Board of Town Trustees meeting Feb 18, 2009
Five administrative permits were granted; one in which Peconic Landing is going to cut two acres of phragmites to 12” height by hand. The application didn’t specify how the resulting debris was to be disposed of, so it was approved subject to that information.
There were five applications for extensions/transfers/amendments. One was a case where a change in a floating dock would encroach the neighbors property line if extended from shore. Even though the applicant had a letter from the neighbor granting permission to do so, the board wanted to modify the configuration to keep the structure within the property lines of the applicant, thus avoiding problems with subsequent owners. The applicant agreed to reconfigure the dock and was approved.
One applicant wanted to add 4 two piling dolphins at the off shore end of his floating dock to hold his boat off the dock. Because of “visual impact” and degradation of the environment, he was allowed one single piling. There seems to be no consideration of the needs of the boat, or the reality of ice damage to single pilings.
There were three coastal erosion and wetland permits for repair/replacement of bulkheads. In one instance, a bulkhead over 200’ was being replaced and the existing structure had a set of stairs approximately 6 steps to the beach at one end, and a set of stairs to the beach from a deck which was approximately 16 steps to the beach. The board told the applicant they would only approve one set of stairs to the beach because they wanted to lessen “structure” and the visual impact of the steps. No consideration was given to the use of the property and the fact very old or young residents would want to use the shorter stairs to go to the beach and the longer set of deck stairs are convenient. The fact that the residence with 200’ of waterfront is a “water dependent use” is not recognized. Isn’t it obvious that the ONLY reason one has a house on 200’ of waterfront is to utilize the waterfront to the maximum extent possible? If the owner didn’t want to get to the water, they would live on a farm lot. Why is no consideration given to the needs of the property owner? Who is being hurt by 6 steps to the beach?
One of the 8 wetland permits was an application for the construction of a house, pool, deck, sanitary system and catwalk that has been in the process for 7 years! Twice the board has written letters to the applicant stating the action is not in their jurisdiction and the DEC has also issued a letter stating that there is no objection to the action. The board said now Scott Hilary thinks it’s a wetland. Due to the fact this applicant has been delayed 7 years, they said that if he reduces the size of the house and eliminates the pool, they can “work something out” at the next meeting. Incredible.
Another applicant wanted to install two 12” x 30’ tie off piles on the side of his floating dock. Because the LWRP wants to minimize structure and visual impact, the applicant was told to use mooring whips to hold his boat off the float. I would think that even if there were whips that would hold a 30’ boat off the dock in a 40 kt breeze, the force would then be on the float chafing the piles that hold it in place. Again, the practical needs of the homeowner boater are not a consideration.
No Comments