The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBeixedon Estate POA Albert J.Krupski,President so yo Town Hall James King,Vice-President ,`O l0 53095 Route 25 Artie Foster P.O.Box 1179 Ken Poliwoda Southold,New York 11971-0959 Peggy A.Dickerson G O Telephone(631)765-1892 COU Fax(631)765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 21, 2005 Mr. Matt D. Ivans Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. P.O. Box.2003 Bridgehampton, NY 11932 RE: BEIXEDON ESTATE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC. ARSHAMOMAQUE AVE. & PETTY'S POND, SOUTHOLD SCTM#66-3-14&15 Dear Mr. [vans: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees at their Regular Meeting held on Wednesday, December 21, 2005: RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees grants a One-Year Extension to Permit #5888, as issued on March 24, 2004. This is not an approval from any other agency. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Albert J. Krupski, Jr. President, Board of Trustees AJK:Ims SICKLES PROPOSED BULKHEAD REPLACEMENT - (Existing Condifons) "N" SECTIONS (I - V) "N" SECTIONS (VI VIII) RE-sUVN 0 OVELLIN6 p ®�p� VEdL�DNQ AHW 12' ALW 147 Y 06 4'= �w TIMBER B C1L s-� � ' 11gt (dj (TO REMAIN) 190IN)TI - - , MBER TIMBER- BULKHEAD N D t—— ---— -- -_ --- -- ----- - D REMAIN) : REMAIN)RAMP - - - TIMBER BULKHEAD (N) o (TO "1-g,_�_ , -- - ------- " -- - - -- -"30 5 - ---- - -- -- -- - .APR - 6 2004 Southold Town A/q ------------------- -:` IS/ Board of Trustees ✓ � Q t��r, . 31 $ 4 �U •r. A. _ SPECIFICATIONS(existingconditions): SOo� Northern Timber Bulkhead: 848.0 t linear feet total Timber Return(Green Highlight):to be replaced"in-kind/in place"(12.0 f linear feet). �.� i N 1 C K l_ ES P roP ;�. 1 Westerly Bulkhead Run(Yellow Highlight): to be replaced"in-kind/in place"(254.0 t linear feet). " Knock-Out(Pink Highlight): to be replaced"in-kindin place"at a future date(42.0 t linear feet). Easterly Bulkhead Run(Blue Highlight): Northern length(215.0±linear feet)&easterly t - (c/o Beixedon Property Owners Association) length(17.0±linear feet)to be removed;southern length(308.0±linear feet)to j �.� �� Situate: Arshamomaque Avenue & Petty's Pand; Southold, NY be replaced with a single groin reduced by thirty feet(30.01)to result in a new `S' S L T M #• 1000-0 6 6-03-014 E� 015 length of 278 f linear feet. �` ti P = Southern Timber Bulkhead: 306.0 f linear feet total SCALE:1•011 40.0' APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY IVIDI DATE:DeC• 18, '2002 REVISEDSV4r � 2itb Knock-Out lyBul(Pink Highlight):eHighlight):o be "in-kiasterplace" bereplaedate"in-ki"in-kind/in-place" Prepared Prepared by Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sept. 9, 2 03 Easterly Bulkhead Run(Blue Highlight): southeastern run to be replaced"in-kind/in-place" (78.0 t linear feet);northeastern run to be removed(113.0 t linear feet). P O BOX 2003• Brl d eh am t0 Outer Bulkhead(Light Green Highlight): to be removed(34.0 f linear feet). r SECTIONS 9 p n, NY 11932 A pr i l 1, 2 04 (631) 537 - 5160 DRAWING NUMBER EXISTING � pl\IC� ITIC� RIS of * * IV ' * _ S E T I �31�11 S (V I through VI 11) ROOM M OWN wthwO. 308.0' ± — — _ — N 17,0' r, 4.0' ± d - Cross-Sectional Diagram for > _ _ _ NORTHERN PORTION (VI through VIII) — — ` ' BULKHEAD REPLACEMENT v' cn (Existing Conditions) .•,.-•• ' v SECTION SPECIFICATIONS: N-VI: Semi-functional(to be replaced and reduced by 30.0'): 308.0'L NNH: Semi-functional(to be removed): 17.0'L SCALE: 1.0" = 10.0' ± N-VIH: Semi-functional(to be removed): 215.0'L �L�C��O®a �1000 �O��O�o �aa��o��D • . 215.0' + 4.0' ±_ _ _ _ _ i i K. t- ES P' r' C3s�. 1 y r ,• .. •• ••• — . . i ••f ( 1 Property Owners Association c o Beixedon Pro ert ) as •• �• •••• , •• •.• �• •.. ••• .• ••• • •• Situate: Arshamamaque Avenue & Petty's Pond; Southold, NY 43 SCTMt #: 1000-066-03-014 & 015 SCALE: AFFROVED SY: . DRAWN aY 11A DI DATE' ec, 18, 200 RE1/ISED�v„E Prepared by: Suffolk Environmental Consulting., Inc.April 1, 004 SCALE: -1.0" = 30.0' ± PO Box 2003; Briddehamptan, NY 11932 (631) 537 - 5160 DRAWING NU M HER Albert J.Krupski,President Town Hall James King,Vice-President OSUFFO(,�C 53095 Route 25 - Artie Foster ��j P.O.Box 1179 o� y Southold,New York 11971-0959 Ken Poliwoda Peggy A.Dickerson C4 Z Telephone(631) 765-1892 Fax(631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 72 HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK, TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT FOR A PRE-CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION. FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL BE CONSIDERED A VIOLATION AND POSSIBLE REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT. e, � XP INSPECTION SCHEDULE Pre-construction, hay bale line 1 st day of construction % constructed Project complete, compliance inspection. Albert J. Krupski,President �� C� Town Hall James King,Vice-President = Gy� 53095 Route 25 Artie Foster CAP.O.Box 1179 Ken Poliwoda = Southold,New York 11971-0959 15 Peggy A.Dickerson ij� O�� Telephone(631) 765-1892 Fax(631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 24, 2004 Mr. Bruce Anderson Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. P.O. Box 2003 Bridgehampton, NY 11932 RE: JOHN NICKLES C/O BEIXEDON ESTATE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC. ARSHAMOMAQUE AVE. & PETTY'S POND, SOUTHOLD SCTM#66-3-14&15 Dear Mr. Anderson: The Board of Town Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 regarding the above matter: WHEREAS, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of JOHN NICKLES C/O BEIXEDON ESTATE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC. applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of Chapter 97 of the Southold Town Code, the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, application dated December 5, 2003 and, WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations, and, WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on March 24, 2004, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and, WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and, WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application, and, 2 WHEREAS, the structure complies with the standards set forth in Chapter 97 of the Southold Town Code, WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will not affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town, NOW THEREFORE BE IT, RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees approve the application of JOHN NICKLES C/O BEIXEDON ESTATE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC. to remove and replace the existing northern timber bulkhead: timber return replaced inkind/inplace 10'+/- linear ft.; westerly bulkhead run replaced inkind/inplace 254+/- linear ft.; replace 42+/- linear ft. inkind/inplace; easterly bulkhead run reduced to a single groin and decreased in length by thirty-feet (30') to measure 278+/- linear ft. in length. Southern timber bulkhead: replace inkind/inplace 81+/- linear ft.; easterly bulkhead run replaced inkind/inplace 78+/- linear ft. All work must be done in accordance with the approved plans prepared by Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. last dated April 1, 2004. All remaining debris shall be completely removed,from the area and to an approved upland area for disposal. Permit to construct and complete project will expire two years from the date the permit is signed. Fees must be paid, if applicable, and permit issued within six months of the date of this notification. Inspections are required at a fee of$50.00 per inspection. (See attached schedule.) Fees: $50.00 Very truly yours, Albert J. Krupski, Jr. President, Board of Trustees AJK/Ims \y �aY •. y :� 1. S'�C„ �� " �`"%Y•. J z R Board of Southold Town Trustees SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ' DATE: ivlarch 24, 2004 -f PERMIT NO. ... .....8g ........ i JOHN NICKL_ ES C/O BEIXED•ON••E$T. ,. ............... ISSUED TO . .. � r P'ROPER Y••OWNERS ASSOCIATION Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 615 of the Laws of r, the State of New York, 1893; and Chapter 404 of the Laws of the ' State of New York 1952; and the Southold Town Ordinance en- titled ."REGULATING AND THE PLACING OF OBSTRUCTIONS IN AND ON TOWN WATERS AND PUBLIC LANDS and the I r REMOVAL OF SAND, GRAVEL-OR OTHER MATERIALS FROM ' LANDS _UNDER TOWN'WATERS;'•.'• and in accordance with the March'24, Resolution of The Board adopted at a meeting held on'.............................. t 2004 and in consideration of the sum of ....200.00 paid by <F JohnNickles ........................................................................._...... Southold ........... N. Y. and. subject to 'the Terms and Conditions listed on the reverse side .hereof, 1 `'w of Southold Town Trustees authorizes and permits the following: Wetland Permit to remove and replace the existing northern timber bulkhead:timber return replaced inkind/inplace 10'+/- linear ft.;westerly bulkhead run replaced inkind/inplace 254+1-linear ft.;replace 42+/-linear ft.inkindfinplace;easterly 1 bulkhead run reduced to a single groin and decreased in length by thirty-feet(30')to measure 278+/-linear ft.in length. Southern timber bulkhead: replace inkind/iinplace 81+/-linear ft.;easterly bulkhead run replaced inkind/inplace Inc. linear !1 �� ft.All work must be done in accordance with the approved plans prepared y nsulting,Inc.last b Suffolk Environmental Co to dated April 1,2004.All remaining debris shall be completely removed from the area and a an approved upland area for disposal.^ accordance with the detailed specifications as presented in the originating application. , f The said Board of Trustees Mere- . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, d these resents to `• by causes its Corporate Seal to be affixed, an p r r be subscribed by a majority of the said Board .as of this date. 1 �.. •tea �Y 3 i Artier Foster f ahcPnt� l t. 0,( , y► — Trustees I •'�'�`. <Y _ _ -4�� —iTc.�"r_ .1• _ rY�+'-=Y'•=-c., __-..ems 1 3�_ \ �'� V ,::.r-�•Y a` ^ DTI +f ,r 's't" ri'' p�,v�, x�"' 1 •�~' fir.. < /. _ .% \\\� r - ��`.� i "_ ""nrrY , �_, .2fi TERMS and CONDMQNS John Nickles c/o •Beixedon Estate Property Owners Assoc. P.O. Box 877, Southold N. Y., as $ at ' parr of the consideration for the issuance of the permit does understand and-prescribe to the fol- lowing: � 1. That the said Board of Trustees and :the Town of Southold are released from any and all damages, or claims for damages, of suits arising.:directly`or-indire tly as a.t�wlt of any open. adon performed pursuant to this permit, and =the:said'Permittee will, at his or her own ezpe�, defead any and di-such suits-initiated b9 third Vsrda, and the said Perm ttee ass, ' full liability .with respect thereto, so the complete'exclusion of the $off of Trustees of the Iowa of Southold a. That this Pelt k is'valid for a,;period of 24 race. which is tJeaddeied to be the estimated time'required to complete the work involved, but should circumstaftm WMAE14 ftque for an extension may be made to the Board at a later date. 3. That this Permit should be retained indefinitely, or as long as the said Perirrittee wishes _ to provide evidence to anyone concerned that auth to maintain the structure or project involved, - orkation was originally obtained ; I 4. That the work involved will be subject to the inspection and approval of the Board or its agents, and non-compliance with the provisions of the originating application, may be cause for revocation of this Permit by-resolution of the said Board. 5. That there will be no unreasonable interference with navigation as a result of the wodc herein authorized. 6. That there=shall be no interference with the right of the public to pass and repass along the beach between high and low water-marks. 7. That if future operations of the Town of Southold require the trmoval and/or altecadons in the location of the work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of.the.Board of Trustees, the. work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to free navigation, the said lPenmittee will be requited, .upon due notice, to.remove or alter this work or project herein stated without expenses to the Town of Southold. - 8. That the said Board will be notified by the Permlttee of the completion..of the work auth- orized. 9. That the 'Permittee will obtain all other ,permits and consents that tray be vequued SUP- elemental to this permit which may be subject to revoke-upon failure to obtain tame. SOUTHOLD . TRUSTEES No. 58gg b��,tdan Ke+a� np� Is-sued T ate. 31A4�0� Address . THIS NOTICE MUST BE DISPLAYED DURING CONSTRUCTION TOWN. TRUSTEES OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 TEL.: 765-1892 From: E. Brownell Johnston, ESQ. [ebjlaw@optonline.net] Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 3:45 PM To: Gary Haight Cc: Corcoran, Kieran; Finnegan, Patricia; Peg Dickerson; E. Brownell Johnston, ESQ.; Montefusco, Lori; Standish, Lauren Subject: Re: F-2003-0852 Biexidon Estates (Nickles) On Sep 16, 2004, at 3 :43 PM, E. Brownell Johnston, ESQ. wrote: > Dear Gary, > Thank you for your e-mail. Please note above Lauren's correct e-mail > address. > Thank you again and all five Trustees and I enjoyed talking to you > this morning. > Best regards, > Brownell > E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. > Attorney at Law > Richmond Creek Farm > 4001 Wells Road > Peconic, New York 11958-1738 > 1-631-734-5890 > 1-631-734-5891 fax > On Sep 16, 2004, at 1:43 PM, Gary Haight wrote: >> Pursuant to our phone conversation of earlier today I have faxed a >> copy >> of the modified proposal, dated August 16, 2004, for the above >> reference >> project from Suffolk Environmental Consulting. Generally speaking this >> modified proposal would be consistent with the State's coastal >> policies. Dialog with the applicant is continuing to refine the >> modification to address concerns by both this agency and the >> Department >> of Environmental Conservation (DEC) . In particular, is the language >> where the applicant is proposing to retain the right to rebuild the >> eastern jetty and portions of the western jetty to existing lengths if >> erosion occurs. Additionally, drag-line method of dredging is >> unacceptable to the DEC and #9 of the modified proposal needs to be >> clarified. >> Mr. Anderson of Suffolk Environmental has asked if the most recent >> project modification would be agreeable in concept to the Town of >> Southold Board of Trustees and DEC. Please advise. 1 09/16/2004 13:48 5184732464 COASTAL RESOURCES PAGE 01/04 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE DjVISION of C0AST4L RESOURCES 41 STATE STREET ALBANY, NEW YORK I 2231-0001 USA Phone: (518) 474-6000 FAX: (5 1 8) 473-2464 FAX MESSAGE, pECE9VE TO: � � 5T '`'fl - SEP 17 2004 FAX NUMBER: 31 Z3 Southold Town Board of Trustees FROM: - DATE-': _ g — MESSAGE: NUtl bOT- 01 Sllccl5 (i11CIU(li ll`, 011-S cover slll'et); _•—_,.._--_ ...__. -. .. ••- 1It1S I:iCSiltt{Id Ir';nl�ltti95ittlt play cotll;lin Ct�nlic{Cnli;il nr 1)t'IviIC,,Cd istfot itl ti0tl wllicll 1% inwIl lCcl (Allyltil'115G l)y Illy Itltli�'lc!ual ut'l'nitly IU v 11iC11 U1C tl'Atlsmitistott is:lddtt5sctl, ll )'Vu are nut lltc inlctldcd rcClhicnl, )'t�U ttiC Il�:r�'hy' ntriili�:cl Iltsl :utv l!i5�'Itr.;ui�. �Ita Cnttl�an ut. copyin.>,or clislrihulion of Ihi� U':ulsttii�s{ ut is ctritttly pit)ltihllr<I. -111e original or Illis clacltmcm will bo sent by: ( ]this will be the only "ortll(A'deliver)' ( J overnight mail ( ]ordinary mail 09/16/2004 13:48 5184732464 COASTAL RESOURCES PAGE 02/04 Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village,Main Street,P.O.Box 2003, Bridgehampton,New York 11.932-2003 (631) 537-5160 Fax: (631) 537-5198 Bruce Anderson.M.S.,president Via FaeslaUle and Regular Mailin August 16, 2004 Q 00 Gary J. Haight, Coastal Resources Specialist New York State Department of State -F` t r Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization 41 State Street Albany,NY 1.2231-0001 Re: BIEX EDON ESTATE PROPERTY OWNERS(c/o John Nickles) Application to replace existing timber bulkheads/j etties Situate: Arshamomaque Avenue and Petty's Pond Southold,NY SCTM 9: 1000-066-03-014&015 Dear Mx. Haight, As you know,this Firm represents the association referenced above,who are pending final approval .from.your Department to reconstruct the existing jetty&bulkhead system contiguous to the properties that comprise said association. The purpose of this correspondence is to generally outline what we believe to be a viable alternative that addresses the needs and interests of our clients,while addressing the coastal concerns in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Our alternative proposal is as follows: (1) The eastern timber bulkhead/jetty at 308.0',would be reduced by 50.0' such that its total reconstruction would equal 25 8.0', extending from the mouth of Petty's Pond into Southold Bay. The jetty, that portion of the bulkhead south of Apparent High Water at the adjacent beach to the east extends 204.0' into Southold Bay and would be reduced to 154.0';. (2) The eastern face of the eastern jetty that measures 215.0' and the 17.0' section of bulkhead at the terminus of the eastern jetty would be removed resulting in a single-wall jetty, as described above,rather than the presently existing box jetty; (3) All remnants of existing pilings seaward of the eastern jetty 09/16/2004 13:48 5184732464 COASTAL RESOURCES PAGE 03/04 2 would be cut at the existing underwater grade and removed; (4) The beach to the east of the eastern bulkhead/jetty will be monitored via survey, and in the event that a significant loss of beach occurs, as demonstrated in an as-built survey,the applicant would retain the right to extend the eastern bulkhead/jetty to the presently existing 308.0' length(i.e. extend the shortened jetty to its original length of 308.0'); (5) The project benefits from existing permits that provide for the dredging of the inlet to Petty's Pond. Those authorizations permit the dredging of up to 300 cubic yards. This alternative would permit an increase of dredging not to exceed 900 cubic yards. The method of dredging proposed in this alternative is the drag--lane method; (6) The resultant dredge spoils would be deposited adjacent to and west of the existing western jetty on property owned by John 1.Nickles and his successors and assigns, and also at or above apparent high water; (7) The applicant proposes to remove the seaward portions of the western jetty measuring 54,0' and 59.0',respectively, by the cutting of pilings at the grade of the bay bottom; (8) The applicant would monitor the dredge spoil by accepted tagging and monitoring methods to determine the movement,if any,of the dredged spoil. If it is confirmed that the resultant dredge spoil is found to move back into the Wet to Petty's Pond,the applicant would retain the right to reconstruct the 54.0' and 59.0' sections of bulkheads removed,as per item no. 7,above; (9) The alternative as outlined above, is subject to all regulatory approvals of New York State Department of State,U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Southold Board of Trustees. In the event that one or more of the above listed agencies denies some or all aspects of this proposal,the proposal will be deemed non-viable and withdrawn; (10) Due to the on-going deterioration of the bulkhead/jetty system, all permits for this alternative proposal shall be granted by all involved agencies no .later than October 15,2004. In the event, that said permits cannot be obtained by that date with the applicant diligently pursuing subject approvals,the alternative proposal shall be deemed non-viable and withdrawn in favor of the present proposal. 09/16/2004 13:48 5184732464 COASTAL RESOURCES PAGE 04/04 • 3 As discussed,it is my understanding that you will coordinate this proposal among all involved agencies to ascertain whether or not this alternative proposal is viable and approvable as per applicable regulations. This office is prepared to submit specific plans and specific methodology to your office sometime during the week of August 16,2004. Thank you;for your continued attention and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Brice A. Anderson cc: I Nickles A. Pasca,Esq. 09/16/2004 13:50 5184732464 COASTAL RESOURCES PAGE 01/01 Haight-F-2003-0852 Biexidon Estates(Nickles Page 1 From: Gary Haight To: EBJLAW@optonline.net; Lorenstandish@Southold.town.ny.us Date: 9116/2004 1:43:11 PM Subject: F-2003-0852 Biexidon Estates(Nickles) Pursuant to our phone conversation of earlier today I have faxed a copy of the modified proposal, dated August 16,2004, for the above reference project from Suffolk Environmental Consulting. Generally speaking this modified proposal would be consistent with the State's coastal policies. Dialog with the applicant is continuing to refine the modification to address concerns by both this agency and the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). In particular, is the language where the applicant is proposing to retain the right to rebuild the eastern jetty and portions of the western jetty to existing lengths if erosion occurs.Additionally, drag-line method of dredging is unacceptable to the DEC and#9 of the modified proposal needs to be clarified. Mr.Anderson of Suffolk Environmental has asked if the most recent project modification would be agreeable in concept to the Town of Southold Board of Trustees and DEC. Please advise. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village,Main Street;P.O.Box 2003, Bridgehampton,New York 11932-2003 (631) 537-5160 Fax: (631) 537-5198 Bruce Anderson, M.S.,President April 8, 2004 Mr. Albert J. Krupski, President Southold Town Trustees P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Re: BEIXEDON ESTATE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION Proposal to remove & replace the existing bulkheading. Situate: Arshamomaque Avenue& Petty's Pond Southold, NY SCTM #: 1000-066-03-014 & 015 Dear Mr. Krupski, DE E- 0 As per your request,please find enclosed: ApH -t-317 2004 (1) Check in the amount of$ 50.00 made payable to t Town Southold Town of Southold concerning the above referenced prope Board of Trustees By way of this correspondence, and on behalf of the Association"referenced above, please issue the requested approval at your earliest opportunity. Should you have any questions concerning this matter,please feel free to contact this office at any time. Thank you in advance for your attention and consideration. Sincerely, Matt D. Ivans enc. cc: J.Nickles Albert J.Krupski,President 0�� CMG Town Hall James King,Vice-President �'Z y 53095 Route 25 a ,t P.O.Box 1179 Artie Foster N = Southold,New York 11971-0959 Ken Poliwoda Peggy A.Dickerson y Telephone(631)765-1892 �Ol jog Fax(631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: o �ns2a1 e( -n t® ao n Please be advised that your application dated l0-1Sg0-3 has been reviewed by this Board at the regular meeting of _31aq jg and the following action was taken: L✓) Application Approved (see below) �) Application Denied (see below) Application Tabled (see below) If your application is approved as noted above, a permit fee is now due. Make check or money order payable to the Southold Town Trustees. The fee is computed below according to the schedule of rates as set forth in the instruction sheet. The following fee must be paid within 90 days or re-application fees will be necessary. COMPUTATION OF PERMIT FEES: —b«tad ( off-, 0501,- Cr __TOTAL FEES_DUE_. $CASH tQ0,41/971w, ✓� z/ WRECEIPT — F— Recewetl From Cn ? /J .✓/ ./ .✓ 3 .✓ CC O Address �� rsc,Z fi✓c ✓ r, /✓ O u FoK' // / r/ r JJ� , ✓r �r c Cr O / r /✓/ / ,/ r s / LL 0 ACCOUNT HOW PAID LC0 ✓ f/_% /./ // 4// LO , AMT OF r✓ ./ ✓ .i CASK✓ / /✓ / //✓-- / ' Q p ACCOUNT Ja i_! r/r ., r/✓ �� Y,/.v i r,y ` / /'/ /;. LO m AMT PAID , // CIjECK%'✓ s ' r.v s /(� ,.,/ 1 •yr / s, ✓ BALANCE /; / MONEYORDERL7 rr ,. _By ✓, _ f %c/..:_;. CREDIT CARDL] From: Terry, Mark Sent: Wedne March 24, 2004 12:57 PM To: Standis:., �.auren Subject: Beixedon Estates At the request fo the Board of Trustees, I have reviewed the succession of aerial photographs and found that the jetty is functioning as intended to prevent the shoaling of the Petty's Pond channel. pECE VE MAR 2 4 2004 Southold Town Board of Trustees 1 JRN-:21-2004 13:29 FROM:WICKHAM & BRESSLER 631 29B 8565 - TO:2499464 P.006/015 Ua./21/04 VMD 09:57 FAX 831 7272005 LAND U9E ECOLOGICAL la 062/011 i LandUse E DR January 20,7-004 bAN 2 1 2004 Southold Town Wickbam,Bressler,Gordon and Geasa,PC Board of Trustees 13015 Main,Road P.Q.Box 1424 Mattituck,NY 11952 Ann. Eric 33recsler,Esq. Re: Project Review proposed Timber Jetty Rewnstructionl DoixedonFstate Property Owltens,ASSOciation ftay's POnd/Soutblold.Bay Southo3d,NY Dear Mr.Bressler: As requested,T permnally inspected ft above referenced site at low vvrft out TaWauy 18, 2004. This field inspection was nmssary in order io detamino current site conditions as they relate to NYSDEC Article 25 authorization 1-4738-00917/00008. This authorization permits the teeonstnuctiou►of 775'of existing deteriorated b ulkhe0jetty and pRohibits reconstruction of 376'of the existing structure. It is very impottnt to"Ot0 that the northem"bulkhead"is actually a timber jetty constructed in order to maintain a navigable charnel into petty"a Pond. This structure and its p rasetd 910'length will be maintained by the authorized reconstruction even tbough the jetty width will be reduced to a single struemral component. My inspoction of this site indicates that thus north jetty has severely it"cted the shoreline south of the*h-mncl cutracce and has resulted is a minimal beach width as compered to the beach ama north of the jetty structure. This clown.dealt erosiant is a common trait associated with jetty it aU®tion and should be addressed prior to construction. Typically,wizen older jetties deed for reconstruction are submittdd for approval,the.structures arc reduced in length and their vertical profile changed to as"low profile"design. P.O. Box 1060 . Village Dock, Riverhead, New York • 11901 63 l-727.2400 . FAX 63 1-727 2605 JAN721-2004 13:29 FROM:WICKHAM & BRESSLER 631 29B B565 T0:2499484 P.007�015 01/21/o4 wED 09:37 FAX 031 7272605 LAND USE ECOLOGICAL I !�003/011 Page 2 January 20,2004 Eric Bxeasler, This desion con=don can be coupled with a xnaw caw dredging program owt would alloW for safe navigation while Icadi ng the beach area south of the ebawal enaxance. Lastly,the appliccaW.9=-my indicates a current low water depth within the outer Channel Mr&=of 4..5'—6.1'.This depth of water is not neeemary for the=all vessels utilizing Patty's Pond and is signMean ly deeper than the average depth,eacowitered within the l ancr channel av& It would appw that the proposal to reaomtruct the northern 310'jetty is excessive and* will result is intend erosional events to the son,as my porosity within the=Lobg oucture wgl be eliminated. 1e seebon of the jetty proposed fox reeowavotion should be shQrterned.significantly(1001—120°),reduced in profile, and the remnants of the jetty located seaward of the proposed recowoucrion should be removed. M-n dating placernient of nzintenw=dredge spoil on the beach south of the channel slmki be Included in wW approval. These measures will scm to agow for minimal recovery of the Bebtedon beach. Please cat wAh tuty questions. Very tau Qurs, Charles W.DOWMIM CW13Jca JAN-21-2004 13:29 FROM:WICKHAM & BRESSLER 631 298 8565 TO:24994B4 P.008/015 61/21/04 HTD 08:38 FAX 631 72T2805 LAND USE ECOLOGICAL ' R004/011 LandUse 1 Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. Summary of. Operations Land Use'Ecologicql Service,Im. was established in 1991 by it's President,Chsrlcs W. Aowrnan.The primary foous of the corporation ineludos eiMroumental protection and planting,endangered species and critical habitat monitarix ,natural resource inventories. wetland/habitat delineation,resource impact analysis and wetland&abitat restoration. band Use Lq a pioneer in the field of wetland restoration techniques and comirmlon with successful projects ranging in size from.1 aatc to over 100 acres. Additions]relative experience includes analysis and planninS required for submission and issuance of n gulatory approvals neoussny for eomplation ofprojects within environmentally sensitive areas. Permitting requirements have incorporated the preptuation of environmental impact state=ms sad essm eats as well as a dctdW knowledge of applicable em►ironmental -regulations at the Federal,State and local levels. Such regulatory programs have included the lbllowing: — U.S. AaV Corps of Engineers — N.X.S.Dept.of State-Coastd T,ona MaoagemeM Program N.Y.S.Dept.ofEw,*onr mW Conservation WtX Scenic,and Recmdional Rivers Act Artcle 24(Freshwater Wetlands)Article 25 (Tidal Wetlands),Article 15(Protection of Waiter)and Article 34(CossW Erosion Hazard Reguhttions) Local We tlands/CoasW Ordinances and zoning ordinaaccs for all towwbips within Nassau and Suffolk Counties F.O. Box 1060 • ViLage Dock, Rlverheod. New York . 11901 631.727--2400 . FAX 631.727.2605 JAN-.21-2004 13:30 FROM:WICKHAM S BRESSL.ER 631 29B 8565 TO:2499484 P.009/015 �• 41/21.104 M 09:58 FAX 031 7272005 LAND VSE ECOLOGICAL 1�006/011 Relevant major pmjects completed am sw follow.- - Completed numerous Esgatial Fish Habrtst Assessments for major dredging projects with tong 1 dand waters. — Completed major enviroameaW assessnamts inclusive ofnaturW resource inventories for major beaeb rcnourWawnt projects baaving ju isdieaon within tlto Fite Island National Seashore. — Completed Natural Resource Inventoryy and training guide of the wersocm Poco*Estuary ibr Mwis Moline World Tour Boat Staff h tuctors. -- Provide=,Arorffaeartal monitoring for endaaaswed species with 16 MwAio Coastal Beach communities on an on going basis. -- Devoloped,permitted Nov&Management Program for reconsMu tion of Eroded dune areas on on aanaual basis watt»n 16 Ate com munhics. — Developed,permitted and monitored major beacb renourikInent and offshore dredging projeas within(8)Fire Island communities. Prepmed and permitted rnajor&Astare restoration plTasa for oheml dredpV within the Great South Bay. Completed Natural Rescumme inventory for Hempsteaid Lake Stara:PArk. Developed highly emotive techniques Thor, the abaft and tramplMing of vMlamb cover types incil a of upper sog horizons. Said teaWque lies be=utll ed as a =&igagon commpoaarnt in several major public projects with.over 98%survival sarecess.. Complexed.Fteshwaw/Tidal Wetland lmpact arnaly9i9 and midgetion plans for various projector ToSing from single fmm*dwellings to major regional malls.Additional wgetfront development projects.have included Marinas,Assisted Senior Housing projeots,Rattail Centers,Condominium Campkxm Residential subdivisions and waterkoa rewMiration projects. r Completed over 100 suc eessfarl tidal and fivshwater wed sod MACrOtiaw,projCM.Ranging in sore from.1 acre;to over 100 acres. JRN-21-2004 13:30 FROM:WICKHRM & DRESSLER 631 29B 6565 T0:24994B4 P.010-'015 01/21/04 WED 09:58 PAX 631 7272005 LAND USL ECOLOGICAL �006/011 i -- Pr ned Not uml Resouroo Impact Assessments for rmior governmental and ovate sector development Emd/or reptomion projects. Completed over 1500 USCOE and IdYSDEC wetland delineations for various development Or restontion projects. Completed Phase I Assessments God'on going land acquidtion projects administered by NYSDBC, Cpunety of SuM,olk,Trust Jbr Public,Land,and"Me Natura Consc v=cy. JAN-21-2004 13:30 FROM:WICKHAM & BRESSLER 631 298 8565 TO:2499484 P.011/015 i 01/21/04 WED 09:58 I'AK 831 7272005 LAND USEECOLOGICAL 0007/011 CHAWjES W. BOWMAN President . ]Edaaitioa • New York State Ranger sebool • N.Y.S.College ofEnvironmad Science and Forestry B.S.Environmenhal Saerlee erience fi t yearn employed by the New York State Department of Environmental Co cervatlon, Division of Lands and Forests. While employed at this agency,eompletad iavemories of envirornDentally amsitive Imrds for acquisition and prepared appraisob and/or cstablishtd vab= of fah property throughout New York State_ Prepared Environmental Tmpaot Stat=ents for habitat restoratio1% regulatory action-,,and acquisition projects;coor dmated SEQRA reviews; and established potmeial land use polices ft the Long Mod Wiid,Scenic and ReareatioTW Rivers Program. Prepared Phase I Emdronmentol Amessmems. Presently Ka Environm=W ConsultwdAtwyst and President of Land Use&ologM SeMcea,Inc,wbich pravides its clients wi*a full range of enviromme rml services throughout the United States. Experience includes 20 years in the field of environmental assesm=nts,iznVact atalysis,babntat identification and rewnrabon including the propagation of native plant species.for use in creation/restoration projects. Certified 1?.>idangeaved Species Monitor and m0mbee of the Board of Directoxs fDr the N.Y.S.1,lvlarine Mammal and Sea Turtle Stranding Program. Pubk*ed ardoles mlati og to waterfront ronrivcdon mitigation as well as shoreline and wetland restoration projects. Continues to participate in numerous speaking alMem,cnts relating to envirowmatal issues and habitat restoration. JAN-,21-2004 13:31 FROM:WICKHAM & BRESSLER G31 298 65GS T0:2499404 P.012-,015 i 01/21/04 WED 09:0 PAX 831 7272606 LAND USE ECOLOGICAL � em6erships aptl Af�illations • Vice President:of Regulatory Aifnirs-Breakwater Tntermtional Corp.,New Jersey(manttfacturet of artificial roof babitaw) ' Tmsswar-Riverbead Foundation for Marine Research and Eduoetion • Member-Society of Wetland Scientiaw • Former Council Member Town ofBrookbam Consorvaiaon Advisory Council went pub-licaugas REAL E9TATE TQDAY_,"Kocp Your Water&oax Developmma frorn eroding,"Apnl 1990 LAND.AND "Blufflkestoration in the Northeast,"Jaatkvy/Febru 1994 LANp AND WATER."Bernier laland Reconsttvckion,"MayJJunc 1994 �T LSO ALV�11VA'C><>is ItFSO1;JRCES COLY)MBiA L3�iIYF�RSITY 3� VAR ER()CSRIDINCI5."A Novel Protocol for the Lame Scale Salvage of Wetland Soils and NOW, 1998-1999 JAN-21-2004 13:31 FROM:WICKHAM & BRESSLER G31 29B 8565 T0:2499494 P.013/015 01./21/04 W D 09:59 FAX 001. 7272603 LAND USE ECOLOGICAL 0009/011 i Lrs'r or Pjwa=wATrvm Ct.11r.,qTs United States Congress,Oftfe of Teeltaology,Assessment-Washington,D.C. U.S.Delmrtwent of the Interior-National Park Service N.Y.S.Depas meat ofEnvironmeatat C0100crvation N.Y.S.Department of Transportation New York State flou®ing Finance Agency County of Suffolk-]'leer York County of Nassau-Now York Tears of Hempstead-New York Town of Brookhaven-Now York Town of Riverhead-New York Town of Tapp-New York Town of Southold-Now York Jac.Village of San CM-Now York limn.Village of Qvogue-Now York City of New York OMce of Parks and Recreation City of Son Isle City-New.terry Inc Village of Lawrence- Now Vorkk Inc.Village of Labe Sueema-blew Tork Inc.VMS@ of IA"Ingto wn-New Y Inc.Village of Old Field-1.Now York ,Atlantique Property Owners Ameiation-FIN Island,NY Corneille Estates Property Owners A.se.-Fire Inland,NY Davb Park Property Owners Assoc.-fin Island,NY Durstwood l emb Erosion Control'l Wrict-Fin Island,NY Fair Harbor Beach Erosion Control District-Fire]gland,NY Fire Island Pines Beach Bms*n Control District-Fire bland,NY ]Kismnt Property Owners Asrsoa-Fire Island,NY Lonelyvilk Bach Erosion Control District-1Fire Inland,NY Ocean Dray Park Beach Erosion Con&al Diwtriet-Fire Island,NY Inc.Village of Ocean Beach -Fire Island,NY Point O'Woods Beach XrWon Control District Fim Idend,NY Robbins lit Property Owners Assoc.-Ifte Leland,Nei .. Inc. Village of Saltalro-Fire Island,NY Seavlcw Beach Erosions Control District-Firc Island,NY Fire Island Summer Club Property Owners Asmc--Fire Island,NY Water Island Property Owners Assoc.-Fire 191nod,NY Opt Lakes Dredge&IDwk Company-Staiens Island,NY The Natow Conservancy-New York The Trust for Public Ladd-New York Atlantis Marine World-New York Weeks Marine,Inc.-New Jersey Donlon Marine-New Jersey Gulf Coast Ttoiling Company -New Orleans,LA JAN-21-2004 13:31 FROM:WICKHAM & BRESSLER 631 29B B565 T0:2499484 P.014/015 01/21/04 Wn 09:a9 FAX 031 7272603 LAND 4.TSE ECOLOGICAL �010/011. North Fork Bank Development Corp. Chasm Maulrnttan Bane NOraalar BArtlt Naatlonal WadmiasterRank United States Tennis Association Long Ielaaad Llghtbg Company Key Span Enemy The Stop& Shop Supermarket Company-Boston Dairy Sara Storm-Northport Gorald Wolkoff-Heartland Industrial Park United Arda M MIS Consulting and Sales Corp.-Now VorWbride innerrough Dwas-Maine Reatherwood Communities Marigold Enterprises-New Y'orklFloaiida Sive,Paget&Rfesel,P.C.-Manhattan WaR d flempotead Sand and Gravel J.P.Stevens Company,Ine. Kobb Deportment Stores Vantage Petrokum Culp. The Matro Group Commander Friel Forchelll,Libor Sehasrtsr Kineo and Carlino,Esq. HA Kalikow and Co. Lerner-Roidenberg Associates Delco Dev clopaaent Corp. Darren Enterpr isaa®,Ire. Barker Boys Creek Towing Corp. Froodolph Corp. 1BaPaan Organization Fotat City Daly Housing Affordable Housing Group ofNowVork Scro Orpointl6nn ED Attica Arohifteft Jay Soars Architects Angelo Corvoa Associates . Evergreen Horses R.A.L.Design Assodatea KiddletooXontokosta Associatm Sid barber Homen.)SAC. Meadowmere Realty,Inc. VlaCom Carblcvisiona Shamrock Pr opordes,lot. Johansen Realty Swap Lake Goff Club Corp. Charmer Industries D.Stone Industries-Manhattan Wishbone Trading Co.,Ltd.-Hong Kong JRN-21-2004 13:31 FROM:WICKHAM & BRESSLER 631 29B 6565 TO:2499484 P.O15/015 01/21/04 WED O9:50 FAX 631 T272808 LAND USE ECOLOGICAL f�011/OJ1.t 1- r i Ban Raw Indwatries Wickham,Wickkam di Bressler,E.®qa Hnim &Company 11 M"hDn EYCw*Rr Riverhead Building Supply Roanoke MarbrA,Inc. Gus Schad Associates BrMkwatere JaWMation9l-NOw Jersey Suter&Suter Arch its St.Joi Wand NgmIng Home-Smithtown,NY Eger Nursing IKOMe-StatCB 16Md Republic of Ghana-Weat Africa 1 ECEIV 0, Board of Ark SOUthoid s— ____--� iR wiL' _ ' — _ - �..�E.�:.�...�_ .i�, sL1` a�=tom= _- _•'+ _ January 20,2004 ALk Low Tide 4:30 PM _ January 19, 2004 Field Inspec ( f �h �w r i tl..9 January 19, 2004 Field Inspe( / Y r a t i w a 4.�"... .. ✓' Yp�k «..}"p d'SW P�n� %n°+0`g F�rW15r �v w 4 A k � n 0 January 19, 2004 Field Inspec �� '' � � .-a�, ., .,z•;•: �.,. a� ;,�F�? ,�,.. £ d�� ' a��i"�^�,�ri✓'e��:err,✓`. � 6 P yt2;- v January 19, 2004 Field Inspec ' r, t January 19, 2004 Field Inspec' �. r January 19, 2004 Field Inspec ' a s 5 �o N O O CD a CD al� r � ��, _ � �_ � z � s rx� `and �.� '. s s� .�+ `.� /Fps �� sE ey � f�`� �� r{�`rx, �'_ ��'; �„,� _.� _::_x��» .Y """"'""`.,,,,,,mow..., .,-,��» .,„a..�,�.. '� ., a 4 - a .,.. �,,n._ f . ,�,�,�� e ,. F �'�._ � � �� .t Town Hall Telephone y 53095 Route 25 (631)765-1892 ® P.O.Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971-0959 CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL TOWN OF SOUTHOLD At the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council held Tuesday, January 13, 2004, the following recommendation was made: Moved by Don Wilder, seconded by William Cook, Jr. to TABLE the Wetland Permit application of JOHN NICKLES c/o BEIXEDON ESTATE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION to replace inkind/inplace the existing timber bulkheading located along the properties referenced, both north and south side of Petty's Pond. Located: Arshamomaque Ave. & Petty's Pond, Southold. SCTM#66-3-14&15 The CAC Tabled the application because the excavation process was unclear. The CAC recommends the applicant submit a detailed plan of what the excavation entails. Also, the CAC recommends no pressure treated lumber on the new bulkhead. Vote of Council: Ayes: All Motion Carried f �• P Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village,Main Street; P.O. Box 2003, Bridgehampton,New York 11932-2003 (631) 537-5160 Fax: (631) 537-5198 Bruce Anderson, M.S.,President D E C E VE April 1, 2004 APO - 6 2004 Mr. Albert J. Krupski, President Southold Town Trustees Southold Town P.O. Box 1179 Board of Trustees Southold,NY 11971 Re: BEIXEDON ESTATE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION Proposal to remove & replace the existing bulkheading. Situate: Arshamomaque Avenue& Petty's Pond Southold,NY SCTM#: 1000-066-03-014 & 015 Dear Mr. Krupski, Concerning the above referenced proposal,please find enclosed: (1) Proposed Bulkhead Replacement Plan (Existing Conditions), prepared by Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., last dated April 1, 2004, concerning subject proposal(two [2] copies); (2) Cross-Sectional Diagram for the Northern Portion (Sections VI—VIM of subject bulkhead system(Existing Conditions), prepared by Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., last dated April 1, 2004, concerning subject proposal(two [2] copies); (3) Proposed Bulkhead Replacement Plan (Proposed Conditions), prepared by Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., last dated April 1, 2004, concerning subject proposal(two [2] copies); and (4) Cross-Sectional Diagram for the Northern Portion (Section VI) of subject bulkhead system(Proposed Conditions), prepared by Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., last dated April 1, 2004, concerning subject proposal(two [2] copies). Kindly review the enclosed items noting the reduction in proposed length of the northern section by thirty feet (30.0% as per the determination of your Board on March 24, 2004. By way of this correspondence, and on behalf of the Association referenced above, kindly y r issue the requested approval at your earliest opportunity. Should you have any questions concerning this matter,please feel free to contact this office at any time. Thank you in advance for your attention. Sincerely, Matt D. Ivans enc. cc: I Nickles ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. 0. Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 WILLIAM W. ESSEKS (631)369-1700 WATER MILL OFFICE MARCIA Z. HEFTER MONTAUK HIGHWAY STEPHEN R.ANGEL TELECOPIER NUMBER (631)369-206S P. 0. Box 570 JANE ANN R. KRATZ WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 JOHN M. WAGNER (631) 726-6633 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY CARMELA M. DI TALIA ANTHONY C. PASCA NICA B. STRUNK WILLIAM M. DUFFY March 21, 2004 THEODORE D. SKLAR OF COUNSEL HAND DELIVERED D E C E J WE Southold Town Trustees MAR 2 2 2004FLI Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold Town Southold, New York 11971 1 Board of Trustees Re: Application of Nickles/Beixedon Property Owners Association Dear President Krupski and Trustees: As you know, we represent the Applicant in the referenced application. Please consider this letter in further support of the application. Specifically, I am submitting this letter in response to the letter dated March 5, 2004, submitted by Eric J. Bressler, Esq., as attorney for two of the objectants. The objectants' position in opposition to the application is that (1) the Applicant has no property rights; (2) all jetties cause down-drift erosion and the proposed project will harm the objectants' properties; and (3) a full coastal engineering study is necessary before the Board can approve this application. We respectfully disagree on all of the objectants' arguments. The threshold flaw in the objectants' position is their premise that the Applicant somehow has no property rights whatsoever in the reconstruction of the existing jetty. As I discussed in my letter of February 18, 2004, however, in a section entitled "Applicant's Property Rights," the existence of the current jetty for more than eight decades does give the applicant certain property rights, and those rights are reflected in (a) this Board's stated policy (which has long prohibited new jetties while permitting in-kind/in-place replacements); (b) the recent amendment to the wetlands code (which continues that policy ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW March 21, 2004 Page 2 of 4 by permitting the replacement of functional jetties that are 75% physically intact); (c) the State Environmental Quality Review Act (which exempts replacement projects from environmental review); and (d) the policies of the several levels of government (through this Board, the NYSDEC, and U.S. Army Corps.) in preserving the existing navigability of channels for riparian property owners. Although I outlined those several rights in my prior letter, the objectants' responsive letter was actually non-responsive to those laws, policies, and rules. Instead, the objectants apparently believe that if they ignore all of the laws, policies, and rules protecting existing structures and if they simply declare and repeat over and over that the applicant has no property rights, such repetition might make their claim true. Respectfully, the laws, policies, and rules protecting existing structures speak louder than the objectants' unsupported claim that the Applicant "has no property rights." Under those rules, Applicant does have the right to reconstruct the portion of the jetty being proposed for reconstruction, since (a) the Applicant is only proposing to replace the western side of the original "box" jetty, (b) that western side of the original box jetty is at least 77% physically intact -- i.e., 238 linear feet out of the 308-foot total length (77%) are fully intact, with the remainder partially intact, an (c) the jetty is func omng, a act that the objectants and their "expert" repeatedly conceded at the last hearing.' In short, while the Applicant has always acknowledged this Board's lawful permitting jurisdiction over the reconstruction project, the need for a permit from this Board does not mean that the Applicant "has no property rights." The objectants' second flawed argument is their conclusory claim that the proposed jetty will cause erosion to their allegedly "down drift" properties. As President Krupski articulated at the prior hearing, however, littoral drifts in the bay are dynamic, complex, and specific to each area and shoreline characteristics. Jetties and periodic dredging of an inlet can have a stabilizing effect on the natural processes of erosion. More irnportantly, the objectants still refuse to acknowledge their own responsibility for the "loss" of their beachfront that they claim is being caused by the jetty. The objectants have bulkheaded. ' The objectants have taken self-contradictory positions on this issue: on one hand, they have stated, in conclusory fashion, that this is a non-functioning jetty, but on the other hand, they have repeatedly admitted that the jetty was still, to this day, holding sand back from their allegedly "down drift" beach. In fact, at one point, the objectants even stated on the record that the deteriorated portion of the jetty (the portion that is not being proposed for replacement) was still to some extent holding sand back. The objectants cannot have it both ways. If the jetty is still holding sand back, as they admit, it is still functioning. 1 q ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW March 21, 2004 Page 3 of 4 their own properties. The effects of the objectants' bulkheads on adjacent beaches are more direct and immediate than any collateral effects that may result from the applicant's jetty, which existed, fully intact, for many decades before the objectants installed their bulkheads. It is irresponsible for the objectants to blame the applicant's jetty for all of their problems after they made the conscious decision to armor their properties with bulkheads. Once they made that decision to protect their upland at the expense of their beach, there is nothing that the applicant can do to bring that beach back for them. Since the objectants cannot compel the applicant to bear the responsibility to cure an erosion problem that the objectants have created for themselves, the objectants are instead asking this Board to do that for them, by forcing the Applicant to undertake the expense of a massive coastal engineering study to find solutions to the objectants' problems. I believe it is a mis-statement of the record for the objectants',letter to claim that this Board has taken the position that "a study by a coastal engineer would be appropriate." I was present at both hearings and am unaware of any Board vote suggesting that a coastal engineering study was "appropriate." In fact, that suggestion actually came from the objectants, not this Board, and this Board merely inquired whether a coastal engineering study was something that the Applicant was willing to supply if asked. When we informed the Board that we were did not feel such a study was appropriate and that we would not pay for such a study, the Board did not make any further comment on the issue. The objectants' request for a coastal engineering study is yet another example of their continuing refusal to acknowledge the scope of this project as an in-kind/in-place replacement project. A coastal engineering study might be appropriate for the construction of a new inlet and.jetty system, but it cannot be justified in a case such as this, where the applicant is replacing a pre-existing jetty and is actually reducing the scope of the pre- existing jetty substantially. As I mentioned in my prior letter, this replacement project is classified as a "Type II" action for SEQRA purposes, and under the SEQRA regulations, that classification means that this type of replacement project has "been determined not to have a significant impact on the environment." See 6 NYCRR § 617.5. It would be irrational for a project that is presumed "not to have a significant impact on the environment" to require an expensive, drawn-out coastal engineering study in order, as the objectants put it, "to correctly determine the environmental impact of the proposed projectcd [sic]." W ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW March 21, 2004 Page 4 of 4 In sum, the objectants' position is a transparent attempt to delay the application long enough either to cause more deterioration to the existing structures or to extort from the Applicant a solution to the erosion problem that they have created. The next hearing on this application will be the third public hearing on an in-kind/in-place replacement project. The objectants have been afforded an ample opportunity to be heard at the public meetings. They have been afforded several months to submit written comments. In order to avoid any additional excuses for objectants to demand a further delay of the application, I will provide a copy of this letter to their counsel in advance of the next meeting, even though we have never been shown such a courtesy on any of their submissions. We were informed at the conclusion of the last hearing that the Board would be in a position to render a decision on the application at the next meeting, and we ask that the Board reject any further attempts that the objectants will no doubt make to delay the application from a vote. Thank you for your consideration of this application. Respectfully , Antho z y C. Pasca cc.: Eric J. Bressler, Esq. Bruce Anderson 1805 Arshamomaque Ave. Beixedon Estates Southold,NY 11971 3/18/04 Southold Town Trustees — = Main Road Southold,NY 11971 Dear Trustees, I am writing this letter to comment on the proposal of Beixedon Estates Property Owners Association, represented by John Nickles Sr., to replace the timber bulkhead and jetty with fiberglass. I have lived at 1805 Arshamomaque Ave. for over 40 years. My house is the closest waterfront house to the proposed work. I lived there in the 60's when the jetty and bulkhead were intact, and there was no beach erosion. The inlet was dredged roughly every 5 or 6 years back then. As the jetty and bulkheading have deteriorated, I have noticed that the beach erosion has also increased. The more the jetty and bulkhead deteriorated,the faster the beach eroded. Additionally the inlet now has to be dredged yearly due to silting. It seems to me that the jetty and bulkhead protect the beach rather than causing it to erode. My father, who was a Colonel in the Army Corp of Engineers, and worked on flood and erosion control of the Mississippi River,told me back in the sixties that the jetty and bulkheading prevented erosion of the beach to the west. He said that the more the jetty deteriorated, the more the beach would erode to the west. This is exactly what is happening. My father lived in my house for more than 30 years and watched his prediction come true. In light of the above, I would strongly recommend that the plan proposed by John Nickles Sr. to replace the jetty and bulkhead be approved as quickly as possible. Sincerely, r=Southold E 1 v I Richard J. Rizz Board of Trustees HOWARD FREEDMAN, M.D. P.O. Box 686 Greenport, N.Y. 11944 March 12, 2004 HAND DELIVERED Southold Town Trustees Re: Petty Pond Je F E C E W E Town Hall Application of e PO Box 11791 MAR 12 2004 Southold, NY 11971 Southold Town Board of Trustees Ladies and Gentlemen: At the last hearing on this matter., the Trustees expressed a desire to have the opinion of a Coastal Engineer. Please be informed that the situation is being reviewed and studied by a Coastal Engineer and he will be available to present his findings and recommendations at the next Hearing of the Trustees, March 24, 2004 Very truly yours, Howard Freedman LAW OFFICES WICKHAM, BRESSLER, GORDON & GEASA, P.c. 13015 MAIN ROAD, P.O. BOX 1424 MATTITUCK, LONG ISLAND ERIC J. BRESSLER NEW YORK 11952 WILLIAM WICKHAM(06-02) ABIBIGAILA.WICKHAM LYNNE M.GORDON MELVILLE OFFICE JANET GEASA 631-298-8353 275 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD TELEFAX NO. 631-298-8565 SUITE III wwblaw@aol.com MELVILLE, NEW YORK 11747 631-249-9480 March 12, 2004 TELEFAX NO.631-249-9484 Southold Town Trustees Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971 Re: Application of Nickles/Beixedon Property Owners Association Petty Pond Jetty Ladies and Gentlemen: At the last hearing date the Board exposed a desire for an opinion from a coastal engineer as to the environmental impact of the proposed project, its suitability for the desired purpose, and preferable alternatives. We are pleased to advise that our clients have retained such an expert. The expert will be prepared to present such findings and recommendations orally and in writing at the next meeting on March 24, 2004. We concur that due to the severe impact and unprecedented scope of the project such information is invaluable: Thank you for your courtesies. Very truly urs, EJB/lb Eric J. ssler Ejb/trustees Cc: Tom Ball D E EETown Howard Freedman MAR South Board o LAW OFFICES WICKHAM, BRESSLER, GORDON a GEASA, P.C. 13015 MAIN ROAD, P.O. BOX 1424 MATTITUCK,'LONG ISLAND ERIC BRESSLER NEW YORK 11952 WILLIAM WICKHAM (06-02) ABIGAILA.WICKHAM LYNNE M.GORDON MELVILLE OFFICE JANET GEASA 631-298-8353 275.BROAD HOLLOW ROAD TELEFAX NO. 631-298-8565"-" --`-' SUITE III MELVILLE, NEW YORK 11747 wwblaw@aol.com 4 yyyyyy -94'80 March 5, 2004rLEprE I-249-9484 VSouthold Town Trustees Town Hall 004P.O. Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971 hold Town Board of Trustees Re: Application of Nickles/Beixedon roperty Owners Association Ladies and Gentlemen: We are the attorneys for the objectants Ball and Freedman and are writing you in response to the letter dated Febraary 18, 2004 "Letter", from Applicant's counsel'. As explained at the last meeting,this letter was received by the Trustees on February 23, 2004, too late for review and comment. A courtesy copy was not provided by the Applicant's attorneys. The letter raises several arguments in support of the granting of the application. However, a careful review of such arguments reveals that they are utterly without merit. 1. Absence of meaningful input before other governmental agencies The approvals previously granted by other governmental agencies were without any input from Objectants. This board is the only governmental agency to actually consider the issue in hearing context. Indeed, the Department of Environmental Conservation"DEC" initially reft sed and continues to refuse.to provide Objectants with the contents of its file in this matter. Obj ectants and this board are left to wonder at the reason for such secrecy and the environmental basis, if any, for the grant of the permit. That Objectants have challenged the actions of the DEC does not determine the course that this board should take. Rather,the secretive and one-sided actions of the DEC serve to militate in favor of thorough review by this board. The Applicant's plea that this board should not"stick its neck out" is an invitation to this board to abdice to its authority and fail to exercise its responsibility to protect the wetlands. This the board should not do. Only a full, thorough, and in depth review will fill the bill. Upon such a review, it is evident that the project cannot be approved as proposed. 2. Adverse impact to Obiectants and others It is beyond argument that jetties such as the one in issue here cause adverse effects to the properties lying down drift of them. The history of Objectant's property loss confirms this r � Southold Town Trustees March 5, 2004 Page—2- principle. The Applicants have no property right to erect, maintain, or reconstruct such a structure. Under Chapter 97 of the Town Code the Applicant must obtain a permit from the board in order to conduct the proposed activity(section 97-20). The proposed activity is not exempt from this requirement under any of the exceptions contained in Section 97-12. The Applicant properly acknowledges the board's jurisdiction. Under Chapter 97 there is no lesser or different standard to be applied to this project because a portion of it is sought to replace a previously erected structure which is in substantial disrepair. The board is entitled, and, indeed, obligated, to apply the Chapter 97 standards to permit issuance. The records with respect to coastline structures are replete with examples of ill-conceived projects which did not undergo proper, or indeed any, in some cases, environmental review. This project is simply another such example. The Applicant has no property rights in the erection of an environmentally improper structure and the Applicant cites no authority for such a novel proportion. The standards set forth in Section 97-28 are not met by the proposed project. The proposed project would adversely affect wetlands by the creation and acceleration of erosion to the west. The Objectant's property and the community beach have been and will be significantly negatively impacted. The project by its very scope goes far beyond what is reasonable and necessary to aid in navigation. As a threshold matter, the application fails to meet the requirements of Section 97-21(G) and as a result the board cannot properly evaluate the application. It should have been and should now be rejected as incomplete. The board was entirely within its rights and acted entirely reasonably when it suggested that a study by a coastal engineer would be appropriate. The failure of the Applicant to provide such evidence in the first instance and its refusal to provide same upon request is telling. The Applicant has no desire to correctly determine the environmental impact of the proposed projected, only to move forward. This board has a special obligation to fully and completely evaluate any project which so plainly impacts the environment. Regardless of what may have existed, the board must determine in light of everything which is now known and available, whether the project as proposed is sound. We submit that missed based upon the evidence it is not. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, EJB/lb `Eric(�ress er T Eric S Ejb/trustees Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village, Main Street;P.O.Box 2003, Bridgehampton,New York 11932-2003 (631) 537-5160 Fax: (631) 537-5198 Bruce Anderson, M.S.,President February 18, 2004 C� Southold Town Trustees FEB 2 3 2004 P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Southold Town Board of Trustees Re: BEIXEDON ESTATE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION Proposal to remove & replace the existing bulkheading. Situate: Arshamomaque Avenue & Petty's Pond Southold,NY SCTM#: 1000-066-03-014 & 015 Dear Trustees, As you know,this Firm represents John Nickles, representative for the Beixedon Property Owners Association, who is pending approval from your Board to remove &replace the majority of the existing timber bulkhead system which has historically been utilized by, and therefore has preserved, the properties comprising said Association. The purpose of this correspondence is to clarify certain statements made during`the Town of Southold Board of Trustees Public.Hearing of January 21, 2004. I make the following comments: (1) The jetty proposed to be rebuilt is a functional jetty as evidenced by water depths that are greatest between the existing eastern jetty and western jetty, and as compared to water depths adjacent to both east and west of the jetty system. During the duration of the application process, approximately fourteen(14) months,the eastern jetty has sustained additional damage,however, even today, more than seventy-five percent(75.0%)of the eastern jetty is a solid-wall construction. (2) A review of the photographic evidence submitted by Mssrs. Friedman and Ball indicates surface waters that extend to the seaward face of their bulkheaded properties. The statement that the proposed reconstruction of the jetties will not cause any form of erosion is a true statement because the photographic evidence indicates no beach present in front of these bulkheaded properties. (3) The photographic evidence submitted with respect to the existing jetties at Gull Pond are misleading. Gull Pond and the surrounding environment does not represent a similar situation as_found within Petty's Pond and the waterfront land comprising Beixedon. First, Gull Pond Inlet is protected by Cleaves Point and the rock jetty situated at Greenport Harbor. Second, inlet depths at Gull Pond are maintained by the County of Suffolk. The County of Suffolk regularly dredges Gull Pond Inlet out to a distance of approximately five hundred feet(500.0'f)where water depths of approximately nine feet(9.0'±)are encountered. The resultant spoil is subsequently deposited to the west of said inlet. At Beixedon, permitted dredging does not provide for a channel that extends beyond the shallows of Southold Bay. In fact,the dredging permitted is limited only from the mouth of Petty's Pond Inlet southeastward to a distance of approximately one hundred feet(100.0'f)towards Southold Bay. Therefore,the statement that was made by opposition during January's public hearing that the jetty system should be designed as it is designed in Gull Pond, is unfeasible and would require extensive new dredging which is not permitted by either this Board nor the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(NYSDEC). Given the testimony expressed during the hearing of January 21',together with this submission, it is our position that the application should be granted as applied for as it is reasonable, necessary, and only seeks to preserve a jetty originally built many decades ago. Thank you for your attention and consideration. Sincerely, Matt D. Ivan cc: J.Nickles ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. O. Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 1 1 90 1-02 7 9 WILLIAM W. ESSEKS (631) 369-1700 WATER MILL OFFICE MARCIA Z. HEFTER MONTAUK HIGHWAY STEPHEN R. ANGEL TELECOPIER NUMBER (631) 369-2065 P. O. Box 570 JANE ANN R. KRATZ WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 JOHN M.WAGNER (631) 726-6633 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY CARMELA M. DI TALIA ANTHONY C. PASCA NICA B. STRUNK February 18, 2004 E E �Ln D Southold Town Trustees 2 3 2004 Town Hall FEB P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Southold Town Board of Trustees Re: Application of Nickles/Beixedon Property Owners Association Dear President Krupski and Trustees: We represent the Applicant in the referenced application, which seeks to replace, "in- kind/in-place" the existing timber bulkheading located along Arshamomaque Avenue and Pettys Pond. We are submitting this letter in further support of the application, in order to address some legal issues raised at the hearing held on January 21, 2004. Applicant's Property Rights: Some of the objectants to the application effectively asked this Board to treat the application "de novo," as if no bulkheading and jetties currently exist. The objectants would have the Board engage in a drawn out review process to determine what kind of jetty should be permitted, without any regard to the existing structures. They apparently believe that the existing jetties have deteriorated enough to ignore them entirely. Obviously, Applicant disagrees. Applicant is not approaching this Board to ask for permission to create a new bulkhead, a new jetty, and a new inlet. Those features already exist, and have existed since decades before the Town adopted either a zoning code or wetlands code. The bulkheads/jetty, while in the process of deterioration, are still functioning. The fact that they maintain deeper depths in between the jetties is proof that they are functioning. The jetty proposed to be replaced would also meet the definition of"functional jetty/groin" in the proposed amendments to the wetlands code currently before the Town Board, since the jetty is "at least 75% physically intact and serving the purpose it was designed for." The objectants have offered no proof other than their own speculation and anecdotes in support of their claim that the jetties are non-functioning. ESSEKS, H EFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW February 18, 2004 Page 2 of 3 The objectants would prefer to ignore the existing structures precisely because of the critical distinction between a proposal to create new structures and one to perform an in-kind/in- place replacement of existing structures. While Applicant is not suggesting that this Board lacks any jurisdiction over the application because it is in-kind/in-place, the existing jetty and bulkheads give Applicant certain property rights and benefits that cannot be ignored or minimized and that alter the nature of the Board's review. One critical right obtained by the existence of the structures is an exemption from environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"). The SEQRA regulations categorize as a"Type II" action any "replacement, rehabilitation or reconstruction of a structure or facility, in kind, on the same site, including upgrading buildings to meet building or fire codes, unless such action meets or exceeds any of the thresholds in section 617.4 of this Part." See 6 NYCRR § 617.5. Type II actions are exempt from SEQRA review because they are presumed, as a matter of State law, to have no substantial environmental impacts. Thus, while the objectants ask this Board to engage in a lengthy environmental review of the proposal, New York State law actually forbids such review. The Town has also long recognized the vital distinction between projects to rebuild jetties -- which is and has been generally permitted -- and those proposing to construct new jetties -- which is and has been generally forbidden. Reconstruction may not be exempt from this Board's review entirely, but, as a matter of policy, the Board has treated reconstruction of existing structures far more favorably than applications for new structures. The Board has expressly stated such a policy with respect to jetties in particular in the following policy statement: "No NEW jetties will be permitted. In-kind/in-place replacement of a functional jetty is permitted under previous permit or can be applied for." This policy is reflected in the moratorium, which exempted in-kind replacements. This policy would also be continued in the proposed amendments to the wetlands code currently before the Town Board, as those proposed amendments would permit the replacement of existing"functional jetties and groins." See proposed § 97-27(C). The existence of the inlet and jetties also create certain property rights enjoyed by the Applicant and other landowners along the canal, all of whom have a right in the preservation of their navigable access to the bay. Since the jetties have existed for more than 80 years, it is presumably safe to say that every landowner served by the inlet has purchased, acquired, or held onto their properties based on the reasonable expectation of continued safe access to navigable waters -- a right afforded to every riparian landowner. Those rights are valuable and should not be lightly disregarded. r ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW . February 18, 2004 Page 3 of 3 Approvals of Federal and State Governments The objectants' counsel suggested that this Board is the"last hope for the environment" because the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC") and United States Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE") have already approved the project. What the objectants really meant, however, was that this Board represents the last hope for the objectants to convince some level of government to do their bidding at the expense of the rights of the Applicant and other landowners served by the inlet, something neither the USACE nor NYSDEC could agree was justified. ' While Applicant is not suggesting that this Board is duty-bound to agree with the NYSDEC and USACE, those approvals should not be ignored. One of the objectants' mantras at the January 21 st hearing was that there is no environmental science or expert analysis supporting this application, and they also argued that the proposed jetty reconstruction is not necessary to protect the navigability of the inlet. The NYSDEC and USACE permits contradict those arguments, however, since the NYSDEC's scientists and environmental experts already studied the environmental impacts of the application for several months and approved the project as designed, and the USACE engineers studied the navigability issued and also approved the project. Considering that the NYSDEC serves as the State-designated guardians of the environment, their environmental and scientific conclusions must be accorded substantial weight. Likewise, consider that the USACE serves as the Federal authority on navigation -- and its decisions as to navigation cannot be superceded by localities --the USACE's determination must also carry substantial credibility. In the very least, it is simply untrue for the objectants to suggest that there is no "science" supporting the application. On the contrary, every expert to have considered the application has agreed that it is appropriate with respect to both environmental and navigability issues. Considering that some of the objectants have already sought to overturn the NYSDEC's permit in Court, the objectants will have an opportunity to present their arguments in that forum. If the objectants' position is truly as sound as they claim, then they should prevail in Court. But if their position is unsound, then the NYSDEC's permit presumably will be upheld. Given the NYSDEC and USACE conclusions and the objectants' forum for redress, there is no reason why this Board should stick its neck out to serve the bidding of these objectants. Respectfully yo rs� Anthony Pasca AOL.COM I AOL Mail Page 1 of 4 0 screenNPameO-r AAOLAnywhere oil 11 407 FREE online search: Select a State . homes FEB 12 200 LAi1. Southold own 1 of 1 � Board of Trustees Subj : Re: Beixedon Estates Association rinduc Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 9:58:39 AM Eastern Standard Time originalte in Reply From: lfields@whgrp.com (Leslie Fields) To: Acmemetal@aol.com Is CC: MOMLATHAM@aol.com, tbhb@optonline.net, LIZZY2CLA@aol.com, FHfreed@aol.com, jeff@musiclaw.com, JABBY1834@aol.com, Reply tlucak@yahoo.com, attywren@earthlink.net, btwoodruff@hotmail.com, johnnblakely@yahoo.com, PKlavas@aol.com, jjnjr@peconic.riet M Tom, Reply Al I hope you had a nice Easter weekend. I have tried to put together the ,_-. __ # following email that addresses the Committees questions regarding the WHG letter. The. questions are all good ones, and they show that the , Committee is thinking long and hard about the issues. Forwarc 1. No structures would be proposed to hold the beach nourishment sand in place. Potential modifications/reconstrction of the western jetty would prevent the beach fill sands from moving into the harbor entrance, and would tend to anchor (or hold in place) that end of the nourishment. Address The other end of the nourishment would be tapered into the existing Book beach; however, no structures would be installed to hold it in place. By their very nature, beach nourishment projects tend to spread and disperse under the influence of waves, tides, and currents. Nourishment projects have a finite life span that is dictated by the initial design, as well as the incident coastal processes. The design life of the Beixedon project would be quantified as part,.of the design process. 2. Aerial photo was dated 1/20/00. 3. A bathymetric survey would be required as some component of Phase II; however, the scope of such a survey has not yet been determined. In addition, there are a number of other components to Phase II such as wave and sediment transport modeling. At this point, it is premature to give you a detailed cost estimate for Phase II without additional input from the permitting officials (to a large part they will dictate the scope of Phase II) . 4. By reference to the study in question 4. I presume that you mean Phase II of the WHG multi-phased project. As alluded to in the question above, Phase II is a comprehensive study of the effects of changes to the harbor entrance. Because of the number of tasks required to http://aolmail.aol.com/mail.dci?id=1&count=l &box=in box&list=l-1&read.x... 4/1/02 AOL.COM I AOL Mail Page 2 of 4 complete Phase II there is no way to complete it prior to April 10. In my letter, I suggested that WHG be present during the April 10 meeting with DEC and other local permitting officials to present our concept plan (restructuring the harbor entrance -along with beach nourishment) , and to understand the major environmental issues associated with the plan from the regulators point of view. This information would then be integrated into a scope of services required for Phase II. A proposal for Phase II would be presented to the Beixedon Estates Association at this time. 5. Tightening of the inner structure could be performed without reducing the length; however, our initial reaction is that a reduction in the length of the structure will facilitate natural bypassing of sediment around the harbor. 6. I don't know yet what will happen with the end of the existing jetty if we propose to shorten it. 7. This is a difficult question to answer without the results of Phase II. In fact, questions like this are exactly what Phase II is designed to answer. In general, a reduction in the length of the eastern jetty will have the least effect on beaches immediately on the other side of the harbor, and greater effects on beaches "further from the harbor entrance. I would like to leave you with these thoughts. A project to redesign the harbor entrance must be carefully thought out.and designed. As we talked, the entire coastal area must be thought of as one system, and any project in this area must be designed to minimize adverse impacts to the entire system. If designed im2ro2erly, the adverse impacts could be long ranging. If other consultants are proposing a quick fix, or if they have a final design already planned out, I would caution you to have them quantify the impacts to adjacent beaches, and to the harbor en rance. The WHG approach first presents a concept to the regulatory agencies to identify their environmental concerns, and then does the necessary analytical and numerical analyses to properly design the system and address the regulators concerns. Although it is not possible to give a detailed cost estimate for Phase II, it will likely be between $40, 000 and $50, 000. Most of this expense is associated with the redesign of the harbor entrance. A project to perform beach nourishment alone, without any work at the entrance, would be much cheaper; however, the problem of shoaling within-the navigation channel would likely be increased. I hope this clarifies everything. I will plan to call you this afternoon to discuss. Leslie Fields Acmemetal@aol.com wrote: > Saturday 3/30/02 > Dear Leslie > Thank you for your detailed analysis and concepts for our area. httP:Haolmaii.aol.com/mail.dci?id=1 &count=l&box=inbox&list=l-1&read.x... 4/1/02 ® 20 Salisbury Avenue arden City,N. Y. 11530 FEB 12 2004 ebruary 9, 2004, Southold Town Board of Town Trustees, Board of Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall Re:Nickles Proposed Bulkhead 53095 Main Road Replacement at Petty's Pond Southold,N. Y. 11971 Canal Entrance Dear Sirs: I own the home at the southwestern foot of Rogers Road, adjacent to the beach with rights deeded to Beixedon Estates Association. It is my understanding that a Wetland Permit Application has been submitted to rebuild a long neglected jetty that is on the east side of the canal exiting from Petty's Pond. Formerly this jetty extended over 300 feet into Peconic Bay. I submit that the conditions surrounding this dilapidated structure have changed significantly and restoration could seriously impact the area. Formal, comprehensive studies are needed before any action. In 2000, while I served as President of Beixedon Estates Association,we formed a Beach Committee to try to address beach erosion occurring from the canal at Petty's Pond to Hippodrome Creek. You may recall that, at that time,the Trustees were asked to invite the Corps of Engineers to visit the site and make recommendations. Unfortunately,the invitation was not extended. We also invited the Trustees to the site. A small group viewed the site and, as reported by the Beach Committee members, a comment was made that the crumbling jetty needed to be shortened. We invited three consulting firms, En-Consultants,First Coastal and Suffolk Environmental,to visit the site and propose solutions.ALL suggested that nothing should be done without considering the impact on the entire area. They felt that to do so would put at risk the beaches on either or both sides of the jetty,the canal and Hippodrome Creek. We hired a Coastal Geologist from the Woods Hole Group,East Falmouth, Ma. to fly in, walk around the area with the committee, answer questions and make recommendations. On March 27, 2002, in the first paragraph of WHG's proposal,they stated: "The Woods Hole Group,Inc. (WHG)feels strongly that the most appropriate solution to these issues is one that considers the entire coastal system on both sides of the harbor, as well as the potential impacts of the solution on adjacent beaches". (2) In an April 1, 2002 faxed reply to Committee questions, WHG stated: "I would like to leave you with these thoughts. A project to redesign the harbor entrance must be carefully thought out and designed. As we talked,the entire coastal area must be thought of as one system,and any project in this area must be designed to minimize adverse impacts to the entire system. If designed improperly,the adverse impacts could be long ranging. If other consultants are proposing a quick fix, or if they have a final design already planned out, I would caution you to have them quantify the impacts to adjacent beaches, and to the harbor entrance". I enclosed both the WHG's proposal letter and faxed reply in their entirety. The single most important issue raised by all three consultants and the WHG Geologist is that nothing should be done without a serious, extensive study,which WHG believed should include a bathymetric study. A lot has happened to the canal, shoreline and beaches in the last decades while the jetty was being neglected. Downstream,new bulkheads were installed eliminating a source for beach nourishment,protective land just adjacent to the west side of the canal has been lost into the bay, and the canal's culture has changed. The conditions that allowed for the 300+jetty protecting and helping to form a mooring basin and marina have changed. We were warned that the removal of the underwater debris might eliminate some of the dampening effect on storm driven waves from the south. Reestablishing the jetty may cause serious damage to the beaches on either or both sides of the canal. Beixedon's deeded beach rights might be taken and cancelled by an action in the name of restoration. Serious loss of property values in all of Beixedon would ensue if the beach at the foot of Rogers Road were lost or downsized through accelerated erosion. I believe that much more information is needed as to the impact of this project on the neighboring properties before the Trustees can begin to consider the application. Very truly yours, Thomas G. Petrosino House at 900 Rogers Road CVO . fole 81 Technology Park Drive East Falmouth,MA 02536 . Phone: 508.540.8080 Fax: 508-540-1001 e-mail: WHGroup@whgrp.com www.whgrp.com E C E I D FEB 12 2004 March 27, 2002 Southold Town Beixedon Estates Association Board of Trustees P O Box 1432 Southold, New York 11971 Tom Petrosino 120 Salisbury Avenue Garden City, New York 11530 Transmitted via first class mail and email: acmemetal@aol.com, momlatham@aol.com Dear Association Members, I enjoyed the site visit to the Beixedon Estates area last Friday, and would like to thank you for the opportunity to work with the Association in developing a plan for mitigation of the coastal erosion and shoaling problems. I understand the primary objectives of the project to be erosion control along the beaches on both sides of the harbor entrance, as well as maintenance of the navigation channel into the harbor with reduced shoaling. The Woods Hole Group, Inc. (WHG) feels strongly that the most appropriate solution to these issues is one that considers the entire coastal system on both sides of the harbor, as well as the potential impacts of the solution on a jacent beaches. For example, the potential for adverse impacts to the inlet at Hippodrome Pond must be evaluated and minimized as a part of any solution. Essentially, the WHG recommends development of a beach and harbor management plan that would include short-term solutions/activities to the coastal problems, as well as longer-term management of these areas. At the present time the WHG is prepared to recommend several components of the beach and harbor management plan. These components include short and long-term solutions that are still in the conceptual design stage, and would require input from the permitting agencies as well as additional analysis before a final design could be developed. The two primary components of the short-term solution include beach .nourishment and rehabilitation of the coastal engineering structures at the harbor entrance. The details of these activities are described below. • Beach nourishment — To mitigate the on-going erosion along the western (downdrift) side of the harbor entrance, a program of beach nourishment is recommended. This is a process whereby beach compatible sand is brought from offsite and used to build the elevation of the beach higher, and to move the shoreline seaward. Beach nourishment, coupled with rehabilitation of the harbor entrance is geared towards providing long-term stability of the shoreline. It is a widely accepted method of erosion mitigation and is generally preferred over hardened coastal engineering structures. In addition, my observations during the site visit suggest that beach nourishment is the only way to restore a beach to the western side of the harbor. While modifications to the structures at the harbor entrance (discussed below) may reduce the current rates of erosion, they will not be effective at restoring a wide beach in this area. Beach nourishment could also be considered as an option to address erosion on the eastern (updrift) side of the harbor; however, proposed modifications to the structures at the harbor entrance will likely help to mitigate this problem by slowing the rates of erosion. A final design for the beach nourishment would need to be developed which addresses the length, width, and elevation of the project area. In addition, the total volume of sand required would need to be determined. A source for the nourishment material would also need to be identified. While many beach nourishment projects are constructed using sand mined from an offshore borrow site, it will likely be more practical in this location to identify an upland source from which the material can be trucked to the beach. Discussions with local consultants suggest that beach nourishment is an accepted method of shore protection in New York; however, the concept and scope of the project should first be discussed with local and state permitting officials before a final design is developed. • Rehabilitation of harbor entrance — The primary goals of a solution at the harbor entrance must be to maximize natural sediment bypassing around the harbor, minimize maintenance dredging, increase estuarine health, provide regional shoreline stability, and maintain a navigable channel for continued use of the harbor. A wide array of structures currently exists at the site that result in a complex interaction between the harbor, waves, currents, and the adjacent shorelines. Because of this, any change to the area must be well designed to minimize adverse impacts. At the same time, the WHG is cognizant of potential costs associated with restructuring the harbor entrance, and understands that the solution should be one that meets the goals of the project and minimizes costs. Several potential alternatives exist for rehabilitating the harbor entrance. Changes along the eastern (updrift)jetty would likely include sand tightening of the inner structure and potentially removing some portion of the outer end of the jetty. Modifications to the jetty could be coupled with reconstruction of the existing bulkhead along the eastern shoreline inside the harbor, but the bulkhead repair would not be required in order to upgrade the eastern jetty. A widening of the harbor throat could also be completed as part of the jetty rehabilitation, and may have the benefit of improving water quality within the harbor, as well as navigability. Additional benefits from upgrading the eastern jetty include a reduction in the shoaling rate within the harbor entrance, as well as reduced rates of shoreline erosion along the updrift beach. A determination of the length of the jetty with respect to the offshore shoals would be critical in facilitating natural bypassing of sediment to the western beaches. A solution for rehabilitation of structures at the western side of.the harbor is less clear cut; however, it would likely involve reconstruction of the existing jetty parallel to the eastern jetty, and potentially fitted with a southwesterly spur to provide storm protection immediately downdrift of the jetty. The exact length of the western jetty would need to be determined and would play a key role in facilitating natural bypassing of sediment around the harbor entrance, as well as providing long-term protection from flanking and overwash. Much of the existing dilapidated bulkhead could remain in place, to help minimize construction costs, and to maintain existing habitat areas for shallow water benthic communities. As along the eastern side of the harbor, the jetty rehabilitation on the western side could be coupled with a widening of the harbor throat to improve water quality. c An aerial photograph showing the conceptual beach nourishment and harbor entrance rehabilitation plan is shown in Figure 1. This illustration is provided for -clarification purposes only, and it must be remembered that changes to the plan will likely develop through the analysis and design phase of the project. A final design for restructuring of the harbor entrance can only be developed after detailed analyses of waves, tides, currents and sediment transport. Discussions with local, state and federal permitting authorities must also be conducted prior to the analysis and design phase to ensure their approval of the approach. The final design would include specifications for jetty length, orientation, and height, and would also address construction methodology so as to minimize construction costs. • Harbor and beach management plan — The harbor and beach management represents the long-term approach to maintaining a healthy beach and harbor coastal system. This management plan would likely include recommendations on thresholds that would trigger harbor dredging, where the spoils should be placed, time of year restrictions for dredging and beach nourishment, thresholds for renourishment of the beaches, sediment compatibility guidelines, as well as some monitoring of the project area. Many of these issues have been addressed through the existing permits that allow dredging in the harbor throat with disposal on the downdrift beach. This long-term component of the beach and harbor management plan would essentially provide a plan for continued maintenance of the area, and would be geared towards long-term shoreline health and stability. The WHG proposes a multi-phased approach to development of the Beixedon Estates beach and harbor management plan. This approach provides the flexibility to generate a consensus within the Association for a preferred alternative, to solicit input from the state, local, and federal regulatory authorities for the conceptual plan, to conduct the necessary analyses to prepare a final design, and ultimately to construct the project. By approaching the project in a phased manner, the Beixedon Estates Association will be involved in a decision-making step as to whether or not to proceed at the end of each phase. The various phases of the project are described below. Phase I—This portion of the project essentially includes the site visit that was conducted on March 22, 2002, as well as preparation of this letter describing the conceptual plan. In addition, 'it includes presentation of the conceptual plan to local and state permitting authorities. The purpose of presenting the project to these officials is to have them comment on the scope of the project and to identify key environmental issues that must be addressed during the analysis and design phase. Although it would be possible for the Association members to conduct this meeting(s) with the permitting officials without professional representation, it is not advisable. The presence of a WHG representative at this meeting(s) would be critical in terms of presenting the purpose for the project, the potential impacts of the alternative(s), and identifying regulatory concerns that must be addressed. The best approach would be to have WHG representation on site during the upcoming meeting with the NYDEC, and to also invite local officials from the Town of Southold. It has been our experience that involving all relevant permitting authorities at the beginning stages of a project results in a cost-effective, timely, and less arduous permitting process. Estimated costs for WHG representation at an upcoming meeting would be$1,500; the same as those incurred for the original site visit. Phase II—The scope of this portion of the project, would be in part be developed, based on input from the regulatory officials. Although it is not possible to define exactly what will be required to satisfy environmental concerns, it is likely that some sort of nearshore survey of the benthic community would be required. In addition, analyses of the offshore wave climate, storm surge, and sediment transport patterns would be required. An on- the-ground survey of existing conditions would also be necessary during the design phase, and could serve as the base drawings for the permit plans. A local company would likely perform this survey work and plan preparation. Due to the uncertain nature of the scope of Phase II, it is not possible to provide a cost estimate at this time. Phase III — The third phase of the project would involve local, state, and federal permitting. The WHG recommends that the association retain the services of a local firm that is experienced in this area to perform the permitting. We have worked successfully in the past with Inter-Science, and feel that they are well respected in Suffolk County by the regulatory officials. Having said this, we would be willing to work with any consulting firm selected by the association that is experienced in permitting for coastal projects. Phase IV - The final phase of the project involves selection of a marine contractor and construction of the project. The WHO has worked successfully alongside a number of homeowners associations to select a suitable contractor and to oversee implementation of similar coastal construction projects. While the involvement of WHO personnel is not required for this phase of the project, it is advisable to have a professional familiar with the plans and coastal construction procedures involved during this stage of the project. WHO is excited at the potential opportunity of working with the Beixedon Estates Association on this project. At this time we recommend proceeding with the rest of Phase I to flush out the conceptual design through interaction with the permitting officials. The remaining work for Phase I has been assembled under the guidelines for a Time & Materials "Not-To-Exceed" contract. Based on the preceding scope of work the total charge for our services will not exceed $1,500 without written authorization from you. Our services will be invoiced based on the actual amount of time it takes to complete all contracted tasks. Materials and other direct costs will be invoiced at cost plus our standard mark up. Invoices for services rendered will be submitted monthly. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing, payment is due within thirty (30) days following the date of our invoice. WHO is prepared to begin work on this project upon receipt of a notice to proceed. The signature of a responsible officer below will serve as authorization for the WHG to proceed. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions. Sincerely, Leslie Fields Coastal Geologist Representative of the Woods Hole Group, Inc. Client Name Date Name Date t Mizu as .1 Jn2 i 'h Y d'•,is ., I � 1 f¢a ,r'•� s � ', (1 11i11$1 fllldlltl' sail' frlltenlll �•d3j � - t�� '!ifs f e l d fl Prnpme°rT► '^ � Potential removal of olller cnd of y `v flour ' Ineni ulldt ift jetty 1 fi l.. s h. a �ryK firn i F' r N. � llc il;n of uotu•ishum ,• ? ~ r � and long termrm -If;Klneut f,otcnth I rehabilitation to work ill concel l rv�t u i of du��'n frill jclt� and kw. I W9,"' '"� 'Mip Udronve hllnd o 1cnlnf, ""r IP I h 'c:- 1t�1'�• t t ° t>i qt•>' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Peter Klavas P.O.Box 1265 Southold,New York 11971 Mr.Albert Krupski February 6,2004 Southold Town Hall Southold,NY 11971 Dear Mr.Krupski, I am writing this letter to support the rebuilding of the jetty at Petty's Pond in Beixedon Estates. My parents own property at 1155 Arshamomaque Avenue on Petty's Pond. I was a member of the Beach and Canal Committee within the community, which consisted of several members who lived on the inlet and several who lived on the beach and in the interior of Beixedon Estates. Even at that time our concern was with the beach as well as the jetty. Our goal was to find away to restore the jetty and protect the beach. It is the belief of one side that the existence of the eastern jetty is solely responsible for the beach's erosion and it is my belief that in this particular situation it is not the case. This area has had a structure there for seven decades and there hasn't been any common knowledge that erosion existed. For instance, we have heard of erosion at Goldsmith's Inlet, Gull's Pond and Shinnecock Canal. Beixedon has had no history of having a similar erosion problem. Mr. Ball and Dr. Friedman bought their properties in the late 80's and after having seen what they were purchasing and conducting a survey, I believe that they would not have bought the land if there were any evidence of erosion on the beach. Because of this, I believe much of the erosion occurred afterwards. In 1991, Hurricane Bob came through Southold and caused damage to the jetty system and subsequent storms have pounded the shoreline causing significant erosion to the beaches on both sides of the canal. Since then, I believe we have experienced more erosion than in the past years when the Beixedon jetty system was functioning at 100%. Something had to change in order to cause an increased amount of erosion in this area. Mr. Ball and Dr. Friedman claim that they started to lose their property to erosion in the early 90's time period. There are only three things that have changed since 1987... 1)Mr. Ball and Dr.Friedman built a wooden bulkhead on the beach in front of them hardening the shoreline. 2) The jetties on either side of the canal have been deteriorating causing beach erosion and putting the integrity of the canal entrance in jeopardy. 3) The weather events that scour the shoreline are having a greater impact on the beach in front of Mr. Ball& Dr. Friedman's property because of their bulkheading. It has produced a situation for them where the erosion will continue unless they address the situation in front of their bulkhead instead of hoping that a shorter jetty on the east side of our canal is going to stop their erosion. In this case, I believe that the jetty system as it existed prior to the 1990's may have been protecting the beaches on either side of the canal acting as a beach buffer. The property owners on the canal would not put the beach at jeopardy simply to protect the inlet. Along this shore from Budd's Pond to the jetty at the point of Founder's Landing,the properties that have jetties and low profile groin systems enjoy a protected beach. I do.not believe that the beach erosion would cease along a hardened shoreline without Mr. Ball & Dr. Friedman taking constructive measures along their shore. There is too much at stake for all concerned to tamper with the length of the existing jetty when it is unlikely to'achieve the result Mr. Ball and Dr. Friedman desire. L:'FEV �(]Y ly � . V9 2004 Peter Klavas Southold Town Board of Trustees Joan lat. am Box595 SOutliol�.9V1JIIQ71 ,, E C E U U E Mr. Albert Krupski, President D Board of Town Trustees JAB 2 3 2004 Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Southold Town Board of Trustees January 22, 1004 Dear Mr. Krupski: We in Beixedon Estates are trying to preserve the areas of beach west of the jetty to Mr. Ball's property and west of Dr. Freedman's property to the creek from Hippodrome Pond(see enclosure). It is not our property. It belongs to John Nickles-and we have deeded rights to use it. Between July 2001 and March 2002 we did extensive research into solutions for the erosion of the beach. We contacted three environmental consultants, (Interscience, Suffolk Environmental Consultants and N Consultants) and The Woods Hole Group. Whenever we came up with a suggestion, Mr. Nickles said that unless we had a study done of the whole area(tides, depths, sand flow, etc.)he would not agree to anything. He has now come up with a proposal, using one of the consultants we had contacted, without doing the same study he insisted that we do. We contacted the Army Corps of Engineers and asked them to come and give us their thoughts on the area. They have to be invited by the Town. We wrote to you in' Aug. 2001, requesting that you invite them. We received a letter from you saying there would be an onsite inspection in September. Mr. Petrosino, President of the Beixedon Estates Association Inc. at the time, wrote to you on Sept 8 h acknowledging the inspection and again asking you to invite the Army Corps of Engineers to come. We never heard back from you and they never came. John Nickles is concerned about his property on the east side of the jetty. He obviously thinks his property on the west side of the jetty is not important. It is very important to the residents of Beixedon Estates. We were trying to help save it but he only put obstacles in our way. Please, in your studying of all the information, consider the whole area of beachfront and not look only at the canal area as John Nickles has asked you to do. Enclosed please find a letter from one of our homeowners that we received too late to present to you at the hearing on Wednesday. Sincerely, oan Latham 44 B.EIXEDON ESTATES II40 Af z /7 4,j d4diaallor of the a/sec7dr � � ago colt%s Rfw/G to ths�u0/ia• "h ! `�a)`�`:•.� ,.w. . �_ti y o 0.° sot f'!h ova P ,1y N.7J•M 0 ._ r 74 L, i • r� '1 b -•'�• rr •� , or r ° Ya •• •6 Q sa• O•a14 os Q ' �i y .,:�,.- eys\rs+�s �yrr •o° ��,t�! v••e •� ;(? • - � /8 i{/ f •- ^ ~ $ � y. ik s � W 'oti ' rr •0 1 0 �� .{+ o •i.a � ';b /9--_......._- a � ^i• N Z 1 g Z o10 z?j' _n_ 7L ' �t4'•'�=' ^ r �-! ( � P a, ''�i � L•� •oo.o �f �;, , of ' ti •r \uuo C4Q� so• � �•t��j. . "3'i. �N�3�oa�• �• • N ` �~ 4 w ..w r7•.. q .ao Y. 1• 3 ab�K o r�P 1 � too.. . q j00 ; N Ir b =• • 6A r (PIo �� f JAN2 3 2004 Southold Totyn rustees 0�5 .�u.a_i N�iuer ..�lp.�u' 4i,�- obi AU kdIalsi— l >i�&!(�� ,�.s.�-�. �e�.e. � �laa.e�i� a, Cernyp�.p-�,ca-ems v-k- �-�ec✓ �.¢- �'°ae0, n,v� Howard Freedman, M.D: P.O.. Box_ 686 E (f� E I 'd E i Green port N.Y. 11944 ® t5 Vu 15 April 18, 200 JAN 21 2004 Trustees Southold Town Board of Trustees Town of Southold Re: DEegLg ft-g.-6E : .. & Southold, N.Y.' 11971 to Petty' s Pond Gentlemen: My year:ro.und full time residence is in Biexidon Estates on the beach front at 1726 Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold. It has come to my .attention?.7.that an application has 'been made to. dredge -the inlet:.to Petty' s •Pond. 1 .• I have no objection to .and support the dredging -of the inlet.. which is .certainly required to keep the inlet navigable.. 2. I object to•.the .disposition of the' spoil as indicated on the.:ap.plication and accompanying survey. , The western extent of the erosion is much.,.greater than is indicated, . reaching a:s' far as Rogers' -Road.- The erosion of the -whole beach front west to .Rogers...Road is .due, at least 'in part, . to. the excessively long jetty extending. into the Bay east- of the inlet which acts to' .starve the beach west of the' inlet by impeding .the normal litoral .drift and diverting the sand out into. the: Bay. 3•. The spoilhQuld be placed along .the beach . between the high -and low-'water marksand;. he permitted to drift westward to nourish .the beach. Olai sv. d s. 6Gcatlon.s fah.eK ,-,the inlet :was dredged,-:':the spoil' :was distributed'"along the beach west of the inlet. 4. Please •.explain what is. meant 14 . "silt fencing" and its purpose: I would appreciate the opportun.i'ty• to speak. to the Trustees about•.these problems:' Respectfully, Tel: 765-5718 Howard Freedman, M.'D•. . M HANDBOOK OF COASTAL PROCESSES AND EROSION E edited by P.D. Komar D 191 CRC Press, 1983 21 200r Chapter 9 �� COASTAL EROSION IN RESPONSE TO THE CONSTR CTI Sou l j AND BREAKWATERS Board of Trustees Paul D. Komar INTRODUCTION Many occurrences of destructive coastal erosion have resulted directly from the construc- tion of jetties, breakwaters, or other engineering structures. In the majority of these cases the analysis of the erosion is straightforward; the jetties block the natural littoral drift that had prevailed along the coast, depriving the beaches of sand in the downdrift direction and thus initiating erosion of the adjacent coastal properties. In other cases, however, it is not initially apparent why the engineering structure produced significant erosion. For example, jetties have induced erosion on coasts where no net littoral drift exists. This chapter will examine the response of coastlines to the construction of engineering structures. This will be done by means of a series of case studies that exemplify various facets of the problem. BLOCKAGE OF A NET LITTORAL DRIFT In Chapter 1 it was pointed out that when waves break at an angle to the shoreline they produce a longshore movement of beach sediment known as the littoral drift. In many cases this sand movement under a given set of wave conditions can be evaluated with Equation 13 of Chapter 1. Most areas of the coast are acted upon by numerous wave trains throughout the year, arriving.from various offshore directions and producing variable amounts of littoral drift. There commonly is even a reversal of the drift direction under different storms. The net littoral drift is the summation of these many individual sediment transport episodes,summed over at least a 1-year time span. Clearly, with a reversing transport direction the net drift may in-the end be quite small, smaller even than individual episodes of longshore sediment transport under a given storm. It is this net-littoral.drift that is of importance here—it being -the volume of sand that will be blocked by the construction of engineering structures such _as jetties or breakwaters. Examples of jetties that have blocked this littoral drift,resulting in erosion,are so numerous that it was difficult to decide which to utilize here as illustrations. The harbors on the east coast of India are of special interest in that they provide some of the earliest examples, and the littoral drift in that region is one of the largest on the world coastlines. - There are four major ports on India's east coast,respectively,from south to north,Madras, Kakinada, Vishakhapatnam, and Paradip (Figure 1). This is also the direction of the net littoral drift, which progressively increases in the northward direction such that at Paradip it reaches nearly a million m'/year. This northward sand transport is the product of waves generated by the monsoons blowing over the Bay of Bengal. During April to September the southwest monsoon produces waves approaching from the southwest, the average wave approach at Madras being 145°N after accounting for refraction. This, of course, produces a northward sand transport along the coast. The wave periods are between 8 and 9 sec and the wave heights variable, reaching a maximum of about 3 in. During the northeast monsoon of October to March the transport is in the opposite direction,the waves approaching Madras from about 65°N. But this return transport is much smaller, yielding a net annual littoral 192 CRC Handbook of Coastal Processes and Erosion f0 500 N kilometers �P PARADIP '?ti \�Q 94x105 VISHAKHAPATAM KAKINADA �5.5x105m3/yr l BAY OF MADRAS 15005 BENGAL -0 FIGURE 1. Locations of the principal harbors on the east coast of India. drift to the north, evaluated at 5 x 101 m'/year. This evaluation is based on both observed sand accumulation rates at the Madras harbor breakwater and by calculations using a formula such as Equation 13 of Chapter 1. The accumulations also demonstrate the reversal of drift directions, erosion occurring to the north of the harbor during the southwest monsoon and deposition in the same area during the northeast monsoon. But the erosion cycle is greater than the subsequent deposition due to the northward transport being greater than the southward return. Net erosion rates are large, having persistently been on the order of 20 m/year for nearly a century. The Madras area lacked any natural protection for a harbor, and so the harbor had to be developed on the open coastline. Construction of the harbor was sanctioned by the British . Government in 1875 and initial construction began soon thereafter (Figure 2). This initial construction quickly revealed the existence of a strong northward littoral drift, the beach to the south of the breakwater building out as rapidly as the construction, and erosion to the north requiring the placement of groins. Cyclones during this period of construction delayed the work, and the initial harbor was not ready until 1895. At that stage, Figure 2, the harbor consisted of an enclosed basin of about 0.75 km2 with an entrance to the east. Sand continued to accumulate on the south side of the breakwater until it had built out the shoreline to nearly the seaward length of the harbor, at which point the sand began to drift around the eastward end. This produced shoaling of the harbor entrance, so that the entrance had to be moved to the northward side of the harbor and an outer quay,,built, Figure 2, in an attempt to deflect the sand away from this new entrance. This is largely the 193 1876 Bay of Bengal pier City of Madras 1900 ,rN' OM 1920 Bay of outer quay _ Bengal scale - 1/16,000 FIGURE 2. The development of the Port of Madras, India. 194 CRC Handbook of Coastal Processes and Erosion BAY OF BENGAL r N� Ikm harbor 1956 1912 1876 .,, .- 1876 �— 1956 MADRAS CITY FIGURE 3. Shoreline changes at the Port of Madras, 1876 representing the pre-breakwater shoreline. Riprap placement immediately downdrift of the harbor-limited the extent of erosion there. N Santa Monica �935 /9,g3 -- �9A littoral drift pier jetty constructed in 1934 FIGURE 4. The build-out of the shoreline resulting from the construction of a detached breakwater at Santa Monica,Calif. (From Johnson,J. W.,J. Waterways Harbors, 83, 1, 1957. With permission.) configuration of the main harbor today, although a second docking area and fisheries harbor have been constructed to the north, the latter placed in a former land area that had eroded away. The overall pattern of erosion and deposition that emerges is the one that is expected for any harbor installation which blocks a net littoral drift. As diagramed in Figure 3,.there have been extensive shoreline changes produced by the breakwater construction, the 1876 survey showing the shoreline just prior to installation and the 1912 and 1956 surveys revealing the subsequent positions. As expected from the breakwater having acted as a dam to the littoral drift, there was an extensive shoreline advance on the updrift side of the harbor, the south side, and considerable erosion on the downdrift side. It is seen that both the deposition and shoreline erosion extend for many kilometers from the breakwater itself, so that the construction affects a considerable portion of coastline. The changes were most rapid during the initial stages of construction. From the date of commencement in 1876 until' 1898, the south shoreline advanced at an annual rate of 17 in; from 1898 to 1950 the rate was reduced to about 9.4 m/year during the period 1898 to 1921 and to about 7.3 m/year during 1921 to 1950. The erosion was similarly at a maximum during the early construction, maximum losses of 90 in having occurred during the first southwest monsoon. The next major port to the north is Kakinada, but this port is in the sheltered zone of a . t 195 otb°t� 1& 1932 V Sp��O 1930 0 100 200 300 meters pier 1930 /9 1951 /934 breakwater littoral drift FIGURE 5. Deposition-erosion pattern around the Santa Barbara breakwater,California.(From Johnson,J.W., J. WatenvaysHarbors, 83, 1, 1957. With permission.) large northward-growing sand spit.Although the harbor construction produced large shoreline changes, these resulted from the altered currents and paths of fine-grained sediment move- ment in this protected zone, not from a blockage of the littoral drift. The port of Vishak- hapatnam consists of an inner harbor cut into the land and an outer harbor protected by a jetty-breakwater system which slants obliquely toward the seaward-facing entrance. The littoral drift is estimated to be 5.5 x 101 m3/year, approximately half of which is naturally bypassed due to this harbor design.The other half does find its way into the dredged channel leading into the harbor, requiring maintenance dredging and bypassing. The last harbor is Paradip, located at the far north end of the Bay of Bengal (Figure 1). Due to its location, Paradip receives waves predominantly from the southwest monsoon, producing a.large northward littoral drift estimated to be 9.4 x 101 in3/year. The breakwater there was built _ between July 1963 and September 1965, producing shoreline changes much like those at Madras. During the actual construction, the shoreline to the south advanced at a rate of 120 m/year with'erosion to the north being as much as 30 to 40 in during individual storms. The erosion averaged about 21 m/year between 1963 and 1971. A system of groins and sea walls has been constructed in the immediate downdrift zone.A bypassing scheme of dredging on the updrift side and trucking to the downdrift side has been in operation since 1969, but - has been able to achieve only about 50% of the estimated littoral drift. A comparable example to the Madras harbor,but in the U.S.,is the breakwater constructed at Santa Barbara, Calif. As originally built in 1927 to 1928, this breakwater was detached, that is, constructed parallel to the shoreline a short distance offshore. The notion was that this design would provide a sheltered zone from the waves, but at the same time would somehow let the littoral drift"slip through".This same design can still be seen in the nearby Santa Monica breakwater, Figure 4. At Santa Monica a breakwater 600 m long was-con- structed about 600 in offshore. Immediately following its construction sand began to deposit in its protected lee..'On the updrift side of the breakwater the,shoreline advanced, while in the downdrift direction the shoreline eroded.Only by repeated dredging has the entire closure of the harbor been prevented, the shoreline attaching to the breakwater. Iids,apparent then that such a detached breakwater will not permit the littoral drift to "slip through"; the 7o's Y'S?��G?�j'a�.t'r9s�-s rra�l�S.Nc^- ��1�•+""fi��`4'Fbr1�A's�.,,/{� r �} n,k. �fifl��p�'��, 1r � a , .. ., • 9ffd at "'.. X:i'i�r'it`-•�. Sjw : ty+� ;rsr•�i s r.t s t • '. 1''•-�� '� l��.• .`�,'�i;,s Flv t,3i�rn'^�'.}�ts�r�i�'0,,•{�r �',vs.� fx .�} s � r�� r� �...�-�'�,¢. •�.. ?�'�"`.;;i. 'h�°t�,N..'� { ^%.J+ "rLz!,'t tt �' ,✓ tai3 v z` ...I` Y•�. Y'� .'T asc ��yt+N r: ?•vi r.,, 4. t`�, +�,*1. ,!.f, „..w�L t* ds st i «. Lt ,' ./- • .r}a. ZI • e" s� •; k %Illvl�s *w` v. ^� c�,rs=s a a %.•+� „�s.,C...w•S .vr:a r�r lt ,�� z 4+ ~r,,, t �.� 20 s � .r`'' 'jiB ti •"� � � 8 -4 i r I,r`,N,.•`f�+. �4r��,�k�{� � �'x�'_ay, '�`.�?-7 i' a�,. J Z � ! �_•�� >�.<: A �• � 'L7�� ." Jkjlll • t °t 'r•a c«qt t .ki >�a_ t k� a *e�µ�4FM+ 'tJf{- 1,��r�''•.rf Jyv^g+# h � "+ l r-i 'n-t^s \ ��..kj S L f'�t � s 4A 1• �•, t �f'�Szd y,x �`S L...�i`tY.�jl y �'��.t Y r,f'L.'�-��` v ! _ y x •.r� y N r r� � fi;Ag �fi rNkV.xd. `%Y Yv 7�+. ks;� �' c. •;P"` a f x} ^t � ..,may _off ��s�3 s;r' } �!✓ ; r.t ..ram•'z..t+�w rrn �, e r�•,-$':t L vt*• �, F a , ti �+r" x �s:;,s ...�n'`�zwrN• .x�� p `+fit 'Sa•y`""°t+�'_"n, r r'•r t + r � ,,. -,r t Y F„$r rY z 9+G�'41.r.-. •',� Fr �•�s.,gr�1, )T` '' r, l dfi ' �`k�w i�«t`a�i?•Scr�a�r`cc 1 A,�.�r s''r�G+i 1n�Y � ba. � r �, tr� '��+rr y4S;,`�tm;4r �!��a�aN J1Nq•,ali P}f 4 �t�til+ry Yt"ts A rs�l,,:�f u�iM1 n�.w�+.�b. 4 4 [ s`7 -. •�Y dt � '� ;t t�. �,r ✓Adi �sr a�Ata+�.},a3la��< }�°�n%°fit rL't.•� by yr 4 Mr ;� rtit ;t •, ) r` +� � t",�; ' ti�t'r r�,al.,�rxf y�,h�,€'y�a�•'`,t; kr.is�,'ffr''t's`f;�r'',.trt,u'r-1a�`>tr C.'!)'+" Sf - y,�',-f-yr.d'a�, r J... j�t^�. s�'z,f�razf{✓�{✓4^ffJxc f1.3�..'i�,Y(y�, �. r J+iti x .� .', t4 ;s rt �} �'. ! 1, a � •t*)�; •Y 7�1 ! ! 1 tL 5'iv I i� .y �✓ G 1 � fr�d: b'��' tkFC�.'','�at i`- .'��E'`•,�"�i,.�! +rr"tnp't'• '� it v}ra�•f t x n t -r a � ji. i a�n �'r'dr`�. b;�,Y '' �� r't':+^a" •r•r•t.+F�,e:;•�.F''"y'a".'$.=Ni�.-i1 7�y '+, Y !.j- d r:r _ t t i.� cra. a y `y. ',,�4y, ty`1 yS'r+�. l�,�•' :�^,,.� y � .ABC', vtr.° ��?z ,r� r •?. aj r 'r It 1. .t 1 d .A :r.._y !: .`.� � .E:. �, i) .�f�x+r5,�r��•�t"v'.p?,'�''�eL�•j;'^ax.2 � ;,'.•C''','j''. a�' .t, �::r..j'J 1Y r�'•' e ..� r� �, 4 Ar - � � �, T�}_ `' 1 � tit.a. Y��f+,:sw.,... ,i},c ,. ..r ft'.,..}r'�� ..t t �'• v`"r F:1:: t`r'(��,�-. ri,a4 K 1 .•y r f. ,� �R.r'•it 'v''l'r > •,i '.(r,`I, 1�y,F��'�-_tzt'1�"*}p'� A -+,p>•.{�4>�fy .Jfy •:+tr'd+`dtJ'1'• r S^ .v Sa s .1 r- 1 r -:1 port. ci s �.. } ,T?.FS' yn x hrh,tpy 9"' l•. .! �+ .d� '��tit ✓�.• skis l L �: rex + Y #� ,14;4 1.g p ..•t^*,`,.°d`^ �4'. Li. =.�t..��2, ..t .:f -;ti>, '�t�•'3 r , p:. .,t•d+ r � < -r` ct"r- ra xs. s F .� r� d•f a". F .,�rf' .."N �'ar.. r#'?'.:.7 ;f._ a"� ;v..?,{ +r�' ..r �a;�5...'> z,. fs t, �+:,,d k t r m - ,.. ,L • }:}:� ,"'.A rtt� rF.' (�'`'rg'yZu�� 1,., ttF .+ !�. �r �� •;t r } 1 �.•� 3 s•.ti 1 Ey, p p. '.i, 3� .t .a -r f ,�}, fj. r��'r�.��`C �'�;•'N Fr,�'r� #�t ','�F•..'�.°k.,4.,.fi ��t'�'�.n3z`y�•�{�'..r�� ..#se r' Yy1F. S `..jf _ },.. E l '",2.:j c y� �rg.J,r,.+S;,{r ��"�r �},�jj h. ,.g;. .ye•f'.��,.+.i;Y- ,k�.'`' t`r{.s�4',•if T:'1�•'.� P" i� .;�,r y \•s �L_ .3 .ir �4'� t_!. ''.*`..µ._re" F••zy'i iT��..F�.f.r.x yyrrj! �y�1id��„�' � xt�t 'Sr1tX'' '7ir,, r% r"f.��;` y"�,�_.FrF.i�'E�) 4t. 2�. ,r 1 6 C � =3 s1 r 'z aL ..3�'• i�x.t�l` 't:r s rY) f 't. x .8 .r,'L'/�^ri �` F.'�U,ry r��i y� r i Y � i9' .µ 'K3•':.tc3.� y:�Si:.� i. ..rt Y .r�rr.t•r. Y� t,E�'r. t�.�� i i,'3 K'fit: 4"i _� ' �' .�' A• �• i 'f.f�T r 4 F-$'� 'A Y. 1?. ,ra � t t'f1 r Y= � 9 a'1 r t � rc•ir't,�4 i. � a. r s!�'t�,{ ^r Ir I�.i�`i�Lti r '';{+% �4: ✓; 2S� t8. :',Ctk- 3`9 q�:-�.,� �,� .� _ r9 ��5.: j iZ3,t i3v.r•,q-r ;4 y.y:{Er:1's {'� t'�'`I A...; t:. -; _ & y v �'.:�'l�S •;3' :{'.�ta.!. d,`'`.!� r, ii 4 r a. {A', -� !� 14.^.n NrF o;R J� "1.5� ;7'��;-W [1!;�.3�. F �],'� + ;" i� „`" rz:`'Ed•, t_ k" �t t ,�,; s ♦f ft t 7" t{• ,�( Sy ` .t 'Z ?��}>4 c. lt.• �` 1. ,'' ^� .ti,t t r- tl >"1' `� ,,` F..j ,.� t +R tji F s �•,t�13t: ....;3f. *,l�r�ty r ,?•3'^j {: .k" [:f'' "r`� t} i rr • n''t giRe� q,t ie f,+ . ,;r.�•5 rfr� }I:.S i.�9 �• ; v �g'f=3' w -i '4 L� ��• .t•�,!.� }`r r� `iSi t w't3'� •�• ?. :x ✓ �•:':.a t.a;FEE! 197 EROSION initial shoreline 40 1 ,O 15 25 5 3 ' 15 10 100 SO 40 25 \ DEPOSITION 0 I 2 k m Littoral Transport S1 = 1.5 x 106 m3/y r FIGURE 7. The blockage of the littoral drift by a jetty or groin;this example being from a physical laboratory model of a proposed jetty at Cotonou, Dohomey. Included are the shoreline changes,given in years, as well as the drift rate pertaining to the prototype, 20 min of model operation being equivalent to a year of prototype conditions according to the model scaling. (From Sireyjol, P.,Proc. 9th Conf. Coastal Eng., American Society of Civil Engineers,New York, 1965.With permission.) breakwater decreases or nearly eliminates the wave energy at the shoreline, and according to littoral drift formulas(such as Chapter 1, Equation 13) the longshore sand movement will come to a halt even though there is not a physical barrier across the nearshore. The original detached breakwater at Santa Barbara had the same effect, so that in order to prevent harbor shoaling, in 1930 the detached breakwater was connected to the shoreline on its updrift side (Figure 5). The littoral drift averages about 2.2 x 105 m3/year from the west so that sand quickly accumulated at its western side with erosion in the downdrift eastern direction. After only 7 years of accumulation on the updrift side the shoreline had built out to the end of the breakwater, Figure 5, and in 1937 began to spill around its outer end, forming a sand spit which began to grow across the harbor opening. Left unattended, this spit eventually would have grown and attached itself to the downdrift shoreline, and once this had been accomplished the entire littoral drift would then pass around the breakwater and a new equilibrium shoreline configuration would have been achieved. However, this would of course close the harbor, and to prevent that a dredging operation was initiated and presently operates continuously. The dredge is located at the tip of the spit, dumping the sand on the beach in the downdrift direction so as to reduce the erosion. A more complete case history of the problems at Santa Barbara can be found in Wiegel.'-" Jetties built at the mouth of a river or tidal inlet to a bay, lagoon, or estuary have much the same effect when they block a littoral drift. As seen in the example of Figure 6, the shoreline again builds out on the updrift side and retreats due to erosion in the downdrift direction. The jetty acts as an effective dam to the littoral drift, halting its advance at the updrift jetty. At the same time, on the downdrift side the sand transport processes continue to operate and so cause sand to drift away from the jetties with a resulting shoreline erosion. This same effect is shown in Figure 7, based on a laboratory model where a single "jetty" blocks the longshore sand movement. Here it is seen that the impact on the shoreline, either as accretion or erosion, is felt earliest and with maximum effect close to the littoral drift obstacle. This same pattern is observed in the prototype jetty systems. Jetties have been constructed at many inlets on the east coast of the U.S. For example, jetties were built in 1935 to stabilize the inlet south of Ocean City, Md., a seaside resort. These blocked the north-to-south littoral drift. Fortunately, the main community of Ocean City lay to the north of the jetties so experienced a shoreline advance. However,-due to the loss of its supply of sand, the barrier Assateague Island to the south eroded and the shoreline `• I I II I I I • / I / I ;+gyp rt� 'fi� "`'ii% �w•.a.. F ) �s 7ti r ti' t it "A��;�•�• yam• _L .r'�I � . t.4 A P �r of t� t 4'"t 'a',S-?t �;; "� r r r•t S� +'�- � , _ G _"a•r" �t ',*�IwGr1�`t "T 4N ,. ,�i•�1 a •"'Sry� S r 3- +fit��" „-'4��4�r�y�'�x�'�r,..2� :. —•n%ta`ter. �,i r Y� ,��;?�+�'�,�' ti -.• .>+'4r6 r�-_�^+�;} �a! At.+r�+�L �'� t 1_p•, " ,�,"'4' j � r m' 'tee 7�'ice.. ':y e'qr` r' � `' yb l �� ° „ fit r`yi �i'`~�1 �••� Zati`n•t��>s SA s' Nr � ,• ( i�ram' r � � 4 r_ l' �.e�. 'fti ,` ''„Ifs .-• G} �Yr� f r ��` _ :1 1 '1"r;'�S.iC t✓. vr.!r•t".�L Q a t.�"'`A F ° �:: -+- , .•.r�' gip" •,� �"� t • i _ F z mow;: r w�.' _ r> `4; y :F r s ; ' ' a t 5 v f; '•'�'' r v 199 p► B deposition zone bypassing plant 0 d dredge ` c discharge deposition discharge C D weir dredge iu _ s �redge discharge discharge FIGURE 9. Schematic of the different types of bypassing systems that have been used to transfer the littoral drift past jetties or breakwaters. A groin is a rib built approximately perpendicular to the shoreline to trap the littoral drift and thereby locally build out the shoreline (Figure 8). Its purpose is to widen the beach and thereby protect the landward property. Groins are relatively narrow in width and may vary in length from less than 10 m to over 200 m. A single groin has much the same effect as a jetty, like that of Figure 7, the trapped littoral drift widening the beach. The impact is smaller, however, due to the shorter length of the groin, the updrift side becoming filled with sand so that the remaining littoral drift eventually spills around the groin and contributes to the downdrift beach. Some sand is permanently trapped and thereby lost to the downdrift beaches. Thus, the construction of a groin will tend to enhance the erosion of the downdrift beaches and property. In order to shift the erosion further downdrift, it is common practice that a series of groins (a groin field) are built (Figure 8). This enables an extended stretch of beach to be built out and shifts the zone of erosion out of your immediate area to the down-coast neighbor. And of course the greater the number of groins built-the larger the 200 CRC Handbook of Coastal Processes and Erosion total volume of sand trapped, and hence the greater the erosion that does result to your neighbor's property. One way to partially alleviate this impact of groin construction is to nourish the beach at the same time (Chapter 11), by obtaining an outside source of suitable sand which can be placed on the beach to fill the volumes that would be trapped by the groins. This reduces the quantity of sand that is extracted from the natural littoral drift, which would then be relatively undiminished when it reaches the downdrift beaches. Such beach nourishment schemes also have been utilized to alleviate the downdrift erosion resulting from jetty or breakwater construction. However, here the sand is placed directly onto the downdrift beach rather than attempting to fill the updrift side which would cause sand to spill over and into the harbor,much as occurred naturally at Santa Barbara.Although in some cases a foreign sand source is obtained for the eroding beach, the most common practice is to obtain the sand from the updrift beach where there is the simultaneous problem of its accumulation, a problem in the sense that it will eventually cause harbor shoaling. This removal from the updrift beach and placement on the downdrift side of the jetties constitutes a bypassing scheme. In its simplest form sand is carried past the jetties in trucks. More elaborate schemes involve dredging of the sand on the updrift side and pumping it as a fluidized sand-water mixture to the downdrift beach where the sand can continue to move as part of the natural longshore transport regime. Such bypassing schemes are shown sche- matically in Figure 9. Figure 9A illustrates the oldest approach used in the U.S., where a fixed dredging plant on the updrift side consists of a boom supporting an intake pipe that can be swung in-an arc over the deposition zone. This intake pipe is connected to a pump and discharge line that crosses the inlet. South Lake Worth Inlet, Fla. is an example of such a system." Most floating dredges are sensitive to wave attack and so so must be protected in some way. The system used at Santa Barbara, Calif. is diagramed in Figure 9B, the harbor itself providing shelter for the dredge which removes sand from the spit as it spills into the harbor. Figure 9C shows the system employed at the Channel•Islands Harbor,Calif.where a detached breakwater shelters the dredge.' Construction of such a breakwater for the sole use of the dredge is expensive, and so a scheme such as that of Figure 9D is sometimes used. The weir has an elevation at or near mean sea level at the shoreward end of the updrift jetty. This permits sand to wash over the weir into a deposition basin where the dredge can operate in safety, the sand again being pumped to the downdrift side. Such a system is employed at Masonboro Inlet, N.C.'It is apparent that in all of these schemes considerable effort and expense is required to provide a sand-moving operation to replace the natural sand transport processes which have been interfered with by jetty or breakwater construction. JETTIES ON COASTS WITH A ZERO NET LITTORAL DRIFT It might be expected that if a jetty or breakwater is constructed in an area of coast where there is essentially a zero net littoral drift, then no sand would be dammed and no shoreline erosion would result. This is in large part true, and there are many examples of jetties that have been built with little coastline changes. However, under certain circumstances jetties constructed on coasts with a zero net drift have produced major shoreline alterations with considerable loss of property. One example of this is the beach erosion and sand spit destruction that occurred at the entrance to Tillamook Bay, Ore.',` A north jetty was constructed at the mouth of the bay in 1914 to 1917 and was rebuilt and extended in 1933 (Figure 10). Bayocean Spit to the south of the entrance, separating Tillamook Bay from the ocean, suffered progressive erosion following construction of this jetty, culminating in its breaching in 1952. The breach was subsequently closed by the construction of a dike in 1956. The resort community of Bayocean Park was entirely destroyed by the erosion. While erosion was occurring along much of the spit length, the shoreline-advanced to the 1 ' 11 jetty _ 1 1 � 1 1 ' 1982 1 � 1904 1932 1955 1971 c 1 p q, 1 1 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 1 v O p 1 V breach dike 1 ; 1 1 1 0 1 2 kilometers FIGURE 10. Alterations of the shoreline,including erosion of Bayocean Spit, due to the construction of a north jetty in 1914 to 1917,and a south jetty in the mid-1970s on the entrance to Tillamook Bay on the northerrl Oregon coast. Extensive erosion occurred on the spit resulting in the complete loss of the town of Bayocean, this occurring in spite of the existence of a zero net littoral drift on this portion of coast. (From Terich,T.A.and Komar,P.D.,Shore Beach,42,3, N 1974. With permission.) o 202 CRC Handbook of Coastal'Processes and Erosion Manhatten Beach Rockaway Beach C 0 V 0 jetty N U U 0 a- w _ � c a0, mo 0 _ m 0 1 2 3 ''C 0 0 km o ti ® erosion deposition Cape Meares FIGURE 11. A schematic illustration of the patterns of deposition and erosion due to jetty construction on the entrance of Tillamook Bay, Ore.On coasts with a zero net littoral drift jetty construction tends to result in deposition and shoreline advancement adjacent to the jetties with erosion occurring at greater distances from the jetties to supply that sand. (From Terich,T. A. and Komar, P. D.,Shore Beach, 42, 3, 1974. With permission.) immediate north of the north jetty. This would at first imply the existence of a north to south littoral drift, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, actually estimated a mean annual southward drift of approximately 6 x 101 m'/year. However, closer study by Terich and Komar10 and Komar et al.' demonstrated that there is in fact a zero net littoral drift along most of the Oregon coast including the Bayocean Spit region. If a strong littoral drift did exist in the region, the large rocky headlands, such as Cape Meares to the immediate south of Bayocean Spit, Figure 11, would act much like a jetty, 1 203 blocking the littoral drift. But there is no observed deposition on one side of the headland and erosion on the opposite side. A study of the effects of jetties on the shoreline also indicates that a zero net drift prevails, deposition occurring to both the immediate north and south of the jetties with erosion existing at still greater distances from the jetties.' This pattern is diagramed schematically in Figure 11 for Bayocean Spit and another example is shown in Chapter 10 Figure 5 for the case of the jetties on the Siuslaw River, Ore. The pattern is more complex at the Tillamook Bay entrance because only one jetty was constructed rather than a pair but the study by Terich and Komar10 demonstrated that while the shoreline was advancing to the north of the north jetty, a large shoal also developed within the inlet itself, nearly closing it off. The effects on the inlet morphology are further documented in Komar et al.' Therefore, a symmetrical pattern of erosion and deposition was still evident at the Tillamook Bay entrance even though only one jetty was initially constructed (Figure 11). In the mid-1970s the second jetty was finally built, reaffirming the conclusion of a zero net drift in the region (Figure 10). Therefore, major readjustments of the shoreline following construction of jetties can even occur on a coast with a zero net drift. The amount of resulting erosion depends on two main factors: (1) the size of the embayment formed between the pre jetty shoreline and the newly constructed jetty, this embayment having to become filled with sand in order to achieve a new equilibrium shoreline, and (2) the length of shoreline experiencing erosion to supply sand to this depositional area adjacent to the jetty. The embayment factor is illustrated by the Siuslaw River jetties (Chapter 10, Figure 5), the jetty construction having formed a large embayment to the north which required a considerable volume of sand to fill it. In contrast, the embayment to the south of the Siuslaw jetties was small and produced only minor shoreline advances. The second factor, shoreline length, is illustrated by Bayocean Spit. As shown in Figure 11, Cape Meares lies to the immediate south, acting as a barrier to this stretch of coast. The sand needed for deposition near the inlet therefore had to be gained from erosion of a relatively short stretch of coast so that the amount of erosion per unit shoreline length was large. In contrast, the sand volume deposited to the north of the jetty came from a longer stretch of coast so that the erosion per unit shoreline length was smaller with a negligible retreat of the coastline. Another important difference between effects of jetties on coasts with a net littoral drift and those with a zero net drift is the final equilibrium. In the case of jetties blocking a net drift,the problem continues indefinitely unless the harbor is allowed to fill(as Santa Barbara nearly did),usually requiring a bypassing system to prevent such a harbor filling.In contrast, jetties built. on a coast with zero net drift may cause an appreciable readjustment and _ reorientation of the shoreline, but the shifts are usually toward a new equilibrium where a zero net drift is again achieved. This was the case for all of the jetty systems built on the Oregon coast, the shoreline changes being limited to some 10 to 20 years after jetty con- struction with little subsequent erosion attributable to the jetties. SUMMARY Whenver jetties or a breakwater block a net littoral drift along the coastline, the damming effect produces accretion and a shoreline advance on the updrift side of the obstacle, and erosion in the downdrift direction. The impact is noted first and with the greatest shoreline changes closest to the engineering structure, but the effects may eventually extend for many kilometers along the coast. The problems associated with blocking a net littoral drift are persistent and usually require the implementation of a bypassing scheme which dredges the accumulating sand from the updrift side and transfers it to the downdrift side where it is returned to the littoral drift regime. Although jetties may often be constructed in coastal regions having a zere'het drift with 204 CRC Handbook of Coastal Processes and Erosion minimal adverse impact, in certain circumstances there can be considerable alterations to the shoreline. These usually involve shoreline advances adjacent to the jetties to fill "em- bayments" formed between the jetties and the pre jetty shoreline, with erosion at greater distances from the jetties to supply that sand.The changes are transient, however, usually being completed within 10 to 20 years, and no permanent bypassing measures are required. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The material in this chapter dealing with the east coast of India is based on studies undertaken at the Central Water and Power Research Station in Poona, India. I became acquainted with this material in 1979 during a visit sponsored by the United Nations. I would especially like to thank P. C. Saxena, J. G. Dixit, and R. Srinivasan for familiarizing me with their work on the coast of India and for my pleasurable visit. REFERENCES 1. CERC,, Shore Protection Manual, U.S. Army Corps Eng., Coastal Eng. Res. Cent., U.S. Government Printing Office,Washington,D.C., 1973. 2. Handin,J.W.and Ludwick,J.C.,Accretion of beach sand behind a detached breakwater, U.S.Army Beach Erosion Board Tech.Memo,TM-16, 1950. 3. Herron,W.J.and Harris,R.L.,Littoral bypassing and beach restoration in the vicinity of Port Hueneme, Calif.,Proc. 10th Conf.Coastal Eng.,American Society of Civil Engineers,New York, 1966,651. 4. Johnson,J.W.,The littoral drift problem at shoreline harbors,Pap. 1211,J. Waterways Harbors, 83, 1, 1957. 5. Komar, P.D.,Lizarraga-Arciniega,J.R.,and Terich,T.A.,Oregon coast shoreline changes due to jetties,J. Waterways,Harbors Coastal Eng., 102(WW1), 13,.1976. 6. Komar, P. D. and Terich,T. A.,Changes due to jetties at Tillamook Bay, Oregon, Proc. 15th Conf. Coastal Eng.,American Society of Civil Engineers,New York, 1977. 7. Magnuson,N.C.,Planning and design of a low-weir section jetty at Masonboro Inlet,N.C. Proc. Santa Barbara Coastal Eng. Spec.Conf.,Santa Barbara,Calif., 1966, 807. 8. Shepard,F.P.and Wanless,H.R.,Our Changing Coastline, McGraw-Hill,New York, 1971. 9. Sireyjol,P.,Communication sur la construction du port de Contonou(Dahomey),Proc.9th Conf.Coastal Eng.,American Society of Civil Engineers,New York, 1965. 10. Terich,T.A.,and Komar,P.D.,Bayocean Spit,Oregon:History of development and erosional destruc- tion,Shore Beach,42,3, 1974. 11. Watts,G.M.,A study of sand movement at South Lake Worth Inlet,Florida, U.S.Army Beach Erosion Board Tech.Memo., TM-42, 1953. 12. Wiegel,R.L.,Sand bypassing at Santa Barbara,California,J. Waterways Harbors, 85(WW2), 1, 1959. 13. Wiegel,R.L.,Oceanographic Engineering, Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs,N. J., 1964. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village,Main Street,P.O.Box 2003, Bridgehampton,New York 11932-2003 (631)637-5160 Fax: (631) 537-5198 Bruce Anderson,M.S., President Hand Delivered Albert Krupski, President D �nTrusteQs - Southold Town Trustees P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application of Nickles/Beixedon`Pr Situate: Arshamomaque Avenue and Pettys Pond, Southold, New York Dear Mr. Krupski, The following is a summary of the application referenced above: Proiect Description Applicant proposes to secure all required regulatory approvals to replace "in-kinem place" the existing timber bulkheading located along the properties referenced above,-both north and south side of Pettys Pond. Concerning the northern timber bulkhead, approximately 616 linear feet (previously 848.0 linear feet) of bulkheading will be removed and/or replaced "in- kindlin place" (immediately upon securing of all required regulatory permits, or thereafter) utilizing fiberglass sheathing (10.0' x 14.0' sheets); pilings (8.0" round x 20.0' long); deadman(8.0" round x 8.0' — 12.0' long); caps (2.0" wide x 12.0" long); and wales (6.0" wide x 6.0" wide). The northern and eastern runs of the easterly bulkhead section will be removed and not replaced. The replacement of the return at the northwestern terminus of the bulkhead run will be shortened by two feet (2.0')to ten feet(10.0')., The existing timber dock(including ramps) will remain (190.0' long). Concerning the southern timber bulkhead, approximately 159.0 linear feet of bulkheading will be replaced "in-kindlin place" (immediately upon securing of all required regulatory permits, or thereafter)utilizing fiberglass sheathing (10.0' x 14.0' sheets); pilings (8.0" round x 20.0' long); deadman (8.0" round x 8.0' — 12.0' long); caps (2.0" wide x 12.0" long); and wales (6.0" wide x 6.0" wide). The existing exterior bulkhead (34.0' L) located off the southern half of Section S-11 and the northeastern run of the easterly bulkhead (113.0')will both be eliminated. h Overall, approximately 1,154 linear feet of existing timber bulkheading will be removed and/or partially replaced. The total linear feet of bulkheading will be reduced to by approximately 1/3 to total 775 linear feet of proposed fiberglass bulkheading. The bulkheading will be installed "in-kindlin place". Proiect History The Beixedon Inlet and jetties was first developed in the late 1920's. During that time, the eastern and western jetties were constructed. The eastern jetty extended 480 feet into Southold Bay and featured a solid fill box jetty stabilized on all sides by approximately 741 linear feet of bulkheading. The western jetty consisted of approximately 360 linear feet of bulkheading as measured from the mouth of Pettys Pond along the shoreline and into Southold Bay. A bridge was erected across the mouth of Pettys Pond. Waters south of the bridge constituted a basin where vessels were presumably moored. Waters north of the bridge constituted a canal allowing access of smaller vessels capable of navigating underneath the bridge into Southold Bay. Attached herewith at Exhibit 1 is the Map of the Village of Beixedon prepared by Otto Van Tuyl dated October 31, 1932. In the 1940's the Beixedon Inlet and jetties were re-developed. The Beixedon Property was developed to have an outer harbor that was protected by an eastern and western jetty and an inner harbor that was and continues to be Pettys Pond. The bridge was removed. The eastern jetty was maintained in its previous length and configuration. The outer harbor was expanded by extending the western jetties to the west and south. The western jetty consisted of one leg of the jetty running approximately 205 feet parallel to the shoreline of Southold Bay and a second leg running approximately 290 feet into Southold Bay. Attached herewith at Exhibit 2 is a copy of the Map of Beixedon Estates prepared by Otto Van Tuyl dated March 7, 1946 that shows the jetties existing at that time. The jetties were re-built in the 1950's and again in 1977. In today's time the easterly jetty extends 308 feet from the mouth of Pettys Pond into Southold Bay as the outward 172 feet of jetty is submerged with its terminus marked by four piles still observable. The westerly jetty extends 200 feet from the mouth of Pettys Pond roughly parallel to the shoreline of Southold Bay then out into Southold Bay. Thus, the length of the jetties have been reduced from 1221 linear feet to 508 feet from the late 1920's top today's time. The jetties in substantial part are functional as evidenced by the maintenance of water depths. Significantly deeper water is found between the eastern and western jetties that in areas directly east and west of the outer basin. Attached herewith at Exhibit 3 is the survey prepared by Sea Level Mapping last dated November 1, 2002 that shows the jetties in their existing configuration along with the surveyed water depths within the outer basin and adjacent thereto. ti Regulatory History `r The size and scale of the jetties have been further reduced as part of the regulatory process implemented by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation CTWSDEC"): In that regulatory process, the NYSDEC requested that the eastern jetty, formerly a solid fill box jetty be transformed into a single wall jetty. The single wall jetty is an in-kind replacement of the westerly face of the former box jetty. In addition, the 113-foot southerly leg of the western jetty did not receive agency approval for replacement and thus is no longer part of this proposal. A copy of the NYSDEC Permit# 1-4738-817/8 is attached herewith at Exhibit 4. The project has also received approval from the US Army Corps of Engineers a copy of said permit is attached hereto at Exhibit 5. The Town's Wetland Code The project as currently proposed complies with the standards set forth in Chapter 97 of the Southold Town Code to wit: 1. The replacement of the bulkheads and jetties will not adversely effect wetlands of the Town as the project will maintain the present quality of wetlands as it is an application to replace that which already exists. 2. The replacement ofthe jetties and bulkheads will not cause damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation because only those structures that are functional will be replaced. 3. The replacement of bulkheads and jetties bear no relationship to the saltwater intrusion. 4. The replacement of the bulkheads and jetties will not effect fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine organisms as this application simply maintains the present environmental conditions of the site. 5. The replacement of jetties will decrease the dangers of flood and storm tide damage. 6. The replacement of jetties and bulkheads will preserve navigation on tidal waters and tidal flow by reducing the frequency of dredging operations. 7. The replacement of jetties and bulkheading will maintain the course of existing channels and the natural movement of water. 8. The replacement of jetties will not undermine the lateral support of other lands because the project merely maintains the existing conditions of the inlet to Pettys Pond and adjacent lands thereto. 9. The replacement of bulkheads and jetties will not affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town. As a final matter, the project as proposed has received widespread support and approval from the people who reside in the immediate neighborhood. Attached herewith at Exhibit 6 are the following letters of support. 1. Correspondence from Gus Klavas dated February 25, 2003 indicating unanimous support among property owners at Arshamamamoque Avenue along the canal for the maintenance of the canal and associated bulkheading. 2. Correspondence from William J. Balis and Pauline Balis to the Trustees dated January 11, 2004. 3. Correspondence from Bruce and Hariett Woodruff dated January 10, 2004 to the Board of Trustees. 4. Correspondence from Barbara Brunjes to the Board of Trustees dated January 15, 2004. 5. Correspondence from Craig Esslinger to the Town of Southold Board of Trustees dated January 17, 2004. 6. Correspondence from Donald G. Rafuse to Mr. John Nickles dated January 17, 2004. In conclusion, it is our position that the proposed project should be granted as it merely seeks to replace jetties and bulkheads that lawfully exist and are functional, will maintain the existing environmental conditions of the immediate and adjoining areas, will provide for safe navigation into and out of Pettys Pond and will reduce the frequency of future dredging at the mouth of Pettys Pond. Respectfully ubmi d, Bruce A. Anderson cc. J. Nickles W. Esseks, Esq. Bruce &Harriet Woodruff 1505 Arshamomaque Avenue �( Southold,NY 11971 D f JAN 13 2004 January 10, 2 Southold Town l Board of Trustees Town of Southold Board of Trustees 53095 Main Road Southold,NY 11971 To Whom It May Concern: We are writing this letter to affirm our full support of the Beixedon Estate Property Owners Association Bulkhead Replacement Proposal to replace the existing bulkhead located at the mouth of Petty's Pond. As members of the Beixedon Estates Property Owners Association and as individual homeowners, we have been affected by the deterioration of the existing bulkhead. Most noticeably is the deterioration of the beaches to the east and west of the inlet. The deterioration has also caused the mouth of Petty's Pond to fill with sand at a quicker than normal pace. Studies have shown that the replacement of the existing bulkhead will alleviate these problems. I sincerely hope that you will vote in a positive manner, and approve this proposal. Very truly yours, Bruce T. Woodruff & Harriet E. Woodruff . F ... JANUARY 11, 2004 D EE:CE 2004Board of Trustees The Town of Southold Town Hall Town rustees 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Beixedon Properly Owner's Association c/o Mr. John Nickles Bulkhead Replacement Proposal Situated at: Arshamamoque Avenue &Petty's Pond SCTM4 1000=066-03-014 & 015 Dear Trustees: Since we will not be able to attend your forthcoming meeting on Wednesday, January 21, 2004, we would like to advise you that we strongly favor the bulkhead replacement as proposed in our January 7, 2004 notifications from the Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. The erosion of our beaches and the condition of these bulkheads have been the topic of discussion and concern at many of our community meetings. We feel that the proposed bulkhead replacement will help protect and preserve the community's beaches, reduce the amount of sand that constantly builds up at the entrance to Petty's Pond, and eliminate the probability of a breech at the south entrance to the pond. Wes pport your approval of this ro.osal. r. S' er y Willi J. B ylis and Pauline R. Baylis 625 Arshamomaque Avenue Mail address: P.O. Box 816 Southold, New York 11971 Southold, New York 11971 cc: John Nickles Subj: beixedon Date: Friday, March 29, 2002 1 1 :18:33 AM From: Acmemetal j To: MOMLATHAM, tbhb@optonline.net, LIZZY2CLA, FHfreed, jeff@musiclaw.com, JABBY1834, tlucak@yahoo.com, attywren@earthlink.net, btwoodruff@hotmail.com, johnnblakely@yahoo.com, PKlavas, jjnjr@peconic.net i I i March 27, 2002 Beixedon Estates Association P 0 Box 1432 Southold, New York 11971 Tom Petrosino 120 Salisbury Avenue Garden City, New York 11530 Transmitted via first class mail and email: acmemetal@aol.com, momlatham@aol.com Dear Association Members, I enjoyed the site visit to the Beixedon Estates area last Friday, and would like to thank you for the opportunity to work with the Association in developing a plan for mitigation of the coastal erosion and shoaling problems. I understand the primary objectives of the project to be erosion control along the beaches on both sides of the harbor entrance, as well as maintenance of the navigation channel into the harbor with reduced shoaling. The Woods Hole Group, Inc. (WHG) feels strongly that the most appropriate solution to these issues is one that considers the entire coastal system on both sides of the harbor, as well as the potential impacts of the solution on adjacent beaches. For example, the potential for adverse impacts to the 3/29/02 America Online : FHfreed Page 1 inlet at Hippodrome Pond must be evaluated and minimized as a part of any solution. Essentially, the WHG recommends development of a beach and harbor management plan that would include short-term solutions/activities to the coastal problems, as well as longer-term management of these areas. At the present time the WHG is prepared to recommend several components of the beach and harbor management plan. These components include short and long-term solutions that are still in the conceptual design stage, and would require input from the permitting agencies as well as additional analysis before a final design could be developed. The two primary components of the short-term solution include beach nourishment and rehabilitation of the coastal engineering structures at the harbor entrance. The details of these activities are described below. • Beach nourishment - To mitigate the on-going erosion along the western (downdrift) side of the harbor entrance, a program of beach nourishment is recommended. This is a process whereby beach compatible sand is brought from offsite and used to build the elevation of the beach higher, and to move the shoreline seaward. Beach nourishment, coupled with rehabilitation of the harbor entrance is geared towards providing long-term stability of the shoreline. It is a widely accepted method of erosion mitigation and is generally preferred over hardened coastal engineering I structures. In addition, my observations during the site visit suggest that beach nourishment is the only way to restore a beach to the western side of the harbor. While modifications to the structures at the harbor entrance (discussed below) may reduce the current rates of erosion, they will not be I effective at restoring a wide beach in this area. Beach nourishment could also be considered as an option to address erosion on the eastern (updrift) side of the harbor; however, proposed modifications to the structures at the harbor entrance will likely help to mitigate this problem by slowing the rates of erosion. i i I A final design for the beach nourishment would need to be developed which addresses the length, width, and elevation of the project area. In addition, the total volume of sand required would need to be determined. A source for the nourishment material would also need to be identified. While many beach nourishment projects are constructed using sand mined from an offshore borrow site, it will likely be more practical in this location to identify an 3/29/02 America Online : FHfreed Page 2 i ( f upland source from which the material can be trucked to the beach. Discussions with local consultants suggest that beach nourishment is an accepted method of shore protection in New York; however, the concept and scope of the project should first be discussed with local and state permitting officials before a final design is developed. • Rehabilitation of harbor entrance - The primary goals of a solution at the harbor entrance must be to maximize natural sediment bypassing around the harbor, minimize maintenance dredging, increase estuarine health, provide regional shoreline stability, and maintain a navigable channel for continued use of the harbor. A wide array of structures currently exists at the site that result in a complex interaction between the harbor, waves, currents, and the adjacent shorelines. Because of this, any change to the area must be well designed to minimize adverse impacts. At the same time, the WHG is cognizant of potential costs associated with restructuring the harbor entrance, and understands that the solution should be one that meets the goals of the project and minimizes costs. Several potential alternatives exist for rehabilitating the harbor entrance. Changes along the eastern (updrift) jetty would likely include sand tightening of the inner structure and potentially removing some portion of the outer end of the jetty. Modifications to the jetty could be coupled with reconstruction of the existing bu.lkhead along the eastern shoreline inside the harbor, but the bulkhead repair would not be required in order to upgrade the eastern jetty. A widening of the harbor throat could also be completed as part of the jetty rehabilitation, and may have the benefit of improving water quality within the harbor, as well as navigability. Additional benefits from upgrading the eastern jetty include a reduction in the shoaling rate within the harbor entrance, as well as reduced rates of shoreline erosion along the updrift beach. A determination of the length of the jetty with respect to the offshore shoals would be critical in facilitating natural bypassing of sediment to the western beaches. A solution for rehabilitation of structures at the western side of the harbor is less clear cut; however, it would likely involve reconstruction of the existing jetty parallel to the eastern jetty, and potentially fitted with a southwesterly spur to provide storm protection immediately downdrift of the jetty. The exact length of the western jetty would need to be 3/29/02 America Online : FHfreed Page 3 determined and would play a key role in facilitating natural bypassing of sediment around the harbor entrance, as well as providing long-term protection from flanking and overwash. Much of the existing dilapidated bulkhead could remain in place, to help minimize construction costs, and to maintain existing habitat areas for shallow water benthic communities. As along the eastern side of the harbor, the jetty rehabilitation on the western side could be coupled with a widening of the harbor throat to improve water i quality. i I An aerial photograph showing the conceptual beach nourishment and harbor entrance rehabilitation plan is shown in Figure 1 . This illustration is provided for clarification purposes only, and it must be remembered that changes to the plan will likely develop through the analysis and design phase of the project. i A final design for restructuring of the harbor entrance can only be developed after detailed analyses of waves, tides, currents and sediment transport. Discussions with local, state and federal permitting authorities must also be conducted prior to the analysis and design phase to ensure their approval of i the approach. The final design would include specifications for jetty length, orientation, and height, and would also address construction methodology so as to minimize construction costs. • Harbor and beach management plan - The harbor and beach management represents the long-term approach to maintaining a healthy beach and harbor coastal system. This management plan would likely include recommendations on thresholds that would trigger harbor dredging, where the spoils should be placed, time of year restrictions for dredging and beach nourishment, thresholds for renourishment of the beaches, sediment compatibility guidelines, as well as some monitoring of the project area. Many of these issues have been addressed through the existing permits that allow dredging in the harbor throat with disposal on the downdrift beach. This long-term component of the beach and harbor management plan would essentially provide a plan for continued maintenance of the area, and would be geared towards long-term shoreline health and stability. The WHG proposes a multi-phased approach to development of the Beixedon j Estates beach and harbor management plan. This approach provides the 3/29/02 America Online : FHfreed Page 4 e , flexibility to generate a consensus within the Association for a preferred alternative, to solicit input from the state, local, and federal regulatory authorities for the conceptual plan, to conduct the necessary analyses to prepare a final design, and ultimately to construct the project. By approaching the project in a phased manner, the Beixedon Estates Association will be involved in a decision-making step as to whether or not to f proceed at the end of each phase. The various phases of the project are described below. Phase I - This portion of the project essentially includes the site visit that was conducted on March 22, 2002, as well as preparation of this letter describing the conceptual plan. In addition, it includes presentation of the conceptual plan to local and state permitting authorities. The purpose of presenting the project to these officials is to have them comment on the scope of the project and to identify key environmental issues that must be addressed during the analysis and design phase. Although it would be IiI possible for the Association members to conduct this meeting(s) with the permitting officials without professional representation, it is not advisable. The presence of a WHG representative at this meeting(s) would be critical in terms of presenting the purpose for the project, the potential impacts of the alternative(s), and identifying regulatory concerns that must be addressed. The best approach would be to have WHG representation on site during the upcoming meeting with the NYDEC, and to also invite local officials from the Town of Southold. It has been our experience that involving all relevant permitting authorities at the beginning stages of a project results i in a cost-effective, timely, and less arduous permitting process. Estimated costs for WHG representation at an upcoming meeting would be $1 ,500; the same as those incurred for the original site visit. Phase II - The scope of this portion of the project, would be in part be developed, based on input from the regulatory officials. Although it is not possible to define exactly what will be required to satisfy environmental concerns, it is likely that some sort of nearshore survey of the benthic community would be required. In addition, analyses of the offshore wave climate, storm surge, and sediment transport patterns would be required. An on-the-ground survey of existing conditions would also be necessary during the design phase, and could serve as the base drawings for the permit plans. A local company would likely perform this survey work and plan t i 3/29/02 America Online : FHfreed Page 5 l , I I preparation. Due to the uncertain nature of the scope of Phase Il, it is not possible to provide a cost estimate at this time. Phase III - The third phase of the project would involve local, state, and federal permitting. The WHG recommends that the association retain the services of a local firm that is experienced in this area to perform the permitting. We have worked successfully in the past with Inter-Science, and ' feel that they are well respected in Suffolk County by the regulatory officials. Having said this, we would be willing to work with any consulting firm selected by the association that is experienced in permitting for coastal I projects. Phase IV - The final phase of the project involves selection of a marine contractor and construction of the project. The WHG has worked successfully alongside a number of homeowners associations to select a E suitable contractor and to oversee implementation of similar coastal construction projects. While the involvement of WHG personnel is not required.for this phase of the project, it is advisable to have a professional familiar with the plans and coastal construction procedures involved during this stage of the project. WHG is excited at the potential opportunity of working with the Beixedon Estates Association on this project. At this time we recommend proceeding with the rest of Phase I to flush out the conceptual design through interaction with the permitting officials. The remaining work for Phase I has been assembled under the guidelines for a Time & Materials "Not-To-Exceed" contract. Based on the preceding scope of work the total charge for our services will not exceed $1 ,500 without written authorization from you. Our services will be invoiced based on the actual amount of time it takes to complete all contracted tasks. Materials and other direct costs will be invoiced at cost plus our, standard mark up. Invoices for services rendered will be submitted monthly. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing, payment is due within thirty (30) days following the date of our invoice. WHG is prepared to begin work on this project upon receipt of a notice to proceed. The signature of a responsible officer below will serve as authorization for the WHG to proceed. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions. 3/29/02 America Online : FHfreed Page 6 j Sincerely, Leslie Fields Coastal Geologist Representative of the Woods Hole Group, Inc. Client Name Date Name Date 3/29/02 America Online : FHfreed Page 7 _ NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DEC PERMIT NUMBER EFFECTIVE DATE 1-4738-00817/00008 Am November 10, 2003 `FACILITY/PROGRAM NUMBER(S) PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE(S) Under the Environmental November 30,2008 Conservation Law TYPE OF PERMIT■New ❑ Renewal ❑Modification❑ Permit to Construct ❑ Permit to Operate ■ Article 15,Title 5: Protection of Waters ❑ Article 17,Titles 7, 8: SPDES ❑ Article 27,Title 9; 6NYCRR 373: Hazardous Waste Management ❑ Article 15,Title 15:Water Supply ❑ Article 19:Air Pollution Control ❑ Article 34: Coastal Erosion ❑ Article 15,Title 15:Water Transport ❑ Article 23,Title 27: Mined Land Management Reclamation ❑ Article 15,Title 15: Long Island Wells ❑ Article 36: Floodplain Management ❑ Article 24: Freshwater Wetlands ❑ Article 15,Title 27: Wild,Scenic and ❑ Articles 1, 3, 17, 19, 27,37;6NYCRR Recreational Rivers ■ Article 25:Tidal Wetlands 380: Radiation Control ■ 6NYCRR 608:Water Quality Certifica- ❑ Article 27,Title 7; 6NYCRR 360: tion Solid Waste Management PERMIT ISSUED TO n TELEPHONE NUMBER John Nickles C/O Beixedon Estate Property Owners Association (631) 765-3416 ADDRESS OF PERMITTEE P.O. Box 877, Southold, NY 11971 CONTACT PERSON FOR PERMITTED WORK TELEPHONE NUMBER Suffolk Environmental Consulting, P.O. Box 2003, Brid ehampton, NY 11932 (631) 537-5160 NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROJECT/FACILITY Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold SCTM #1000-66-3-14 &15 COUNTY TOWN WATERCOURSE NYTM COORDINATES Suffolk Southold Pett 's Pond DESCRIPTION OF AUTHORIZED ACTIVITY: Remove 1,154 feet of existing bulkheading and replace 775 feet of bulkheading in place. The 215 foot and 17 foot sections of the northern bulkhead and the 31 foot, 54 foot and 59 foot sections of the southern bulkhead shall be removed and not replaced. All work must be done in accordance with the attached plans stamped NYSDEC approved. By acceptance of this permit, the permittee agrees that the permit is contingent upon strict compliance with the ECL, all .applicable regulations, the General Conditions specified (see page 2 &3) and any Special Conditions included as part of this permit. PERMIT ADMINISTRATOR: ADD SS John A. V&I (LJS) Region Headquarter Bldg. #40, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356 AUTHO I I NATURE DATE Page 1 of 4 -"U L_-2- li - November 10, 2003 NICKLES PROPOSED BULKHEAD a.. REPLACEMENT (Proposed Conditions) > 4, I 'IN" SECTIONS (I - V) "N" SECTIONS (VI - VIII) • REiUR �v�ddar� ��a�a� ©�� 3 - - AHW "" .1o, L1 p Q�� 3 ALW--- 147' PROPOED 4' . III TIlyBER BULLREP CEME�T , STING RAMP 190' AD OV 173' A ' _TIMBER PROPOSED REPLACEMENT lEX1STNGj K EXISTING RAMP TIMBER BULKHEAb N) 3/0` 19, Q 6.4 IS SPECIFICATIONS(proposed conditions): ,AHW �J - �yB� �0 "T r, - Northern Timber Bulkhead: 616.0 t 1•tnear feet total top �a �� ___.._ rmn,nReturn(G—HighBpht):,epland-in-place"andndafed(10.0.li.— >. �;L -- WcterhBdkhndRuv(Yellow HipJilight):replaecl"in-kind!-place"(254.0 x linear feu). �J`-' F_:.:_ :�._.� 5 31� Knock-0af(Pink Highlight):replaced`in-kinNin-plam"aza Ponce date(420x linear feet). ~\ ,. _ E-t,dy Bulkhead Ruv(Blue Highlight):r,duad to single grain(010.0 x linear feet} �� .. �`)' +1 '" 1 444--- OFV Po Southern Timber Bulkhead: 159.0 i linear feet total % Knock-0Ow((Pink Highlight):replaced'in-kind/in-place"w a fu=c date(81.0 x linau feu} ill I C K L E S P r o p o s a l Ea,terh BvlkYnd Ruv(fllue Highlight):replaeed'in-kindin-place(78.Oxlinear hu). � (c/o Beixedon Property Owners Association) ya Situate: Arshamo.maque Avenue'& Petty's Pond; Southold, NY rR(nvnnl.sr►:cuacnru>+�: v- 4, SCTM #: 1000-066-03-014 & 015 Py E: APPROVED aY: RIfLFIIFiIII('f1Af!'(1Nt'N'fl': SCALE! DRAWN HY MDI DATE fleC. 18, ZOO REVISEDV pN£z3 7D0 11SI SECTIONS Prepared by: Suffolk Environmental Consulting., nc. Sept.Se 9, 2 3 PO Box 2003; Brick eham tan NY 11932 (631) 537 - 5160 p a DRAWING NUMaER Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village, Main Street,P.O.Box 2003, Bridgehampton,New York 11932-2003 (631) 537-5160 Fax: (631) 537-5198 Bruce Anderson, M.S., President March 24,2004 HAND DELIVERED Southold Town Trustees Town Hall P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Re: Application of Nickles/Beixedon Property Owners Association Dear President Krupski and Trustees: As you know,this Firm represents the applicant in the above referenced application. Please consider this letter in further support of the application. My specific purpose in drafting this letter is to clarify for the record,that part of the application(the eastern jetty)that has been the subject of some controversy.I note as follows: (1) The eastern jetty consists of a box-type jetty. The western face of the box jetty measures 308.0 feet extending from the mouth of the inlet to the southeastern terminus of the box jetty. Applicant proposes to replace this portion of the jetty in-kind and in-place.Attached herewith at Exhibit A is"Topographical Map near "Petty's Pond"prepared by Robert H.Fox,L.S.('Beixedon Map') The 308.0 foot dimension for the western face of the eastern jetty is plotted on the "Beixedon Map." (2) The eastern face of the box jetty measures 201.0 feet from apparent high water mark to the southern terminus of the box jetty(See`Beixedon Map"). The eastern face of the box jetty will be removed. (3) The width of the box jetty is 16.0 feet(See`Beixedon Map"). The 16.0 foot section of bulkhead connecting the eastern and western face of the box jetty(at it's southern terminus)will be removed. (4) All of the box jetty as well as the north-western portion of the western jetty is functional. The jetty system is functional as evidenced by water depths measured between the jetties and outside the jetties. That is,water depths between the eastern and western jetties are deeper than water depths east of the eastern jetty and water depths west of the western jetty. Therefore,the jetty system continues to function in serving its primary purpose(i.e.maintain deeper depths between the jetties where a navigable channel exists.) (5) The southern reach of the western jetty measures 113.0 feet. The applicant does not propose to replace this portion of the western jetty. (6) The western face of the eastern jetty(which measures 308.0 feet from the mouth of "Petty's Pond"to its southern terminus)consists of 238.0 linear feet that is fully intact. The remaining 70.0 feet has undergone significant deterioration during the pendency of the overall approval process but still functions in protecting water depths associated with the navigational channel.This means that 77.0%of the eastern jetty is fully intact and fully functional. Therefore, pursuant to the previous wetland code and the current wetland code,all of the eastern jetty may be replaced in-kind and in-place as of right. Attached herewith at Exhibit B, is a panoramic photo of the entire western face of the eastern jetty. That photo shows the 238.0 linear feet that is fully in-tact and the remaining 70.0 feet that has undergone deterioration. (7) The application proposes to remove,the eastern face of the eastern jetty and the connecting bulkhead at the southern terminus at the eastern jetty. Thus,a total of 217.0 linear feet of wall forming the box jetty that exists today will be removed. It is our position that the application should be approved as applied for because the jetty system is functional and may be replaced in kind and in place as of right. Since y, . k�� Bruce A.Anderson Attach. cc: J.Nickles TOPO&RAFRIG MAI- Proposed: Bulkhead Repair Loation Diagram 1 AR lvl T= �S i�OND° SCALE I"= 40' Situate: Southold n.t.s. pd N Town: Southold � SITUATE: � � Suffolk-Gounty, NY I TOM: 50UT OL.D E Purpose: Erosion Gontrol SU�OLK COUNTY Datum: A.L.N. a Tide Range: 2.5' +/- SURVEYED _ _-_•M. egg 101-25-01 Oq-15-0 1 Z Oq-02-02 106 �o : wed/ir�9 v 4 s c6 7 s � L SC ,o Ma'"R d,Rio v ' n 6 :i : 0-74 -Gr 00. 10' °c P`� ✓% ,yy:: �� 8 ac 6 oho '03 Mars q' k'js 0 \ �i6� 4a i9)j 0 Q ti N17 9 \/ EXHIBIT A f'f �A/Oco-/ �O 1 7 <> �6 -0� '>� a 3 `�� 4r�o -2. os -� G r'iC r .a GSS , -0� Q)7 -0.4 0.4 -05 -0b-0b -0.4 -3.4 -1.4 -ID •4D__ -4.1 -2b -3.6 -3.4 -2.2 b .4 ZipZip_ -4.2 -4 d.0 ' •0.4 •G/W/J7 v '_'• 9 -1.4 -0.4 1 ghah o �3 3 -1.4 �z7 f I� -33 5.0 ^1 -O.6 -�^ B.Zr' I i -2.5 l - -53 O `J -5.1 -IS -13-ID 4� (a -\N a.4 i.6- .2^5.-1> •` e. -Z.B t. -0b (D ��\,\•\� 1 2� "`- "2.e 2.4 1s 6 53 -53 -5. sj 22 hbel 3b 4.6 Q� P�a� ^�• Ib 5 6 D -2.5 -2 eqG �1 IS -4.7 -5.6 `,bf SU L hs Q a.7 ' C� ' c•�;^ - `� S('• (/�0 nG•' 9 sg 00 GJV�(�l`,O�d 0.6 0.7 "3.2 -5.4 3b� -4$ -2.7 5.2 5.9 Ob _ _ .____I-I_ -4.4 -Sb -5.4 -29 OS i �9 ., 9.6� ob -2.7 rj 4F Glv'im -4.4 -5.5 -4.1 Amended: /0.6 -0g 4.8 i sD -5.8 �6 04-18-01 J timber bulkhead 3D i =r OG-02-02 cif i y - _ :. `�•!., -0.7 -2.5 -5.4-3.6 -a5 11-01-02 THIS DIAGRAM WAS DEVELOPED os -29 -sD FROM FIELD SURVEYS OF: ,�:a� 2 -61 OI 28-01, OCI-15-0I B Ocl 02 02 t; >� -0s _1.4 a '00 6.1 1+ " PREPARED BY: .. 1, F\ooa SEA LEVEL! MAPPING r bb z �, ?" •�•� 6 EAST MAIN 5TREET ROBERT H. FOX, NYS LIc# 501q-f RIVERHEAD,NY IIcIOI PHONE b31-727-3757 FAX 63I-369-5287 REF-\\Hp c1ammer\d\51m\petty96.pro Sheet I OF ,I Wfo •! f *' y �'� �, - _-� .tip %�v r�N�� 1 a Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village, Main Street, P.O. Box 2003, Bridgehampton, New York 11932-2003 (631) 537-5160 Fax: (631) 537-5198 Bruce Anderson, M.S., President March 24, 2004 HAND DELIVERED Southold Town Trustees Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Re: Application of Nickles/Beixedon Property Owners Association Dear President Krupski and Trustees: As you know,this Firm represents the applicant in the above referenced application. Please consider this letter in further support of the application. My specific purpose in drafting this letter is to clarify for the record,that part of the application(the eastern jetty)that has been the sbbject of some controversy.I note as follows: (1) The eastern jetty consists of a box-type jetty. The western face of the box jetty measures 308.0 feet extending from the mouth of the inlet to the southeastern terminus of the box jetty. Applicant proposes to replace this portion of the jetty in-kind and in-place.Attached herewith at Exhibit A is"Topographical Map near "Petty's Pond"prepared by Robert H.Fox,L.S. (`Beixedon Map') The 308.0 foot dimension for the western face of the eastern jetty is plotted on the "Beixedon Map." (2) The eastern face of the box jetty measures 20 1.0 feet from apparent high water mark to the southern terminus of the box jetty(See`Beixedon Map"). The eastern face of the box jetty will be removed. (3) The width of the box jetty is 16.0 feet(See`Beixedon Map"). The 16.0 foot section of bulkhead connecting the eastern and western face of the box jetty(at it's southern terminus)will be removed. (4) All of the box jetty as well as the north-western portion of the western jetty is functional. The jetty system is functional as evidenced by water depths measured between the jetties and outside the jetties. That is,water depths between the eastern and western jetties are deeper than water depths east of the eastern jetty and water depths west of the western jetty. Therefore,the jetty system continues to function in serving its primary purpose(i.e.maintain deeper depths between the jetties where a navigable channel exists.) (5) The southern reach of the western jetty measures 113.0 feet. The applicant does not propose to replace this portion of the western jetty. i (6) The western face of the eastern jetty(which measures 308.0 feet from the mouth of "Petty's Pond"to its southern terminus)consists of 238.0 linear feet that is fully intact. The remaining 70.0 feet has undergone significant deterioration during the pendency of the overall approval process but still functions in protecting water depths associated with the navigational channel. This means that 77.0%of the eastern jetty is fully intact and fully functional. Therefore, pursuant to the previous wetland code and the current wetland code,all of the eastern jetty may be replaced in-kind and in-place as of right. Attached herewith at Exhibit B, is a panoramic photo of the entire western face of the eastern jetty. That photo shows the 238.0 linear feet that is fully in-tact and the remaining 70.0 feet that has undergone deterioration. (7) The application proposes to remove,the eastern face of the eastern jetty and the connecting bulkhead at the southern terminus at the eastern jetty. Thus,a total of 217.0 linear feet of wall forming the box jetty that exists today will be removed. It is our position that the application should be approved as applied for because the jetty system is functional and may be replaced in kind and in place as of right. Since y, Bruce A.Anderson Attach. cc: J.Nickles EXHIBIT B 1� DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NEW YORK DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS JACOB K.JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING 1 NEW YORK,N.Y.10278-0090 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: CENAN-OP-RH IMPORTANT This letter must be completed and mailed to the Harbor Supervision & Compliance Section at the above address following completion or cancellation of work authorized under the permit. Permittee: John J. Nickles Permit No. 2001-00715 Date Permit Issued: May 16, 2002 Expiration Date: May 16, 2012 Waterway: Petty's Pond, Southold Bay City & State: Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York Check and complete applicable item(s) listed below: Work was completed on Work will not be performed on the project. Deviation from work authorized in permit is explained below. other (explain) For dredging projects, list the volume of material dredged, and the amount placed at each disposal location (if more than one) . cubic yards placed at cubic yards placed at cubic yards placed at Signature of Permittee Date Fold this form into thirds, with the bottom third facing outward. Tape it together and mail to the address below or FAX to (212) 264-4260. Place Stamp Here Department of the Army New York District Corps of Engineers Jacob K. Javits Federal Building ATTN: CENAN-OP-RH New York, New York 10278-0090 PERNITTEE: Johh J. Nickles and Beixedon Dredging Association "-PERIAIT NO. : 2001-00715 time the circumstances warrant. Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to, the following: 1 a. You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. b. The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incomplete, or inaccurate (See 4 above) . C. Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public interest decision. Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33 CFR 326.4 and 326.5. The referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to comply with the terms and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to pay for any corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations (such as those specified in 33 CFR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the cost. 6. Extensions: General Condition 1 establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity authorized by this permit. Unless there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized activity or a reevaluation of the public interest decision, the Corps will normally give k favorable consideration to a request for an extension of this time limit. Your signature below, as permittee, indicates that you accept and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. (PERMITT ) (DATE John J. Nickles This permit becomes effective when the Federal official, designated to act for the Secretary of the _. Army, has signed below. x May 16, 2002 (DISTRICT ENGINEER) (DATE) .t.fti F 'Eo� and in 11e13061t Qt _ John B. O'Dowd Colonel, U.S. Army District Engineer When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below. A copy of the permit signed by the transferee should be sent to this office. (TRANSFEREE) (DATE) ENG FORM 1721, Nov 86 EDITION OF SEP 82 IS OBSOLETE. (33 CFR 325 (Appendix A)) 3 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT Permittee: John J. Nickles and Beixedon Dredging Association, P.O. Box 877, Southold, NY 11971 (631) 765-3416 Permit No. : 2001-00715 issuing Office: New York District Corps of Engineers NOTE: The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any future transferee. The term "this office" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the permitted activity or the appropriate official of that office acting under the authority of the commanding officer. You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below. Project Description: Dredge, with ten years maintenance, approximately 300 cubic yards of material from an irregularly shaped area with approximate dimensions of 35 feet by 150 feet in the inlet to Petty's Pond to a maximum depth of 5 feet below the plane of mean low water. Side slopes of the proposed dredge area shall have slopes of 1:3. Dredged material shall be placed above mean high water line as beach nourishment on a beach to the west of inlet and at a state-approved upland site. Dredged material shall be suitably retained so as to prevent reentry into any waterway. Return flow will be authorized to reenter the waterway through a silt fence and hay bales. Plant Cape American Beach Grass, 18 inches on center, in the disposal area. All work. shall be performed in accordance with the attached drawings, Special Condition (A) , and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Permit No. 1-4738-00817/00005 containing the Section 401 Water Quality Certification, which are hereby made part of this permit. Project Location: IN: Petty's Pond, Southold Bay AT: Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York t Permit Conditions: General Conditions: 1. Maintenance dredging and disposal activities are authorized until May 16, 2012 If you find that you need more time to complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a new . permit at least three to six months before the above date is reached. 2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with j the terms and conditions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity, although you may make a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modification of this permit from this office, which may require restoration of the area. r 3. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by this permit, you must immediately notify this office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and state coordination required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 4. If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization. 1145b (Southold Bay - John J. Nickles and Beixedon Dredging Association - Maintenance Dredge with Beach Nourishment and/or Upland Disposal) ENG FORM 1721, Nov 86 EDITION OF SEP 82 IS OBSOLETE. (33 CFR 325 (Appendix A)) .. 1 I pERMITTEE: John J. Nickles and Beixedon Dredging Association �:SP$RM T NO. : 2001-0073.5 5. If a .conditioned water quality certification has been issued for your project, you must comply with the conditions specified in the certification as special conditions to this permit. For your convenience, a copy of the certification is attached if it contains such conditions. 6. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure that it is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of your permit. Special Conditions: (A) The permittee understands and agrees that, if .future operations by the United States require the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the permittee will be required, upon due notice from the Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States. No claim shall be made against the United States on account of any such removal or alteration. Further Information: 1. Congressional Authorities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above pursuant to: (x) Section.10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S. Code 403) . (x) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S. Code 1344) . ( ) Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413) . 2. Limits of this authorization: a. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by law. b. This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. C. This permit does not authorize any injury to the property-or rights of others. d. This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project. 3. Limits of Federal Liability: In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for the following: a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpermitted activities or from natural causes. b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on behalf of the United States in the public interest. C. Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by the activity authorized by this permit. d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work. e. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit. 4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is not contrary to the public interest was made in reliance on the information you provided. 5. Reevaluation of Permit Decision: This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at any ENG FORM 1721, Nov 86 EDITION OF SEP 82 IS OBSOLETE. (33 CPR 325 (Appendix A)) 2 Y � s JOHN 1. Nious P.O. BOX 56 Somom NY 11971 March 15, 2004 ® E C v Albert Krupski MAR 18 2004 Southold Town Trustees Main Road Board of Trustees Southold,NY 11971 soutno►d Town Dear Mr. Krupski and Trustees, Regarding the application to replace in kind/in place bulkhead and jetty at Beixedon, I am compelled to write this letter because in this application time is now of the essence. As you know, when we first started this application process some 14 months ago, the jetty was in much better condition. It was certainly in better condition when the DEC issued our permit late last year. Unfortunately, since then, a harsh winter has done additional damage to the end of our bulkhead/jetty. It is obvious that the objectants strategy is to blur the central question to stall the Trustees from making a decision long enough so that the jetty eventually is considered to be non- functional by your board. The central question... is it a functional jetty and do we have a right to rebuild it? We believe it is and that we do. Obviously, because we have a permit, the DEC also believes it is functional and we have a right to rebuild it. So, the question is; how does the Board of Trustees view our bulkhead/jetty? Is the act of re- building a grandfathered jetty subject to scientific opinion or does Chapter 97 allow such reconstruction in Southold Town without the need for a drawn out review process? Our property and our rights are in jeopardy with the passage of time and we are relying upon your laws to protect them. The outer portion of the jetty is beginning to deteriorate more rapidly now and it is quite obvious that unless the board makes a swift decision to approve our application in March, our property will be in jeopardy. This would cause us a hardship that we may not recover from. On Wednesday, February 25 h, we measured the length of the functioning bulkhead/jetty where it begins on the East Side from the bridge abutment at the canal entrance to as far as I could walk along the intact bulkhead/jetty. You can do the same and confirm for yourself that the distance of the intact, traversible bulkhead/jetty is approximately 238 feet of the total 308 feet length noted on the survey. Even if you were to deem that all other structures beyond the 238 foot mark were completely non- functional (which would be a dubious proposition), 238 feet is still 77.27% of the bulkhead/jetty that is solidly intact. By that minimum standard, our jetty currently meets your 75% definition in the new Chapter 97 and certainly exceeds the minimum standards set by the old Chapter 97 governing our application. „ s r In conclusion, we request that the Trustees recognize that our application reduces the total amount of bulkheads/jetties along the shoreline by 359 linear feet, almost half of the 745 linear feet that exists seaward of the canal entrance. Approval of this application meets the goal of reducing these structures as outlined in the new Chapter 97 and clearly 75% of what we propose to rebuild is physically intact and functioning. We appreciate your careful consideration of our application and we hope that you will look favorably upon it at the next monthly meeting. Time is of the essence. R spectfully, J J.Ni es This point measures 238 feet of completely intact/functional jetty frorn canal entrance. IL I ��-- --� Two be replaced. To be removed. r + w • � yA 1 d r r orthwest f the int it r TELIEPHONE (516)765-1892 BOARD OF OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold,New York 11971 March 27, 1987 .E C E E U D . Mr. Thomas Ball RR #1, Woodchuck Path JAN Z LUtI� Wading River., New York 11792 Re: House Construction Southold Town Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold Board of Trustees Dear Mr. Ball: . Pursuant to your letter of March 173 1987 requesting an inspection ' of. the aforementioned property for a determination.on the need of a Wetland the Trustees inspected the Permit, please be advised that property on March 19, 1987 and it has been determined that the Trustees have no jurisdiction on the house proposed, but .that a 50 ft. buffer' zone is to, be maintained on the property. Please submit a copy of your landscaping plan for a determination on the need of a wetland permit for this activity. Should you have any questions or need additional information, ! please do not hesitate to call this office. Very truly yours., Henry P. Smith, President Board of Town Trustees HPS:ip D.E.C. Stony Brook , cc: Robert A. Greene, Commissioner Henry G. Williams, D.E.C. , Albany i '. Stephen Mars, Army Corps of Engineers 7 Thomas .Hart, Coastal Management Conservation Advisory Council Bldg. Dept. Board o Appeals. File Trustees s. . TRUST''ES...._. .; BOARD OF TOWN _ TOWN OF,'.SOUTHOL,D . OiT>.�iVVIRQli�1EA�i AL ASSESS hJiEIT FORM . Project Information(To be completed by ant iby oject sponsor) . Project Name tS, Inc. 1..APPlicanosponsor , Thmats En-Consultan Harriet Freedman,; Bruno''Ilbassi County Suffolk 3. Project'location: g AVPTlue Southold Municipality ArShan 4. Is proposed action: Expansion Modificationfalteration Backflll W1 New above line of MEW. retaining wall entirely from': 5•_pescribe Prolet'briefly of er. fr�n Construct' 300+ l..f. W1twc' Cked in land source. Wall wi71 extend.from':. Of clean sand to,-be and � in 10''. return on east, side. 270+ c•Y• n o corner existinga bul}dzead return_7 � . inent landmarks,etc.or provide map) 6. Precise location(road intersections.Prom ' Arshaque Avenue, Southold 7. Amount of land affected: a r s Ultimately 100 000 s.f-1.41 1 _ Initially 300,000 S.f rl� and use restrictions? with existing zoning or other existing l a• Will proposed ac Yes LO—tirin NomplYlf No,describe briefly ® resent land use in vicinity of project? ❑ Agriculture ❑ Parklandlop en space ❑ Other ❑ 9. What is p ❑ ,Commercial Industrial dtrial - Describe: local)? raval,or funding,now or ultimately,from any other governmeral;_state'or ntal agency(Fede 10. Does action involve a- ❑permoUaPP i list'agency(sT and permitlapprovals if-yes ,--•� -Yes - DEC es any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or.approval? 11. DP es ermitlaPProvaLtype ❑ Yes No. if yes,list agency name p l ermitlapproval require modification? 12. As result of proposed action will existing P . El Yes No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE l5 TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY-;I tKOWLEDGE AUqust 24 Fr r Bruno ilibassi, 'Thomas' Ba1 1 b , Date. Harr En-Consultants, Inc. Applicantlsponsor. name: _ Mt; Signature: V. Ha'e, P e ide 0 �. �. TELEPHONE HENRY P. SMITH,President (516)765-1892 JOHN M.BREDEMEYER, Vice-Pres. Ln PHILLIP J::GOUBEAUD �� y ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR. ELLEN M. LARSEN ]BOARD OF TOWN TRUS'FEES' ']GOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold,New York 11971 April 17, J1987 i • Mr. Thomas Ball P.O. Box 1708 Southold, NY 11971 Re: House Construction Arshamoma ue Avenue, Southold Dear Mr. Ball: This is in reference to your 50 foot setback. The 50 foot setback will start from the high tide mark and there will be no disturbance from' 10 ft. back from top of bluff. Area left, may be light landscaped, including have to have a separate.. clearing. Any structures, will permit. Very truly yours, Henry P. Smith, President HPS:JW Board of Town Trustees t �1 s y, th. .: To r - -s. MAIN ROAD:- STATE ROAD :25, SOUTHOLD, L...I.; N.Y. 11971.. ��•l "��0. TELEPFItJNE (516) 765=180 • APPEALS.B0 RDtT MElVIBEFS GERARO.P.GOEHRINGER; CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGWS',JR. SERGE DOYEN,JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS March 27 , "1 987 JOSEPH H. SAWICKI i n Mr.. Stanley. A. Pauzer , District Manager Suffolk County Soil & Water Conservation District 127 East Main Street Riverhead; NY 119'01 Re : Appeal No .' 3620 .- Thomas Ball (Variance) Dear Mr . Pauzer : We presently have -an application pending for the proposed construction of.. ,a single-family .dwelling as depicted on the attached survey , premises located along the west side of Arsha- mamoque Avenue at Beixedon Estates , Subdivision Lot #4 , Southold:, _ and fronting' along Southold .Bay. May we ask. your assessment of this project prior to our scheduling this matter for a publ'i'c hearing (expected mid-April .)? ' Enclosed for your file are copies of the Suffolk County Tax Map, . survey and DE-C waiver. If additional information is needed or if there are . , questions , please don ' t hesitate to call . ' Tha•nk you for your assistance. Yours : very truly , GERARD P . GOEHRING,ER.. . 1k CHAIRMA'N Enclosures cc : Town Trustees rl D-W DETERMINATION ON .THE NEED OF A WETLAND PERMIT. V _ 26. INSPECTIO N FOR THE for a .determination on q Re ue.st made -by Thomas .Ball, Arshamomaque Avenue of a house and to do some the need of a Wetland Permit for the construction landscaping on property. . 4. Y ' U I: A� �r • J �SW � .J ��/� U ,gj'7 ah rp td G / rl i r U)o-d l y\ rive- TELEPHONE HENRY P. SMITH, President (516)765-1892 JOHN M :BREDEMEYER, Vice-PreS. cn' PHILLIP J.GOUBEAUD O Q<- ALBERT KRU.PSKI;JR. jJl ELLEN M. LARSEN BOARD OF TOWN. TRUSTEES . TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hail, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold,New York 11971 Date: August 28, 1987 To Whom It May Concern: Attached hereto is a Short. Form Environmental Assean,eBrunorm submitted by En-Consultants on be application for a Ilibass.i, and...Thomas:Ball: in connection with their Wetland permit to' construct 300+1.f. .of, timberof clean sandtohhentrucked above line .of MHW.. Backfill. with 270+ c.y in from existing bulkheend locatedrat7Arshamomaquen/o cornerand Avvenue,1Southoldturn on east side, on 'property Posted: August 28, 1987 Henry P. Smith, President Board of Town Trustees SEE SEC.NO. 056 N 311,16001.. M_ N 1 \0o•kg� _ ATINE . _ IrfATCHLINE ol FOR PARCEL N0: 50 J SEE SEC.N0.056-05-0,01.3 u. W a\.O� J\111eF5 g: - BJ. ti43 I '" _59� 5 '' °% 2 ,5 �$ G)• 3 .60�.o tq1 5 UAW s C 1 o v 5' IN t\ 27.2A(c) . /�.. b \\91 w,t\ \,�5 pti �' .. •mot' , bi Val - • kpil pe#y s 10.1 A (c) ' N. a J' .g8 a c• z �b1 Pond 4 Z 9• 21 o /( L \�t1 l � 26•;, N�' S. °off Cl� v °i2 " • ' IV. co • ao ;y. \.':� ..e.. !�Jc:a� ':a `ti,°° '\b�ry9E`'.�� s.. ..9J .�O -qs,1' ° •y.P,:. ..1 1 doss, .i\6° �.,« ' r l Y •` - is ;k`V3,1 .°, rya• O `ry e� �;��'• �h /c.,Z0. p2•' � 'b•� \�� •.�,,.'-•: /;rLP � 1a• _ yam• _ ?r^ ro °`s 1 \b,\e ea ?\ry. \` ( o, J ��C �� p I;i �• \�• \9ls , `,♦Q? ..�\�b J O`t' /1 \ .-:. 'li''_ t0...�/1._. ._1' ' \ae' _s. �� OV p\ a6' \ 01_ \b. 90��. 9 a. 'Se° .� `\ J9° ., •._ 'a•h .:,: _a .�o. _, 4,Q 01 \ry ay J A� ,05..•. \ �gOJ BPS\.P� \� QOpah �.°r �,ho Be., ,;rj. ° - apo. /oz\ VB: ♦ BJ. o b (7 '�.in w \ � O SEE SEC. NO. 133 a ,tea. � � e -y . .. . be �h ♦rP.JJ �Oo.. �ti° _�O'°o• `po `/•a•�l/�ti 'o ni7 J ,� v�`' -.- O.\\ i i f/- a ' . � J ,tip Fj a '\ `\ a 4`.ho 1 •�••. .. - �O rya. �P. (n F yr /.• ..._—_'._�_._�..n,_-.-r.- .; ..- .,�... .....r._,_..-._._,.. ..,..-;Tom;....._• .___-..�...�._•_J....-- - ___ C4.9)I.IAVa. r YI�CCx9T�:'^�i�ilC%sFR+R.ins�+xK+.»..n- )ATE HS REF. NO. APPROVED— r ram'_ -� (tF 1 !"•��,: 07 /\ ())WELLIV9 ? —•--W.PO020'40,E- 1.6.3 l DweLUND1 'PUBLIC WATER) , �^� I4-e �/ 17' ' ASPN. PAvT J SUR V�'^ 'G.,/- OF EASEMENT _ D A-, — LOT T No, 4 ,.o, cn (n I MAP OF B.EIXEDON ESTATE j o - BLOCK�.7 QD- D FILED . MAR.' 16 , 1.94.6' FILE N LOT 4 0_ AT ARSHAMOMAQU m 0 TOWN OF SOUTHOI SUFFOLK COUNTY m , T 5 14_0 - 1000 66 - 02 E LLINO I'N iLDI: SCALE 1"= 30� "t o MAR. 3 1987 13.0 I DWELLING) 13.8 13.2 I. tp �G is o C, j. 0 CERTIFIED TO \S m AMERICAN TITLE INSWRANC `a j �e''Q"r "—"DY'LONG ISLAND MORTGAGE C a 0✓I .?�6l€7 --"-•THOMAS BALL BARBARA BALL art . � Iu_o Vs i 0 TEST HC ON f:lf, o ONi w V ' Broloam SL PC 12.0 Dr N o � � Tttk ' fi�, brows N ^ro 7At r• G I TOP OF 6_4 87 Pali BANK 7.1 �2 m bron 4.4 'OF 4-9 BANK COdI. 0) . TO E N 5017C 3�B TIE L I HE ALONG M-0,'W•M Watt .y S. 59-04 510 W. w� 99. 83 41)41 aal«supply tL f°1/°4e dtepnwl tye• brow. l? terns far this roeWd W10 conform to Ihd coats z.CD ' o daadanL of fhs 3a(Q& ccna ry.pep lf: saner O fMfr ofFil�jNY1C0. 'of ;±TOWN HARBOR M i r� u S y NOB¢ MAP LINE AS PER FILE. t� ad410fdaliCf� Wltri tllA t111nI11jffl - uanaaej fgr title ourvaye as established 4 i,S. and apptoved :and adoptA luech um by Thu N," York 5tlate land . Yv'> � ! ' tR.r L( c<�l;�; �.!' r►�4s Aw�tclatfon'.: y, SEA 2 Ir;, ;;FT ter) � I I it3'el'd. Rj { II'yi� i .4�i HIPPODROME DR. SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH'SERVICES FOR APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION ONLY LOT 3 DATE ' � HS REF. NO. I (DWELLINGI D_ APPROVED N.601 20'40"E o'y_'p.Lf-I 4(.83' (DWELLING IMAP (PUBLIC WATER) 14.8 EI A'S WIDE ENENT ASPM PAVT SURVEY OF L 0 T 4 ro N OF BEIXEDON ESTATES II = BLOCK 7 00" D FILED MAR.' 16.11946 FILE NO.1472 ' LOT 4 °: AT ARSHAMOMAQUE > m TOWN OF SOUTHOLD N T.H. LOT 5 to; 140 D SUFFOLK COUNTY , N.Y. r• a — p 1000 - 66 - 02 - 46 (DWELLING)(V W. o' � G SCALE la= 30' p rn MAR. 3 , 1987 n ref el'(• 13.0 I DWELLING 1 I D,e 13 2 PROPOSED C.P S T. G °p; l CERTIFIED TO ' in zo a m AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CO. N o yv.d LONG ISLAND MORTGAGE"CORP. 4r :a e 5 THOMAS BALL BARBARA BALL W PROP .. -- - .... -.. (g' /a'a- HOUSE-, 9_e The wales supply&sewage dlsposal sys- _ 14''r 23' It - lams for Ihls residence will conform to the 3 I O wrdard,Of the Suffolk County Depart- _ o O menl of H-111,Services. TEST HOLE o a0 CiN Srown M u loam M IS.G O 4' .r Y�+t M.5 DLO P! 12.0 ID" Ot OF G2'y/.ch N • I n TOP t,,7-7 1 (yown B_e O -/oam 3.4' aTwr N ,1 rTOP OF 6.4 60.7 Pale — BANK T.1 u v browq 4i4 OF 'G BANK GOOrJG TOE Dy6 TIE LINE ALONG NNWM , 12.4 r Wa/tr S. 590 04'510 W. 99.83' /7 pare b coafs e m rr e m o ¢no" 17.0' o et ei TOWN HARBOR SHORELINE AS PER FILE 'MAP ��0 LAND THE LOtllr ION OF NO OR FROM OLG OSDLS SWINED OnROM REONA RE FROM HELD G�taOy�Q,%A. AREA = .21, 071 SQ. FT. to t1-e line Prepared in accordance witn me minimum y ,� ,4tandards for 1BIe suiveys as established by the'L.I.A.L S.and approved and adopted for such use by The Now York State Land N.Y.-S. LIC. N0.49668 FLOOD ZONE C Title Association. -^—" �— ECONIC SURVEYORS 8 ENGINEERS, P.C. (516) 76 5 - 5020 ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED P.O. BOX 909 ' TO U.S. 6. S. MAIN ROAD Raw-5,& ' 31LIO-7 SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 87 - 22,3 i HIPPODROME DR. 9 LOT 3 DO (DWELLINOI D N.6 0.20 40..E_ op LU 1'41.83 15._B I DWELLING I f PUBLIC WATER) I I — IA'WIDE ASP PAVT. I ABEMEN7 I SURVEY OF E L•O T 4 fn I N W MAP OF BEIXEDON ESTATES 0 D BLOCK 7 00- LOT 4 0 FILED MAR.' 16 ,1946 FILE N0.1472 AT ARSHAMOMAQUE N , T14 0 TOWN OF SOU THOLD LOT 5 I I. I ,.� D SUFFOLK COUNTY N.Y. (DWELLING)(�J (J 1000 66 02 - 46 .SCALE IN -30' MAR. 3 , 1987 N rr m.G f DWELLING I FEB. 5,. 1.988(FINAU 13.8 -I M2 SEPT. 26,1989 1BULKHEADJ i I I .� o. o; CERTIFIED TO AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CO. LONG ISLAND MORTGAGE CORP. - o THOMAS BALL BARBARA BALL ' Z STOR.i 'RAMf. I �� I. I .. ... HOUSE. � ui 8. 99.8 u o' s B GARAGE If.0 _..._. zap — C o� _ f 22. 3I � r _ 0 O 0 TEST ROLE c I0) � 0) < Qrown • loam, D a i� I 10•' i N I od 'Gre yrs6 141 Z I er.r brown . l.,I W 9_9 r"lAy loam " a 1 II nlI aN Or FEN CE IT) _ E Pale wml WOOD DULKNEAD( N COOrJC saacl TIE LIgE ALONG H.W.N. I 12.4' 9 1 99.83, H.W.M.9/28/89 S 59" 04• 51 WI 6 ale rowq M • ,rand 17.0� fD TOWN HARBOR S II ORELINE A] P-'N _FII.EO HqP� , �a LANO& AREA = 21, 071 SQ. FT °N to tie line 4 p j .•�,:91F.HO.4996g A 04� Y.S. LIC. NO.49668 FLOOD ZONE �C N �1ECONIC YORS & ENGINEERS, P.C. /(516) 76.5 - 5020 ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED 2Ew5inN 7-8'87 / P.O. BOX 909 TO U.S. G. S. Found./oc. C-17-87 MAIN ROAD QEV/,J�ON 3/2/D� SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 . P7 - 0 7? r Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village,Main Street, P.O. Box 2003, Bridgehampton,New York 11932-2003 (631) 537-5160 Fax: (631) 537-5198 Bruce Anderson, M.S.,President December 4, 2003 Mr. Albert J. Krupski, President Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 - Re: BEIXEDON ESTATE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION Proposal to remove & replace existing bul Situate: Arshamomaque Avenue and Petty' Southold,NY - SCTM#: 1000-066-03-014 & 015 Dear Mr. Krupski, Southold Town Board of Trustees This Firm represents John J.Nickles, affiliated with the Beixedon Property Owners Association, who is seeking approval to replace the majority of-the existing timber bulkhead along the properties referenced above, with new bulkheading. In order to do so, a Wetland Permit from your Board is required. Accordingly, enclosed herewith please find a completed Wetlands Application. Application contents are as follows: (1) Town of Southold Trustees Wetlands Permit Application; (2) Short Environmental Assessment Form; (3) Copy of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Tidal Wetlands Permit(No. 1-4738-00817/00008), dated November 10, 2003, authorizing for the applicant to "Remove 1, 154 feet of existing bulkheading and replace 775 feet of bulkheading in place. The 215 foot and 17 foot sections of the northern bulkhead and the 31 foot, 54 foot and 59 foot sections of the southern bulkhead shall be removed and not replaced."; Hammarth/ 2 (4) Location Map of the area of subject proposal(two [2] copies); (5) Site Plan of the above referenced proposal indicating the existing conditions, prepared by Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., last dated September 9, 2003 (two [2] copies); (6) Site Plan of the above referenced proposal indicating the proposed conditions, prepared by Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., last dated September 9, 2003 (two [2] copies); (7) Cross-Sectional Diagram for the Northern Portion(Sections I—V) Bulkhead Replacement (Existing Conditions),prepared by Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., dated December 18, 2002 (two [2] copies); (8 ) Cross-Sectional Diagram for the Northern Portion(Sections I—V) Bulkhead Replacement (Proposed Conditions), prepared by Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., dated December 18, 2002 (two [2] copies); (9) Cross-Sectional Diagram for the Northern Portion(Sections VI—VII) Bulkhead Replacement (Existing Conditions), prepared by Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., last dated June 23, 2003 (two [2] copies); (10) Cross-Sectional Diagram for the Northern Portion(Sections VI) Bulkhead Replacement (Proposed Conditions),prepared by Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., last dated June 23, 2003 (two [2] copies); (11) Cross-Sectional Diagram for the Southern Portion Sections of Bulkhead Replacement (Existing Conditions),prepared by Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., last dated September 9, 2003 (two [2] copies); (12) Cross-Sectional Diagram for the Southern Portion Sections of Bulkhead Replacement (Proposed Conditions),prepared by Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., last dated September 9, 2003 (two [2] copies); (13) Topographic Map of subject project area,prepared by SEA LEVEL MAPPING, last amended November 1, 2002 (two [2] copies); and (14) Check made payable to the Town of Southold in order to cover the requisite application fee. Referring to the attached NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands Permit, this proposal is based on the plans as approved by the NYSDEC, as well as the plans pending approvals from both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the New York State Department of State. All approvals will be immediately forwarded to your attention from the latter two agencies upon receipt. Hammarth/ 3 By way of this correspondence, and on behalf of the association referenced above, I request that you commence review of this application and schedule for the earliest available Town of Southold Board of Trustees meeting for subsequent approval. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact this office at any time. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely, Matt D. Ivan enc. cc: J. Nickles T- OP06RAi HIG MAP Proposed: Bulkhead Repair Loation Diagram NEAR 11FETrY5 FONDil SCALE 1"- 40' Situate: Southold N Town: Southold Main SITUATE: 5OUTf OLD Suffolk Gounty, NY TOM: �.�OUTf.�OLD E Purpose: Erosion Gontrol 5U�OL-K GOUNTY NN Datum: A.L.W. Q •-•-Dh�„ E Tide Range: 2.5' SURVEYED 4 S 9 3 0I-28-01 v/h'•• � E ��H�r z 3 v OG-15-01 OG-02-02 `05'? oQ We/A a off 0 k �hE6C rye?;' C \0 S(3,ob N(5f oc p `� i /�b�r 119)1 C 7 0 Q t S <� Jo fi^ I F�oo / J0 h �l Cam' F/.,_ r^ �o os OU) ^Q$$ n i G -Ob-0.6 -o.B -3.6 0.2 -2.6 -2.7 -4.1 -2" -3b -3.4 -2.2 "O. •. 2.0 2.7-33 Q O e •ryJl 1 -32 -2 44 O -0.4 I '<.6 lI -5.0 ' ,.3F 1 '� Qhry 03 .r^ I -33 -i a 23 J1.2 -2.5 . . ~5.7 ✓ -2. -0.4r 2 -5. -2.2 2.e Is -53 -5.7r -ss QD -4.6 6 (J 3 QQ' �• 1.6 15 G O _2.5 -2.2 Is s I -4.1 -5.6 g�PE�s ss D.ei 20 Os 0 2 eye 3.7 2© -5.0 aOi Q' -5A fj (-0.9J 3�7Cpi "J j V AO 3,� j �e 2.e 2-7 eQC/ phWn Gb 0.7 I 3.2 -5.4 4.0 -5.8 -5.9 -2.9 O.6 5.9 45 G.6 0-5 64 "55 Amended: 0"6 -0e B s.o s.a 04-18-0I timber bulkheod -5.0 09-15-OI zs 5.9 0G-02-02 7 9.l 3.6 -4.5 II-OI-02 �s -6D THIS DIAGRAM WAS DEVELOPED P�o��Fi y ,c ®1 O5 _1.6 `_ r 23 SA FROM FIELD SURVEYS OF. O¢ 0 Y' O bl 2 q'/ 0I-28-01, OG-15-01 B OG-02-02 -05 -1.4 `� a PREPARED BY: 1 r Food SEA LEVEL o \N 3 �b MAPPING No.501117 �-k0. � 6 EAST MAIN STREET! sC O �.A��D HEA,Wr IgcI1 ROBERT H. FOX, NYS Lic# 501G- PHONE FAX 636369-828 REF.-\\Hp c1ammer\d\sIm\petty56.pro Sheet I Of I EXISTING CC� N � IT1 � 15 � f 44S* I SECTIONS BE040 14 mtht 113..0' AHIa�.A ;Iffna j7_17 —0 a M_M� - 4.0 7 m rgtsr,.vG GoD1=- SCALE: .1.011 = 10.01 f 1ECT a 84 RM20 M4 89.0' (plus .3.0.' ±. return) 31.0 ± (plus 3.0 return) Exterior Bulkhead ' ' SOUTHERN PORTION Cross-Sectional Diagram for _ =7 AM = BULICIEAD REPLACEMENT _ 117p _ — 6.0' ± c; (Existing Conditions) 4.0' ± en a SECTION SPECIFICATIONS: . yl . •.-.•.•. .•. •. .., L• • , •. ..•. • ..•.•.•..•,f :. .. S-I: Functional to semi-functional(to be removed): 113.0'L .•.•. iEX�/NG G�dDE S-II: Functional(to be replaced): 92.0'L t [exterior bulkhead to be removed]: 34.0'L S-111: n Functional(to be replaced at a later date): 19.0'L SCALE: 1.0 = 10.Q 1 ± S-IV. Functional(to be replaced at a later date): 48.0'L 8C0�0®�I ��0�1 OWN �oa��o��a ��C��00G� 84 Q�WRI nothma�� 48.0' 19.0' +. > - ---s --- ��'�u� .o' ± 1�1 1 C K L. E yr � � son . LopS P r o o s a. 1 6.0' 4.0' — — — — — — •o• •••.:.•. me so. .. (c/o Beixedon Property Owners Association) ••.• ••••.,•••.•• •• y y Situate: Arshamomaque Avenue & Petty's Pend; Southold, NY 5CTM #: 1000-066-03-014 & 015 SCALE: APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY M D I DATE:Dec. 18, 20O REVISED Sep. 9, 20 GaAD� Prepared by: Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. SCALE: 1.011 = 10.01 ± SCALE: 1.011 = 10.01. # PO Box 2003; Bridgehampton, NY 11932 (631) 537 - 5160 DRAWING NUMBER EXISTING CC) N -QI -TI (Z> IVS cif * * 1\I * * SE:C�TIC> NS (I through V) ; SECT Oa N4 wNW L 12.0' Cross-Sectional Diagram for NORTHERN PORTION (I through V) 4.01 ± BULKHEAD REPLACEMENT -•• • X. (Existing Conditions) ••' y SECTION SPECIFICATIONS: %X19nd6 N-I: Semi-functional(to be replaced&shortened): 12.0'L ALA N-II: Semi-functional(to be replaced): 252.0'L [existing dock&ramps to remain] 190.0'L N-III: Functional(to be replaced at a later date): 12.0'L N-IV: Functional(to be replaced at a later date): 19.0'L N-V: Functional(to be replaced at a later date): 13.0'L SCALE: 1.0" = 10.0' ± 1EOTOa -NA OWN Ro ft@0 252.01, ± . . .. RAMP (31 x 139 RAMP (31 x 159 ti_ •� 4.0' • . N •• MU •••• • • • • •••w•• • ••• •• • •••• ••• •• ••w• .••• ••• •• • ••o' •••• •••••• • •:�:. •• • • •• • •• ••••• Cn AL ` . . .. ..TIMBER. DOCK (T x 1901) SCALE: 1.0" = 20.0' r ' ; t s.0.' � - s:o' ± .__ •,� _ _ L. o Pc)saCn --. _ _: �; (c/o Beixedon Property Owners Association d•• ••• •• •.•.• ••• • ••• VJ tll •• ...-•;•• ••.••••••••••••••q•u • • •- y G1 1 H " .. ••• •••••• •••••••_• -.. y Situate: Arshamomaque Avenue & Petty's Pond; Southold, NY 445-r. 1 £ivlT. Ci'A SCTM #: 1000-066-03-014 & 015 SCALE: APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY MDI „ DATE:Dec. 18, 200 REVISED Prepared by: Suffolk Environmental Consulting•, Inc. SCALE: 1.0" = 10.0' ± SCALE: 110" 10.0' ± SCALE: 1.0" =. 10.0' ± PO Box 2003; Briddehampton, NY 11932 (631) 537 - 5160 DRAWING NUMBER F F' RO � �SE � CONL 1 �" 10 � CrF " Pq ,, LION NO RUN K OWN EoPt�ot) 310.0' ± 4.0' > � 15TI4G H 4 .. SCALE: 1.0" - 30.0' ± ' Cross-Sectional Diagram for PROPOSED GROIN NORTHERN PORTION (VI through VIII)_ CROSS-SECTIONAL DIAGRAM • BULKHEAD REPLACEMENT (Proposed Conditions) (�PC2'rxrzu) - SECTION SPECIFICATIONS: Fiberglass Sheathing: 310.0'L O Additional Specifications: Cap: 2.0"wide x 12.0"lon P P g Wale: 6.0"wide x 6.0"wide Piling: 8.0"round x 20.0'long J1N f7/�G� a ng: 0 0'round 0'lengths long Sheathing: • 1 o fT1111G . r 4 14C, F< IL E S F3 r (c/o Beixedon Property Owners Ass6c'iation) Situate:: Arshamomaque Avenue & Petty's Pond; Southold, NY P SCTM #: 1000-066-03-014 & 015 SCALE: APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY MDI DATE' c3C. 1$, •200 REVISEIT Prepared by: Suffolk Environmental Consulting-, Inc. PO Box 2003; Briddehamptan, NY 11932 (631) 537 - 5160 DRAWING NUMBER :j. s — AB® FOR PQ-NO. SEE SEC.N0. 4.'s0 61 13`a 055-05-00 r 8.IA(cl a 61 is 15 .56 a 2 P 8 27.2A(C) 5� .a ^O } .4 O 8 ►�1d 66 ��iri � S�� A � O �• �p 4.OA(e) 6A an ya 5 A g Q. R o � 09 Paiys � •5B ®• 6 '�• o° a ti 0 63 mPOW 2.1 2.2 .. 1.BA(c) LBA(e) @\b.-,\ p"�``M.yti ,•�h..� ti's'�S r 'R. ,� as P1 ��6�O e° '�\ @, > K• " = a°ti Si c Q a@5 ti" b �ti a °�s ap m.• <' _ . -54 ♦@ ! � A+ 36 � p0 a : ' 14 9� e o h� fL S' � ry T y •. ' i ` F N 303.000 N 30 000 L y Q Ru Vy yydewm Lot lye as mz urr wmumYt uW —-SCH— W., M t fct u. —-H—- UNLESS DRAWN OTIEmsEr ALL WropERTOis K 0� TOM OF SECTION NO E Dr.t..rc.no.r s.A�.mWIms.Wd°R. (21) Er.mectu. --F-- R.Arminctu. --R-- ARE tITHN THE FOLLOWING DISTRICTS. NOTICE ss� COUNTY OF SUFFOLK © SOUTHOLD —'�'— mt x° (� SCHOOL S SEWER VTO MMTD NCE,ALTERATION,SALE OR 4 o ,J 063 O a �M"rm LA. --W-- R.e dmff rk.I.. —HST—- FRS 2A HYORANT . Rea Property Tax Service Agency r o� VILLAGE OF 066 E aeaem..IAt ur ---- Oe.e�.ron -- 0UFFOLK al�ANr-Pa IS OF TlE N s_i a... sm.a�.r. m Q ft u. --- Wo mt pt u. —-L—- �o Wd t u.—-A—- PST '�' 'R� SUFFOtX team TAX NAP a ERMWED ®D �� Canty Center Riverhead,N Y 11901 M >p D MW Ns 23'^` O..d Y.0 12.1 A(m or 123A ion 1►r Pvk mIM Il. --P-- ht.mtr mlrkf O.—A-- AWAAARM WASTEWATER tiTHOw VRBTTEN PO WSSION OF THE 8 700 p�E R F�� Opp AND . cmAHee 4.0 ]2.1 A(C) vow�" ----- s.r mMct Et --S-- REAL PROPERTY TAX SERVICE AGENCY. gO P °� 061 loon PROPERTY MAP _ ColaT M DATE VW.20,1%8 /. . .... .... .. . ....f .. J .. � ,' . ...,:. .,..r.i.• .:.y,. A.S.' S" .X.. f ...:Js%;!/'Y.., _ ... r _. .. :,_ .... ... .n...,-,,.:..A. ,,._'_•.____`-' .�...,... ._r>=.r.;r. _ r,�c":,�^� ,rJf-��"' `f' .Iry jr.:9- y=." Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village,Suite E,2322 Main Street,P.O.Box 2003,Bridgehampton,New York 11932-2003 (631) 537-5160 Fax: (631) 537-5291 Bruce Anderson,M.S.,President `. Via Facsimile and Regular Mailing �i December 9,2005 r DEC 13 Mr.Albert J.Krupski,President Southold Town Trustees Scu;hofd To; n P.O.Box 1179 Board of Trustees Southold,NY 11971 ----_ Re: BEIXEDON ESTATE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION Proposal to remove & replace the existing bulkheading. Situate: Arshamomaque Avenue&Petty's Pond; Southold,NY SCTM#: 1000-066-03-014&015 Dear Mr.Krupski, As you know,this Firm represents the association referenced above,who are in receipt of a Town of Southold Board of Trustees Wetlands Permit(No. 5888),issued March 24,2004, authorizing to."...remove and replace the existing northern timber bulkhead: timber return replaced inkindlinplace 10'f linear ft.;westerly bulkhead run replaced inkind/inplace 254 linear ft;replace 42 f linear ft. inkind/inplace; easterly bulkhead run reduced to a single groin and decreased in length by thirty feet(30) to measure 278 t linear ft. in length. Southern timber bulkhead.- replace inkind/inplace 81 f linear ft.; easterly bulkhead run replaced inkind/inplace 78 f linear ft...:' A copy of subject permit is attached for easy reference. At this time,we are still awaiting our final approval from the Army Corps of Engineers to perform subject project,and therefore no work has been commenced or completed concerning same. Accordingly,by way of this correspondence,and on behalf of the association referenced above, kindly extend the Trustees Permit for an additional two(2)years from the date of the current expiration(i.e.March 24,2006). Should you have any questions concerning this matter,please feel free to contact this office at any time. Thank you in advance for your attention and consideration. Sincerely, Matt D.Ivans cc: J.Nickles Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village, Main Street,P.O. Box 2003, Bridgehampton, New York 11932-2003 (63-1) 537-5160 Fax: (631) 537-5198 Bruce Anderson,M.S.,President April 19, 2004 Mr. Albert J. Krupski, President Southold Town Trustees P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Re: BEIXEDON ESTATE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION Proposal to remove & replace the existing bulkheading. Situate: Arshamomaque Avenue& Petty's Pond Southold,NY SCTM#: 1000-066-03-014 & 015 Dear Mr. Krupski, Concerning the above referenced matter,please find enclosed: (1) Additional Project Plans of subject proposal, dated January 18, 2005, indicating the overall design and scope of the project (two [2] copies). Kindly review same and file accordingly. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact this office at any time. Thank you in advance for your attention and consideration. Sincerely, X/10 21 2005 Wr �pR Matt D. Ivan sout'Wd Town Board of Trustees enc. cc: J.Nickles Albert J. Krupski, President Town Hall John Holzapfel,Vice President 53095 Main Road ,Tim King P. O.Box 1179 Martin H. Garrell Southold,New York 11971 Peter Wenzel Telephone(631)765-1892 Fax(631)765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Office Use only Coastal Erosion Permit Application, X Wetland Permit Application Grandfather Permit Application Waiver/Amendment/jC.h1anges Received Application: IXSI12b Received Fee: $ Completed Application 1"A r b-b R„ Incomplete ° D �Uf SEQRA Classification: Type I Type II Unlisted Coordination: (date sent) DEC - 5 2003 CAC Referral Sent:. Date of Inspection: Southold Town Receipt of CAC Report: Board of Trustees Lead Agency Determination: Technical Review: Public Hearing Held: Resolution: Name of App t i c ant: John Nickles i (_/c o Beixedon Estate Pr !ft Owners Association). �.. Address : P.O. Box 877; Southold,NY 11971 Phone Number: 631 765-3416 Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000-066-03-014 &015 Property Location: North&South sides of the canal entrance into Pegy's Pond from Southold Bay in the vicinity of Arshamomaque Ave. Provide LILCO Pole #, distance to cross streets, and location) AGENT:— Suffolk Environmental Consulting,Inc. Address : P.O. Box 2003 BridgehAMton,NY 11932 Phone Number: (631) 537-5160 Fax: (631) 537-5198 1 i Board of Trustees Application GENERAL DATA Land Area (in square feet) : 6,000 square feet±along the shorelines of both the north&south sides of the canal leading into Petty's Pond from Southold Bay. Area Zoning: . N/A Previous use of property: Majority or properties within the project area are improved with single family dwellings with existing bulkheads. Intended use of property: Same as above with replacement bulkheads Prior permits/approvals for site improvements : Agency Date X No prior permits/approvals for site improvements . Has any permit/approval ever been revoked or suspended by a governmental agency? X No Yes If yes, provide explanation: Project Description (use attachments if necessary) Please refer to the following page for the Project Description. 2 PROJECT DE SCRIPTION for Beixedon Property Owners Association BULKHEAD REPLACEMENT Proposal Situate: Arshamomaque Avenue & Petty's Pond; Southold, NY SCTM #: 1000-066-03-014 & 015 Applicant proposes to secure all required regulatory approvals to replace "in- kind/in-place"the existing timber bulkheading located along the properties referenced above,both north and south side of Petty"s Pond. Concerning the northern timber bulkhead, approximately 848.0 linear feet of bulkheading will be removed and/or replaced"in-kindltin-place" (immediately upon securing of all required regulatory permits, or thereafter) utilizing fiberglass sheathing (10.0' x 14.0' sheets); pilings'(8.0" round x 20.0' long); deadman(8.0" round x 8.0' - 12.0' long); caps (2.0" wide x 12.0 long); and wales (6.0" wide x 6.0" wide). The northern and eastern runs of the easterly bulkhead section will be removed and not replaced. The replacement of the return at the northwestern terminus of the bulkhead run will be shortened by two feet(2.0') to ten feet(10.0'). The existing timber dock(including ramps)will remain(190.0' long). Concerning the southern timber bulkhead, approximately 159.0 linear feet of bulkheading will be replaced"in-kindlin-place" (immediately upon securing of all required regulatory permits, or thereafter) utilizing fiberglass sheathing (10.0' x 14.0' sheets); pilings (8.0" round x 20.0' long); deadman(8.0" round x 8.0' - 12.0' long); caps (2.0" wide x 12.0" long); and wales (6.0" wide x 6.0" wide). The existing exterior bulkhead (34.0' L) located off the southern half of Section S-II and the northeastern run of the easterly bulkhead (113.0')will both be eliminated. Overall, approximately 1,154 linear feet of existing timber bulkheading will be removed and/or replaced, and 775 linear feet of proposed fiberglass bulkheading will be installed"in-kind/in-place" to the existing bulkheading. 3 - Board of Trustees Application WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA Purpose of the proposed operations : Please refer to the Project Description located on page three (3). Area of wetlands on lot: 0.0 square feet Percent coverage of lot: 0.0 % Closest distance between nearest existing structure and upland edge of wetlands: 0.0 f feet (existing bulkhead) Closest distance between nearest proposed structure and upland edge of wetlands: 0.0 ±feet (proposed bulkhead) Does the project involve excavation or filling: No X Yes If yes, how much material will be excavated? 2,000 t cu. yds. How much material will be filled? 2,000 f cu. yds . (from excavated material) Depth of which material will be removed/deposited: 3.0 f feet Proposed slope throughout the area of operations : N/A f Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: Small front-end loader(i.e.BobCat) typical to excavation and filling projects will be employed, as well as performed by hand Statement of the effect, if any, on the wetlands and tidal waters of the town that may result by reason of such proposed operations (use attachments if appropriate) : No impact to the tidal wetlands is anticipated due to the proposed bulkheads replacing the existing bulkheads,which have been in-place for well over thirty years and have had no negative impacts to the surrounding area. •.T 4 Board of Trustees Application COASTAL EROSION APPLICATION DATA N/A Purpose of Proposed Activity: Are wetlands present within 75 feet of the proposed activity? No Yes If Yes, how much material will be excavated? (cubic yards) How much material will be filled? (cubic yards) Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: Describe the nature and extent of the environmental impacts reasonably anticipated resulting from the implementation of the project as proposed. (Use attachments if necessary) 5 PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS Name: Address : Please refer to the attached Addendum on the following page. i STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK I, Diane K. Wassick, residing at Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. ; Newman Village; Main Street;Brid eham ton NY, being duly sworn deposes and says that on the rf day of ;�qq./41 , 2004, deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forthin the Board of Trustees Application, directed to each of the above named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the address of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at Bridgehampton, that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified) (registered) mail. Sworn to before me this 0012�( day of , 2004 114 IA66� I" i OEM Nota Public '- Matthew D. Ivans Notary Public of New York No. 0l IV6053859 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires January 22, 2007 I i I� 7 i APPLICATION ADDENDUM concerning the Beixedon Property Owners Association BULKHEAD REPLACEMENT Proposal Situate: Arshamoma que Avenue & PetWs Pond; Southold, NY SCTM #: 1000-066-03-014 & 015 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ADDRESS William J. &Pauline R. Balis P.O. Box 816;Southold,NY 11971 Donald G. Rafuse P.O. Box 1017;Southold,NY 11971 Robert&Johana Morris^ "150 Land Lane;Westbury, NY 11590 Thomas &Rebecca Lucak P.O. Box 1805;Southold,NY 11971 Barbara A. Brunjes P.O. Box 161;Southold,NY 11971 William Frank 2 Lelan Lane;West Islip,NY 11795 Gus Klavas 166 0714th Road;Beechurst, NY 11357 Edward P. &Marion Jablonski, Trustees P.O. Box 1834;Southold,NY 11971 David Chicanowicz P.O. Box 160;Peconic, NY 11958 Harriet E. Woodruff 33 Locust Avenue;Bethpage,NY 11714 John J. Nickles P.O. Box 56;Southold,NY 11971 Jean Grace Esslinger;Qual Personal Res. Trust P.O. Box 172;Southold,NY 11971 Richard J. &Antoinette L. Rizzi P.O. Box 83;Southold,NY 11971 Grace R. Lewis P.O. Box 877;Southold,NY 11971 Christian &Rosamond Phelps Baiz P.O. Box 726;Southold, NY 11971 Thomas J. &Barbara Ball P.O. Box 1708;Southold,NY 11971 8 I- J SVfF�[�Albert J. Krupski,President Town Hall O�,o CQ , James King,Vice-President `Z` G 53095 Route 25 Artie Foster o y1 P.O.Box 1179 va Z Southold,New York 11971-0959 Ken Poliwoda Peggy A.Dickerson �,fi �� Telephone(631) 765-1892 Fax(631)765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TRUSTEES: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD --------------------------------------------------------------- In the Matter of the Application of §(C'----- �.i--��=-- -,�°-----�-� - r OUNTY OF SUFFOL STATE OF NEW YORK) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Diane K. Wassick ,residing at Newman Village, Ste E, Main gtrPPt- Bridgehampton, New York, 11932 being duly sworn, depose and say: That on the 8 tday of January200�1 I personally posted the property known as SCTM# 1000-66-3-14 & 15 by placing the Board of Trustees official poster where it can easily be seen, and that I have checked to be sure the poster has remained in place or eight days prior to the date of the public hearing. Date of hearing noted thereon to be held Dated: r (s'gnature) Sworn to before me this day of T,. 200 fL I */0/ 0 Ko-&y Public Matthew D. ivans Notary Public of New York No. ClIV6053859 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires January 22, 20°7 NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the matter of applicant: John Nickles (%Beixedon Estate Property Owners Association) SCTM# 1000-071-02-016 YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1 . That is the intention of the undersigned to request a Permit from the Board of Trustees to : Please refer to the Project Description located on page three (3). 2 . That the property which is the subject of Environmental Review is located adjacent to your property and is described as follows : North & South sides of the canal entrance into Petty's Pond from Southold Bay in the vicinity of Arshamomaque Avenue. 3 . That the project which is subject to Environmental Review under Chapters 32, 37, or 97 of the Town Code is open to public comment. You may contact the Trustees Office at 765-1892 or in writing. The above referenced proposal is under review of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold and does not reference any other agency that might have to review same proposal . OWNERS NAME:. John Nickles (c%Beixedon Estate Property Owners Association) MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 877; Southold, NY 11971 PHONE # (631) 765-3416 Enc. : Copy of sketch or plan showing proposal for your convenience. 6 I Board of Trustees Application County of Suffolk ) State of New York ) John J. Nickles (c/o Beixedon Property Owners Association BEING DULY SWORN DEPOSES AND AFFIRMS THAT HE/SHE IS THE APPLICANT FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PERMITS) AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF HIS/HER KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND THAT ALL WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION AND AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES. THE APPLICANT AGREES TO HOLD THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND THE TOWN TRUSTEES HARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND CLAIMS ARISING UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF SAID PERMIT (S) , IF GRANTED. IN COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEES, THEIR AGENT (S) OR REPRESENTATIVE (S) , TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY TO INSPECT THE PREMISES IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION. Qt Q, a si.g ature- SWORN BEFORE ME THIS K DAY OF F. 2003 Public Matthew D. Ivans ar y Notary Public of New York No. Ol IV6053859 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires-January 22,20D7 7 Board of Trustees Application AUTHORIZATION (where applicant is not the owner) I, John J. Nickles Wo Beixedon Property Owners Association residing at Arshamomque; Town of Southold, do hereby authorize Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. (Agent) to apply for permit (s) from the Southold Board of Trustees on my behalf. Owner_' s. gnaturet 8 >r NICKLES BULKHEAD LOCATION Situate: Off Arshamomaque Avenue; Town of Southold, NY v✓T - - 7 , ; ' (/ NAMK eFicy Proposed Construction = Access Route f GREENPORT ro �o o wir ti, WEST d °D °° i 48WORT ��3 s s OUTH L 5yi 6 •r a aO euaeane r""�.7i>,. O , l� QV 9 ND - SITE \ Jam. �� oundn� � /• i�:.�,, r 1. pD' \��'I ° �HryD Cr/1T7TTT/1T y4 f HAGSTROM StreetAtlas ME 4G ND.0% E_ E ¢c.nas, WTCH LK RP 4 d ;W a• 601 rn.w. 66 t•° m SE �-�-� [ P' e.um • W 63 W i ss eQ• F Y zr.aa<Y ••� 1 3 1.011e1 t6`�° 'S Q 3 2 63 pO FbnO P • N �•`�� o P '`9 y ° v ? W j• 1°a�' a • • 'a a \may 9' S '�� y � V � (rt ��°dam°� • oe ael° �`� ;1s,� `"fie ,/. M E 6qy S 1 7 r ON 1~ry oO F �JJ r o' v SUM #: 1000 - 066 14-16-4(9/95)-Text 12 617.20 SEAR PROJECT I.D.NUMBER Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION o be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor 1. APPLICANT/SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME Suffolk Environmental Consulting,Inc. BEIXEDON ESTATE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION c/o John Nickles 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Municipality Southold County Suffolk 4. PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road intersections,prominent landmarks,etc.or provide map) North&South sides of the canal entrance into Petty's Pond from Southold Bay in the Vicinity of Arshamomaque Avenue. 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: ® New ❑ Expansion ❑ Modification/alteration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: Please refer to the attached Project Description. 7. AMOUNT OF LAND EFFECTED: Initially <0.25 acres Ultimately <0.25 acres. 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? ® Yes ❑ No If No,describe briefly 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? ®Residential ❑Industrial ❑Commercial [-]Agriculture ❑Park/Forest/Open space ❑Other Describe: Private single family residences along pond. 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL,OR FUNDING,NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY(FEDERAL,STATE OR LOCAL)? ® Yes ❑No If yes,list agency(s)and permit/approvals US Army Corps of Engineers;NY State Dept. of State;NY State Dept.of Environmental Conservation. 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ❑Yes ® No If yes,list agency(s)and permit/approvals 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? ❑Yes ® No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor name: Matt A.Ivans—.Suffolk Environmental Consulting,Inc. Date: 12/04/03 Signature: If the action is in the Coastal Area,and you are a state agency,complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment . OVER 1 PART II-ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT To be completed by Agency) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR,PART 617.12? If yes,coordinate the review process and, use the FULL EAF. El Yes El No B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS'PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR,PART 617.6? If No,a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. ❑Yes ❑No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten,if legible) C1. Existing air quality,surface or groundwater quality,noise levels,existing traffic patterns,solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: C2. Aesthetic,agricultural,archeological,historical or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly: C3. Vegetation or fauna,fish,shellfish or wildlife species,significant habitat,or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted,or change in use or intensity of use of land or natural resources? Explain briefly: C5. Growth,subsequent development,or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: C6. Long term,short term,cumulative,or other effects not identified in C1-05? Explain briefly: C7. Other impacts(including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly: D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CEA? ❑Yes [:]No D. IS THERE,OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE,CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? ❑Yes ❑No If yes,explain briefly PART III-DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE(To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above,determine whether it is substantial,large,important,or otherwise significant., Each effect should be assessed in connection with its(a)setting(i.e,urban or rural); (b)probability of occurring; (c)duration; (d) irreversibility; (e)geographic scope; and(f)magnitude. If necessary,add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed.If question D of Part II was checked yes,the determination and significance must evaluate the potential impact of the proposed action on the environmental'characteristics of the CEA. ❑ Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive.declaration. ❑ Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation,that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attachments as necessary,the reasons supporting this determination: Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(if different From responsible officer) 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION for Beixedon Property owners Association BULKHEAD REPLACEMENT Proposal Situate: Arshamomaque Avenue & Petty's Pond; Southold, NY SCTM #: 1000-066-03-014 & 015 Applicant proposes to secure all required regulatory approvals to replace "in- kind,in-place"the existing timber bulkheading located along the properties referenced above,both north and south side of Petty's Pond. Concerning the northern timber bulkhead, approximately 848.0 linear feet of bulkheading will be removed and/or replaced "in-kind/in-place" (immediately upon securing of all required regulatory permits, or thereafter) utilizing fiberglass sheathing(10.0' x 14.0' sheets); pilings (8.0" round x 20.0' long); deadman (8.0" round x 8.0' -12.0' long); caps (2.0" wide x 12.0" long); and wales (6.0" wide x 6.0" wide). The northern and eastern runs of the easterly bulkhead section will be removed and not replaced. The replacement of the return at the northwestern terminus of the bulkhead run will be shortened by two feet(2.0') to ten feet(10.0'). The existing timber dock (including ramps) will remain(190.0' long). Concerning the southern timber bulkhead, approximately 159.0 linear feet of bulkheading will be replaced "in-kind/in-place" (immediately upon securing of all required regulatory permits, or thereafter) utilizing fiberglass sheathing(10.0' x 14.0' sheets); pilings (8.0" round x 20.0' long); deadman(8.0" round x 8.0' - 12.0' long); caps (2.0" wide x 12.0" long); and wales (6.0" wide x 6.0" wide). The existing exterior bulkhead (34.0' L) located off the southern half of Section S-II and the northeastern run of the easterly bulkhead (113.0') will both be eliminated. Overall, approximately 1,154 linear feet of existing timber bulkheading will be removed and/or replaced, and 775 linear feet of proposed fiberglass bulkheading will be installed "in-kind/in-place" to the existing bulkheading. 3 PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS Name: Address: s P Please refer to the attached Addendum on the following page. STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK I, Diane K. Wassick, residing at Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. ; Newman Village; Main Street;Brid eham ton NY, being duly sworn deposes and says that on the !T day of ,rfQg�, 2003, deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth in the Board of Trustees Application, directed to each of the above named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the address of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at Bridgehampton, that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified) (registered) mail. Sworn to before me this �' day of—Z)Vf;4(pFk 20 3 Notary Public Matthew D. Ivans Notary Public of New York No. Ol IV6053859 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires January 22, 2007 7 APPLICATION ADDENDUM concerning the Beixedon Property Owners Association BULKHEAD REPLACEMENT Proposal Situate: Arshamomaque Avenue & Petty's Pond; Southold, NY SCTM #: 1000-066-03-014 & 015 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ADDRESS William J. &Pauline R. Balis P.O. Box 816;Southold,NY 11971 Donald G. Rafuse P.O. Box 1017;Southold,NY 11971 Robert&Johan Morris 150 Land Lane;Westbury,NY 11590 Thomas &Rebecca Lucak P.O. Box 1805;Southold, NY 11971 Barbara A. Brunjes P.O. Box 161;Southold,NY 11971 William Frank 2 Lelan Lane;West Islip,NY 11795 Gus Klavas 166 0714th Road;Beechurst,NY 11357 Edward P. &Marion Jablonski, Trustees P.O. Box 1834;Southold,NY 11971 David Chicanowicz P.O. Box 160;Peconic,NY 11958 Harriet E. Woodruff 33 Locust Avenue;Bethpage,NY 11714 John J. Nickles P.O. Box 56;Southold, NY 11971 Jean Grace Esslinger, Qual Personal Res. Trust P.O. Box 172;Southold,NY 11971 Richard J. &Antoinette L. Rizzi P.O. Box 83;Southold,NY 11971 Grace R. Lewis P.O. Box 877;Southold, NY 11971 Christian &Rosamond Phelps Baiz P.O. Box 726;Southold, NY 11971 Thomas J. &Barbara Ball P.O. Box 1708;Southold, NY 11971 8 NEW YORm o i ATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DEC PERMIT NUMBER Am EFFECTIVE DATE 1-4738-00817/00008 dome November 10, 2003 FACILITY/PROGRAM NUMBER(S) EXPIRATION DATE(S) Y PERMIT ri Under the Environmental November 30, 2008 Conservation Law TYPE OF PERMIT■New ❑ Renewal ❑Modification❑Permit to Construct ❑ Permit to Operate J` ■ Article 15,Title 5: Protection of,Waters ❑ Article 17,Titles 7,8: SPDES ❑ Article 27,Title 9; 6NYCRR 373: Hazardous Waste Management ❑ Article 15,Title 15:Water Supply ❑ Article 19:Air Pollution Control ❑ Article 34:Coastal Erosion ❑ Article 15,Title 15:Water Transport ❑ Article 23,Title 27: Mined Land Management Reclamation F ' ❑ Article 15,Title 15: Long Island Wells ❑ Article 36: Floodplain Management ;7 ❑ Article 24: Freshwater Wetlands ❑ Article 15,Title 27: Wild, Scenic and ❑ Articles 1, 3, 17, 19, 27, 37;6NYCRR Recreational Rivers ■ Article 25:Tidal Wetlands 380: Radiation Control ■ 6NYCRR 608:Water Quality Certifica- ❑ Article 27,Title 7; 6NYCRR 360: tion Solid Waste Management PERMIT ISSUED TO TELEPHONE NUMBER `t i %f John Nickles C/O Beixedon Estate Property Owners Association (631) 765-3416 a ADDRESS OF PERMITTEE P.O. Box 877, Southold, NY 1.1971 } CONTACT PERSON FOR PERMITTED WORK TELEPHONE NUMBER a J ' Suffolk Environmental Consulting, P.O. Box 2003, Brid ehampton, NY 11932 (631) 537-5160 NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROJECT/FACILITY Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold SCTM #1000-66-3-14 & 15 at COUNTY TOWN LATERCOURSE NYTM COORDINATES 5 Suffolk Southold Pond as DESCRIPTION OF AUTHORIZED ACTIVITY: K Remove 1,154 feet of existing bulkheading and replace 775 feet of bulkheading in place. The 215 foot and 17 foot sections of the northern bulkhead and the 31 foot, 54 foot and 59 foot sections of the southern bulkhead shall be removed and not replaced. All work must be done in accordance with the attached plans 1 stamped NYSDEC approved. a By acceptance of this permit, the permittee agrees that the permit is contingent upon strict compliance with the ECL, all t' applicable regulations, the General Conditions specified (see page,2 &3) and any Special Conditions included as part '.. of this permit. . 1 ` PERMIT ADMINISTRATOR: ADD SS John A. el LJS) Region Headquarters, Bldg.#40, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356 h AUTHO I I NATURE DATE � Page 1 of 4 i� November 10, 2003 t y NEW t STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSE ION , SPECIAL CONDITIONS ;r 1. Any debris or excess material from construction of this project shall be completely removed from the adjacent area (upland) and removed to an approved upland area for disposal. No debris is permitted in tidal wetlands and or protected buffer areas. 'z 2. The storage of construction equipment and materials shall be confined to within the project work site and or upland areas greater than 75 linear feet from the tidal wetland boundary. i 3. Equipment operation below apparent low water is strictly prohibited. 4. Prior to any construction or removal of bulkheads and other shoreline stabilization structures all backfill shall be ; excavated landward of the bulkhead and retained so as not to enter the waterway, tidal,wetland or protected buffer r area. 5. There shall be no discharge of runoff or other effluent over or through any bulkhead or shoreline stabilization structure or into any tidal wetland or adjacent area. 6. The use of wood treated with pentachlorophenol in the construction of structures that will be in contact with tidal waters is strictly prohibited. ' 7. No increase in height of bulkhead or breakwater on the east side of the inlet is authorized. ;a y ,f t 1 S 5-: �i }Y. .4 'r DEC PERMIT NUMBER PAGE 2 of 4 1-4738-00817/00008 i 41 NEW' STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEF~ ')N ADDITIONAL GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR ARTICLES 15 (TITLE 5), 24, 25,34 AND 6NYCRR PART 608 (TIDAL WETLANDS) ?'4. t= 1. If future operations by the State of New York require an alteration in the position of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Department of Environmental Conservation it shall cause unreasonable y obstruction to the free navigation of said waters or flood flows or endanger the health, safety or welfare of the people of the State, or cause loss or destruction of the natural resources of the State,the owner may be ordered by the Departmentto remove oralter-the structural work,obstructions,or hazards caused thereby without expense to the State, and if, upon the expiration or revocation of this permit, the structure, fill, excavation,;or other modification of the watercourse hereby authorized shall not be completed, the owners, shall, without expense to 4 the State,and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservation may require, remove all or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore to its former condition the navigable and flood capacity of the watercourse. No claim shall be made against the State of New York on ` account of any such removal or alteration. 2. The State of New York shall in no case be liable for any damage or injury to the structure or work herein authorized which may be caused by or result from future operations undertaken by the State for the conservation y or improvement of navigation, or for other purposes, and no claim or right to compensation shall accrue from any such damage. 3. Granting of this permit does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility of obtaining any other permission, consent or approval from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, U.S.Coast Guard, New York State Office of General Services or local government which may be required. ' 4. All necessary precautions shall be taken to preclude contamination of any wetland or waterway by suspended solids, sediments, fuels, solvents, lubricants, epoxy coatings, paints, concrete, leachate or any other environmentally deleterious materials associated with the project. } 5. Any material dredged in the conduct of the work herein permitted shall be removed evenly,without leaving large refuse piles, ridges across the bed of a waterway or floodplain or deep holes that may have a tendency to cause damage to navigable channels or to the banks of a waterway. 6. There shall be no unreasonable interference with navigation by the work herein authorized. 7. If upon the expiration or revocation of this permit, the project hereby authorized has not been completed, the applicant shall,without expense to the State, and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservation may require, remove all or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore the site to its former,condition. No claim shall be made against the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration. h .. Y; 8. If granted under 6NYCRR Part 608,the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation hereby certifies that the subject project will not contravene effluent limitations or other limitations or standards under Sections 301, 302, .3 303, 306 and 307 of the Clean Water Act of 1977(PL 95-217) provided that all of the conditions listed herein are met. 9. At least 48 hours prior to commencement of the project,the permittee and contractor shall sign and return the top portion of the enclosed notification form certifying that they are fully aware of and understand all terms and conditions of this permit. Within 30 days of completion of project, the bottom portion of the form must also be signed and returned, along with photographs of the completed work and, if required, a survey. 10. All activities authorized by this permit must be in strict conformance with the approved plans submitted by the ' applicant or his agent as part of the permit application. Such approved plans were prepared by Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. last revised 9/9/03. DEC PERMIT NUMBER PAGE 3 OF 4 1-4738-00817/00008 NM (STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSE 'ION ti NOT'.:..,ATION OF OTHER PERMITTEE OBLIGF►E ONS Item A: Permittee Accepts Legal Responsibility and Agrees to Indemnification The permittee expressly agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Department of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York, its representatives,employees,and agents("DEC")for all claims,suits, actions, and damages,to the t extent attributable to the permittee's acts-or omissions in connection with the permittee's undertaking of activities in connection with,or operatiorgand maintenance of,the facility or facilities authorized by the permit whether in compliance or not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. This indemnification does not extend to any claims, .! suits, actions, or damages to the extent attributable to DEC's own negligent or intentional acts or omissions, or to any claims, suits, or actions naming the DEC and arising under article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules or any citizen suit or civil rig htslprovision under federal or state laws. X t� Item B: Permittee's Contractors to Comply with Permit ;p The permittee is responsible for informing its independent contractors, employees, agents and assigns of their responsibility to comply with this permit, including all special conditions while acting as the permittee's agent with respect to the permitted activities, and such persons shall be subject to the same sanctions for violations of the Environmental Conservation Law as those prescribed for the permittee. t .T Item C: Permittee Responsible for Obtaining Other Required Permits The Permittee is responsible for obtaining any other permits, approvals, lands, easements and rights-of-way that may be required to carry out the activities that are authorized by this permit. Item D: No Right to Trespass or Interfere with Riparian Rights This permit does not convey to the permittee any right to trespass upon the lands or interfere with the riparian rights I 7 of others in order to perform the permitted work nor does it authorize the impairment of any rights, title, or interest in real or personal property held or vested in a person not a party to the permit. GENERAL CONDITIONS General Condition 1: Facility Inspection by the Department a The permitted site or facility, including relevant records, is subject to inspection at reasonable hours and intervals by an authorized representative of the Department of Environmental Conservation (the Department)to determine whether the permittee is complying with this permit and the ECL. Such representative may order the work suspended pursuant to ECL 71-0301 and SAPA 401(3). s; The permittee shall provide a person to accompany the Department's representative during an inspection to the permit w area when requested by the Department. A copy of this permit, including all referenced maps,drawings and special conditions, must be available for inspection g by the Department at all times at the project site or facility. Failure to produce a copy of the permit upon request by a Department representative is a violation of this permit. General Condition 2: Relationship of this Permit to Other Department Orders and Determinations Unless expressly provided for by the Department, issuance of this permit does not modify, supersede or rescind any order or determination previously issued by the Department or any of the terms, conditions or requirements contained in such order or determination. General Condition 3: Applications for Permit Renewals or Modifications The permittee must submit a separate written application to the Department for renewal, modification or transfer of this permit. Such application must include any forms or supplemental information the Department requires. Any renewal, modification or transfer granted by the Department must be in writing. The permittee must submit a renewal application at least: a) 180 days before expiration of permits for State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES), Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (HWMF), major Air Pollution Control (APC) and Solid Waste Management i Facilities (SWMF); and b) 30 days before expiration of all other permit types. n Submission of applications for permit renewal or modification are to be submitted to: NYSDEC Regional Permit Administrator, Region 1, SUNY Bldg#40, Stony Brook NY 11790-2356 General Condition 4: Permit Modifications,Suspensions and Revocations by the Department The Department reserves the right to modify, suspend or revoke this permit in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 621. The grounds for modification,suspension or revocation include: a) materially false or inaccurate statements in the permit application or supporting papers; :M1 b) failure by the permittee to comply with any terms or conditions of the permit; t c) exceeding the scope of the project as described in the permit application; d) newly discovered material information or a material change in environmental conditions,relevant technology or applicable law or regulations since the issuance of the existing permit; f e) noncompliance with previously issued permit conditions,orders of the commissioner,any provisions of the Environmental `. Conservation Law or regulations of the Department related to the permitted activity. ti DEC PERMIT NUMBER PAGE 4 OF 4 1-4738-00817/00008 APPLICANT/AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of town officers and employees.The purpose of this form is to provide information which can alert the town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. YOUR NAME: Y �_ C'-.�a`_L' X' .j lVfO�L3 0,A_; (Last name,first name,middle initial,unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity,such as a company.If so,indicate the other person's or company's name.) NAME OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax grievance Variance Change of Zone Approval of plat Exemption from plat or official map _ Other � J (If"Other",name the activity.). ,��( J5 Do you personally(or through your company,spouse,sibling,parent,or child)have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship"includes by blood,marriage,or business interest.`Business interest"means a business, including a partnership,in which the town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of(or employment by)a corporation in which the town officer or employee owns more than 5%of the shares. YES NO If you answered"YES",complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold rLLI l' 1 Title or position of that person r_TQ V C11__ Describe the relationship between yourself(the applicant/agent/representative)and the town officer or employee.Either check the appropriate line A)through D)and/or describe in the space provided. The town officer or employee or his or her spouse,sibling,parent,or child is(check all that apply): A)the owner of greater than 5%of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant (when the applicant is a corporation); B)the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a non-corporate entity(when the applicant is not a corporation); C)an officer,director,partner,or employee of the applicant;or D)the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP Submi 5 day 5 L7--200 7?:. Signa t• Print ame vL �r r'.�� $o ,.., ♦qp^•t+.nr.^r••}a-*- 'ts""*lv" " .n " - ":.:^r.e^^3.+,,,, ,.,;•,.4,•.-, qe..P-..r „p. ^,^.n+.s +n...,Q,.. '+R.!i-'r n'1-T-•....may. .,,s.;, q.. ry,,.,,,*..r.-. -creme. ..q: �ww+-r--�...M•,,.....r-^ '.�e ..e�..w._. ,,, .,,. -•p,,,,�;,.,,. .., ' ...-.,< .,,.r..-. .. .,,z... .w . .. >� y. •-. t a.w-.•� •,,�q.r• .,,.�.�,......, .,*iP?'�n,�.,...¢.a.-.qMe-�.�,»,....,.,�i�er',r�... -..y.,.�,..,-;,• .v, •, � ..,�.e.+> .,R.. ',w.xa+�...--.+•�•.- yK�'.,s,.....Tro,.•,�< ,i -^f^ �" 3. °'�w.��- ,Y y, " a n. So-" � �s <-•P' yr>•, #�.. % a'. ,.. }�%• •*. ,jam ,.,_ 'c•;' a• , ;. e., •►'a c' t , OT EXISTING DWELLING EXISTING121 DWELLING 0 ANW• 13 Timber Bulkhead � A LW �w � --- �__ r ----` 14' - ; •----- Y 90' 215' 17' • ''` ,,,•7 A o __ ' soa' Timber "Box" Jetty r t ,_ of ...... t • o j Timber Mating Dock tiz � -Z � 0 ,0 ,. All � r`� { , O �........ .. ..._......... .... ... ..... 11' A• AA AA •�'X ➢ Timber Bulk ead ,,. .. • ,�:'•... .. .. . . . ... . . .... AA 59 31' ,\ �pN i , f 4 EX0s��'� v Timber Jetty "4 � ►�c� � SITE PLAN VIEW of f 1: EXISTING CONDITIONS Q,o Sole: 1.0' = 40.0' t r o° Adlt,trA f om ti}e sorvcy of submit pt,4-erty I F'e9a•ed by.sf11!E £'t rttppllh; � '+ EXISTING EXISTING DWELLING 2 10 DWELLING G Timber Bulkhead AT ' ALW Q 141 == !4' d 1 9Q, 113, 2 1i � i 1,2' 278' �. Timber Jetty _ •/ s 4, 1 r vl?a r`T* .T'��TFS•.::i c': ':�s-Z r i -r.+ c+�-rc_-zc�.—r-_: .. ..�, .---. .. . ... T(mber Floating Dock -- ((ra C `"'° • ., , .— ..• . . (w/ramps) " ' 4' �a e �*� *0 A� e z• • s Au 0 .06 AA .60 H� • Timber ad ,., ' .. .......... •,.. -• f�y vl.l.. r -........... ..... . .. .. r,. r A SITE PLAN VIEW �� Of PROPOSED ONDI1- N ` � PROPOSED SPOIL SITE Q© Scale. 1.0' - 40.0' + ,� A47t.A 6,0M the survey of wblect pro". f 0 p"PiKd by SfA l EVE AtAVPJNG f i f• PLANS to: BEIXEDC)N ESTATE5 PROPERTY IATI O N Project OWNERS ASSC�� PROPOSAL to REMOVE/REPMC£D�CISTING TIMBER Bt/LWMD1 1M7ESdr7dAM£ND chi£NFORC£MA/NTENANCEDREDGINGPERMIT Situate: ArshamomaqueAvenue & Petty's Pond Towh of Southold, NY SCTM #: 1000 — 066 — 03 -- 014 �t M Suffolk Environmental Con�suiting5 Inc. Phone: (631) 537 -- 5160 Fax: (631) 537 — 5198 P.O. Box 2003 • Bddgehampton • NY • 11932 DATE: SNL1,4r �8 ZobS ' 5CALE: �s - DRAWN BY: mdi COMMENTS: 3 c OF y .. r • ' A .