Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetland Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board refers Seahaven Drive wetland permit to HCCM after brief review
Summary
The Village of Mermanic Planning Board classified the Seahaven Drive wetland permit (Application 1066) as a Type 2 action and voted to refer it to HCCM for marine‑structure and wetland consistency review after an introductory presentation by the applicant's representative.
The Village of Mermanic Planning Board on June 25 recommended that Application 1066, a wetland permit for a Seahaven Drive property, be classified as a Type 2 action and referred to HCCM for marine‑structure and wetland-consistency review.
Applicant representative John Hilt introduced the project as "a 40‑foot long ramp, landing on an 8 by 20 floating dock held in place by anchors and chains," saying the structure will be seasonal and removable. Hilt told the board the project has received approvals from DEC, the Army, OGS and DOS and that a building‑permit application has been submitted, though the building permit itself was not yet signed.
Board members pressed the applicant on wetland and navigation details. A planning-board member noted inconsistent language in the application materials and a memo from Terre Vaal Land Design about whether tidal‑wetland vegetation is present. Hilt responded that the site is essentially sand, gravel and rock with "no tidal wetland vegetation," while also acknowledging "it is by definition a tidal wetlands by state law," and the board agreed that the application materials should be amended for clarity before return.
Members also discussed navigation safety and use. The applicant said the dock is intended primarily for unpowered craft—kayaks and stand‑up paddleboards—not for berthing boats. The board debated whether to define "small" vessels numerically (for example, under 25 feet) and clarified mooring‑anchor sizing; during discussion members corrected an initial reference of "100" pounds to a thousand‑pound class anchor for adequate holding depending on site and vessel.
A separate administrative point raised by a member noted a determination letter still listed a previous $10,000 threshold for referral to BAR despite a trustee change to $40,000; staff said the letter likely predated the threshold change and agreed to correct the form going forward.
After questions, the board moved, seconded and voted to classify the application as Type 2 and refer it to HCCM. The motion carried with the board recording Mary Yes; Helen Aye; Richard Yes; Chair Yes. The applicant thanked the board and left the meeting.
Next steps: HCCM will conduct its marine‑structure and wetland‑consistency review; the Planning Board indicated it expects unresolved technical items and documentation to be addressed in the HCCM review and when the application returns to the board for final local action.
