The stated purpose of the workshop was to make available to the public the latest info, scientific studies, experience and expertise of coastal resource managers of NOAA, because we of Southold Town are working together to address the challenges, needs, desires and rights of all to practice responsible stewardship and develop a long term strategy for managing the process of shoreline development and protection. I attended to bring back a report of what it was about, and here is what I got out of it:
The presenters were two consultants who are paid to prepare and present information to help people who want to facilitate efforts to ban, control, limit, and regulate small docks. While the NOAA representative said several times, “We are not here to take a position against docks, that is for the local political process to decide”, the 5 hours of negativity directed toward waterfront owners, boaters, and dock owners (but not kayak and canoe boaters), was so tiring, that by the end, most attendees had left. It would not surprise me if Steve Bliven, the consultant, is hired by the Town or outside group to promulgate dock policy for the Town. That is his job, that is what he was selling.
Here is how Steve Bliven says we get this done:
- Use Florida and South Carolina as examples of over development. Survey the public with questions like “Do you think there are areas in Southold Town where there should NOT be docks allowed?” A poll result showing an overwhelming affirmative response indicates a mandate for regulation!
- A graph showing nationwide dock applications increasing over the last 20 years reinforces the move of the population to the coasts, but the number of dock permit denials is a problem (because it is small) and a frustration of coastal managers.
- We can base our opposition to docks on science: how they negatively impact vegetation, contaminate the water, causes more boat use (a bad thing), and cause navigational problems, and are aesthetically unpleasing.
- A tool that we can use to gain popular support in our move against docks is a variation of the logical argument ‘reducto ad absurdum:’ there is free software available where we can take a picture of a local vista, for example, Southold Bay, and insert a dock on every separate property. The result is shown to be an illustration of “total build-out.” It seems that this potential alone is reason to support moratoriums and total bans. The emphasis is that we don’t have an issue with a single dock; the issue is the “SPRAWL” of docks.
Other tools we can use to stop the sprawl:
- At State level: Environmental reviews by the DEC is a useful gauntlet
- At Local level: Zoning is a great tool. Just say “no docks” in a particular zone so everyone knows up front that the waterfront can’t be used by the owner. Building codes could be expanded to make dock construction more difficult and discourage construction. Local environmental ordinances can be strengthened to further reduce to possibility of dock sprawl.
The community will have to decide how we respond to this positioning of an argument for further regulating docks, and implicit in this is the old “us against them” mentality. My impression is that the concept of a waterfront property owner being a person passionate about the water in the same way a golfer lives in a golf course community or a gardener lives where there is room to have a garden; the idea that a waterfront property owner is such, because he is also a boater, sailor, clammer, fisherman, etc. and wants to use the waterfront, is totally foreign to the folks presenting this meeting.
We will have to educate “them” about values “we” hold, what is important to us, why it is important, and what it is that we want. Quiet enjoyment is not an option. Failing that, expect a big public outcry to stop the bad guys on the water from stealing their public access and polluting our maritime resources both environmentally and aesthetically.
Any member wishing to read the two handouts which detail the meeting are welcome to them. Email me: southoldvoice@gmail.com
John Kramer
I wanted to take the opportunity to provide my feedback on the seminar. Before I start, I want to commend the Conservation Advisory Committee for putting this seminar together, and the Town Board for picking up the majority of the cost of the program. There were four Trustees present for the seminar. Supervisor Russell was present for the first part of the morning and Councilman Orlando for the entire morning session. As the Town Board (TB) will be making the ultimate decision on this issue, it was important for them to be present.
The presenters did a good job. They did address the science of the impact of docks which I believe was critical as the TB has stated that they want some time to look at the science behind docks. It was clear that our present Town code addressed the science issues. Much time was spent on the issue of the potential impacts of CCA and the experts concluded that this should not be a reason to ban docks in areas with high tidal action (like the bays). CCA dissolves almost immediately in areas of high tidal flow. CCA is more of an issue in areas of low tidal action such as inside our creeks. The experts also stated that docks should not be allowed to cover eel beds and that the use of a grated material to allow maximum sunlight through should be practiced. They discussed the issue of navigation, recommending that at least fifty percent of the width of a waterway remain unobstructed from docks. Our current code states that in the creek, at least 33% of the width remain unobstructed. So this could be open to debate. They also discussed the importance of public access and recommended the inclusion of either steps over docks, or that docks be raised to a level where the public could walk under the docks. I had lunch with one of the presenters and asked if they were aware of our code and the multiple point test for all dock applications. She was pleased to hear that we address the issue of light, CCA, public access and eel beds. The experts also stated in the Q&A period at the end of the program that docks do not interfere with the littoral drift of sand.
The experts started the seminar saying that this is an issue of the balance of owners rights. Our bays are State owned waters, in other words owned for the benefit of everyone. Private property owners have Riparian Rights, which end at the high tide mark, but some will argue that they have the right of access to navigable water. This access could be by way of using a dingy, a mooring, a dock or simply swimming. In the end, they presented much information on the aesthetics of docks and potential numbers of docks, recommending that local authority give serious consideration to these issues. As John stated, they provided lots of pictures of Florida and the Carolinas where thousands of docks had been applied for and approved, many containing structures hundreds of feet into the wetlands with small sheds mounted on the end. I think that everyone in the room agreed that we do not want to see this happen in Southold. The experts stated over and over again that the “science issues” were minimal compared to the political issues. In other words, the local community should dictate through their elected officials just how coastal communities such as ours handles this very important issue. While the constant referral to the Carolinas and Florida could be seen as overkill, it was in my opinion important to see what could happen if there is no regulation at all. In my opinion the current Town Code appears to address this potential. I do agree with the presenters and what John eluded to in that it is up to the public to provide their input on the issue, and for the Town Board to listen and make the ultimate decision. I am confident that the Board will put their personal feelings aside and make the best decision for all of us.
I felt that the presenters were more “fair & balanced” then I expected (I expected environmental zealots). The outline and written materials had me worried that this was going to be a presentation which was bias to “no docks” philosophy. The science shows that there is _inadequate scientific evidence_ that docks result in long term damage to the waters. The science supports that “best management practices” should be applied when building the docks, and that placement should consider the underwater vegetation. We do this now. (The marine surveyor Bob Fox of Sea Level Mapping always considers the location to limit underwater disturbance). The conclusion from the program is to limit disturbance to the greatest extent practical. Shading is not an issue because docks are built with light penetrating materials. Bottom line is that docks are not known to cause environmental damage to the waters.
They admitted that the objections to docks appears to be “Aesthetics” rather than science. This is a subjective standard. While the Courts will uphold a Town’s political decision even regarding aesthetics, is this what this community wants?
It seems to me that legislation is dictated by non-waterfront owners. In Southold, the argument is always that the views to be protected are from “Scenic Byways” - Main Road and North Road (The LWRP may have made every road a scenic byway). These views are protected at the expense of the private property owners.
By analogy- the Farmers are compensated for preservation of views and limitation on placement of structures with the sale of development rights- waterfront owners, on the other hand, pay disproportionately high taxes for the services they get based on the waterfront location. But if the Town prohibits the active use of the waterfront for “the good of all to preservation of views” is this not a public “view easement” which entitles owners to compensation? Southold VOICE should stand up to this inequity.
Dear Mr. Kramer and Ms. Moore:
The only “official” and definitive statement on values thus far given, in regard to docks, was by our board member and SV treasurer, Douglas F. Rose, Sr. who said, in his 3/31/08 posting: ” 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.” This was confirmed perfectly by Atty. Pat Moore (who does much business with waterfront property owners) in her question to presenter Steve Bliven, at the seminar, about whether the impact of docks had been studied in relation to real estate values of the waterfront property owners.
If the majority of members of SoutholdVOICE have values other than personal gain through their waterfront real estate investment, as you, Mr. Kramer claim, it would be nice to hear what those values are, from them. For some of your members, who are not waterfront property owners and not boaters, quiet enjoyment is a choice.
Ms. Moore, I’m not sure you got the “aesthetic” argument right, or at least the information as presented. Aesthetics might be subjective, but once voters agree on them, then they become “objective” law, and can be evaluated objectively through reliable computer programs measuring objective optical features. The courts uphold those laws, as they are rationally based and rationally applied.
Stakeholder Member
Dear Anonymous:
My point on the emphasis placed on aesthetics without an analysis of the “Economic Impact” is an issue for consideration. It is not for consultants, lawyers and dock builders, it is for the local economy which relies heavily on recreation, tourism and second homes. Local businesses service this industry. The loss of one industry has a ripple effect on the local economy. Without private docks, do we build more public boat ramps and impact on the roads to the boat ramp? Do we allow for expansion of Marinas which require elevated boat rack storage because it is more environmentally appropriate? Boat sales and service are affected if there is limited space for docking. Do we now place economic and environmental pressure on the areas of Town where boat docks are permitted? I oppose political sound bite legislation and Knee-jerk reactions; there are valid view points on all sides of this issue, but let’s not use science where none exists or exclude economic impact from the analysis.
Dear Anonymous:
The property that my wife and I live on was purchased, by my parents, when I was nine years old. I am now sixty eight. I expect that the property will remain “in the family” long after I am gone. You may consider us Southold VOICE members who do “have values other than personal gain through their waterfront real estate investment”. Our dock serves to provide access, for us, our children and our grandchildren, to the marine resources which have nourished my soul for almost sixty years. “Quiet enjoyment” plays a large part in our value system. It is not reserved exclusively for those who are not waterfront property owners and not boaters.
I trust that we and our grandchildren will be permitted to continue to enjoy our marine environment without the unnecessary interjection of “reliable computer programs measuring objective optical features”.