It was a busy schedule, with a 5:30 start and 11:15 ending. A Trustee’s primary virtue seems to be a tolerance for repetitive, off subject remarks by the public, who if listening, would have heard the answer to their questions about 8 times before they got up … you have to admire them!
There was a discussion about the lack of an inventory of Stake and Pulley moorings in the town’s creeks. It seems there is a waiting list in some areas for a stake for a small boat, but the reality is that the existing stakes are in some instances vacant, and have been for years. The solution to ending a wait list to use a vacant stake is to inventory who is on what stake and open up those not used. No department. in the town seems to have manpower to do this, and the Trustees may ask the CAC to do an inventory. I didn’t volunteer for our members, but it sounds as though our membership could accomplish this in a week with little effort. If anyone is up for a project, you got it, email me at southoldvoice@gmail.com
I will post information separately about the dock meeting on July 3rd.
Thoughts about some of the processes that are being discussed at these permit hearings.
The Trustees want VERY specific detail AND a validation for the reason, why you want to do something. Assume nothing. Explain everything. Example: remove some junk trees and poison ivy: every tree will be labeled; every poison ivy plant will be counted. Methodology and equipment will be specified. Example: you want to remove some stumps and plant a privacy boarder…sounds like a no brainer right? Not. Trustee’s answer: Don’t remove the stumps and plant the boarder. How can you do that? Applicant wasn’t there to ask, so now has to either try, or go back and plead his case again.
Inter-agency ping-pong. The Trustees try hard to facilitate the permit process where multiple permits are required, but don’t assume that they will make a positive decision and send you on to ZBA or the building dept. If they table your app you wasted another month or more. Think through the WHOLE process with your permit expediter BEFORE getting on the schedule. Get agreement from each board, the sequence to be followed, otherwise you will hear a “we can’t until they can approve” tabling motion.
LWRP consistency. Every new app for construction will be reviewed by Scott Hillary for consistency with the LWRP and if found inconsistent (usually the case) mitigation measures will be proposed and considered by the Trustees. This is another value of the Trustees, to consider how to satisfy the wants of all interests. You have to know what the CAC and LWRP concerns are and how to answer them. Example: Regardless of what action you want permitted, you will be adding a non-turf buffer and roof run off will be contained in drywells. These are mitigating actions that bring your property closer to consistency with the LWRP. Expect these conditions to be imposed on your application.
Cat walks and Docks: It sounds to me that the boating or yachting considerations for these structures rank last in the deliberations. Primary consideration on a dock, float or catwalk seems to be VISUAL. This goes back to the dock meeting of May: if your boat isn’t a kayak, you will have to fight for what you need. Example: in a creek where ice is going to remove anything insubstantial, the DEC and Trustees approved the construction of a 124′ catwalk on 4″x4″ pilings. We have a real need to publicize the science supporting proper maritime construction in the North. For some reason, the diameter of the pilings has become a big restriction by both the DEC and Trustees. Those who do not understand the problems that will be encountered with ice and storms are accepting approvals that are (in my opinion) going to be maintenance nightmares and require frequent applications for repair, resetting, replacement.
Be careful what ask for. Between the process of applying to the DEC and then the Trustees, an applicant can get worn down and end up applying for something that EVERYONE (applicant, DEC, Trustees) knows will not solve the problem. Sounds strange but having recently gone thru the process, I know first hand that after a while you just say “give me anything.” Example: rocks are need to control erosion and are applied for. The DEC school solution is to respond with a denial and propose planting grass. Months later, after much back and forth, they will say use Biologs. That was their response to me after months of proving the loss of 15-20′ of lawn to 3′ wave action in storms. Biologs may stabilize a shoreline on a small lake shore but not on a large bay. Anyway, wanting to get ANYTHING to protect his property before the next storm, the applicant acquiesced and came to the Trustees to for approval. Everyone in the room knew it was a waste of time and money. The Trustees, I believe, tried to get the applicant to go back to the DEC for a better solution, but time is running out and he will probably put in Biologs, which will float away or rot out in the near future.
Last thought. New homebuyers are being (correctly, I think) advised to check the permits in place for everything on the property. The dock must now be permitted if it was preexisting and it is a process that must be done if you plan to sell or buy. I have asked an expert to comment on this as a separate posting.
No Comments