HomeMy WebLinkAboutProposed Amendment to Chapter 170 ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM
P.O. Box 1424 13015 Main Road
Mattituck,N.Y. 11952
631-298-8353
Fax 631-298-8565
September 22, 2020
Southold Town Board
53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179
Southold,New York 11971
Re: Proposed Amendment to Chapter 170
Ladies/Gentlemen:
I write with respect to the proposed amendments to Chapter 170 which would grant to the
Southold Historic Preservation Commission (HRC)jurisdiction over new construction on sites
previously occupied by designated historic landmarks. The Board should under no circumstances adopt
this amendment. While I am in favor of preservation efforts for historical structures within reasonable
bounds, this over-reaching amendment goes far beyond this concept and over-regulates any property that
may ever have had a designated landmark. The new construction language is particularly offensive.
The HRC now has jurisdiction to determine whether a historic landmark may be demolished or
removed. Once so determined and the demolition or removal occurs, HRC jurisdiction ceases. The
proposed addition to 170-4E(0) the proposed addition of 170-6A(3), extending jurisdiction to "new
construction on a site previously occupied by a landmark....." is unbelievably broad and intrusive into
private property rights. Suppose the structure burned down or was demolished years ago—the current
owner has to figure out that happened at any time. Even with a recent removal, once gone, the historic
element is gone, and it is unconstitutionally presumptive and arbitrary to make an owner a) figure that
out perhaps years or decades later, b) encumber a property with a restriction that it must be married for
eternity to a particular structure, or c) attempt to recreate the appearance of a structure that might be
totally inappropriate or unworkable to current usage. The time and expense of addressing this issue can
be immense, and to what end, to provide some sort of"replica"? There is no point to that. It completely
devalues affected properties. I note that this governmentally imposed restriction provides absolutely no
governmental financial assistance for this tremendous additional time and expense.
Equally objectionable is that the determination is vested in a group of people deciding on a very
subjective matter. If they don't like it, it's over, subject to expensive and generally prohibitive appeals.
The proposed criteria of 170-9 lists as its first item elements of pure appearance. There is nothing about
balancing cost, time, utility of space, practical difficulty, or other factors that Boards such as the ZBA
are required to consider. In short, the proposed amendment is ill advised and should be rejected.
yVery,tyours,
Abig 1 A. Wickham