After members of the public spoke out last month, the Greenport village board voted against a proposed extension of approximately eight feet to an existing dock in Greenport harbor.
At last week’s village board meeting, Greenport resident Arthur Tasker once again spoke out — he also offered his thoughts at a public hearing held in December.
“Big boats in shallow water do not belong in that section of the creek,” he said.
The board held a discussion before the vote. Greenport Deputy Mayor George Hubbard said the village CAC had spoken out against the application and could only recommend a green light if the size of the new dock did not exceed what is there currently.
The CAC is an advisory group convened to weigh in on issues concerning the village waterfront.
“I believe in what the CAC says,” Hubbard said. “We have them there for that purpose. Myself, I’m against this proposed application because he’s in navigable waters and the community says it might not be in their best interest.”
Trustee Mary Bess Phillips agreed and said that the CAC is “looking to protect our waterfront.” Phillips said she’d also be inclined to vote no due to “some confusion about permits. I think there should be some compromise made and perhaps the applicant need to either decrease size of dock or rethink his project.”
Trustees Julia Robins and David Murray agreed; the board defeated the motion and said the property owner would need to submit a new application if he decided to proceed.
In December, at a hearing for the Matassa wetlands permit application, Bruce Anderson, president of Suffolk Environmental Consulting Inc., and representative for applicant Vincent Matassa, spoke on the proposed extension of approximately eight feet to an existing dock in Greenport harbor.
According to Anderson, a survey indicates that as it stands, the water is shallow and the dock would need to be extended to reach a “reasonable water level” of 2.5 fee, as determined by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
A number of residents spoke out about the proposed application. Tasker said as an owner of a bungalow in the area, he opposed this application, one of 11 who had sent in letters of opposition to the project “in a little branch of Stirling Harbor.”
Remembering his youth, Tasker said he was growing up, “we would eat clams, mussels, steamers. And now they’re all extinct.” The waterway, he said, has suffered “many indignities, including all kinds of pollution” over the past decades. “This board needs to prevent further harmful deterioration. Big boats belong at Brewer Yacht Yard, he said. “Mr. Matassa has proposed a deepwater dock,” Tasker added, questioning the size of the boats that would be docked there and expressing concerns that prop dredging could be used to allow for docking larger vessels.
“This project can only be recommended if the dock does not exceed the size of the existing dock,” Tasker said. “Big boats, deepwater docks and illegal dredging in this area are wrong in this environmentally sensitive part of Stirling Harbor,” he added, asking the board to help him preserve what’s left.
Resident John Saladino said he was speaking for members of the local civic group. “We would like to reiterate our objection to this application,” he said, adding that the question exists if some of the docks were actually permitted, as the “pier line as it is now, is artificial, so we don’t know if they are permitted or not.”
Matassa spoke and said there were “many homeowners on Sandy Beach Road in favor of this application.”
As a young boy, Matassa said he would sit at the Coronet and listen to fishermen “telling tales of days gone by and feeling the excitement.”
His own children and grandson continue the legacy, he said. “I continue to fish locally. It’s a shame not to be able to maintain our unique fishing history. The fleet of fishermen went from 100 to a handful.”
Anderson pointed out that town trustees do not regulate the dock and also said the dock is “compliant in all respects.” In addition, he said, there is no “regulatory mechanism” regarding the size of a vessel at a dock; therefore, he said, there is no “technical basis” for that objection.
Anderson added that the pier line exists, and the dock is there. Whether or not the “dock was built without permission” is “an issue for the village but not the applicant,” he said.
