Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBasilice, Vincent Basilice, Vincent '3255 Bay Shore Rd., Greenport Proposal: VINCENT P. BASILICE requests a Wetland Permit for the in-place replacement of existing 75' bulkhead new with vinyl-sheathed bulkhead; construct a 4'X 65' low-profile fixed walk with seasonal 4'X 20' ramp and 6'X 20' float. Located: 3255 Bay Shore Rd., Greenport. SCTM#53-6-8 I have attached the following for your reference in evaluating this proposal: 1. Minutes from Trustees Akselrad hearing. 2. The resolution of the Akselrad hearing. 3. Minutes from the July 19, 2006 Basilice hearing. The March 2007 minutes are not available yet. 4. The dock test from Chapter 275. In evaluating the proposal follow Chapter 275-11. C. (2) Docks. Consider whether the dock will have any of the following harmful effects, in order to determine if a permit may be issued: -Has the applicant provided information that there is or is not eelgrass or other, submerged aquatic vegetation in the vicinity of the proposed dock? (#7) -Has the applicant provided a visual analysis? (# 10) -Will the permitting of one dock set a precedent for more docks along the waterway, that will have cause habitat fragmentation, and a cumulative impact on the area? ((#6 and #11) The proposed dock/catwalk is located in Peconic Bay between the New York State Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas, Pipes Cove and Conklin Point. The applicant has provided data on a survey that shows only 2.1' of water at the seaward edge of the proposed dock. The applicant currently does enjoy access to the waters of the Town, as shown by the stairway to the beach and a mooring in front of his property This access does allow the ability for the riparian property owner to access the navigable waters of the Town The Town may not grant an easement over its property for the construction of a dock The application is inconsistent with the policies of the LWRP, 1, 3,5,5,6, and 9. See review for details. The area of shoreline where the dock is proposed currently is not developed with docks. In following the stated intent of the Town Code, the Trustees are committed to preserving such sections of shoreline, which still exist in their natural state. A dock to the west was built with out a Trustee permit. The Trustees support the findings of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the Peconic Estuary, which was recently approved by New York State and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Plan's goals include a policy of"no net increase" of hardened shoreline in the Peconic Estuary. The permission of the application would be counter to that policy and the factors enumerated above. The dock, as proposed, will interfere with navigation, and boats traveling parallel to the shore. The proposed dock faces a direction that area experiences high winds and ice in the winter months. Any such structure would not be safe from the wind, weather, and ice conditions. Damage to a structure at that location would subject the shoreline downwind to significant harm in the event it breaks off. Other concerns: habitat loss, shading of bay bottom, limits public access along the beach below MLW and along the shoreline for kayaking, fishing, shell fishing, walking. Prepared by: Heather Cusack Environmental Technician April 18, 2007 Chapter 275, Wetlands and Shoreline 275-11. C. (2) Docks (d) Review and approval of dock applications. Before issuing a permit for a dock structure, the Trustees shall consider whether the dock will have any of the following harmful effects: [1] Whether the dock will impair navigation or be located in areas of high vessel traffic or vessel congestion; [2] Whether the dock will unduly interfere with the public use of waterways for swimming, boating, fishing, shellfishing, waterskiing and other water-dependant activities; [3] Whether the dock will unduly interfere with transit by the public along the public beaches or foreshore; [4] Whether the dock will significantly impair the use or value of waterfront property adjacent to or near the dock; [5] Whether the dock will cause degradation of surface water quality and natural resources; [6] Whether the dock will cause habitat fragmentation and loss of significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats; [7] Whether the dock will result in the destruction of or prevent the growth of vegetated wetlands, seagrasses including eelgrass (Zostera marina) and widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima) or shellfish; [8] Whether the dock will unduly restrict tidal flow or water circulation; [9] Whether the dock will be safe when constructed; [10] Whether the dock will adversely affect views, viewsheds and vistas important to the community; [11] Whether the cumulative impacts of a residential and commercial dock will change the waterway or the environment and whether alternate design, construction, and location of the dock will minimize cumulative impacts; and [12] Whether adequate facilities are available to boat owners and/or operators for fueling, discharge of waste and rubbish, electrical service and water service. Board of Trustees 1 September 20, 2006 MR. FRAGOLA: Here is the drawing Chuck Hamilton came up with. He essentially agreed with everything at the meeting. The only difference he had, only 25% he wanted to shorten up the underwater jetty on the north side. His comment was he would remove this jetty totally in this printed area and if it has to go in, he'll make a decision on that. He wants us to dredge on the south side, minus two feet. That's about it. It's basically everything you said. The only issue is subject to is based on the difference of elevation of six feet here and two feet here. In addition to that, at the meeting -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to come up and see what we are looking at? TRUSTEE KING: The next door neighbor was there when we were out at the site. I think everything we addressed in the field has been taken care of. The bulkhead is going to remain here and this area is going to be dredged. MR. FRAGOLA: It's not going to be what it was before. It's going to be less than what it was. So it will be minus two feet. Chuck Hamilton made a comment he said he was going to make it one foot but after I talked with him, he'll go with the two feet. So to answer Bob's question, it will be greater than it was before. It will be two feet depth. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What you are saying is it's not going to be totally level it's not going to be back to where it was before but it's going to be -- and this will be reduced 25% and this is subject to review after the construction. So after the construction if we feel the need to put something there. MR. FRAGOLA: The only thing I request, you had mentioned about a 10-year maintenance as far as dredging. I don't know what the next step is. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we approve this based on the new drawings and we can include the ten-year maintenance dredge (Perusing.) (Inaudible) So we'll wait on the revised plans for this. Are there any other comments on this application? Anything from the Board? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I'll make a motion to approve the application based on the modifications that we made and we'll get new plans indicating that, and I think we should also add on the ten-year maintenance dredging for the basin and the general area there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. JOHNSTON: Fred, are you still using Land Use Ecological Services, Inc.?When they issue the permit, do you want them included in the permit or delete that name? MR. FRAGOLA: I would prefer to have it issued to me. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Number eight, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of Evan Akselrad requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 450 fixed dock with seasonal 4x14 foot ramp and 6x20 foot floating dock. Located: 1355 Shore Drive, Greenport. Is there anyone here to speak to this issue? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. I have delivered to the Trustees a revised plan that moves the dock to the west. 18 Board of Trustees 1 September 20, 2006 We've re-oriented the float. Before I go any further, I would like to know what the Board's comments are, please. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The Board's comments? MS. MESIANO: If there are any questions. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Let's hear from the public first. If you have questions, that's fine. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? Any board members? (No response.) Here's the plan (perusing.) CAC recommends approval with a non-turf buffer. MS. MESIANO: That buffer has already been approved. I came before the board last time. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's just a comment from the CAC. Does anybody else have any questions? I just have one quick one. The DEC's depth of water you have to accomplish for them, for their approval? MS. MESIANO: We need to maintain two-and-a-half feet and we are out three feet. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The only reason I ask that is I heard the DEC has been asking for four feet. MS. MESIANO: If that is the case, and we really don't want an expansive dock. And Mr. Akselrad, if it's necessary, if the DEC wants them and we have to go longer to gain greater depth, he'll eliminate the float. He just wants to be able to launch a kayak, a canoe, a small boat. He doesn't intend to tie anything large up here. He just wants to be able to access a boat on moorings. So he's not looking to extend as far out as three feet, four feet to accommodate that. He's looking for a minimal structure which is why we proposed the dock here to try to keep it as low profile as we can. To gain access for a kayak or canoe. If the DEC is looking for something greater, we'll go smaller to eliminate it. TRUSTEE KING: Is this going to have a mooring? MS. MESIANO: I'm not asking for a mooring. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No, you're just asking for a dock for a boat. MS. MESIANO: I'm just asking for a dock for recreational marine access. I don't know if he has a boat on mooring. He mentioned to me he would like to be able to get to a boat on mooring. I think he was speaking in the future because he's building a house, he does not reside at the property yet. He's planning ahead, as you had mentioned about the CAC recommendation, my comment was that we had come to you before with that and that was already approved. So this is a work-in progress. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Any other comments by the Board? (No response.) The LWRP finds it inconsistent, the proposed action is for private use and will not support a pattern of development that enhances the community character. The application has not demonstrated that the dock structure would not adversely affect the scenic viewshed of Pipes Cove. The materials used to construct the dock are unknown and should be identified. The use of the dock -- I'm just reading what they are saying. The use of the dock must be identified. The installation of the proposed dock may promote power boat traffic and possible following negative affects. The dock structure results in a physical loss of marine habitat. The proposed action would result in a physical loss of ecological components as listed above. The applicant has not demonstrated that the following dock standards and operations have been met. The dock structure will protrude from an existing bulkhead to a minimum of three-and-a-half feet. The shore locked structure will obstruct and 19 Board of Trustees 1 September 20, 2006 impede public access and the applicant currently enjoys access to public .Q waters throuah the location o e wa a ront parcel. The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed action meets the above listed policies. And ih. there is an entire document. Okay, no more comments from the public, I'll make a motion that we close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I will make a ' n to deny this application of Catherine Mesiano on behalf o van A ad o construct a 450 foot fixed dock with a seasonal ramp and 6x20 foot floating dock. It was found inconsistent with the LWRP and in particular there are three or four issues that myself and I think t e oard members would question. First, the dock may result in the destruction of I� vegetative materials. Second, the dock may be unsafe when constructed due o the lar ewind direction and third, the dock may adversely affect views, viewsheds and vistas important to the commune y n as , e cumulative impacts of reside-nTia-I an commercial dockage wi c ange the waerwayo t e environment and alternate design construction location will minimize -- let me stop there. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Anybody opposed? (No response.) Thank you TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Next is the application of Catherine Mesiano on behalf of JLH Associates requests a Wetland Permit to construct bluff stairs from the top of the bluff to beach. Located: 1690 The Strand, East Marion. Is there anybody who wishes to speak in favor or against this application? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. We are looking for access down the face of the bluff to the beach adjacent to the structured site. The structure proposed is a timber steps 4x105 feet. It's not unlike many of the steps along the same area. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Any other comments from the public or from the Board? (No response.) I looked at this personally and I didn't see any problems at all. The CAC asked that there be minimal disturbance to the bluff and they asked open mesh grading be used on the landing but, you know, that's not necessary. It's recommended. If you want to do it, fine. But I'm not going to— MS. MESIANO: I'll pass it on to the applicant. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Okay, any other questions? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I'll make a motion to approve the application for JLH Associated to construct a bluff stairs from the top of the bluff to the beach. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. A TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) d It was consistent, also, with the LWRP. I didn't say that before. Board of Trustees 45 July 19, 2006 motion once again to table this application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES. 9. Catherine Mesiano on behalf of VINCENT - BASILICE requests a Wetland Permit to replace in-place the existing 75' bulkhead with new vinyl sheathed bulkhead and construct a 4' by 65' low profile fixed walk with seasonal 4' by 20' ramp and A 6' by 20' floating dock. Located: 3255 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM#53-6-8 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of this application? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. We have designed a minimal structure that we could do to reach a depth where-one-could float a boat, if you will. I know a neighbor had a concern about the distance from the property line. I just want to make clear that the structure is proposed 15 feet from the property line. We have had current soundings so our structure is based on the soundings that we recently had done. And I also understand that the Board had a concern about the sheathing that had been repaired when they had appeared at the property last week, and I have photographs to give the Board. The bulkhead is in very sad shape. There was a lot of washing out. There's been quite a bit of overtopping. They were losing a lot of soil behind the bulkhead, it was washing out beneath. There was a lot of holes in the bulkhead, so it was a temporary measure, they screwed up decking material, tongue in groove decking material to maintain what's there. The old bulkhead is still there underneath it, its a temporary measure until the bulkhead can be replaced because it was quite holey, and I'll give you these pictures. TRUSTEE KING: You're talking about a complete replacement. MS. MESIANO: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Cathy, you're saying the vinyl was put-- MS. MESIANO: It was screwed up over the existing sheathing as a temporary measure because a lot of material was washing out from -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I understand that, but shouldn't that have been an emergency permit from us? MS. MESIANO: I was unaware of it until it was brought up to me. There was no excavation done. It was put up as a patch on the face of the bulkhead. There was nothing removed. There was nothing excavated. I've seen many people just 45 Board of Trustees 46 July 19, 2006 screw up pieces of plywood to patch a hole. They had that before but the holes were getting bigger and they were getting more material washing out, so they put this material up over it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I share the same concern with Peggy here. This was to me appeared like it was tongue and groove vinyl, work was done, it could have been applied for as an emergency permit, it was not, and what it appears to me is though the people did the work without a permit, and now, they're coming in and asking for a permission to do something they already did without a permit. Also with tacking on over the outside, they have extended it, and I'm not sure, there was no chance for an LWRP review of this. There was no chance for CAC to look at this. So I was very concerned whether I saw what appeared as though the applicant had done work without seeking proper approval. MS. MESIANO: I was not aware of it until I spoke with Lauren and she gave me the Board's comments. I went down and looked at it. I don't know if someone had asked me to apply for an emergency permit, I would have done it in that manner, but I probably would have said to the Board let us screw some boards up so we can keep it in place. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This was a lot more than screwing boards up, the whole bulkhead has been resheathed. Essentially the entire bulkhead has been resheathed, and it's not just patching. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Do you know when it happened? MS. MESIANO: Probably within the last month. When I went to post the property, I did not walk down to the water. So I would say at least a month or more. MR. BASILICE: The sheathing was done just before the winter. We had a big sink hole that was developing, and I did try to patch it with the plywood several times. MR. JOHNSTON: For the record, could you state your name? MR. BASILICE: Vincent Basilice. None of the wood was changed. When the fellow said he was going to patch it, he said it would be easier to just go tongue and groove across the whole front so nothing would wash through. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Who was it that did that work for you? MR. BASILICE: First name is Chris, I don't know his last name, I have his company. TRUSTEE BERGEN: He was a local contractor? MR. BASILICE: A local excavator, yes. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anybody else who wishes to speak for or against? MS. DUFFY: I'm Darlene Duffy, my husband owns the property 46 Board of Trustees 47 July 19, 2006 right next door to Dr. Basilice. One of the things I'm concerned about, I apologize, I don't know why I was under the impression they were trying to put this bulkhead five feet off the property line, but they assured me today they were looking to put it 15 feet off the property line, which is what you allow. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The dock or bulkhead? MS. DUFFY: The dock, I'm sorry. One-hundred feet-out-is pretty far out there. One of my concerns is we-have-45 houses along that peninsula on that side, and half of them on are on 50 foot lots and I don't know what kind of a precedent the Board is going-to-set about docks. If wanted to live on a marina, I would move. But I live on open water and that's because I like looking at it that way. If we had 50 docks out there, and I do believe some of the neighbors are just waiting to see what you are going to do with this application, so I think that's an important consideration. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Are there any other comments? MR. BASILICE: I do. You're-looking-at 2.2 feet of water-where the dock is going to go. There are no boats that are going to be running in front of this dock, only little rubber rafts, which is what we're talking about, center console. This is not a place where people are going to water ski or anything like that. It's such a difficult thing to get down to the beach because of the size of the rocks that it's hard to walk on the beach. We don't have a beach, Darlene and I, we have rocks. Basically it's tidal. So it's really something to get to, a tender to get out to the water, that's what we're looking to do, low profile. share her view. I don't want to see an obnoxious looking dock. This is going to be a low profile dock made out of plastic which will let light come in; it's not going to environmentally impact anything that's growing underneath there. It just makes the property more useful. I live out here full time, this is my residence, and I would like to be able to use the property to its fullest. And there was also a dock here before when I bought this property. It was on a survey in 1972. When I bought the property the two original pilings are still there. If you went out there, Mr. Bergen, you saw pilings in the front. We left those because we always intended at some point to put some kind of a structure back, so we can use a little boat. MS. DUFFY: I just wanted to say one thing, I've been living there-24 years and I have never seen--the-dock. I assume he's telling you he still has pilings there, so I guess. 1 47 Board of Trustees 48 July 19, 2006 don't know how much standing that has. He says there was a dock there when he bought it. MR. BASILICE: Before 1972 on the survey, that's what I said. That's before you were there. MS. DUFFY: Okay. That's right in 24 years I haven't seen a dock. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Are there any other comments? MR. YAXA: One more comment, Dean Yaxa, 215 Colony Road, Southold. I think we're talking about setting a-precedenthere. Miss Duffy said there's 45-more homes on-the street there, no one of which have docks. This guy gets it, you know darn well that there's money on the street like I said, they're all going to want docks, and there goes the serenity of the beautiful area, thank you. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Bruce, I'm sorry. MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, resident, how about that. I have ambled into the office earlier today and Darlene was there and we started talking about this. I can tell you that the applicant undoubtedly has a problem, and his problem is going to be to try to secure a DEC permit. The problem begins with DEC with this ridiculous policy that says you have to get to two and a half feet of water because the propellers are going to stir up the bottom, and that's why you need that water. And what happens, particularly if you're in Pipe's Cove, which is a very shallow cove, is it forces these docks to be very long because you have to go out the 100 feet or more to get to that kind of water at low tide. was telling the gang down there that on Sunday I'd taken my 10 year old son out to the ruins in hopes to catch a keeper fluke, which didn't exactly work out, but on the way out there was a tremendous amount of boat wakes, and I've noticed in my life time that the number of boats have increased as have the size of the boats and that means more and more waves. And it's this policy of trying to get into deeper water that fosters the larger boats that you're seeing today and it's really driven by DEC. This gentleman says he's looking for a tender just to get out to his boat, I understand that and I understand his problem, it's got to be 100 feet because he's got to get that DEC permit. And I've mentioned this to the previous Board and I'm going to mention it to you that it's my recommendation and hope that the Board get together and write a letter to DEC and write it to Charles Hamilton, who invented this new rule three or four years ago, and write to Pataki and copy all these people because 48 Board of Trustees 49 July 19, 2006 that type of policy, the implementation, if I'm a consultant and I have to get a dock permit and I have to find a way to come up with a dock that's acceptable to everybody, it becomes a very large dock or a very long dock, and for a tender, that's unreasonable. But I understand this man's problem. So I really encourage you to do that. I'm even willing to write the letter for you, you can edit it yourself, because you will see more and more docks, and they have to get bigger and bigger and bigger to comply with this ridiculous policy, which in my opinion would never have withstood the legislative process. If the legislature had come up with this policy, the two and a half feet for the prop dredging, folks like me and I suspect Mr. Hermann and maybe Miss Mesiano would say, wait a second, you're just saying bigger boats, bigger props, more prop dredging, the policy doesn't address the alleged impact, if the impact is real in the first place. So I encourage you to do that. I stand by, I'm willing to write the letter for you, I think that would resolve a lot of these problems, you're going to see more and more of this. TRUSTEE KING: You must remember it used to be four feet, we got them down to two and a half feet in seasonal. MR. ANDERSON: I must tell you, I represented a man named Philbin who lived at a house on Dune Road in Quogue, and he had 1,000 feet of spartina marsh between his house and the water. I went in to DEC and I got a permit for a 1,000 foot catwalk, a 3' by 20' float to a -- no, a 3' by 15' ramp to a 6' by 20'float. On my plan I put down at the seaward edge of that float it would achieve 1.6 depth and I got a permit from DEC in about three weeks signed by Hamilton. So this was never this idea that, oh, it used to be four feet, it used to be no requirement, then it went to four feet, then it we have a seasonal two and a half. These are all contrived rules but they all foster bigger structures than I think are desirable in these areas. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Thank you, Bruce. MS. MESIANO: I can't top that. MR. BASILICE: Joe Basilice, 2405 Bay Shore Road, I'm a resident also. Seems to me there's a difference here between me putting a dock in and him putting a dock up. If it was grandfathered that he has a survey that shows that a dock was there, it makes sense to me that he should be able to get a dock. If I was going to ask for a dock, I could see the big political rigmarole here, but if Chuck Hamilton says that this survey shows there was a dock and there's still existing pilings, it makes sense to me that the man 49 1 Board of Trustees 50 July 19, 2006 should have a dock. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: For your information, normally if there is a structure existing we allow it a lot easier, but if the structure's no longer functioning, by code it has to be functioning a certain percentage, and it's just the way the book is written that there is no dock there, that there is no dock there, it is not functioning so even if it was there 10 years ago, three years ago, if it's not functioning, we can't consider that. MR. BASILICE: If a groin is destroyed that's not rebuilt either? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Yes, if you have a groin going out and half of the boards are missing, we have to consider it as a new project. It's just the way it's written. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Cathy, is there a reason why you didn't go to two and a half feet? MS. MESIANO: Length. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So do you expect DEC to approve this? MS. MESIANO: All I can do is send it to them and get their comments. I explained to my client that we just had to apply and see what's going to happen. I appreciate the Board's position as far as trying to limit docks and you refer to docks on, quote, the bay, and in other instances I've interpreted that to mean the Peconic Bay because of its nature of being a more open body of water, more wave action, etcetera, when it's referred to as "the bay," it's always been my perception that you were referring to the Peconic. I usually come to this Board first before I finalize plans and send them to the DEC. I haven't sent it because I was waiting for your comments. It's easier to amend a plan then give it to you and then send it to them rather than amending what's already been sent in there. So have not sent it into them, and I wouldn't until I got your comments. I would just like to say that as a waterfront owner, waterfront owners do have riparian rights. We were not asking for an excessive structure. We're asking for the minimal structure that we can to have a minimal dock that will float. It's a low profile structure of a grid material that we have used on other projects that the Board has approved. I agree completely with Bruce. Forcing people to go to deeper water does force people to build bigger docks and allow you to bring in bigger boats. Dr. Basilice's objective is to be able to maintain a small boat with a shallow draft and a tender because he has a mooring off shore, but it's very difficult to get to because of the 50 Board of Trustees 56 July 19, 2006 either way. It's not fair to give you a decision to make in one second. I think it makes much more sense to say we'll give you either way, and it's your choice; does that make sense? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's our recommendation. TRUSTEE KING: DEC will let them put it lower, where they won't let them put a wooden catwalk low. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You'll have the same view as you have-now because you won't have the catwalk there, it will be lower, it's a consideration. MS. REIDY: Somebody had mentioned that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of James Reidy request for a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 63' catwalk to access existing dock located on Deep Hole Drive. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion that we reopen-, the hearing of Vincent Basilice. -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE BERGEN: Had a question for-- is it Dr. Basilice? DR. BASILICE: Vincent Basilice. You said that the contract's name was Chris? MR. BASILICE: It actually wasn't, it was Ian, I made a mistake, Ian, not Chris. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Question, the gentleman in the back of the room with the green shirt, yes, sir, could you step up to the microphone, please? Could you identify yourself for us, please? MR. JAIGLE: Christopher Jaigle. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Were you the contractor who did the work on this bulkhead? MR. JAIGLE: No, I did not. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Did you work on this bulkhead at all? MR. JAIGLE: No, I did not. MR. BASILICE: I just said it was Ian Crowley. TRUSTEE KING: Had a misunderstanding, I guess. Make a motion to close the hearing, TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 56 ti Plan View N N Applicant:Vincent Basilice wF 1" = 30' Proposed: Dock, Ramp& Float s N Purpose: Private Mooring Surveyed: 06-12-06 SCT# 1000-53-6-8 N N 0�' 0Town: Southold co 0 0 ,,,--'N N Suffolk County, NY ,� A - N N N 0 Datum: Low Water J1 `Q N N 7 Tide Range: 2.5' +/- # \000,-6r N N n a d Of5y core \dl o cv # °°K lF\be�F\\\oat O Q N \-°� Pc0` p �' o ` P 01vv 4' X Sherd No�S pot\o o IZ006 foul O v I O c c� O oo J e cr � N a � I �# \o p 01yL ZD gar�day 5 re Section Construction materials 1" = 20' Proposed Low Profile Dock (Fiberglass Grid) from approved list 4'x 65' (8" dia. piles 8'oc) with Seasonal Ramp (4'x 20') & Float (6'x 20') SEA HW LEVEL LW MAPPING Wet l and 631-722-3390 Boundary 8" dia. exist. PO Box#536 at wall piles bttm. Riverhead,NY R. Fox 8' O.G. ROBERT H.FOX June '06 6NYS00bS#5t)o19M G.\SLM\baeellce. ro /� Plan View N Applicant: Vincent Basilice w F 1" = 30' Proposed: Dock, Ramp & Float s ;, Purpose: Private Mooring N 9 Surveyed: 06-12-06 N cs N SCT# 1000-53-6-8 "� w ,-' 'r, � Town: Southold ° CD Suffolk County, NY o Datum: Low Water N N N 7 Tide Range: 2.5' +/- g3-6'ien�o `� ^' �p0�"d J�r - y_. n tQ#3 F\beCg\a a� OOCk l F\0 w N ?V0 \e rused Pop � 4` Xg5 ,, ,N eye 6 O w ,, s She #3255 �8 Ore - R�Qd � M NO cozs a~ 6 o CC 334 day� Section Gon5truction materials 1" = 20' Proposed Low Profile Dock (Fiberglass Grid) from approved I15t 4'x 65' (8"dia. piles 8' oc) with Seasonal Ramp (4'x 20') & Float (6'x 20') SEA HW LEVEL MAPPING Wet land LW 631-722-3390 Boundary 8" dia. exl5t. PO Box#538 at wall piles bttm. Riverhead,NY R. ROBERT H.FOX June 1 e 'OV O/ 8' o.c. NYS PLS#50197 6/14/2006 9d5.40AM ' G\SLMVasellce. o James F.King,President o�"OF SO!/jyo Town Hall Jill M.Doherty,Vice-President 53095 Route 25 Pe A.Dickerson P.O. Box 1179 Peggy � � Southold,New York 11971-0959 Dave Bergen G 4 • �O Telephone(631)765-1892 Fax(631)765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 20, 2006 Catherine Mesiano Catherine Mesiano, Inc. 12 Mill Pond Lane East Moriches, NY 11940 RE: EVAN AKSELRAD 1355 SHORE DRIVE, GREENPORT SCTM#47-2-27 Dear Ms. Mesiano: The Board of Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 regarding the above matter: WHEREAS, Catherine Mesiano, Inc. as agent for EVAN AKSELRAD applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, application dated June 28, 2006, and WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation_ Advisory. Council for their findings and recommendations, and, WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on September 20, 2006, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and, WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and, WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application, and, WHEREAS, the dock as proposed is located in an area restricted by Chapter 275 of the Town Code, specifically: 2 -' a,s WETLANDS AND SHORELINE,97-27,C: In Water.(2)Docks (bPDock Locations and Lengths 1. No dock shall be erected if in the opinion of the Trustees such structure would adversely affect navigation,fisheries,scenic quality, or habitat.ai*eas. (d)Revlew and Approval of Dock Applications 1. Before issuing a permit for a dock structure,the Trustees shall consider whether the dock will have any of the following harmful effects: (d)Whether the dock will significantly impair the use or value of waterfront property adjacent to or near the dock (e)Whether the dock will cause degradation of surface water quality and-natural. resources' (f)Whether the dock will cause habitat fragment-ationvand loss of significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats (g)Whether the dock will result in the destruction of or prevent the growth of vegetated-- wetlands, sea grasses including eelgrass and widgeon grass or shellfish 0)Whether the dock will be safe when constructed (k)Whether the dock will adversely affect views;view sheds and vistas important to the community and, WHEREAS, the applicant currently enjoys reasonable, safe, convenient access to the waters of the Town as demonstrated by the existing and:accessible stairs to the beach, and, WHEREAS, "reasonable access" is defined as the ability for riparian property owners to access the navigable waters of-the Town, and, -X. �GS A Moorr) WHEREAS, when, as here, the land ownership of the applicant is to the high tide mark, the Town may reasonably refuse to grant the proposed access-over public property and rationally exercise its jurisdiction to deny the construction of a dock, and, WHEREAS, it is found that the area of shoreline where the dock is proposed currently is not developed with docks and in following the stated intent of the Town Code, the Trustees are committed to preserving such sections of shoreline, which still exist in their natural state, and to enhancing visual quality and protecting scenic resources of the Town, and, WHEREAS, the proposed dock will cause fragmentation of habitat and structural intrusion and change to the continuity and configuration of the natural shoreline, and, 3 WHEREAS, the proposed dock will run contrary to the Trustees' efforts to maintain the natural resources and the ecological integrity of the contiguous ecological community and maintain corridors to allow for the exchange of biological resources, and, WHEREAS, the Trustees support the findings of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the Peconic Estuary, which was recently approved by New York State and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and which Plan's goals include a policy of"no net increase" of hardened shoreline in the Peconic Estuary and thus the permission of the instant application would run counter to that policy, which the Trustees find to be consistent with the policy standards applicable to docks found in Chapter 275, and, WHEREAS, the Trustees believe that the installation of a dock in this area would adversely affect the shoreline, and, WHEREAS, this area consists of a significant and unaltered shoreline, a near shore shallow water habitat, and, WHEREAS, the dock is proposed in water that is veryshallow, with onlykeet of water at its seaward end, and, a , WHEREAS, the dock, as proposed, will interfere with navigation and boats traveling parallel to the shore, and, NbAcas'k WHEREAS, the proposed dock faces the Sot east; in such direction that area experiences high winds and ice in the winter months any such structure would not be safe from the wind, weather, and ice conditions; Damage to a structure at that location would subject the shoreline downwind to significant harm in the event it breaks off, and, WHEREAS, the Town of Southold Senior Environmental Planner and Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Coordinator has recommended the proposed dock be found ,INCONSISTENT with the following Local Wate"rfrontRevitalization Program Policy Standards: 1, 3.1(A, B, C, D, E) 4, 5, 6.1 (A, B), 6.3(A), 9.4 (A, B, E), 9.5 (A, B, C,D), which recommendation attached hereto, and therefore be found INCONSISTENT with the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP"), and, WHEREAS, the development of a dock in this area will interfere with public access to publicly owned lands and waters and in an area that is undeveloped, highly valued open space, a natural resource with visual and scenic views and the LWRP includes policies that demand the protection of such characteristics and resources, and, WHEREAS, the application for the proposed dock is contradictory to the findings of the Peconic Estuary Program's Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, and Nature Conservancy's Peconic Bays Natural Shoreline Committee, which findings the Trustees find to be consistent with the policy standards applicable to docks set forth in Chapter 275. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees, upon consideration of the application, personal inspection, public hearing, review of the completed Consistency Assessment Form, the recommendation of the LWRP coordinator, the policies of the LWRP and the above enumerated factors, find the proposed action to be INCONSISTENT with the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that for the above stated reasons and as reflected in the record the Board of Trustees DENIES the application of EVAN AKSELRAD to construct a 4'X 50'fixed dock with seasonal 4'X 14' ramp and 6'X 20'floating dock, and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this determination should not be considered a determination made for any other Department or Agency, which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. Very truly yours, �i )4J F. Kin�g President, Board of Trustees JFK/hkc r „F F �n� r a. x der > q .4 Ul James F. King, President *QF SO Town Hall Jill M. Doherty,Vice-President ,`O� ill 53095 Route 25 Peggy A. Dickerson P.O. Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Dave Bergen G Bob Ghosio,Jr �� �� Telephone(631)765-1892 IyCOU '� Fax(631)765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Board of Trustees Field Inspection/Work session Report Date/Time: 3- 1q -o7 VINCENT P. BASILICE requests a Wetland Permit for the in-place replacement of existing 75' bulkhead new with vinyl-sheathed bulkhead; construct a 4'X 65' low-profile fixed walk with seasonal 4'X 20' ramp and 6'X 20' float. Located: 3255 Bay Shore Rd., Greenport. SCTM#53-6-8 0 J, : cc-TM C '-q- Type of area to be impacted: o�rnnv Saltwater Wetland _Freshwater Wetland _Sound /Bay Distance of proposed work to edge of above: Pa;t of Town Code proposed work falls under: _Chapt.275 _Chapt. 111 _other Type of Application: Wetland_Coastal Erosion_Amendment Administrative _Emergency Pre-Submission Violation Info needed: Modifications: ' ,� k.�- �b Conditions: , DDrnv, 'C-°T A hgh y r S�C� k �, C46Z-L 'E" UC W�, Present Were: t/J.King J Doherty`JP.Dickerson L//D. Bergen B. Ghosio, Jr ✓H. Cusack_D. Dzenkowski_Mark Terryother Gaff►- � �`'i''�1 Mailed/Faxed to: Date: Environmental Technician Review W l I bt ac�— Lt-a" B-4 W 4 h i S . Ari3 z V.; 'I GOLer w l A herr.+ . ,J'y cue , 14oct,44 --io 16 Le --- -� ED r August 28, 2006 !y`L7;ld 1 2006 Dear Mr.'King: ioi•r�� I am writing to you today and to the Board hoping to cle -up-any-eooirfiision Band to�Ciy a move on with this issue. On July 19'h 2006, after a very,long work day, I was certainly not thinking about the emergency repair of the bulkhead and could not remember the name of the contractor. I was focused on the joint application for the bulk head repair i and the new dock. It was only after we were tabled by the Board that Darlene Duffy and I spoke in the lobby. It was there that we realized that the contractor was Ian Crowley who Darlene had used in the past to repair her bulkhead. In fact I got the idea for a patch form her. I had patched the bulkhead myself for several seasons with plywood until the main supports were rotted. A sink hole developed in my yard on the southern part of the wall near the flag pole, approximately 6-8 feeti.inclength. You can still see where the vegetation has not come back. I called Ian who came to look at the bulkhead and said it was too far gone and needed to be replaced. I told him I was going through the process of getting the paper work together for a permit for a new dock and a bulkhead and can we band aid the bulkhead for this winter. I did not know about the existence of an emergency permit. He told me he was too busy to do the repair but after seeing the sink hole he said he would patch where the main leak was present. He put 6-7 plastic planks at the southern side of the bulkhead where the wood was totally gone. I paid him $1000.00 for this repair. It is a tongue and groove plastic and looked like it would solve the immediate problem. The following weekend my Brother and I purchased the plastic boards and completed the bulkhead facing ourselves which took about 6-8 hours. Ian Crowley did,nothing wrong except help someone who was in danger of losing his backyard." I am not sure what the Board would like me to do; pay for permits and emergency permits? Taking the patch off seems extreme but I would consider it if you wish as long as we can repair the bulkhead properly. I am a 12 year resident in Southold and proud to live here. I practice Ophthalmology in I East Setauket and have many patients who live in Southold. I spoke last week at the Greenport Board Town Meeting where my company, Oceansafe Housing owned by myself, My Brother Joseph and Robert Fusco, presented. At that meeting we agreed to donate an Oceansafe structure, a complete exterior locked-out house to a needy family in Southold Township. Mayor Kapell and the board were excited by the project. In closing I just want to bring closure to this'issue and do what the Board feels is right. If you or the Board would like to meet with me privately or at a pre-Board meeting, please let me know. Sincerely, Vincent'E.,Basilice,MD T' ( -*, : w a ak w i s tv _ IV- T a• �' /- �1 �_. s -� `�. `� �� F tl. -'• + �' � t' �� ; s � �` �,/�'� � `,_ .:,ter a ,�,_ �� y � III". 'w' '� � � yam ? ��''�"� i . . � �-� � � � � � r � - r � y. �.� , ,, I `� { �� .� ', _�__ ,, _1 � � � - , � _ e_ r k ; _ T _ -- �, — � __ 't � � � �� I .. ;.. _ -. � - I - #.-,..File -Mew Toolbar ktelp R��.� 1 = t _ 473889 Southold— Active ^ R)S.31' :;School:". 6reenpoit'S'Q'ooh iGlous,James A;° iiRoO Year' „007' Next Yi. 2`FamilyRef, landrAV:.3.200t - .w... _.� _ 3805',Baq''S,horeR:dk'; _' 'Land-Siie:i0.40:acres To bAV 8:800: Miscellaneous - Name: James<A'Clous Counly:' Book :1'21'97 A dl°AddV. ;. Mun% 8;800 Pae =.685 Stiee da`Woodsidef Ct`. 4;`" ' 'Sc 8�800z Moit9; _- Cit H"unt;in `tos7 Sta:HY 1:1746= '- Sctilafter Star 8800! t .,o(„Yj r.:..:,:. S.ale_, ='.:.Total:.;1�` - B"ook ,Na e�.` ^ 'Sala;Date 'Sale<Piuse",,,`10wnerr" . Prpelsc'' 2-FamiWffles 1.2197-a :=685' =06124%02; 750 000:CIoua,:James A' ` NbadsCd::O _.- - W ' ater:Ic i R S} ,UtIlIt18S:' ,E "W Tfotal .0 . em ':Buildng Total'" Code;.: ;'Amount, •Year: ' Pct » y_ =Vatuel (°: I'mprovemenEm�' ” Ta�aNO ;e Code: rUnit's Pct`Type Move TaK Type' :Name iDiml` 'bim2' ., SQF�Ts'YA: ilts ' FD031 E:WProtectio" 00. 900 SWOla `Solid`'Yi�a t'e'I: :00; OW 00 3-< ,>:v� �„^,, Vit" •_.j'.'j'q:i8.r <;�..; ._ - _ , ' .,, i.. ,. - .. ,.,i. ''{s't '4.�Y4 :.�"i s.t-' f, D - - � ° _ , ,i.-_ _ ! -s3s`•f ' Double cLck,to;open a wrndow.::. 61 " ;Start I'_ ®Inbox:MidosoftEQiitlooke M� �RPS Versian 4 „1`0: _ I, Yti0 OCK �pQCm(-V on -�i l Z - F J w '± A4 _. � s _ .,. __ - �- �..,�� --�-�.=--�wr - _ _ ,,� — .� _ _a_ `" _ .,�_", 'fir � __. .. __ �� .—� �� �. �- -__ .: <> �� � �a ,�. ,,.,; �� .. _.. .�_: � ;. _ __ V �. s _ -- _ _ �.... s r- ! } t _ ' i f 41 iL s� Y a � 4 y F� t 1 . .RE e r. n� t t ,y I 9 Y' �tll'° 4.� 1, Y�N.•py+r�����, � �_. "lIE i i I 1 I, tl ire ,! Aw S y {,1'.tJr+r �� Y �� vd � ,,*y wqi� ��, -« ...�... {'�(.{�r,,� /l •f \�'� •{. �r� {*,.�'^� �1#, a.. �� Sp,�,.t a h. i y J h tw x.�•/w L , , rt j 1 � f -C. "K �. �� �s 4 �� 1 t � �� r, /' ;. ,�,. �1. _z �����• i �, �� 1 '��. �, ee A � T ,A ^ �� } k. }q �1 � � �, ``«r - �� F'� F ' ��t'' ��/ • V � �_ ' � i � f 'i-/y P I A� 1 . . "r . v Y ; .i y r I .r.v '�{ �'' ! ��{ M'1' f yd'�_ t ... d _.y � +� r. r :> � � • yp/ t S � • �2 � � �� � d � �,' t . � #-' �; - � � `�a i x w e'. �� - �� _.. _. �i, �� ,- r 1 '� 1�� � µ'ms .. A i�'� r I �' 4 ,� y�. 7 '�' ,. - i - /' -ti�Y �., f 6., , � r��� �/F1 y' :. J � F 1 J � - � ,� A y � Yt a ��.��t `. � y �►°tom+ � d '� !+ � / e`'""� i� « _ J `.� �� �� .� �� _ .. _ _ .: .2 6 '� '.� .. .,� A`� J '.. � .. 10 r Wk FL r Telephone (631)765-1892 e�/� 2 Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O.Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971-0959 CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL TOWN OF SOUTHOLD At the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council held Mon., July 17, 2006, the following recommendation was made: Moved by Don Wilder, seconded by Jack McGreevy, it was RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustees APPROVAL WITH A CONDITION of the Wetland,Permit application of VINCENT P. BASILICE to replace in-place the existing 75' bulkhead with new vinyl sheathed bulkhead and DISAPPROVAL of the Wetland Permit application to construct a 4'X 65' low-profile fixed walk with seasonal 4'X 20' ramp and 6'X 20' floating dock. Located: 3255 Bay Shore Rd., Greenport. SCTM#53-6-8 The CAC recommends Disapproval of the application for a docking facility because there are no other docks in the area. The CAC recommends a Mooring. The CAC recommends Approval of the bulkhead with the Condition of an additional 5' to the existing 5' buffer. Vote of Council: Ayes: All Motion Carried i T�+is IS THE j . . � BAs i L I CC Is To ecA� .�: P,AC-V POP-CA -ooV Som EAS I � LIC)E . i E r i l r � t .,f EST , STP,A-I GW GOT IoM TU(� �I Ids ��k-k pe James F. King,President ,*OF sorry Town Hall Jill M. Doherty,Vice-President ��� l0 53095 Route 25 P.O. Boa 1179 Peggy A. Dickerson Southold,New York 11971-0959 Dave Bergen G r John Holzapfel �0 �� Telephone(631)765-1892 lifCOUN Fax(631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN IRUSTEES TOWN OF SO OLD Southold Town Board of Trustees Field Inspection/WorksessioReport Date/Time: G Name of Applicant: Name of Agent: ' j Property Location: SCTM#& Street Brief Description of proposed action: rE Type of area to be impacted: ' � _Saltwater Wetland _Freshwater Wetland Sound Front L- ay Front Distance of proposed work to edge of above: Pf Town Code proposed work falls under: Part Chapt. 37_other Type of Apphcation: _Wetland_Coastal Erosion_Amendment_Administrative _Emergency Info needed: w f �� 44 a �►c e 1�d.� - .,1/J 0A d 44 V Modifications: i Conditions: Present Were:o�J Kigl�d.Doherty f-,_P.Dicke:-so D. Ber en CT.Holzapfel Other: i Mailed/Faxed to: Date: i � b fl � lo( 0'11'01 - 1LIcl YF YC Ea I• 2-07-0 i'06' IxYKI 1 �• 1LR1 J /�� �Ylc, ,� QQ o -N- x I.IBERiSa lA. Roy !iii -` ,// / s umou u � VET N ' �• 1's• sv t. u i � u�t CREEK PIPES ,.sun i MA - - - i91�' •tr W k,• i k4 •' /1`,dq 5 �f u � + s a1 kb 6 4p � 6y IR' xwn O S" 4, �Q kL � � .• � 6 _ J k� 4,� � t� v n• •^��4 � I AE SFC:N0. rK s ! E osrrot-axs 9 " ✓tt O , ml— >g train \ \ sa ssc,a nr u[ 0 4\\ w 16 E rr...R. a r.w — — ...w .w E �,,,,,� --, _-, , ,., rroncE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK © a E�-- —�— V>I w --.— w— .—_ >iw•= a Red Pfoperty Tax Service Agency r �o SOUTHOLD sEcnoR m a'D'r••+� D r-�111 YO er V.4 —_�— .w --r—_ rb•.rw—rr—_ uRr. . RA61Oi N i 14l[MiRi� F n OxRT A 1000 PROPERTY YKP L - ronaRoxwm MAILING ADDRESS: PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS *QF SO P.O. Box 1179 JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE ��V� DSO Southold, NY 11971 Chair OFFICE LOCATION: KENNETH L.EDWARDS y Town Hall Annex MARTIN H.SIDOR @ 54375 State Route 25 GEORGE D SOLOMON Q� (cor. Main Rd.-&Youngs Ave.) JOSEPH L.TOWNSEND lr,�Au , Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD — j q= t, To: Jim King,President Town of Southold Board of Trustees From: Mark Terry, Principal Planner LWRP Coordinator I''` Date: March 16, 2007 Re: Proposed Permit to.Wetland Permit for VINCENT P. BASILICE SCTM#1000-53-6-8 VINCENT P. BASILICE requests a Wetland Permit for the in-place replacement of existing 75' bulkhead new with vinyl-sheathed bulkhead; construct a 4'X 65' low-profile fixed walk with seasonal 4'X 20' ramp and 6'X 20' float. Located: 3255 Bay Shore Rd., Greenport. SCTM#53-6-8. The in-place, replacement of the existing 75" bulkhead is as exempt minor action pursuant to _4 268-3. Definitions. MINOR ACTIONS --Include the following actions, which are not subject to review under this chapter: A. Maintenance or repair involving no substantial changes in an existing structure or facility; B. Replacement, rehabilitation or reconstruction of a structure or facility, in kind, on the same site, including upgrading buildings to meet building or fire codes, except for structures in areas designated by the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA) law where structures may not be replaced, rehabilitated or reconstructed without a permit, The construction of a.4'X 65' low-profile fixed walk with seasonal 4'X 20' ramp and 6'X 20' float is subject to review pursuant to Chapter 268 Waterfront Consistency Review. The proposed action has been reviewed to Chapter 268,Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town of Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program(LW"")Policy Standards. Based upon the information provided on the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form submitted to this department, as well as the records available to me,it is my recommendation that the proposed action is INCONSISTENT with the following LW"Policy Standards and therefore is inconsistent with the LWRP; Policy Standard 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. The proposed action is for private use and will not support a pattern of development that einhan_ces community character nor preserves "publie"open space. Additionally,the applicant does not propose sufficient mitigative design and construction best management practices that will minimize the adverse effects of the action on the environment, scenic view shed or the use of public waters/lands to the greatest extent possible. 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. 3.1 Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold including: A. Minimize the introduction of structural design components(including utility lines,lighting, signage and fencing)which would be discordant with existing natural scenic components and character, The dock structure will protrude in to Peconic Bay for a distance of 91 feet. The length of the dock structure will be discordant with the existing natural scenic components and character of the area. B. Screen components of development which detract from visual quality, Due to the location of the dock structure over open water, there is no ability to screen the dock structure. C. Using appropriate siting, scales, forms, and materials to ensure that structures are compatible with and add interest to existing scenic components. The proposed dock structure is located in Peconic Bay approximately 750' south of the land area known as Pipes Cove (A New York State Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area) and 1460' north of Conklin Point (A New / York State Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area). The proposed action is located between the two areas. Direct physical adverse impacts on the identified habitats are not expected as a result of the proposed action, however, indirect adverse impacts may occur as a result of construction, materials and use. D. Preserve existing vegetation and establish new indigenous vegetation to enhance scenic quality, and E. Protect visual quality associated with agricultural land, open space and natural resources. The applicant has not demonstrated that the dock structure would not adversely impact the scenic viewshed of the Pipes Cove area. 4 Minimize loss of human life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. No loss of human life is expected as a result of the action. If approved,the structure will be desip,ned and constructed to tolerate flooding and minimize erosion. S. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. The materials used to construct the ramp and float have not been identified and should be identified. The applicant references "construction materials from an approved list"; what"list"the applicant is referring to is unknown. The use of the dock structure must be identified. The installation of the proposed dock may promote power boat traffic and the possible following negative impacts may occur as a result of the shallow depth of water 2.1 feet: Impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation, Contamination from fuel discharges(if power vessels are proposed) Re-suspension of bottom sediments and turbidity 6.1 Protect and restore ecological quality throughout the Town of Southold. A. Avoid adverse changes to the Long Island Sound and the Peconic Bay ecosystems that would result from impairment of ecological quality as indicated by: 1. Physical loss of ecological components The dock structure will result in the physical loss of marine habitat. Physical impacts will include but not be limited to, chronic shading of the substrate where the ramp and float are located. B Protect and restore ecological quality by adhering to the following measures. 1. Maintain values associated with natural ecological communities. Each natural ecological community has associated values which contribute to the ecological quality of the Town of Southold. These values should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. 2. Retain and add indigenous plants to maintain and restore values of natural ecological communities. a. Protect existing indigenous plants from loss or disturbance to the extent practical. 3. Avoid fragmentation of ecological communities and maintain corridors to facilitate the free exchange of biological resources within and among communities. a. Each individual resource area should be maintained as a complete contiguous areas to protect the area's natural resource values. Specifically, actions that would fragment the ecological community into separate ecological islands should be avoided. b. Where fragmentation of ecological communities has already occurred, the adverse effects of fragmentation can be mitigated by maintaining or providing connecting corridors to allow exchange of biological resources. 4. Maintain ecological integrity of particular locales by maintaining structural and functional attributes, including normal variability, to provide for self-sustaining systems. 5. Avoid permanent adverse change to ecological processes. The proposed action would result in a physical loss of ecological components as indicated above. 6.3 Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. A. Comply with statutory and regulatory requirements of the Southold Town Board of Trustees laws and regulations for all Andros Patent and other lands under their jurisdiction 1. Comply with Trustee regulations and recommendations as set forth in Trustee permit conditions. The applicant has not demonstrated that the following proposed action meets the dock standards pursuant to 4 275-11. Construction and operation standards. (d) Review and approval of dock applications. Before issuing a permit for a dock structure, the Trustees shall consider whether the dock will have any of the following harmful effects: [1] Whether the dock will impair navigation or be located in areas of high vessel traffic or vessel congestion; [2] Whether the dock will unduly interfere with the public use of waterways for swimming, boating, fishing, shellfishing,waterskiing and other water-dependant activities; [3] Whether the dock will unduly interfere with transit by the public along the public beaches or foreshore; [4] Whether the dock will significantly impair the use or value of waterfront property adjacent to or near the dock; [5] Whether the dock will cause degradation of surface water quality and natural resources; [6] Whether the dock will cause habitat fragmentation and loss of significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats; [7] Whether the dock will result in the destruction of or prevent the growth of vegetated wetlands, seagrasses including eelgrass (Zosters manna) and widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima) or shellfish; [8] Whether the dock will unduly restrict tidal flow or water circulation; [9] Whether the dock will be safe when constructed; [10] Whether the dock will adversely affect views, viewsheds and vistas important to the community; [11] Whether the cumulative impacts of a residential and commercial dock will change the waterway or the environment and whether alternate design, construction, and location of the dock will minimize cumulative impacts; and [12] Whether adequate facilities are available to boat owners and/or operators for fueling, discharge of waste and rubbish,electrical service and water service. 9.4 Assure public access to public trust lands and navigable waters. A. Provide free and substantially unobstructed passage along public trust shorelands. The elevation of the dock structure to grade is 5 feet. As proposed, the structure' will obstruct and impede public access to and along the shoreline. B. Ensure that interference with passage along the shoreline is limited to the minimum extent necessary to gain access from the upland to the water. E. Provide access to, and reasonable recreational use of, navigable waters. and public trust lands under water. 1. Provide for free and unobstructed public use of all navigable waters below the line of mean high water for navigation, recreation, and other public trust purposes,including the incidental rights of public anchoring. The proposed action will obstruct public use for navigation, recreation, and other public trust purposes within the immediate vicinity of the dock structure. 4. Structures extending beyond the minimum necessary for access to navigable waters impair public trust interests and open space values associated with the water's surface. Allow such structures only in the following circumstances: a. when necessary for practical and convenient operation of water- dependent industry or commerce, and provided that obstruction of commercial navigation does not result. b. for commercial recreational boating facilities provided that: ^I W the loss of navigable waters and use of underwater lands is offset by sufficient public benefit,and (ii) obstruction of commercial navigation does not result. C. when the principal purpose of the structure is necessary: (i) to provide public access for recreational uses (ii) for improvements for navigation (iii) for protection from coastal hazards, or (iv) for essential public transportation and transrmssion facilities. The proposed use is private and not proposed for water dependent industry or commerce, commercial or public access/use. Therefore the proposed action does not meet the above sub-policy. 9.5 Provide access and recreation that is compatible with natural resource values. A. Provide appropriate access and associated recreational activity that will avoid potential adverse impacts on natural resources. Use the following factors in determining the potential for adverse environmental effects: 1. intensity of the associated recreational, scientific, or educational activity, 2. level of likely disturbance associated with the proposed activity. The following types of access or associated activities are listed in decreasing order of potential for disturbance: a. motorized activities, b. active, non-motorized activities, including water-dependent and water- related uses, C. passive activities, d. avoidance of the area. 3. Sensitivity of the natural resources involved and the extent of the ecological benefits associated with avoidance of the area. B. Limit public access and recreational activities where uncontrolled public use would lead to impairment of natural resources. 1. Establish appropriate seasonal limitations on access and recreation in order to minimize adverse impacts on.fish and wildlife species. 2. Provide stewardship that is capable of controlling anticipated adverse impacts before providing public access. 3. Physically limit or avoid provision of public access to natural resource areas whose principal values are based on the lack of human disturbance. 4. Provide educational, interpretive, research, and passive uses of natural resources through appropriate design and control of public access and recreation. C. Provide public access for fish and wildlife resource related activities, including fishing and hunting, provided that the level of access would not result in a loss of resources necessary to continue supporting these uses. D. Provide access using methods and structures that maintain and protect open space areas associated with natural resources. Determine the extent of visual and physical impairment by structures extending through these open space areas based on: 1. the value of the open space as indicated by un-fragmented size or mass of the wetland or other natural resources, distance to navigable water, and wetland value. 2. the size, length, and design of proposed structures The applicant currently enjoys access to public waters through the location of the waterfront parcel. The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed action meets the above listed policies. Correspondingly,the LWRP does not support the construction of PRIVATE dock structures on public lands. The LWRP recommends the use of"alternatives to long piers or docks include use of dinghies to reach moored boats and mooring in nearby marinas". The Coastal Fish& Wildlife Habitat Assessment Forms for Conklin Point and Pipes Cove and Beach follow. Pursuant to Chapter 268,the Board of Trustees shall consider this recommendation in preparing its written determination regarding the consistency of the proposed action. Enc. Cc: Kieran Corcoran, Assistant Town Attorney 1 COASTAL FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORM Name of Area: Conkling Point Designated: March 15, 1987 Date Revised: May 15, 2002 County: Suffolk Town(s): Southold 7%2' Quadrangle(s): Greenport, NY; Southold,NY Assessment Criteria Ecosystem Rarity(ER)—the uniqueness of the plant and animal community in the area and the physical,structural,and chemical features supporting this community. ER assessment: Relatively small,undeveloped sand spit and marsh,rare on north fork of Long Island. Species Vulnerability(SV)--the degree of vulnerability throughout its range in New York State of a species residing in the ecosystem or utilizing the ecosystem for its survival. SV assessment: Least tern(T)and piping plover(E,T-Fed)nesting. Common tern(T) nesting has occurred,but additional documentation for this species is required. Calculation: 36+(25/2)= Human Use(HU)--the conduct of significant,demonstrable commercial,recreational, or educational wildlife-related human uses, either consumptive or non-consumptive,in the area or directly dependent upon the area. HLT assessment: No significant fish or wildlife related human uses of the area. Population Level(PL)--the concentration of a species in the area during its normal, recurring period of occurrence,regardless of the length of that period of occurrence. PL assessment: No unusual concentrations of fish and wildlife species occur in the area. Replaceability (R)—ability to replace the area, either on or off site,with an equivalent replacement for the same fish and wildlife and uses of those same fish and wildlife,for the same users of those fish and wildlife. R assessment: Uncertain of ability to replace. Habitat Index= [ER+ SV+ HU+ PL] =48.5 Significance=HI x R=48.5 NEW YORK STATE SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT NARRATIVE CONKLING POINT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT: Conkling Point is located approximately two miles southwest of the Village of Greenport,'on Shelter Island Sound, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County(7.5' Quadrangles: Greenport, NY; and Southold,NY). The fish and wildlife habitat is approximately 25 acres in size, consisting of a narrow, sparsely vegetated, sand island, a small protected bay, salt marsh, and tidal flats. Conkling Point is generally undeveloped and privately owned. However, the area is bordered by high density residential development to the north, resulting in some recreational disturbance of the habitat. FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES: Conkling Point is a relatively small coastal wetland area, similar in nature to many other points around the Peconic Bays shoreline, but important as a habitat for wildlife. This area has served for many years as a nesting site for least tern (T) and piping plover(E, TFed). Approximately 1 pair of piping plover annually nested at Conkling Point during the 1987-1996 period. These numbers have decreased slightly since the early 1980s, when around 3 pairs of plover nested at this site annually. The concentrations of terns nesting at Conkling Point were the second largest and largest on the north fork of Long Island in 1983 and 1984, respectively. During these years concentrations reached 45 and 100 nesting pairs. Least tern nested at Conkling Point consistently during the 1987-1996 period, with annual number of pairs ranging from 0-42, and the annual average at 19 1 pairs. The peak of 42 pairs occurred in 1988, with numbers declining to zero in 1996. This species reappeared in abundance in 1997 (68 pairs), but did not nest in 1998. Around 11 nesting pairs of common tern(T) were documented annually at Conkling Point during the early 1990s,but this species has not been observed since 1993. Historically, the population levels of least terns and piping plovers were unusual in Suffolk County. The tidal wetlands at Conkling Point serve as feeding areas for the terns and many other wildlife species. The recreational soft-shell clam and hard clam shellfisheries, as well as a finfishery, at this location are of local importance. R,4PACT ASSESSMENT: The fish and wildlife resources of this area could be affected by modification of public access to and/or use of the area. Habitat modifications which substantially change the natural character of the area, such as residential, commercial, or industrial developments would have a significant impact on many wildlife species in the area. Undeveloped areas in and nearby Conkling Point that are currently privately owned have been identified as acquisition priorities by the Town of Southold. Nesting shorebirds inhabiting Conkling Point are highly vulnerable to disturbance by humans, especially during the nesting and fledging period(March 15 through August 15). Significant pedestrian traffic or recreational vehicle use of the beach could easily eliminate the use of this site as a breeding area and should be minimized during this period. Recreational activities (e.g., boat and personal watercraft landing, off-road vehicle use, picnicking) in the vicinity of bird nesting areas should be minimized during this period. Predation of chicks and destruction of eggs or nests by unleashed pets (e.g., dogs, cats) and natural predators may also occur, and predator control should be implemented where feasible. Fencing and/or continued annual posting of shorebird nesting areas should be provided to help protect these species. Control of vegetative succession, through beneficial use of dredged material or other means may improve the availability of nesting habitat in this area. Unrestricted use of motorized vessels including personal watercraft in the protected, shallow waters of bays, harbors, and tidal creeks can have adverse effects on aquatic vegetation and fish and wildlife populations. Use of motorized vessels should be controlled (e.g., no wake zones, speed zones, zones of exclusion) in and adjacent to shallow waters and vegetated wetlands. Loss of the salt marsh habitat, through elimination of tidal connection, ditching, excavation, or filling, would result in a direct loss of valuable habitat and value as a food resource for many wildlife species. Construction of shoreline structures, such as docks, piers, bulkheads, or revetments, in areas not previously disturbed by development, may result in the loss of productive areas which support the fish and wildlife resources of Conkling Point. Alternative strategies for the protection of shoreline property should be examined, including innovative, vegetation-based approaches. Control of invasive nuisance plant species, through a variety of means, may improve fish and wildlife species use of the area and enhance overall wetland values. STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE 41 STATE STREET ALBANY, NY 12231-0001 GEORGE E PATAKI CHRISTOPHER L JACOBS GOVERNOR SECRETARY OF STATE November 2, 2006 Ms. Mary Ann Durkin Committee to Preserve Pipes Creek 750 Pipes Creek Road Greenport, NY 11944 Re: 7/25/2001 Pipes Cove Nomination for designation under SCFWH Program Dear Ms Durkin: I have been asked to respond to your letter addressed to Gregory Capobianco dated October 16, 2006 Thank you for your inquiry on the status of the designation of Pipes Cove as a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Program. The Department appreciates your continued interest and support. Pipes Cove Creek and Moore's Drain was designated as a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat by the Secretary of State on October 15, 2005. On August 31, 2006, the federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management (OCRM) in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce concurred with that designation. We anticipate completing the update process by the end of the calendar year, at which time the final habitat narratives and maps will be distributed to each county and local government with any portion of its jurisdiction within the boundaries of the coastal area, and to each appropriate State and Federal Agency A copy of the final habitat narrative and map"for the Pipes Cove Creek and Moore's Drain Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat is attached. Thank you again for your continued interest and support. acerely � Rebecca Madlin Coastal Resources Specialist Division of Coastal Resources cc: Hon. Kenneth LaValle, New York State Senator Hon. Carl Marcellino, New York State Senator Hon. Tom DiNapoli, New York State Assemblyman Hon Robert Sweeney, New York State Assemblyman Hon. Fred Thiele, Jr., New York State Assemblyman Mr Scott Russell, Supervisor, Town of Southold Board enclosures WWW DOS STATE NY US • E-MAIL INFO@DOS STATE NY US COASTAL FISH &WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORM Name of Area- Pipes Cove Creek and Moore's Drain Counties: Suffolk Town(s): Southold 7'/z' Quadrangle(s)• Southold,NY, and Greenport,NY Designated. October 15, 2005 Assessment Criteria Score Ecosystem Rarity(ER)--the uniqueness of the plant and animal community in the area and the physical, structural, and chemical features supporting this community. ER assessment One of the largest saltwater/freshwater wetland complexes on Long Island;rare in the coastal lowlands ecological subregion. 16 Species Vulnerability(SV)--the degree of vulnerability throughout its range in New York State of a species residing in the ecosystem or utilizing the ecosystem for its survival. (E =Endangered, T=Threatened, SC=Special concern) SV assessment:Piping plover(E,T-Fed),least tern(T),and common tern(T)use the Pipes Cove area for foraging and loafing, but extent of use not well documented. 0 Human Use(HU)--the conduct of significant,demonstrable commercial,recreational,or educational wildlife-related human uses, either consumptive or non-consumptive, in the area or directly dependent upon the area. HU assessment Recreational clamming,kayaking,boating and fishing significant at the county level. 4 Population Level (PL)--the concentration of a species in the area during its normal, recurring period of occurrence, regardless of the length of that period of occurrence. PL assessment: No unusual concentrations of any species of fish or wildlife in the area. 0 Replaceability (R)--ability to replace the area, either on or off site, with an equivalent replacement for the same fish and wildlife and uses of those same fish and wildlife,for the same users of those fish and wildlife. R assessment. Irreplaceable. 1.2 Habitat index= [ER+SV+HU +PL] =20 Significance=HI x R=24 Page Iof6 NEW YORK STATE SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT NARRATIVE Pipes Cove Creek and Moore's Drain LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT: The Pipes Cove Creek and Moores Drain habitat is located on Long Island's North Fork, between Hashamomuck Pond and the Village of Greenport in the Town of Southold and Village of Greenport, Suffolk County(7.5' Quadrangles: Southold, NY, and Greenport, NY). The fish and wildlife habitat is approximately 570 acres in size, and is comprised of several habitat types, including a portion of the shallow waters of Pipes Cove, the tidal creeks and marshes associated with Pipes Creek and Pipes Cove Creek, the freshwater swamps of the Arshmonaque wetlands and the Moore's Drain basin, open grasslands,and upland woods Moore's Woods, which lies north of State Route 25,is protected land owned by the Village of Greenport. The Arshamanaque Wetlands between Chapel Lane and Albertson Lane is under town or county ownership, and is managed as protected open space lands. The habitat is bounded by Middle Road on the north, Albertson Lane and Kerwin Boulevard on the west,Pipes Cove and-State Route 25 on the south,and the residential areas of the Village of Greenport to the east Water depths in the portion of Pipes Cove and associated creeks within the habitat are less than three feet at mean'low water The habitat complex is bordered by light and dense residential development,woodlands,and scattered commercial sites. The Arshamanaque Wetlands and Moore's Woods portions of this habitat both provide habitat for swamp cottonwood(Populus heterophylla), a species designated as rare in New York State by the New York Natural Heritage Program. FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES: The Pipes Cove Creek and Moore's Drain habitat contains one of the largest tidal/freshwater wetland complexes on Long Island,and is unusual within the coastal lowlands subregion. This habitat area, including its diversity ofupland ecological communities, is important to fish and wildlife throughout the year. Suitable nesting habitat for common tern(T)and least tern(T)is available on the maritime beaches along Pipes Cove, but nesting by these species has not been well documented. However, during a survey in 2000, six least terns (T) were observed on the beach; and two common terns(T) were seen feeding in the waters of Pipes Cove. A 1996 record shows That 60 least tern (T) individuals were observed in the vicinity of the beach at Pipes Cove, with no nesting documented. Pipes Cove is a valuable waterfowl wintering area(November-March)on the north shore,providing shallow water habitat for red-breasted merganser,bufflehead,and American black duck,with smaller concentrations of greater and/or lesser scaup, American widgeon, common goldeneye, and long- tailed duck. Waterfowl use-of the bay during winter is influenced in part by the extent of ice cover each year. Page 2 of 6 The habitat has long been recognized as a critical environmental area. The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (in partnership with The Nature Conservancy) and the Town of Southold recently acquired approximately 140 acres of tidal, brackish, and freshwater wetlands between the Arshamanaque Wetlands and Pipes Cove. Despite the presence of mosquito ditches and other disturbances, tidal wetlands (and the tidal creeks) within the area of acquisition are of a high quality nature. Pipes Cove provides important birdwatching, hiking, nature study, environmental interpretation, kayaking, and boating opportunities for the public Recent acquisitions of lands within the Pipes Creek Cove and Moore's Drain habitat area may contribute to the importance of the area to recreatiomsts. IMPACT ASSESSMENT: Any activity that would substantially degrade the water quality in the Pipes Cove Creek and Moore's Drain habitat would adversely affect the biological productivity of this area. Degradation of water quality in the creek, or to its water sources, from chemical contamination (including food chain effects),oil spills,excessive turbidity,and waste disposal(including vessel wastes)would adversely affect all fish and wildlife. Efforts should be made to improve water quality, including the control and reduction of discharges from vessels and upland sources. Vegetated upland buffer zones should be protected or established to further reduce water quality impairment from upland sources. Any expansion of fishing, small boat use, and educational activities should be compatible with the preservation of natural habitats Alteration of tidal patterns in Pipes Cove and associated tidal creeks would have major impacts on the fish and wildlife communities present. Dredging to maintain existing boat channels should be scheduled between September 15 and December 15 to minimize potential impacts on aquatic organisms,and to allow for dredged material placement when wildlife populations are least sensitive to disturbance. Unregulated dredged material placement in this area would be detrimental, but such activities may be designed to maintain or improve the habitat for certain species of wildlife. Existing and proposed dredging operations in this area should incorporate the use of best management practices to avoid and reduce adverse effects. Construction of shoreline structures; such as docks, piers, bulkheads, or revetments, in areas not previously disturbed by development, may result in the loss of productive areas which support the fish and wildlife resources of Pipes Cove Creek and Moore's Drain. Elimination of salt marsh and intertidal areas, through loss of tidal connection, ditching, excavation, or filling, would result in a direct loss of valuable habitat area. Alternative strategies for the protection of shoreline property should be examined, including innovative, vegetation-based approaches. Control of invasive nuisance plant species, through a variety of means,may improve fish and wildlife species use of the area and enhance overall wetland values The fish and wildlife resources of the Pipes Creek Cove and Moore's Drain area could be affected by modification of public access to and/or use of the areas. Habitat modifications which substantially change the natural character of the area, such as residential,commercial, or industrial developments could have a significant impact on many wildlife species in the area. Page 3 of 6 Unrestricted use of motorized vessels including personal watercraft in the protected,shallow waters of the cove and tidal creeks of this area could have adverse effects on aquatic vegetation and fish and wildlife populations. Use of motorized vessels should be controlled (e.g., no-wake zones, speed zones, zones of exclusion) in and adjacent to shallow waters and vegetated wetlands. Thermal discharges, depending on,time of year, may have variable effects on use of the area by marine species and wintering waterfowl. Installation and operation of water intakes could have a significant impact on juvenile(and,in some cases,adult)fish concentrations,through impingement or entrainment. HABITAT IMPAIRMENT TEST: A habitat impairment test must be applied to any activity that is subject to consistency review under federal and State laws; or under applicable local laws contained in an approved local waterfront revitalization program. If the proposed action is subject to consistency review, then the habitat protection policy applies, whether the proposed action is to occur within or outside the designated area. The specific habitat impairment test is as follows. In order to protect and preserve a significant habitat, land and water uses or development shall not be undertaken if such actions would: • destroy the habitat; or, • significantly impair the viability of a habitat. Habitat destruction is defined as the loss of fish or wildlife use through direct physical alteration, disturbance, or pollution of a designated area or through the indirect effects of these actions on a designated area. Habitat destruction may be indicated by changes in vegetation, substrate, or hydrology, or increases in runoff, erosion, sedimentation, or pollutants. Significant impairment is defined as reduction in vital resources(e.g.,food, shelter, living space)or change in environmental conditions(e g.,temperature,substrate,salinity)beyond the tolerance range of an organism. Indicators of a significantly impaired habitat focus on ecological alterations and may include but are not limited to reduced carrying capacity,changes in community structure(food chain relationships, species diversity), reduced productivity and/or increased incidence of disease and mortality The tolerance range of an-organism is not defined as the physiological range of conditions beyond which a species will not survive at all, but as the ecological range of conditions that supports the species population or,has the potential to support a restored population, where practical. Either the loss of individuals through an increase in emigration or an increase in death rate indicates that the tolerance range of an organism has been exceeded. An abrupt increase in death rate may occur as Page 4 of 6 an environmental factor falls beyond a tolerance limit (a range has both upper and lower limits). Many environmental factors, however, do not have a sharply defined tolerance limit, but produce increasing emigration or death rates with increasing departure from conditions that are optimal for the species. The range of parameters which should be considered in applying the habitat impairment test include but are not limited to the following: 1. physical parameters such as living space, circulation, flushing rates, tidal amplitude, turbidity, water temperature, depth (including loss of littoral zone), morphology, substrate type, vegetation, structure, erosion and sedimentation rates; 2. biological parameters such as community structure, food chain relationships, species diversity, predator/prey relationships, population size, mortality rates, reproductive rates, meristic features, behavioral patterns and migratory patterns; and, 3. chemical parameters such as dissolved oxygen, carbon dioxide, acidity, dissolved solids, nutrients, organics, salinity, and pollutants (heavy metals, toxics and hazardous materials).. Although not comprehensive, examples of generic activities and impacts which could destroy or significantly impair the habitat are listed in the Impact Assessment section to assist in applying the habitat impairment test to a proposed activity. Page 5 of 6 KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS:." Habitat Unit Office of Ecology NYS Department of State Suffolk County Dept. Of Health Services Division of Coastal Resources Bureau of Environmental Management 41 State Street County Center Albany, NY 12231 Riverhead, NY 11901 Phone: (518) 474-6000 Phone: (631) 852-2077 NYSDEC—Region 1 Bureau of Marine Resources State University of New York, Building 40 NYSDEC Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356 205 N. Belle Meade Road, Suite 1 Phone: (631) 444-0354 East Setauket, NY 11733 Phone: (631) 444-0430 Town of Southold Town Hall New York Natural Heritage Program 53095 Main Road 625 Broadway, 5`h Floor P.O. Box 1179 Albany, NY 12233-4757 Southold, NY 11971 Phone: (518) 402-8935 Phone: (631) 765-1801 Paul Stoutenburgh Town of Southold Trustees 4015 Skunk Lane Town Hall Cutchogue, NY 11935 53095 Main Road Phone: (631) 734-6605 Southold, NY 11971 Phone: (631) 765-1892 Page 6 of 6 , -CIA Mil IS .�,�}'}' ! s�..�. .� ,` 1��� � /\l-�a \I�►•I 93:1' r � � ` � a_.ter., •. . RMA all^��� \ 1 �� I ��t' �.__..>.'./'�•_ ��`_�5 �1 tic / t'Y3Cnrtsfs � To: dim King From: Ivan Silva 2-08-07 1:36pm p. 1 of 1 - h +71,. :,.', 2+n•Yre.-.Ii, A `'n P bx f Vincent P. Basilice, M.D. 3400 Technology Drive, Suite 107 East Setauket, NY 11733 Phone: 631-751-2020 Fax(631)761-0048 Email: drbasilice(a�earthlink.net www.theophthahniccenter.com Feb 8`�, 2007 Jim King Southold Board of Trustees Dear Jim, Please be advised that I have terminated the legal case against the Southold Board of Trustees.My attorney Mr.Bressler has been notified to cancel all actions effective immediately as per our discussion. Sincerely, FEB - 8 2007 Vincent P. Basilice, M.D. r l Office Use Only Coastal Erosion Permit Application "Wetland Permit Application Administrative Permit —Amendment/Transfer/Extension _Received Application: h(agod deceived Fee:$ 61N15—' n T ­Pempleted Application (D '0 _Incomplete _SEQRA Classification: Type I Type II unlisted UN 2 $ 2006 _Coordination:(date sent ECAC Referral Sent: (0 Hate of Inspection: M I' Southo•,d Tov,n _Receipt of CAC Report: Board of Trustees _Lead Agency Determination: _Technical Review: 'ublic Hearing Held: _Resolution: L JW" Name of Applicant Vincent P. Basilice, M.D. Address-3400 Nesconset Highway Suite 107, East Setauket, NY 11733 Phone Number: 631-751-2020 Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000–53-6-8 Property Location: 3255 Bay Shore Road, Greenport, NY (provide LILCO Pole#, distance to cross streets, and location) AGENT: Catherine Mesiano, Inc. Address: 12 Mill Pond Lane East Moriches, NY 11940 Phone: 631 878 8951 a O�j�� Vincent P Basilice,M.D 3255 Bay Shore Road,Greenport SUM#1000-53.6-8 Board of Trustees Application GENERAL DATA Land Area (in square feet) : 11,626sg.ft. Area Zoning: R-40 Previous use of property: SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING Intended use of property: SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING w/dock Prior permits/approvals for site improvements: Agency Date NYSDEC 8/22/96 Letter of Non-Jurisdiction TRUSTEES No prior permits/approvals for site improvements. Has any permit/approval ever been revoked or suspended by a governmental agency? R No Yes If yes, provide explanation: Project Description: IN-PLACE REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING 75' BULKHEAD NEW WITH VINYL-SHEATHED BULKHEAD; CONSTRUCTION OF 4' X 65' LOW-PROFILE FIXED WALK WITH SEASONAL 4' X 20' RAMP AND 6' X 20' FLOAT Vincent P Basilice,M.D 3255 Bay Shore Road,Greenport SCTM#1000-53 -5 Board of Trustees Application WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA Purpose of the proposed operations: Area of wetlands on lot: 0 square feet Percent coverage of lot: 0 % Closest distance between nearest existing structure and upland edge of wetlands : approx 20 feet Closest distance between nearest proposed structure and upland edge of wetlands : N/A feet Does the project involve excavation or filling? X No Yes If yes, how much material will be excavated? n/a cubic yards How much material will be filled? n/a cubic yards Depth of which material will be removed or deposited: n/a Proposed slope throughout the area of operations: n/a Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: 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) : NEGATIVE IMPACT IS NOT ANTICIPATED AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY. APPROPRIATE MEASURES WILL BE EMPLOYED TO CONTROL SILTATION AND AVOID RUNOFF INTO THE BAY 3 617.20 SEAR PROJECT ID NUMBER APPENDIX C STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART 1 -PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) 1 APPLICANT/SPONSOR 2.PROJECT NAME 3.PROJECT LOCATION: Municipality County 4 PRECISE LOCATION: Street Addess and Road Intersections, Prominent landmarks e r provide map 5.IS PROPOSED ACTION IJ New ❑Expansion ❑Modification/alteration 6.DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY I � P mss ► �3 4 ' x 2-o ✓u-�-p �.. ' x 2 0 ' 7 AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED- Initially : , 0 acres Ultimately � (� acres 8.WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS? sl;iyes ❑ No If no,describe briefly- 9 WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? (Choose as many as apply) residential ❑Industrial ❑Commercial Agriculture ❑Park/Forest/Open Space ❑Other (describe) 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (Federal, State or Local) ©Yes ❑No If yes, list agency name and permit / approval: N__1! 7-- 7RL u s?mss 11 DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? E]Yes D;iNo If yes, list agency name and permit / approval: 12. AS A RES LT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/ APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? Oyes No I CERTIFY THA"E INFORMATION 0 IDED ABOVE IS TR E TO THE BEST OF Y KNOWLEDG Applicant / Sponsor Name �� lam'. Q"'uir�T ate f'O Z Signature Com►0%1 G , - If the action is a Costal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment James F King, President ��Of SO&&' Torn Hall Jill M Doherty-,Vice-President ` 1 53095 Route 25 Peggy A. Dickerson P.O. Box 1179 Peg 4 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Dave Bergen G �� Bob Ghosio,Jr Telephone i631) 765-1892 �p Fax 631, "165-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TRUSTEES: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD --------------------------------------------------------------- In the Matter of the Application of p COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING residing at being duly sn orn, depose and say: That on the day of , 200 , I personally posted the property known as by placing the Board of Trustees official poster where it can easily be seen, and that I have checked to be sure the poster has remained in place for eight days prior to the date of the.public hearing. Date of heanng noted thereon to be held { ;'; �� . Ll-j, �?l: .:>>?.� ! ' Dated: { AV ( 'gnature) Sworn to before me this ay of/w')o VAt JoHATHAN BRML.ER NOTARY No.PUBLIC52-462237State 1 New York Term ExpiresiQuolifin v� /,Iv Notary t P • Service C SECTION ON DELIVERY CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT • • I �7 • ,•- Provided) Agent m Addressee EfNFOkT N1' 11944 p � Q A L E {Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery Postage $ $0.39 p S I 0`� �- ' Ly cess cinferent ❑ from item 1? Yes Certified Fee $2.40 h 09 l�` F�� elivery address below: ❑No' t Return Receipt Fee irk $1.85 re (Endorsement Required) ��. / in fir. C3 Restricted Delivery Fee }Y O $0.00(Endorsement Required)}.; C3 3N�i 3 C3 Total Postage&F----" 4.b4 _03/ - ;s:,. Ln Sent To Edward Jurzenia au ❑Express Mail ❑Return Receipt for Merchandise ^u --! P.O. BOX 285 sheer,-Apt No., I -1 orPO,BoxNo. : Greenport,-NY 11944liyery?:(Extra:Fee):' - ❑:Yes'' 0 C3 cry,ware,ziP+4 I _ >-F. --x r - :3i129At * i i PS 1,Forrin,381 i;'February!2004 i ;i '-Domesilc Retu`m Receipt 102505-02-M-t 540 STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Hic,�de- , residing at l?,(Q C-jro k-C6Yd l vJ VACLS C Qj I lR Sd ,being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 01 —day of McLk-h ,20 0-1,deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth in the Board of Trustees Application, directed to each of the above named persons at the addresses set opposite there respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the address of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold;that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at Kori c_34-es, >,),that said Notices were mailed-to each of said persons by (certified)(registered)mail. UU Sworn to before me this C� S Day of 20 r) NotaryPublic BRENT K.ADAMS • Notary Public-State of New York No.01 AD61463a1 Qualified Suffolk County My Commission n Expires May _ ,2010 County of Suffolk State of New York RE: 3255 BAY SHORE ROAD GREENPORT r VINCENT P. BASILICE M.D. BEING DULY SWORN DEPOSES AND AFFIRMS THAT HE/ SHE IS THE APPLICANT FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PERMIT AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF HIS/HER KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND THAT ALL WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION AND AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES . THE APPLICANT AGREES TO HOLD THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND THE TOWN TRUSTEES HARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND CLAIMS ARRISING UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF SAID PERMIT(S), IF GRANTED. IN COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEES, THEIR AGENT(S) OR REPRESENTATIVE(S), TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY TO INSPECT THE PREMISES IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION. Vincent P. Basilice, M.D. SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF /`l_ ! Y , 200 IVAN M. SILVA NOTARY PUBLIC,STATE OF NEWYORK No.01 SI6096814 QUALIFIED IN SUFFOLK COUNTY MYCOMMISSION EXPI AUG 11,2W Notary Public ?05� i r AUTHORIZATION Re: 3255 Bay Shore Road Greenport I, Vincent P. Basilice, M.D. residirig at do hereby authorize Catherine Mesiano, Inc. to apply for permits from the Southold Board of Town Trustees, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Department of State and US Army Corps of Engineers on my behalf. u,-V- (2 C-�)Ci S P Vincent P. Basilice, M.D. - -- _ Sworn r _. _ - f o0C IVAN M.SILVA /��q y� � -100( NOTARY PUBLIC,STATE OF NEW YORK No.01 S16096814 QUALIFIED IN SUFFOLK COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG.11,2007 Notary Public APPLICANT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the art' of town officers and em to ees. The u ose of this form is to rovide information which can alert the town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessa to avoid same. YOUR NAME: VINCENT P. BASILICE NATURE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax grievance Variance Change of zone Approval of plat Exemption from plat or official map WETLANDS PERMIT Other(If"Other," name the activity) Do you personally(or through your company, spouse, sibling, parent, or child)have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold?"Relationship" includes by blood, marriage, or business interest. "Business interest" means a business, including a partnership, in which the town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of (or employment by) a corporation in which the town officer or employee owns more than 5%of the sham. YES NO X If you answered"YES,"complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold Title or position of that person Describe the relationship between yourself(the applicant)and the town officer or employee. Either check the appropriate line A)through D)and/or describe in the space provided. The town officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling, parent or child is(check all that apply): A) the owner of greater than 5%of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant(when the applicant is a corporation); B) the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a noncorporate entity(when the applicant is not a corporation); C) an officer, director, partner, or employee of the applicant; or D) the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP Submitted this 3/ da of a 2000 L Signature M Print name Vincent P. Basilice CATHERINE MESIANO , SNC . 12 MILL POND LANE EAST MORICHES , NY 11940 PHONE / FAX : 631 - 878 - 8951 e - mail : cmesiano@optonline . net June 28, 2006 Jim King, President Southold Board of Town Trustees Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Vincent P. Basilice, M.D. 3255 Bay Shore Road, Greenport SCTM # 1000-53-6-8 Dear Mr. King: I am the agent for the above referenced applicant who is requesting a wetlands permit for in-place replacement of existing 75' bulkhead with vinyl-sheathed bulkhead; construction of 4' x 65' low-profile fixed walk with seasonal 4' x 20' ramp and 6' x 20' float. Enclosed please find the following: 1. Application 2. Short EAF 3. Transactional disclosure 4. Release 5. Authorization 6. Survey prepared by Sea Level Mapping last dated 6/12/2006 7. LWRP form Also enclosed is Dr. Basilice's check in the amount of $275 for the application fee. Please note that I would like to meet the Trustees at the field inspection. Kindly confirm. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Catherine Mesiano, President Enclosures 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 Permit and other ministerial permits not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area 2. Before answering the questions in Section C,the preparer of this form should review the exempt minor action list,policies and explanations of each policy contained in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. A proposed action will be evaluated as to its significant beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area(which includes all of Southold Town). 3. If any question in Section C on this form is answered "yes",then the proposed action may affect the achievement of the LWRP policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency review law. Thus, the action should be analyzed in more detail and, if necessary, modified prior to making a determination that it is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the LWRP policy standards and conditions. If an action cannot be certified as consistent with the LWRP policy standards and conditions, it shall not be undertaken. A copy of the LWRP is available in the following places: online at the Town of Southold's website (southoldtown.northfork.net), the Board of Trustees Office,the Planning Department, all local libraries and the Town Clerk's office. B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION SCTM# 53 - 6 - 8 The Application has been submitted to(check appropriate response): Town Board Planning Dept. Building Dept. X Board of Trustees 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: Nature and extent of action: %t JUN 2 8 2006 I�.-.----Soc}t;oltl 7o�nn Beard of Trustees IN-PLACE REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING 75' BULKHEAD WITH VINYL- SHEATHED BULKHEAD; CONSTRUCTION OF 4' X 65' LOW-PROFILE FIXED WALK WITH SEASONAL 4' X 20' RAMP AND 6' X 20' FLOAT Location of action: 3255 Bay Shore Road, Greenport Site acreage: .26 Present land use: single family dwelling Present zoning classification: R-40 2. If an application for the proposed action has been filed with the Town of Southold agency,the following information shall be provided: (a)Name of applicant: Vincent P. Basilice, M.D. (b)Mailing address: 3400 Nesconset Highway Suite 107 East Setauket, NY 11733 (c) Telephone number: Area Code(631) 751-2020 (d)Application number, if any: Will the action be directly undertaken, require funding, or approval by a state or federal agency? Yes No If yes, which state or federal agency? NYSDEC,NYSDOS,USACOE DEVELOPED COAST POLICY Policy 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. See LWRP Section III—Policies; Page 2 for evaluation criteria. Yes No Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III—Policies Pages 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria Yes No Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 3.Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III—Policies Pages 6 through 7 for evaluation criteria Yes No Not Applicable 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 Yes No Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III—Policies Pages 16 through 21 for evaluation criteria Yes No Not Applicable 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. Yes No Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III—Policies Pages 32 through 34 for evaluation criteria. Yes No Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. See LWRP Section III—Policies; Pages 34 through 38 for evaluation criteria. Yes No Not Applicable PUBLIC COAST POLICIES Policy 9. Provide for public access to,and recreational use of, coastal waters,public lands,and public resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III— Policies; Pages 38 through 46 for evaluation criteria. Yes No Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary WORIING COAST POLICIES 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. Yes No Not Applicable 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 Not Applicable The proposed activity will promote recreational use of marine resources, allow for boat access with minimal disturbance to bay bottom 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 Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary 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 Created on 5/25/0511:20 AM 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 Permit and other ministerial permits not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area 2. Before answering the questions in Section C, the preparer of this form should review the exempt minor action list, policies and explanations of each policy contained in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. A proposed action will be evaluated as to its significant beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area (which includes all of Southold Town). 3. If any question in Section C on this form is answered "yes", then the proposed action may affect the achievement of the LWRP policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency review law. Thus, the action should be analyzed in more detail and, if necessary, modified prior to making a determination that it is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the LWRP policy standards and conditions. If an action cannot be certified as consistent with the LWRP policy standards and conditions, it shall not be undertaken. A copy of the LWRP is available in the following places: online at the Town of Southold's website (southoldtown.northfork.net), the Board of Trustees Office, the Planning Department, all local libraries and the Town Clerk's office. B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION IFP�F 1 SCTM# 53 - 6 - 8 I_I 'ir AUG 1 5 2006 The Application has been submitted to (check appropriate response Town Board Planning Dept. Building Dept. X Boar of—Trustees`o of Trustees 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: Nature and extent of action: t ' IN-PLACE REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING 75' BULKHEAD WITH VINYL. SHEATHED BULKHEAD; CONSTRUCTION OF 4' X 65' LOW-PROFILE FIXED WALK WITH SEASONAL 4' X 20' RAMP AND 6' X 20' FLOAT Location of action: 3255 Bay Shore Road, Greenport Site acreage: .26 Present land use: single family dwelling Present zoning classification: R-40 2. If an.application for the proposed action has been filed with the Town of Southold agency, the following information shall be provided: (a)Name of applicant: Vincent P. Basilice, M.D. (b)Mailing address: 3400 N'esconset Highway Suite 107 East Setauket, NY 11733 (c) Telephone number: Area Code (631) 751-2020 - (d) Application number, if any: Will the action be directly undertaken, require funding, or approval by a state or federal agency? Yes No If yes, which state or federal agency? NYSDEC, NYSDOS, USACOE DEVELOPED COAST POLICY Policy 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. See LWRP Section III—Policies; Page 2 for evaluation criteria. Yes No Not Applicable Construction of a dock at this site is proposed in a manner consistent with the existing docks in the immediate area and has no impact on the "pattern of development in the town". Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III—Policies Pages 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria Yes No Not Applicable The proposed project is not located near any historic sites or districts Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III—'Policies Pages 6 through 7 for evaluation criteria Yes No Not Applicable NATURAL COAST POLICIES Policy 4. Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. See LWRP Section III—Policies Pages 8 through 16 for evaluation criteria Yes No Not Applicable Construction of the proposed dock will be done in accordance with NYSDEC regulations and Chapter 97 of the Town Code Policy 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III—Policies Pages 16 through 21 for evaluation criteria Yes No Not Applicable The subiect site is developed with a single family dwelling. Policy 5 has no relevance to construction of the proposed dock. 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. Yes No Not Applicable Construction of the proposed dock will be done in accordance with NYSDEC regulations and Chapter 97 of the Town Code 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 It does not appear that Policy 7 is relevant to construction of the proposed dock. Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. See LWRP Section III—Policies; Pages 34 through 38 for evaluation criteria. Yes No Not Applicable It does not appear that Policy 8 is relevant to construction of the proposed dock PUBLIC COAST POLICIES Policy 9. Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III— Policies; Pages 38 through 46 for evaluation criteria. Yes No Not Applicable Construction of the proposed dock will have no impact on public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, etc. WORKING COAST POLICIES 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. Yes No Not Applicable It does not appear that Policy 10,is relevant to construction of the proposed dock on a pre-existing non- conforming residentially developed lot 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 Not Applicable The proposed activity will promote recreational use of marine '`resources, allow for boat access with minimal disturbance to bay bottom Policy 12. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III —Policies; Pages 62 through 65 for evaluation criteria. Yes No Not Applicable It does not appear that Policy 12 is relevant to construction of the proposed dock ona pre-existing non- conforming residentially developed lot 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 It does not appear that Policy 13 is relevant to construction of the proposed dock on a pre-existing non-conforming residentially developed lot Created on 5/25/0511:20 AM