HomeMy WebLinkAboutStewardship Task Force 1994FINAL REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS
SOUTHOLD TOWN STEWARDSHIP TASK FORCE
Southold, New York
June 1994
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3
PART ONE:
RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER ONE:
//1:
#2:
#3:
#4:
#5:
FARMLAND PRESERVATION
Farmland Preservation
Transfer of Development Rights
Support Agricultural Industry
Winery Uses
Open Space Preservation
7
8
9
13
16
18
CHAPTER TWO:
#6:
#7:
#8:
#9:
#10:
#11:
SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 29
Marinas and Marine Economy 29
Overnight Accommodations 32
Recreational Facilities 35
Transportation 37
Health Care Facilities 42
Home Occupations 43
CHAPTER THREE: WATER 45
#12: Surface Water 45
#13: Groundwater Protection 47
#14: Public Water 49
CHAPTER FOUR: AFFORDABLE HOUSING 53
#15: Affordable, Housing Zones 54
#16: Rehabilitation for Affordable Housing 55
#17: Diversity of Affordable Housing Stock 57
#18: Community Participation 57
#19: Shared Housing 58
#20: Funds to Subsidize Affordable Housing 58
#21: Public Education 59
#22: Data Base on Affordable Housing 60
CHAPTER FIVE: CHARACTER OF HAMLETS AND RURAL SETTING
#23: Zoning Code and Map 61
#24: Planned Unit Development Ordinance
#25: Historic Resources
#26: Signage
#27: Lighting
#28: Architectural Review
#29: Landscaping
#30: Design Manual
Citizens' Proposals
66
66
67
74
77
81
82
82
PART TWO:
RESULTS OF THE CITIZENS SURVEY
PART THREE:
SUMMARY OF HAMLET MEETINGS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SYNOPSIS OF RECURRENT THEMES
PUBLIC COMMENTS BY HAMLET
a. Mattituck and Laurel
b. New Suffolk
c. Cutchogue
d. Peconic
e. Southold
f. Greenport
g. East Marion
h. Orient
LIST OF TASK FORCE MEMBERS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
APPENDIXES
CHARGE FROM TOWN BOARD
US/UK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MAPS
91
101
102
105
107
109
111
116
118
122
126
129
133
134
REPORT BY THE 1991 US/UK COUNTRYSIDE STEWARDSHIP EXCHANGE TEi%M
TO
THE PEOPLE OF THE TOWN OF EOUTHOLD, NORTH FORK, LONG IEL;tND
November, 1991
Team Members~
Richard Brown, countryside officer
Hertfordshire County Council
Hertfordshire, England
Richard W. Carbin, President
The Countryside Institute
Barnard, Vermont
Vincent Goodstadt, Head of Strategy
Strathclyde Physical Planning Department
Glasgow, Scotland
John Humbach, Professor of Law
Pace University Law School
White Plains, New York
Shelly Mastran~ Rural Heritage Specialist
National Trust For HiStoric Preservation
McLean, Virginia
Terry Robinson, corporate Planning officer
Countryside Commission
Cheltenham, England
Joel Russell, Land Use Attorney and Planning Consultant
Woodlea Associates
Salt Point, New York
Nigel Stone, Executive Director
West Cumbria Groundwork Trust
Cumbria, England
The common good is the pursuit of good in common.
-Dennis McCann
A REPORT BY THE 1991 US/UK COUNTRYSIDE STEWARDSHIP EXCHANaE TEAM
TO
THE PEOPLE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NORTH FORK, LONa ISLAND
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
From July 14-18 a professional team of eight consultants, four from
the united Kingdom and four from the united States, conducted a
study of the North Fork area of Long Island. The Team members were
participants in the 1991 US/UK Countryside Stewardship Exchange, a
program which provides pro bono consultant services to selected
case study sites to address the issues of sustainable economic
development and countryside stewardship. The North Fork was one of
seven case study sites participating in the 1991 Exchange.
At the invitation of the North Fork Plannlng Conference, the Us/UK
Team was asked to address four issues important to the future of
the area:
1. Farmland Retention;
2. Water Quality;
3. Tourism Development; and
4. Affordable Housing;
After an intense four days of discovery and discussion the Team
presented its conclusions and recommendations to a public meeting
at the SoUthold Town Hall. The following summarizes these findings.
CONCLUSIONS
The North Fork area is one of scenic beauty and rich resources,
both natural and human, with a deep and meaningful history, truly
one of America's great places. Yet the North Fork is under threat
of drastic change spreading east from the New York metropolitan
area. Unfortunately, local controls are inadequate to cope with
these changes. New directions and programs are needed now to change
this situation for the benefit of the entire community.
The most important conclusion of the Team in this regard is that
the people of Southold share a vision in some detail of what they
would like the future of their community to be, but they currently
lack the programs to get there. This overall conclusion led the
Team to make the following recommendations:
-]
t
i
Page 2 - Summary
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation # 1: In order to be clearer and more efficient in
dealing with land use and development issues the Southold Town
Board should streamline governmental organization and establish a
new planning process based on consensus around the Town's shared
vision.
Recommendation # 2: Community-oriented non-profit organizations in
the Town of Southold and the North Fork area should form an Action
Coalition to promote their shared vision and to develop
interrelated projects to achieve that vision. The Coalition would
take a positive, non-confrontational approach to community issues
and needs, working cooperatively with each other and with
government.
Recommendation # 3: The Town of Southold should work in cooperation
with the Action Coalition to restate in clear, specific terms
Southold Town's shared vision, concentrating on six basic areas:
farmland protection, concentrating development within villages and
hamlets, provision of quality affordable housing, preservation of
the community's historic and rural character, economic development
based on the existing resources of the area, and maintenance and
improvement of the area's environmental quality. The concept of
Community Stewardship which integrates these concerns should be
emphasized.
Recommendation # 4: The Town of Southold together with the Action
Coalition and others, should create a visual map - a blueprint -of
the Town based on the six basic areas of its shared vision.
Recommendation # 5: The Town of Southold in cooperation with the
Action Coalition should institute creative, practical, steps to
implement the blueprint of its shared vision.
Recommendation # 6: The Town of Southold should consider a combined
Purchase of Development Rights and a Transfer of Development Rights
Program.
Recommendation # 7: The Town of Southold should consider expanding
the current tax abatement program for farmland into a working farm
tax abatement program which would eliminate property taxes on
farmland and farm buildings in return for a right of first purchase
on the land if it is ever to go out of farming use.
Recommendation # 8: The Town of Southold should develop a capital
improvement program for water and sewers limited to those areas
designated for growth in and around villages and hamlets and to
protect surface and ground water quality. Priority should be given
to eliminating pollution in creeks and bays, identifying and
eliminating non-point sources of pollution and solving the "brown
Page 3
tide" problem in Peconic Bay.
Recommendation #9: The Town of Southold should create an economic
plan which promotes sustainable development, using existing
agricultural, water-related recreational, fishing, historical and
cultural assets, and the area's unique sense of place as its theme.
Tourism would play a central part in this plan.
Recommendation # 10: The Town of Southold should develop an
affordable housing plan which would encourage a diversity of
quality housing, including rental units, equity-sharing concepts
and ownership, designed to be in keeping with the historic
character of the area and mostly located within existing villages
and hamlets. This plan should be developed in partnership with the
Action Coalition and with the neighborhoods in which the housing
would be located.
Recommendation # 11: In order to implement these recommendations,
leadership must be provided. In some areas town government will
have to take action, in others private resources can be more
effective. Southold Town government in cooperation with the Action
Coalition should develop a mutually agreed-upon strategic action
plan for implementation of specific tasks, assigning responsibility
for leadership in fulfilling them to the appropriate agency or
organization.
INTRODUCTION
The work of the Southold Town Stewardship Task Force has been another step in the
history of citizen participation in the planning process in Southold Town. The Town
Board charged us, in May 1992, with the task of studying the recommendations of
the U.S./U.K. Countryside Stewardship Exchange Team, an international group of
planners who came to Southold at the invitation of the North Fork Planning
Conference in 1991. Our charge was to propose specific ways to implement the
U.S./U.K. recommendations contained in the Exchange Team's November 1991
report.
The members of the Southold Town Stewardship Task Force noted with great interest
the observation in that report of a "shared vision" North Fork residents have for the
area's future. In our two years' work, we too have found that Southold residents
broadly share a vision for the future here. This vision is of a Southold that has found
a way to preserve and cherish its unique heritage, while sustaining a strong economic
base. The special character of Southold, its unique combination of hamlet centers in
the midst of working farmland and open space, all surrounded by clean and productive
water, is central to this common vision. The goal of the Task Force has been to
articulate this vision, to refine the means to achieve it in the future, and to
communicate with the people of the Town, so that the "shared vision" can become
a reality.
This document is our final report, setting forth a series of recommendations to the
Town Board and the people of Southold which embody and would implement the
shared vision we have found for the future of Southold Town. This report is the
culmination of two years of study and deliberation and reflects our learning in
meetings with experts, advisory committees to the Town Board, hamlet residents,
chambers of commerce, leaders from the Village of Greenport, the North Fork Planning
Conference, The North Fork Housing Alliance, and other civic groups whose work and
outlook helped us understand the issues. We have not addressed the special needs
of Fishers Island, which are in many ways different from the rest of Southold Town.
The people of Fishers Island have undertaken their own review and update of their
local plan, which will be completed soon. We hope it will meet with respectful
consideration by the Town Board.
The guiding principle of our discussions has been to generate recommendations that
will benefit the greatest number of people in Southold Town for the longest period of
time. We expect that the public discussion of some of these recommendations will
require a re-evaluation of the relationship between private rights and public good. We
understand the difficulty of reconciling both these realms but we are confident that
a full public discussion of the issues will lead to a satisfactory outcome.
We reiterate the basic finding of the U.S./U.K team: current zoning and local controls
are "inadequate to cope with the changes" Southold faces, and Southold "currently
lacks the programs" to implement the shared vision of its people. We stress the
seriousness of this continuing situation. Without bold action by the Town Board to
channel future development, current Town code and policy all but guarantee the long
term destruction of Southold Town as we now know it and look forward to preserving
for future generations. We have an urgent obligation to act.
We hope that this report will stimulate further broad popular participation in the
planning process as the Town Board takes up our recommendati~)ns. We hope that
the Town Board will heed the Exchange Team's recommendation that the Board
cooperate with a citizens "action coalition" -- the North Fork Planning Conference with
other organizations -- in a common effort to implement the best possible future for
Southoid Town.
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Following is a summary of the recommendations we propose. They are a continuation
of the work of the U.S./U.K. team and and address many planning issues which
confront rural communities like ours all over the United States. We have developed
our recommendations in the context of this larger experience, but tailored to the needs
of Southold Town. The recommendations vary in level of specificity and detail, but
all represent important steps we believe should be taken to fulfill the community's
shared vision.
PRESERVATION of FARMLAND and OPEN SPACE
The predominant physical character of the interior portions of the North Fork and the
Town of Southold is farmland and open space. It is this working landscape of
farmland which gives the Town its rural character, and contributes to all residents
quality of life. Of all the issues facing the Stewardship Task Force, that of farmland
and open space preservation is generally considered the most important.
Farmland here does not just create a pretty place. It supports a dynamic indusl~ry.
Suffolk County remains the leading producer of agricultural products in all New York
State: over $250 million a year. The Farm Bureau estimates that more than half of
that is grown on the North Fork. When we talk about farmland preservation, we are
not simply talking aesthetics; we are involved in economic development policy for
Southold.
The best way to preserve farmland is to preserve the economic viability of farming.
Over the long history of Southold Town, farmers have developed new crops, instituted
new methods, and sustained agriculture through many changes. This process is
continuing today with the growth of the grape and wine industry, nurseries and
cultivation under glass, and other high value crops. It is a complex process involving
regional and international forces as well as local conditions.
3
No government policy can substitute for entrepreneurial effort. But pressure for
suburban development is greater than ever before. Government has a role to play in
setting proper conditions for private agriculture, in part by protecting farmland from
residential subdivision and commercial intrusion. The most direct protection is large
lot zoning (for example, 25 acres) or agricultural zones, in which no non-agricultural
activity is allowed. These techniques have been used successfully in many rural areas
in the United States. The New York Department of State is now drafting a model
agricultural zone ordinance,
Southold Town, Suffolk County, and New York State have pioneered a variety of
programs which have been helpful in preserving North Fork farmland and open space.
We recommend that these programs be extended, and that other steps be taken to
improve economic opportunities for farmers. We also recommend the implementation
of some new programs, especially the transfer of development rights, which
harnesses the forces of development to the task of farmland preservation.
We also explore the uses to which preserved open space can be put. The land need
not be totally idle, but will best serve residents' needs if uses consistent with the
character of open space can evolve in a "partnership with the land."
SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
In order to protect and improve the quality of life of the Town's residents, steps
should be taken to support a vital economy. This should be done by recognizing and
enhancing the strengths of the existing local economy: agriculture, marine activities
and tourism, and by understanding our role within the regional economy.
Encouraging agriculture and marine activities can be done partly by preserving the land
and water on which they depend. Through innovative farming techniques and
diversity of crop, development of markets, and the adoption of beneficial
governmental policy, these traditional industries will hopefully continue and thrive.
The Town should work with Greenport to fullfil its potential as a maritime center.
Marina uses should be carefully reviewed in light of the environmental limits of our
waters, as well as the economic potential they offer.
The tourism industry should be seen to include the business of all those who come
to Southold for its scenic, cultural, and recreational features: second-home owners,
retirees, seasonal renters, overnight visitors, and day trippers. While the current
"season" runs from late spring to mid-fall, we believe that it can and should be
extended to a year-round basis through the scheduling of town-wide festivals
appropriate to the different times of year. The tourist industry depends in large part
on preserving and improving the physical beauty of the Town. It should be developed
within the environmental constraints of our natural resources, and always in a way
to improve our own quality of life. We recommend a series of measures to mitigate
the serious traffic problems which come with a flourishing tourist trade.
We identify health
telecommunication
diversification.
care and professional home occupation based on modern
as important potential areas for economic growth and
WATER
The quality of our water, both surface salt and fresh water, and fresh groundwater,
is of critical importance to Southold Town. No other natural resource affects the lives
and activities of all our residents to such a degree. Therefore, special steps should
be taken to preserve and improve of the quality of our water.
Several groups and agencies are already committed to improving the quality of the salt
water bays and creeks. It is important for the Town and its residents to take
additional steps to protect this resource. Chief among these are the managing of
surface runoff and the prevention of contamination to both salt and fresh waters.
Steps must also be taken to protect the quantity and quality of our fresh groundwater.
Due to the nature of the soil, our groundwater is highly susceptible to contamination
from surface activities. It is also important to discourage overpumping which can
result in intrusion of salt water. Careful management of this resource is essential to
secure the right of all Southold residents to high quality potable water, without overly
resorting to the extension of public water mains. The extension of public water
should in no circumstance alone provide the basis for more dense development.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The people most in need of housing assistance in Southold Town are among young
families, the elderly, relatively Iow wage earners, and the working poor. Beyond the
people immediately affected, the availability of affordable housing is critical to the
overall health of the local economy. In the absence of Iow cost housing, businesses
are forced to pay higher wages and draw more of their workforce from up-Island
commuters, or forego job creation altogether. Young people beginning their adult lives
find it more difficult to remain in Southold Town and migrate elsewhere.
No single program can meet the diverse needs of the target populations in Southold
Town. We therefore recommend a variety of initiatives and programs which, taken
together, will be effective and satisfy many kinds of needs. We do not recommend
that Southold Town establish a housing authority to administer this work. Rather,
already successful co-operation between the Town and the North Fork Housing
Alliance should continue as the basic administrative structure for affordable housing
programs throughout Southold Town.
5
Before detailing our own recommendations, we note that Southold Town currently has
a multi-faceted affordable housing program. Its principal component is described in
Section V of the Zoning Code (AHD Zones). The heart of the program involves
granting de~elopers increased housing densities (beyond what is normally allowed in
the area) in exchange for a commitment that a certain fraction of the new units will
be "affordable." The Code establishes housing cost and income limits which define
affordability, based on initial values set by the Town Board in 1989 and then adjusted
annually to reflect changes in cost of living. The Code also provides that cash
subsidies provided at initial construction shall be entirely appropriated by the
homeowner after seven years.
Our recommendations call for a new focus for affordable housing. The Town should
encourage the rehabilitation of existing homes rather than the construction of new
ones. Town policy should encourage more rental units, although home ownership can
play a role as well. Subsidies provided should be recaptured and recycled.
CHARACTER of HAMLETS and RURAL sETTING
The hamlets are the historic focus for residential and business activity in Southold
Town. We consider this is to be a desirable pattern of development, which should be
encouraged by allowing appropriate new residential and commercial development in
the existing centers. In order to facilitate this growth, careful planning should be
undertaken by the Town, so that a rural, pedestrian oriented village quality, consistent
with our history and traditional pattern of development, is fostered.
In contrast to the hamlets, the countryside should maintain its open, rural atmosphere.
Whenever possible, vistas of fields, woodlands and the water should be preserved.
New development in these areas should be carefully considered and consistent with
the historic character of the landscape. The blurring of the distinction between hamlet
and countryside shculd be avoided as a priority.
The long history of Southold has yielded an extraordinary richness and diversity of
buildings and working landscapes. Vigorous steps should be taken to assure the
preservation of these structures and landscapes. All residents benefit from the
preservation of our historic and scenic heritage, not only for our quality of life, but
also for the economic potential it offers the Town.
6
CHAPTER I
PRESERVATION of FARMLAND
and OPEN SPACE
The predominant physical character of the interior portions of the North Fork and the
Town of Southold is farmland and open space. It is this working landscape of
farmland which gives the Town its rural character, and contributes to all residents
quality of life. Of all the issues facing the Stewardship Task Force, that of farmland
and open space preservation is generally considered the most important.
Farmland here does not just create a pretty place. It supports a dynamic industry.
Suffolk County remains the leading producer of agricultural products in all New York
State: over $250 million a year. The Farm Bureau estimates that more than half of
that is grown on the North Fork. When we talk about farmland preservation, we are
not simply talking aesthetics; we are involved in economic development policy for
Southold.
The best way to preserve farmland is to preserve the economic viability of farming.
Over the long history of Southold Town, farmers have developed new crops, instituted
new methods, and sustained agriculture through many changes. This process is
continuing today with the growth of the grape and wine industry, nurseries and
cultivation under glass, and other high value crops. It is a complex process involving
regional and international forces as well as local conditions.
No government policy can substitute for entrepreneurial effort. But pressure for
suburban development is greater than ever before. Government has a role to play in
setting proper conditions for private agriculture, in part by protecting farmland from
residential subdivision and commercial intrusion. The most direct protection is large
lot zoning (for example, 25 acres) or agricultural zones, in which no non-agricultural
activity is allowed. These techniques have been used successfully in many rural areas
in the United States. The New York Department of State is now drafting a model
agricultural zone ordinance.
7
Southold Town, Suffolk County, and New York State have pioneered a variety of
programs which have been helpful in preserving North Fork farmland and open space.
We recommend that these programs be extended, and that other steps be taken to
improve economic opportunities for farmers. We also recommend the implementation
of some new programs, especially the transfer of development rights, which
harnesses the forces of development to the task of farmland preservation.
We also explore the uses to which preserved open space can be put. The land need
not be totally idle, but will best serve residents' needs if uses consistent with the
character of open space can evolve in a "partnership with the land."
RECOMMENDATION #1
FARMLAND PRESERVATION
The people of Southold have long supported Town and County programs designed to
preserve farmland and open space. These programs, for the most part, have been
based on the concept of purchase of development rights (PDR), which involves the
separation of land from the right to develop it. Typically, the Town or County has
negotiated individually with landowners for the purchase of the right to develop their
land; for which they are compensated. Once these rights are removed from the land,
they are understood to be extinguished, never to be used for development.
The purchase of development rights theoretically decreases the future density of the
Town. Our research has shown that although the owners of undeveloped land pay
lower taxes that those of developed land, they also require no municipal servia:es;
when compared dollar for dollar, it is cheaper for the Town to preserve farmland, even
when funded by pdblic acquisition, than to allow development. Preservation of
farmland reduces the tax burden on Town residents by reducing the need for town
services.
Approximately 1500 acres in the Town of Southold (out of a total of approximately
11,000 acres currently in production) have been preserved through this program. The
people of the Town and County have continued to support the programs by voting to
fund such PDRs by the issue of public bonds.
I a: NEW BONDING
Place on the ballot a proposal for a new bond referendum for the purchase of farmland
development rights, as part of the existing PDR program. Calculate amount of new
proposal to purchase the rights of at least 500 acres.
8
lb: PRIORITIZE PDR PURCHASES
Formulate a list of priority purchase areas, primarily in the Special Groundwater
Protection Area (SPCA) and adjacent to or in proximity to other preserved areas, and
especially adjacent to the Main Road, where the benefit of open space preservation
can be appreciated by most. Target new PDRs (to extent feasible) from the priority
list.
lc: WORK WITH OTHER AGENCIES
To maximize funds available to the Town for purchase of development rights, resell
development rights to other holding agencies such as Suffolk County or land trusts
that will honor the programs' commitments and intent.
RECOMMENDATION #2
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
Although successful, the current programs to preserve farmland by the purchase of
development rights cannot be counted on to preserve all or even a majority of the
remaining farmland in the Town of Southold. Legislators and voters may not be able
to maintain strong support in a time of fiscal austerity, as other priorities compete for
limited public funds. We believe that a self-financing mechanism should be developed
to preserve farmland, a method based on the open market, which can maximize the
limited funds available.
The Stewardship Task Force believes a transfer of development rights program should
be an important component of the farmland preservation programs in the of Southold,
and would positively advance the planning objectives of the Town. This
recommendation sets forth the rationale for such a program, and includes a
preliminary set of guidelines for an initial Transfer of Development Rights program.
These guidelines are the result of several months of intensive study and several
meetings of the Task Force with representatives of the farming community and others
interested in the preservation of farming and economic growth in the Town. We
recommend a voluntary program which can win the support of landowners, farmers,
preservationists and the community as a whole. In preparing this recommendation the
Task Force has been guided by the first two "vision" recommendations of the US/UK
Exchange Team:
Protection of all farmland currently in productive use.
Concentration of new residential and commercial development in and
around existing hamlets and villages.
9
The "Transfer of Development Rights" (TDR) concept has been developed and
implemented in other regions of the country as a means to preserve open space and
farmland from development. The concept involves quantifying the rights to develop
open land, separating those rights from the actual ownership of real property, and
allowing those rights to be bought and sold by individuals. In a similar fashion the
Town and County have developed a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program,
to preserve open space and farmland without actually buying the property. In the
case of TDR's, development rights can be removed from certain properties, and
relocated to other appropriate properties. The effect is to relocate the development
out of certain "sending zones", which the public desires to maintain in an undeveloped
state, into certain "receiving zones", which the public deems more appropriate for
concentrated development. While we note that not all new development will use the
TDR program, we believe such a program will be one important tool to direct new
development into hamlet centers.
Current programs designed to preserve farmland involve the purchase and
extinguishing of development rights (DRs). In a Transfer of Development Rights
Program, development rights would be separated from the land and transferred
elsewhere, where development is considered appropriate, or held for future use. Non-
extinguished development rights are a commodity which have value independent of
the land from which they originally came. Their value is determined by the free
market forces of supply and demand. Their purchase could be seen as an investment.
If the supply of DRs offered for sale greatly exceeds the demand for their purchase
their market value will drop. A limited demand in the private real estate market for
growth in the receiving area will yield a Iow value of development rights, which will
not support an active TDR program. To create an active and successful program the
Town must find a way to stabilize the market value of development rights.
Overlay zones for a Transfer of Development Rights Program would map the basic
intentions of the Town with regard to preservation and future growth. Sending zones
are those areas, primarily agricultural, from which development rights should be
"sent", preserving active farmland. Receiving zones are those areas in and around the
existing hamlet centers which are considered appropriate for increased density and
growth.
In other voluntary TDR programs we have studied, the receiving area is normally large
enough to readily absorb the development rights from the designated sending area.
Our research has shown that a ratio of receiving zones to sending zones of 2-2.5 to
1 is normally required to have a successful voluntary program. This is not the case
in our recommended program, because our recommendation has the added objective
of focusing new development in the historic hamlet centers. To compensate for a
relatively smaller receiving area, we propose the creation of a development rights
"bank" (see recommendation 2d below).
10
2a:
SENDING ZONES- PRESERVATION AREA
2a)1. Designate "Sending Zones": areas for farmland and open space
preservation corresponding to the current Agricultural/Conservation (A/C)
zone, and in the Oyster Ponds School District corresponding to current
R-80 and R-200 zones. Exclude from sending zone those A/C areas
otherwise designated herein as "Receiving Zones"
2a)2.
Quantify development rights within the sending zones to equal one
development right per two acres of total property area. It has been
extensively discussed in the Task Force whether the quantification of
TDR's should result from a "yield map", which excludes wetlands areas
and area for necessary infrastructure for development. It was decided
that TDR's should instead be based on total site area, both to simplify
the process and add incentive to use the program; this will result in an
increased the number of development rights to be transferred, but should
result in a more successful program.
2b:
PRIMARY RECEIVING ZONES - EXISTING HAMLET AREAS
2b)1. Designate "Primary Receiving Zones": areas in and adjacent to existing
hamlet centers which are deemed appropriate for enhanced development
(increased density), to correspond to current floating Hamlet Density
(HD) zones. This zone includes areas within one-half mile of each hamlet
post office in Southold, Cutchogue and Mattituck, and one-quarter mile
in Peconic, New Suffolk, East Marion, and Orient, as derived from the
hamlet meetings of April 9, 1994.
2b)2.
Allow the transfer of development rights from the sending zone to the
receiving zone, where it will increase the allowable development yield on
a piece of property on the basis of one unit added per development right
transferred.
2b)3.
Establish the maximum allowable density in the Receiving Zone to equal
that currently or in future permitted by the Suffolk County Sanitary
Code. In reviewing subdivision and site plans in the receiving zone into
which TDR's are transferred, the Planning Board should require clustering
of units to the maximum density allowed unde~ this program,
2b)4.
Allow the transfer of TDR's into the receiving zone to add residential
units in commercial zones above or behind a commercial establishment,
in excess of currently allowable number of uses.
11
SECONDARY RECEIVING ZONE - HAMLET GROWTH AREAS
2c)1. Establish "Secondary Receiving Zones" as Hamlet Growth Areas in areas
of greater extent around the "primary receiving zone". The borders of
this secondary zone should be established based on recommendations
of the citizens in the Hamlet meetings and after consultation by the
Planning Board. These borders should be designated in such a way as
to balance the preservation of scenic and environmentally sensitive areas
against the need to provide a large enough area to attract TDR
participation.
We recommend that the zone roughly correspond to a radius one mile
from each post office in Mattituck, Cutchogue and Southold, and one-
half mile in Peconic, New Suffolk, East Marion, and Orient.
2c)2.
Allow the transfer of TDR's into the secondary receiving zone, the
Hamlet Growth Area, to increase the current allowed density by an
amount as follows:
a) reduce the minimum lot size in an R-40 zone to 30,000 sq. feet.
b) reduce the minimum lot size in an R-80 zone to 60,000 sq. feet.
2d: CREATE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS "BANK"
A fundamental and, we believe, necessary component of a successful TDR program
in Southold Town will be a Development Rights Bank. This institution would act to
stabilize the value of development rights by taking the role of intermediary between
seller and purchaser of development rights. A "bank" would purchase development
rights from private landowners in the sending zones with funds provided by a public
bond approved by the voters. The DRs purchased would not be automatically
extinguished; rather they would be held in the bank for resale in approved receiving
zones. By sale of DRs the bank would recover its funds, allowing it to purchase other
development rights and thereby preserve more farmland.
The bank may need to hold the rights it purchases for a long period of time, until real
estate activity within the receiving zones creates sufficient demand to purchase those
rights from the bank. There are different time constraints at work: the preservation
of farmland should be accomplished on a short term basis (2 - 5 years), while the
desired type of growtt~in the hamlets will occur on a long term basis (20 - 30 years).
The Development Rights Bank can provide the mechanism to save open space now,
and allow development to catch up over a longer period of time.
12
2e:
SUPPLEMENTARY CONDITIONS
2e)1. For reasons of fairness and balance in taxation, TDRs should be
transferred only within single school districts.
2e)2.
So as not to reduce the value of TDRs and defeat the program, we
strongly recommend that the Town Board and Zoning Board of Appeals
resolve to grant no increases in allowed density (through variances or
zoning changes) within the sending or receiving zones except through
the TDR program.
2e)3.
We recommend that the Town periodically review the TDR program and
consider implementing other provisions or mechanisms to strengthen the
program and enhance its effectiveness in achieving its objectives.
RECOMMENDATION #3
SUPPORT AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY
The health of the agricultural industry is critical to the physical character and
economic future of the Town of Southold. We are encouraged by the diversification
of crops which has been taking place in recent years (potatoes/vegetables, wine
grapes, sod, nursery stock, etc.) and believe that this trend demonstrates the
creativity of individual farmers and the vitality of the industry. We have followed the
activities of the Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC), and believe it to be the
appropriate forum for the detailed exploration of agricultural issues.
3a: ADOPT "RIGHT-TO-FARM LEGISLATION"
We recommend "Right-to-Farm" legislation to support the activities of the farm
community. A preamble to such legislation should be as follows:
A PROPOSED FARMER'S BILL OF RIGHTS
Farming is an essential activity within the Town of Southold. Farmers provide
fresh food, clean air, economic diversity and refreshing open spaces to all the
citizens 0f our town. Accordingly, farmers shall have the Right to Farm in
Southold, without the interference from adjadent landowners or users.
And, for the purpose of reducing future conflicts between people residing on
tracts adjacent to or within the farming areas and the farmers, it is necessary
to establish and give notice of the nature of farm activities to future neighbors
of farmland and farming activities.
13
Agricultural activities conducted on farmland, undertaken in substantial
compliance with applicable federal, state, county and town laws, rules and
regulations, are presumed to be good agricultural practice and are presumed not
to adversely affect the public health, welfare and safety. All such activities
shall be protected Farm Practices within the Town of Southold.
3b; SUPPORT AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
We believe that support to farmers offered by the Cornell Research Center and Co-
operative Extension Office is critical to the future of agriculture on the North Fork.
Efforts should be taken by the Town to ensure that the Center is adequately funded
and supported by the County Legislature and that its location remain in Riverhead.
In addition, we recommend that a number of specific issues be considered by the
Agricultural Advisory Committee.
3b)1. An advanced weather advisory system, using currently available
technology, would assist individual farmers in their daily and weekly decision
making.
3b)2. A farm composting program, to dispose of farm waste and leftover crops
could greatly assist the farming community. Such a program could be located
at the existing landfill, or at some other convenient location.
3b)3. Continue to research and update farmers on techniques of chemical free
farming. On the North Fork in particular, with our porous soil and shallow
water table, this effort is important.
3b)4. Investigate grant opportunities for research and the diversification of
crops.
3c: TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM
Explore modifications to the Tax Abatement Program for working farms. Investigate
additional financial incentives for keeping land in agricultural production. This program
should be tailored to attract the non-farming landowners as well as working farmers.
3d: FARMERS' MARKET
There are presently (1993) over 170 community farmers' markets located in over 40
counties around New York State. Nationwide, the number exceeds 2,000, according
to an Ohio State University study. These numbers, largely achieved during the 1980s,
appear to result from a combination of private and municipal promotion aided by
14
recent dietary trends. During the same period roadside markets increased nationally
from 15,000 to 25,000, a strong indication that formation of farmers' markets does
not hurt roadside stands.
The primary benefit is an additional retail outlet for local farm produce. Beyond this,
a properly operating farmers' market will achieve name recognition and produce
additional customers through advertising and other promotional means. It can be
expected that the greater variety of produce available at a community farmers' market
will attract more sophisticated buyers such as local and out-of-town restaurateurs.
For farmers whose land lies off main roads such a market affords an opportunity to
achieve a volume of retail sales that is now largely denied to them.
Consumers will benefit most from the convenience, both in location and in greater
available variety of produce. In addition, adequate parking will be necessary to
improve both convenience and safety.
Farmer's markets have the blessing of and may get material help from the New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets via its Direct Marketing Program.
Established farmers' markets can participate in the New York State Farmers' Market
Nutrition Program, a subsidized buying program for WlC (Women, Infants and
Children) families and senior citizens. In 1993 this program redeemed coupons valued
at $1,376,840 from 121 farmers' markets throughout the state.
In this effort, we do not intend for a Farmers' Market to compete with existing farm
stands, but rather to complement them as a draw to the North Fork. For this reason
it is important that the Market be located in an appropriate area, and that its days of
operation and hours be limited.
3d)1. The Town should promote the formation of a private, not-for-profit
organization which will operate a farmers' markets beginning with the 1995
growing season. We recommend that such a farmers' market be located in the
"open air, preferably in Greenport Village, where it will reach additional markets
and not compete with other farm stands.
3d)2. The Town should set guidelines for the operation of a Farmer's Market
to insure that its activities will be limited to selling products of Southold Town's
land and the surrounding waters, including fruit, vegetables, flowers, and fish.
3d)3. It is also recommended that the Town's active promotion include, but not
be limited to, site assistance, needed permits and help in obtaining any grants
available from New York State or other sources.
15
3~: REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION
Owing to the small size of many local farms, and perhaps also because of the
independence of individual farmers, there is little regional promotion or distribution of
produce off the North Fork. We believe that a regional effort to promote and
distribute agricultural products would benefit the farming community greatly.
Therefore, we recommend that the Town, through the AAC, investigate opportunities
for cooperative efforts in this area.
RECOMMENDATION #4
WINERY USES
Vineyards and wineries are relatively new additions to Southold's agricultural sector,
the first vineyard having been planted only fifteen years ago. Yet in a short time, the
wine industry has become an important component of the agricultural economy.
There are nine functioning wineries, and approximately one thousand acres in
cultivation as vineyards. This development has occurred during a time when the
overall acreage of farmland in cultivation has decreased, and the agricultural sector
of the Town's economy has declined.
The winery owners have demonstrated their commitment to the future of the Town
by making large investments in purchasing land, planting grapes, and building the
necessary infrastructure to make and market wine. By cooperating with each other,
the owners have succeeded in making a name for North Fork wine i the competitive
international market. Most important, in bringing the history and traditions of
winemaking to Southold, they have come to play an important part of Southold's
future.
The Stewardship Task Force believes it is time for the Town of Southold to recognize
this achievement by making changes in the Zoning Code to allow wineries greater
flexibility in the use of their facilities. Our intention is to encourage the growth and
financial health of the wine industry, so that it will continue to provide a benefit to
tourist related other businesses and the entire Town.
4a: FOR-PROFIT EVENTS AND FESTIVALS
By current code, wineries are allowed to host only not-for-profit events. This prohibits
the rental of their space for weddings, festivals, and other group activities which
might help defray their high cost of operation. We recommend that for-profit events
be allowed as an accessory use.'
16
4a)1. Any event held inside the winery facility should be allowed as an
accessory use without permit. Each winery has an approved Site Plan and a
Certificate of Occupancy for public assembly, which assures that adequate
parking and sanitary facilities are available for such events.
4a)2. Any event held outside the winery facility should be allowed a permit
granted by the Town. A permit process should be established to allow for and
regulate individual events. To prevent exterior events whose size exceeds the
capacity of the winery site, a maximum allowable occupancy should be
established. This should be based on the site area available for the event, off-
street parking and on the capacity of sanitary facilities. As part of the approval
process, the Town should perform an inspection of the premises to verify
adequate facilities.
4a)3. Wineries should be allowed to erect temporary structures (tents), to
provide shelter for a exterior events. These structures should be allowed by
permit only for a limited period.
4a)4. Noise should be regulated by Town ordinances.
4b: SALE OF ACCESSORY ITEMS
We believe that the retail sale of certain items of an accessory nature is consistent
with the primary business of making and selling wine at wineries. It is not our
intention that wineries become gift shops, or compete unfairly with other retail gift
shops in the Town.
4b)1. A list of appropriate allowable accessory items should be made, and
might include: corkscrews, wine glasses and decanters, items for the storage
and display of wine, books on winemaking and the region, and non-specific
items with the insignia of the winery.
4b)2. In an effort to support the cultural life of the Town, we recommend the
list of allowable items include fine art. A list of appropriate fine art items
should be made, and include: paintings, photographs and sculpture. We
recognize a distinction between "fine art" and "handcrafts"; the latter of which
we do not intend to permit. We believe the sale of handcrafts at wineries may
unbalance the relationship between the wineries and surrounding retail stores.
4c: SERVING FOOD
Recognizing the long history of association between food and wine, we believe it
would be consistent with the primary business of wineries to allow them to serve food
to accompany their wine. We consider the development and promotion of a regional
cuisine, based on local wine and produce, to be a worthwhile objective. A wide range
17
of acceptable food and wine events can be imagined, including culinary instruction
and demonstration, visiting chefs, parties, and banquets.
4c)1. Serving food as an accessory use should be allowed only on an "event"
basis. We do not recommend that the Town allow wineries to become
restaurants, or sell individual meals to a walk-in clientele. A winery should be
allowed to become a restaurant only if it is located in a zone that is appropriate
for that use.
4c)2. Wineries should be allowed to install commercial kitchens for the
preparation of food, subject to regulatory approval and inspection by agencies
whose jurisdiction includes assuring public health and safety. Wineries should
also be allowed to serve food prepared off-site.
4c)3. A Town permit for exterior events should cover situations involving food
at events.
RECOMMENDATION #5
OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION
The history of land development on Long Island is that of the subdivision of large
parcels into smaller ones. This trend has been a consequence of the demand for new
single- family homes and the fact that residential use yields the maximum value to the
landowner. Because of their development potential, the value of large parcels of land
has thus increased dramatically.
Farming is the historic and traditional use of large plots of land in Southold. Because
of the increasing value of their land, and other market pressures, farmers have
diversified their crops, resulting in the current mix of vegetable and potato farming,
nursery stock, sod, and vineyards. Although an agricultural use can often provide a
satisfactory return to the landowner, the greatest value in large parcels is their
potential for development. This fact allows farmers to finance their operations by
using their equity in land (with its potential for development) as collateral for bank
loans.
The purpose of zoning has always been to control the development of communities
by restricting potential land uses. Most open land in Southold is zoned for agricultural
and single family residential use. If farming were to become not a viable option for
a large lot owner, the only alternative allowed by zoning would be subdivision for
residential use. The existence of this situation has led to the loss of open space. In
recent years numerous programs have been created to support agriculture and
preserve open space, including the purchase of development rights by the County and
Town. While these strategies have proven successful, they cannot hope to preserve
18
the majority of available open space remaining in the Town. The Stewardship Task
Force has sought to find other methods to preserve open space and the rural quality
of Southold.
Sa:
CONTINUE EXISTING OPEN SPACE PROGRAM
5a)1. Develop list of properties for acquisition and begin negotiations for their
purchase.
5a)2. Expand current program to allow for the purchase of development rights
as well as outright purchase of land.
5b: LOBBY COUNTY AND STATE FOR OPEN SPACE FUNDING
The Stewardship Task Force is hopeful that the recent settlement of the dispute
involving the ownership of Robins Island will lead to its guaranteed preservation in an
undeveloped state. We believe that Suffolk County was correct in its objective to
acquire and preserve the island, and that it acted in good faith to achieve this
objective. We are also respectful of the efforts of the coalition of citizen and
environmental groups to focus the public debate on the value of Robins Island and
merits of open space acquisition in general.
We believe that the Town of Southold is entitled to have County funds of an amount
similar to that which was earmarked,for the acquisition of Robins Island expended in
the Town for the preservation of open space, There are other properties in Southold
of extreme environmental significance which meet the criteria for acquisition by
Suffolk County,
5C: RESERVED OPEN SPACE
We recommend the amendment and reorganization of Chapter 59 (Open Space
Preservation) of the Town Code. Currently, the only means of protecting open space
provided for by Chapter 59 is the purchase of land and development rights. There
are, however, a number of other conservation measures which could be included
which would advance the open space goals of the Town of Southold with little or no
expenditure of public funds. Several open space and conservation ordinances from
local Long Island municipalities have been reviewed and should be further studied with
respect to their applicability to the Town of Southold.
19
20
5c)1. CREATION OF RESERVE OPEN SPACE
Provide for mandatory use of an open space subdivision procedure (cluster
subdivision) for certain parcels, in which the minimum open space requirements
set forth in this chapter below are satisfied.
5c)1 .A
(1)
INCLUDED PARCELS
Lands located either wholly or partly within the
Agricultural/Conservation (A/C) zone.
(2) Lands located either wholly or partly within the SGPA.
(3)
Lands containing prime agricultural soils, whose
preservation would implement the Town's Master Plan, and
support the continuation of agriculture as part of the
Town's economy.
5c)1.B. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
The Planning Board's exercise of powers should result in the preservation
of open space of certain minimum percentages of the total acreage of
land within the subdivision:
(1) For a subdivi~i;.,~mbtar~f C~fig~i-.'~'ebat~(2~°~)re§~ta~
property should be set aside as open space.
(2) For a subdivision of 10 acres or more in an A/C zone, a
minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the property should be set
aside as open space.
(3) For subdivisions containing prime agricultural soils, but not
necessarily in an A/C zone, the following minimum percentages
of the total acreage of land should be set aside as agricultural
open space:
(a) at least fifty percent (50%) of the prime agricultural soils
where the subdivided parcel:
- is used for agriculture or has the potential for such
use; and,
- is large enough for an open space subdivision which
does not significantly disturb the prime soils;
but,
- is not contiguous with other parcels of land having
prime soils, so as to permit unification of land
into larger agricultural areas.
(b) at least seventy percent (70%) of prime agricultural soils
where the parcel:
is used for agriculture or has the potential for such
use; and,
is large enough for an open space subdivision which
does not significantly disturb the prime soils; but,
- is not contiguous with other parcels of land having prime
soils so as to permit unification into a large
agricultural area; or,
- is not contiguous with other parcels of land having prime
soils so as to permit unification into a large
agricultural area, but is large enough to allow
preservation of a significant parcel of agricultural
open space.
5c)1 .C. Where a parcel of land contains both prime agricultural soils
and non-prime soils, the Planning Board should have the discretionary
authority to require that development take place on non-prime soils so
as to maximize the preservation of prime agricultural soils.
5c)2. USES OF RESERVED OPEN SPACE
In order to clarify the present uncertainty as to permitted uses, the code should
be revised to specify permitted uses and restricted uses for reserved open
space.
5c)2.A. PERMITTED USES OF OPEN SPACE
(1) Preservation uses, such as the protection of natural
features, resources, or systems in their undisturbed condition.
{2) Conservation uses, such as the protection of natural or
man-made features, resources, or systems and cultural features,
in essentially their undisturbed condition, but with allowance for
human use or intervention in an environmentally sound and non-
destructive manner, such as the management of wetlands or the
farm use of agricultural soils.
(3) Recreational uses, such as use of non-motorized vehicles,
trials & bike paths; not for use by motorized vehicles.
{4) Historic and cultural preservation uses, such as the
protection of historic places and buildings or of archaeological
sites.
21
22
5c)2,B.
RESTRICTED USES OF OPEN SPACE (except agricultural
open space),
(1) No buildings, fences, or other structures shall be
constructed, erected, maintained, or moved onto or within the
said open space,
(2) No topsoil shall be removed from the open space and no
sand, gravel, peat or other minerals shall be placed on the open
space or removed therefrom. The natural topography and land
contours of the open space shall remain natural and in an
undisturbed condition.
(3) The open space shall in all other respects remain in its
natural state in order to maintain its character and appearance at
the time of Planning Board approval of the subdivision, unless
allowed to revert to a more natural character and appearance.
(4) If permitted by the Planning Board at the time of approval
of the subdivision, minor structures may be placed, constructed,
or maintained within the open space and minor changes from the
natural condition of the open space may be allowed, if such
structures or changes are permitted in furtherance of:
(a) passive and non-consumptive human use of the open
space, such as trails or pedestrian boardwalks across dunes
or wetlands;
(b) ecological scientific research or environmental
mana:~ement of natural resources, such as study of natural
systems or management of wetlands;
(c) archeological investigation; or
(d) preservation of historic places or buildings.
5c)2.C. Agricultural open space created or required by the Planning
Board for agricultural use, should be permanently restricted in its use as
follows:
(1) The use of the agricultural open space shall be restricted in
perpetuity to some or all of the following activities:
(a) agricultural operation, including soil preparation,
cultivation, drainage, fertilization, irrigation, pest control,
erosion control, and other normal and customary
agricultural practices intended to enhance open,
undeveloped land and agricultural production,
encompassing the production or raising of field crops,
vegetables, fruits, trees, horticultural specialties, flowers,
livestock (including cattle, sheep, goats, horses and
poultry) and livestock products, and other ordinary farm
products and
(b) the use of farm vehicles and equipment in
connection with agricultural operations.
(2) The Planning Board should have power to impose
restrictions on open space which are in addition to, or are more
specific than, those restrictions set forth in this chapter.
5c)3. OWNERSHIP OF RESERVED OPEN SPACE
The Code should be revised to allow the Planning Board to impose limitations
or restrictions on the ownership of open space for the following purposes:
5c)3.A. INTENT OF RESTRICTION OF OWNERSHIP
(1) To ensure that open space set aside herein continues to
serve its intended purpose, i.e., the preservation or conservation
of land in perpetuity in its natural or existing condition for
nonconsumptive and environmentally sound use;
(2) To ensure that the benefits of the open space may be
enjoyed by owners of all lots or dwelling units in the development,
or by the larger community;
(3) To promote the proper management and care of open
space, both to ensure that its scenic and ecological values are
protected and to ensure that it does not become derelict or a
source of nuisance to the community;
(4) To foster certainty in land titles and avoid the abandonment
of land having Little economic value by private landowners;
{5)
to reduce the likelihood that future owners of open space
will attempt to convert it to commercial or consumptive
uses incompatible with the original purposes for which the
land was set aside; and
23
24
(6)
to give public notice of restrictions placed upon the use of
open space at time it was set aside.
5c)3.B. As a condition to approval of a subdivision map, the
Planning Board should require that fee title to parcels of open space
shown on the map be conveyed to one or more of the following:
(1 } A property owners association incorporated in accordance
with the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law of the State of New York
and which meets the criteria set forth below,
(2) The Town of Southold or another governmental unit or
authority, for conservation purposes only; or
(3) A qualified private conservation organization or land trust,
which is required under charter to own and manage the open
space for conservation purposes in perpetuity and which has the
capacity to do so.
5c)3.C. TITLE TO AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE.
The Planning Board may permit the owner or developer of a subdivision
map to retain fee title to open space which is set aside for agricultural
purposes. In any such case, the Planning Board shall ensure that the
agricultural open space remains available and suitable for agricultural use
in perpetuity by requiring the grant of an aoricultural use easement to the
Town of Southold or to an approved private conservation corporation or
land trust, and by imposing such other conditions and restrictions as, in
the discretion of the Board, will ensure this result.
5c)3.D. GRANT OF RESTRICTIVE EASEMENTS.
Where fee title to open space will be conveyed to a property owners
association, the Planning Board should ensure that the said open space
is used in perpetuity only for the conservation uses approved by the
Board and shall ensure that public record notice is given of the nature of
restrictions on the open space. To this end, the Planning Board shall:
(1) Require the grant of conservation easements, either to the
Town of Southold or to an approved private conservation
corporation or land trust, or require the filing of such other
instruments as will permanently impose the open space
restrictions required by this chapter and give record notice fo
the same; and
(2) Impose other conditions or restrictions in such manner as
will, in the discretion of the Board, ensure that use of the open
space is permanently restricted to those preservation or
conservation uses approved by the Board.
5c)3.E. Conveyance to property owners association. Title to open
space may only be conveyed to a property owners association if the
following conditions are met:
(1) The said association must be incorporated in accordance
with the New York State Not-For-Profit Corporation Law and must
exist for the common benefit of the owners of all of the lots in the
subdivision map
(2) The association must be responsible for any insurance,
taxes, or other costs which are needed to manage and maintain
the open space,
(3) Under the terms of incorporation of the association, title to
the open space held by the association must revert to the Town
of Southold, at the Town's option, should the association be
dissolved without conveyance Of the open space to one of the
other entities specified above.
(4) Membership in the association must be mandatory for the
owner of each lot in the subdivision map and for the owner's
successors in interest, and each such owner must be required to
pay a proportion of the annual costs of maintaining such open
space;
(5) The association must have power to levy assessments
against each lot owner for that owner's proportion of the annual
costs of maintaining the open space, which assessments must be
capable of being changed as circumstances warrant and which
may become liens against the property of a lot owner who fails to
pay his or her assessment,
(6) The developer of the subdivision must, by the filing of a
declaration of covenants and restrictions or other appropriate
instruments impost the foregoing duties upon the association and
the owners of every lot in the subdivision map;
(7) The association must be established, and instruments which
satisfy the above requirements must be recorded, not later than
25
the date on which the subdivision map is filed with the Suffolk
County Clerk.
5c)3.F. The foregoing limitations on ownership and use shall apply
to any parcel of open space created pursuant to this chapter,
notwithstanding the Planning Board's failure to fully and adequately set
them forth in any declarations, easements, or other instruments filed in
connection with the approval of a particular subdivision map.
5d: C~)NSERVATION AND SCENIC EASEMENTS
The Town of Southold currently relies on the use of covenants and restrictions and
other regulations to assure the protection of natural, agricultural, and environmental
resources when subdividing property. Such methods depend solely on police powers
as well as land use regulation which is subject to change. Conservation easements,
on the other hand, represent conveyance of/nterest$/n property (vested property
rights) to the recipient of the easement. As such, they are far stronger, more
enforceable and more secure than covenants and restrictions filed with a subdivision.
New York State recognizes the importance of conservation easements that preserve
rural lands and are held by local governments and qualified conservation organizations
through the enactment of the Environmental Conservation Law, Section 49-03031,
et. seq. and General Municipal Law, Section 247. In addition, the federal government
recognizes and encourages the use of such easements through Section 170(h) of the
Internal Revenue Code and other federal statutes.
The use of conservation easements, as a recent article in the Journal of the American
Planning Association (Fall, 1993) points out, provides municipalities and planners with
"an exciting opportunity to integrate compensatory and regulatory methods of land
use control". The article urges planners to utilize this practical mechanism in "local
comprehensive planning goals and landscape conservation strategies". A copy of the
article is appended.
The primary benefit associated with the use of conservation easements is that they
are a permanent method of land use control and not easily subject to change. There
are other compelling reasons for the Town of Southold to consider the use of
conservation easements under special circumstances, as follows:
Conservation easement deeds result in a legal division of ownership, therefore,
they are more effective as a means of achieving the conservation goals set by
the Town of Southold. Conservation easements are legally binding and provide
clear plans for how properties will or will not be used. As a result,
enforcement of the terms of the easements is more effective. Violations van
26
be more clearly and definitively settled through negotiation or in court.
Conservation easements are an extremely flexible tool. they can be as simple
or as complicated as need be, protecting all types of landscapes and natural
resources without the expenditure of public funds.
Grantors of conservation easements continue to hold the land and pay taxes.
Conservation easements are incentive-based and can, under certain
circumstances, be considered as tax-deductible charitable conveyances.
5d)1. Adopt a law providing for the acquisition of easements for
conservation/scenic purposes.
5d)1 .A. The law should allow and encourage the voluntary granting
of easements. However, perpetual easements should also be required,
where appropriate, during approvals or permits on a property deemed
worthy of protection as defined by code. Required easements would not
be eligible for charitable gift purposes.
5d)l.B. In order to encourage the voluntary granting of perpetual
easements by landowners, the easements should be drafted such that
they meet the IRS regulations and will qualify as a charitable
contribution.
5d)1.C. In order for voluntary gifts of easements to qualify for
charitable gift purposes, the law should provide that the Town of
Southold may not modify or terminate any voluntary easement (must be
perpetual). The laws should also provide that the Town of Southold may
not modify or terminate any required easements unless a proposition to
do so has been approved by the voters of the Town of Southold at an
election.
5d)l.D. While perpetual easements should be encouraged, term
easements should be allowed.
5d)2. TAX RELIEF
The law should provide some type of tax relief or abatement of assessment on
affected properties (commensurate with the term of the easement).
5e: DESIGNATE SCENIC CORRIDORS ~
One of the methods used for the preservation of historic and/or scenic landscapes is
27
the designation of Scenic Corridors. This involves overlay mapping of areas which
have particular value, and adjusting planning regulations to protect the scenic quality
of the landscape. This technique has been used successfully in other places. The
Task Force is recommending that the scenic value and characteristics of the Town be
determined and mapped, in conjunction with an exploration of planning obiectives
within scenic areas. Such objectives usually involve clustering of development
outside of or at the edges of the designated corridor, and ensuring adequate screening
of new development near the scenic corridor.
The scenic qualities of various open places in Southold vary from place to place: on
the North Road between Mattituck and Southold, or on Oregon Road, the scenic
quality lies in the open vistas of the agricultural landscape; along the Main Road in
East Marion it has more to do with the historic nature of the surrounding buildings.
Values which need protection have been identified on a hamlet-by-hamlet basis, and
proposed regulations should be tailored to the scenic qualities which are felt to need
protection. Initially, the concept of scenic corridors can best be developed within the
provisions of the New York State Scenic Byways Program, in which the Town has
recently been included.
In the April 9, 1994 hamlet meetings organized by the Stewardship Task Force, a
clear consensus among residents developed for designating the following areas as
scenic corridors or scenic vistas. The Task Force has not reviewed the specific
borders of each (which are on the adjoining map) nor the specific code or planning
acts needed to implement them. However, we direct the Town's agencies to this list
for its planning and zoning purposes and recommend participation by hamlet residents
in designing each corridor or district:
1. The entire North Road (Route 48), from Mattituck through Greenport and
its continuation as State Route 25 east through to Orient Point
2. Bergen Ave./East Mill Road/Oregon Road/Soundview Avenue
3. New Suffolk Avenue (and Fort Corchaug) and New Suffolk Road
4. Long Creek (southern bank)/Marratooka Pond
5. Robins Island north shore
6. Richmond Creek
7. Dam Pond/Causeway
8. Orient Harbor
28
CHAPTER 2
SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
In order to protect and improve the quality of life of the Town's residents, steps
should be taken to support a vital economy. This should be done by recognizing and
enhancing the strengths of the existing local economy: Agriculture, Marine Activities
and Tourism, and by understanding our role within the regional economy.
Encouraging agriculture and marine activities can be done partly by preserving the land
and water on which they depend, Through innovative farming techniques and
diversity of crop, development of markets, and the adoption of beneficial
governmental policy, these traditional industries will hopefully continue and thrive,
The tourism industry should be seen to include the business of all those who come
to Southold for its scenic, cultural, and recreational features: second-home owners,
retirees, seasonal renters, overnight visitors, and day trippers. While the current
"season" runs from late spring to mid-fall, we believe that it can and should be
ex'.ended to a year-round basis through the scheduling of town-wide festivals
appropriate to the different times of year. The tourist industry depends in large part
on preserving and improving the physical beauty of the Town. It should be developed
within the environmental constraints of our natural resources, and always in a way
to improve our own quality of life.
RECOMMENDATION #6
MARINAS AND MARINE ECONOMY
The long history of Southold is closely related to the Town's maritime environment.
From the beginning, when the first settlers arrived by sea, the activities of the
residents of the North Fork have been influenced by the surrounding water. Together
29
with farming, fishing and other manne activities have always been the defining
industries of Southold, and although they no longer play the central role in terms of
employment and income, they remain important to the character of the North Fork.
Greenport in particular has a strong identification with the maritime environment and
dependency on a healthy marine economy,
We believe the marine economy should be supported -- within the constraints of a
healthy environment and responsible land use. The marine economy ultimately
depends on the quality of the surface salt water, and its ability to sustain a healthy
marine ecosystem. We appreciate the initiatives of those agencies which regulate the
marine environment and economy: the Town of Southold Board of Trustees, the
local Waterfront Revitalization Program, the New York State Department of State and
Department of Environmental Conservation, and the National Estuary Program.
Although the actions of these agencies and their regulations are complex and
overlapping, we believe that we, the Stewardship Task Force, can make a contribution
in this realm.
The components of the marine economy have changed greatly over the years, The
current major components of the marine economy can be seen to have four parts:
1. commercial fishing, shellfishing and aquaculture
2. recreational sailing and powerboating
3. land based support services including marinas, boatyards, etc,
4. land based tourist services including beaches, parks and cultural sites
6a: SUPPQRT (~REENPORT AS MARITIME CENTER
Historically and culturally, the Village of Greenport has been the center of the North
Fork's modern marine economy. This deep water port has historically supported a
wide variety of uses, and continues to attract boats and. ships from all over the world.
It attracts a large number of visitors who arrive by land and by sea to experience the
harbor atmosphere evident along its waterfront. The Village of Greenport forms a
focus for the entire North Fork's tourist economy. We recommend that the Town
actively seek ways to co-operate with the Village to maintain and strengthen its role
as a Maritime Center. We believe that Greenport and its surroundings are the natural
place for the expansion of the marine economy.
6a)1. Facilitate improvement of existing marinas in this area, and a new high
grade transient deepwater marina. For the long term success of Greenport as
a maritime center, it needs quality boating facilities, which attract boat owners,
6a)2. Seek funds for the rehabilitation of the marine railway at Greenport Yacht
and Shipbuilding. This private facility has the only marine railway in the region
capable of handling large boats and yachts. For Greenport to maintain its
30
status as a maritime center, it is important that this facility remain in operation.
6a)3. Seek funds for the completion of a harbor walk along the waterfront.
This project has long been seen as the natural extension of the public realm to
the edge of the Bay. The Town and Village should consider a joint application
to New York State for matching ISTEA funds for the completion of this
important project.
6b: MARINA ZONING
Marinas are the principal commercial facilities which support access to the water by
boat owners. Properties on which all commercial marinas are located are currently
zoned either M-II, intended for sites adjacent to deep, open, well-flushed bayfront
sites, and M-I, for those adjacent to shallower creeks and more contained bodies of
water. Of these classifications, M-II allows a far greater number of "water enhanced"
uses, such as restaurants, motels, etc., while M-I allows only those uses which are
considered "water dependent", such as specific marina operations. We question
whether these classifications adequately regulate the types and number of uses
allowed to marinas from the zoning standpoint.
6b)1. The Town should survey existing marinas in co-operation with the New
York State Department of State. The Town should then use the results of that
survey to determine if each marina conforms in use and borders to current
zoning, and should act to enforce all zoning regulations, including setbacks,
screening, signage, etc.
6b)2. The Town should re-examine the current borders of the M-I and M-II
zones, and act to rezone any properties which do not conform to the
requirements of the zone. Special attention should be given to parcels of land
that been assigned Marine zoning M even though they do not front on any open
water, or are located across public roads from such waterfront.
6b)3. Implement necessary code changes to prevent private marinas, operated
by homeowner associations on residentially zoned properties, from expanding
beyond the environmental constraints imposed by the body of water on which
it is located, and beyond the ability of the upland to support such uses. Such
homeowner marinas should be scaled to the size of the water frontage of the
commonly owned property.
6c: MARINA EXPANSION
We are in favor of growth of marinas to support the marine economy. However, we
also believe such expansion should occur only on properties which can sustain it and
have the capacity to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts associated with
31
marinas. In general, we support the expansion of those marinas located in the M-II
zone on deep, well-flushed bodies of water. In the M-I zone, which by its definition
operates under more severe environmental constraints, we believe expansion of
marinas to handle increased number of boats should be discouraged.
6c)1. Facilitate marina expansion in M-II zones, within the regulatory
framework already in place.
6c)2. Discourage marina expansion in M-I zones, unless it can be conclusively
demonstrated that no severe environmental impact will result.
6d: COMMERCIAL FISHING AND AQUACULTURE
Commercial fishing has declined in recent years as fish stocks have been depleted;
commercial shellfishing has declined as poor water quality has closed the shellfish
habitats. The Town has an important role to play in maintaining and improving surface
water quality (see Recommendation #12: Surface Water). Through its elected
officials, the Town can play an important role in determining and scrutinizing state and
local regulations regarding commercial fishing. The recent code change allowing home
occupations may have helped the small commercial baymen.
Aquaculture is a new industry linking traditional fishing with newer technologies, and
should receive the full support of the Town. The clean open waters surrounding the
North Fork offer an opportunity for this industry to become established and, perhaps,
take the place of the vanishing commercial fishery.
6e: BOATING SAFETY AND NUISANCE
Recreational boating has increased dramatically in recent years. While most boat
operators appear to act responsibly or, the water, we are concerned with the
proliferation of small power boats and iet-skis operated from the shore. They are too
often both dangerous and a nuisance to other beach and water users. We recommend
that the Town work closely with the Bay Constable to develop and implement
additional safety regulations for the safety of all boaters, such as a speed limit of 5
miles per hour within 300 feet of the shore.
RECOMMENDATION #7
OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS
The Stewardship Task Force has noted the importance of tourism to the economy of
Southold. This industry brings money and jobs to the area with less adverse
environmental impact than many other potential industries. We support the current
32
diversified nature of the tourist economy, which includes second-home owners, day-
trippers, and guests who stay overnight. Research on this last category--visitors who
require overnight accommodations--has and have found that although this is a highly
seasonal business, with busy summers and quiet winters, there exists a shortage of
accommodations in the peak season. This results in a population would-be guests
with no overnight accommodations, a loss of business to area merchants and
restaurateurs, and a loss of prestige to the area as a tourist destination.
Attracting second-home owners and transient visitors to Southold depends in part on
maintaining the quality our "countryside". It also depends on our being able to
provide suitable overnight accommodations, which provide a rural resort setting for
an upscale tourist market. While there are a number of hotel/motels, none of them
provides the traditional setting of the "country inn." Furthermore, there is almost no
vacant land zoned for this use. Bed and Breakfast inns have made an impact on the
number of available rooms, but probably cannot fill the entire need. For the long-term
success of our tourist economy, it is important to address this need by providing a
setting for overnight accommodations based on the rural and seaside features of the
Town.
7a: REVISE BED-AND-BREAKFAST ORDINANCE
We believe the best way to address the lack of tourist accommodations is to
encourage Bed-and-Breakfasts (B&Bs). This form of overnight accommodation is by
nature different from our existing resort hotels, which are mostly beach related, and
do not offer a home-like atmosphere with live-in hosts. This type of inn has become
very popular in recent years, and has developed a following among travelers
nationwide. Bed-and-Breakfasts can fit into the visual environment of the Town
without a large impact; they can also help to preserve large existing homes. It was
for these reasons that the original Bed-and Breakfast ordinance 100-31B(15) was
added to the Code. This provision allows B&Bs with up to three (3) rooms as a
permitted use by special exception of the Zoning Board of Appeals, subject to site
plan approval by the Planning Board. There are seven (7) B&Bs operating legally in
Southold.
We believe that the current Code is too restrictive in its regulation of B&Bs. The cost
of application to the ZBA and Planning Board is high, and our research has shown that
the return generated by operating only three rooms is insufficient to justify going
through the approval process. We recommend that the Town encourage this form of
accommodation by relaxing the restrictions on Bed-and Breakfasts.
7a)1. B&Bs WITH THREE ROOMS AND FEWER
Include bed-and-breakfast as a permitted use under the present home
occupation law, where no more than three rooms are made available for
33
transient occupants. We believe that B&Bs of this size should not be subject
to the same regulatory approval as larger establishments, and that they have
no significant impact on the community which cannot be regulated by the
Home Occupation Law.
7a)2. B&Bs WITH MORE THAN THREE AND FEWER THAN TEN GUESTS
Allow bed-and-breakfasts with fewer than ten guests as a special exception
granted by the ZBA and subject to site plan review by the Planning Board. The
State of New York does not regulate inns with accommodations for fewer than
ten guests. We believe that allowing B&B's up to this size is appropriate to
meet the seasonal demand for overnight accommodations in Southold. A
successful B&B of this size can generate a sufficient income to its operator,
support the tourist industry, and help maintain the Town as a visitor
destination.
However, the Town has a responsibility to regulate establishments of this size
for compliance with parking, screening and other planning and zoning concerns.
Therefore, we recommend that the approval process currently required of
B&B's: Special Exception by the ZBA and Site Plan Approval by the Planning
Board be required only for B&B's of more than Three (3) rooms, with a
maximum allowable number of transient guests to be established as Nine (9).
7b: COUNTRY INNS
One way to accomplish both open space preservation and the establishment of
additional hotel rooms is to allow this use on large lots that are currently zoned
agricultural/conservation and residential. In return for this more intensive and
profitable use, which should be restricted to a small portion of the property, the
development rights on the maiority portion of the property would be extinguished, or
transferred to another parcel. This would assure that a large part of the property
would be preserved as open space, with only uses related to agriculture and passive
recreation allowed.
Such a program for country inns would require close participation on the part of the
Town to assure that proper site planning techniques are employed. A successful site
development might locate the country inn towards the center of the parcel, and would
screen, by landscaping, the more intense uses from nearby roads and residential
areas. It would be important not to site buildings in such a way as to destroy the
countryside vistas they intend to feature. Furthermore, it seems critical to us that the
Town enforce guidelines established to control the visual appearance of the
structures; no one wants to see a "Motel 6" sitting in the middle of a farm field, with
bright lights illuminating an oversized parking lot.
34
It would also seem appropriate to allow small restaurants, catering only to the guests
of the country inn, to be allowed in such a facility. This use too would have to be
closely monitored to prevent abuse. Our proposal would help extend the tourist
season by encouraging full-service establishments which are not so dependent on
weather and season.
7b)1. SIZE OF COUNTRY INNS
The size and number of rooms allowed in an inn under this program should be
linked to the amount of land preserved. Such a ratio might be one room per
acre preserved. In this way the Town can balance the effects of increased use
with the benefits of land preservation. It is important that this balance be
maintained, so as not to "gut" the underlying zoning on which planning is
based.
7b)2. ACCESSORY USES
Accessory uses might be desirable to include as part of a country inn, such as
restaurant (for country inn guests only) and/or conference center. These uses
would enhance both tourist opportunities and the ability of inn operators to
succeed financially. As in our proposal to allow guest rooms, the number
dining seats allowed at table should be linked to an amount of land preserved,
e.g. four seats per acre preserved.
Following these proposals, for example, an inn with fifteen rooms and
ten tables (40 seats) would have to extinguish development rights from
an adjacent 25 acres.
RECOMMENDATION #8
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
Recreation is an important component both of the quality of life of the residents of
Southold, and of the strength of the tourist/recreationa/res/dent industry. The most
basic recreational facility offered by the Town is its rural environment: many residents
and visitors find recreational opportunities simply by riding a bicycle on a quiet road,
or walking on the beach. For others, more structured facilities are desirable.
Many different institutions offer recreational opportunities: the school districts offer
indoor and outdoor sports facilities, the school and park districts offer playgrounds,
the town and park districts provide supervised beaches, private clubs offer golf,
yachting, and social opportunities. Although their are many facilities and overlapping
responsibilities, there are some facilities which are lacking. We believe that additional
recreational facilities are desirable for the Town of Southold, and could improve both
the quality of life for residents of all ages, and also the strength of the tourist
economy,
35
Some of the recommendations contained herein would be best provided by a public
entity such as the Town, others would be best provided by private sources, and
others by a mixture of both public and private. What must be consistent throughout,
however, is a spirit of faci/itation on the part of the Town.
Sa: WATERFRONT ACCESS
It has been frequently noted to us that access to the public waterfront is becoming
increasingly difficult. The Town owns many beach access points, particularly at the
dead-ends of all roads at the water. However most of these dead-ends are
unimproved making parking and access difficult (and creating a run-off problem). We
recommend that the Town survey the ends of its roads at waterfront sites, and
determine which such sites are appropriate and desirable for public access points.
Those sites selected by this process should be improved with limited paving for
parking, simple attractive fencing separating public from private property, trash
collection, and other improvements as deemed necessary.
8b: GOLF COURSE
A new golf course, either public or private is needed, preferably located in Mattituck
or Southold. Because a golf course requires 150 acres or more, it is important to plan
for this particular type of facility soon.
8C.' INDOOR POOL AND/OR INDOOR TENNIS COURTS
Recreational facilities are limited in the winter and we recommend facilitating the
creation of more year-round athletic facilities. This type of facility could be associated
with the local schools or privately financed. We believe that a YMCA could be a great
asset to the Town; that organization should be encouraged to locate a full-service
facility on the North Fork.
8d: ICE SKATING RINK
It has been suggested to us by many persons that a indoor/outdoor ice skating rink
would be an asset to the Town and a very desirable facility.
8e: BICYCLE, HIKING, AND HORSEBACK RIDING TRAILS
These are discussed in Recommendation 9d) and 9e)
8f: CULTURAL CENTER
The Town should encourage and facilitate the public/private development of a cultural
center/museum for the fine and performing arts. This should be done by assembling
a group of residents/business leaders to study idea, seeking funding for a detailed
feasibility study, identifying sites, such as Brecknock Hall, Fort Corchaug, etc., and
by facilitating zoning issues.
36
8_0: SUMMER DAY CAMP
The Town should explore sponsoring a self-sustaining summer day camp for 10-16
year- old children. Scholarships should be made available where needed and
counselor jobs provided for local teenagers.
RECOMMENDATION #9
TRANSPORTATION
The people of Southold Town have strongly indicated that they want to preserve the
quality of life and rural character of the North Fork. We consider the recent
establishment of a Transportation Committee a welcome development toward this
goal.
As tourism becomes a more important industry, the possibility for more efficient,
convenient, cost effective forms of transportation will substantially improve. An
important effect of a three-fold growth in our population in the summer is that our
roadways are approaching the saturation point. The success of efforts to make the
North Fork a more attractive tourist destination will mean an influx of automobile
traffic that could be overwhelming. Our goal is to increase transportation efficiency
and to create attractive alternatives to individual automobile travel in Southold Town.
If the success of the effort to promote tourism is not to destroy the very place we live
in, it is imperative that these efforts be tied to efforts to reduce the number of cars.
There are certain "windows of opportunity" presently available for acquiring funding
and support for several of the proposed projects. These opportunities should not be
lost,
The Town should improve the transportation network to facilitate great efficiency and
safety to safeguard the environment, to encourage alternatives to automobile
transportation and to plan for handling increasing traffic from outside the North Fork.
9a: COORDINATE WITH OTHER AGENCIES
Establish a working relationship between New York agencies such as the Department
of Transportation (DOT) and the County Department of Public Works to ensure early
consultation with Town government including Town Board, Trustees, Planning Board,
Highway Department, and Police with regard to proposed state and county highway
proiects.
The Town should continue to work with the State and federal agencies to seek grant
funding for various transportation related projects. Funding programs include:
37
9a)1. NYS DOT: Funding for a traffic study.
9a)2. NYS DOT: Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA) for surface transportation enhancement activities (Sections 1007
and 1047). Funding activities could include:
a. Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles.
b. Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites.
c. Landscaping.
d. Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings.
e. Scenic or historic highway programs.
9a)3. NYS Department of State (DOS) "1993 Interim Scenic Byways Program"
funded by NYS DOT:
The funding will be targeted to develop the foundation for
designation of North Fork Scenic Byway and the projects
such as the subsequent development of a scenic byway
corridor management plan for maintaining scenic, cultural,
historical and recreational characteristics of the corridor.
9~ r al~Yl~ rD 15~Tolzetig d ~lar~d el~'c~ Imcir~ei ~geT, o~er~ti~jgi~tB ~ ~ aets
vehicles such as:
a. Carpool and vanpool.
b. Public transit.
c. Bicycling or walking incentive programs.
d. Innovative parking programs.
e. Marketing programs to increase use.
9a)5. East End Economic and Environmental Institute for a traffic study with
input from NYS AAA.
9b: MASS TRANSIT
Encourage attractive alternatives to single occupant auto transportation such as:
9b)1. Develop a shuttle van service between the LIRR, ferries, car parks and
staging sites suitable for carrying people to resident and tourist sites such as
Hamlet Centers, beaches, marinas, museums, vineyards and farmstands. Such
service should be with private sector companies with perhaps some initial
subsidy until fully operational.
9b)2. Explore the concept of a "Trolley-on-Wheels" that will provide short trips
around the North Fork and link the wineries.
9b)3. Support a Long Island Railroad "Symposium Trip" from Ronkonkoma to
38
Greenport organized in conjunction with the Long Island Railroad
Museum and the Sunrise Bus Company to determine comprehensive
transportation planning strategies,
~)~; TRANSPORTATION HUBS
Improve and reinforce existing transportation hubs at the railroad stations in Mattituck,
Southold and Greenport.
Private sector companies could maintain services at these hubs including shelters,
toilets, telephones, water, bicycle rental and repair facilities, a computerized
information and reservation data center, and a multi-use transportation ticket center
(similar to Eurorail Pass system orthe Gray Line of Seattle bus-rail-boat use in Alaska.)
Interact with private sector to provide facilities at designated transportation focus
locations such as:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Simple shelters.
Toilets, telephones and water fountains.
Bicycle racks and rental and repair facilities.
Picnic sites including tables and benches.
Refuse receptacles.
9d.' PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS
Create inviting pedestrian walkways in hamlet centers with activities and visual
interest as an incentive for people to leave their cars, in centralized, out-of-view
parking lots, Funding opportunities should be sought to handle directional signage for
pedestrians and autos, better lighting and landscaping and the purchase of rights-of-
way,
9e: TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS
Develop properly marked and surfaced recreational trails systems for use by
residents and tourists on foot, bicycle and horse to allow safe and scenic alternative
travel routes other than using the existing highways. Funding programs include:
Symms National Recreational Trails Act of 1991 Grants (Section 301 ) and the ISTEA
Grants Program.
Below is a description of an initial proposal for biking and hiking paths developed by
the Task Force in coordination with members of the Town's Transportation
Committee, The specific route proposals closely follow suggestions from the public
during the Townwide meetings, The paths are envisioned and planned primarily for
the enjoyment Of local residents, though such routes would certainly enhance our
Town's tourism industry,
39
The goal of this proposal is to plan a path which stretches the entire east-west length
of the Town -- entirely off the main highways (especially Route 48), combining our
small lanes with off-road paths. This will require the Town's obtaining easements or
purchasing rights of way in several locations, and to make use of development rights
and parcels already owned by the Town, the County, State, Water Authority and the
Long Island Railroad, Rights-of-way and easements would be purchased from
voluntary sellers (not condemnation) and from builders encouraged to offer easements
on properties proposed for development along the proposed paths. Of course, it is
unlikely that the town will be able to purchase or obtain all such easements.
However, even a few off-road segments will markedly increase the ability of local
residents to access and enjoy the quiet beauty of our town.
Finally, it is important to remember that the proposed path is designed to show
Southold at its best and greenest. Therefore, screening, setbacks and lot-clearing
limits should be used to preserve the value of the pathway corridors.
There are three basic East-West paths proposed: one nearest the Sound shore
(Orient/Greenport bluffs/Moore's Woods/ Arshamomaque /Soundview/Oregon-East
Mill-Bergen); one through the LIRR right-of-way; and one from Richmond Creek
through New Suffolk to Mattituck. There are also a few paths that would circle a
hamlet, as proposed for East Marion. All are subject to change as circumstance and
opportunity arise.
QRIENT
BEGINNING OF SOUTHOLD EAST-WEST BIKING AND HIKING PATH
To complete the east-west townwide path, obtain easements for non-vehicular
right-of-ways behind Sound Bluffs connecting Sound View Road to Sea Drive
to Pettys Drive to North view. Note that this path may be designed to go
through large tracts already purchased by the government. At the east end, a
path from Sound View and Latham through the park at the east end of Orient
would connect to Orient Park; at the West, an offroad path would connect
along the Sound at Dam Pond; or, in the alternative, a roadside path along the
Causeway would connect to the East Marion path via an easement through the
currently undeveloped lot adjoining the western bank of Dam pond.
EAST MARION
ALL EAST MARION CIRCLE PATH AND EAST-WEST PATH.
The Town should seek easements for two bike/hike paths: First, to complete
the east-west townwide path, obtain easements for non-vehicular right-of-ways
behind Sound Bluffs connecting Strand and Stratmors Road, and then east
behind bluffs connecting Stratmors Road to Dam Pond properties (proposed for
purchase of development rights). The path would connect through an
easement west from The Strand Road through to the Brecknock property.
Second, a circle path could be created by the easement between The Strand
40
and Stratmors and two small rights-of-way to connect Oak Court, Rabbit Lane
and Truman Path (for hiking and biking only, not through auto traffic).
GREENPORT IUnincoroorated)
EAST-WEST AND THROUGH MOORE'S WOOD:
Obtain easements for path behind bluff at Jem Commons/Brecknock properties
to connect Strand Road and segments of Sound drive to inlet Pond Park. This
would allow connecting an off-road path into Moore's Wood and join the East-
West Path of adjoining hamlets.
CONNECT OREGON ROADTO SOUNDVIEW; ALSO, LONG ISLAND RAILROAD
R-O-W
Southold portion requires non-vehicular connection from Rusch Lane to Bayview
at Arshamomoque Pond. East-West path could also connect to railroad right-
of-way path via Silvermere. Rusch Lane would connect to Soundview via a
path across the Town Beach (or beach parking lot) to avoid biking and hiking
on Route 48.
PECONIC AND CUTCHOGUE
CONNECT OREGON ROAD TO SOUNDVIEW; ALSO, LONG ISLAND RAILROAD
RIGHT-OF-WAY. PRESERVE BEACH AND WALK PATH AT GOLDSMITH'S INLET.
The Town should seek easements to connect the off-road bike/hike path
through easements behind Sound Bluffs and then through County, Water
Authority and/or LILCO properties, linking to Peconic east-west path.
Preservation of beach and and walking path through Goldsmith's Pond Park
requires reduction of town ietty.
CONNECT OLD PASTURE ROAD TO NEW SUFFOLK ROAD.
The Town should seek easements to connect the off-road bike/hike path to
Cutchogue segment.
MATTITUCK AND LAUREL
THREE BIKE/HIKE PATHS: CONNECT OREGON/EAST MILL TO BREAKWATER BY
MEANS OF PULLEY FERRY; ON-ROAD PATH CONNECTING WESTPHALIA TO NEW
SUFFOLK AVENUE; ALSO, LONG ISLAND RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
9f: MAPS
Facilitate the production and distribution of clear route maps, brochures and general
publicity of events and activities.
41
RECOMMENDATION #10
HEALTH CARE FACILITIES
Given current consideration of a national Health Care Program by Congress, it would
be premature for the Task Force to make specific suggestions at this time. Major
changes can be expected to take place in the health care delivery system over the
next few years. New programs will impact directly on the demand for services, the
kinds of services provided, and facilities needed. Nevertheless, we would be remiss
not to mention the many requests from Senior Citizens to address their needs now.
Senior Citizens have expressed concern over housing choices in particular. Surveys
of available housing reveal that most Senior Citizens prefer to live independently in
their own homes or with family or in individually-owned condominiums. Many
anticipate the need for supportive services, however, now or in the future. Interest
has been expressed in facilities such as were proposed by the Quaker-operated
Kendall organization, with individual condominiums supported by clubhouse facilities
providing meals in a social setting and full maintenance, inside and out, of individually-
owned units. Many of our active Senior Citizens are moving to the Carolinas where
facilities such as these are already available, and include golf courses, swimming
pools, tennis, etc.
The Eastern Long Island Hospital is, and should continue to be the focal point of
Health Care facilities for the Town of Southold and its residents. It can also play a
leading role in the economic development of the North Fork, providing high paying
health related jobs for our citizens. A recent published business survey concluded that
the highest paying jobs in the Long Island market are, and will be, in the Health Care
Industry. Connected to a network of supportive services, adult homes, nursing
homes, and both assisted care and extended care facilities, the health care industry
can be an important contributor to the economic structure and tax base of Southold
Town.
High quality care must be readily available to all. The Town of Southold should
cooperate in every way possible with our local hospital and health care facilities and
provide leadership in attracting private organizations to located such facilities in
Southold. The time is ripe to move forward in improving health-care delivery, as we
are already witnessing an exodus of our second-home owners toward the south, who
are increasingly making the decision to move south now, rather than later, based on
the assumption that the type of facilities they seek will not, or may not, be available
in Southold when they need them.
42
RECOMMENDATION #1 1
HOME OCCUPATIONS
Southold has a tradition of home occupation for tradespeople and others, now
provided for in the Zoning Code. We should recognize the potential for expansion in
this sector of the economy in the new era of telecommunication. Many professionals,
in fields from design to finance to publishing, could be attracted to locate in Southold,
enjoying the beauty and character of the area while being able to work productively
from their homes in contact with clients and offices in distant places.
Many people have talked about their desire to attract "clean" industry to Southold,
based on the new high-tech industries. We believe that this desirable activity will
most likely come to Southold in the form of home occupation, rather than such more
collective forms as organized research centers or manufacturing. To facilitate the
development of high-tech home occupation, two steps are needed.
1 la: ESTABLISH A LOCAL NODE
Modern telecommunication requirestelephone connectionto access Internet and other
elements of the Infobahn. The facility which allows such connections is called a
node. To attract high-tech communication users to this area, a connection should be
available through a node accessible with a local phone call. Southotd Town, the
Chambers of Commerce and others with an interest in this aspect of the economy
should co-operate with LINCT, which is in the process of establishing a node in
Riverhead. This node should facilitate the broadest range of telecommunication, and
not be limited to communications within Eastern Long Island.
1 1 b: PROMOTE HIGH-TECH HOME OCCUPATIONS
The Town, working through the Southold Town Promotion Committee, should develop
materials to attract to this area individuals who would utilize the opportunities
afforded by home occupation with a local node.
43
CHAPTER 3
WATER
The quality of our water, both surface salt and fresh water, and fresh groundwater,
is of critical importance to Southold Town. No other natural resource affects the lives
and activities of all our residents to such a degree. Therefore, special steps should
be taken to preserve and improve of the quality of our water.
Several groups and agencies are already committed to improving the quality of the salt
water bays and creeks. It is important for the Town and its residents to take
additional steps to protect this resource. Chief among these are the managing of
surface runoff and the prevention of contamination to both salt and fresh waters.
Steps must also be taken to protect the quantity and quality of our fresh groundwater.
Due to the nature of the soil, our groundwater is highly susceptible to contamination
from surface activities. It is also important to discourage overpumping which can
result in intrusion of salt water. Careful management of this resource is essential to
secure the right of all Southold residents to high quality potable water, without overly
resorting to the extension of public water mains.
RECOMMENDATION #1 2
SURFACE WATER
Surface water includes all salt water surrounding the Town, including the Long Island
Sound, the Peconic Bays and Gardiner Bay, and the various creeks. It also includes
the fresh and mixed salt/fresh ponds. These waters support significant habitats; their
health is of great interest and importance to the Town, for economic and aesthetic
reasons. The quality of these waters has been deteriorating for a long period of time,
45
as human use and habitation has encroached on the marine estuary. We do not
envisage "turning back the clock", but rather a concerted effort to determine the
causes of problems associated with water quality, and the implementation of steps
to correct those problems. Some of the problems are very obvious and the solutions
known to all. For these we have included recommendations. Other problems, such
as the "brown tide" which has afflicted the Peconic estuary in recent years, are not
yet understood. We support the efforts of all organization devoted to the health of
our surface waters, and encourage the Town to maintain an active stance on the issue
of water quality. The Town should aggressively seek all available State and Federal
grants for the study and improvement of water quality.
1 2a:
PREVENT RUNOFF FROM ROADS
12a)1. Set timetable and method of eliminating or reducing direct
discharge of stormwater runoff into creeks, sound, bays, salt and freshwater
wetlands from all Town roads and properties.
12a)2. Solicit cooperation of State Dept. of Transportation and County
Dept of Public Works in reducing direct discharge from State/County roads and
properties to salt and fresh waters and wetlands.
12a)3. Adopt a capital improvement plan for drainage improvement
projects on Town roads and private properties. Seek Federal, State, and other
funding to supplement Town budgeted funds.
12a)4. Require curb-cut approvals on Town roads in order to ensure
Highway Department review of drainage requirements.
12a)5. Develop programs for farm run-off mitigation in co-operation
with the Agricultural Soil Conservation Service (ASCS). The ASCS has
grant money and technical assistance availabie.
12b:
REVISE REGULATIONS
12b)1. Tighten regulations governing residential building construction to
require Town engineering review of drainage plans.
12b)2. Prohibit indiscriminate land clearing to reduce erosion and runoff
which degrade surface waters.
12b)3. Design site requirements for waterfront development to prevent
pollution from stormwater runoff and septic systems.
12b)4,
Require pump-out stations in marinas of high use.
46
12c: IMPROVE OLD SEPTIC SYSTEMS
Work with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services to develop incentives
to move old septic systems away from the water's edge, and to permit alternative
wastewater disposal systems.
12d: PUBLIC EDUCATION
Design programs for public education to reduce pollution
12d)1. Formulate guidelines for the proper
pesticides.
use of fertilizers and
12d)2. Strengthen programs for the proper disposal of toxic wastes,
pump out stations, and appropriate boat maintenance.
12e: REGIONAL PROGRAMS
Cooperate with adjoining Towns, County, and the National Estuary Program to create
regional programs for the improvement of surface waters.
RECOMMENDATION #1 3
GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
At the request of the Town of Southold and with the recommendation of the Long
Island Regional Planning Board (LIRPB) and the Citizens Advisory Committee, the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation has designated two areas in
Southold Town as Special Groundwater Protection Areas (SGPAs). A relatively small
area surrounds Laurel Lake, and a 2900 acre corridor extends from the east side of
Mattituck Inlet to Southold hamlet, more or less from Oregon Road down to a line 500
feet south of the LIRR tracks. The aquifer below this land is the basis of most of the
North Fork's water supply, even in areas well outside the SGPAs, whether drawn from
private wells or from public sources. This is why the land has been singled out for
careful protection. The whole Town has a special interest in keeping its water supply
clean. This requires special attention to land use in the area of the SGPAs.
The LIRPB has already given close attention to this question. Their study and
conclusions are valuable background, but are purely advisory. They can have no force
without local government action, We have reviewed the LIRPB proposals for Southold
Town SGPAs and we recommend their adoption and implementation by the Southold
Town Board and, with the Town Board's encouragement, other appropriate agencies
and individuals.
47
These recommendations detail three general themes, all designed to protect the
underlying aquifer by limiting overlying land uses in the SGPAs: a) public land
acquisition and purchase of development rights; b) limiting the density and type of
development; c) application of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in agricultural and
residential uses.
13a: PUBLIC ACQUISITION OF DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
We recommend that the Town pursue three paths towards the goal of reducing
development potential in the SGPAs:
13a)1. There should be outright land purchase with money generated by the
1/4 percent county sales tax. The Town Board and other agencies and civic
groups should press Suffolk County to provide funds from this source to
Southold Town. The Town should also encourage land trusts and other similar
private agencies to purchase and manage land in the SGPAs.
13a)2. Farms and open space in the SGPAs should be among priority
properties for Town and County purchase of development rights.
13a)3. Money should be specifically targeted to preserve wooded areas in the
SGPA, which are important as particularly well-protected well sites, in addition
to their value as scenic and diverse habitats.
13b: LIMIT DENSITY AND TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT
We recommend that the Town Board pursue five policies designed to limit the density
and type of development in the SGPAs:
13b)1. Adopt five acre zoning for residential development in the SGPAs. The
LIRPB points out that it is already true that "many portions of the SGPAs in
Brookhaven, Southampton, East Hampton, and Oyster Bay are already zoned
for five acre residential use." In Southold Town, we already have five acre
zoning in environmentally sensitive areas of Orient.
13b)2. Five acre zoning should be combined with a yield of one development
unit per two acres of SGPA land for rights transferred to receiving areas defined
in the TDR recommendation we make elsewhere. This combination will limit
development in the SGPAs and still preserve equity landowners have in their
development rights.
13b)3. Five acre zoning in the SGPA should be combined with mandatory
clustering. Wherever possible, the Planning Board should promote co-ordinated
clustering on adjacent parcels to maximize contiguous open space and available
farmland.
48
13b)4. The Town Board should rezone to A/C all undeveloped parcels in the
SGPAs now zoned for commercial or industrial uses. We do not recommend
that non-residential uses already developed in the SGPAs be removed, although
properties currently used in ways particularly threatening to the aquifer should
be reviewed for possible declaration as non-conforming status.
13b)5. The Town should solicit and co-operate with siting of a new golf course
in the SGPA, subject to best management practices recommended below.
13c! IMPLEMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICER
The Town, through its Agricultural Advisory Committee and in consultation with
Cornell Co-operative Extension, should encourage the application of best management
practices in the SGPAs. These refer to plantings, pesticides, fertilizers, irrigation, and
other activities which impact the quality of the soil and the underlying aquifer.
Outside SGPAs, the Town should also conduct educational efforts directed at
homeowners and others who manage lawns, so that best management practices
appropriate to those locations will also be understood and implemented.
RECOMMENDATION #14
PUBLIC WATER
The availability of adequate potable water is a matter of critical importance to the
residents of the Town of Southold, which in some cases may require the introduction
of public water, drawn either from our own groundwater or piped in from the West.
There can be a connection between dense residential development and public water.
It is important to eliminate even the appearance of an automatic linkage between
allowed zoning density and the availability of public water. Our recommendations
concerning public water are made with an understanding that its introduction come
only in response to a pre-existing need, and not as a means of encouraging further
development.
The residents of the Town of Southold have always depended on private wells for
drinking water. These systems, and the County regulations which govern them, have
generally been sufficient, and we believe that private wells should continue to supply
fresh water to town residents well into the future. However, the quality of water
obtainable by private wells in certain areas of the Town has deteriorated over time due
to over-pumping, salt water intrusion and the leaching of agricultural chemicals into
the groundwater. Also, a strategy of concentrating development in hamlet centers
cannot be supported with private wells alone.
49
We therefore recommend that the Town develop a strategy for the provision of public
water to certain areas of the Town, particularly to areas where private wells are
contaminated, and to the hamlet centers where increased density is desirable. We
specifically do not recommend that public water be provided throughout the Town,
or that higher density development be allowed simply because of the availability of
public water.
In addition, we recognize the connection between public water and the attendant
need, at least ultimately, for public sewers. We recommend that discussions about
public water be carried out in full awareness of this implication, and that proper
planning principles be adhered to.
14a:
WATER SUPPLY PLAN
Develop a master water supply plan for use by the Suffolk County Water
Authority (SCWA)
14a)1. Allow provision of public water utilities to areas where existing
wells are contaminated.
14a)2. Except as provided in 14a)1, restrict public water utilities to
designated hamlets areas.
14b: REGARDING DENSITY
Ensure that the availability of public water will not, by itself, permit additional
development density anywhere in the Town.
14b}1. in order to eliminate the appearance of an automatic linkage
between zoning and public water, amend ARTICLE IIIA's statement of
the purpose of the Low-Density Residential R-40 District sslOO-3OA.1
as follows:
Current reading: The purpose of the Low-Dens/ty Residential R-40 District is
to provide areas for residential development where existing neighborhood
characteristics, water supply and environmental conditions permit full
development dens/ties of approximately one (1) dwelling per acre ...
Recommendation:
a) delete the words "full development" [not all R-40 areas can sustain
full development]
b) replace the words "water supply and environmental" in this statement of
purpose with: "adequacy of groundwater resources and other environmental
50
conditions"
14b)2. Eliminate from the Bulk Schedule for Residential Districts,
published following Section 100-300 of the Town Code, Column xi:
"Residential Unit Where Community Water and Sewer Available"
14b)3. Eliminate all references to a distinction between community
water and/or sewer and dwellings without community water in
specifying permissible lot size in the Density and Minimum Lot Size
Schedule for Residential Districts, specifically with respect the HD and
RR zones and Motel, hotel or conference guest units
14~: PUBLIC SEWER
Determine the long-term need for and cost of various sewage treatment options in
designated hamlet areas, so far as these may be required by the introduction of public
water.
51
CHAPTER 4
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The people most in need of housing assistance in Southold Town are among young
families, the elderly, relatively Iow wage earners, and the working poor. Beyond the
people immediately affected, the availability of affordable housing is critical to the
overall health of the local economy. In the absence of Iow cost housing~ businesses
are forced to pay higher wages and draw more of their workforce from up-island
commuters, or forego job creation altogether. Young people beginning their adult lives
find it more difficult to remain in Southold Town and migrate elsewhere.
No single program can meet the diverse needs of the target populations in Southold
Town. We therefore recommend a variety of initiatives and programs which, taken
together, will be effective and satisfy many kinds of needs. We do not recommend
that Southold Town establish a housing authority to administer this work. Rather,
already successful co-operation between the Town and the North Fork Housing
Alliance should continue as the basic administrative structure for affordable housing
programs throughout Sodthold Town.
Before detailing our own recommendations, we note that Southold Town currently has
a multi-faceted affordable housing program. Its principal component is described in
Section V of the Zoning Code (AHD Zones). The heart of the program involves
granting developers increased housing densities (beyond what is normally allowed in
the area) in exchange for a commitment that a certain fraction of the new units will
be "affordable." The Code establishes housing cost and income limits which define
affordability, based on initial values set by the Town Board in 1989 and then adjusted
annually to reflect changes in cost of living. The Code also provides that cash
subsidies provided at initial construction shall be entirely appropriated by the
homeowner after seven years.
Our recommendations call for a new focus for affordable housing. The Town should
encourage the rehabilitation of existing homes rather than the construction of new
53
ones. Town policy should encourage more rental units, although home ownership can
play a role as well. Subsidies provided should be recaptured and recycled.
RECOMMENDATION #1 5
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONES
We recommend repeal of Article V of the Zoning Code (AHD Zones). We believe that
continued creation of AHD zones would be a mistake for many reasons, related both
to housing needs and other considerations. Our review and recommendations on
affordable housing are based on the following reasoning:
1. Affordable housing should be provided through the rehabilitation of existing
houses rather than the construction of new units to avoid adding competition
to an already saturated market of existing homes.
2. Reliance on AHD zones tends to concentrate affordable housing.
Rehabilitation of existing units will scatter affordable housing more uniformly
throughout the Town.
3. New housing units in AHD zones are too large for many people's needs.
There are many bungalows and one or two bedroom homes which, if fixed up,
would provide the most appropriate housing for many new families and single
people.
4. The existing program has created housing at prices which can hardly be
called affordable. In practice, the program has been irrelevant to a large
segment of the Town's population.
5. Rehabilitation of existing single homes is more conducive to the creation of
rental units, which could be managed by the North Fork Housing Alliance in an
expansion of their current practice.
We also stress that continued granting of AHD density bonuses would fatally
undermine the transfer of development rights program we recommend for farmland
preservation. For the TDR programto work, there must be a demand for development
rights. If builders can get added density by zone changes, their interest in purchasing
development rights will be wiped out~ to the substantial disadvantage of local farmers
and all of us who cherish the rural character of Southold Town.
54
RECOMMENDATION #16
REHABILITATION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The Task Force feels strongly that the Town should encourage rehabilitation of
existing housing stock for home ownership and rental units, rather than the
construction of new houses to meet the needs of Iow and moderate income people.
16a; SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
Many bungalows and small houses would be appropriate for rehabilitation as part of
the Town's affordable housing program. The Town should help identify these
properties with periodic surveys of realtors, and should make available properties it
acquires from tax foreclosures.
16b: ACCESSORY APARTMENTS
The Town should amend the code to make it easier to create accessory apartments,
as long as they are consistent with the residential character of the surrounding area.
We do not intend this recommendation to convert all residential zones to two-family
housing. We leave unchanged many of the restrictions in the current code, in
particular: all accessory apartments must be in owner-occupied dwellings, leases
must be year-round, the Building Inspector retains responsibility for annual inspection
and review of the permit, and all Suffolk County Health Department requirements
continue in force.
We do not now recommend a change in the requirement that accessory apartments
be allowed only in homes built before January 1, 1984. However, if after experience
with the revised code recommended below, not enough accessory apartments are
created compared with demand for them, we recommend that the Town Board give
serious consideration to making more recently built and newly built homes eligible to
contain accessory apartments.
16b)1. Amend Town Code section 100-31B (14) as follows [boldface
shows additions; (ita/ics) contain deletions, except where they denote subparts
of the section]:
(C) the existing one-family dwelling shall contain not less than one thousand
(1,000) (one thousand six hundred (1,600)) square feet of livable floor space.
This will increase the number of houses which might contain an
accessory apartment and so makes it easier to create them. The
minimum size of an apartment the code allows is 450 square feet ((d),
which we leave intact). The house should then be twice that size (plus
a bit to allow for space taken up in the division).
55
56
(e)
(f)
(i)
(])
the accessory apartment shall not exceed 900 square feet (forty percent
(40%)) of the livable floor area of the existing dwelling unit.
The owner may want to live in the smaller of the two units in a large
house and make available the larger unit to a family as the accessory
apartment. This change gives more flexibility. But we place a limit on
the size of the accessory apartment to emphasize that Town policy
should limit accessory apartments to relatively modest spaces at modest
rents.
(A minimum of three (3) off-street parking spaces shaft be provided.)
Off-street parking should be consistent with the size of the accessory
apartment created.
An accessory studio apartment needs no more than a single car, while
a two bedroom apartment might require two spaces. There may be
garage space or other adequate parking already available. The current
requirement is excessively rigid and burdensome and can needlessly
undermine the residential character of the area.
(The exterior entry to the accessory apartment shall, to the maximum
extent possible, retain the existing exterior appearance of a one-family
dweft/ng. )
(Afl exterior alterations to the existing building, except for access to the
apartment, shaft be made on the existing foundation.)
substitute for (i) and (j)
Any exterior alterations to accommodate an accessory apartment must
be in keeping with the architecture of the existing building and conform
to all setback requirements.
This allows exterior alterations, whereas the existing code requires that
the accessory apartment be entirely contained in the existing house. The
change makes it easier for people to create apartments, but requires that
they be in keeping with the character of the house and available lot
space. It should be no more difficult to add an accessory apartment
than to add a suite of rooms for householder use.
RECOMMENDATION #1 7
A DIVERSITY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK
Affordable housing will be more easily provided if a variety of styles of housing unit
are allowed.
17a: CONVERSION TO MULTI-FAMILY
Allow the conversion of existing large residences into multi-family housing where
Suffolk County Health Department water and septic system standards are met.
17b: SMALLER HOUSING UNITS
Permit dwelling units with smaller square footage than the 850 sq.ft, currently
required. On some small lots in particular, a smaller house might be appropriate.
17c; MIXED USE ZONES
Adjust zoning to allow the creation of apartments in mixed-use developments in
business and commercial zones. New multi-family housing should also be allowed in
mixed-use zones.
RECOMMENDATION #1 8
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
18a: "SWEAT EQUITY"
Some Town programs should encourage sweat equity participation by the people who
will receive the affordable housing. This will not always be possible or appropriate,
but costs can be reduced and some families attracted by the requirement that the new
owner contribute labor in the construction process.
18b: COMMUNITY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
The Town Board should solicit and help develop a volunteer corps of people with
technical skills willing to assist in the rehabilitation or construction of affordable
housing on a volunteer basis, especially where sweat equity is involved.
We hope it would also be possible to mobilize volunteer effort once a year for a
community "barn raising" in which people help a family secure adequate housing.
57
RECOMMENDATION #1 9
SHARED HOUSING
Two of the groups most in need of affordable housing are senior citizens and young
persons or couples just starting into adult life. Senior citizens sometimes live in
houses with extra bedrooms and living space, which they would like to make available
to other senior citizens, or to young people, in exchange for companionship and help
around the house and with shopping, or to bring in some income towards property
taxes. These arrangements do not involve separate accessory apartments. By
facilitating Shared housing in these circumstances, the Town could help solve several
problems at once, while improving the quality of life for all concerned.
Syosset, Belle Terre, and Southampton are among the Long Island communities that
have initiated shared housing programs. Their experience suggests two lessons for
us. First, the Town should make clear from the outset that shared housing does not
involve the establishment of group homes, which often generate community
opposition, nor will shared housing violate our "grouper law," which prohibits more
than five unrelated individuals from living together. The second lesson is that
matching services are best provided by private agencies: churches and synagogues,
senior citizens organizations, and the like. The Town can play a useful leadership role
by identifying the need and bringing together and encouraging private agencies.
No change in code is required since up to five unrelated individuals can now share a
house. But some matching mechanism must be set up and widely publicized so that
those who would be well served by such a solution can arrange it. The matching
mechanism should be operated by a voluntary organization in Southold Town.
The Town Board should take the initiative by asking the Town Community
Development Officer to bring together principals from all relevant groups (at least
senior organizations, home care providers, Umbrella, and the North Fork Housing
Alliance) and work out a way to create and operate the matching service. The service
may charge a fee to cover expenses, and the Town Should allocate a small amount
of start-up money.
RECOMMENDATION #20
FUNDS TO SUBSIDIZE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
20a: STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING
Many state and federal programs provide money to local agencies to subsidize costs
of home ownership and rent. Some private foundation support is also available.
Southold Town should aggressively seek all possible funding to subsidize affordable
housing.
58
Since 1990, subsidies applied to new construction in AHD zones in Southold could
also be applied to housing rehabilitation projects if the Town structured its grant
proposals accordingly. The change in focus we propose need not cost the Town the
subsidy money it currently receives.
20b: LOCAL FUNDING
The Town Board should sponsor a local ballot referendum for a bond issue to raise
money to provide local matching funds required to attract state and federal subsidies.
Matching funds are increasingly required, and may be used to purchase land, subsidize
loans, provide loan guarantees, subsidize utilities hook-ups, and otherwise reduce the
cost of the housing to the eligible purchaser or renter. The size of the bond issue
should be determined by the need for matching funds (we anticipate an initial offering
of $500,000), and should be kept Iow by requiring that all subsidies provided by
Southold Town be recaptured and used again (see recommendation c below).
External funding is typically made available in response to. grant applications to
support a specific housing initiative. For each program, the funding agency specifies
its own family income and housing cost guidelines for eligibility to determine what is
"affordable." This can depend on family size and typically provides aid to families
with incomes up to about 90% of the community median (about $39,000 in Southold
in 1990). Southold Town should provide matching money where called for
consistent with the guidelines of the funding agency for each project.
20C: RECAPTURE SUBSIDIES
Fiscal responsibility requires that the Town recapture subsidies granted no later than
on resale of the affordable housing and recycle the funds into new affordable units.
The home owner should not be allowed to appropriate the subsidy as is currently
allowed.
RECOMMENDATION #21
PUBLIC EDUCATION
Many people who need and are eligible for housing assistance do not know they are
eligible and do not know how to get the available help. Similarly, realtors and builders
often do not know how to mobilize the various kinds of housing assistance for their
clients. In addition to the need for basic information, there are many misconceptions
that need to be dispelled, for example that a family must be on welfare to benefit from
housing assistance.
An integral part of any successful housing program must be a systematic education
effort to make sure that all people who need the information will know how the
different elements of the affordable housing program relate to them. To this end, we
59
recommend that the Town, in co-operation with the North Fork Housing Alliance and
other appropriate agencies and organizations, develop educational material and
sponsor regular information events to inform townspeople of available housing
programs. PubliC information must be regularly updated, since eligibility and specific
conditions change from time to time as one funded program ends or another begins.
21a: ASSIST QUALIFIED BUYERS AND RENTERS
The Town should organize information sessions to reach people who might be eligible
for housing assistance to inform them of current programs. Senior citizens and
graduating high school students should be targeted. Regularly up-dated materials
should also be available to all at Town Hall, in local libraries, and through appropriate
civic organizations.
21b: ASSIST POTENTIAL BUILDERS AND REALTORS
The Town should organize information sessions and provide regularly up-dated
materials for realtors so that they will know what help is available for clients needing
assistance to buy or rent a home.
RECOMMENDATION #22
IMPROVE DATA BASE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The Town has available only a general picture of housing needs. We need more
detailed information to support applications for state and federal sources of housing
assistance, and to help shape other aspects of Town housing policy.
At the least, it would helpful to know how many Southold Town families (including
single persons) now live in sub-standard, overcrowded, or otherwise inappropriate
housing because they cannot afford minimum standard housing; where those people
now live and where they would like to live in the Town; what their age, income,
occupation, and place of work are; what their minimum housing needs are; what
subsidies or other programs would be needed to bring them from their current
condition to appropriate housing; and other information needed by those in Town
working on housing issues.
The Town should immediately initiate the drafting, circulation, and review of an
appropriate survey instrument. In response to a resolution of the Town Board, a
survey team should be constituted of at least the following people: one member of the
Town Board, the Town Community Development Officer, the Senior Planner, a
representative of the North Fork Housing Alliance, and a member of the real estate
community. To give it stature and encourage full participation by those who receive
it, the survey should be conducted under the auspices of the Town Board. The Town
Board should begin the process by resolution as soon as possible following receipt of
this recommendation, with a goal of having the survey completed within four months.
60
CHAPTER 5
CHARACTER of HAMLETS
and RURAL SETTING
The hamlets are the historic focus for residential and business activity in Southold
Town. We consider this is to be a desirable pattern of development, which should be
encouraged by allowing appropriate new residential and commercial development in
the existing centers. In order to facilitate this growth, careful planning should be
undertaken by the Town, so that a rural, pedestrian oriented village quality, consistent
with our history and traditional pattern of development, is fostered.
In contrast to the hamlets, the countryside should maintain its open, rural atmosphere.
Whenever possible, vistas of fields, woodlands and the water should be preserved.
New development in these areas should be carefully considered and consistent with
the historic character of the landscape. The blurring of the distinction between hamlet
and countryside should be avoided as a priority.
The long history of Southold has yielded an extraordinary richness and diversity of
buildings and working landscapes. Vigorous steps should be taken to assure the
preservation of these structures and landscapes. All residents benefit from the
preservation of our historic and scenic heritage, not only for our quality of life, but
also for the economic potential it offers the Town.
RECOMMENDATION #23
ZONING CODE AND MAP
LOCAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE DEVELOPMENT
Zoning regulation can lead to litigation. In our deliberations, we looked in to the legal
authority for the Town to regulate land use. We consulted attorneys, and benefited
61
from the research of an attorney who is a member of the Task Force. We are
convinced that the Town has legal authority to regulate land use, although, to be sure,
it is possible that in some extreme actions the courts would overturn a rule if the
Town "goes too far," in the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes.
The threat of litigation should not by itself stop the Town Board from putting into
place zoning regulations. By its nature, a zoning regulation interferes with and puts
limits on a property owner's use of his or her property. Contrary to the claims of
some property rights advocates, zoning restrictions on property rights are permitted
by the courts as long as three conditions are met: 1) the restrictions advance the
public good; 2) the restrictions leave some (but not necessarily the highest) economic
value in the property; and 3) the restrictions are not arbitrary.
Legal authority to regulate land use lies within the police power of the state, set forth
in the U.S. Constitution. Constitutional challenges to actions by local governments
are based on three provisions found in the United States Constitution: due process,
taking of private property without iust compensation, and equal protection. The
Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no state shall deprive any person, of life.,
liberty, or property, and the Fifth Amendment, as extended to the states by the
Fourteenth Amendment, further guarantees that private property shall not be taken
for public use without just compensation.
Zoning has been upheld as a proper exercise of the police power of the state. The
Supreme Court established the standard of judicial review that is to be applied to
challenges to land use regulations in Villaqe of Euclid v. Ambler, a standard which
grants local ordinances a presumption of validity, which can be overcome only by
showing the ordinance is "clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial
relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare."
The taking of private property without iust compensation is constitutionally prohibited.
A taking can be an actual seizure of private property and also physical encroachments
upon private property resulting from governmental action or ordinances. The
regulation of the use of private property has been upheld by the Supreme Court,
which has said, in a frequently-quoted opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes, that
regulation will be recognized as a taking only if it "goes too far." (Penns Ivani Co I
CO. v. Mahon).
However, diminution in property value resulting from regulation does not constitute
a taking so long as some economically reasonable use remains. That principle was
reaffirmed by the Supreme Court more recently Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal
Council. Governmental regulation of land use, including zoning, is constitutionally
permissible so long as the regulation does not go so far as to deny all economic uses
of the property.
62
We believe that each of our recommendations is fully within the Town's legal
authority to enact.
23a) STRIP SHOPPING CENTERS
The historic pattern for the development of commercial structures in the Town of
Southold is that of individual buildings. The hamlet centers and Main Road which
resulted from this pattern are built of relatively small, distinct buildings, each of which
accommodates one or two commercial enterprises. Some have additional uses on an
upper level. It is this pattern, which has a long history and is natural to the Town,
that we should encourage.
The more recent pattern for small scale commercial development nationwide has been
shopping centers, which can be defined as multiple retail tenancies, attached to form
a single structure, and arranged in a "strip" parallel to the road. They are generally
developed on a speculative basis for rental. Developed originally as part of the
process of suburbanization, they were attractive to developers because they could
maximize the commercial potential of a site. They were intended to create new
community centers in places, unlike Southold, where none previously existed, or
where the existing town center was insufficient for new large-scale residential
development. While several large projects have been built in Southold following this
pattern, they do not fit visually into the historic context of the Town.
The task force does not consider strip shopping centers to be a desirable form of
development for commercial property in Southold. We believe that a better way of
developing commercial properties is by multiple, small buildings in campus-like
settings. With good site planning and building design, this type of development would
better fit the historic context of Southold. Unfortunately, the zoning of the town not
only encourages such projects, but was designed to create them: the commercial
strip along the main roads, with its required front and rear yard setbacks, provides a
buildable area too narrow for alternative site plans. Commercial developers who
propose projects and town planners who review them have little flexibility to create
more innovative site plans composed of smaller buildings, or larger ones with more
formal articulation (ie: buildings that are not just rectangular "strips").
23a)1. Allow greater flexibility of requirements for rear yard setbacks in
"strip" zones. The deeper buildings thus allowed could then provide the same
square footage with smaller road frontage.
23a)2. Establish a maximum size for any multi-tenancy commercial store,
to encourage campus-like commercial developments composed of smaller
buildings. A maximum size might equal 5000-7500 square feet. Another
possibility would be to limit building structures to two unrelated business
enterprises.
63
Limit fast-food establishments to Hamlet Business zone. Study ordinances which
have e been effective in prohibiting fast-food establishments altogether.
23c: ZONING MAP
The Town's zoning map is, in certain instances, inconsistent with the planning policies
which guide us here, especially our goal, and the Town's goal, of encouraging new
development in hamlet centers while maintaining the open vistas of farmland and
woods on the byways between the hamlets. When the Task Force sought the
guidance of the residents of each hamlet in the meeting of April 1994, in the
Townwide survey and in our meetings with community groups and representatives,
a clear public consensus emerged to correct the zoning which permits, even
encourages, development of the open spaces between hamlets.
The adoption of our SGPA and TDR proposals and the designation of scenic corridors
and byways proposed in this report will foster the goal of supporting the hamlet
centers while preserving farm, wooded and water vistas. Consistent with this
planning goal and so as not to defeat the effects of our other proposals, we
recommend that the Town correct the zoning map as follows:
c)1. Change business zones (LB, B, HB, LI, LIO) on Route 48 TO A-C zoning.
In the alternative: reduce the size of such zones to no more than the lots
currently in business use
A view of the map shows several small isolated zones, now farmed, but zoned
for business, which, if developed, would truncate the vistas and hide and
remove farm fields and woods.
Taking into account the {esidents' views from our meetings and surveys, and
balancing the legitimate concerns of property owners and the general benefit
to the public which forms the basis for all proper zoning, the Task Force
particularly points to these anomalous zones requiring correction by elimination
or reduction: In Mattituck, the LB zone at the intersection of Sound Avenue
and Route 48 and the LI zone between Sound Avenue and Route 48. In
Peconic, the business zones directly on Route 48 at Peconic Lane. (in
Cutchogue, the reduction of the LI/LIO zone and the protection of the farmlands
would be accomplished through the adoption of our SGPA, PDR and TDR
proposals.) In Southold, change of the seven LB and B zones to A-C (or,
reduction of the LB and B zones to currently developed lots). In Greenport,
change the LB zone at the iunction of the Main Road and Route 48 to R-80.
64
In the April 1994 meetings, residents of each hamlet voiced strong support for
maintaining the distinction of open countryside and small hamlet. Without exception,
in each hamlet, residents suggested fairly specific guidelines for moving new business
development off Route 48 and into hamlet centers were proposed (these specific
details can be found in the maps attached). In the cases of Mattituck, Peconic and
Southold, residents suggested movinQ certain business zones to hamlet centers, off
Route 48. Similarly strong support was voiced for keeping the spaces between the
hamlets on the Main Road free from overdevelopment.
c)2. Reduce and consolidate the industrial zones (LI, LIO) on the Main Road
Western approach to Greenport.
The current zoning map would permit a solid industrial strip extending 1 ~ miles
through now-wooded area near the bay. New industry should be consolidated
at the eastern and western ends of the district. The center of the current zone
would then remain wooded or limited to Iow density (R-80) development.
c}3. Review and change zoning on undeveloped hamlet density zones adjoining
Route 48 and its Main Road continuation through Greenport.
The Town should review all HD zoning outside of hamlet centers to determine
whether such zones may undermine the TDR and Affordable Housing proposals
as well as the overall goal of moving dense development from the North Road/
State 25 to the hamlets. The Task Force and residents have identified the so-
called "Jem Commons" lots which appear to violate our planning goals.
Hamlet residents have also suggested other zoning corrections, identified in the
attached report on hamlet meetings, which would preserve water views and key
scenic views. The Task Force. has not reviewed these hamlet-specific zoning
problems, but directs the Town's attention to them. We would note that certain of
these concerns (for example, the view along Dam Ponds' shore, the view to Robins
Island north shore) should be partly addressed by our proposals for special districts
(including scenic byways and corridors), set-backs and screening requirements.
23d: SUBDIVISIONS
Review subdivision regulations and revise to improve the planning of new
development. Many new subdivisions have what appears to be a "cookie-cutter" site
plan, with equal size lots and 50 foot wide roads imposed on the landscape with little
concern for the existing natural features. This type of suburban development chews
up the rural landscape and creates monotonous sprawl. It has been argued that
although we have two acre zoning, we are not creating any two acre lots (because
of the cluster provision). While the intention of the cluster provision is certainly
worthwhile, we do not believe that all lots created in the Town be 30,000 square feet
in size.
65
23d)1. Explore more creative planning techniques which respect
existing natural features and scenic vistas, and which allow for building
lots of various sizes and configurations. The Town, perhaps together
with other East End towns, should seek funding for the creation of a
Design Manual explaining and graphically illustrating the Subdivision
Chapter and creative solutions to subdivision situations. (See also
Recommendation 28)c below.)
23d)2. Planned subdivisions for which approval has been granted
should expire after three years in the absence of substantial progress
towards implementation.
RECOMMENDATION #24
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
Adopt a Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance to allow new development in the
hamlets with a mixture of commercial, residential and recreational uses. If done
properly, this type of development can create visually attractive, pedestrian
accessible, and economically sustainable communities in character with our traditional
rural heritage.
RECOMMENDATION #2,~
HISTORIC RESOURCES
The purposes of preservation planning go beyond the clear establishment of historic
pre;ervation in Southold Town. Preservation Planning will let current and future
property owners know in advance how the Town intends to grow and what the Town
wants to protect. It will eliminate uncertainty and confusion about the purpose,
meaning, and content of the existing local landmark preservation law. It will help
educate and inform citizens about their heritage and its value to our entire community.
Preservation Planning will create an agenda for future preservation activities and
create a way to measure progress in protecting historic resources. We hope that it
will also comprehensively address issues relating to tourism, zoning, traffic patterns,
development patterns, and design that affect historic resources. And, while it
encourages economic development through the preservation of historic resources, it
will also strengthen the political understanding of and support for historic preservation
policies.
In the development of a Preservation Planning policy, we sought to get answers to
questions that will helped define the program. Most important, we needed to
66
understand why historic preservation is important to our community. We also defined
what elements of our heritage we want to preserve as well as what we have
previously done to preserve and protect that heritage. We also examined what we are
currently doing to preserve and protect our historic resources. What do we want to
do in the future and when should we begin to take action to add any additional
protection to the preservation program?
25a: MODIFY LANDMARK LAW
25a)1. That Southold Town modify its existing Landmark Preservation
Law to include specific restrictions and guidelines to govern the modification
of designated landmarks.
25a)2. The Landmark law should be applied to buildings based on vintage,
to buildings on the Southold Town Historic Register of Designated Landmarks,
and to designated historic districts and sites. Such districts could be identified
for zoning purposes as Landmark Zoning Overlay areas. Examples of such
districts proposed by residents at the hamlet meetings of April 9, 1994 include
Orient's historic district and New Suffolk's waterfront.
25a)3. A committee should be formed, or an existing group, such as the
Landmark Preservation Commission, be charged with establishing standards and
restrictions applicable to properties impacted by the Landmark Preservation
Law. These standards and restrictions should be published in the form of a
DESIGN MANUAL, perhaps in conjunction with other design standards, such
as signage, building and landscape design.
25a)4. The Town should incorporate the preservation of important historic
and archeological resources into long term planning objectives and
development.
25b: INCENTIVES
Financial incentives, such as tax abatement and free technical assistance should be
available on the local level to encourage and assist property owners of landmark
properties.
RECOMMENDATION #26
SIGNAGE
The proliferation of signage along our roads has seriously damaged the visual
environment of Southold, and threatens to undermine positive efforts undertaken by
67
the Town to preserve and enhance its rural character and tourist economy. The
unrestricted competition for the attention of the motorist degrades the visual quality
of our main roads and commercial districts, and affects the long term health of
individual businesses and the entire economy. It also compromises the smooth flow
of traffic and affects motorist and pedestrian safety.
Our research has shown that the tourist industry, meaning "day trippers", overnight
guests and second home owners, is critical to our economy. Most of the visitors and
part time residents come from other parts of Long Island to experience our "rural"
character. Since most of these visitors arrive by car, their first impression of Southold
is of the Main Road in Mattituck, the area most cluttered by signage. We believe that
as our visual environment is degraded, the Town of Southold looks more like western
Suffolk, and our viability as a tourist destination is thereby jeopardized. Of equal
importance, our own positive image of Southold is destroyed, which directly affects
our quality of life.
It is extremely important that signage be strictly controlled, so as not to degrade the
visual appeal of the Town. Although the primary function of signage is to call
attention to individual enterprises and messages, it is a critical component of the
visual character of a place, and is an expression of the community at large. Our intent
reinforces that of the Master Plan: minimize the number, size and visual impact of all
forms of signage.
We understand the need for various types of signage, and do not wish or intend to
hamper the visibility of local businesses. We also understand the legitimate need of
retail merchants to make the public aware of temporary sales and offers.
Furthermore, we believe the public would be well served by a comprehensive system
of "directional" signage, which-could help residents and visitors find remote
businesses.
The Stewardship Task Force recommends that revisions be made to the Ordinance
which would address the needs of the business community, and our residents at large,
in a way which is compatible with the general purpose of the sign ordinance: TO
PROTECT THE VISUAl ENVIRONMENT OF THE TOWN. Once these revisions are
reviewed and put into place, the Town should act swiftly and with resolution to
enforce them.
Article XX of the Town Code provides general regulation for signage. Paragraph 100-
200, "Purpose", clearly sets out the intention of the regulations, which include the
following:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
protect property values
create more attractive economic and business climate
enhance and protect the physical appearance and environment
preserve historic and architectural heritage of the Town
provide more enioyable and pleasing community
68
We are in agreement with the purpose of the Ordinance as stated in Article XX. If the
provisions of the current Ordinance could be enforced, we believe this purpose would
be achieved. After meetings with members of the Town Board and Chambers of
Commerce we have come to agree that some changes in the law, particularly in
regard to temporary signs, may be justified.
Some of the illegal signs may be due to ignorance on the part of the public as to the
letter of the law; provisions for the regulation of signage are spread throughout
Chapter 100 of the Code Book, not only in Article XX. We believe that this problem
could be alleviated by streamlining the format of the Ordinance and providing a
graphic method to explain the dimensional requirements and design. Finally, the
administrative procedure of granting and recording sign permits should be amended
to make enforcement more effective.
26a:
REVISIONS TO SIGN ORDINANCE
26a)1. GENERAL
IN ORDER TO CONTROL VISUAL CLUTTER, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNS
DISPLAYED BY A BUSINESS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO TWO.
It is our intention to give local merchants and businesspersons greater flexibility
in regard to signage, while at the same time improving the visual quality of the
Town. It is our belief that two (2) permanent signs on a commercially zoned
parcel, regardless of number of road frontages, is a sufficient number to inform
the public of the location of a business. In addition to this, a business should
be allowed to display a temporary sign, as per this Recommendation, and non-
illuminated interior window signs, as per the existing Ordinance.
26a)2. FREE-STANDING SIGNS
A THOROUGH REVIEW OF EXISTING FREE-STANDING SIGNS SHOULD BE
UNDERTAKEN BY THE TOWN, TO ASSURE THAT EACH SIGN HAS BEEN
ERECTED WITH A PERMIT, AND MEETS THE SIZE AND LOCATIONAL
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE.
Many of the free-standing signs in the Town do not comply with the
requirements of the Code. Many are larger than permitted, or located closer to
the road than permitted. The Code does not "grandfather" these non-
conforming signs, but rather called for them to be made to comply within three
years of the enactment of the Code, that is by 1992.
We believe that the size and location requirements of the existing Code are
appropriate, and that within a new "grace period", all signs should comply with
the law. There are adequate procedures in place to grant variances to
businesses with legitimate hardships, on a case by case basis. We do not
69
70
believe the Code should be amended to allow currently illegal signs to continue
in existence.
26a)3. TEMPORARY SIGNS
TEMPORARY SIGNS SHOULD BE ALLOWED ONLY WHEN TRULY
TEMPORARY. THEY SHOULD ATTACHED TO A PERMANENT FREESTANDING
SIGN, OR TO THE BUILDING FACE PROPER. SUCH SIGNS SHOULD BE
STRICTLY LIMITED AS TO SIZE AND LENGTH OF TIME DURING WHICH THEY
ARE ALLOWED TO BE DISPLAYED.
Some business owners have clearly expressed their need for a form of
temporary signage. We believe such signs are most appropriate when they are
used for a truly "temporary" period, to inform the public of special sales or
promotions, and not when they become a permanent form of advertising in
excess of allowable signage, as has become the case over the years of non-
enforcement. Therefore, we recommend that these signs be allowed only when
their message is truly temporary, such as "SALE", or "OPEN". Furthermore,
these signs should be removed at the close of the business day. Because of
the practical difficulty of enforcement, the business community will need to
demonstrate a willingness to self-regulate temporary signage. If this does not
work, the Town must find means to monitor these signs.
The recent partial enforcement of the ban on temporary signs has demonstrated
the improvement in the visual environment that can be achieved by their
elimination. The limitation on size of six square feet should be strictly enforced.
Each businesses should be allowed only one temporary sign at a time. Such
signs should be constructed of a rigid material, and should not be allowed to
advertise national brands, but rather generic products.
In form, temporary signs should be attached to other, permanent signs, or to
the face of building. When attached to another sign, it should hang beneath
the permanent portion of the sign, or by a bracket arm to one of the permanent
supports. When attached to a building, at temporary should take the form of
swinging, double sided sign, attached by a bracket arm extending perpendicular
to the face of the building. It is preferable that the temporary sign be of a style
and color compatible with the main sign, but in order to allow for "change of
copy" to advertise special sales, a blackboard or handwritten message might
be appropriate. Temporary signs should not be illuminated.
The Town should further control temporary signage by requiring each business
to obtain a permit to display such a sign. The permit should last for a set
period (such as a year), and should state the maximum allowable time that a
temporary sign may be displayed. This permit should be monitored by Town
enforcement officials, and complaints filed with the permit.
Banners, streamers and flags (other than national, state and local flags, or
those of non-profit organizations) should continue to be prohibited, along with
the other types of temporary signs, such as paper and cardboard, as defined
in the Code. Exterior temporary signs ~hould not be allowed when internally
mounted temporary signs (window signs) are used.
26a)4. ROOF SIGNS
THE PROHIBITION OF ROOF SIGNS SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH LANGUAGE
WHICH PERMITS SUCH SIGN, WITH ADEQUATE REGULATIONS.
We believe that the current specific prohibition of roof signs does not make
sense. These signs are not, as a generic type, more offensive than other types
of signage. Some buildings, by their size and configuration, cannot hold
another type of building sign.
We recommend that "roof signs" be regulated in the similar fashion as "wall
signs". They should be allowed in lieu of a wall sign, but not in addition to a
wall sign. A roof sign should be proportionate in size to the building on which
it is located, and not exceed the size of an allowable wall sign, nor should it
extend (at its closest point) more than 12" from the surface of the roof.
Additional regulations should prohibit roof signs from extending above the ridge
line of the roof, and from being illuminated.
26a)5. DIRECTIONAL SIGNS
A NEW FORM OF SIGNAGE, CALLED "DIRECTIONAL SIGNS", SHOULD BE
ESTABLISHED AND REGULATED BY THE TOWN TO ASSIST THE PUBLIC IN
FINDING REMOTE BUSINESSES.
Some businesses are located in remote areas, which makes them difficult to
find by their patrons. This in turn encourages them to seek permits to erect
"off-premise" signs on the main thoroughfares, which adds to the visual clutter.
We recommend that the Town give permits to business persons to attach
permanent directional signs to Town owned street sign poles. Such signs
should be limited to two feet wide by eight inches high (2'-0" x 8") so as not
to contribute to visual clutter. They should follow a standard design
established by the Town, and be identical as to color, layout, and size of
lettering. Similarly, the messages should be standardized, allowing only the
generic identification of the business type or facility involved, such as
"RESTAURANT(s)", "MARINA(s)", etc., and an arrow indicating direction and
distance.
71
Each sign should require a permit from the Town, and should be attached by
the Highway Department only to the pole of a street sign, at street corner
locations. Maximum numbers of directional signs per pole (eg: 3), and per
business (eg: 2) should be established.
26a)6. CONTRACTOR SIGNS
CONTRACTORS AND TRADESPERSONS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO POST
SIGNS ON PROPERTIES WHERE THEY ARE PERFORMING WORK.
It has become traditional for contractors and tradespersons to place small name
signs on sites where they are working. This is the only form of outdoor
signage possible for some of these businesses. If regulated properly, these
signs are non-offensive and perform the service of informing the public.
Contractor signs should not exceed 18" x 24' in size, should be attached to a
stake in the ground (not a tree), and should be located in the same fashion as
real estate signs (15 feet off the public right-of-way). A maximum number of
such signs per site should be established (eg: 3). In the case of construction
projects, they should be allowed to be posted only until the expiration of the
Building Permit; in the case where no building permit is required, (eg:
landscaping, painting) they should be allowed only for the duration of the work.
26a)7. ILLUMINATED SIGNS
THE ILLUMINATION OF SIGNAGE SHOULD BE STRICTLY CONTROLLED, TO
IMPROVE THE VISUAL APPEARANCE OF THE TOWN AT NIGHT, AND TO
MINIMIZE LIGHT POLLUTION.
The text on illuminated signs is provided in Recommendation #27, on Lighting
Cont;ol.
26b:
72
REVISE THE CODE BOOK
26b)1. STREAMLINE CODE BOOK
ALL REGULATIONS GOVERNING SIGNS SHOULD BE LOCATED IN ARTICLE XX
OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
Specific regulations governing signs are currently located in separate articles of
the Zoning Ordinance. Confusion occurs when an applicant reads Article XX,
"Signs", and does not find specific regulations about the permitted size and
location of a proposed sign. Article XX includes only general regulations, and
does not reference other subsections pertaining to signs. In the interest of
compliance and "user friendliness", all regulations should be located in one
article and cross-referenced in other zoning category sections.
26b)2. CREATE GRAPHIC DESIGN MANUAL
THE TOWN SHOULD CREATE A SIMPLE, EASY TO UNDERSTAND GRAPHIC
DESIGN MANUAL TO ILLUSTRATE THE REGULATIONS OF THE CODE, AND
TO DEMONSTRATE DESIRABLE SlGNAGE DESIGN.
It is very difficult for the for the typical applicant to read and understand the
complex language of the Zoning Ordinance. While the ordinance verbally
covers all aspects of signage control, such as size and location, it is not "user
friendly". This has been cited as a reason for non-compliance with the law.
A graphic manual could improve this situation. Furthermore, there is currently
a wide range of signage design in each business district. While this diversity
can be interesting and stimulating, inappropriate signage design can degrade
the visual quality of the business areas.
It is our belief design consistency among the signage of the Town could create
a visual harmony in keeping with the goals of the Master Plan. A graphic
manual would greatly assist the public in their understanding of the
fundamentals of good signage design, and how this would improve the
appearance of the Town. A graphic manual could offer specific illustrations of
desirable design styles, messages, letter types and color. These styles may
vary from hamlet to hamlet, to encourage distinct visual styles for the hamlets.
A design manual would also be a valuable tool for the town agencies charged
with evaluating the "appropriateness" of proposed signs. See also
Recommendation 28)c.
26c:
REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
26c)1. PERMIT AND RECORD KEEPING PROCESS
THE TOWN SHOULD AMEND THE METHOD IT USES TO GRANT AND RECORD
PERMITS AND CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY FOR SIGNS, ALLOWING
GREATER EFFICIENCY OF ENFORCEMENT.
The Town's inspectors are currently hampered in their efforts to enforce the
Sign Ordinance by a record keeping process which locates sign permits with
building permits. This forces the inspectors to do lengthy research to establish
the legality of each sign. We recommend that sign permits be cross referenced
in a manner to improve accessibility, so that an inspector can easily check the
legality of any sign in question. This should be done on the County Tax Map
numbering system, as is the filing of other Town agencies.
Furthermore, we recommend that each sign which has been properly permitted
and inspected receive a metal "tag" or adhesive decal, identifying the permit
number. This will also make enforcement easier for the Town.
73
RECOMMENDATION #27
For the sake of clear visibility, security and safety it is necessary to illuminate roads,
signs and some parts of private properties after dark. Lighting helps create a safe and
secure environment. However, the glare created by inappropriate lighting and over-
illumination is a form of visualpollution, which threatens to destroy the rural quality
of the Town. Glare created by unshielded light sources creates a danger to motorists
by distracting them and temporarily obstructing their vision, endangering themselves,
other motorists and pedestrians on the roadside. Over-illumination is a negative
characteristic of urban and suburban environments which Southold should prohibit.
We believe that lighting is an important component of the visual character of the
Town, and that effective and attractive methods of illumination of signs, buildings,
sites and roads should be encouraged. Lighting should be of an appropriate intensity
and directed carefully to illuminate the intended object; it should not be allowed to
spill off the property or create glare. Light sources should be completely screened
from view. As with any such ordinance, education of the public is of the highest
importance to convey the intent of the law and the interest of the Town and its
residents. Similarly, enforcement is critical to achieve the desired result.
Street lighting is an important component of the municipal services provided by the
Town. It provides illumination for vehicular safety, which is particularly important on
curving and otherwise dangerous sections of road. By its location at intersections,
street lighting also assists motorists in finding their destinations. Finally, street
lighting provides the ambient illumination for pedestrians in the hamlet centers, and
aids their sense of security. Nevertheless, many streetlights are located in areas
which do not appear to satisfy these criteria for light and safety. Many are located
on straight sections of roads remote from intersections or houses. These unnecessary
streetlights result in the waste of electricity and light pollution. The Town should
assess its street lighting system, and eliminate unnecessary fixtures.
The Task Force notes that the current code language regarding lighting applies to
residential property as well as commercial property. We believe this is appropriate,
and should be continued, in order to prevent the annoying invasions of privacy which
result from inappropriate and excessive residential lighting.
Lighting should enhance the rural character of the visual night environment, and
provide an interesting and inviting quality to Southold. We believe the Town has a
significant interest in maintaining the visual quality of the night environment, and the
safety of motorists and pedestrians. Inappropriate methods of illumination should be
prohibited, and wasteful over-illumination should be eliminated.
74
27a:
SIGNAGE ILLUMINATION
27a)1. LOCATION OF ILLUMINATED SIGNS
We recommend that the lighting of signs not be allowed in Residential and
Agricultural zones, except for uses allowed by special exception in these zones.
In commercial, marine, resort and industrial zones, only freestand/ng and wall
s/gns should be illuminated. The illumination of all other forms of signage
should be prohibited in all zones.
27a)2. LOCATION OF LIGHT SOURCE
We recommend that the light fixtures for the illumination of signage be located
on the ground, and that their source of light (lamp) be concealed by a metal
hood and plantings. Light fixtures mounted to the sign itself is acceptable if
the lighting element is not visible from the road.
27a}3. GLARE
Glare created by the illumination of signage should be regulated by establishing
a standard light level for spillover of light at the property line. A standard light
level should be established, such as 1/4 footcandle as measured on vertical and
horizontal surfaces at the property line of the illuminated property. We believe
this method will allow enforcement to be simplified, strengthening the
implementation of this ordinance.
27a)4. HOURS OF ILLUMINATION
We recommend that all lighting on signage be extinguished after the operating
hours of the business.
27a)5. INTERNALLY LIT SIGNS
Internally illuminated plastic signs (shadow boxes) are very prominent visually.
We believe the proliferation of this type of signage has seriously degraded the
visual appeal of our historic hamlets and roadways. This type of signage
illumination should be prohibited.
Existing internally lit signs, if they are currently legally permitted, should be
allowed to remain with a non-conforming status. Certain types of internally lit
signs, especially those which are mounted to trailers and have temporary
messages, should be banned outright, with no grace period.
27a)6. NEON SIGNS
Neon signs draw unwarranted attention to themselves, are inappropriate for
Southold, and are very destructive of the visual environment after dark. Neon
and similar signs should be prohibited, both externally and internally, where
visible from the exterior. As with internally lit signs, existing neon signs, if
currently Legally permitted, should be allowed to remain with a pre-existing,
non-conforming status,
75
27b:
27c:
76
SITE ILLUMINATION
27b)1. POLE MOUNTED LIGHTS
In general, pole mounted lights, such as are used for the illumination of parking
lots, should not produce excess glare, and should not allow spillage of light off-
site. Such poles should be as short as practical, with shielded sources and as
Iow an intensity as feasible. We believe there is an advantage to having more
fixtures of lower intensity. We recommend that a maximum height for pole
mounted lights be established.
27b)2. OFF-SITE LIGHTING
We believe that the most significant abuses of site lighting are created by the
utility company. LILCO provides high-intensity illumination of private sites from
its utility poles for a monthly fee to the property owner. Because it is located
off-site, it is impossible to shield the lamps from view. This has resulted in
excessive glare and light pollution. We recommend that off-site illumination
should be prohibited.
27b)3. ORNAMENTAL BUILDING ILLUMINATION
The ornamental illumination of buildings can highlight the positive architectural
features of the Town. In order to be effective, such lighting must be subtle,
and should not include high-intensity fixtures. It is also important that the
source of light be concealed from off-site.
27b)4. GLARE
As with signage lighting, we believe that maximum spillover standards should
be established for site lighting to prevent excessive glare. See 33a)3.
27b)5. HOURS OF ILLUMINATION
As with signage lighting, we recommend that unnecessary forms of site lighting
be extinguished after business hours. This should apply particularly to parking
lot lighting. We understand that certain forms of lighting are required for
security, and should therefore be allowed to continue through the night. These
types of security lighting should receive particular attention with regard to
shielding lamps from off-site to reduce excessive glare.
STREET LIGHTING
27c)1. SURVEY EXISTING STREET LIGHTS
We recommend that the Highway Department survey the existing street lights
owned and maintained by the Town. Many of these do not function properly.
Others do not appear necessary to fulfill the functions of street lighting outlined
above; they do not illuminate curves, intersections, otherwise dangerous
sections of roadway, or populated areas.
27c)2. ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY STREET LIGHTS
Unnecessary street lights waste electricity and contribute to light pollution.
Their maintenance costs the Town moneythat could better be spent elsewhere.
Similarly, the Town should replace old or improperly functioning light fixtures
which waste electricity.
In lieu of inefficient street lighting, the Town should investigate a program 'of
installing reflectors on the road surfaces, utility poles and other stationary
objects. NYS DOT has funding opportunities for such a program.
27c)3. PROVIDE APPROPRIATE STREET LIGHTS IN HAMLET CENTERS
The hamlet centers and historic areas are currently lit with the same light
fixtures as are open roads and highways. These fixtures provide a quality of
light and level of illumination inappropriate for the pedestrian nature of the
hamlet centers. Appropriate illumination would greatly add to the historic
character of these areas, and assist merchants in attracting patrons after dark.
We recommend that the Town allocate funds and seek funding from the hamlet
merchants and outside sources (State) for new appropriate light fixtures for the
hamlet centers.
RECOMMENDATION #28
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Southold is fortunate to have a rich architectural heritage, which gives the town a
strong sense of place in which all its residents can enjoy. The consistency of high
quality of this vernacular design also benefits the economy of the town by drawing
tourists and second home owners who wish to experience the charm of an intact
historic place. This quality of the built environment should be reinforced, both by
protection of historic structures, and by control of those new structures which are
highly visible. A respect and acknowledgement of the local vernacular architecture
should be instilled in all applicants for new construction in sensitive areas.
FORMER PROPOSALS
The Town of Southold has considered the creation of an architectural review
procedure on a number of occasions inthe past. We agree with the intent of the last
of these, a draft law submitted by the Planning Board on September 10, 1990, which
intended to...
77
"...preserve and promote the character and appearances and conserve the property
values of the Town, the attractiveness of whose business areas are the economic
mainstay of the community, by providing procedures for an architectural review of
structures henceforth erected, reconstructed or altered in the Town, and thereby;
(1) To encourage good qualities of exterior building design and good
appearances and to relate such design and appearances to the sites and
surroundings of structures;
(2) To permit originality and resourcefulness in bu#ding design and
appearances which are appropriate to the sites and surroundings; and
(3) To prevent such design and appearances as are unnecessarily
offensive to visual sensibilities.
A common criticism of architectural review is that it limits an individual's freedom of
expression in the form of buildings. We believe that this objection is not valid; much
room for variety and personal aesthetic preference remains in the hands of individual
applicants; it is the grossly insensitive and offensive projects which are controlled.
We recommend guidelines which establish only the outside limits for architectural
design, similar to those established for zoning setbacks used in planning. Preference
should be given to design which reflects and supports the context within which it is
located. Within such parameters there is significant room for expression and the
growth of new ideas and design sensibilities.
Another criticism of architectural review is that it tends to "homogenize" the
appearance of a town. We believe that this, too, is not valid; anyone visiting an
historic town will see the tremendous variety and interest of the buildings. They will
also notice the sense of unity and harmony that exists in historic places. In short, we
believe that the importance of preserving the architectural wholeness of Southold is
critical to preserving the integrity of our shopping areas and the rural character of the
Town.
CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
A limited architectural review of new construction and renovations of existing
structures is currently accomplished as part of the Site Plan Review process by the
Planning Board. Such review is based on a general objective:
100-252. K: Architectural features: that the architectural features of
proposed buildings and signs are in character w/th that generally
prevailing in the neighborhood.
78
We believe this objective is appropriate. We also believe it has worked in most cases
to prevent new construction which is considered objectionable. However, we are
concerned that in future, proposals will come before the Planning Board which
challenge their ability to regulate aesthetics and circumvent their general objective.
We believe that the issues of good architectural design are significantly different from
those of good planning design, and should therefore be administered and approved by
those qualified to do so and charged specifically with that task.
We believe that the architectural review process should seek to balance personal
aesthetic freedom with an understanding of the whole context of each hamlet and the
Town. We believe a sense of wholeness is currently experienced in Southold, and
that this is an important component of our historic rural character. This quality can
be severely compromised and eventually destroyed by new construction and
insensitive renovation which loudly calls attention to itself without consideration for
its neighbors.
It is not the intention of the Task Force to limit individual taste, but to encourage a
sense of wholeness and connection to the past which exemplifies our architectural
traditions. We believe that within this historic context it is possible to develop new
architectural ideas and forms which express the desires and needs of modern life.
28a: ESTABLISH PROCEDURE FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
The Stewardship Task Force recommends that an effective architectural review
procedure be established to foster harmony and consistency in the development of the
Town. This could be done in several ways; we have explored two, and found
positive and negative aspects to each. The Town should carefully consider which
alternative best accomplishes its general objective as stated above and fits into the
regulatory process in a simple and easily understood manner. The Task Force does
not, as part of this Recommendation, express a preference, but simply stresses the
importance of an effective procedure.
ALTERNATIVE #1: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
The original draft prepared by the Planning Board, dated 9/10/90,
recommended an Architectural Review Board (ARB) which would review
applications for construction as referred by the Building Department. In this
case, separate application would be made to and approval granted by an
independent board, whose jurisdiction would be established by code.
ADVANTAGES
This alternative has the advantage of a flexible jurisdiction, which gives the
ARB more authority to play a constructive role in shaping the future appearance
of the Town. For example, we believe the Town should consider review of
some residential projects as well as commercial projects. Such review might
79
80
include all new construction/renovation within non-residential zoning districts,
or within new districts created by the Town, such as a Hamlet Center District,
where architectural review is considered important and desirable. The Task
Force has also discussed and acknowledged the benefit of extending
architectural review beyond the hamlet centers, such as along our principal
historic thoroughfare, the Main Road. We have also discussed the idea of
extending architectural review to all construction, residential and commercial,
throughout the Town, as does the Town of Southampton.
Regardless of its jurisdiction, a process should be formulated for the granting
of waivers. These would be granted by the ARB or Building Debarment for
projects whose extent or significance do not warrant review.
DISADVANTAGES
The disadvantage of an independent ARB is its cost and complexity. To
institute a new board involves new procedures which could add time and cost
to the process of regulatory approval. The Task Force is concerned with the
growth of bureaucracy and the complexity of the approval process. A standing
board could also add to the cost of government in a time of fiscal austerity.
ALTERNATIVE #2: ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Another alternative for architectural review is that of an Architectural Advisory
Committee (AAC). This concept comes from the report issued by the Planning
and Zoning Committee of the Town Board, dated 11/8/90, which recommended
that architectural review be accomplished within the framework of Site Plan
Review as administered by the Planning Board. In this case, a project under
review by the Planning Board would be forwarded to its Architectural Advisory
Committee for review and approval. If this alternative is adopted, we
recommend that such approval or disapproval by the AAC be binding, unless
overruled by a majority-plus-one of the Planning Board.
ADVANTAGES
Review by an AAC would come at an earlier point in the overall regulatory
approval process, before expensive construction documents are prepared, than
review by an ARB (which happens on application for a building permit). This
could potentially simplify the process and create less hardship for the applicant.
Similarly, deliberations of the AAC would fall within the time limits established
by the SEQRA process, which would expedite the architectural review
procedure. Finally, the administrative cost to the Town of maintaining a
committee under an existing board would be less than creating an entirely new
board.
DISADVANTAGES
By placing architectural review under the Planning Board, such review is limited
to projects which require Site Plan Approval, i.e., commercial projects. It is
not possible under this alternative to review the design of residential projects
which may have a significant impact on the appearance of the Town without
subjecting them to site plan approval, which involves lengthy procedures and
costly documentation which is otherwise unnecessary.
28)b: ARB/AAC MEMBERSHIP COMPOSITION
Each hamlet has an unique identity which is expressed in its architecture. This
individual character should be reinforced by the composition of those chosen to
review architectural design. We recommend that an ARB/AAC consist of three
appointed members chosen from the town at large, including at least two design
professionals, and two appointed members chosen from each hamlet. These hamlet
representatives would review only projects proposed within their hamlet.
RECOMMENDATION #29
LANDSCAPING
_29a:___S_CREENING
29al.
Restore screening requirement between business and industrial
uses and residential zones.
29a)2. Tailor screening and landscaping requirements to the context in which
they occur and the visual sensitivity of the site. The more sensitive the
location visually, the greater the protection needed.
29b:
LAND CLEARING
Initiate land clearing restrictions to prevent clear cutting of wooded sites prior
to approval of site plan or building permit.
29c:
PREFERRED VEGETATION
Develop a list of preferred landscaping species and encourage incorporation of
existing vegetation and native vegetation into landscape design.
81
RECOMMENDATION #30
GRAPHIC DESIGN MANUAL
We recommend that a graphic design manual be adopted by the Town. The manual
should provide a general format of architectural criteria, to foster a greater
understanding and appreciation of local architecture, and assist the architectural
review committee communicate with its applicants. It should not espouse an "official
style", but rather illustrate the range of historic vernacular architecture that exists in
the Town. The manual could also be very helpful by illustrating the terminology of
building construction to the applicants.
Such a manual should include a chapter on SIGNS, as per Recommendation #26, on
LIGHTING, as per Recommendation #27, and on SITE PLANNING and SUBDIVISIONS,
as per Recommendation #23d, which would assist applicants to understand and
comply with the Zoning Code.
A graphic design manual should reinforce the uniqueness of the individual hamlets by
including examples of noteworthy local structures which characterize each hamlet.
These important structures and an overa//sense of p/ace should inform the design
decisions of all applicants.
CITIZENS' PROPOSALS
The hamlet meetings of April 1994 produced many valuable zoning and planning
suggestions from the public. In reading this report, the town will see that the Task
Force adopted those suggestions which have townwide implications and comport with
our planning objectives: for example, designation of the North Road and its
continuation as the Main Road in East-Marion and Orient as a scenic corridor. The
Town residents had suggestions, below, on the detailed proposals they would adopt
for implementing our recommendations.
The hamlet residents also designated the "sacred" vistas, corridors and waterways
which they would seek to preserve in their hamlets through special districts, zoning
corrections, purchase or restrictions on development.
In addition, some hamlets designated "sending zones" and "receiving zones" which
may be used in any Transfer of Development Rights program. Each hamlet group also
identified a list of properties for proposed purchases of development rights.
The Task Force offers these as indications of local public sentiment for the Town to
consider in its planning and legislation.
82
ORIENT
1. Designate Main Road from Greenport east as a Scenic Highway AND
Scenic Corridor.
To prevent excessive development from harming current water, farmland and
historic views. Scenic corridor rules would prohibit new structures within 300
feet of road.
2. Special District: Orient Historic district.
Extending south from the inlet at Harbor River Road to the end of Willow
Terrace, then east to incorporate the HB, B, HD, RR, and M-I zone and the R-40
zone which adjoins them: No new structures or alterations should be permitted
which do not conform to historic character of Orient as determined by an
agency designated by the Town which includes hamlet representatives. Fast
food and buildings over 25 feet in height should be prohibited and other
appropriate restrictions established.
3. Special District: Orient Harbor/Long Beach Bay Scenic Overlay district.
To preserve the view of the historic harbor front on entering Orient, a special
overlay district would run from the Dam Pond Causeway southeast, following
the shore of Gardiners Bay and along the north shore of Long Beach Bay.
Except within the Hamlet Historic District, no new structures would be
permitted; nor any structures visible from the causeway or the creek's waters.
5. Change Mil zone at Three Waters Lane to MI.
Former row-boat launch should be limited to recreational uses.
6. Primary Receiving Zone: From 100 North of King Street to 100 feet
south of Orchard Street and from Navy Street east to Old Farm Road.
The primary receiving zone concentrates new development in the hamlet center
and permits preservation of R-200 "sending" zones.
7. Secondary Receiving Zone: Current R-40 properties from Soundview
Road south to Park View Lane and from Ryder Farm Lane to Three
Waters Lane.
The secondary receiving zone allows "fill-in" development in an already dense
zone to permit preservation of the R-200 "sending" zones.
8. Proposed for purchase: development rights and/or scenic easements
from properties adjoining Long Beach Bay; and farm properties visible
from the Main Road.
These would also be "sending zones" in any transfer of development rights
program.
83
EAST
MARION
1. Designate Main Road from Greenport east as a Scenic Highway.
To prevent excessive development from harming current water, farmland and
historic views.
2. Eliminate anomalous Resort-Residential zone on Bay Avenue.
3. Change R-80 to R-200 zone along western shore of Dam Pond.
To preserve water view from Causeway and from pond.
4. Special District: Dam Pond Scenic Overlay district.
Within approximately 300 feet of Dam Pond waters, no new structures would
be permitted; nor any structures visible from the causeway or the creek's
waters.
5. Change Mil zone at Shipyard Lane to MI.
Require clean-up and appropriate limited recreational marina uses.
6. Special District: Bay Access overlay zone.
Remove and prevent new impediments to public access to Bay from Bay
Avenue beach.
Proposed for purchase: development rights and/or scenic easements
from properties adjoining Dam Pond or visible from the causeway. Seek
purchase of easement for Sound Access.
R E E
N P 0 R T ( U n i n c o r p o r a t e d
Change 4 of 5 HD Zones on North Road to R-80.
Purpose: Preserve North Roads Woods; concentrate density within
hamlets, not on North Road; prevent Greenport from becoming an
"HD" dumping ground.
Scenic Corridor A: Woods to north of Main Road at Brecknock/Jem
Commons.
Require set-backs and maintenance of trees along roadway.
Scenic Highway designation of North Road (Rt. 48) and its
continuation as Main Rd (Rt.25).
Affords additional protection in addition to designation of portion as
scenic corridor.
Scenic Corridor B: Screening and set-back along Main Road on South
Side of Main Road at current LI/LIO zone.
84
5. Scenic vista Area: Along Sage Blvd.
Allow no new building visible from road.
o
Change Marina II at Brick Cove to Marina I.
Reduce density and allowed uses.
Reduce LI/LIO Zone at west approach to Greenport.
Specifically, change LI/LIO zone along Main Road between Pipes Neck
to Silvermere to R-80. Purpose: to prevent long Route-58-style
industrial/commercial strip entering Greenport. Allows commercial
development on north side of road and at current east and west ends
of current LI/LIO zone. As an alternative: Scenic corridor
designation (above) with height limits, set backs and screening.
Purchase area choices Brecknock Hall; Jem Commons and scenic vista
along Sage Blvd.
SOUTHOLD
1. Scenic Highway designation of North Road; and the Main Road
between Ackerly Lane West to Skunk Lane.
To maintain open farm vistas between hamlets, allow no new structures
which block landscape, especially between railroad tracks and Soundview.
2. Primary Receiving Zone: Between Laurel west to Horton's Lane
approximately 1000 feet north of the Railroad tracks -- but no closer
to the North Road.
This concentrates development in hamlet centers and permits preservation of
A-C zones without contradicting proposals to save North Road vista. The
area may be used as a commercial/residential mixed-use development. Note
that zone is to be bounded on the west by a preserved vista west of Horton
Road.
3. Visually protected vista A: From Travelers Lane to Soundview.
4. Visually protected vista B: Arshomomoque Pond West bank and inlet
from bay.
No new structures visible from the pond or from the bridge road crossing
the inlet.
Visually protected vistas C, D and E: (C) North side of Paradise Point
Road and east side of North Bayview from Paradise to Reydon; (D)
North side of North Bayview Rd. from Ship's Drive to Bayview Road;
and (E) West side of Bayview Road south from Rambler Court to
85
Cedar Beach Road.
Set back of new structures at least 100 feet from Road and screened.
Change to A-C or reduce the nine B, LB, LI anomalous zones on North
Road between Ackerly and Boisseau.
In the alternative: reduce to current use. Prohibit new structures
from further eroding open vista; new commercial development to be
directed to current vacancies and new building to hamlet center.
7. Scenic corridor: Soundview Avenue within 100 feet of Road.
No new structures visible from this stretch of road. Require set backs of
100 feet on long properties. Prohibit tree-clearing without approval within
corridor. Coordinates with bike/hike path.
8. Change HB zone at Cedar Beach to LB or R-40.
Current zoning is anomalous "spot," which may remain as restaurant under
non-conforming use. Current zone would allow for future uses inappropriate
for beach/residential community.
9. Marine II zone restrictions.
Complaints require review of use of Marine II zone at Port of Egypt to insure
that operations do not exceed environmental capacity nor harm landscape
view of Arshamomoque Pond and Mill Creek. This may include restrictions
on lighting and signage and change of zone from Marine II to R-40 for the
portions of the zone not contiguous to water north of the Main Road and
east of Mill Creek.
10. Proposed for purchase: development rights of farm properties visible
from North Road, Main Road or Bayview, as available from owners.
Also, pm~d at corner of Lighthouse Road and Soundview.
These would also be designated "sending zones" for a TDR program.
PECONIC
1. Primary Receiving Zone: in Current R-80 zone along Peconic Lane
around Post Office approximately 500 feet North of Main Road to
approximately 100 feet south of railroad tracks.
This concentrates development in hamlet center and permits preservation of
A-C and SGPA "sending" zones.
2. Visually protected vista A: North Road.
Purpose: Maintain "open" view across farm fields. Require deep set-back of
any structures in A-C and business zones (if any permitted to remain).
86
3. Move business zone from North Road to hamlet center.
To prevent destruction of North Road farm vista, eliminate all business zones
on North Road in Peconic (or reduce size to current use) and permit light
business in area designated above as "primary receiving zone." Planned use
development permissible in return for purchase of development rights.
4. Scenic corridor A: Soundview Avenue within 100 feet of Road.
No new structures visible from this stretch of road. Require set backs of
100 feet on long properties. Prohibit tree-clearing without approval within
corridor. Coordinates with bike/hike path.
5. Designate North Road as a Scenic Highway.
To prevent excessive development from harming current farmland views.
Eliminate anomalous Resort-Residential zone on Sound bluff at Salt
Marsh Lane.
7. Change R-40 zone to R-80 along Main Road at Richmond Creek.
8. Change R-80 to A-C zone along Main Road at Richmond Creek and
Wells Road.
To preserve open vista. This and A-C properties adjoining North Road would
become sending zones in a TDR program.
9. Special Districts: Richmond Creek Scenic Overlay district and Little
Creek set back.
Within approximately 1000 feet of Richmond Creek waters, including all of
Wells Road and Indian Neck Lane, no new structures visible from these
roads or the creek's waters. No new structures should be allowed along the
east bank of Little creek which are visible from the creek.
10. Proposed for purchase: development rights of farm properties visible
from North Road or Main Road.
These would also be designated "sending zones" for a TDR program.
CUTCHOGUE
1. Primary Receiving Zone: Alvahs Lane to Cox Lane, and north from the
lots north of the Main Road to approximately 2000-feet south of the
Railroad tracks.
This concentrates development in hamlet centers and permits preservation of
A-C and SGPA "sending" zones. Residents amenable to creation of
secondary in-fill receiving zone.
87¸
2. Visually protected vistas A and B: Oregon Road and North Road.
Purpose: Maintain 'open" view across farm fields. Require deep set-back of
any structures in A-C and LI/LIO zones. Prevent "industrial strip" look along
North Road or Oregon Road. Review size of LI/LIO zone for possible
reduction toward dump. Designate North Road a "Scenic Highway."
3. Visually protected vista C: New Suffolk Avenue.
Protect vista from this stretch of road.
4. Planned Use Development district behind Post Office.
Allow for mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly commercial use (and parking) in lots
adjacent to Post Office. Additional dense use tied to development rights
transfer.
5. Preserve R-40 zone south of Main Road between Depot and
Sti~lwater.
Maintain separation of two Cutchogue business zones to avoid "shopping
strip" effect along Main Road.
6. Proposed for purchase: development rights of farm properties visible
from North Road and Oregon Road; Fort Corchaug and Wickham farm
rights, as available from owners.
These would also be designated "sending zones" for a TDR program,
1. Special District - New Suffolk Waterfront Height Limit
Special overlay including hamlet area water-front lots limiting height to 25-
foot maximum on new building (commercial and residential) to preserve New
Suffolk character,
2. Visually protected vista A: Grathwohl along West Creek.
No new structures along creekfront.
3. Visually protected vista B: Robins Island North Shore.
No new structures visible from New Suffolk hamlet or from water at
Southern Race. No tree-clearing permitted visible from New Suffolk hamlet.
This would also require set-backs of new properties of at least 300 feet.
4. Visually protected vista C: New Suffolk Road, Cedars Road to Old
Harbor (east side).
No new structures visible from this stretch of road.
5. Visually protected vista D: Entry to Wickham Creek, west side.
88
No new structures visible from water at creek entry.
6. Change one-lot HB zone at New Suffolk Road below George Road to
R-40.
Anomalous one-lot zone should be eliminated.
7. Restrict uses M-II New Suffolk hamlet.
Exclude resort/hotel use, fast-food and other uses inappropriate to small
village character of New Suffolk. Limit height and building footprints to
maintain water view.
o
Change M-I zoning of waterfront between Orchard and King Street to
residential (R-40) zoning.
Visually protected vista C: Fort Corchaog along New Suffolk Avenue,
the Main Road and Downs Creek.
Require any development to be set back from roads and pond and
screened.
10.
Change Robins Island zoning R-400 to less density.
To prevent destructive development of Robins Island, proposals
ranged from upzoning to permit 22 lots (as in County plan), half of
current sum allowed, to an "Island Zone" permitting no new
development at all beyond the one-house now on the Island.
11.
Proposed purchase areas: Wickham farm development rights, North
Fork Country Club and Fort Corchaug.
These, with Robins Island, could also be designated "sending zones"
for a TDR program.
MAI I iTUCK AND LAUREL
1. Receiving Zone: All current R-40 zones -- for "in-fill" housing.
There is no "primary" high density receiving zone; rather, Iow density
(maximum one-third increase) to be spread among current R-40 residential
districts to support a transfer of development rights program,
2. Visually protected vistas A and B: Oregon/East Mill Road and North
Road.
Purpose: Maintain "open" view across farm fields. Require deep set-back of
any structures in A-C visible from Oregon or North Roads. Prevent
"commercial strip" look along North Road or Oregon Road. Designate North
Road and Oregon/East Mill Roads as "Scenic Highways."
89
90
3. Visually protected vista C: Mill Lane between Oregon Road and the
Main Road and continuing along Main Road east to Cardinal Drive.
No new structures visible from this stretch of road.
4. Consolidate Business zones into one large zone around Post Office:
Factory east to Wickham and Route 48 south to approximately 500
feet below the Main Road and north of Route 48 approximately 500
feet from Westphalia east to Wickham. Conjoined with elimination of
LB zone at intersection of Sound Avenue and Route 48 and
elimination of U zone between Sound Avenue and Route 48.
This creates consolidates hamlet business center. Would allow for "planned
use development" (PUD}: mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly commercial use.
Additional dense use tied to development rights transfer.
5. Visually protected vistas D and E: Old Main Road and New Suffolk
Avenue (outside of hamlet business zone).
No new structures visible from this stretch of road.
6. Visually protected vista F: Long Creek southern bank south to
Marratooka Lake and to New Suffolk Avenue.
No new structures visible in the current R-80 zone visible from New Suffolk
Road, Mary's Avenue (looking east), Route 48 or Main Road. This leaves an
open space surrounding hamlet center.
Visually protected vista G: Breakwater looking south from East Road
to Bergen; and continuing along Bergen Road to the North Road.
8. Proposed for purchase: development rights of farm properties visible
from North Road, Oregon Road and Bergen Road; A-C property
adjacent to B,'ush's Creek; R-80 property between Old Main Road to
Peconic Bay; parcel between Marratooka Lake and Main Road; parcels
along northeast intersection of Mill Lane and the Main Road.
These would also be designated "sending zones" for a TDR program.
RESULTS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
1993 OFFICIAL CITIZENS SURVEY
(826 mailed responses)
PARTI.
Residents were asked to circle the letter that corresponded to the answer which
best described how they felt.
1. Since 1980, Southold's population and housing units have increased. In your
opinion, has this rate of growth been:
[ 6% ] a. too slow.
[ 39% ] b. about right.
[51%] c. too fast.
2. With respect to the future residential growth in Southold, you think that:
[31%]
[ 60% ]
[ 5%]
[ 3%]
a. The Town should everything possible to
limit the amount of its new residential
development.
b. The Town should neither encourage nor
discourage residential growth, but should be
primarily concerned with directing it to
appropriate locations.
c. The amount of new residential development should be
controlled by the real estate market, or
d. The Town should actively encourage new residential
development.
91
3. With respect to future business and industrial growth in Southold, do you think
that
[ 19% ] a. The Town should do everything possible to limit the amount
of new business and industrial growth;
58% ]
b. The Town should neither encourage nor discourage
business/residential growth, but should be primarily concerned
with directing it to appropriate locations;
[ 7% ] c. The amount of new business and industrial development
should be controlled by market forces alone or
[ 14%]
PART II.
d. The Town should actively encourage new business
development.
Residents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the following
statements.
The economic benefits of development are
generally more important than the loss of
landscape and visual character.
AGREE DISAGREE
7% 82%
o
Town government should act to preserve the
special character of Southold. 88%
6%
o
Commercial and residential developers should
be required by law to retain as many natural
features as possible in new developments. 90%
5%
Southold should set aside funds to identify
and preserve environmentally sensitive areas
(for example, woodlands, wetlands, marine
habitats, and natural open spaces).
82% 7%
o
The Town should work cooperatively with major
landowners to increase public access on
private land for recreational purposes. 41%
3O%
The Town needs more housing for Iow- and
middle-income families. 38%
33%
10.
The Town should establish biking trails and
hiking trails in scenic parts of the Town. 65%
14%
92
11.
12.
13.
The Town should establish a new municipal
airport for private aircraft to be located
in the Town of Southold.
AGREE
10%
The Town should set aside additional funds to
maintain and encourage cultural resources
(example: libraries, recreation centers) 59%
The Town should allow future residential
developments in some areas of Southold to
take place on smaller lots if it will
preserve large amounts of open land.
DISAGREE
8O%
17%
53% 25%
PART II1. SOUTHOLD'S CHARACTER.
Residents were asked to rate the following five items on their importance to the
quality of life in Southold.
14.
a. Affordable housing
b. Small-town character
c. Open Spaces
d. Cultural Resources
e. Recreational facilities
NOT
IMPORTANT IMPORTANT
39% 27%
91% 2%
89% 2%
64% 10%
59% 12%
Residents were asked to rate the importance of the following five criteria for
Southold to use in reviewing future development proposals.
15.
a. Protect undeveloped open spaces
b. Provide additional jobs
NOT
IMPORTANT IMPORTANT
87% 4%
57% 13%
93
IMPORTANT NOT
IMPORTANT
c. Protect Town Character
91% 2%
d. Protect groundwater
95% 2%
e. Protect agricultural areas
87%
f. Protect Southold's visual
appearance
91% 3%
PART IV. SOUTHOLD'S LOOKS
Residents were asked what they thought of the following ideas.
AGREE DISAGREE
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Hamlet residents should have the right to
modify business building designs which harm
the visual appearance or character of a
hamlet. 61
The Town should require some trees of
landscaping around businesses to protect the
character of the Town and create a more
pleasant visual appearance. 83%
The Town should prohibit neon lighting. 62%
The Town should prohibit internally-lit signs. 44%
Lighting for business properties should be
designed to provide for adequate advertising
and safety without shining off the site beyond
the property lines. 86%
The Town should require businesses to turn
off bright exterior lights after they are
closed for the night.
68%
The Town should limit the type and size of
signs and billboards on Route 25 (the
Main Road).
89%
25%
7%
16%
22%
3%
14%
4%
94
PART V. KEEPING OUR TOWN SPECIAL
Residents were asked their opinion on the following:
AGREE
23.
If a builder has a permit to build on open
or vacant land, the permit should expire
if it has not been used for three years.
78%
24.
There is too much development already of open
space in Southold. The Town should reduce
the number of houses allowed on each acre
of land. 60%
25.
Thinking of ~he area north of Route 48 near
Greenport (the area around Brecknock Hall),
the Town should encourage high density housing
development in this area. 11%
26.
Builders should be prohibited from removing
trees prior to approval of their building
plans for the site.
86%
27.
The Town should start a program of to encourage
or assist in the preservation of historic
properties along Route 25. 80%
28.
The Town should allow "country inn" style
overnight accommodations in return for a
commitment to preserve vineyards or
farmland.
77%
29.
The Town should allow certain trades to
operate from a home but only with restrictions
on signs, parking and commercial traffic. 74%
30.
The Town should take steps to prohibit new
development and building on Robins Island. 70%
31.
The Town should take steps to maintain the
visual appearance of shopping districts by
setting design standards after meeting with
Hamlet residents.
87%
DISAGREE
9%
15%
68%
7%
7%
9%
13%
15%
5%
95
32.
Building density should be limited in areas
where our groundwater is most sensitive to
pollution.
AGREE DISAGREE
94% 2%
PART VI. WHERE SHOULD NEW BUILDINGS GO IN SOUTHOLD?
Growth in Southold could take place in many different locations over the next
twenty years. Below is a list of geographic areas. Residents were asked to
indicate whether they wanted to encourage development there (circled E) or
discourage development there (circled D).
COMMERCIAL PRESERVATION
RESIDENTIAL RETAIL INDUSTRIAL OR
AGRICULTURE
33.
96
a. Hamlet Centers E[46,6%] E[60%] E[14.4%] E[42.7%]
D[34.2%]D[22.2%] D[60.5%] D[25.6%]
b. Orient
E[40.1%] E[12.7%] E[ 4.1%] E[73.4%]
D[43.1%] D[60.6%] D[69.7% ] D[ 8.3%]
c. Main Road West of Greenport
E [ 34.9% ] E [ 35.9% ] E [ 22,0% ] E [ 52.7% ]
D [ 41.5% ] D [ 39.3% ] D [ 50.9% ] D [ 17.9% ]
d. Main Road at Love Lane
E [ 19.0% ] E [ 54.5% ] E [ 15.0% ] E [ 36.0% ]
D [ 54.0% ] D [ 25.3% ] D [ 56.1% ] D [ 30.9% ]
e. Along Oregon Road
E[37,6%] E[ 7.7%] E[ 4..3%] E[68.1%]
D[36.0%]D[59.6%]D[58'6%] D[ 6.6%]
f. Mattituck Inlet
E[33.7%] E[16.1%] E[ 7,2%] E[57.8%]
D [ 43.5% ] D [ 57.3% ] D [ 65.3% ] D [ 15.7% ]
COMMERCIAL PRESERVATION
RESIDENTIAL RETAIL INDUSTRIAL OR
AGRICULTURE
g. Along the North Road
in Cutchogue
E[33.7%] E[23.6%] E[24.8%] E[71.3%
D[44.2% ] D[51.4%] D[51.9%] D[ 8.0%
Residents were asked to circle the letter that corresponded to the answer which
best described how they felt.
34. New "stdp" shopping malls should be:
[ 2.9% ]
[ 16.3% ]
[ 73.3% ]
a. allowed anywhere in Town.
b. allowed, but only in or near Hamlet Centers.
c. not allowed; they are inappropriate for Southold.
35. The farmland area along Route 48 (from Mattituck to Horton Lane) is now
zoned to allow one house on every two acres. The Town should:
[ 51.2%
farmland.
[ 8.7%
[ 32.0%
a. reduce the amount of allowed development to preserve
b. increase the allowed number of houses per acre.
c. continue to permit division of farmed properties into 2-acre
housing lots.
36. In the undeveloped properties along Bayview Road, the Town should
[ 39.9% ]
[ 6.0% ]
[41.1% ]
a. reduce the amount of allowed development.
b. increase the allowed number of houses per acre.
c. keep development at the amount currently allowed.
37. On the bluffs along the Sound, the Town should
[ 66.3%
[ 3.7%
[ 22.O%
a. reduce the amount of allowed development to protect scenic
areas
b. increase the allowed number of houses per acre
c. allow development to proceed under current rules
97
38. If the Town would allow a new, large office building to be built, it should be
located
[41.1%
[ 37.0%
[ 8.7%
[ 3.25 ]
a, near the North Fork Bank office building
b. in current commercial areas
c, in the open space above the North Road in Cutchogue
d, anywhere a business chooses to build
39. The Town should direct new retail stores to operate
[ 5.5% ]
[ 5.0% ]
[76.1% ]
[ 6.1%]
a. anywhere along the Main Road
b. anywhere on the North Road (Route 48)
c, in current hamlet business centers
d, anywhere a business chooses
Residents were asked to state yes or no to the following.
40. Businesses I would like to see encouraged in this Town:
YES NO
Vineyard tourism 80.6% 7.8%
Used car lot 4,6% 76.0%
Beach tourism 55.8% 29.4%
Drive through fast-food
establishments 12.5% 73.5%
Small professional businesses
like computer programming 77.6% 10.7%
Agriculture 88.9% 1.9%
PART VII. WRITTEN SUGGESTIONS
The Town has asked the Task Force to help the Town government determine
which areas and vistas should be protected, that is, to locate those places in
Southold where new buildings should be discouraged or limited. Residents were
asked to list their favorite place or favorite view. For example, "My favorite place
from which I would like to save the view is from the bridge at Hashmomock Pond."
41. Please tell us your favorite place.
Answers varied.
98
42, What attracts you to living in Southold Town? What is the best thing about
living in Southold?
Answers varied.
43, If you could change one thing in the Town to make it better, what would you
change?
Answers varied,
44, Do Southold's most important features need better protection?
[ 45% ! answered "Yes".
[ 8% ] answered "No".
PART VIII.
Residents were asked to supply information about themselves,
45. Do you live in Southold
[ 88% ] a. Year round
[ 4% ] b. seasonally, most weekends
[ 5% ] c. seasonally, and I stay all summer.
46. How many years have you lived in Southold?
Average duration was 21 years.
47. What city or Town did you live in before you moved to Southold?
Answers varied,
48. Do you own your own home in Southold or pay rent?
89% ] own.
6% ] rent.
1% ] lease for season.
1.4%] other.
49.
How old are you?
Average age of respondent: 57 years old.
99
50. What Hamlet of Southold do you live in or vacation in?
4%
16%
4%
16%
4%
31%
7%
6%
4%
5%
Laurel
Mattituck
New Suffolk
Cutchogue
Peconic
Southold
Greenport Village
Greenport (Unincorporated)
East Marion
Orient
0.5% ] Fishers Island
51. Describe your employment category:
26% ] Full time employee
6% ] part time employee
8% ] business owner
11% ] self-employed, full time
42% ] retired
.5% ] student
4% ] not employed
55. Where do you work?
[31%]
[ 5%]
[12%]
[ 7%]
[ 3%]
[ 35% ]
in Southold Town
in Riverhead Town
Elsewhere on Long Island
in New York City
elsewhere
not applicable to me
56. Please circle the number corresponding with your household's total income for
1992 before taxes.
[ 2% ] a. Less than $15,000
[ 10%] b. $15,001 - $25,000
[ 14% ] c. $25,001 - $35,000
[ 18% ] d. $35,001 - $50,000
[ 20% ] e. $50,001 - $75,000
[ 22% ] f. More than $75,000
100
ONE TOWN. MANY PLACES
Southold Residents'
Vision for the Future
A Summary of Residents' Comments, Concerns and Ideas
as recorded at Hamlet Meetings held April 9, 1994
101
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is an appraisal of where our Town is today, and where residents think it
should be going. "Residents' Vision" is a comprehensive summary, in citizens'
own words, of a guide for the future of Southold Town. It is not written in
technical, planning language, nor does it contain easy solutions to complex issues.
The development and implementation of concrete policy for zoning and land use is
a complex process; we believe it will benefit from residents' input.
Summaries of each hamlet's vision are presented at the beginning of each chapter.
These are followed by listings of individual responses to a series of exercises
designed by the Task Force to foster participation, discussion and understanding of
planning objectives. These are the ideas, needs, preferences and positive and
negative thoughts of residents from each hamlet.
Working maps were created during each hamlet meeting to graphically display
those places where growth is ,preferable, where preservation should occur and
where various amenities, such as bike paths and beach access, should be
accommodated. These maps are accessible to those who would like to see them
at Planning Department at Town Hall.
In general, residents see the best hope for accommodating the Town's future
needs by planning for growth in existing hamlet centers, and preserving and
enhancing the surrounding rural areas. The residents from some hamlets placed
more emphasis on preservation and less on the need for growth; in some cases,
preferring no growth at all. Residents from other hamlets expressed the need for
both open space preservation and economic growth. In addition, the participants
discussed a wide range of issues: health care needs, recreational facilities,
102
merchant businesses, supporting our three biggest economic bases -- agriculture,
maritime activity and tourism, and preserving our quality life. One strong, shared
desire should be noted: residents want to preserve those things which originally
attracted them to Southold, or have kept them here. They want these things to
remain for their children, and their children's children.
A strong commitment to accommodate the needs of the fragile environment was
expressed throughout the Town. The exercise which produced the strongest
sentiment was to identify specia/places that should be available to future
generations. Preservation of land and water resources seemed to dominate the
thoughts of many residents. Most observed the importance of taking decisive
action to preserve open space and protect farming as a way of life and industry.
Similarly, residents stressed the sensitivity and importance of the Sound, bays,
creeks and inlets that shape the North Fork landscape, and noted that the
preservation of these water resources is about preserving our quality of life and the
economic base of the town. Water quality protection programs, road runoff
control measures, and wildlife and open space management plans were recurrent
ideas residents expressed.
Another issue paramount to several of the hamlet groups, is the residents' desire
to ensure economic stability and employment opportunities. Participants identified
at least four general areas where economic growth is possible and desirable:
Marine and maritime related industries, including commercial and recreational
fishing, other recreational boating and sailing activity, the sale of marine
supplies, aquaculture and marinas;
Agriculture, including produce-based farming, vineyards and wine making
activity, nursery stocks, sod farming, greenhouses and landscaping;
Tourism, defined carefully by residents; and merchant and commerce-related
businesses. The nature of these economic bases and residents' preferences
about their growth are more fully explained in the chapter entitled,
"Synopsis of Recurrent Themes".
Health care and Social services, including home health care and
hospital in- and out-patient services, nursing and doctor practices, and
myriad social services to the elderly, disabled, disadvantaged and
other groups, and to children, especially childcare.
Participating residents in each Hamlet expressed a desire for land use and other
public poticies that will support the future of these economic bases. They also
stated emphatically that the future of Southold is intimately connected to the
stabilization of the overall economy, including taxes, property values, and the
103
delivery of necessary services. The Town can ill-afford policies that support one
goal to the detriment of our overall economic health. Underscoring this notion, the
residents' self portrait includes references to recommendations that should
accomplish more than one goal at a time. For example, when residents urge the
preservation of agricultural activity through the purchase of farmland development
rights, they are also saying that they want to protect the scenic beauty that draws
tourists to come visit and then linger in our restaurants and our merchants' stores;
that they want to prevent the suburban sprawl of unchecked development that has
increased taxes and caused property values to decline more precipitously in other
areas; and that they also want to protect farming as a way of life unique to our
area.
Third, the composite sketch of Southold's future as ~xpressed by residents also
includes widespread recognition that if Southold is to continue to be vibrant place,
it needs to be responsive to all segments of its diverse population. The special
needs of seniors, retirees, young families, and people of all socio-economic
backgrounds have to be accommodated. To do this, residents stated that future
planning must address affordable housing demands, health and child care needs,
cultural and recreational needs, and the coexistence of residential and commercial
activity. The quality of life enjoyed by our residents today is something that
citizens want to pass along to their children. If there was one lament heard more
than any other, it was that of long time residents noting that "life isn't the way it
used to be" in Southold, in part because the population has soared and with it,
unplanned growth and the increased service needs that developed which altered
the rural, small-town quality of life enjoyed in Southold. Residents voiced concern
that the same process could repeat itself if we don't plan for it now and take steps
to protect things like the uninterrupted view of the dark, night sky and ballfields,
and make way for bike paths, pedestrian-friendly towns and alternate modes of
transportation.
While the various hamlet groups voiced distinct visions and attitudes for each
hamlet, there was an overwhelming understanding of the interconnectedness of all
the hamlet centers. Almost all groups noted that if only by virtue of having to
drive through other communities to get to their own, what happens in neighboring
hamlets has a profound effect on the look and feel of other hamlets. Residents are
concerned that the Town not grow in a piecemeal, unplanned fashion, where
pockets of development to destroy the continuity of the Town's landscape and the
visual environment that unites the different hamlet centers.
Southolders recognize that the way of life characterized by stopping along Main
Road to pick up fresh vegetables at a farmstand is an experience that has been lost
to the spread of suburban sprawl in communities to our west. It is clear that
citizens insist on preserving these 'rural attributes and have taken the time to
prepare a blueprint to ensure that those small but daily treasures are not lost.
104
SYNOPSIS OF RECURRENT THEMES
Although not all of the hamlets have the same concerns and needs, those
communities that have shared visions reveal similar thoughts on specific ideas.
Though familiar words, many of the terms that appear consistently in various
hamlet discussions hold special meaning in the Town of Southold. It is important
that these special meanings are understood and used by decision-makers to create
policies that will guide our Town's future.
TOURISM
The topic of tourism dominated most of the hamlet discussions. While almost all
residents appreciate the tourist economy as an essential element of the economy
of the North Fork, there is a healthy fear of its potential excesses. The focus
should be on preserving and improving our own quality of life, which will inevitably
attract visitors who wish to experience our town and patronize our merchant and
recreational businesses. There was enormous concern that we not become a
"theme village", such as Colonial Williamsburg, or a "beach strip", such as Ocean
City, MD, where the focus becomes serving the needs of tourists over residents.
All understand this will result in a loss of Southold as a real "place" in its own
right. One resident summed it up by saying, "We'd like people to come because
they're interested in what we're doing, and what we have to offer; but even if
they don't come, we're still going to do those same things and have the same
stores and activities. We should be a nice place to live before we're a nice place
to visit".
AGRICULTURE
Farming as a way of life and as an economic base is very important to residents.
Citizens appreciate the scenic vistas and the open space. The also appreciate the
diversity of agricultural activities on the North Fork and understand that farmers are
under increasing pressure to consolidate agricultural operations and to sell
remaining land for development. Hamlet groups focused on this issue and the need
to find mechanisms that will support agriculture in the future. Residents supported
the acquisition of development rights and other planning techniques.
MARINE AND MARITIME RELATED INDUSTRIES
The subject of marine activity encompasses a broad spectrum of activities.
Residents agree that fishing and recreational boating are important activities which
define the character of our town. However, the visible and invisible impacts of
some marina facilities underscore the difficulty in trying to enhance these
businesses. On one hand, residents want to see marine activity continue and
expand; they look forward to the restoration of Greenport's waterfront and the
possibilities of harbor and boat festivals. On the other hand, they are adamant that
such expansion not adversely affect the rich, natural environment. Most see the
105
conflict between natural resource protection and marine industry growth. What
emerged is a directive to guide marina growth to the least sensitive portions of the
Town's shoreline.
RECREATION
Residents see a need for facilities for all segments of Southold's population.
Increased access to beaches was noted, as was a need for another golf course,
indoor swimming pool, tennis courts, an ice skating rink, hiking and biking trails,
ball fields of all kinds and facilities for youth activities. Some residents observed
that there is also a need for transportation to link activities, perhaps by a mini-van
service, and support for youth activities by helping young people get insurance or
supervision for large events.
SERVICES FOR ALL SEGMENTS OF SOUTHOLD'S POPULATION
Residents defined distinct populations in Southold Town and see specific needs for
each group. Seniors and retired persons constitute a large part of our residents;
some are natives and others start out as second home owners who later make
Southold their primary residence. Many older residents are fearful that important
health care services are not available, and that they will be forced to relocate to
find the services they require. The idea was expressed that the Town should
facilitate the establishment of group and extended care facilities. Residents also
expressed concern for the needs of young families, such as child care and activities
and facilities for teens and children. Starter housing and greater, affordable, rental
options should be available to young families and couples just starting out.
Without such assistance, many young families will not be able to stay in Southold
Town.
GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
Residents are troubled by increasing threats to the quality and quantity of the
groundwater. Residents expressed hope that by concentrating future growth away
from groundwater-sensitive lands, water purity might be safeguarded. However,
where pollution and overpumping have already compromised quality or quantity,
residents want to see actions taken to remedy the situation.
NEW BUSINESSES AND INDUSTRIAL BASES
Participants in the hamlet discussions envisioned the future and what kinds of
growth are appropriate for the Town. They expressed clear commitment to ensure
that present economic bases be supported and that any future growth be
consistent with the needs of current, natural resource-dependent economies.
VISUAL CHARACTER OF SOUTHOLD TOWN
Southolders are proud of the rural look of their communities and enjoy the scenic
vistas of historic buildings, farmlands and beautiful natural landscapes. They are
concerned that rapid development has begun to erode this visual character. Better
106
landscaping would enhance existing built areas, such as shopping centers. In
virtually every hamlet discussion, the subject of architectural review was endorsed,
in some cases with hamlet-specific architectural standards and compliance
procedures.
PUBLIC COMMENTS BY HAMLET
MATTITUCK and LAUREL
Facilitator: Joe Fischetti
Mattituck residents were concerned with balanced economic growth and the need
to maintain the visual appearance of the hamlet center and surrounding areas.
When residents were asked to consider other places that they liked and what
lessons they would like to see Southold learn from and incorporate here,
participants identified areas where commercial activity continued to thrive and
economic stability was perhaps enhanced because of tighter regulations regarding
the visual quality of the village. These places were notable for their pedestrian-
orientation and the degree to which preservation of historic and natural resources
was incorporated into the overall goals of the town.
This seems fitting for Mattituck residents to have observed in light of the
comments participants made about the complex mix of activity that Mattituck
currently supports and the challenges that it is already beginning to face.
Residents are concerned that the visual character and quality of life in the hamlet is
being undermined by the rapid, poorly planned development that took place in
recent years. Many of the wish list items and future needs that participants
mentioned reveal a desire to go back and fix problems that could have been
avoided if the area had not allowed so much development to take place so quickly.
For example, parking and traffic problems, 'replanting of trees, signage problems,
poorly landscaped commercial strips, etc., are all things that residents want to see
improved. They also noted that in the process, significant natural resources and
local recreational opportunities have been impaired.
Rather than find fault, however, they want to ensure that there is better
communication between Hamlet residents and decision-makers. The diverse
participants in the Mattituck group demonstrated a clear willingness and their
desire to continue this process. They want to protect the resources and views
107
that remain and find ways to improve the built portions of Mattituck, consistent
with the charm and appeal of places like Love Lane.
A. Special Places
· Vista of Ruland's Farm and Mill Lane
· All of Oregon Road
· Cooper Farm and Farm Stand
· Husing Farm Area
· Vista opposite Brushes Creek, north to Route 25
· Soundview Avenue South overlooking Oregon Pond Firing Point
· Love Lane's special character
· Bergen Avenue
· Old Main Road - Mattituck and Laurel
· Laurel School and Post Office
· Laurel Lake and Marratooka Lake Vista
· View of Creek Sound Avenue - Westphalia to Wickham Avenue
· Entire length of Suffolk Avenue
· wetlands, marshes and beaches
· Laurel Lane
B. Future Needs and Improvements
· Park District property - Sound and Bay sides
· Police and school cooperation
· Village Green and parks - public bathrooms
· Litter control
· replant trees on Main Road
· Improve existing signage (NFB sign)
· rebuild railroad station
· sand piles - Sound Avenue and Westphalia
· land clearing ordinance
· visual improvement Main Road (rail road) West to Love Lane
· Plan for sideroads - traffic study - trucks bypass
· Love Lane closed to vehicle traffic
Other Places Like Southold That We Like and Why · Kennebunkport, Maine: Clean parks, access to water
· Manchester, Vermont: vineyards, architectural controls on businesses
· Nantucket: Architectural Control
· Cold Spring Harbor, New York: preserved historic look and harbor
· Beaufort, North Carolina: Attractive Town, Boardwalk
D. Wish List
· Park District: out-of-town parking fees, improve tourist facilities
· relocate tank museum
108
· allow resident access to schools
· remove asphalt tanks
· indoor swimming pool and recreation facilities
· bike paths and walkways
· stop light Main Road near A&P
· more Bed & Breakfasts
· improve existing commercial areas (ie. near A&P), buffers, plantings, etc.
· accessible, affordable housing
· better enforcement of Town Codes including marinas and dumping
· camping facilities and grounds
· Zebra Stripe Love Lane
· More attractive street lighting
· clean waters for all the creeks -- control runoff
· Lower property taxes
· grant finder and festivals and other means to pay for improvements
E. Appropriate New Businesses
· Health Spa
· Family clothing store
· Ice or roller skating
· Country Inn
· Town owned golf course
· indoor/outdoor cafes
· campground
· motels
· Mattituck Inlet Marina Jitney Service
· a youth center
NEW SUFFOLK
Facilitator: Michael Simon
The issues of concern to New Suffolk residents not surprisingly, relate mainly to
marine and waterfront activity. To most residents, the waterfront is the center of
their community and they would like to see it enhanced or at least restored. They
like the intimacy of the New Suffolk hamlet and want to ensure that it is retained
for the future. They would like the Town to help restore community ball fields,
beaches, and sidewalks and they would encourage private landowners to consider
landscaping or building improvements.
109
The group was supportive of efforts to preserve the visual character and quality of
life in Southold and encouraged the Town to consider the efforts of other
communities who have created architectural and planning controls to safeguard the
appearance of villages like New Suffolk. While they don't think New Suffolk is an
appropriate or convenient place for commercial expansion, there is a sense that the
area is highly suitable for the establishments that are most consistent with the
quiet character of the village, like office rentals for professionals, local museums
and non-profit organizations.
New Suffolk residents are concerned about recreational activity in its waters and
most especially the speed of pleasure boats and the recklessness exhibited by
some jet ski users. They feel that increased law enforcement presence on the
waters, especially on weekends and more effective enforcement of existing marine
safety laws is needed. Equally important is the need expressed by residents to
take action to support marine life in and around the creeks and harbors, by
cleaning up habitat areas and reducing pollutants that threaten water quality.
Special Places · Waterfront, shipyard
· Grathwohl/West Creek
· School
· Ball Field
· Old Cove Yacht Club
· Downs Creek/Osprey Beach
· Wickham Beach
· Old Post office and General Store
· Views of Robins Island
· Town Beach
· Wooded Lot at 5th and Main (N.E. corner)
· Schoolhouse Creek Road
· Captain Marty's
· Street vistas
· Orchards on Old Harbor Road
Future Needs and Improvements · Clean up Old North Fork Shipyard (Carr Property)
· Consider business/residential/marine zoning
· Preserve ballfield and improve facilities
· Retain School and maintain property
· Cleanup Schoolhouse Creek Road
· Repair sidewalks and stormdrains
· Improve parking for Legend's & other businesses
· Improve/replace New Suffolk Emporium
· Fix up end of Old Harbor Road
110
Other Places Like Southold That We Like and Why · Nantucket: effective Planning Board control
· Kent, Connecticut
· Door City, Wisconsin
· Massachusetts North Shore: village architecture
Do Appropriate New Businesses
· General Store/Ice Cream Parlor
· Local Museum
· wooden boat restoration
· Gallery
· Tours: water taxis to South Fork, Shelter Island, etc.
· Non-profit organization office rental (e.g., NFEC, Save the Bays, Baymen,
Cornell Cooperative Extension)
· Professional offices
· Yacht/boat sales
Hamlet Center Amenities · Public Lavatories
· Ballpark lights, benches
· Community Center/General Store
· Parking designation & control
· More Trees
F. Wish
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
List
Convert old North Fork Shipyard to a park
Ban jet skis
Community center
Bicycle lanes
Speed limit e.~forcement
Restore post office/general store
Clean up harbor and creek water to support marine life
CUTCHOGUE
Facilitators: Thomas C. Samuel and Helen Jones
Residents who participated in the Cutchogue Hamlet Meeting embraced a shared
vision of a Cutchogue that could balance economic growth with the protection of
the open spaces and small town atmosphere that characterize Cutchogue's quality
of life. They were very enthusiastic about being given the opportunity to provide
111
meaningful input for the future. People noted that the exercises were meaningful
in understanding the issues and that the disparate individual viewpoints generally
fit into a consistent "big picture",
The group did not complete all of the exercises, and was not able to address many
of the issues in the allotted time. However, of the issues that were addressed, the
Cutchogue group demonstrated a strong sense of community spirit and a "give and
take" attitude beneficial to the interest of the larger community. In a particular
example of this spirit one resident, who lives next to a likely parking area, noted
the necessity for parking in Cutchogue and the positive impact it would have on
Hamlet Center businesses. She expressed a commitment to addressing
community needs and a willingness to accept the parking lot because it advanced a
larger good. This willingness to consider the needs of the whole community was
expressed several times during the Hamlet discussion.
In general, the Cutchogue Hamlet group focused on three main issues: the
preservation of open space, tourism as an economic base, and our quality of life
and appearance issues. It was noted that the Cutchogue community has seemed
to change quickly in recent years, and people have become very sensitive to
changes in the visual appearance throughout the hamlet.
Preserving farmland is an important concern of the Cutchogue residents and they
explored the idea of a Transfer of Development Rights program as outlined by the
Stewardship Task Force. The concept was explained, many questions were
answered, and there was an openess to using TDRs to preserve farmland and
concentrate residential and commercial growth. It was also agreed by most
participants that TDRs be used for infilling existing lots at a higher density than
currently allowed by zoning throughout the hamlet, in addition to being
concentrated in the hamlet center.
The tourist economy envisioned by residents was one that balanced the positive
and negative aspects of the tourism trade. Tourism should provide an economic
base by celebrating the existing and ongoing local activities, rather than by simply
catering to the needs of tourists. Many good ideas for achieving this were
expressed by the participants. It is understood that visual appearance is important
to tourism; specifically, there seems to be an heightened awareness of the
"cluttered and distracting" effect of new signs and lighting on the Main Road.
It was emphatically expressed that the Hamlet discussions should continue and
that the April 9th session, although more meaningful than previous public
discussions, was still only a beginning. Residents expressed a clear willingness to
participate in a permanent Hamlet group in Cutchogue.
112
A. Special Places
· Fort Corchaug property
· Cutchogue-New Suffolk Free Library
· Old House and Village Green
· Nassau Point Causeway
· Marshes and creeks
· Osprey Nests
· All Beaches
· Old Burying Ground
· Cutchogue Cemetary
· Fleet Barn
· Entry to Cutchogue on Main Road from both directions
· North Fork Country Club
· End of Nassau Point
· Nurseries
· Pequash Park/Club
· Trees
· Stars at night
· Open vistas of farmland and bay
· Wickham's Farm
· Cedars Golf Course
· Fleets Neck Association Beach
· Rights of Way, access to beaches,
esp. on Nassau Point, and at the ends of roadways
· Oregon Road
· Vineyards
· North Fork Bank building
· a pervasive sense of the natural environment,
surrounding and within Cutchogue
Future Needs and Improvements
· Composition of the tax base needs to be examined and businesses
encouraged that support the local economy; strong commitment
expressed for a balanced, local economy
· There is pressure to build coming from Riverhead's recent business
expansions. People may look east for residential property as a result
of developments like the Tanger Outlets. The Town should look at
regulations to control Southold's growth rate against this pressure.
· Taxes: keep lower for all constituencies
· the Town should pursue purchase of development rights from the 80% of
agricultural landowners who are not currently farming those lands.
· awards to developers who keep in character of the existing community
when building new projects
113
114
· parking opportunities are needed if we are to make the hamlet merchant
businesses accessible to tourist activity. Currently, Southold is not a
"destination point" of significance, as much as it is a traffic corridor.
Parking opportunities should be investigated.
· traffic control
· use LIRR for tourism promotion
· Bed & Breakfast accommodations
· Rest rooms on town beaches
· bus system for vineyard tours, etc.
· public access to regulations -- in particular, the public can not understand
them, feels that it is difficult to even get copies, and that in too many
cases, there is a lack of definitive interpretation bv the Town on
important regulations governing land use
· marine use as "boatels" need to be examined
· desirable population growth rate needs to be determined and regulations
to support this quality of life, traffic and water. Currently, the
population is influenced by Town zoning codes, but there should be
an effort to incorporate a target goal (or limit) through a Master Plan
update
· park districts need improvement; ie.: Pequash
· King Kullen shopping center -- visual character needs improvement, maybe
through landscaping
· Signage laws need to be enforced -- in particular, residents pointed to
examples of currently internally-lit signs such as "Shop with
us/Methodist Church" signs
· lighting: "whole community is overlit"
· enforcement of existing laws re: lighting, signage, etc.
Places Like Southold That We Like and Why
· Sonoma and Napa Valley: Restaurants and other businesses in Vineyards;
develop place to support artisans, eg. Brecknock Hall - self supporting
· Halifax, Nova Scoria'and Camden, Maine: blend old and new building
· Essex, Massachusetts: don't want "tourist towns", old, charming; "we
should be what we are and that is attractive enough"
· Ireland: slower lifestyle, no strip malls
· North Carolina: health services, extended care -- orientation of
communities to the needs of significant senior populations
· Longwood/Kennet Square: self-supporting community for retirees
· Bordeaux: farms meet the sea
· Columbo Center, Toronto: arts center
· Monterey: Aquarium
· Stroudsburgh: historic rail road
· the Berkshires: lots of land preservation
· Williamsburg: historical preservation, but without the recreational
manipulation of the historical resources
· Rockport, Massachusetts: parking (' note: there was much disagreement
on this point: many traffic jams, problems with parked cars clogging
roads while owners out on boats, example of a bad tourist town)
· Prince Edward Island: bad roads, good railroad -- there is a focus on
public transportation
· Litchfield, Connecticut: Village green, churches
· Cape Cod: tax new houses 2% of the purchase price
D. Wish List
· Windmill power
· Swimming pool/YMCA
· Sidewalks (downtown)
· walking trails and shoulders on roads
· dedicated bike paths in addition to the shoulders on roads
· small parks and public access to public amenities (beaches, etc.)
· Utility lines underground and out of sight
· the Town should establish a "Public Information Officer" to help residents
get access to information and explain regulations and procedures,
especially re: planning and zoning issues
· computerize data on land use parcels
· senior citizen housing/assisted care facilities
· extended care facilities for seniors
· access to Long Island Sound
· more active police presence
· landscaping King Kullen Shopping area
· More Town Beaches in Cutchogue community
· marine facilities for town residents -- space in New Suffolk is inadequate
to meet the needs of Cutchogue residents and larger Southold Town
Issues
that were not fully addressed or resolved at April 9 Hamlet Meeting
· Taxes
· Residents in the Cutchogue group expressed concern that the Town
needed to focus more attention on youth issues, recreational needs in
the community
· The needs of young families need to be better addressed
115
PECONIC
Facilitator: Greg Palast
While all the other hamlet groups were identifying a place along the Main Road that
represents their hamlet center, Peconic residents were focussing on an area that is
between the two main roadways, connecting the North Road with Route 25. As a
result, Peconic residents are sensitive to the effect of the visual character of both
roads as access routes which shape people's perceptions of Peconic. Of
paramount concern to the Hamlet Meetings participants is the protection of
Peconic's visual landscape.
Residents expressed strong concern that the North Road was becoming visually
cluttered with strip developments, excess signage and excessive lighting. Overall,
residents of Peconic felt that the Town of Southold was developing "way too fast"
and that unchecked commercial development was undermining the character of the
community. In particular, residents noted that they felt Peconic had changed the
most radically during the last few years.
With unanimity, Peconic residents noted there was a need for architectural review
to prevent additional projects from tainting the landscape. They want existing
uses and vacant buildings on the North Road phased out or cleared, and defunct
signs and lights removed to reclaim the vistas on the North Road. The review
board envisioned by residents would be on a Hamlet by Hamlet basis. Participants'
sentiment indicated that they disagreed with the liberalizing of the signage and
lighting codes suggested by the Task Force, noting that they wanted stricter
control than was proposed. In the future, residents want new development guided
to the post office and laundromat area south of the North Road and off of the view
corridor of the main access road.
In the interest of establishing recreational pathways and increased public access
and use opportunities of coastal resources, residents urged that planning
techniques be applied to preserve open spaces and access to beaches. In
particular, they want to preserve the "greenway" that characterizes Soundview
Avenue, through Richmond Creek and Little Creek. Reduced density, required
setbacks and landscape screening were also discussed as desirable additions to
current planning codes and requirements.
In short, Peconic participants want to reclaim the visual identity of their community
by shifting development off the main access roads and into the area occupied by
the Post office and laundromat.
A. Special Places
· Route 48 vista
116
· Recreation Center
· Soundview Avenue
· Goldsmith Inlet
· Richmond Creek -- "nothing commercial" and "undeveloped"
B. Future Needs and Improvements
· Richmond Creek: reduce density by abandoning old sub-division maps
· Year-round swimming pool
· Little Creek
· Preserve Groundwater area along Route 48
· Access to Long Island Sound via Goldsmith, but preserve ecological
sensitivity, "not like Mattituck"
· subdivision threat along Richmond Creek
· screen water tanks at Mill Creek, but do not send to Richmond Creek area
· Strip malls and gas stations, industrial park on Route 48
· Business zones have been "dumped" on Route 48
· Lighting at night on Routes 48 and 25
· Losing Soundview Greenway
· Loss of Inlet Fishing
· Reduce length of Town Jetty at Goldsmith's Inlet and reduce private groin
on Horton Beach.
Places Like Southold That We Like and Why
· Stony Brook: Business is confined to one area, "pretty" businesses
demonstrate appropriate screening, architectural review, landscaping
requirements
· Garden City: Parking is located behind stores, not in front
· East Hampton: Architectural Review and limits, ie,, fast food is limited
· Head of the Harbor: All businesses are located on Route 25A
· Sag Harbor: Village has concentrated business, its not on Main Highway
· Burlington, Vermont: "it's not like Queens", there are no lit signs
· Stockbridge, Massachusetts: there is a plaza, sense of a "center" to the
town/shopping district, there are no signs
D. Appropriate New Businesses
· Should be located on Peconic Lane, near the Post Office, not along North
Road and not along Route 25, but between the two
· there should be architectural limits, off street parking, and screening in
front
· eliminate industrial/business zones on North Road
· maximize farmstand/winery business opportunities
· increase opportunities for Bed & Breakfasts
117
Hamlet Center Amenities
· Reduce allowed housing density around farm core
· High density zone around proposed businesses
· spread added density to marginal areas
· cluster back from creeks
· designate "mooring" and "no mooring" zones
F. Wish List
· Existing Town rules should be enforced on signs, lights, etc.
· Reduce signage, ie., eliminate real estate signs
· get more people involved
SOUTHOLD
Facilitators: Whitney Booth and Joe Ristuccia
The participants in the Southold hamlet group were extremely varied and
concerned about a wide range of issues and needs. One of the interesting
outcomes of the talks was the distinction that residents made about the various
communities within the hamlet of Southold. The Bayview, Sound and
Ashamomack communities see themselves as separate neighborhoods with
different priorities and needs, although many are similar.
In general, residents are concerned with the visual appearance of the hamlet. The
increasing presence of litter, vandalism and signs is a problems that could be
corrected with greater enforcement of codes and better maintenance. As a well
travelled area and the location of many town buildings including Town Hall and the
High School, it is difficult, but as residents said, "important". In addition, there are
problems with the use of sidewalks by bicyclists that could be alleviated with more
bike paths or useable road shoulders, or enforcement of codes.
Southold residents in general want to keep Route 48 and the parts to the north of
the community "clear and open". Vineyards and Beds & Breakfasts are most
appropriate to those areas and benefit from the preservation of scenic vistas and
the preservation of open spaces.
Transportation seemed to be key issue during the hamlet meeting, with many
expressing concern over the problems .of summer traffic and poor connections
between railroad, bus and inter-hamlet transportation systems. Many would like to
see Southold create a system of mini-vans, trolleys or mini-buses that would be
available year-round for residents to use for getting from one hamlet to another --
especially for young people and the elderly, as well as serving as an important
118
service to summer tourists who may take trains out for the weekend. Residents
hoped such service would also help promote merchant activity since people would
be walking around hamlet centers.
Three issues that were the subject of considerable comment were not resolvable
by the end of the meeting: the problems associated with moorings in the Bays,
the inherent conflict between promoting recreational and tourist activity and the
resultant pollution and litter, and more nebulous quality of life issues including
garbage collection. Residents agreed that these were all issues that would benefit
from focused attention.
Citizens noted that there were many good ideas coming from residents in all
Hamlet discussions and that there should be Town support for the implementation
of the outcomes of these meetings. Many of the good ideas simply need seed
money to get off the ground and even provide opportunities for employment for
young people or programs that will benefit all residents and that even modest
support from the Town might make ideas that would otherwise remain "wish lists"
bear fruit. In this connection, they also observed that there need to be more
cultural and social activities for all age groups in Southold.
A. Special Places · West shore of Mill Creek
· Emerson Estate
· West of Founders Village
· Hummel's Pond
· Farmlands, especially those north of the North Road
· Woods off Paradise Point Road
· George Stepnoski's farm off Bayview Road
· Land around Custer Institute
· Dryad Cove and Cedar Beach area
· Wooded areas on Soundview Avenue
· South of Route 25 between Southold Hamlet and Peconic
· Southside of Route 48, east of Kenny's Road
· North Road from Southold to Mattituck
· View corridors north of Route 48
· All farmstands
Future Needs and Improvements · Problems related to Old Reyder Golf Course need to be addressed
· Chain link fence at Fire Department is unsightly
· Catapano's nursery
· Lucas Ford - lights and signs are disturbing
· Main Bayview, derelict house north of Cedar needs to be addressed
· Burt's Reliable - lights and signs are problematic
119
· Old Bechtold property - possibly a site for future, planned development
· Problems related to Old Clerk's office need to be addressed
· Historic houses need to be preserved
· Parking Lots - debris, etc.
· Willow Hill - this should not be serving as a used car lot
· Southold Post Office - architecture and landscaping needed to improve
appearance
· Goose Creek Bridge - needs to be cleaned up
· Parking of school buses at residences should not be permitted
· litter on Travelers Street should be cleaned up and the street should be
better maintained
· Strip malls - litter and appearance problems: should be cleaned up, better
maintained and landscaped
· Better signage on Route 25, ie., directional signage to scenic/recreational
opportunities for visitors
· "Cars for sale" all over town -- these ad hoc car lots should not be
permitted
· ban chain link fences
· junk in the woods - recreational/scenic opportunities diminished due to
litter problems
· The Cove is an eyesore with all the old buildings and foundations. It
should be cleaned up and restored
· Parking rules at road ends should be tightened
· Improve landscaping for commercial buildings
· The Town Beach needs to be landscaped and better maintained
· Visual character of Port of Egypt needs to be improved. People thought
more landscaping, better maintenance, the removal of the brick
chimney and other physical improvements would make the area more
attractive
C. Other Places Like Southold That We Like and Why
· Port Redyes, a town north of Sanae Fe, New Mexico: Bed & Breakfasts,
Inns
· Stoke, Vermont: progressive signage ordinance, cited example of a
McDonald's where the town code forced the McDonald's to look just
like all other local businesses, unable to use McDonald's trademark
architecture and signage
· Manchester, Vermont: old building preservation, some are used for new
businesses
· Legionnaire, Pennsylvania: Architectural review
· East and Southampton, New York: Architectural Review
· Canadian Provinces: Parks and Government-sponsored evening
community programs
· Southwold, England: Garden Plots
120
· Cooperstown: Town/civic group maintained planters in business districts
· Nantucket, Rhode Island: festivals, ie., Daffodil Festival
· Bristol, Rhode Island: footpaths, etc., through public funding
· Various communities in Britain: guided walking paths, "footpaths with a
purpose" (other than scenic/woodland enjoyment
· Sanae Fe, New Mexico: architectural review in the business district
· Little Compton, Rhode Island: downtown has a total, "master plan"
· Cape Cod, Massachusetts: scenic Route 6A
· European Farm Markets
· Upstate New York and areas in England with Greenbelts and a freeze on
all development in certain areas
D. Wish List
· Hummel's Pond
· Tennis Courts, with lights
· Paddle Tennis
· Architectural Review Board
· Restore old houses
· grants for rehabilitation of old houses
· farm areas
· support use of old houses for new businesses
· pump out stations
· youth center
· sailing club for town residents
· bike paths
· lighting control
· noise pollution control
· vineyards supporting B&Bs
· transient boating
· public transportation hubs for tourism
· eliminate moorings in bays
· lower taxes
· Brecknock Hall cultural use
· Founders Landing Park District
· litter laws tightened up
· town garbage collection
· plantings in central place
· country fair for various industries
· air pollution - don't burn garbage
· vineyards, culinary use
· anti-vandalism law
· reasonable public water
· neighborhood watch
· mobile symposium on wheels
121
· tourist consortium grant
· preservation rural
· NYS violate sign laws
· street signs on every corner
· bike rentals
· cover trucks on way to dump
· public restrooms
· Peconic County study
GREENPORT
Facilitators: Victor Brown and Michael Zweig
Repeatedly, Greenport residents talked about the potential that their community is
not tapping into. What people like about Greenport is that it is a "real" place and
remains a nice place to live, whether or not people want to come visit. Whether it
was about tourism and pedestrian activity, waterfront esplanades, underexploited
maritime-related industry or transportation "hubs", Greenport residents are not at a
loss for good ideas for promoting their town. What they lament is lack of
coordinated effort and the need for enhanced communication and joint decision-
making between the Village and Southold Town.
The main idea among Greenport residents is how to balance needed growth with
their desire to retain existing community character. They want to bring back and
enhance maritime and tourist related businesses and they also insist that
Greenport's visual appearance be protected, that open spaces are retained for
passive and active recreational use and that the integrity of water habitats and
marine life are maintained. People see Greenport as a harbor tuwn with an historic
marine heritage and want it to return to the heydays when it was a working
harbor. The future of new jobs and employment could be brightened by enhancing
maritime related industries through aquaculture, and by refurbishing derelict and
abandoned homes and buildings.
As an excellent deep water port, Greenport could do much more to make use of
maritime related activity. Several residents observed that other towns like
Greenport have world-class boat and tall ship shows and festivals garnering
national attention and providing enormous economic benefit. However, as in the
overall feelings Southold Town residents have about tourism in general, Greenport
residents underscored that they do not want to see such activity come at the
expense of local village life and a sense that we continue to live in a "real" place.
The maritime/tourism activity envisioned by Greenport residents is that which
respects and compliments other local industries and ways of life.
122
People observed a need for better communication with the Town to develop
solutions which would correct the undesirable appearance of the western gateway
to Greenport. Local efforts to promote Greenport and eastern hamlets as attractive
tourist areas are undermined by the perceptions created by the unlandscaped
clutter of motels, gas stations, etc., as one travels east. Residents believe that
sincere effort needs to be focussed on reclaiming lost visual resources, such as
Brecknock Hall, downtown Greenport, Front Street water vistas, and the woods
and open space along Route 25 east of the LIRR bridge approaching Greenport,
etc.
Residents noted that Greenport's great strength is its utility as a transportation hub
and that means that future planning should take full advantage of that. They
expressed a need to make Greenport more pedestrian-friendly. The thrust of
attention in hamlet discussions seemed to focus on finding ways to make
Greenport more of a "destination point" rather than a "stop on the way" to the
Ferry. Bike racks, bike rental shops, better transportation between Hamlets after
people disembark from the Long Island Rail Road in Greenport, walking tour maps,
and public facilities were but a few of the ideas people discussed as being essential
to the future of Greenport as a visitor-friendly locale. Related to this, the issue of
transportation linkages was also discussed at length. Residents observed that
Greenport is an excellent location for likely connections between the Long Island
Rail Road, bus service - both East End and Southold hamlet specific, and water
transit.
As yet unresolved issues, but matters of concern to residents were the need to
address the pervasive problems of litter and the lack of youth activities. There was
also lively discussion about the legal and ethical aspects of zoning and zoning
changes. Residents said they would appreciate greater outreach on the part of
the Town to help understand the concepts and tools that will enable citizens to
play a more active role in shaping their future.
Special Places · "67 Steps"
· Brecknock Hall
· Island's End Golf
· Jem Commons, next to Brecknock
· Moore's Lane
· Inlet Pond, Moore's Woods, Railroad Terminal
· Historical architecture, ie,, Municipally operated old power plant (possible
historical tours there)
· Assorted museums and library
· Hospital
· working harbor
123
· recreation at waterfront
· harbor vistas to and from the water
Places That Should be Preserved
· Brecknock, preserve all or part, it's possible to strike an ecological balance
with a nature preserve, organic farming, etc.
· Western approach to Greenport, preserve wetlands and prevent a
commercial "strip" from taking over the approach to Greenport
· Business property (Main Street and Route 25), improve appearance
· Clarks Beach -- preserve, especially area next to Inlet Pond
· Small lot next to Old Mills Building: preserve
· Sage Boulevard area: preserve as open space
B. Future Needs and Improvements
· Volunteer "Adopt a Highway" program with Boy Scouts and other local
groups or individuals
· Western access on Route 25 and Route 48, consider business, parking,
landscaping and resulting water run-off
· unofficial dumping areas, including North Street extension, by the High
School, Chapel Lane at Route 48, Clark's Beach
· Need to support Commercial fishing, town should appeal to State for tax
relief
· Need "Harbor Walk" allow views of working harbor, commercial boat
building and repair
· Concern for ferry traffic overflows through town may require "by
pass" signage on Route 48 for destinations outside of our region
· remove mounds of dirt at blinking light at Route 25
· improve village water (old system), health concerns, rust damages hot
water heaters
· need promotion of off-season events
· promote Bed & Breakfasts
· need jobs for village residents of all ages
· improve working relationship between town and village
· consolidation of schools to reduce taxes
· develop/restore Moore's Woods as a park
C. Places Like Southold That We Like and Why
· In general, people admired locales that are "working communities", that is
to say that pleasant local, year-round life is maintained while at the same
time attracting visitors and tourists.
· New Hope, Pennsylvania: Bed & Breakfasts, sense of history (historic
preservation commitment, "has a great Christmas village feeling"
124
· Nantucket, Rhode Island: maintains old town and seaport character, has
strong architectural review
· Camden, Maine
· Northport, Long Island: Quaint Parks
· Cape May, New Jersey: good Bed & Breakfasts with access and parking
off-streets
· Sag Harbor, New York: active off-season, good sense of community, night
life, stores stay open
· Stonington, Connecticut: good "walking town", attractive, well
maintained, interesting architectural history
· Newbern, North Carolina: has a working port, harbor town, village is
restored, carriage rides, special Sheraton Hotel and Conference Center which
was built to strict public criteria and standards
· not Mystic (too much like Disneyland) and not like Newport, Rhode Island
D. Appropriate New Businesses
· Marine businesses: keep in mind deep water port advantages, provide
transit marine facilities, include large boats
· Tourism and Jobs: tall ships, marine railway, large boat repair, museums,
blacksmith shops, restoration work, harbor walk, more bed & breakfasts,
restore old Opera House
· Fishing: commercial fishing attractive to tourism, mariculture, live
aquarium
· Commerce: Motel property as conference center/hotel, "Business
Communications Hub/Node", hotel at Geier property
· Landscape: better landscaping of business properties
Wish List
· Youth activities
· water recreation
· nature trails
· bike paths
· waterfront: "Harborwalk"
· well maintained flower plantings along streets, spotted along western line
of town, along proposed harborwalk, near train station and museums
· more diverse restaurants
· better village and town litter control, use fines, enforcement,
slogans/catchy signs to foster incentive not to pollute, trash receptacles
· impose community service work as punishment for lesser crimes
· reduce auto traffic: use "bypass" concept for South Fork travelers, sign
directions to well maintained town parking area
· use financial incentives (deposits) to ensure shopping cart returns
· enlarge Floyd Library facility
· provide landscape screening for businesses especially those businesses
125
on west entry into village
· ban chain link fences
· develop cultural center at Brecknock Hall
· start volunteer home beautification program (especially for seniors),
perhaps in conjunction with BOCES, Idaho program)
· enforce maintenance of unoccupied properties
· restore Clark's Beach adjacent to Inlet Pond. It is the largest undeveloped
park in Southold Town and remains virtually unusable.
EAST MARION
Facilitator: Bob Bayley
The general feeling of the participants in the East Marion hamlet meeting mirrored
those of thei~ Orient neighbors. In general, these resident expressed a sense of a
separate identity from that of the rest of Southold Town and a desire to remain
distinctly different. East Marion citizens observed that the community's sense of
tranquility is precisely what drew them there in the first place and that they are
adamant that quality and character of such an isolated and out of the way place be
preserved at all costs. In a word, there was no interest whatever in the possible
expansion of the Hamlet Business district, and in fact, little need for additional
commercial or residential growth. They noted that the architectural heritage of the
East Marion hamlet is important to them and that they would like to see steps
taken to enhance it.
Preservation of existing quality of life and natural resources was of paramount
concern during the discussions. As an issue, the preservation of Cove Beach on
the Sound was perhaps the single most frequently noted desire. Residents felt its
preservation will afford educational, recreational, water quality and environmental
protection benefits to the community. In addition, discussions on the subject of
the preservation of Cove Beach elicited a more general and larger need on the part
of residents -- improved recreational opportunities in the hamlet. This idea is
reiterated throughout the comments listed below in the form of calls for bicycle
paths and hiking areas, access to water bodies, walkways, and refurbishing of
existing recreational facility resources such as tennis courts.
Although a small group in terms of numbers, the participants .were very
representative of the larger community population in East Marion. The hamlet is
comprised largely of retired persons and second home owners. The hamlet group
participants and follow up discussions revealed a strong intention to formalize the
process of the discussions through creation of an East Marion Association of
residents. Residents noted that they appreciated the opportunity to express their
views and would like to have a larger voice in the future of their hamlet
community.
126
ko
Bo
Special Places
· Dam Pond/Causeway on Route 25
· Post Office
· Route 25 as it passes through the Hamlet
· Sound front
· Marion Lake
· Bay front
· view of Marion Lake
· Trees on Main Road
· Cove Beach on the Sound
· Sep's Farmstand on Route 25
· Recreational uses of the gravel pit north of Route 25
· Fishing from different road endings on the Bay and the Sound
· Open Spaces, "rural peace"
· Isolated Farms
· Floyd Memorial Library
· Victorian Homes on Main Road
· Friendly atmosphere
· Fresh air and birds
· Breezes
· Sunsets and sunrises
· The Dark, night sky
· Peace and quiet
· Good emergency medical service
· Close proximity to Eastern Long Island Hospital
· Ball Fields and Tennis Courts
· Truman's Beach
Future Needs and Improvements
· Increased access to the Sound, other than Rocky Point Road and
Truman's Beach, there should be access at Cove Beach and increased
recreational opportunities at all waterfront areas
· Enhanced use opportunities on the Bay. Access is not a problem, so
much as activity and recreational use. Residents want to be able to walk
along the shore, but cannot at present as a result of man made obstacles
like bulkheads and fences.
· General store in Hamlet Center is only open occasionally on weekends.
would be nice if it were open on a more regular basis.
· Improved road shoulders for bicycle paths.
· The creation of facilities for cyclists -- restrooms, bike racks in Hamlet
Center, church, store, and recreational or tourist destinations.
· Protect salt and fresh water resources by controlling road runoff.
At present there are no control measures in place, such as
interception or redirection techniques. For example, residents want
It
127
to see runoff currently running from Bay Avenue and Chapel into
Marion Lake redirected so that it is not negatively impacting this
treasured resource.
· Marion Lake should be cleaned up, perhaps by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation. However, the focus expressed
was not so much on who should direct the action, so much as it was on the
need for the lake to be cleaned.
· There may be a need for a new bridge for Marion Lake to replace the
aging one and for some improvements on Bay Avenue. Structural
assessments should be undertaken to determine the specific needs for both.
· The Scenic Highway Grant should be used as a model elsewhere in the
State for Department of Transportation highway work.
· Traffic to and from the Ferry needs to be controlled. Residents suggested
three options: (a) staggering ferry discharge by use of a traffic light,
(b) ration available transit spaces, and (c) establishing another ferry route
· Slower speed limits thought the Hamlet (25-30 mph)
· The existing tailgate laws need to be enforced on Route 25 to prevent
accidents
· Control noise of traffic and speeding cars on Route 25 by eliminating
bumps and other basic road surface repair
· Limit lights on streets and homes to "preserve the sanctity of the dark,
night sky"
· Increase parking for post office, preferably behind the post office
· East Marion Hamlet voice in the control of signage. Residents want the
proposed East Marion Association to have a significant role in the review
process over signs or in the development of regulations governing signs in
their Hamlet
C. Other Places Like Southold That We Like and Why
· Sag Harbor, New York: respect for and preservation of architectural
heritage. In particular, East Marion residents were impressed with
how expeditiously Sag Harbor handled fire damage to significant
architectural resources in their business district.
D. Wish List
· Prohibit indiscriminate tree clearing
· Restore or remove derelict buildings that impair visual landscape of the
community
· Extend and/or improve sidewalks along Route 25 and adjacent streets in
the Hamlet Center
· Provide for rights of way for bike paths and improve use of shoulders for
existing pathways. Bike paths and other bicycle-friendly additions in
128
Town were very important to East Marion residents, many of whom would
like to be even more bicycle-dependent as a mode of transportation
· Planned parking and traffic control for farm stands
· Planned central farmers market and a farm stand restaurant
· More rights of way and improved public use opportunities at shoreline for
walkways, etc., such as at Cove Beach and Sound Beach
· Access steps to Rocky Point Road should be maintained
· Re-surface tennis courts
· More Hamlet Meetings -- create an East Marion Association that will be
officially recognized by the Town and consulted on matters relating to the
Hamlet community
· Require public access within any new developments to create a
coordinated rights of way bike and beach paths
· Cluster housing with shared, open, green space
· No increase in business district zoning
· Preserve present post office
· Preserve all of Cove Beach through creation of a park
· Rescind commercial/motel zoning at Oyster Factory/Shipyard Lane. The
site is completely surrounded by residential zoned properties
· Increase use of limited density zoning; upzone existing vacant land
· Create an architectural review or advisory panel to control visual character
of community
· Create historic preservation districts
· Enforce zoning and occupation laws
· Create Peconic County
E. Hamlet Center Amenities · Preserve existing Hamlet, prohibit additional growth
· Expand post office parking
F. Appropriate New Businesses · Village Country Store
· Natural Foods/Health Store
ORIENT
Facilitator: Anne Lowry
Orient residents sentiments about the identity of their community are intimately
connected to geography. In short, their location at the eastern most tip of the
North Fork peninsula sets the Orient community apart from their neighbors and
they, like their East Marion companions, believe there is something unique about
the place east of the Causeway and its residents. In the words of residents
129
themselves, there is something "separate and special" in Orient that prompts them
to be fiercely "protective" of their community and to have developed a strong
sense of self-determination.
This protectiveness is revealed in their emphatically-stated desire to severely limit
growth and new development in Orient. The community's remote location makes
it inappropriate for business. When identifying special places in Orient, most
residents felt that just about everything was special and in fact, Orient, as a place,
is exceptional. This also made it difficult to identify appropriate places for new
growth, leading most to conclude that their desire to preserve existing open space,
vistas, beach access, natural resources, historic sites and the visual character of
Orient rendered it impossible to allow increased density or new growth in the tiny
hamlet.
Highly sensitive to the presence of the Ferry and its associated traffic hazards and
inconveniences, they also expressed strong preferences that something be done to
control high speed traffic and noise. Many indicated a preference for the New
York State Department of Transportation to conduct a study of the problem. The
study envisioned by Orient residents is intended to determine existing traffic
patterns in the hopes of developing new regulations and laws to address the
problems or enhance enforcement of existing laws.
In addition to the problem of the Ferry, the group identified "water and coastline
protection" as an issue near and dear to them, but one that also did not have clear
or simple solutions. Orient residents noted that the close proximity of water on
virtually all sides was a draw for them to locate there and preserving the integrity
of the shoreline and coastal communities is not only a commitment to
environmental protection, but an economic necessity.
Special Places · Historical Society
· Causeway view
· Narrow River Road and its ecological significance
· Hallock Bay
· Village Lane, Pocatuck Hall and Park
· Yacht Club
· Kings Highway
· Cemetaries and Churches
· Terry Mulford House
· State Park
· Plum Gut
· Post office and General Store
· All farms and farmstands
· School
130
· Lands End
· Open Vistas and open farmland
Preservation Needs
· Vistas and the approach over the Causeway; "nothing should interfere
with it"
· No designated bike paths in preserved areas. Unlike other communities,
Orient residents envision bike paths in preserved areas as an intrusion
into the special solitude or sense of "place" that marks areas they've asked
by preserved or have identified as special.
B. Future Needs and Improvements
· "If only we could get rid of the Ferry"
· Architectural review in Historic Districts
· Residents expressed an admonition to the Town that Orient's Historic
Designation was routinely overlooked in decision-making. Residents want
more attention paid to this designation and a larger voice in decisions
that will affect their Hamlet.
· Regulations and enforcement of existing regulations regarding the Bay,
particularly those for recreational boating
· Cables across the Causeway
· Land's End Road
· Traffic and Speed enforcement on the Main Road
· Greater recognition of Orient's importance to all of Southold
· Ferry traffic study
· Ban commercial development on the Point
· Retirement/Extended Care community
Other Places Like Southold That We Like and Why · Places like Orient that are remote and inaccessible
· Elie, Scotland: all residents are informed about new, proposed building
D. Hamlet Center Amenities
· Reduce requirement for the width of roads
· Well planned paths and open spaces
· Keep any new development out of the sight of Main Road travel; preserve
view corridor
E. Wish List
· Review protection of historic landmarks
· The preservation of "neighborliness" in Orient, ie., slow pace, no "big
business"
· "Electricity: Yes; LILCO: No". Orient residents would like to explore
switching to alternative sources of electricity.
131
Fo
· No private docks
· Legal limits on the size of boats in Hallocks Bay
· More of a presence of Bay Constables and enforcement activity
· Pump-out stations
· Reduce speed limit on Main Road
· Encourage more farming
· Peconic County
· More Town support for Historic Societies
· Town support for Pocatuck Hall maintenance
Appropriate New Businesses
· The residents of Orient expressed a preference that there be no new
business or development, especially in places like Orient Harbor,
where there should be no new docks, pilings, etc.. So emphatic was
the preference that residents explored ways in which to ensure that
new building not mar waterfront areas and walking paths including
obtaining conservation easements and purchasing land or development
rights.
132
LIST OF STEWARDSHIP TASK FORCE MEMBERS
Thomas C. Samuels, Chairman Architect
Robert Bayley
Architect and Builder
C. Whitney Booth
County Official
Victor Brown
Industrial Designer
Timothy Caufield
Land Planning Consultant
Joseph Fischetti
Engineer and Builder
Anne Lowry
Psychotherapist (retired)
Helen Jones
Realtor
Gregory Palast
Economic Consultant
Joseph Ristuccia
Business Executive (retired)
Martin Sidor
Farmer
John Simicich
Winery Owner
Michael Simon
Philosophy Professor and Attorney
Michael Zweig
Economist
133
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Task Force wishes to acknowledge the support of the Southold Town Board
and the following persons, whose energetic efforts were of tremendous assistance:
Valerie Scopaz
Senior Town Planner
Jennifer Miller
Professional Consultant
Southold Town received financial assistance from the J.M.Kaplan Fund to support
the work of the Stewardship Task Force.
ADDENDUM
In addition to learning from many meetings with individuals and
organizations, the Task Force consulted a wide variety of books,
articles, technical monographs, samples of legislation from other
areas, and other written sources of information and analysis. All
of these reference materials are available to the public in an
archive at the Southold Town Planning Department in Town Hall,
Southold.
134
IUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN C~.ERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL ST~,TZST~75,
MARR[ ~.GE OFFICER
T:'.',n Hall. 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box Ii-9
5::::nold. New York 1107!
Fax 1516) 765-1S23
T.-!e=hone (5161 765-1i~01
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
'THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1992:
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby makes the
following charge to the Southold Town Stewardship Task Force: "Present
to the Soutnold Town Board and the people of Southold Town the results of
the study ~nd exploratio~ of amelioratory recommendations of the Southold
Town Zonin~ Map and Ordinances in order to foster and implement the
ideals and goals of the existing Master Plan, incorporating the
recommendations of the US/UK Stewardship Exchange."
Judith T. Terry '~"'F/
Southold Town Clerk
May 21, 1992
REPORT BY THE 1991 US/UK COUNTRYSIDE STEWARDSHIP EXCH/~NGE TEAM
TO
THE PEOPLE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NORTH FORK, LONG ISLAND
November, 1991
Joel
Team Members~
Richard Brown, Countryside officer
Hertfordshire County Council
Hertfordshire, England
Richard W. Carbin, President
The Countryside Institute
Barnard, Vermont
Vincent Goodstadt, Mead of Strategy
Strathclyde Physical Planning Department
Glasgow, Scotland
John Humbach, Professor of Law
Pace University Law School
White Plains, New York
Shelly Mastran, Rural Heritage Specialist
National Trust For Historic Preservation
McLean, Virginia
Terry Robinson, Corporate Planning officer
Countryside Commission
Cheltenham, England
Russell,
Land Use Attorney and Planning Consultant
Woodlea Associates
Salt Point, New York
Nigel Stone, Executive Director
West Cumbria Groundwork Trust
Cumbria, England
The common good is the pursuit of good in common.
-Dennis McCann
~ REPORT BY THE 1991 US/UK COUNTRYSIDE STEWARDSHIP EXCHANGE TE~%M
TO
THE PEOPLE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLDt NORTH FORK, LONG ISLAND
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
From July 14-18 a professional team of eight consultants, four from
the United Kingdom and four from the United States, conducted a
study of the North Fork area of Long Island. The Team members were
participants in the 1991 US/UK Countryside Stewardship Exchange, a
program which provides pro bono consultant services to selected
case study sites to address the issues of sustainable economic
development and countryside stewardship. The North Fork was one of
seven case study sites participating in the 1991 Exchange.
At the invitation of the North Fork Planning Conference, the US/UK
Team was asked to address four issues important to the future of
the area:
1. Farmland Retention;
2..Water Quality;
3. Tourism Development; and
4. Affordable Housing;
After an intense four days of discovery and discussion the Team
presented its conclusions and recommendations to a public meeting
at the Southold Town Hall. The following summarizes these findings.
CONCLUSIONS
The North Fork area is one of scenic beauty and rich resources,
both natural and human, with a deep and meaningful history, truly
one of America's great places. Yet the North Fork is under threat
of drastic change spreading east from the New York metropolitan
area. Unfortunately, local controls are inadequate to cope with
these changes. New directions and programs are needed now to change
this situation for the benefit of the entire community.
The most important conclusion of the Team in this regard is that
the people of Southold share a vision in some detail of what they
would like the future of their community to be, but they currently
lack the programs to get there. This overall conclusion led the
Team to make the following recommendations:
Page 2 Summary
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation # 1: In order to be clearer and more efficient in
dealing with land use and development issues the Southold Town
Board should streamline governmental organization and establish a
new planning process based on consensus around the Town's shared
vision.
Recommendation # 2: Community-oriented non-profit organizations in
the Town of Southold and the North Fork area should form an Action
Coalition to promote their shared vision and to develop
interrelated projects to achieve that vision. The Coalition would
take a positive, non-confrontational approach to community issues
and needs, working cooperatively with each other and with
government.
Recommendation # 3: The Town of Southold should work in cooperation
with the Action Coalition to restate in clear, specific terms
Southold Town's shared vision, concentrating on six basic areas:
farmland protection, concentrating development within villages and
hamlets, provision of quality affordable housing, preservation of
the community's historic and rural character, economic development
based on the existing resources of the area, and maintenance and
improvement of the area's environmental quality. The concept of
Community Stewardship which integrates these concerns should be
emphasized.
Recommendation # 4: The Town of Southold together with the Action
Coalition and others, should create a visual map - a blueprint -of
the Town based on the six basic areas of its shared vision.
Recommendation # 5: The Town of Southold in cooperation with the
Action Coalition should institute creative, practical, steps to
implement the blueprint of its shared vision.
Recommendation # 6: The Town of Southold should consider a combined
Purchase of Development Rights and a Transfer of Development Rights
Program.
Recommendation # 7: The Town of Southold should consider expanding
the current tax abatement program for farmland into a working farm
tax abatement program which' would eliminate property taxes on
farmland and farm buildings in return for a right of first purchase
on the land if it is ever to go out of farming use.
Recommendation # 8: The Town of Southold should develop a capital
improvement program for water and sewers limited to those areas
designated for growth in and around villages and hamlets and to
protect surface and ground water quality. Priority Should be given
to eliminating pollution in creeks and bays, identifying and
eliminating non-point sources of pollution and solving the "brown
Page 3
tide" problem in Peconic Bay.
Recommendation #9: The Town of Southold should create an economic
plan which promotes sustainable development, using existing
agricultural, water-related recreational, fishing, historical and
cultural assets, and the area's unique sense of place as its theme.
Tourism would play a central part in this plan.
Recommendation # 10: The Town of $outhold should develop an
affordable housing plan which would encourage a diversity of
quality housing, including rental units, equity-sharing concepts
and ownership, designed to be in keeping with the historic
character of the area and mostly located within existing villages
and hamlets. This plan should be developed in partnership with the
Action Coalition and with the neighborhoods in which the housing
would be located.
Recommendation # 11: In o~der to implement these recommendations,
leadership must be provided. In some areas town government will
have to take action, in others private resources can be more
effective. Southold Town government in cooperation with the Action
Coalition should develop a mutually agreed-upon strategic action
plan for implementation of specific tasks, assigning responsibility
for leadership in fulfilling them to the appropriate agency or
organization.
0 i-J- I--¢~-
:,4