Dock on the Bay
March 31, 2008 by Joanna · Leave a Comment
The Town of Southold has twelve (12) specific criteria that an applicant for a dock on the bay must address. Those twelve criteria items are published here for your review as the foundation for determining acceptable applications. Bays in the Town of Southold are: Cutchogue Harbor, Gidds Bay, Great Peconic Bay, Hallocks Bay, Hog Neck Bay, Little Peconic Bay, Long Beach Bay, Orient Harbor and Southold Bay.
From 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 (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.
____________________________________________________
(2) Docks. (a) Standards for residential and commercial docks; general rules. It shall be the policy of the Town of Southold that all docks shall be designed, constructed and located so as to reduce a dock’s potential adverse impacts to navigation, public safety, waterway congestion, access to public trust lands and water, and natural resources and habitats. The following standards will serve as a basis for granting, denying, or limiting permits for the construction of docks.
[1] No dock shall be constructed, altered or removed without a permit issued by the Southold Town Trustees. In determining whether to approve such application, the Trustees shall consider the factors contained in § 275-11C(2)(d) below and all other provisions of this chapter.
[2] All docks shall be constructed of sturdy, durable and stable materials capable of maintaining position and location, supporting pedestrian traffic, and resisting lateral loads resulting from wind, wave, and impact forces. Docks shall be constructed, where possible, to permit the free circulation of water, reduce the effects of fluctuating water levels, and prevent adverse modification of the shoreline. Applicants shall certify as to the structural integrity of the dock so as not to cause a threat to the person or property of others.
[3] In order to prevent the release of metals and other contaminants into the wetlands and waters of Southold, the use of lumber pre-treated with any preservative, including but not limited to chromated copper arsenate (also known as “CCA”), commercial copper quat (CCQ), penta products, Alkaline Copper Quat (ACQ), or homemade wood preservatives is prohibited for use in sheathing and decking on structures in the wetlands as well as on any part of a structure in low tidal flow wetland areas as determined by the Trustees. The use of creosote is prohibited. The use of tropical hardwoods is prohibited unless it is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council or similar organization. Materials used for structural components shall be at the discretion of the Trustees. [Amended 12-18-2007 by L.L. No. 23-2007]
[4] All docks and gangways onto such docks shall provide a safe pedestrian surface at all times.
[5] All docks, including any vessel tied to the dock, shall have a minimum clearance of 15 feet of the seaward extension of any property line from adjacent parcels so as not to interfere with the neighbor’s access to waters, unless the Trustees decide otherwise for navigational or other reasons. Waterside boundaries can be identified using the appropriate method for the shape of the shoreline for Long Island waters specified in 9 NYCRR 274.5.
[6] All docks and floats shall have the appropriate permit number permanently affixed to the most seaward face for identification. Said numbers shall be at least three inches high and constructed of metal, wood, plastic or other material such that they can withstand exposure to the elements and are visible from the water.
[7] Except for structures used for water-dependent uses, there shall be no permanent structure located on or above the docks, ramps and floats.
[8] Any application for a dock to be constructed at the end of a right-of-way or commonly held land requires the written consent of all parties having an interest in the right-of-way, regardless of how property interests in the upland parcel may be divided among the owner(s), lessee(s), occupant(s), easement holder(s), or any other person(s) or entity(ies) with a legal or beneficial interest in any existing or proposed docking facility.
[9] All applicants for docks, including catwalks and ramps, extending across the foreshore shall be required to give and maintain a public passing way, on the upland, not less than five feet in width, to enable persons to pass and repass around said dock or by steps or a ramp allowing pedestrian passage.
[10] Preexisting nonpermitted and/or nonconforming structures cannot be replaced in kind without full review and approval by the Trustees.
[11] Personal watercraft or “jet ski” floats cannot be added to any float, stairway, or dock without a Trustee Permit. [Added 10-11-2005 by L.L. No. 17-2005]
[12] Lighting: Any and all lights associated with docks, floats or poles must be directed on the subject structure and not out into the adjacent wetland, waterway or property. Lights shall not be on unless the dock is in active use. [Added 10-11-2005 by L.L. No. 17-2005]
[13] Utilities and Water: If power and/or water are to be installed on a dock, plans for the installation must be provided to the Trustees at the time of application, Installation of such amenities on an existing permitted dock requires obtaining a permit amendment from the Trustees. [Added 10-11-2005 by L.L. No. 17-2005]
(b) Dock locations and lengths. [Amended 10-11-2005 by L.L. No. 17-2005] [1] No dock shall be erected or extended if, in the opinion of the Trustees, such structure would adversely affect navigation, fisheries, shell fisheries, scenic quality, habitats or wetland areas.
[2] Within creeks and other narrow waterways, no dock length shall exceed 1/3 the total width of the water body. Determination of the length of the dock must include the dimensions of the vessel.
[3] Prohibited locations and activities. [a] No new docks will be permitted over vegetated wetlands or such that it causes habitat fragmentation of vegetated wetlands in the following areas: Downs Creek, Hallocks Bay, Hashamomuck Creek and Pond, Long Creek (branch of Mattituck Creek, East of Grand Avenue bridge), Pipe’s Cove Creek and West Creek. [Amended 12-18-2007 by L.L. No. 23-2007]
[b] Machine excavation is prohibited in tidal or freshwater wetland areas.
[c] Placement of fence, mesh or other material preventing passage under docks is prohibited,
[d] No floating docks, floats, dock components, duck blinds or boats shall be stored on tidal wetlands, other intertidal areas or freshwater wetlands.
(c) Regulations for the placement and configuration of docking facilities. [1] Residential docks. [Amended 10-11-2005 by L.L. No. 17-2005] [a] Only one catwalk may be permitted per residential lot. Only one mooring or dock may be permitted per residential lot. Upon a showing of special need due to low water level and hazard to property, the Trustees may permit both a mooring and a dock for the same residential property. [Amended 12-18-2007 by L.L. No. 23-2007]
[b] If any part of a residential dock structure includes a float or floating dock, the float or floating dock portion shall be designed so that, with the exception of the pilings: [i] It is no larger than six feet wide and 20 feet long except on Fishers Island if the need is demonstrated; or of equal square footage as determined by the Trustees; [Amended 12-18-2007 by L.L. No. 23-2007]
[ii] No part of the floating dock will contact the bottomland during a normal low tide.
[c] In determining the permitted length of a proposed residential dock, the Trustees shall seek to maintain lengths consistent with the other docks (i.e., pier line) in the waterway which meet the requirements of this chapter.
[d] Pilings shall not project more than three feet above the surface of a dock or catwalk unless a need for greater height is demonstrated.
[e] All excess fill from installation of pilings must be removed from tidal or freshwater wetland area on the same day as installation and disposed of in an approved upland disposal area.
[f] Tie-off poles associated with residential docks will only be permitted to secure one vessel. If the dock utilizes a float, the poles shall not project farther seaward than the outer edge of the float. If a float is not used, the pole(s) can be situated seaward of the end of the dock sufficient to secure the vessel.
[g] Only one handrail is permitted on a residential dock unless the need for two is demonstrated. Rails shall not be higher than three feet above the surface of the dock and posts shall not be placed closer than six feet on center or larger than four inches by four inches in dimension.
[h] Residential catwalks and ramps are limited to four feet in width.
[i] Residential boatlifts, floating or fixed, are prohibited, except in privately owned basins on private property at the discretion of the Board of Trustees. [Amended 12-18-2007 by L.L. No. 23-2007]
[2] Commercial docks (marinas, yacht clubs and restaurants). [a] Given the water-dependant nature and economic benefit of properties zoned as M1 and M2, dock design constraints and placement restrictions will be given greater flexibility than would otherwise be allowed for residential uses.
[b] Construction of new marinas and additions to existing marinas shall require establishment of a pump-out facility for vessel sanitary waste.
A “Ban on New Docks” in Southold’s bay front communities should concern us all. Is it the intention of the Town of Southold to alleviate another potential town shoreline problem by a broad stroke of legislation rather than by a careful analysis of a property owner’s application?
Waterfront property owners (taxpayers) deserve better consideration and attention from our local government. No property owner should be guaranteed a dock on the bay, but every property owner should be able to submit a well-intended, professional application based on current acceptable building & engineering standards with their application.
This application should be reviewed, evaluated and answered in with an acknowledged estimate of review time via legislated review procedures presently available through our Trustees, Building Department, and the NYS DEC.
The Town of Southold has Twelve (12) specific criteria that an applicant should address. Those twelve criteria items are published above for your review and must be the foundation for determining acceptable applications for “Docks on the bay.”
Southold is being challenged by time consuming projects that require careful consideration, long term planning and stakeholder impute. Many important issues revolve around resources of our shoreline, its owners and stakeholders: SoutholdVOICE Members.
During the past several months Supervisor Russell has issued several requests for volunteers to work on advisory committees. In one moment Southold Officials are challenging SoutholdVoice Members with further waterfront restrictions and possible legislation. In the next moment, we have been invited to “Help, Participate, and offer Advise.” It is confusing.
Old shoreline priorities in the Town of Southold: Road Runoff, Dredging, Water Quality, Erosion, Pollution, Channel Identification, Pump Out Stations, etc. are being mixed together with local government’s new priorities, without solution or substantial improvement to the old priorities. What are the short and long term goals of the present ST Administration and our community: Solution or Confusion? What can we afford?
Southold is a township with the resources of beautiful shoreline, water related activities, open space, farms, vineyards, and waterfront residences and properties. We are a community that can boost many favorable visitor alternatives to distant travel, vacations, and real estate investment. Southold’s best industry isn’t Farming, Vineyards, or Fishing. They definitely enhance our total presentation. The most important “Industry” revolves around our real estate on the North Fork. Valuations rise, commissions are earned, attorneys and consultants are hired, architects and engineers are engaged, contractors and their subs are employed, and supplies and materials are sold. Local merchants, service industries, restaurants and farms sell their products. If this “Destination Theme” market recedes because of questionable publicity, obstacles in legislation or by perceived interference by government, eventually it will affect future interest and the valuations of our real estate on the North Fork. Remember that there were two (2) approved applications for docks on the bay within the past two years. “Clutter” is not a fitting adjective to describe the shoreline of our bays.
I suggest we influence the visitor, real estate investor, and the stakeholder with positive images, articles and introductions of great Southold experiences. A committee of public relations should be formed against the “Nay Sayers.” Please contribute your thoughts and questions to our Website and join SoutholdVoice. Help us make a difference.
Douglas F. Rose, Sr.
Treasurer, Board Member of
SoutholdVOICE Inc.
Hi. There are some issues you raised that need clarification. First, where and when did I ever support legislation in the past that put further restriction on water-front owners? I opposed several proposals by the previous board that were detrimental to water-front owners. Code changes to definitions of ‘buildable” area and accessory buildings, I voted against because they hurt the owners right to invest in their very property by increasing “nonconforming’ status even more. The proposed changes to chapter 275 were actually forwarded to the Town board by the TRUSTEES and, although ultimately innocuous, I refused to support them until they were completely clarified for everyones benefit. When the rebuilding of the Case groin was turned down by the state, I interceded and the permit was issued.
I have been working with Trustee Bob Ghosio to develop a financial plan for us to buy our own dredge so we can not only ensure the regular dredging of our creeks BUT to also develop an in house ability to dredge sand back up onto the beaches to replace the fast eroding beach losses suffered by waterfront owners. this would also have the added environmental benefit of getting the sand off the bay bottom and interfering with the regrowth of eel grass. In short, if the state and others do not support shore-hardening structures, then we should be willing to get the sand back where it belongs, on your beaches.
You should not be confused by my effort to enlist your help in participating in making the process better. I am committed to creating a process that reduces your costs and time for permits and support the creation of an ‘administrative permit” process so that if you follow the design and materials outlined, you could merely get your permit without the lengthy and expensive review. You are entitled to be able to invest in your property and understand what the rules are in clear and predictable terms. That being said, you should not confuse docks in the bay as some sort of new restriction. The fact is that the Trustees have not allowed docks to be built in the bay now for 30 years. The town has spent a considerable amount of legal dollars over these years defending the Trustees right to say “no” and the concern at the Town board level is that there are some Trustees who seem less committed to this past policy. Yes only 2 docks have been approved in the past 2 years however, only 6 were applied for. 2 were approved, 2 were denied and 2 were tabled. My use of the word ‘clutter’ is perfectly appropriate if many more of these are approved in an area where there were none. This issue is not new and, in fact, was discussed by the board and the Trustees almost 2 years ago.
The Trustees asked us for time to develop policy and, to date, we have gotten none. I would support a reasonable policy that outlined where they would be appropriate and limited how long they could be but I have been presented with no such policy. The dock that was the subject of last weeks article extended 104 feet into a harbor where there were virtually none approved in years. I gladly support yours or any homeowners property rights but please understand what that means. The Bay is a public land owned by everybody, not by waterfront owners, and a fixed structure 104 feet out into that public land is a serious incursion into public property. I will champion your property rights but those rights extend typically to the high water mark. By the way, you should try to develop consensus on this issue with other bayfront owners because it was bayfront property owners who first brought this one to my attention and urged the board to take action. It seems that it is, in fact, true that some waterfront owners do have certain expectations when they invest so substantially into the property and pay so much each year in taxes. Unfortunately, their expectations do not include looking out into the horizon and seeing their neighbors 104 foot dock. On the issue of the dock Test which you outline above, you should understand that that test was adopted by the Trustees to evaluate docks in the CREEKS and other waterways primarily ( not the bay) and was, in fact, adopted when docks in the bay were generally not allowed.
Regards, Scott Russell
Supervisor, Town of Southold
Somebody better start checking out the legal aspects of forcing a referendum on a proposed public law.