Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLL-2003 #11Local Law Filing · NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 41 STATE STREET, ALBANY, NY 12231 (Use this form to ~e a local law with the Secretary of State.) Text of law should be given as amcmded. Do not include matter being eliminated and do not use italics or underlining to indicate new matter. Town of SOUTHOLD LOCAL LAW NO. 11 2003 A Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to a Temporary moratorium on the issuance of al)orovals and/or oermits for the oarcels of orooertv in the Light Industrial Park/Planned Office Park ILIO) zoning district and the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district in "The Church Lane Neiahborhood and immediate area surroundina the Town Landf'fllfrransfer Station". BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, as follows: Section 1. Purpose The Town Board recognizes that within the area bounded by Depot Lane, Oregon Road, Cox Lane and Route 48 the presence of the Town Landfill (now the Town Transfer Station) dominated (properly) the thought process behind the comprehensive planning of that area for decades. One result was that all parcels of property within the described areas are currently zoned either LIO or LI according to the Town Zoning Code. The Town Board also recognizes that the foundational cornerstones governing the comprehensive planning of that area in general may have been fundamentally altered with the capping of the Town Landfill and the introduction of public water. A small, long-standing residential neighborhood adjacent to the landfill/transfer station has been threatened with drastic changes based on the current LI zoning district designation. Based on the changed circumstances regarding the landfill/transfer station, as noted above, the Town Board wishes to consider various alternatives to the LIO and LI zoning district designation in the described (If additional space is needed, attach pages the same size as this sheet~ and number each.) DOS-239(Rev. 11/99) (1) area, enhancement projects in the Church Lane neighborhood and the recommendations made in the draft report of the planning and environmental firm of Nelson, Pope and Voorhis dated August 26, 2002. Given the reasons and facts Set forth above and until the planning process is completed the Town Board finds it necessary to impose a moratorium as set forth below. An integrated and comprehensive study that takes into account the capping of the Landfill, the presence of public water, and the long-standing residential neighborhood in conjunction with the Town's overall comprehensive goals is needed. This action is necessary in order to protect the character, public health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Church Lane Neighborhood and Immediate Area Surrounding the Town Landfill/Transfer Station Section 2. ENACTMENT OF A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM Until four (4) months from the effective date of this Local Law, after which this Local Law shall lapse and be without further force and effect and subject to any other Local Law adopted by the Town Board during the four (4) month period, no agency, board, board officer or employee of the Town of Southold including but not limited to, the Town Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Trustees, the Planning Board, or the Building Inspector(s) issuing any building permit pursuant to any provision of the Southold Town Code, shall issue, cause to be issued or allow to be issued any approval, special exception, variance, site plan, building pm'mit, subdivision, or permit for any of the property uses listed within the following sections of the following zoning districts of the Southold Town Code which are located in the Church Lane Neighborhood and Immediate Area Surrounding the To~vn Landfill/Transfer: Sections 100-131 (A) (1) and 100-131 (A) (3-16) and 100-131 (B) and 100-13 i(C), all of which apply to the Light Industrial Park/Planned Office Park (LIO) District of the S outhold Town Code; and Sections 100-141(A) (1) and 100-141(A) (3-15) and 100-141(B); and 100-141(C), all of which apply to the Light Industrial (LI) District of the Southold Town Code Section 3. DEFINITION OF "THE CHURCH LANE NEIGHBORHOOD & IMMEDIATE AREA SURROUNDING THE TOWN LANDFILL/TRANSFER STATION" The Church Lane Neighborhood and Immediate Area Surrounding the Town Landfill/Transfer Station is hereby defmed as the area bounded by the following public roads: County Route 48 on the South, Depot Lane on the West, Oregon Road on the North and Cox Lane on the East. Section 4. EXCLUSIONS This Local Law shall not apply: 1) 2) to any person (. ttity who/which has, prior to the effec s date of this Local Law, obtained all permits required for construction of a building on any property located in the CHURCH LANE NEIGHBORHOOD including later applications to repair or alter, but not enlarge, any such building otherwise prohibited during the period of this temporary moratorium. To any permit or application regarding a single family dwelling unit to be used solely for residential purposes. Section 5. AUTHORITY TO SUPERCEDE To the extent and degree any provisions of this Local Law are construed as inconsistent with the provisions of Town Law sections 264, 265, 265-a, 267, 267-a, 267-b, 274-a, 274-b, and 276, this Local Law is intended pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law sections 10(1)Oi)(d)(3) and section 22 to supercede any said inconsistent authority. Section 6. VARIANCE TO THIS MORATORIUM Any person or entity suffering unnecessary hardship as that term is used and construed in Town Law section 267-b(2)(b), by reason of the enactment and continuance of this moratorium may apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals (OR THE TOWN BOARD) for a variance excepting the person's or entity's premises or a portion thereof from the temporary moratorium and allowing issuance of a permit all in accordance with the provisions of this Southold Town Code applicable to such use or construction. Section 7. SEVER_ABILITY If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not impair or invalidate the remainder of this Local Law. Section 8. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State. 3 (Complete the certifiCafiou in the paragraph that applies to the i~ding of this local law and strike out that which is not applicable.) 1. (Final adoption by local legislative body only.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. 11 of 20 03 . of the (C~ur~9(CJty)(Town) ~fillr. g:) of SOUTHOLD was duly passed by thc TOWN BOARD on June 3 ,20 0.3 , in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. 2. (Passage by local legislative body with approval, no disapproval or repassage after disapproval by the Elective Chief Executive Officer*.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. of 20__ of the (County)(City)(Town)(Village) of was duly passed by the on 20 _ , and was (approved)(not approved)(repassed after disapproval) by the and was deemed duly adopted on 20 , in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. 3. (Final adoption by referendum.) I hereby certify that the IocaI law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. of 20 of the (County)(City)(Town)(Village) of was duly passed by the on 20 , and was (approved)(not approved)(repassed after disapproval) by the on 20 __. Such local law was submitted to the people by reason of a (mandatory)(permissive) referendum, and received the af£nxnative vote of a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon at the (general)(special)(annual) election held on 20 , in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. 4. (Subject to permissive referendum and final adoption because no valid petition was filed requesting referendum.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. of 20 of the (County)(City)(Town)(Village) of was duly passed by the on 20 __ , and was (approved)(nnt approved) (repassed after disapproval) by the on 20 Such local law was subject to permissive referendum and no valid petition requesting such referendum was filed as of 20 ., in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. * Elective Chief Executive Officer means or Includes the chief executive officer of a county elected on a county- wide basis or, If there be none, the chairperson of the county legislative body, the mayor ora city or village, or the supervisor of a town where such officer is vested with the power to approve or veto local laws or ordinances. 4 5. (City local law concerning Charter revision proposed by petition.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. of 20 __ of the City of hav/ng been submitted to referendum pursuant to the provisions of section (36)(37) of the Municipal Home Rule Law, and having received the affirmative vote ora majority of~e qualified electors of such city voting thereon at the (special)(gcneral) election held on 20 __~ became operative. 6. (County local law concerning adoption of Charter.) I hereby certify that the lecal law annexed hereto, designated as local law No of 20 of the County of State of New York, having been submitted to the electors at the General Election of November 20 , pursuant to subdivisions 5 and 7 of section 33 of the Municipal Home Rule Law, and having received the affirmative vote of a majority of the qualified electors of the cities of said county as a unit and a majority of the qualified electors of the towns of said county considered as a unit voting at said general election, became operative. (If any other authorized form of f'mal adoption has been followed, please provide an appropriate certification.) I further certify that I have compared the preceding local law with the original on file in this office and that the same is a correct transcript therefrom and of the whole of such original local law, and was finally adopted in the mariner indicated in paragraph 1 , above. Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk (Sea]) Date: __June 5, 2003 (Certification to be executed by County Attorney, Corporation Counsel, Town Attorney, Village Attorney or other authorized attorney of locality.) STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing local law contains the correct text and that all proper proceedings have been had or taken for the enactment of the local law 7~" Patricia A. Firing'an, Eslt4'~ Assistant Town Attorney Gregory F. Yakaboski, Esq., Town Attorney Title Town of SOUTHOLD Date: June 5, 2003 5 STATE OF NEW DEPARTM~'NT OF STATE 4 I STATE STREET ALBANY, NY 1223 I -OOO June 24,2003 RECEIVED Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 .Southold, NY 11971 ,JUL 2 ~A~ Southold Tow. Clerk RE: Town of Southold, Local Law 11, 2003, filed on 06/09/2003 To Whom It May Concern: The above referenced material was received and filed by this office as indicated. Additional local law filing forms will be forwarded upon request. Sincerely, Linda Lasch Principal Clerk State Records & Law Bureau (518) 474-2755 . LL:cb WWW. DOS. STATE. Ny. LiS E-MA[L: INFO@DOS.STATE.NY. US ELIZABETH A. NEVH,r,F, TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORI)S MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Mai~ Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.norflxfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 5, 2003 Attention: Shirley Flint Code Supplementation General Code Publishers Corp. 72 Hinchey Road Rochester, New York 14624 Re: Town of Southold Code Local Law Number 11 of 2003 Dear Ms. Flint: Transmitted herewith please find the Local Law Number 11 of 2003. Please make the appropriate amendments to the Southold Town Code. Thank you. Very truly yours, Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk Enclosures cc: Town Attorney ELIZABETH A. NEYHJ,E TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS M~RRL~GE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFOKM~TION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 5, 2003 New York State Deparlment of State State Records and Law Bureau 41 State Street Albany, NY 12231 RE: Local Law Number 11 of 2003 Town of Southold~ Suffolk County Dear Sirs: In accordance with provisions of Section 27 of the Municipal Home Rule Law, I am enclosing herewith certified copies of Local Law Number 11 of 2003 of the Town of Southold suitable ibr filing in your office. I would appreciate if you would send me a receipt indicating the filing of the enclosures in your office. Thank you. Enclosures Very truly yours, Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk cc: Town Attorney LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC I[{EARUNG NOTICE IS ~BY GI~N ~at ~ere h~ be~ ~e- sented ~ Tom of Southol~ Co~, New Yor~ on the day of'May, 2003 a Loe~ Law ~itled '~ LoP-Law ~ ~mla- um on the ~ssuance . ,..o. "-~ .... COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK ss: Lise Marinace, being duly sworn, says that she is the Legal Advertising Coordinator, of the Traveler Watchman, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has or0*Ao~: been published in said Traveler 018 m Watchman once each week ao p~ for ........ . s~mcessively, e ...... ./...~. ...... day of 2003. will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local .Law at the~ me this.f.~....day of 2003. Traveler Watchman that they ground~/Of mosquitoes with pes and', out we~ y gh an ounce or 'i:/vo and --- , · . · pmson wane mragmg, the/m .(~it'l a,d Ihe~l.i~hl I!ldliM~;ial It is expected that the Riveth look to~e thair final approval ( sancdon of a Chapter. ~0 agr~ May 20. The COncert will still b Suffolk County Heal.th Depamn~ Neithgr Amper no~c P&verh~ Kozakiewicz _r~edph0ne calls 2003 · 'Local Law' il~/relfifion .'tO: a}Su~pol~ from page 6 ' _l~;ll_l.~.gyllr} lililralilljjjll. J'_i.l!l ~' · .... · ..... T'" ~ xpect to eompIete C ijlllliJ or i)( i'iiiiIN% Jor IIl~ ilal'ctl~(, by' M~y 31 {[[l'jj3' I)acl~.(}.lO) IoIIilIUJ~z IEi{'l~lJl(L II~(~ I i~hl J~)...({}llill~ (I i~ I I'i{~l.. j ~"'J'Jl__~ (hJ~i~qll I.a.(' ~(,J~JlllJ[r.}l(ll~iJ I'l)llllllill~ IJle .h)~ I1 o~ C~ I jl.i}j]J]ll I'ra,ql,r SljllJOIl'. Iii" I'l J.% I( I I':l) h,, ~,. Notary Public Emily Haraill NOTARY PUBLIC, St'ate of New York No. 01HA5059984 Qualified in Suffolk Count~ Commission expires May 06, 2006 that within thc area bounded by convention. LEGAL NOTICE - ~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 6th day of May, 2003 a Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to a Temporary moratorium on the issuance of approvals and/or ~ermits for the parcels of I~ro~ertv in the Light Industrial Park/Planned Office Park (LIt) zonin~ district and the Light Industrial ILI) zonint district in "The Church Lane Neighborhood and immediate area surroundin~ the Town Landffil/Transfer Station" and NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, on the June 3, 2003 at 5:00 p.m. at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. The proposed local law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to a Teml~orarv moratorium on the issuance of aDDrOValS and/or permits for the parcels of property in the Liaht Industrial Park/Planned Office Park (LIt) zonine district and the Lieht Industrial (LI) zonina district in "The Church Lane Neiehborhood and immediate area surroundin~ the Town Landfill/Transfer Station" reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. OF 2003 A Local Law entitled, "A Local La~v in relation to a Temporary moratorium on the issuance of am~rovals and/or i~ermits for the parcels of property in the Light Industrial Park/Planned Office Park (LIt) zonin~ district and the Light Industrial (LI) zonina district in "The Church Lane Neighborhood and immediate area surroundin~ the Town Landfill/Transfer Station". BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, as follows: Section 1. Purpose The Town Board recognizes that within the area bounded by Depot Lane, Oregon Road, Cox Lane and Route 48 the presence of the Town Landfill (now the Town Transfer Station) dominated (properly) the thought process behind the comprehensive planning of that area for decades. One result was that all parcels of P~operty within the described areas are currently zoned either LIO or LI according to the Town Zoning Code. The Town Board also recognizes that the foundational cornerstones governing the comprehensive planning of that area in general may have been fundamentally altered with the capping of the Town Landfill and the introduction of public water. A small, long-standing residential neighborhood adjacent to the landfill/transfer station has been threatened with drastic changes based on the current LI zoning district designation. Based on the changed circumstances regarding the landfill/transfer station, as noted above, the Town Board wishes to consider various alternatives to the LIO and LI zoning district designation in the described area, enhancement projects in the Church Lane neighborhood and the recommendations made in the draft report of the planning and environmental firm of Nelson, Pope and Voorhis dated August 26, 2002. Given the reasons and facts set forth above and until the planning process is completed the Town Board finds it necessary to impose a moratorium as set forth below. An integrated and comprehensive study that takes into account the capping of the Landfill, the presence of public water, and the long~standing residential neighborhood in conjunction with the Town's overall comprehensive goals is needed. This action is necessary in order to protect the character, public health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Church Lane Neighborhood and Immediate Area Surrounding the Town Landfill/Transfer Station Section 2. ENACTMENT OF A TEMPORARY MORATORiU2M Until four (4) months from the effective date of this Local Law, after which this Local Law shall lapse and be without further force and effect and subject to any other Local Law adopted by the Town Board during the four (4) month period, no agency, board, board officer or employee of the Town of Southold including but not limited to, the Town Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Trustees, the Planning Board, or the Building Inspector(s) issuing any building permit pursuant to any provision of the Southold Town Code, shall issue, cause to be issued or allow to be issued any approval, special exception, variance, site plan, building permit, subdivision, or perm/t for any of the property uses listed within the following sections of the following zoning distx4cts of the Southold Town Code which are located in the Church Lane Neighborhood and Immediate Area Surrounding the Town Landfill/Transfer: Sections 100-131 (A) (1) and 100-131 (A) (3-16) and 100-131 (B) and 100-131(C), all of which apply to the Light Industrial Park/Planned Office Park (LIO) District of the Southold Town Code; and Sections 100-1z~,(A) (1) and 100-141(A) (3-15) and 100-~41(B); and 100-141(C), ali of which apply to the Light Industrial (Lo District of the Southold Town Code Section 3. DEFINITION OF "THE CHURCH LANE NEIGHBORHOOD & IMMEDIATE AREA SURROUNDING THE TOWN LANDFILL/TRANSFER STATION" The Church Lane Neighborhood and Immediate Area Surrounding the Town Landfill/Transfer Station is hereby defined as the area bounded by the following public roads: County Route 48 on the South, Depot Lane on the West, Oregon Road on the North and Cox Lane on the East. Section 4. EXCLUSIONS This Local Law shall not apply: 1) to any person or entity who/which has, prior to the effective date of this Local Law, obtained all pm-mits required for construction of a building on any property located in the THE CHURCH LANE NEIGHBORHOOD and IMMEDIATE AREA SURROUNDING THE TOWN LANDFILL/TRANSFER STATION including later applications to repair or alter, but not enlarge, any such building otherwise prohibited during the period of this temporary moratorium. 2) To any permit or application regarding a single family dwelling unit to be used solely for residential purposes. Section 5. AUTHORITY TO SUPERCEDE To the extent and degree any provisions of this Local Law are construed as inconsistent with the provisions of Town Law sections 264, 265, 265-a, 267, 267-a, 267- b, 274-a, 274-b, and 276, tiffs Local Law is intended pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law sections 10(1)(ii)(d)(3) and section 22 to supercede any said inconsistent authority. Section 6. VARIANCE TO THIS MORATORIUM Any person or cmtity suffering mmecessary hardship as that term is used and construed in Town Law section 267-b(2)(b), by reason of the enactment and continuance of this moratorium may apply to the Zorfmg Board of Appeals for a variance excepting the person's or entity's premises or a portion thereof fi:om the temporary moratorium and allowing issuance of a permit all in accordance with the provisions of this Southold Town Code apphcable to such use or construction. Section 7. SEV~dABILITY If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not impair or invalidate the remainder of this Local Law. Section 8. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing ~vith the Secretary of State. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, MAY 6, 2003. ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ON MAY 15, 2003, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO ELIZABETH NEVILLE, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, PO BOX 1179, SOUTHOLD, NY 11971. Copies to the following: Traveler Watchman Town Attorney Planning Dept John Cushman Town Board Members Building Dept ZBA Town Clerk's Bulletin Board STATE OF NE~V YORK ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, New York being duly sworn, says that on the ~ day of D'3a~ ,2003, she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a tree &Spy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to ;vit: Town Clm'k's Bulletin Board, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York. Public Hearing: A Local Law in relation to a Temporary moratorium on the issuance of approvals and/or permits for the parcels of property in the Light Industrial Park/Planned Office Park (LIO) zoning district and the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district in "The Church Lane Neighborhood and immediate area surrounding the Town Landfill/Transfer Station Southold Town Clerk Swsm before me this t5 day of D'~oo-~ ,2003. Nbtary Public LYNDA M. BOHN NOTARY PUBLIC. State of New York No. 01 BO6020932 TennOual~ed in Suffolk Count~ Expires March 8, 20 o 7 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD PUBLIC HEARING June 3, 2003 5:00 P.M. HEARING ON ~'A LOCAL LAW IN RELATION TO A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF APPROVALS AND/OR PERMITS FOR THE PARCELS OF PROPERTY IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK/PLANNED OFFICE PARK (LIt) ZONING DISTRICT AND THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI) ZONING DISTRICT IN ~THE CHURCH LAND NEIGHBORHOOD AND IMMEDIATE AREA SURROUNDING THE TOWN LANDFILL/TRANSFER STATION'". COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 6th day of May, 2003 a Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to a Temporary moratorium on the issuance of aDDrovals and/or permits for the parcels of property in the Light Industrial Park/Planned Office Park (LIt) zonin~ district and the Liaht Industrial (LI) zonina district in ~The Church Lane Neighborhood and immediate area surronndin~ the Town Landfill/Transfer Station "and NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Sonthold will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Halt, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, on the June 3, 2003 at 5:00 p.m. at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. The proposed local law entitled, ~A Local Law in relation to a Temporary moratorium on the issuance of aDl~rovals and/or permits for the l~arcels of Drol~erty in the Light Industrial Park/Planned Office Park (LIt) zonin~ district and the Light Industrial (LB zonina district in "The Church Lane Neighborhood and immediate area surroundin~ the Town Landfill/Transfer Station" reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. OF 2003 A Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to a Temporary moratorium on the issuance of approvals and/or permits for the l~arcels of l~rol~erty in the Light Industrial Park/Planned Office Park (LIt) zonina district and the Light Industrial (LI) zonin~ district in "The Church Lane Neighborhood and immediate area snrroundin~ the Town Landfill/Transfer Station". BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, as follows: Section 1. Purpose The Town Board recognizes that within the area bounded by Depot Lane, Oregon Road, Cox Lane and Route 48 the presence of the Town Landfill (now the Town Transfer Station) dominated (properly) the thought process behind the comprehensive planning of that area for decades. One result was that all parcels of property within the described areas are currently zoned either LIt or LI according to the Town Zoning Code. The Town Board also recognizes that the foundational cornerstones governing the comprehensive planning of that area in general may have been fundamentally altered with the capping of the Town Landfill and the introduction ofpnbhc water. A small, long-standing residential neighborhood adjacent to the landfill/transfer station has been threatened with drastic changes based on the current LI zoning district designation. June 3, 2003 Church Lane Moratorium Any person or entity suffering unnecessary hardship as that term is used and construed in Toxvn Law section 267-b(2)(b), by reason of the enaclment and continuance of this moratorium may apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance excepting the person's or entity's premises or a portion thereof from the temporary moratorium and allowing issuance of a permit all in accordance with the provisions of this Southold Town Code applicable to such use or construction. Section 7. SEVERABILITY If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not impair or invalidate the remainder of this Local Law. Section 8. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State. That summarizes the content of the proposed law. I have series of communications here on it, one is from the County of Suffolk which essentially says that this is a matter of local determination and the County of Suffolk is not going to take a position one way or the other on it. I have a communication from the Town's Planning Board office dated May 22. The Planning Board discussed the proposed Church Lane moratorium at its work session on May 19 and has determined that it is in favor of enacting the moratorium for the purpose of conducting the planning study. And I have a notice that this, that the notice has been properly applied to the bulletin board out there in the hall and it has appeared as a legal notice in the local newspapers. And I believe that that is all that I have to report on this public hearing. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Councilman Wickham. At this point we will open the floor to the public to address the Town Board specific to this public hearing. Would anybody care to address the Town Board? JOAN EGAN: I have a question, that is ail. In Mr. Wickham's reading, did I understand or misunderstand that the Light Industrial people that made apphcation, that that will go forward or will that cease and desist until this all resolved properly? SUPERVISOR HORTON: If this were to be enacted, this local law were to be passed, the leg/slation dictates that there will be no approvals granted. MRS. EGAN: To anyone? SUPERVISOR HORTON: Specific to this. I believe that one exception was for single family residences. MRS. EGAN: But not to the other little factory or whatever, correct? SUPERVISOR HORTON: If an approval has not been granted, if this were to be enacted-an approval would not be granted over the course of time that th/s takes effect. MRS. EGAN: Okay, thank you. SUPERVISOR HOP.TON: Thank you, Mrs. Egan. Would anyone else care to address the Board on this public hearing? Mrs. Norden. June 3, 2003 5 Church Lane Moratorium MR. KRUDOP: I am in the Zoning Board right now, asking for a permit to reconstruct a house that had burned down, a house on the back of the property. And that one, I am asking for a multi-family use being that the neighbors, myself included, and Martin's have a multi-family use. I would like an exemption from this moratorium on this parcel of property. TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Mr. Krudop, i£I may. When yon say multi-family use, are you referring to more than one family in the same building or are you referring to more than one single family home on a lot? MR. ICRUDOP: Either way. TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Because as to the latter, more than one single family home, I think that this exemption would apply to single family homes. MR. KRUDOP: Well, if you give me two houses on one property or you give me one structure with two units, it doesn't matter. I will take it either way. I think that is up to the Zoning Board and how they want to see it. TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: I just didn't know what you, I was just trying to clarify what your particular question was addressing. MR. KRUDOP: Anyway that they want to give it to me, I will take it. But I want to be exempt from this moratorium on this parcel of property. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Single family residences are exempt. MR. KRUDOP: So you are telling me that I am going to be able to build two single family residences on that piece of property? SUPERVISOR HORTON: I am not telling you that at all. That ..... MR. KRUDOP: What about one structure with two units? I would hke an exemption on that parcel of property for a residential structure, period. COUNCILMAN WlCKHAM: I think that we understand what you want and there is some logic in it. The procedure in the Local Law, if it is adopted, would direct you to take that approach to the Zoning Board. We can't grant it. Even if it were enacted, we couldn't grant it from here. MR. KRUDOP: Well, if you eliminate the single family dwelling and you just put residential unit, that would allow me to go ahead with my, with no problems. There are no loopholes, it is clearly written and I can go right past. COUNCILMAN WlCKItAM: But we can't make a change in the wording, right in the middle of a public hearing, like this. June 3, 2003 7 Church Lane Moratorium SUPERVISOR HORTON: An industrial building would be caught in the net of this moratorium. MR. KRUDOP: Absolutely. But can you give me some kind of exemption to that back lot to be able to reconstruct that residential unit? SUPERVISOR HORTON: The current zoning, as it exists, doesn't allow for that. MR. KRUDOP: Right. But I am going to the Variance Board but the Variance Board is going to come fight back here and say that we can't say anything for four months because of this moratorium. COUNCILMAN MOORE: Well, what we can do is take your comments and considerations and either not enact this law tonight or enact it and take your comments in and contemplate amending this law. MR. ICRUDOP: That is what I would appreciate. COUNCILMAN MOORE: That is what we will do. We will think about that. MR. KRUDOP: On the other aspect that I would like to address the Board on the fact that there was, basically press and people had brought up to you and I want to make sure that we are on the same page, that the property along Church Lane, in itself, was not created by farmers selling it to the AlS/can-American that live there, it was sold to the First Baptist Church. It was the First Baptist Church that created the subdivision that encompasses the Church Lane road. I have the surveys that I wanted to present to you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Krudop, does this have specific bearing to the possibility to the moratorium? MR. KRUDOP: ~ ttfink that it has a definite... SUPERVISOR HORTON: Because if it is historical background, that may not pertain to the public hearing on the moratorium but if you have got information that pertains specifically to the moratorium. MR. KRUDOP: I think that this all pertains to the moratorium because we are discussing this area. I mean that is why we are hiring these engineering firms. You are spending my tax paying dollars to hire engineering firms that we have already paid for a master plan that other Town Boards prior to you had the spine to emplace that you are looking to change, that I am dumbfounded. Well, anyway, I want to hand this out to you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. We will make sure that this gets entered into the Town Clerk's... MR. I<2RUDOP: Absolutely. I also have, there was some misinformation in regards to the people in the area not knowing that the place was industrial zoned prior to the application of the building plan that Mr. McCarthy had presented. I want to bring }o your attention this article that dated back in March 29, 2001 where Mrs. Cross is pictured, along with the Pastor of the church quoted for knowing June 3, 2003 Church Lane Moratorium highest values that we value. And that courts have considered that even a changing of a zone fi.om residential to industrial could be considered a taking, okay? And I think that it is important for you to realize that. And to restore their right to their home. More than just their real estate value but their right to live in basically peace and security. I am also concerned about environmental conditions that the Town has helped perpetuate surrounding this area and one of the things that we would like to do is to, for the Town Board to take full credence in past environmental advisements by Nelson, Pope and Voothis and all other future environmental considerations, advisory opinions that you are seeking. But I think that it is important to point out that these people have a right to their property. They faced a tot of hardship before and I think that it is incumbent upon you to really search the law and also search your hearts to figure out what these people have a right to. And I am concerned that in some ways this moratorium isn't strong enough. It should have the hardship clauses or whatever but also you should weigh the hardships that these people have faced. That is basically my statement. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. Kupferman. MR. KUPFERMAN: Is there any questions? (No response) SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, sir. Would anyone else care to address the Town Board? Mr. McCarthy? TOM MCCARTHY: Good afternoon. I think that Mr. Kupferman spoke very well and I am glad that he did speak about the Constitution and the rights of individual property owners to their property and I would like to ask the Town Board to consider that in my particular situation. What is being contemplated right now, if the property is changed, is total removal of the rights of the commercial property owners, the light industrial property owners in that area, in the immediate vicinity of Church Lane. Whereas allowing it to remain light industrial does not remove the rights of the intended purposes, the people that bought there for residential. You are not taking the residential rights away if it stays light industrial but if you change it from light industrial to residential, you are taking away the reasons and the uses why the commercial property owners, such as myself, purchased there. Just a few things for the record, I don't believe that it has been reported as accurately as possible, we don't, we have an application in and it is currently in litigation. We don't think that our application has been portrayed very ~vell in the press and we do not have a pool chemical warehouse as has been reported in the papers, we have a pool contracting company that has been applied for in this particular zone. It has also been reported that the whole area was changed its zoning in 1989 where our property is, has been zoned industrial or C-1 heavy commercial since back in the 50's and I think that is/mportant to look at also~ This property, it is really the battleground, has not been changed in 1989. I think that it is really important that everyone realizes that. I think that the Variance procedure is somewhat vacant, given the actual facts in the matter. Yes, you can go apply to the Zoning Board or apply to the Board for a variance to this moratorium but given the agenda to the Zoning Board of Appeals and given the agenda of what is going on right now, if someone was to apply the day after you enact the moratorium, by the time that you get on the agenda with the Zoning Board or anything else, the moratorium is going to expire. So there is no real, I don't think that you are going to see any applications here for your variance procedure, they are in effect going to work but I understand that you probably have to do that as a part of your law. I don't see anybody going through that variance procedure. I am afraid of several things here, one of them is that we are casting a large net to catch a small fish. We have incorporated the entire area, from Cox Lane to Depot Lane, from Rt. 48 to Oregon Road and I think June 3, 2003 Church Lane Moratorium 11 MR. MCCARTHY: Okay. Have the consultants been contracted with and is this going to move forward? Does the Board feel that the review is going to be done within the time frame that is set forth, four months, and they are going to get back to you and you are going to be able to have time to consider whatever their recommendations are, have time to deliberate on them and have time to make whatever decisions you are going to make prior to the expiration of the moratorium? SUPERVISOR HORTON: Yes. MR. MCCARTHY: You feel that that will all be able to be done. SUPERVISOR HORTON: I feel that very strongly, yes. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I would go even further... SUPERVISOR HORTON: The Consulting Firm, Engineering Firm, Environmental Planning Firm, Cxreeuman-Pederson, indicated today at the Town Board meeting that the course of their review would take four to six weeks. MR. MCCARTHY: Okay. I mentioned a fear before about casting a large net to catch a small fish and I am not saying that tiffs would be tree of this particular Town Board but I understand that there has been a change in posture, or possibly of the Board and the members as to is it right to change it back to residential or shall I say change it for the f~rst time in my property situation, change it from light industrial to residential. If that is seemingly what is in the winds, I would hope that the Engineering firm is going to do a fair and unbiased study and not just a study that is going to support the position of the Board and the direction that the Board seems to be going with, in order to get more dollars and more studies from the Town Board. And that is a fear that I have, that the person writing the study wants to be in alignment with the people that are paying the bills and that is a real fear that I have. JUSTICE EVANS: I think that we were clear today with them that we ~vanted a study with no pre- conceived notions. MR. MCCARTHY: Good. Thank you. I hope that that would be the case. And in furtherance of that, just a couple other points that may be considered down the line. I think that the Town Board really ought to look into creating more light industrial property, not less of it. I think that the Town Board ought to look at the zoning classification of light industrial office park and if there has been any apphcations under the office park component of that law since it was enacted in 1989 and I think that we are consuming a lot of land that is zoned LIO that could be more properly zoned LI. LIO has got a three acre minimum lot size and LI has got one acre, so you could get ~ple the number of uses on the same amount of property if you were to change the zoning designation from LIO to LI on some of the remaining property and doing things like that. Replacing the 17 acres that the Town Board bought for the composting facility, if that was to be replaced somewhere else, perhaps distributed around the Town in each one of the hamlets, that that might ease some of the pressures in the Church Lane neighborhood as well as any other pockets of light industrial that happen to be around the Town. So, just again, to reiterate, I am not in favor of the moratorium but if in fact it does go forward, I hope that it is fair and it is equitable. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD PUBLIC HEARING June 3, 2003 5:00 P.M. HEARING ON "A LOCAL LAW IN RELATION TO A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF APPROVALS AND/OR PERMITS FOR THE PARCELS OF PROPERTY IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK/PLANNED OFFICE PARK (LIO) ZONING DISTRICT AND THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (Ll) ZONING DISTRICT IN ~THE CHURCH LAND NEIGHBORHOOD AND IMMEDIATE AREA SURROUNDING THE TOWN LANDFILL/TRANSFER STATION'". COUNCILMAN WICI<2HAM: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 6th day of May, 2003 a Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to a Temvorarv moratorium on the issuance of approvals and/or permits for the varcels of property in the Liaht Industrial Park/Planned Office Park (LIO) zonin~ district and the Light Industrial (LB zonin~ district in "The Church Lane Neighborhood and immediate area surroundin~ the Town Landfill/Transfer Station" and NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, on the June 3, 2003 at 5:00 p.m. at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. The proposed local law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to a Temporary moratorium on the issuance of approvals and/or permits for the parcels of property in the Liaht Industrial Park/Planned Office Park (LIO) zonin~ district and the Light Industrial (LB zoulna district in "The Church Lane Neighborhood and immediate area surroundin~ the Town Landfill/Transfer Station" reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. OF 2003 A Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to a Temporary moratorium on the issuance of approvals and/or permits for the parcels of property in the Light Industrial Park/Planned Office Park (LIO'} zoninff district and the Light Industrial (LB zonin~ district in "The Church Lane Neiehborhood and immediate area surroundin~ the Town Landfill/Transfer Station". BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, as follows: Section 1. Purpose The Town Board recognizes that within the area bounded by Depot Lane, Oregon Road, Cox Lane and Route 48 the presence of the Town Landfill (now the Town Transfer Station) dominated (properly) the thought process behind the comprehensive planning of that area for decades. One result was that all parcels ofproperty within the described areas are currently zoned either LIO or IA according to the Town Zoning Code. The Town Board also recognizes that the foundational cornerstones governing the comprehensive planning of that area in general may have been fundamentally altered with the capping of the Town Landfill and the introduction of public water. A small, long-standing residential neighborhood adjacent to the landfill/transfer station has been threatened with drastic changes based on the current IA zoning district designation. June 3, 2003 Church Lane Moratorium Based on the changed cimumstances regarding the landfill/transfer station, as noted above, the Town Board wishes to consider various alternatives to the LIO and LI zoning district designation in the described area, enhancement projects in the Church Lane neighborhood and the recommendations made in the draft report of the planning and enviroianental firm of Nelson, Pope and Voorhis dated August 26, 2002. Given the reasons and facts set forth above and until the planning process is completed the Town Board finds it necessary to impose a moratoritma as set forth below. An integrated and comprehensive study that takes into account the capping of the Landfill, the presence of public water, and the long-standing residential neighborhood in conjunction with the Town's overall comprehensive goals is needed. This action is necessary in order to protect the character, public health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Church Lane Neighborhood and Immediate Area Surrounding the Town Landfill/Transfer Station Section 2. ENACTMENT OF A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM Until four (4) months from the effective date of this Local Law, after which this Local Law shall lapse and be without ~fizrther force and effect and subject to any other Local Law adopted by the Town Board during the four (4) month period, no agency, board, board officer or employee of the Town of Southold including but not limited to, the Town Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Trustees, the Planning Board, or the Building Inspector(s) issuing any building permit pursuant to any provision of the Southold Town Code, shall issue, cause to be issued or allow to be issued any approval, special exception, variance, site plan, building permit, subdivision, or perrrdt for any of the property uses listed within the following sections of the following zoning districts of the Southotd Town Code which are located in the Church Lane Neighborhood and Immediate Area Surrounding the Town Landfill/Transfer: Sections 100-131 (A) (1) and 100-131 (A) (3-t6) and 100-131 (B) and 100- 131(C), all of which apply to the Light Industrial Park/Plauned Office Park (LIO) District of the Southold Town Code; and Sections 100-141(A) (1) and 100-141(A) (3-15) and 100-141(B); and 100- 141(C), all of which apply to the Light Industrial (LO District of the Southold Town Code Section 3. DEFINITION OF "THE CHURCH LANE NEIGHBORHOOD & IMMEDIATE AREA SURROUNDING THE TOWN LANDFILL/TRANSFER STATION" The Church Lane Neighborhood and Immediate Area Surrounding the Town Landfill/Transfer Station is hereby defined as the area bounded by the following public roads: County Route 48 on the South, Depot Lane on the West, Oregon Road on the North and Cox Lane on the East. Section 4. EXCLUSIONS This Local Law shall not apply: 1) to any person or entity who/which has, prior to the effective date of this Local Law, obtained all permits required for construction of a building on any property located in the THE CHURCH LANE NEIGHBORHOOD and IMMEDIATE AREA SURROUNDING THE TOWN LANDFILL/TRANSFER STATION including later applications to repair or alter, but not enlarge, any such building otherwise prohibited during the period of this temporary moratorium. 2) To any permit or application regarding a single family dwelling unit to be used solely for residential purposes. Section 5. AUTHORITY TO SUPERCEDE To the extent and degree any provisions of this Local Law are construed as inconsistent with the provisions of Town Law sections 264, 265, 265-a, 267, 267-a, 267-b, 274-a, 274-b, and 276, this Local Law is intended pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law sections 10(1)(ii)(d)(3) and section 22 to supercede any said inconsistent authority. Section 6. VARIANCE TO THIS MORATORIUM June 3, 2003 Church Lane Moratorium Any person or entity suffering unnecessary hardship as that term is used and construed in Town Law section 267-b(2)(b), by reason of the enactment and continuance of this moratorium may apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance excepting the person's or entity's premises or a portion thereof fi:om the temporary moratorium and allowing issuance of a permit all in accordance with the provisions of this Southold Town Code applicable to such use or construction. Section 7. SEVERABI~ITY ffany clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not impair or invalidate the remainder of this Local Law. Section 8. EFFECTiVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State. That summarizes the content of the proposed law. I have series of cormmunications here on it, one is fxom the County of Suffolk which essentially says that this is a matter of local determination and the County of Suffolk is not going to take a position one way or the other on it. I have a communication from the Town's Planning Board office dated May 22. The Planning Board discussed the proposed Church Lane moratorium at its work session on May 19 and has determined that it is in favor of enacting the moratorium for the purpose of conducting the planning study. And I have a notice that this, that the notice has been properly applied to the bulletin board out there in the hall and it has appeared as a legal notice in the local newspapers. And I believe that that is all that I have to report on this public heating. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Councilman Wickham. At this point we will open the floor to the public to address the Town Board specific to this public hearing. Would anybody care to address the Town Board? JOAN EGAN: I have a question, that is alt. In Mr. Wickham's reading, did I understand or misunderstand that the Light Industrial people that made application, that that will go forward or will that cease and desist until this alt resolved properly? SUPERVISOR HORTON: If this were to be enacted, this local law were to be passed, the legislation dictates that there will be no approvals granted. MRS. EGAN: To anyone? SUPERVISOR HORTON: Specific to this. I believe that one exception was for single family residences. MRS. EGAN: But not to the other little factory or whatever, correct? SUPERVISOR HORTON: If an approval has not been granted, if this were to be enacted-an approval would not be granted over the course of time that this takes effect. MRS. EGAN: Okay, thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mrs. Egan. Would anyone else care to address the Board on this public hearing? Mrs. Norden. June 3, 2003 4 Church Lane Moratorium MELANIE NORDEN: With respect to this moratorium, could...Melanie Norden, Greenport, New York. With respect to this moratorium and probably, presumably with respect to other moratoriums, I wondered if either the Town Attorney or members of the Board could more thoroughly define for me ~vhat the definition of hardship is and how it would particularly apply in this case? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Hardship is defined in this moratorium according to section such and such and such and such of the Town Code and I would have to dig that out or the Town Attorney would have to. But normally hardship refers to severe financial hardship. MS. NORDEN: Because I know that in the case of our wider town moratorium there seems to be some, I would say, perceived confusion as to what hardship really in fact represents. A number of people have come before the Board over the last few months arguing everything tkom inappropriate ability to do long term fmancial family plarming, to all sorts of other definitions of hardship that seem somewhat vague. So, Greg, do you have that section of the Code that you could summarize it for me? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Section 267-B-2B. TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Sure. And Councilman Wickham accurately summed it up. I can get a copy of it so you can look at it yourself but it is an economic hardship. MS. NORDEN: But is it any more thoroughly defined than that? TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: I think that what I can do to fully answer your question is, if you contact my office tomorrow, I will not be there but you can ask for Melanie, she is my secretary and she can get you a complete copy of that section. MS. NORDEN: Okay. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Would anyone else care to address the Town Board on this public hearing? ROBERT KRUDOP: I apologize for my appearance tonight, I just got off of work and I had to get down here to meet with you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: An apology is not necessary. MR. KRUDOP: I disagree with the moratorium big-time. La the fact that you have in here that the, you only can have mt exclusion for single family dwellings, I happen to have multi-family use on my property. I do have people living in those houses. If they do bum, ][ want to be able to re-build them. The Martin's have multi-family use, the Wilson's have multi-family use. Down on Cox Lane, they have multi-family use down there. You are going to take away the ability to re-build those houses. God forbid that they bum down. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Actually, that would probably, I think that it is safe to say that if there were the instance of a home burning down, that the ability to re-create that or re-build that, would exist. June 3, 2003 5 Church Lane Moratorium MR. KRUDOP: I am in the Zoning Board right now, asking for a permit to reconstruct a house that had burned down, a house on the back of the property. And that one, I am asking for a multi-family use being that the neighbors, myself included, and Martin's have a multi-family use. I would like an exemption from this moratorium on this parcel of property. TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Mr. Krudop, if I may. When you say multi-family use, are you referring to more than one family in the same building or are you referring to more than one single family home on a lot? MR; KRUDOP: Either way. TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Because as to the latter, more than one single family home, I think that this exemption would apply to single family homes. MR. KRUDOP: Well, if you give me two houses on one property or you give me one structure with two units, it doesn't matter. I will take it either way. I think that is up to the Zoning Board and how they want to see it. TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: I just didn't know what you, I was just trying to clarify what your particular question was addressing. MR~ KRUDOP: Anyway that they want to give it to me, I will take it. But I want to be exempt fi:om this moratorium on this parcel of property. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Single family residences are exempt. MR. KRUDOP: So you are telling me that I am going to be able to build two single family residences on that piece of property? SUPERVISOR HORTON: I am not telling you that at all. That ..... MR. KRUDOP: What about one structure with two units? I would like an exemption on that parcel of property for a residential structure, period. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I think that we understand what you want and there is some logic in it. The procedure in the Local Law, if it is adopted, would direct you to take that approach to the Zoning Board. We can't grant it. Even if it wore enacted, we couldn't grant it fi:om here. MR. KRUDOP: Welt, if you elinfmate the single family dwelling and you just put residential unit, that would allow me to go ahead with my, with no problems. There are no loopholes, it is clearly written and I can go right past. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: But we can't make a change in the wording, right in the middle of a public heating, like this. June 3, 2003 6 Church Lane Moratorium MR. KRUDOP: Why not? Because you would have to post it again and it is going to take longer? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Yes, that is right. We would have to go through the whole process again. MR. KRUDOP: Well, ][ would appreciate i£you would do that. COUNCILMAN W][CKFIAM: However, we understand, at least I think we understand, what you want. Let us give some thought to it, in any event, you would be fi:ee to bring that application to the Zoning Board if we do enact the law. MR. KRUDOP: And you do enact the law, I bring it to them trod they are going to go right back to here and say that we can't give it to you. Because it is a single family, you are asking for a multi- family dwelling and it says single family dwelling. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: But you heard what the Town Attorney said. MR. KRUDOP: That I am going to have to go with two separate ind/vidua! units. TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Currently what do you have on the property? MR. KRUDOP: I have a foundation on the ground, a well, septic system and a detached garage. TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: And that was an existing structure? MR. KRUDOP: A house that had bttrned down. TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: So, as to that unit, as to that particular thing. What burned down was a single family unit? MR. KRUDOP: Don't know. I have owned it prior to it burning down. There was just a foundation in the ground that a residential strncmre was built on, it has a septic, it has a well, I have it on a survey and I am looking to re-build it. COUNCILMAN MOORE: Just as a matter of information, the current zoning doesn't allow single family dwellings in the Industrial Zone. MR. KRUDOP: So I can put my industrial building up. COUNCILMAN MOORE: You can, if you get all your permits and get them all in place and the moratorium doesn't get enacted, go through your process. MR. KRUDOP: I am in the process of doing that in the front lot. How is that going to hold me up? This moratorium? It is going to basically, what I am saying is that I am doing an industrial building on the front lot, a residential structure on the back....you are holding me up. You are holding me up from going forward with my projects. June 3, 2003 7 Church Lane Moratorium SUPERVISOR HORTON: An industrial building would be caught in the net of this moratorium. MR. KRUDOP: Absolutely. But can you give me some k/nd of exemption to that back lot to be able to reconstruct that residential unit? SUPERVISOR HORTON: The current zoning, as it exists, doesn't allow for that. MR. KRUDOP: Right. But I am going to the Variance Board but the Variance Board is going to come right back here and say that we can't say anything for four months because of this moratorium. COUNCILMAN MOORE: Well, what we can do is take your comments and considerations and either not enact this law tonight or enact it and take your comments in and contemplate amending this law. MR, KRUDOP: That is what I would appreciate. COUNCILMAN MOORE: That is what we will do. We will think about that. MR. KRUDOP: On the other aspect that I would like to address the Board on the fact that there was, basically press and people had brought up to you and I want to make sure that we are on the same page, that the property along Church Lane, in itself, was not created by farmers selling it to the African-American that live there, it was sold to the First Baptist Church. It was the First Baptist Church that created the subdivision that encompasses the Church Lane road. I have the surveys that I wanted to present to you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Krudop, does this have specific bearing to the possibility to the moratorium? MR. KRUDOP: I think that it has a definite... SUPERVISOR HORTON: Because if it is historical background, that may not pertain to the public hearing on the moratorium but if you have got information that pertains specifically to the moratorium. MR. KRUDOP: I think that this all pertains to the moratorium because ~ve are discussing this area. I mean that is why we are h/ring these engineering firms. You are spending my tax paying dollars to hire engineering firms that we have already paid for a master plan that other Town Boards prior to you had the spine to amplace that you are looking to change, that I am dumbfounded. Well, anyway, I want to hand this out to you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. We will make sure that this gets entered into the Town Clerk's... MR. KRUDOP: Absolutely. I also have, there was some misinformation in regards to the people in the area not knowing that the place was industrial zoned prior to the application of the bnilding plan that Mr. McCarthy had presented. I want to bring )co your attention this article that dated back in March 29, 2001 where Mrs. Cross is pictured, along with the Pastor of the church quoted for knowing June 3, 2003 Church Lane Moratorium 8 and I am going to quote from this article and I am also going to present you with this article and I highlighted the areas for you to revie~v, "The present church would likely be sold but nothing has been decided yet by the Board, said the Pastor. In the church favor, it is industrial zone parcel and has already attracted interested buyers. It is an expensive piece of land, it is worth something" he said. Just to let you how, this has Viola Cross and the Pastor had posed in this picture and you can't tell me that she hadn't read this and that she hadn't seen the signs, the real estate signs that had been on the property .... SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Krudop... MR. KRUDOP: No, no excuse me. You have to stop and hear me out. SUPERVISOR ttORTON: Mr. Krudop, I am going to interrupt you. This is not a pubhc hearing about what you think Mrs. Cross or what Mrs. Cross thinks you kne~v or didn't know. MR. KR_UDOP: But this is information that you have been misinformed about. That I want to bring to your attention, because altogether this has an effect on your decision on the moratorium on this area. If it was brought to you in false, falsely stated, how can you say that by me sho~ving you that it hadn't been or it is incorrect, that the information was brought to you. How can yon make a proper decision on this area, iii don't bring this to your attention? SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. ICradop, I am willing to have that entered into the record. MR. KRL~DOP: Wonderful. And just to let you know, you can go back in the date on the, that the site plan for Mr. McCarthy's building was first added to a survey was October 15, 2001. That is not that it was submitted, that is not the date that it the people, that is the date that it was added to the site plan by the surveyor. In conclusion, I would like you to take everything that ~ have brought to your attention into consideration. I wish you not to pass this moratorium tonight, and let us go forward w/th what our plans are. Let us go forward with what the area needs and let the Zoning Board do their job and let them have the ability, I mean, that is why they have been placed in their position, is to make the right decisions for that area; for this type of situation. I don't believe that the Board should be spending the taxpayers dollars on attorneys, on engineering firms to come back and review what we already paid for. It is ridiculous. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. Krudop. Would anyone else care to address the Town Board on this public hearing? JOEL KUPFERMAN, NEW YORK ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND JUSTICE PROJECT: My name is Joel Kupferman, I am fi.om the New York Environmental Law and Justice Project and I represent the Citizens for Social Justice, Church Lane, basically the residents that live there on Church Lane. We have come out today, basically in favor of the moratorium. Primarily, on the basis that, I beheve that it is the job of the Town Board to protect people who are living in this place akeady. Not people who are coming in and buying land from the outside or whatever. That these people have faced a lot of hardship in maintaining their property as a residence. And that it is incumbent upon the Town Board to respect that. The fact that the Constitution really respects the people's right to property, including residential property and that is the home and ones right to residential property is one of the June 3, 2003 Church Lane Moratorium 9 highest values that we value. And that courts have considered that even a changing of a zone fi.om residential to industrial could be considered a taking, okay? And I think that it is important for you to realize that. And to restore their right to their home. More than just their real estate value but their fight to live in basically peace and security. I am also concerned about environmental conditions that the Town has helped perpetuate surrounding this area and one of the things that we would like to do is to, for the Town Board to take full credence in past envkonmental advisements by Nelson, Pope and Voorhis and all other future environmental considerations, advisory opinions that you are seeking. But I think that it is important to point out that these people have a right to thek property. They faced a lot of hardship before and I think that it is incumbent upon you to really search the law and also search your hearts to figure out what these people have a right to. And I am concerned that in some ways this moratorium isn't strong enough. It should have the hardship clauses or whatevm- but also you should weigh the hardships that these people have faced. That is basically my statement. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. Kupferman. MR. KUPFERMAN: Is there any questions? (No response) SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, sir. Would anyone else care to address the Town Board? Mr. McCarthy'? TOM MCCARTHY: Good aftemoon. I think that Mr. Kupferman spoke very well and I am glad that he did speak about the Constitution and the fights of individual property owners to their property and I would like to ask the Town Board to consider that in my particular situation. What is being contemplated fight now, if the property is changed, is total removal of the rights of the commercial property owners, the light industrial property owners in that area, in the immediate vicinity of Church Lane. Whereas allowing it to remain hght industrial does not remove the rights of the intended purposes, the people that bought there for residential. You are not taking the residential fights away if it stays light industrial but if you change it fi.om light industrial to residential, you are taking away the reasons and the uses why the commercial property owners, such as myself, purchased there. Just a few things for the record, I don't beheve that it has been reported as accurately as possible, we don't, we have an application in and it is currently in litigation. We don't think that our application has been portrayed very well in the press and we do not have a pool chemical warehouse as has been reported in the papers, we have a pool contracting company that has been applied for in tiffs particular zone. It has also been reported that the whole area was changed its zoning in 1989 where our property is, has been zoned industrial or C-1 heavy commercial since back in the 50's and I think that is important to look at also. This property, it is really the battleground, has not been changed in 1989. I think that it is really important that everyone realizes that. I think that the Variance procedure is some~vhat vacant, given the actual facts in the matter. Yes, you can go apply to the Zoning Board or apply to the Board for a variance to this moratorium but given the agenda to the Zoning Board of Appeals and given the agenda of what is going on fight now, if someone was to apply the day after you ~aact the moratorium, by the time that you get on the agenda with the Zoning Board or anything else, the moratorium is going to expire. So there is no real, I don't think that you are going to see any applications here for your variance procedure, they are in effect going to work but I understand that you probably have to do that as a part of your law. I don't see anybody going through that variance procedure. I am afraid of several things here, one of them is that we are casting a large net to catch a small fish. We have incorporated the entire area, fi:om Cox Lane to Depot Lane, fi.om Rt. 48 to Oregon Road and I think June 3, 2003 Church Lane Moratorium 10 that my fear is that the reason why that entire area has been looked at is because if we just concentrated on the Church Lane neighborhood that there could be some problems with changing zones over there. SoT I would ask that if this does go forward and I am not looking for it to go forward and I am opposed to it going forward, that you do look at ali the other properties and not just look at this particular neighborhood. I am not for taking anyone's rights away and I feel that there ought to be compensation. I have stated in the past, to the Supervisor and several members of the Town Board, that a land swap alternative would be acceptable, as long as we could accommodate our use somewhere else. We don't need to be in the area dkectly behind the church, we feel that we have rights in light indusLr/al and the Town Board ought to be working for our rights as well as the rights of the residents and we are perfectly willing to take those, to take what rights that we do have and move them somewhere else and allow the Town to do something else with that property and we have stated that and we want to state that in public for the record, that we don't need to be there but we don't want to see om: rights taken away and we will use whatever processes that are available to us in the courts to make sure that our fights are not taken away, just as I am sure that the residents of that neighborhood are standing up for trek fights, as well. I would like to ask the Board what the tirdmg would be, if yon vote on the law now, when it would come into effect and it's just the timing seems a little bit strange to me-I know that we have an upcoming election and what will happen? When will this expire? Before the election, after the election? And what will happen with regard to this issue and the upcoming election in the fall? SUPERVISOR HORTON: He actually asked an interesting question. The proposed moratorium is for four months, so four months from the time that it is enacted. MR. MCCARTHY: Okay. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Which would be tomorrow. SUPERVISOR HORTON: If it was voted on tonight. Actually, Town Attorney, are there any other further processes, if it was voted on tonight and it passed, what would be the time frame hq which it would actually grab hold and took place? TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: When it was filed, which usually takes a few days. We send it up to the Department of State. MR. MCCARTHY: Is there any time frame that has to lapse? I understand that you just declared this a Type 11 action which is an unlisted action according to SEQRA. Is there any sort of time frame that has to lapse after you declare it a Type 1/action? TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: No and it is not just, a point of correction, it is not an unlisted action, it is a Type II. There are three categories: Type I, Type II and unlisted. This is a Type 11. MR. MCCARTHY: It is a Type II action. TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Correct. It is set forth, Tom, right in the SEQRA law. June 3, 2003 Church Lane Moratorium 11 MR. MCCARTHY: Okay. Have the consultants been contracted with and is this going to move forward? Does the Board feel that the review is going to be done witlfin the time frame that is set forth, four months, and they are going to get back to you and you are going to be able to have time to consider whatever their recommendations are, have time to dehberate on them and have time to make whatever decisions you are going to make prior to the expiration of the moratorium? SUPERVISOR HORTON: Yes. MR. MCCARTHY: You feel that that will all be able to be done. SUPERVISOR HORTON: I feel that very strongly, yes. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I would go even further... SUPERVISOR HORTON: The Consulting Firm, Engineering Firm, Environmental Plamfing Firm, Greemm.an-Pederson, indicated today at the Town Board meeting that the course of their review would take four to six weeks. MR. MCCARTHY: Okay. I mentioned a fear before about casting a large net to catch a small fish and I am not saying that this would be true of this particular Town Board but I understand that there has been a change in posture, or possibly of the Board and the members as to is it right to change it back to residential or shall I say change it for the first time in my property situation, change it fi:om light industrial to residential. If that is seemingly what is in the winds, I would hope that the Engineering firm is going to do a fair and unbiased study and not just a study that is going to support the position of the Board and the direction that the Board seems to be going with, in order to get more dollars and more studies from the Town Board. And that is a fear that I have, that the person writing the study wants to be in alignment with the people that are paying the bills and that is a real fear that I have. JUSTICE EVANS: I think that we were clear today with them that we wanted a study with no pre- conceived notions. MR. MCCARTHY: Good. Thank you. I hope that that would be the case. And in fiartherance of that, just a couple other points that may be considered down the line. I think that the Town Board really ought to look into creating more light industrial property, not less of it. I think that the Town Board ought to look at the zoning classification of light industrial office park and if there has been any applications under the office park component of that law since it was enacted in 1989 and I think that we are consuming a lot of la~d that is zoned LIO that could be more properly zoned LI. LIO has got a three acre m/n/mum lot size and LI has got one acre, so you could get triple the number of uses on the same amount of property if you were to change the zoning designation from LIO to LI on some of the remaining property and doing things like that. Replacing the 17 acres that the Town Board bought for the composting facility, if that was to be replaced somewhere else, perhaps distributed around the Town in each one of the hamlets, that that might ease some of the pressures in the Church Lane neighborhood as well as any other pockets of light induslrial that happen to be around the Town. So, just again, to reiterate, I am not in favor of the moratorium but if in fact it does go forward, I hope that it is fair and it is equitable. June 3, 2003 12 Church Lane Moratorium SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. McCarthy. Would anyone else care to address the Town Board on this public hearing? MICHAEL SIMON: Michael Simon, from New Suffolk. I speak in favor of the moratorium because what I see is a conflict of claimed rights. The right of quiet enjoyment of their home and property by the people who have been living there without having the value of their property depreciate because of conflicting use, industrial use, and on the other had the claimed right of people who purchased land there with the expectation that they could develop that land commercially. Those rights are in conflict. What seems to me what the moratorium offers, is a chance to decide between those claimed rights. To reject the moratorium is esseutially to come down on the side of those whose claimed rights include the development. So the moratorium, which is without prejudice as I understand it, as I read it, allows the relevant parties with proper outside consultation to proceed and come up with a series of recommendations, which could in principal and in fact, go either way. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. Simon. Would anyone else care to address the Board on this public heating? Reverend Fulford? REVEREND CORNELIUS FULFORD, PASTOR, FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, CUTCHOGUE: Supervisor Horton, Board members, my name is Reverend Cornelius Fulford. I am the pastor of the First Baptist Church in Cutchogue. And tonight as we discuss this situation, I just want to let you know the correct, something here, about I am not going to try to find something that says that you have been misled because of whatever you read. Whatever people are talk/ng about in this meeting tonight and other meetings, it still is going to come down to the terminology that you yourself got to make a decision. And your decision that you have to make, I am q~.ite sure, that it should be the decision that you have to look at the welfare of those peoples, that are around Church Lane and those people that are in *3tis community. I don't have anything against those people who have bought land in there. I am concerned about those people that have already been living there, it is their home. It is their whole life, that they have been in ever since they came up here on the North Fork. They left the south and caane here and made their home. And those people that are there have a right to continue their home and not for people to come in and jeopardize it. And your decision has to be based on the welfare of those people who are in your town. I can understand, I was listening to him and he said something about misled. I want to let you know that, in 1989 the people that are around there did not know that the zoning was changed. And the paper that he so stated and quoted about the picture of Evangelist Cross and my picture, we have asked various people to come in and not fxom the point of the zoning change but come in and have asked us about whether we are going to sell the church or not and the Baptist, what some people might not know, that the body of the congregation have the right to sell whatever they own or not own. And my statement was as always, it might be, it might not. It is up to the congregation that own the church. And we is in the process now of building a new church for the Lord but at the same time, we is there on Church Lane; we are going to be there for a while. And they might be there an eternity, it depends on the congregation. But my whole concern about the welfare of all peoples, no matter what creed or what color, that is ail peoples. And that is what my concern is about and those people that have been suffering a long time, they got their residence there, their homes there, they have been fighting the landfill; the odor and the paper, the garbage. But that is their home and they love their home and they want to remain there. If you are fixing up the landfill, which you are doing a great job, then I am quite sure that the welfare of those people there is your first priority and I think that when you make a decision about the moratorium or whatever decision you make, I want you June 3, 2003 Church Lane Moratorium 13 to have in your hearts and your mind and your soul, that the first priority of any Town, any Board, any Supervisor is also the welfare of the people that live in your community. And I bid that with you and godspeed that whatever you do, it will be the right decision. God bless you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Pastor Fulford. Mr. Fischer? DANIEL FISCHER: My name is Dan Fischer, I live in Orient. I am not much ora public speaker so I would hke to read a letter that I have written to the Supervisor and the Town Board. Few people would dispute that Supervisor Horton has tirelessly led the effort to fred a solution to the Church Land dilemma. I have known Josh his entire life and can without hesitation say that he is motivated by a sense of decency, respect and compassion for all, and a compelling desire to do the just thing, values that were instilled in hun by his pm~ents: Easter morn'rog, I had the chance to accompany Josh on one of his many trips to Church Lane to brainstorm with some of the residents to find an equitable solution. One couple who lives and has raised children there, strongly indicated that young families would be eager to move back there should an opportunity arise. That to me is key argument for preserving the Church Lane residential neighborhood. There have discussions of racial bias, historical indifference of previous town boards and the questionable desirability of the location. The key issue is that it is a viable neighborhood and Southold is nothing if not a united group of neighborhoods. I had the good fortune to grow up on Horton's Lane in Southold, a neighborhood which sheltered people of different social, religious, economic and racial backgrounds. As diverse as it was, its cohesiveness lay in the fact that we were all neighbors and behaved that way. Sure we were Southolder's, but we were also from Horton's Lane and we had a sense of belonging and caring for each other. I grew up in a house where the door was never locked; in the off chance a neighbor might need to borrow a cup of sugar. When my father died prematurely, Mrs. Hobson, wife of Rev, Willis Hobson, who lived next door and whose photo hangs in the corridor of Town Hall, slipped quietly into our home, took down all the drapes, washed, ironed and rehung them so they would took well when others came to pay their respects. She was a neighbor to be cherished and there were too many others like her to name. The point is, to allow a neighborhood to disintegrate is one of the most detrimental events to occur in a community that we all love. I certainly respect property rights, but sometimes the community well being must supercede individual rights, and other compensation must be made to investors who acted in good faith. It would appear that a consensus may be developing to allow the Church Lane neighborhood to flourish. I encourage all to support a moratorium to allow the Board to formulate a solution without the pressure of permit applications, which could render that attempt futile. Thank you; SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. Fischer. As a member of the Board just stated, that gentleman is my uncle, if there was any question in the... MR. FISCHER: Yes, Josh is my nephew but I do reserve the right to scream at hun on occasion, too. SUPERVISOR HORTON: I will second that. Would anyone else care to address the Board? Mrs. Taylor. BARBARA TAYLOR: Barbara Taylor, Cutchogue. Again, I would just like to reiterate that we are in favor of the moratorium and as a homeowner, I have lived there before there was any interest in outside people coming in, looking at the land for commercial use. We have lived there with the June 3, 2003 Church Lane Moratorium 14 landfill. People have said that with the change of zoning, the value of our property has gone up but we have lived there when the value was not high, we will be living there when the value is up. What we are concerned about is that it is our home. It is our home. And we have maintained our home, we have landscaped our home, we have beautified our home, we have added on to our home and we believe that this moratorium will in fact bring the necessary changes to keep this a residential commurfity and let us live in peace and harmony, as many other resider;ts in the To~vn of Southo!d do~ Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank yon, Mrs. Taylor. Are there any other con'nnents from the floor? Mrs. Egan. JOAN EGAN: Joan Egan, East Marion. The only comment that I have to make, I couldn't agree with the Reverend more. I, myself, have never, ever been satisfied that the people on Church Lane were ever really, truly notified of the change and to the best of my knowledge not one of you up there can prove that you did notify them. So what I say to you all is shame, shame, shame. Shame for those people, shame for you people and the people before you. You made a big mistake, get offthe stick and help those people now and forever. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mrs. Egan. Mrs. Levine, I saw that you had your hand up. MERLE LEVINE: Merle Levine, East Marion, New York. The interest in having a moratofium is as clearly stated by the people with commercial interests, more in the interest of the people who live there. Because without a moratorium, the concern of the people that live there is that commercial buyers would put up edifices and once they go up, the whole scene is lost. So I would speak, too, in favor of there being a moratorium and i would certainly hope that the interest of the people who have lived there all their lives would be paramount. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank yon, Mrs. Levine. Mr. Nickles. JOHN NICKLES, JR. SOUTHOLD BUSINESS ALLIANCE: Good evening, Jotm Nickles, Jr. Southold Business Alliance. What concerns the Southold Business Alliance whenever the Town enacts a moratorium to consider different land use or amending land use wherever it is going to be, we all recognize that everybody has property rights and there are people that are going to be impacted positively and there are going to be people that are impacted negatively. And what ! would like to see is that the Town, should they decide to do this moratorium, which I don't think they should do, if they are going to put this moratorium in place, I think that you have to look at this, as Mr. McCarthy said, in the most fair and equitable way possible. Thus far, my understanding of the history of Southold Town is whenever there was a zone change done, and I could be ~vrong, when peoples land is changed and it is rezoned and it is an upzone and rights are taken away, I have yet to see a precedent where those property owners were compensated. And I would like to see that considered for the first time in tiffs case, should you decide to go forward with the moratorium. Thank you. SLrpERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. Nicldes. Mr. Taylor. LARRY TAYLOR: Larry Taylor, Route 48. You all should know me because you are fight in front of me. What I just want to know is, you know state to you, I have been living with you for a long fmae June 3, 2003 Church Lane Moratorium 15 and you may not know it but every time I go in my driveway, I look at your big, blue building, The only thing that is stopping me tkom looking at your building is the shrubs that we have, the trees. Same thing on the other side, if I take down those trees, I got to look at my neighbor, which is commercial. No offense to these guys but I didn't buy this for commercial, I bought it for residence. And it has been residence for a long time. I just want you to put it back. Let me make the decision how I want to sell my house. Right now, I want my house back t~ residence so ][ can sell it as a residence. Tl~at is it. IfI don't want to sell it, that is what I bought it for. Tlaank you very much. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Are there other comments fi.om the floor? GWYNNE SCHROEDER: NORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCI~L: Gwynne Schroeder, North Fork Environmental Council. We are in favor of the moratorium. I think that this has been such a contentious issue in the To~vn and very emotional and I think that through the SEQRA process and through this study, everything can be looked at very closely. The environmental concerns, today they talked about the cultural history of the community but I just did want to say that I have been doing this job for about five or six years now, and when this all came to a head was when water became available in that community and the town and the taxpayers paid to provide potable water to that community. Around that time is when the business interest started heating up. We are worried about taxpayers, everybody is worried about their tax bill, I certainly am but I think that the water was provided for the residences of that community not to subsidize businesses and that is when all this started to come to a head. And your own consultants, I forget which one, said that the reason that this was an appropriate time to look at this because that natural conversion from LIO to, or from residence to LIO would happen over a period of time and we have seen that hasn't happened and it hasn't. And this is a good reason to go back and look at the appropriateness of the zoning in that area right now. And I thflak that the water is the key issue here and that is why this all came to be happening here today because water became available and just from the taxpayers point of view, I am happy to pay for water for citizens but not to subsidize for a business and then we have to take that into consideration as well. Thanks. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mrs. Schroeder. Mrs. Cross. VIOLA CROSS: Viola Cross, from Church Lane. I am quite angry, I have a lot of it in me right now. But when I moved there, it was residential and we had reports on the ~vater being bad and then when we found out that it had been rezoned, I didn't know about it. Nobody is obligated to buy the newspaper that put the notices in, I didn't know about it until the variance that Mr. McCarthy wanted. We fmd that we had no people trying to buy in or the people that were there were there because it was their home and t hey had made it their home. When we started getting water back into the area and the landfill is going to be capped, it is going to be beautiful, then this is when commercial and industrial want to come m. I can understand how the people that bought under light industrial feel but what aborn the people that have been there and have gone through all these hardships, there are plenty of them, from the landfill and the compost and papers flying through the air and the garbage flying the air also up into the trees. We should be considered as human beings, not just people. We are human beings just like everybody else and we have a right to a good quality of life. I can understand how the businesses would like to come in but it would be against residential people that are living there and that has made it their home. And it has been said that it is not appropriate for living but we are there, been there for a long time. And this is why I wasn't going to get up tonight because I am angry and I, but I couldn't sit there and just let people think that we are not interested in what is going on around us, I am June 3, 2003 Church Lane Moratorium 16 lost for words because I, as I said before, I am angry about the whole thing. You are not putting yourself in our spot. As the Indian said, walk in our shoes for a mile. We have had it and we have been promised many things but none of them have come forth. With the water coming down when it ralns~ it sits there. And you know stagnant water brings mosquitoes. Let us have some solutions and maybe by the moratorium, we will get some solutions. But just think about the people and our quality of life. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mrs. Cross. Are there any other comments fi:om the floor on this public hearing? Mr. Stepnoski. ANGELO STEPNOSKI: I am Angelo Stepnoski, I have one of the commercial properties in the Church Lane area. I just wanted to put a face on this that i am going to be one of the people that will be negatively impacted if this moratorium leads to a rezoning to residential. We have every intention to be a good neighbor, to clean it up, to make it look much better than it does now. As far as the water goes, I have a good well on my property, it has been tested, it is Suffolk County Health Department approved. So the water isn't an issue, I just wanted to let you people know that Tom said most of what I would have said ifI got up first. And I just wanted to put a face to this that I am one of the people that is going to be hurt if this is rezone& We have nothing against the neighborhood, we are not going to make the neighborhood worse, we are going to do our best to improve that neighborhood. Thank yotl. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. Stepnoski. Are there any fumher comments fi:om the floor on this public hearing? (No response) Comments from the Board? COUNCILMAN RICTHER: Yes. Here again, I feel compelled to say a few things. First, this is a ve~ difficult position that we are in. I see reason and belief on both sides. You know that I have been opposed to a change of zone over a period of time because I believe that it is truly a land use issue. I think when they did the zoning back in 1989, when they rezoned, some of the property, most of it was C-1 prior to that and I thought that was an appropriate place. I don't think, in any decision that i make, in this specific instance or any instance, tiffs is a total land use issue. One of the things that I have given way to recently and Mr. McCarthy spoke very well and hit on a number of points, the Town of Southold, the reason that they are there and they are looking to develop is that the business or the commercial or the light industrial areas in this Town are becoming vew limited. So we are looking for, people with business are looking for properties to develop, to put their businesses on. And this should be promoted. In order to survive as a town, you need to have business property. I also understand that people live in an area have to be respectful. In a number of occasions, I have quoted that throughout this Town we have mixed use of commercial or business property that intercede with residential right next door or across the street and it happens on a quite regular basis throughout the Tow~, that is what this Town is made up of. This situation is very difficult, I am sitting up here and I am listening to everyone and I am listening to two different sides and both sides make points. One of the things that I have mentioned in our talks recently is that I will concede to an assessment of the property in the areas surrounding the landfill. The reason for that, someone said before, why would you change property, zonings of property. Well, things change in the Town. Property and the Town Boards, that is why nothing is in perpetuity, they have the right to change. Maybe 20-30 years from now there will be other properties and I am sure before that period of time that will be rezoned. So things change in the Town. The way that a town appears, the way it grows, so you need to have that June 3, 2003 Church Lane Moratorium 17 flexibility. One of the tl'fmgs that I have been told, this will be a bias free assessment of the area around the landfill. If that is the case, I am willing to go along with that, with that four month extension. I don't think a four month moratorium on the property really handcuffs anyone. It has to be done in that period of time, otherwise it becomes a stall tactic and it is not legitimate, as far as I am concerned. I would hope that the firm that we have hired will come out with a very honest opinion which should be used, used around that landfill. So that is my positign right now. Thank you for listening. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Councilman Richter. Any comments from the Board? (No response) We will close this public hearing. Southold Town Clerk