At the previous nite’s Town Board Hearing about the Dock in the Bays regulations, I objected that the proposal would eliminate the 41 existing docks over time because if they were damaged by a Hurricane or winter ice, they would have to conform to this new standard and, that being impossible, would be prohibited from being rebuilt. Supervisor Russell responded that he believes in grandfathering and would not support that. I said Chapter 275 as it was revised eliminated grandfathering and the Trustees have not honored any grandfathering since I have been monitoring the meetings for over a year. He disagreed and made me think that I have been misunderstanding what I have been hearing. So before the meeting I asked the board of Trustees this question:
Assume the dock regulation passed last nite. I have an existing dock in the bay. In the Fall, a hurricane removes my dock, or during the winter, an ice flow removes my dock. I apply for a permit to rebuild. Must I comply to the new building standard? (I contend that it will be impossible to comply as written)
Answer: some thought yes, some no, then they thought it would depend on the cause of the destruction, sudden Cat. loss or gradual deterioration…they said that those questions need to be worked out in the proposal. It seems possible that the answer to the grandfathering question could change depending on the location of your dock: in the creek, no. In the bay, maybe under these conditons….??
One of the interesting applications was that of an individual who was granted a Trustee’s permit for a dock which reaches a depth of 1 to 2′ of water at low tide. Since Dec. 2006, the applicant has been in the DEC back and forth and now has a DEC permit that requires an 18′ longer dock to reach the minimum navigable depth of 2.5′ mlw on the landward side of the float. Sounds reasonable…? NOT! The Trustees want to limit the length to not exceed a line between a dock on the right where the float sits on the bottom at low tide, and a point 30′ landward on the dock on the left, because this dock is going to be forced to be shortened by 30′. Also at issue is the fact that the marina opposite the applicant appears to have added 2 slips without a permit, which some think, limit the navigability between the proposed and existing docks. The matter was tabled pending further study.
An applicant was found to have a street drain discharging thru his bulkhead. It seems the developer may have done this as this is a private road. The solution seems like a good one: The Trustees will send a letter to the association asking them to rectify the situation with a catch basin at the road. The applicant won’t be delayed in their process because of that.
Another applicant is building a dock to reach 4′ at MLW and was approved quickly inspite of the possible close proximity to a sailboat mooring. It was decided upon reading the code that docks have priority over moorings, if there is a conflict the mooring must move.
They wrapped up the last approval just before 11pm.
John Kramer
No Comments