It’s not about Docks in the Bay
April 15, 2008 by John Kramer · 4 Comments
The Town Board is drafting a moratorium for all new docks and other permanent structures in the bay. My call to Lauren at the Trustee’s office on Thursday, to learn just how many applications were overwhelming them, resulted in this response: “None.”
No person, corporation, LLC is looking to build a dock in the bay…Why then, a moratorium in preparation for a total ban?
The trustees have a 12 point guideline that covers dock permits. (See a copy here) I doubt that there is a need to further restrict the right of a property owner to avail himself to a hearing on the merits of an application. But if that is the case, amend the guideline. Don’t deny a property owner the right to make an application. That is unreasonable.
I ask why the property owner must again prepare to defend himself against a perceived “clutter on the bays” where there is none. What’s really going on in Town Hall? Is this simply the first of several bans? Maybe this is the easy one because there are no applicants? I don’t know and can’t guess, but I sure would like to know what this is really about, because this makes taxpayers nervous.
Hi John,
I have been more then candid on this issue and your effort to suggest that there are other motives here is histrionic. The actual application activity for docks in the bay has been 6 for the past 2 years. 2 were approved, 2 were denied and 2 are still pending (tabled). The “perceived clutter” is not yet apparent as I stated in the paper but, the current trend will lead to it.
I support the waterfront property owners property rights and do not subscribe to new rallying cries to eliminate “shore hardening structures” especially since, in some cases, they are the only means for a property owner to protect his investment from erosion and beach loss. The only groin I opposed since becoming Supervisor was a recently built one that resulted in severe beach loss to the waterfront owners beach to the south of this new groin. I also support equitable distribution of dredge spoils and the possibility of the town purchasing a dredge which would allow us the ability to dredge soft sand shoaling back onto your beaches.
The issue of docks in the bay is not about any reasonable claim to property rights since the bay is publicly owned. How many more docks are acceptable in an area like Cutchogue Harbor before you let me refer to it as clutter? That area is heavily used by the public for fishing, swimming and sailing are compromised by structure over 100 feet out off the shoreline. What about these peoples rights?
The so-called dock test is subjective and provides no real basis for evaluating docks in the bay. In fact a discretionary board can easily use that test if they were predisposed to deny or approve docks. I assure you that I have no intention to propose bans on other marine structures and, no, I am not using this as a Trojan horse to pursue other bans. It should be noted that the issue of the dock in Cutchogue was brought to my attention by other bay front owners who feel that their waterfront rights have been intruded upon by the 104 foot structure out into the bay. I was also alerted to a pending application for a dock in the bay by a neighboring waterfront property owner which, I understand, was set for approval until it was discovered that there were some outstanding violations. That has since been “tabled’, not denied.
The reason we are moving on a moritorium instead of an outright ban is because we realize that there are several aspects that need to be considered and circumstances where they may be appropriate. In particular, waterfront dependent industries, the nature of the areas where much shorter docks only are needed. etc. The Trustees offered to do this for us 2 years ago and we have received nothing. I urge you to try to develop consensus with other waterfront owners because you may find that their ideas of “property rights” are quite different than yours.
By the way, we have a meeting scheduled with some state reps. to discuss the LWRP on Thursday the 17th at town hall. This is a working meeting between the board and the state to discuss various issues and is not the public meeting with the State that I want and that you are entitled to. however, first on the agenda will be setting a specific timetable for them to come and have that community discussion. For Thursday, any of you are welcome to come and observe the meeting in the meeting hall. It is at 9am. I will post on this site as soon as we firm up the public informational Q&A meeting with them.
Regards, Scott Russell
(Mr Russell is the Supervisor of the Town of Southold)
None of which answers the question why a moratorium is necessary. Maybe the reason why the trustees have not produced anything in two years (I’m guessing), is because they feel the 12 point guideline is adequate, and that there is no need to further restrict property owners by unreasonably denying them the right to a fair hearing on a case by case basis. After all, that is the job they have been elected to do, even if we don’t always agree with their decisions.
Scott, while you can agree that 6 applications in 2 years have not resulted in any of the apparent clutter that you are seeking to avoid, and the trustees confirm that there are no further applications in the pipeline, you are still claiming this as sufficient grounds for implementing a moratorium. That doesn’t make any sense and speaks to a policy development process driven by fear rather than fact.
It is the moratorium that smacks of histrionics, not a reasonable objection to it and it simply defies credibility for any person in a position of authority to claim they support property owner rights while at the same time taking away their fundamental right to be heard on a matter affecting them, and for no apparent reason.
By the way, I’m sure the NYS LWRP reps will be thrilled.
Hi. The LWRP reps will be thrilled with what? I didn’t vote for the LWRP, the previous board did and I have serious reservations about continuing with the program. In fact, I have already asked our counsel to explore the ramifications of removing the town from the program. The problem here is that we have spent countless legal dollars defending the right of the Trustees to say “no”. Now, as new docks get approved, we will no longer be able to defend even the earlier denials. By the way, the Trustees are not elected to tend to the bays. The Town board gave them that authority around 1985. They are elected to administer the code that gets approved at the town level. And the suggestion that there are”no new applications in the pipeline” overlooks the fact that there are still two pending. It is called “precedence” and when you start saying yes it is nearly impossible to say no. also, since you argue that there is no real demand to have docks in the bay, then why the opposition to a town Board evaluation of the issue by means of a moritorium? Again, as I stated to John, you need to understand that bayfront owners are the ones who alerted me to their concerns about current, and future, docks in the bay. We are working real hard to balance everyones rights here and i still do not believe that the ability to put a 104 foot structure out into PUBLIC land is a property right issue. I have also outlined specific rights in my earlier post for waterfront owners that I support and are essential to the rights of waterfront owners. This seems to support my contention of my support of your property rights. My basis of defining property rights is your right to invest in, improve and protect your property. The deed for most of you ends at the high water mark so, investments and improvements out into the bay become a property right issue for everybody, not just you. Regards, Scott Russell
By that logic, a person who is not in the habit of speaking out should not care about losing their First Amendment rights.