date of Inspection: Receipt of CAC Report:. ----- ^_Lead Agency Determination: Technical Review: Public Hearing Held: Resolution: I Name of Applicant Alexandra Jones I Mailing Address 1230 Bayberry Road, Cutchogue NY 11935 Phone Number:( ) F31792-2677 I I! Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000- 9 118 2 Property Location: ! 1230 Bayberry Road I Cutchogue NY 11935 ! (provide LILCO Pole#,distance to cross streets, and location) I AGENT: IDennis ColeCole Environmental Services,Inc (If applicable) Address: PO Box 471,Manorville,NY 11949 Manorville NY 11949 Phone: 631-369-9445 I f Board of Trustees Application GENERAL DATA a ' Land Area(in square feet): 1.08 ,q 'K71 O teq s r Area Zoning:R-40 Previous use of property: Current Use is Residential Residential ' Intended use of property: i No Covenants and Restrictions on property? Yes No If"Yes",please provide a copy. I Will this project require a Building Permit as per Town Code? ELYes ELNo ' If"Yes",be advised this application will be reviewed by the Building Dept.prior to a Board of Trustee review and Elevation Plans will be required. j Does this project require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals? 1:1 Yes __E]_No If"Yes",please provide copy of decision. W' is project re uire any demolition as per Town Code or as determined by the Building Dept.? Yes No I Does the structure(s)on property have a valid Certificate of Occupancy? Z Yes ❑No Prior permits/approvals for site improvements: Agency Date No prior permits/approvals for site improvements. I Has any permit/approval ever been revoked or suspended by a governmental agency.? No Yes If yes,provide explanation: Project Description(use attachments if necessary): To construct wooden stairs and landings, leading to a wooden fixed dock, catwalk, ramp and floating dock as is shown on the survey prepared by Nathan f Taft Corwin III dated DeceE5er 3, 20151I 4' x 41' wooden stairs and landings 2015 as follows: 41 x JR1 Fixed elevaterl wooden dock with ThruFlow Dprking 3.5' x 14' Hinged Metal Ramp 6' x 20' Wooden Floating Dock (2) 81m -±21 Ptt±.Lly,,3. Notes All wood used fuz the construct±= of the stairs, ' decking, dock and float to be Greenheart timber. Board of Trustees Application WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA Purpose of the proposed operations: To construct stairs, with landings, leading to a 4'x 18' fixed wood dock with ThruFlow decking ramp and install.a floating dock to main ripar-i -n oaGGess to an r r efeek Wetlands at base of slope property. Area of wetlands on lot: 4300 square feeta on p'presentP P ty• ' Percent coverage of lot: % Closest distance between nearest existing structure and upland j edge of wetlands: 4 3.7 feet Closest distance between nearest proposed structure and upland Fixed dock 4'above grade with edge of wetlands: 0 feet ThruFlow Decking Does the project involve excavation or filling? Yl No ElYes If yes,how much material will be excavated? 0 cubic yards How much material will be filled? cubic yards i Depth of which material will be removed or deposited: N/A feet j Proposed slope throughout the area of operations: N/A i Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: N/A ; t Statement of the effect,if any, on the wetlands and tidal waters of the town that may result by reason of such proposed operations(use attachments if appropriate): Project will have minimum impact on wetlands.Only temporary disturbance during the construction period due the installation of posts and decking.Following initial construction little or no impact o wetlands is anticipatect. Dockusage will be seasonal and limited. 3 t• Hoard of Trustees Application COASTAL EROSION APPLICATION DATA Stairs down existing slope leading to a ramp and Purposes of proposed activity: floating dock to gain riparian access to dug creek. I ' Are wetlands present within 100 feet of the proposed activity? , ❑ No Yes } Does the project involve excavation or filling? WL No ❑ Yes j If Yes,how much material will be excavated? {cubic yards) How much material will be filled? (cubic yards) i Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: i Describe the nature and extent of the environmental impacts to the subject property or neighboring properties reasonably anticipated resulting from implementation of the project as proposed,including erosion increase or adverse effects on natural protective features. (Use attachments if necessary) A slight environmental impact will occur during the construction phase as supporting posts will have to be installed The ramp and decking will be constructed using ThruFlow decking thereby allowing light to penetrate to vegetation, Following construction little to no PnvirnnmPntnl imparts are anticipated. Floating dock will have adequate water depth so no portion of a VPCCe1 will contact the bottom nr existing_Vegetated tidal weQ t-1--;; - i I i 617.20 SEAR PROJECT ID NUMBER APPENDIX C STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM � '.. for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART 9-PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by A)plicant or Project Sponsor) it 1.APPLICANT/SPONSOR 2.PROJECT NAME Alexandra Jones Jones Property ; 3.PROJECT LOCATION: Southold Suffolk 1 Municipality County 4-PRECISE LOCATION: Street Addess and Road Intersections. Prominent landmarks etc -or provide map 1230 Bayberry Road Cutchogue NY 11935 S.IS PROPOSED ACTION: a New Expansion ®Modification/alteration 6.DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: i To construct wooden stairs and landings,leading to a wooden fixed dock,catwalk,ramp and floating dock as is shown on the survey prepared by Nathan Taft Corwin III dated December 3,20151 4'x 41'wooden stairs and landings 2015 as follows. 4'x 18'Fixed elevated wooden dock with ThruFlow Decking 3 5'x 14'Hinged Metal Ramp 6'x 20'Wooden Floating Dock I i (2)8"-12"Pilings. Note All wood used for the construction of the stairs,decking,dock and float to be Greenheart timber. fi I 7.AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: ' Initially .010. acres 010 Ultimately acres c 8.WILL PRuvustu AGIwN CUMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS? I 2✓ Yes El No If no,describe briefly: � I I 9.WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? (Choose as many as apply.) i Residential IndustrialCommercial agriculture Park/Forest/Open Space Other (describe) i I 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL I AGENCY (Federal, State or Local) j Yes r7No If yes, list'agency name and permit/ approval: uNYYSDECLand possibly the USACE 11.DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? J FYes o If yes, list agency name and permit ! approval: u� I I I 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT!APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? ! - esFZ_ No ` I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant / Sponsor Name � s � Date. C I , Signature Qom:. IW • t.-e, A Z• �6 If the action is a Costal Area,and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment 3) f, 617.20 Appendix B Short Environmental Assessment Form Jlnstructions for Completing Part 1-Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part I. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding,are subject to public review,and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to frilly respond to any item,please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current infonnation. Complete all items,in Part], You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by cr useful to the lead agency;attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item. Part I-Project and Sponsor Information Alexandra Jones Name of Action or Project: Alexandra Jones Project Location(describe,and attach a location map): 1230 Bayberry Road Cutchogue NY 11935 Brief Description of Proposed Action: To construct wooden stairs and landings,leading to a wooden fixed dock,catwalk,ramp and floating dock as is shown on the survey prepared by Nathan Taft Corwin III dated December 3,20151 4'x 41'wooden stairs and landings 2015 as follows 4'x 18'Fixed elevated wooden dock with ThruFlow Decking 3 5'x 14'Hinged Metal Ramp 6'x 20'Wooden Floating Dock (2)8"-12"Pilings Note All wood used for the construction of the stairs,decking,dock and float to be Greenheart timber Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Telephone: 631-492-2677 Alexandra Jones :E_Mad; journey.40@hotmall.com Address: 36 Blacksmith Ct City/PO Zip Cade: Huntington Station' NY 11746-1919 1.Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption ofa plan,local law,ordinance, NO 'YES administrative rule,or regulation? IfYcs,attach a narrative description of the intent ofthe proposed action and the environmental resources that may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2, if no,continue to question 2. 2.~Does the proposed action require a permit,approval or funding from any other governmental Agency? NO YES If Yes,Iist agency(s)name and permit or approval: NYSDEC, USACE ® W 3.a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? _ 1.08 acres b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? .01 acres c.Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? 1.08 acres 4. Check all land uses that occur on,adjoining and near the proposed action. Urban E:]Iiural(non-agriculture) Qhldustrial ommercial residential(suburban) Q✓ Forest Dgriculture E]kquatic Other(specify): )Netlands/poen waw OPat kland Page 1 of 4 ` l , 5. is the proposed action; 'i NO 1 1'I"s N/A a.A permitted use under,the zoning regulations? 3 Uj=[ , b.Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? i ✓ _ 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominanrcharacter of the existing built of natural NO YES landscape? LU 7. Is the site of the proposed action located in,or does it aEjjoin,a state listed Critical tinvironrnental Arca? NO, YES If Yes,identify: 8, a.Will the proposed action result in a sulastantial 'increase in traffic above present levels? NO YES r.0 b.Are public transportation services)available at or near the site of the proposed action? Py 0 µ c.Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near site of the proposed action? } 9.Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? NO ; YES' If the proposed action will exceed requirements,describe design features and technologies: I 10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/pr ivatc water supply? NO YES� If No,describe method for providing potable water: 11.Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? - �..._...._. [ P g 1 NO, [ YES If '`1o,describe-method for providing wastewater treatment: � _-__. _ _._.____ ____ — _ V _ __ ✓ 1 12. a.Does the site contain a structure that is listed on either the State or National Register of I listE}ric NO YES Places? ED b.Is the proposed action located in an archeological sensitive area? 13.a.Does any portion of the site of'the proposed action,or lands adjoining the proposed action,contain Nfl_ YEa- wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal,state or local agency? Ell 121 b.Would the proposed action physically alter;or encroach into,any existing wetland or watetbody? 'E [� I if Yes,identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres: t'--1 Stairs leadrn_g_down slope,to a catwalk 4'above,grade:to a ramp and floattn_g dock_LLNo_wetlands will _ _be destroyed. Decking will be made of Thru Flow open deckinA_to,allow light penetration. t._ I 14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on,orate likely to be found on the roject site. Check all that apply: I Shoreline �I,'orest Agricultural/grasslands the, arid-successional QWetland arban Huburban 15.Does the site of the proposed action contain an species of anima! or associated habitats listed NO YES' 1 P Y 1 � 1 by the State or Federal government as threatened or endangered? 16. El is the psittaci site located in the 100 year flood plain? � NO YYES r N� 17.L'~-'ill the proposed action create storm water discharge,either from point or non-point sources? i IVQ) �•'f{.S 1f Ycs, J — a.Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? QNfl ❑`3'ES ! ✓� b.Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systemsrunoff and storm drains)'? I I If Yes,briefly describe: �NU ❑u'ES j -Page 2 of 4 ' 1 13 Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that result in the impoundment of ` NO LYES water or other liquids(e.g.retention pond,waste lagoon.datn)? if Yes,explain purpose and size: all 0 19.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active at closed NO YES solid waste management facility? If Yes;describe: 20.1]as the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation(ongoing or NO YES completed)for hazardous waste? If Yes,describe I ;AFFIRM THAT THE INFORMATION ION 1111OVt11 ED ABOVE I,�T tri-,-ANI)AC,(',IJ tA't'E'i'(t-t'�IE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE: Applicant/sponsor name: Dennis W Cole,Agent Date: Signature: Part 2-Impact Assessment. The heard Agency is responsible for the completion of Part 2. Answer all of the„following questions in Part 2 using the information contained in Part I and other materials submitted by the prolicct sponsor or .othetwise available to the reviewer. When answering the questions the reviewer should be guided by the concept"Have my responses been reasonable considering the scale and context of the proposed action?" No,of Moderate � Sin311 to large impact impact may may ; occur occur 11.. Will the proposed action create a material.conflict with an adopted lance use plan or zoning —r regulations? 2. Will the proposed action result iii a change in the use or intensity of use of land? , 1 3. Will the proposed action impair the character cit quality of the existing community? 4. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of Critical Environmental Area(CEA)? � l m�. 5. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the:existing level of traffic or affect existing infrastructure lbr mass transit,biking or walkway'? f. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate 1j reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy oppol-tunities? 7. Will the proposed action impact existing: a.public 1 private water supplies? b.public/private wastewater treattTtent utilities? CA S. Will the.proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic,archaeological, aTtchitectural or aesthetic resources? _ 9. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources(e.g.,wetlands, -- - waterbodies,groundwater,air duality;flora and Fauna)? W.... Page 3 of 4 1 No,or 11 small to large impact impact may may r ' OCCtrI' Od.'CUr 1 U. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion,flooding or drainage T l—ji problems? Wil! 11. Will the'proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? � Part 3-Determination of significance. The Lead Agency is responsible for the completion of fart 3. For every question in Part 2 that was answered"moderate to large irnpact may occur",or if There is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact,please complete Part 3, Part 3 should,in sufficient detail,identify the impact,including any measures or design elements that have been included by the project sponsor to avoid or reduce impacts. Part 3 should also explain how the lead agency determined that the impact may or.will not be significant.Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting,probability of occurring, duration,irreversibility,geographic scope and magnitude. Also consider the potential for short-term, long-term and cumulative impacts. ] Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and arialysis above,and arty supporting docuinentation, L—� that the proposed action may result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts and In envitonnaental impact statement is required. Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. l Town of Southold-Board of Trustees 3 Name of Lead Agency Date President Print or Type dame of Responsible Officer in head Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(if different from Responsible Officcr) PRINT Page 4 of 4 at.- -A of Tmateea APPllaatibn AFFIDAVIT Alexandra Jones BEING DULY SWORN DEPOSES AND AFFIRMS THAT HE/SHE IS THE APPLICANT FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PERIYIIT(S)AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF HIS/HER IKTOWLEDGE AND BELIEF,AND THAT ALL WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION AND AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES. THE APPLICANT AGREES TO HOLD THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES HARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND CLAIMS ARISING UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF SAID PERMIT(S),IF GRANTED. IN COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEES,THEIR AGENT(S)OR REPRESENTATIVES,INCLUDING THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL,TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY TO INSPECT THE PREMISES IN C0NjuNCTioN WITH THIS APPLICATION, INCLUDING A FINAL INSPECTION. I FURTHER AUTHORIZE THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY AND AS REQUIRED TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ANY CONDITION OF ANY WETLAND OR COASTAL EROSION PERMIT ISSUED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DURING THE TERM OT THE PERMI'P. -Signa of Property SWORN TO BEFORE ME TMS . U DAY OF Q 20 15 VV�.P Notary Vfiblic leanno Swoot®®ftal NOTARY PUBLIC,State of New York No.O1BA6210083 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires August 10,2017 Ho "L of Trustees Application 1 AUTHORMAT1ON (where the applicant is not the owner) I, Alexandra Jones residing at tchogue,I Y (print name of owner of property) (mailing ad rens) Dennis Cole of do hereby authorize (Agent) Cole Environmental Services Inc. _ to apply for permit(s)from the Southold Board of Town Trustees on my,behalf. (Own s signature) - - f APAPucANT/AGENTIREPREsENT4TM TRAL,NSACFIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM >hc'iownfld'sCodec€ ictmahits�ntlictsofiateras' l oat Of of thi. form,isto 'onwt►li$ fI"uacaElsw- r�cearytn avoid sa9me. - - Alexandra Jones YOUR NAME: initial,upiess you ai+a applying id*e nme of (Last name,Mstmum:�n someone else ar other entity,such as a company.M,*.indfcat the other person's or company's D=C-) NAME OF APPLICATION: (Chwk all that apply.) T�grievance - Bull" Trustees _)Netland&Permit vatiante Coastal Erosion Change of Zone - - Mooring — Appmval of plat Exemption from plat or off tial map other {If"ether,name the activity.} sihlm Cyt,or gild)have a tclationft with Officer or employee Do Ya t�i sonallj(4r thrstsgl�xot 'u diji �1 $n:m business itite si-BWncm intPa+e r means a business, of the'i`own-of Southglti?"Itetatio P PA Yoelm cvm apartid owner wp of(or cm*yment by)a co mrat OO includipf;apartaecsl»Ik irtwftidt�tawer�f =Qi*�:p10 in which fhc tovytt old ar cslayeawt�ttt +eti;ms 3°0 sltmres YES NO if ydu answered"YES',complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicst`4 Name of person employed by tim Town of Southold Title or position of that pemu - - hetNth ck describe the n:latiortsltiF weenyourself{#he applit�ttdagettthePs�ttkativej mrd Um town o�ax ar emplaya. er che the appropriate line A)tluough D)and/or destxt'he in the space pmvidc& the town officer or employee or his or her spotter goling pmp%or child is(dreck el 1bat apply): _ A)r#he ovwrer ol"gteateF the S°fe o€tfie shares 6ftlse curpoia�estoeicv.�tbe aQp�f• ' -( tStenPpficarN,is��ir�e ro��,� -� E)thelege��cbe�ciaf owresgE�irtterestirta•ndii�eiPora- Aplrlicam is notm c(HPQn6on); C')an mod. Palmer.oremg licsnt; n)the acuw applicant QESCPJPTION OF RELAI IOPIWT Submitted this day 20 Signature• t PrintName •r Form TS I OWNERS CONSENT FORM Owner's Name: Alexandra Jones Property Location: 1230 Bayberry Drive Cutchogue NY 11935 S.C.Tax#of Parcel(s): [-10001118 12 19 Please be advised that I am the owner of record of the above referenced property and hereby consent to Dennis Cole of Cole Environmental Services Inc.,making an application to the following: Agency and Application Type: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Tidal Webands [:]Town of ❑Village of ❑Suffolk County Department of Health Services Department of Waste Water Management, ["1 0 S Army Corgs of Engineers As owner of the property,I understand that I will receive copies of all correspondence,unless noted below. I also acknowledge that as owner,I am responsible for all activities that take place on the property identified above. SinceAof 9�n_� (Sign , "er) .d 0 !J ' (Dated) Town of Southold W Erosion, Sedimentation & Storm-Wafer Run-off ASSESSMENT FORM PROPERTY LOCATION: S.C.T.M.O. THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS MAY REQUIRE THE SUBMISSION OF A Oct .1000- 118- 2- 9 STORM WATER,GRADING,DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN j T sul ictecS�tl-on `Nock.— _-Ect CERTIFIED BY A DESIGN PROFESSIONAL IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. SCOPE OF WORK - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ITEM# / WORK ASSESSMENT' Yes No i a. What is the Total Area of the Project Parcels? 1.08 AC Will this Project Retain All Storm-Water Run-OEf f (Include Tota!Area of all Parcels located within r.enerated by a Two(2'1 Inch Rainfall on Site? the Scope of Work for Proposed Construction) (This item will include all run-off created by site b. What is the Total Area of Land Clearing I 00 1 AC clearing and/or construction activities as well as all - and/or Ground Disturbance for the proposed Site Improvements and the permanent creation of i construction activity? (S.F./Acres) impervious surfaces.) 2 Does the Site Plan and/or Survey Show All Proposed PROVIDE BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Provide Addi lonstPages as Needed) Drainage Structures Indicating Size&Location?This item shall include all Proposed Grade Changes and X To construct wooden stairs and landings, leading to a Slopes Controlling Surface Water Flow. i 3 Does the Site Plan and/or Survey describe the erosion shown on the survey prepared by Nathan Taft Corwin III and sediment control practices that will be used to — dated ecem er control site erosion and storm water discharges. This RA 4'x 41'wooden stairs and-landings 2015 as follows item must be maintained throughout the Entire 4'x 18'Fixed elevated wooden dock with ThruFlow Construction Period. i Decking 4 Will this Project Require any Land Filling,Grading or 3.5'x 14'Hinged Metal Ramp Excavation where there is a change to the Natural 6'x 20'Weeden Floating Dock Existing Grade Involving more than 200 Cubic Yards X (2)8" Fi -12"Pilings. Note- All wood used for the of Material within any Parcel? ; tj Will this Application Require Land Disturbing Activities Greenheart timber. Encompassing an Area in Excess of Five Thousand ❑ X - (5,000 S.F.)Square Feet of Ground Surface? i 6 Is there a Natural Water Course Running through the Site? Is this Project within the Trustees jurisdiction — General DEC SWPPP Requirements: or within One Hundred(100')feet of a Wetland or El Submission of s SWPPP is required for all Construction activities involving soil Beach? S disturbances of one(1)or more acres; including disturbances of less than one acre that 7 Will there be Site preparation on Existing Grade Stapes are part of a larger common plan that will ultimately disturb one or more acres of land; which Exceed Fifteen(15)feet of Vertical Rise to Including Construction activities involving soil disturbances of less than one(1)acre where One Hundred(71)0')Of Horizontal Distance? •i the DEC has determined that a SPDES permit is required for stone water discharges. s (SWPPP's Shall meetthe Minimum Requirements of the SPDES General Permit 8 Will Driveways,Parking Areas or other Impervious for Storm water Discharges from Construction activity•Permit No.GP-0-10.001.) Surfaces be Sloped to Direct Starm-Water Run-Off X i 1.The SWPPP shall be prepared prior to the submittal of the NO].The Not shalt be into and/or in the direction of a Town right-of-way? i submitted to the Department prior to the commencement of construction activity. �. El 2.The SWPPP shall describe the erosion and sediment control practices and where 9 Will this Project Require the Placement of Material, {i required,post-construction storm water management practices that will be used and/or Removal of Vegetation and/or the Constntction of any constructed to reduce the pollutants in storm water discharges and to assureItem Within the Town Right-of-Way Or Road Shoulder X compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit In addition,the SWPPP shall Area?(.lits nem will NOT Include tyre Installation or odvewa El Identify,potential sources of pollution which may reasonably be expected to affect the Y Aprons.) quality of storm water discharges. NOTE: If Any Answer to Questions One through Nine Is Answered with a Check Mark i 3 Ail SWPPPs that require the post-construction storm water management practice in a Sox and the construction site disturbance is between%000 S.F.&1 Acre In area, component shall be prepared by a qualified Design Professional Licensed In New York a Stone-Water,Grading,Drainage&Erosion control Plan is Required by the Town of that is knowledgeable In the principles and practices of Storm Water Management. Southold and Must be Submitted for Review Prior to Issuance of Any Building Permit i (NOTE, A Check Mark(4)androrAnswer for each Question isRequired foraComplete Application) i SPATE OF NEW YORK,, COUNTY OF...........................................SS That I.................................................................................being duly sworn,deposes and says that he/she is the applicant for Permit, (Name of individual signing Document) And that he/she is the ..................................................... ... (Owner,ConNacier,Agent,Coipoiate Office etc.j .. .• .• ••• Owner and/or representative of the Owner or Owners,and is duly authorized to perform or have 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 knowledge and belief;and that the work will be performed in the manner set forth'in the application filed herewith. Sworn to before me this; ...............................................day of............................................,20..... II• !� NotaryPvblic: .......................................................................................... .......................................................................... ? (signature of apprpnt) ; FORM - 06/10 i€ ' 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 ficant beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area(which includes all of Southold Town) i 3: If any question in Section C on this form is answered "yes"or "no", theri 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,f- . If an action cannot be certified as consistent with the LWRP policy standards and conditions,it shall not be undertaken. i 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 _ 118 _ 2 9 t PROJECT NAME Jones Property I 1 The Application has been submitted to(check appropriate response): Town Board ® Planning Board® Building Dept._® Board of Trustees i 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: r P1 . Nature and extent of action: To construct wooden stairs and landings, leading to a wooden fixed dock, catwalk, ramp and oa ing dock ag is s own on tne survey prepared by Pathan Tart Corwin ITT datedDecember 3, 20151 4' x 41' wooden stairs and landings 2015 as follows: ' ac }g , - dam-daewith—ThasaFlew Beeleing 3.5' x 14' Hinged Metal Rae mp 6' x 20' Wooden Floating Dock (2) 8" -12" pilin4S Note, A11 WQQd used for the trrnrrinn of H. e1-a,ra Aark,nQ dock and float to be Greenheart timber. R Location of action: 1230 Bayberry Road,Cutcchogue,NY 11935 Site acreage: 108 Present land use: Residential Present zoning classification: R-40 r 2. If an application for the proposed action has been filed with the Town of Southold agency, the following information shall be provided: i • I (a) Name of applicant:Alexandra Jones (b) Mailing address: 1230 Bayberry Road, i (thy NY 11935 (c) Telephone number:Area Code( ) 631-492-2677 (d) Application number,if any: i Will the action be directly undertaken,require funding,or approval by a state or federal agency? r Yes 21 No rl If yes,which state or federal agency?NYSDEC,USACE ! i 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 • i 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. i M✓ Yes ® No ® Not Applicable Property has waterfront access and accordingly, the owner wishes to construct stairs dock ramp and float so as to realize their ril2adan riRhts. Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of Southold. See f LWRP Section III—Policies Pages 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria ® Yes 11 No M Not Applicable f y `d Attach additional sheets if necessary I I 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 r ® Yes ® No ✓® Not Applicable ' I Attach additional sheets if necessary NATURAL COAST POLICIES Policy 4. Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. See LWRP Section III—Policies Pages 8 through 16 for evaluation criteria M Yes ® No E3 Not Applicable Structue will be designed so as to provide efficient, safe access to the waterfront. E i Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy S. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III —Policies Pages 16 through 21 for evaluation criteria Z Yes ® No ®Not Applicable I Dock and ramp are to be constructed in arrardance -with the NY.SnFC, jTsAa a-pd To,47P of Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystems including Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and wetlands. See LWRP Section III--Policies; Pages 22 through 32 for evaluation criteria. ® ® �✓ I Yes No Not Applicable I I ' I i i Attach additional sheets if necessary i Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III — Policies Pages 32 through 34 for evaluation criteria. ® Yes ® No ✓@ Not Applicable I Attach additional sheets if necessary • C. Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. See LVVRP Section III—Policies; Pages 34 through 38 for evaluation.criteria. Yes No Not Applicable T Iir I 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 LVVRP Section III—Policies; Pages 38 through 46 for evaluation criteria. 44 ® Yem No 10 Not Applicable f i f i Attach additional sheets if necessary WORKING COAST POLICIES i Policy 10. Protect Southold's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-dependent uses in suitable locations. See LWRP Section III•—Policies;Pages 47 through 56 for evaluation criteria. No d ✓ Yes ® Not Applicable � Proposed action is to construct a dock to provide riparian access to the existing inland waterway. connecting to Great Peconic Bay. Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 11. Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in Long Island Sound, the Peconic Estuary and Town waters. See LWRP Section III—Policies;Pages 57 through 62 for evaluation criteria. ®Yes ® No M Not Applicable ` 1 + j Attach additional sheets if necessary { Policy 12. Protect agricultural lands-in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III—Policies; Pages 62 through 65 for evaluation criteria. ®Yes ® No r211 Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary !�! - i Policy 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources: See LWRP Section III--Policies;Pages 65 through 68 for evaluation criteria. + ®Yes ® No Not Applicable PREPARED BY Dennis W Cole,Agent TITLE QTS - DATE—U b u j •1f '/ VC IF B PO Box 471 Manorville,NY 11949 cesenv@gmail.com Tel. No. (631) 369-9445 Cell No. (516)768-1210 Fax No. 631-599-7735 2/16/2016 Town of Southold Board of Town Trustees E C E I If E 54375 Main Road nD i Di!D Southold, NY 11971-0959 FEB 1 7 2016 1 1 Southold Tcwir, Roan`Tru,ee Re: Application for Stairs leading to a pier, ramp and float Project Name: Alexandra Jones Addr: 1230 Bayberry Road, Cutchogue, NY SCTM No.: 1000-118-2-9 To Whom It May Concern: Enclosed please find three completed packages, containing the following items in support of our dock, ramp and float as shown on the ac II The following ite 1. Town T .,, � Wetland/Trustee Lands Applica _ 2. $250.0011q y � cZ I -0 �,A old Trustees 3. Affidavit 4. Owners C ` 5. Affidavit FF.76. Transacti -OFF- 7. . Short E4 8. Short EA '� , i ( ` 9. Erosion a ssment Form 10. Proof of 11. Notice to U 12. LWRP Consistency Assessment Form 13. Survey of property with plan and sectional views of proposed stairs, fixed dock, ramp and float. 14. Photo Sheet and Photo Location Sheet 15. Survey of Property 16. Location Map 17. Copy of Co-v.. --tter to the USACE. 18. DEC Permit Application Detail Sheet 19. Letter from Jonathan Perry giving Mrs. Jones Permission to use the underwater land from this dug creek. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at the above address, by phone or by e-mail cesenv@gmail.com. Sincerely, DWC/Encl CC: Alexandra Jones Dennis W. Cole, Agent { / x { yy{ OF ,} Photo 1 Photo4L MIA r Ile Photo 7 j { Photo 5 x• ` ANN J - •� �._ .� � I � posed Doc Pro M P Location CL Photos 0 2, 3, Photo 8 `,. and 4 d Al " A .r r 4� r 2' � t _ `xr k w a t� d Name. Location: SCfM No 00200-797-2-3.7 Photo Date. Alexandra Jones [i230 Bayberry Road,Cutchogue Nov 6,2015 zz 7 jr f `4 1 • Photo from house deck. Water depth 10'offshore 11.6.1511:40 AM at proposed • dock location. n«. r r. +� �.• R»' :v �` { : .�'tib'�. " Cyd. .•_ - 3 Water depth 10'offshore 11.6.15 11:40 AM at proposed S.alterniflora fringe along edge of creek. • dock location. 4• Name: Location: Photos by Dennis Cole SCTM No 1000-118-2-9 Photo Date: Alexandra Jones Bberry Road,Cutchogue Nov 6,2015 5 Stake indicating edge of tidal wetland boundary. G 1 Flagging tape on Baccharis halimifolia.. V tit ' � r r.F r, +I' .------^� - ., :��� �• 1y � I• '� t ti Stakes show proposed dock location along creek edge. 81 Looking upslope,orange fiberglass stake shows 7. Reset Form approximate location for stairs/decking,etc. a :�`+,.,, .i„�#'{ • �1 yl. •°e�,�,*� "�'. • • • • `..�'+t~ `ice' 1350 BAYBERRYRD AP ip . ' IL rw .r �,. . ` • , MISUP'jl � Ar ` ���� . • y 12108 �,. �' r"7!, �=' a�,x► s 16 �! •� t • 4 #. 730 ABORN ' 33 :BAYBEW LN RO 41 • • ». -40 J 4th •+ , - r M 3 s} „ ti Oft E ARM my €� f Name: Location: STAKING PHOTOS Photo Date: Alexandra Jones 1230 Bayberry Drive,Cutchogue,NY Jan 7,2016 aT Vo AilI ' r,• 'e r,� ~`•Ali} � 1 • Sairway starts here. �• Shows stairway alignment. Ar 3• Oak trees to remain-stairs go in between. ^. Small reward stakes show where dock will go.Dock to `t be 4'above grade with ThruFlow Decking. Go gle Maps 1230 Bayberry Rd Location Map 1230 Bayberry Road Cutchogue IID Zi F econic 2 131, Mai,eaYy Rd R livr,—lid neCOrH �2 C RrYN 0 Nedell r'ellars car � Z y t ® y, `5 n $ a Nor yao Cutchogue Y Y y North Fork Country pubs a f,230 Bayberry Rd a No ack r+• � A y Mattituck New Suffolk � Elizabeth A Morton (� National m .1P10 wildlife cv ineyards Quo 9� �D the fridge Golf Club i "y• Laurel Q� Robins Island anr,R� o x Southampton Acres. VW � a a IV o Cj acg� PVA o '1"a� '1s,• Q c� P� s —A ""get Go g le,mop l,-; a Gte Pee .reserve 20 o y Map data 02015 Google 1 mi CONSULT YOUR LAWYER BEFORE 1 s 3 THIS INSTRUMENT-THIS INSTRUMENT SHOULD BE USED BY I'. ,,t'RS ONLY THIS INDENTURE,made the 20 day of pIA-Y 1201 5. BETWEEN U L �V JANE A.NELSON,residing at 136 Wickham Road,Garden City,New York 11530, N I DID party of the first part,and a FEB 1 7 2016 ALEXANDRA JONES,residing at 36 Blacksmith Court,Huntington Station,New York 117d 6, i party of the second part, SGUth6 cd Tarn WITNESSETH,that the party of the first part,in consideration of ten dollars and other valuabl party of the second part,does hereby grant and release unto the party of the second part,the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever, ALL that certain plot,piece or parcel of land,with the buildings and improvements thereon erected,situate,lying and being at Nassau Point,or Little Hog Neck,Town of Southold,Suffolk County,New York,and known and designated as part of Lot 120 on a map entitled,"Amended Map B of Section B,Nassau Point Club Properties,Inc.,situate in the Town of Southold,Long Island,New York"surveyed on October 4, 1923 by Otto W_Van Tuyl,C.E.and Land Surveyor, Greenport,N.Y.and filed in the Office of the Clerk of Suffolk County,N.Y.on September 26,1924,File#789,as more particularly set forth and described as follows: BEGINNING ata point on the westerly side of Bayberry Road,where the same is Intersected by the division line between lots 120 and 121 on said map, RUNNING THENCE along the westerly side of Bayberry Road(an irregular curve)the tie line of which bears South 11 degrees 09 minutes 20 seconds East 50 feet to the division line between lots 119 and 120 on said map; THENCE along said division line South 54 degrees 48 minutes 00 seconds West 288.32 feet, THENCE South 63 degrees 40 minutes West 50.60 feet; THENCE South 45 degrees 56 minutes 50.60 feet West; THENCE again along the division line between lots 119 and 120 on said map South 54 degrees 48 minutes 00 seconds West 84.68 feet to a lagoon; THENCE in a general northerly and northeasterly direction along the same the following two be line courses and distances:(1)North 26 degrees 20 minutes 30 seconds West 92.33 feet,(2)North 46 degrees 20 minutes 00 seconds East 225 46 feet to the division line between lots 120 and 121 on said map; THENCE along said division line North 71 degrees 53 minutes 30 seconds East268 feet to the westerly side of Bayberry Road at the point or place of BEGINNING. SAID premises being more commonly known as 1230 Bayberry Road,Cutchogue, New York 11935;Section 118, Block 2,Lot 9 on the Suffolk County Land and Tax Map. BEING and intended to be the some premises described in the deeds to the party of the first part herein by deeds in Liber 12286 page 774 and Liber 12538 page 286. TOGETHER with all right,title and interest,if any,of the party of the first part in and to any streets and roads abutting the above described premises to the center lines thereof,TOGETHER with the appurtenances and all the estate and rights of the party of the first part in and to said premises;TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises herein granted unto the party of the second part,the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever. AND the party of the first part covenants that the party of the first part has not done or suffered anything whereby the said premises have been encumbered in any way whatever,except as aforesaid. AND the party of the first part,in compliance with Section 13 of the Lien Law,covenants that the party of the first part will receive the consideration for this conveyance and will hold the right to receive such consideration as a trust fund to be applied first for the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will apply the same first to the payment of the cost of the improvement before using any part of the total of the same for any other purpose.The word"party"shall be construed as if it read"parties"whenever the sense of this indenture so requires. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the party of the first part has duly executed this deed the day and year first above written J EA.NELSON SENCE OF: Standard N Y.B T.0 Form 8002-Bargain and Safe Deed,with Covenant against Grantofs Acts-Uniform Acknowledgment Form 3290 r TO BE USE' '- r Y WHEN THE ACKNOWMDGMENT IS MADE IN NEW YO.i..'R;ATE State of New York,County of Nassau ss: State of New York,County of ss: On the 20 day of VA e in the year 2015, On the day of in the year before me,the undersigned,personally appeared before me,the undersigned,personally appeared JANE A.NELSON, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual(s)whose name(s)is satisfactory evidence to be the individual(s)whose name(s)is (are)subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me (are)subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that helshe/they executed the same in hisfheritheir eapacity(es), that he/sheflhey executed the same in his/heritheir capacity(ies), and that by his/herltheir signature(s) on the instrument, the and that by histheritheir signature(s) on the instrument, the individual(s),or the person upon behalf of which the, '' ails) individual(s),or the person upon behalf of which the individual(s) acted,executed the instrumen acted,executed the instrument (signature and offi i . ual taking arkmowiedgment) (signature and office of individual taking acknowledgment) kI �FIHN e of New Yak Na O1FL4781022 C on E tb xpW uy .2018TO BE USED ONLY WHEN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT IS MADE OUTSIDE NEW YORK STATE State(or District of Columbia.Territory,or Foreign Country)of as: On the day of in the year before me,the undersigned,personally appeared personally known tome or proved tome on the basis of satisfactory evidence to bethe indrvidual(s)whose name(s)is(are)subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/shefthey executed the same in his/her/their capacity(tes),and that by hisiher/their signatures)on the instrument,the individual(s),or the person upon behalf ofwhich the individual(s)acted,executed the instrument,and that such individual made such appearance before the undersigned in the in (insert the City or other political subdivision) (and insert the State or Country or other place the admowledgment was taken) (signature and office of individual taking acknowledgment) SECTION 118 BLOCK 2 LOT 9 BARGAIN AND SALE DEED COUNTY OR TOWN WITH COVENANT AGAINST GRANTOR'S ACTS Suffolk County STREET ADDRESS Title No. TA020216011R 1230 Bayberry Road Cutchogue,NY 11935 Recorded at Request of TRINITY ABSTRACT LLC STANDARD FORM OF NEW YORK BOARD OF TITLE UNDERwRnERS RETURN BY MAIL TO: OWbutod by Kevin Finn,Esq. Finn&Finn Commonwealth 500 Front Street Hempstead,NY 11550 COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY RESERVE 7HIS SPACE FOR USE OF RECORDING OFFICE 4-2 RECORDED Number of pages 2015 Jun 08 09:57:09 RM JUDITH R. PRSCRLE r,LERK OF This document will be public SmFRLK COUHTY record Please remove all L DOW12819 Social Security Numbers P 553 prior to recording. DT# 14-27327 Deed?Mortgage Instrument Deed/Mortgage Tax Stamp Recording I Filing Stamps "3 FEES Mortgage Amt Page/Rling Fee 1.BasicTax Handling 20. 00 2. Additional Tax SubTotai TP-584 SpecJAssmt Notation t or EA-S2 17(County) / Sub Total Spec/Add. 12-5_ TOT.MTG.TAX EA-5217(State) _ Dual Town Dual County _ R.P.TSA. HeldfidrAppflintm_ t _ comm.of Ed. 5. 00 TransferTax - Mansion Tan Affidavit "— covered this mortgage Is The property by Certified Copy — or will be improved by a one or two 15. 00 family dwelling only. NYS Surcharge SubTotal YES or NO Other a T.OZ if NO,See appropriate tax clause on Grand Total page# of this instrument f fx' S I Community Preservation Fund Dist 15014M 1000 11800 0200 009000 Jb c Real Property T Consideration Amount$ TA9 cye RDTY A IIWIIW9�®WI���WI� Tax Due $ �pa� Verifir�pn O4JUN-1 Impro 6 Satin ctions/Dis amges/Re eases List Property owners maiao" ng nwrs Vacant Land RECORD&RETURN TO, / . fr TD ZAAW f TD N�„ h�AD ,rrtJ //rte TD Mall to:Judith A.Pascale,SuffolkCounty Clerk LTnItle Title Company information 310 Center Drive, Riverhead NY 11901 .Name ���,}� �' wwwmftlkcount)mygov/deck a. # 5 0-55-2! r rd 8 Suffolk County Recording & Endorsement Page This page forms part of the attached Me made rm by, (SPECIFYTYPE OF INSTRUMBIT) The premises herein is situated In SUFFOLKCOUIM,NEW YORK. TO In the-FOWN of r I ,OLE�A�D�r9 � S IntheVILLAGE or HAMLET of_ I - BOXES 6 THRU 8 MUST BE TYPED OR PRINTED IN BLACK INKONLY PRIORTO RECORDING OR RLIidG6:,, Dock Jonathan Peny Sat 10/17/2015 3:32 PM To jour'ey,400hotmall com<Ioumey.40@hotmail com>; 0 2 attachments(2 MS) Corazzini permit to build dock-pdf;Corarlini Dock pol< Hi Ms.Jones, I received your letter this week.As we had discussed,I would like you to put in writing the circumstances that brought you to contact me regarding your proposed dock.I intend to deed you the land underwater in front of your property to construct the dock upon as we have-done in the past 1n order to do this,you will need a survey of the proposed land where the dock will be located.I would also like to clarify that you will be willing to absorb all costs involved in your project This will include but may not be limited to the survey,filing fees,and attorney flees required to draft and file the deed.Finally,I would also ask you to sign an affidavit stating that you will not become a party to the current legal action that the Lagoon Association has brought against me. I attach the documents associated with the Corazzini dock which may be of value to you as you initiate your project Please contact me if you require additional information. Jonathan perry FEB 1 7 2016 B a 'of Tr a - Dock Jonathan Peny P�11 E I �gSat 10/17/2015 3:32 PM To� .400hotmailcom<- 7 2016loumey ,)oumey.40@hotmad.wm>; thold Tmin � 2 attachments(2 MB) T Coraaini permit to build dodcpdk Coramni Dodkpdi; Hi Ms.Jones, I received your letter this week.As we had discussed,i would like you to put in writing the circumstances that brought you to contact me regarding your proposed dock.I intend to deed you-thelandunderwater in front of your property to construct the dock.upon•as-we-have done in the past In order to do this;-you-will-need a surrey of the proposed land-where the dock will be located I would also like to clarify that you will be willing to absorb all costs involved in your project.This will indude but may not be limited to the survey,filing flees,and attomey fees required to draft and file the deed Finally,I would also ask you to sign an affidavit stating that you will not become a party to the current legal action that the Lagoon Assodation has brought against me. I attach the documents associated with the Coraaini dock which may be of value to you as you initiate your project Please contact me if you require additional information. Jonathan Perry L ffe W W ®V y `6�zz A s �� i 1 Fwd: can you please give me an answer RE: Bredemeyer and Jones. Jonathan Perry ; AEr- Fri 1/29/2016 2:58 PM 9 ToJones Alexandra <journey.40@hotmail.com>; , F E B 1 7 2016 I Seuihof�!i;��rn B f Tr e Begin forwarded message: From:ebressierL@wbglawyers.com Subject:RE:can you please give me an answer RE:Bredemeyer and Jones. Date:January 29,2016 at 1:57:59 PM EST To:Jonathan Perry<joerryl2nyc Qme_com> Dr.Perry, Eric hopes to attend to Bredemeyer and Jones mid-week next week. Enjoy your weekend. Kind regards, Allison Latham Paralegal Eric J.Bressler,Esq. Wickham,Bressler&Geasa,P.C. 13015 Main load P.O. Box 1424 Mattituck,New York 11952 631298-8353 631298-8565 (Fax) ebressler@wbglawyers.com This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.This communication may contain material protected by the attorney-client privilege.If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient,be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination,forwarding,printing,or copying of this e-mail is strictly prolubited.If you have received this e-mail in error,please immediately notify the sender at 631-298-8353. 36 Blacksmith Court Huntington Stat,NY November 2015 Dr. Jonathan Perry 435 East 57th Street Apt 14D New York, New York 10022 Dear Dr. Perry: First, I want to thank you for offering to give me the underwater rights for my waterfront property frontage. I first learned of you because, as a new property owner, I was approached by a member of the community (Joseph Ploriton) and asked to sign on as .a litigant against you and your wife. I was given all the informationpreviewed it, and made a decision not to become a part of this lawsuit. Needless to say, I was hasseled that my property value could be dropping if I did not join them. I will not be a part of any suit against you now or anytime in the future. Enclosed is the survey and location of the proposed dock that you requested. I realize there may be a cost to draw the_ deed up and I will pay its cost, but in the interest of saving some money, I can run to Riverhead to filp=and record it. If there is anything else that you find necessary, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks again. Sincerely, Al dra Jon s Enclosures EC V �� a FEB 1 7 2016 a Seuthcid 7' T 36 Blacksmith Court Huntington Station, NY October 5, 2015 Dr. Jonathan Perry 435 East 57th-Street New York, New York 10022 Apt 14B RE: Property Located 1230 Bayberry Road, Cutchogue Tax #118-2-9 Dear Dr. Perry: home.It was a real pleasure meeting you last weekend at your As per our discussion, I am requesting from you, permission to use the underwater area next to Iny property, so as to make an application for a dock permit. I own the property at 1230 Balberry Road, Cutchogue, NY 11935. If you have any questions of me, please do not hesitate to -give me a call at 631-673-8720. Thanks again. Sincerely yours, aX4 Alex dra n s L � Dr F E B 1 7 2016 111 S07" Town B ar (If T"' ,ees M1 14' it S� PO Box 471 Manorville, NY 11949 cesenvPgmail,com Tel. No. (631)369-9445 Cell No.(516)768-1210 Fax No. 631-599-7735 1/26/2016 US Army Corps of En-ineers NY District ATTN: Regulatory Branch r E " 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1937 New York, NY 10278-0090 �$ F E B 1 7 2016 1 Re: Wetlands Application for: Alexandra Jones 1230 Bayberry Road Southold Tbwn Cutchoguo, NY 11935 B Tr SCTM No. 1000-118-2-9, To Whom It May Concern: Mrs, Jones is requesting a USAGE permit to construct stairs.landings. fixed dock, ramp and float. Access for the upland portions of the project Will be through her property along north side of the house. The dock construction will be done by barge. Decking for the fixed dock will be ThruFlow: Please note a separate tidal wetlands application has been filed with the NYSDEC Region 1 office The following items,are enclosed: 1. Joint Application Form 2. Siane'd Owners Consent Form 1. Photo sheet and photo Iocation sheet 4. Location.Map 5. Survey containing plan and sectional view of the proposed dock. Should you have any questions,please feel free to contact me at the above address or by phone. �Sincerely, / Dennis W. Cole.Aaent DWC/Encl CC: Alexandra Jones a �t ZSTAITEW YORK Depart ek of ORTUNITY Environmental Conservation ! New Search- Or use the browser back button to get to previous page DEC Plerrnit Application Detail IQ Application ID: 1-4738-04449/00001 Facility: Jones Property Location: 1230 Bayberry Road, Cutchogue, NY 11935 Town or City: Southold Applicant: Jones, Alexandra Permit Type: Tidal Wetlands Application Type: New ' Date Received: 01/25/2016 Status: Completeness Determination Due as of 02/09/2016 Complete Status: UPA Class: Short Description: CONSTRUCT STAIRS, FIXED DOCK, RAMP & FLOAT ENB Publication Date: Written Comments Due: SEQR Class: E ? SEQR Determination: Lead Agency: F E B 1 7 2016 ? EnvironmentalSc dCloTown Justice: Bard of Tru ee SHPA Status: Coastal Zone Status: Final Disposition: �zn Permit Effective Date: Permit Expiration Date: Stimulus Project: No ' Other Known IDs: None DEC Contact: Laura F Star SUNY @ Stony Brook150 Circle Rd, Stony Brook, NY 11790 Tel:(631)444-0365 0lease ernail iiiee Regional Office for additional information or questions regarding this application. N �1 SEE SEC 111 ONE l° rte WUnnew.I. ` 196N.) ,1 ry Pond TOWN OF `°_____ SOUTHOLDN1 w N tb e 8 10 \AO 90 °z�J \�29 24A(c)� 4\Y 9.f P 16149, �• 8 ^y, ll 1+ I 42 lbw \ Poh 9• 6MI01 � ,J 114 11.2AIcIT�overrtw.wm \ % 43 tP I �S 1a OBJ �J,r/ 45: . e 9 2 A bV 4S a � N K amiK SOUTHOID SECTION NO NOTICE ''4zO�"'''h. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK © E Real Property Tax ServiceA9ency Y 4 „1.�EOT 118 C,—,C°W W—a4,NY 11901 m M ,>• rmc,r.o wms uraas0+ww0nows4.u�vw �_ — � su.n wewnwna nawv wr w.. '•"' �r ,vre+ yis0u°.:Wn,viP4 u.P,9 wan0t,Fn ___ _—a-- .e...a..va+---.-- w.. a •v'@ w,Hovrvamar,r[xvibswxar,na d` m ° P ROPERTY MP SURVEY OF ID P/0 LOT 120 '' AMENDED MAP B FEB 17 2016 I NASSAU POINT CLUB PROPERTIES , INC . SECTION No. B outhn:uDond of Trustees #. N FILE No. 789 FILED SEPTEMBER 26, 1924 U, SITUATE �� e NASSAU POINT o' a 0 x ON � TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 26$°- M SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK G • S.C. TAX No. 1000- 118-02-09 N/o/FPFEIL / / o o SCALE 1 "=30' o oUls w /X7.9 aX 1 o N L 121 X� o DECEMBER 3, 2015 L°� Xo.6 / /J �'� / _ _ < 1 \ TOTAL AREA = 44,726 sq. ft. �j _ ° \ (TO TE LINE) 1 .027 ac. ��SO J a\ X3'-6 - _ // � ' -x81- - -°� 4.5Aj JI �^ /GONG yA0 4.5 - ' ASPHALT DRIVEWAY 4 7 // �rl �� Ix�• 1/ / \2. \I / - - - - \ j\ 5.1\ / X 2.7 �Q�V• < /x' /J //x8.6_ - - / \ j \ \ ` -4 v .moi \ 5.2 / x / /OOp�� �cy////jami / 1,.2 - o ��/ \\ \ \\ \\x Ls \- - - -� ` ` � - - - -7 /ii// %/j// 13.3 /x \� 12. � _ 11 � � - -8 44 �. //i/_ / / - _ -9 I-Ay// / ///X� i- \ 13.1\ \ \\� \ _ - _ _ X10 PROPOSED b'X 20' •^` -1.10 'k /// /// /' \ _ - WOOD FLOATING DOCK X111 G / /�,>� / 5. \ - .� -11 moi 5� 1s.5 9 0\ \ _1 11.5 _ - - -12 NOTES: �, �2r _ \ \ 9��tA�NE �//�/ /16.4 �'l a 02 \ 1 .s ` - - - - -13 1. ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO N.A.V.D. 1988 DATUM �5 x1A ED a x e FxED z //// / / /17 / E o SF i - - - - - -14 EXISTING ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN THUS: P05E9W POO Dom"WI(';"C' DET 6.01 //� ///1 4p/ -� p°a° �pJ ,5.5 - - - - _ - - - -15 EXISTING CONTOUR LINES ARE SHOWN THUS: - -5- - - -KIN6 F.FL. - FIRST FLOOR Gp1.,1POS1�flEGOR�P�.� _1.0`II�• / %'f713. mob F�P��O�� GV' pG - - -16 1� G.FL. - GARAGE FLOOR y i^ �. �c .t T.B. - TOP OF BULKHEAD -1.0 P / y F o. \ ��- - - - X 117. - ->7 `v B.B. - BOTTOM OF BULKHEAD y�P Orgy°1 ^ / yl 06 R�9 ���RPG�1� O� ` CO_�� �O �I `�v T.W. - TOP OF WALL (3 2.3��00�SC�1.�'///// / ;t�7O0 / 1 GP �O° "` _ - i'f - -� O� I �"1 B.W. - BOTTOM OF WALL O x ca 71 Is ILI 21. X77 j/�/�� jj j/xi 412x/ X66 1 o Q x19.0 / �• f-r - _ y O�P 'S.?T Fi G 5Ia'.a'TOP RAR mss/ X 21.1 's \o X22 E�P� / / / /,(/ / / / ,L6 e I.1'1.0'_--_ 5 j//�1� '/ // / / / / "i 7 6/ / / // / -X 2 / \ 23 OO E PROPOSED 4'X 18'FIXED s a'.a'MID RAR el.12.0'---- W000 DOCK WITH THRUFLO IS / /// / //// /// s\ GAP�ZN �O�° �0� _ �� / �Y COMPOSITE DECKING(DEG EL.6.0) �<0 'Fi'/� O J KVC" PROP ED 14'METAL HINGED RAMP ,( �•'J /� °?/ I / / / // /1 / / / / / x2 / 'O, NGF- - --- -b'X 20'NDN-TREATED WOOD FLOATING DOCK \YJ ev¢ 2x12 stringers,Jxb handrail, -O 6' el.2.2' 2'z s'DECK --ALW el.-1.0 4 el.O.O'---- 2x4 mid rail, ,../� O 4x4 posts Embedded 4' / X 23.2 O 2'z a'GIRDERS below grade a • I GREEK BOTTOM NO Untreated Proles f p Q Q m 2"[a'LEDGER ~N S Embedded 4' z F .2 / / / / / / pJ�� `J,/ ; below grade La FV Untreated Diameter -1.0 z 22.0 G RY z �K d Embedded Hardwood Aires II / / 102 / / 3. / I / / / / / tv�'°� 1 S'HOUSE 2 p o 3= below water line / / / / w FRAME = o A' � W f o I�i ill I i I�/ I\ I1X I i I X I I I X 16.9/ Za.1 I I GRADE � p F W 00 i�llllilll1('\ i i I lI l `\ �\ I\ \\ \\ \\ i Io DOCK & STAIR CROSS-SECTION I SECTION OF WALKWAY 4. SCALE 1"=30' fTlx-o.9Illl1j1111\x�1 1\\\\ ��\\ \\ \ \° \ � � G) �S• X-0.7 iI�II\ k 1 \ `� °\��\� �� o •O O o PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MINIMUM CJ; \\\ \\� �s p'O STANDARDS FOR TITLE SURVEYS AS ESTABLISHED 2.4 r^ v (J /�_ BY THE L.I.A.L.S. AND APPROVED AND ADOPTED TE ASSOC ATI ORSUCH USE BY T TE LAND •CP' \ \ /I �,0�� ��• �� F X41-0.8 2. S• SOP s y�� •Q��Ov���U v N.Y.S. Lic. No. 50467 UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY IS A VIOLATION OF p0 SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE COPIES LAW. Lathan Taft Corwin III COPIES OF THIS SURVEY MAP NOT BEARING THE LAND SURVEYOR'S INKED SEAL OR Land Surveyor EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED °P�\o TO BE A VALID TRUE COPY. E� O CERTIFICATIONS INDICATED HEREON SHALL RUN p0 ONLY TO THE PERSON FOR WHOM THE SURVEY IS PREPARED, AND ON HIS BEHALF TO THE TITLE COMPANY, GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY AND Title Surveys - Subdivisions - Site Plans - Construction La out LENDING INSTITUTION LISTED HEREON, AND Y Y TO THEASSIGNEES OF THE LENDING INSTI- TUTION. CERTIFICATIONS ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE. PHONE (631)727-2090 FOX (631)727-1727 THE EXISTENCE OF RIGHTS OF WAY OFFICES LOCATED AT MAILING ADDRESS AND/OR EASEMENTS OF RECORD, IF 1586 Main Road P.O. Box 16 ANY, NOT SHOWN ARE NOT GUARANTEED. Jamesport, New York 11947 Jamesport, New York 11947 35-253