Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB-09/24/2003-SSOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD SPECIAL MEETING September 24, 2003 9:00 A.M. Present: Supervisor Joshua Y. Horton (arrived at 10:00 A.M.), Justice Louisa P. Evans, Councilman William D. Moore, Councilman Craig A. Richter (left at 9:50 A.M.), Councilman John M. Romanelli, Councilman Thomas H. Wickham. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Before we get too much of a head of steam, I want some time to present some stuff myself, John. ! don't want this to be monopolized. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Okay. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I don't need a lot of time. What I want to do is, I would like to summarize, on one page really, the Blue Ribbon Commission report. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Okay. Let's go through (inaudible). Over the time period, ! tried to listen to what is going on, tried to come up with a plan that would address more than one issue. This front page of basically what we are talking about is a compromise over-view plan, is the title at this point. ! tried to address affordable housing, permanent affordable housing. Of course, we tried to address the preservation of the 80%, the goals, the equity concerns of the land-owners and also took into consideration the density reduction goal. ! also took into consideration a lot of the Blue Ribbon Commission items, the goals were of course one of them and also and it is not listed on here but ! believe the annual reporting should go on for the Planning Department. Let's go through what ! have planned. Start with the AHD district, ! gave everyone a copy of the AHD code .... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: So somebody has already done this legal stuff?. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: ! have been working on this, yes. And these are concepts, if you turn to the next page, the concepts of the existing... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Well, I have been out of this loop. Could you just summarize, not the legal stuffbut... COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Do you want me to summarize the whole plan and then we will go back to the details? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Yeah. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: The summarized plan, I gave you the legislative intent. We go to number two on that first page of the compromise plan. September 24, 2003 Special Town Board Meeting 2 COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Which one? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: One is the legislative intent. Affordable housing, I am going to say it again, I tried to address affordable housing. Okay, #2, the overlay district. I want to create an overlay district that consists of the Community Preservation Fund map, all the parcels on that map and the AG inventory, 1999. Those two maps are up there. I asked Valerie and John Sep, they prepared those maps, so we see what that acreage looks like. So it goes across zoning boundaries, it covers anything on that 2% map and the farmland inventory map. Okay, that would be the concept of the overlay zone. The uses allowed in that overlay zone would be single family homes with conditions against the, to prevent the Southampton monster house. Give a building envelope for the house to be put on so you don't have these massive homes on the big lots. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: You mean, you are going to limit the size of the home. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Limit the size of the building envelope. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Oh, the building envelope. Not the home. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Right. The envelope would in essence limit the size of the home. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Because of the setback. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Right. Again, the use of the agricultural operations, that are currently the AC zone now, so you have single family homes and the AC uses that are in there now, the wineries the same uses that are in the current code now for wineries. So they don't change in the overlay district, so we would just take those uses and bring them part of the overlay district. Okay. Special exceptions, and if we looked at the uses in AC and R rating now, there is a whole list of uses. There are churches, there is schools, cemeteries, day care centers, retirements, so ! say, strike all that out and make it single family residences and then any AG uses that we currently exist or allow in the town. If you turn to page four, you go to special exceptions... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: So this is still part of the allowable uses? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Yes. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: So the allowable uses are single-family homes, agricultural operations, wineries, special exception uses, accessory uses? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Right, okay. Those are the uses that I propose that would be allowed in the overlay zone. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Can we just talk about this? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Absolutely. September 24, 2003 Special Town Board Meeting COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: from the current AC zone? 3 What would be different from the current, how would it be different COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: The current AC zone allows single family residences .... COUNCILMAN WlCKHAM: Well, that is here. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: It allows additional... COUNCILMAN WlCKHAM: That is what I meant. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Licensed daycare at the churches, schools, health clinics... COUNCILMAN MOORE: Things like Peconic Landing. Hospitals, nursing homes .... COUNCILMAN WlCKHAM: It doesn't sound terribly damaging to me. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: I will just print out those users. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: What else? COUNCILMAN MOORE: That was one of their suggestions... JUSTICE EVANS: Basically, it sounds like what you are doing is leaving residential and agricultural. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: That is it, that is all you are talking about. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: No cemeteries, no schools, that kind of thing. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Right, no multi-family buildings. So that is where we are going with the uses in that district, as simple and clean as it gets. JUSTICE EVANS: Are the uses that you have taken out, are they provided elsewhere in the code, in the zone? COUNICLMAN ROMANELLI: Yeah, there are other districts that they are allowed in. JUSTICE EVANS: Well, just to make sure because you have to allow them somewhere. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: This is helpful, it would be nice to have a little list of what is being taken out. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Greg is going to print that out right now. What the allowable uses are now and you can actually go down and see what is in there. If you go to the next... September 24, 2003 Special Town Board Meeting 4 COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Excuse me, this overlay district would include all the area currently in the 1999 Ag inventory and the Open Space Preservation list? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Right. That is all mapped on the GIS, all those parcels are mapped on the GIS system. A lot of those parcels are on the same list. A good portion, if you will look at the map are on both the 2% list .... MELISSA SPIRO: All of the 1999 .... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: So we are really just talking about the CPS list, then? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Yeah, to make it clear, say you are on both lists. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Now the CPS list gets updated from time to time, right? MS. SPIRO: It is getting updated at any time now. You need a public hearing but...there was one CPS update that was mandatory during a certain time frame, we did that and now from what ! understand it can be updated if we wanted to tomorrow. COUNCILMAN MOORE: We were pretty expansive in that first go round. MS. SPIRO: We generated the CPS map on the computer and it is basically computer generated and we use different lists that we have to put them all on there... COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Originally when ! was talking to Valerie and John about since the moratorium was on subdivisions, let's just address the further sub dividable lands. Okay? And when ! saw that map, it took in a lot of parcels, like maybe down on Nassau Point there might have been a 4 acre plot that was further sub dividable and ! looked at that and said, that is not our intent. It was more the large tracts of open space was the reason for the moratorium, not these smaller parcels. ! didn't think that they should be included in the overlays. ! didn't want to effect an area like Nassau Point, or Pequash or Hog's Neck where you had a three-acre parcel that potentially was further sub dividable. So that is why ! went more to, after conversations with Val, let's change it. That is where we ended up going with the 2% map and the Ag inventory map. We thought that it covered all sensitive lands and large tracts. If you just want to go to the next page, ! just talked about the bulk schedule, the bulk schedule and ! didn't say it but here it is. The bulk schedule for the area in that land, don't jump at this because there is more to go, would be the five acre bulk schedule, go on to your third page as a compromise. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: So in other words, this overlay district would be in effect, five acre zoning? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: In effect. Now there is more to come, so let's don't just stop there, okay? Any subdivision lot in that district must be a cluster, with a maximum lot size of one acre. It could be smaller, but a maximum of one acre. The subdivision open space shall be made part of a single lot. September 24, 2003 Special Town Board Meeting COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: The subdivision open space, you mean the reserve open space in the subdivision, is that what you mean? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Right, must be part of a single lot. The 20 acre parcel that you have, you would have three main parcels. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: In other words, this is the one large lot concept? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Yes, the covenant restrictions placed on that large lot outside of the building envelope would be the same that we put on the PDR program now. Next it says, the number of lots that could be created would be by a yield map. One of the large lots should be created with an attached single envelope for a large lot containing all the subdivision open space. That is really saying the same thing. If you flip to the next page... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: All of the lots created should be attached as a building envelope, one of the lots that could be created would have a building envelope. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: The number of lots that could be created shall be determined from the yield map. One of the lots that could be created shall be attached as a building envelope to the large lot containing all the subdivision open space. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Okay. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: It is really saying the same thing twice. The next part is sort of the twist that ! liked, plus a provision for an additional lot for immediate family member with permanent affordability covered in restrictions attached to it. So anybody affected by the upzone, ! will try to explain it, any body affected by the overlay zone, that goes to the five acre zone, by a matter of right will get one additional lot. Without going to the Town Board for approval... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: One additional, no matter how large the parcel is? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: You automatically get one lot. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: No matter how big or small the parcel is? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: As long as you are above five acres. JUSTICE EVANS: But would it have to be in a certain area, or anywhere on the property? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: My view on that is, you would have to go to the Planning Board for siting of the lot but you have it by matter of right, you are not going to the Planning Board to find out if you have it, you are going to the Planning Board to find out where we could site it. The subdivision application would get one additional lot, now what that does if you read the conditions, at least 75% of the parcel is preserved; down from 80%. So five acres only gives you 80% preservation if you cluster them together. If we give you that one extra lot, we will loosen the preservation a little bit and say that you have 5% more land to build on so you can add that extra lot. September 24, 2003 Special Town Board Meeting 6 COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: But to actually calculate how much you reduce the preservation ratio, it is a complicated weighted number based on how large the parcels are. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: True. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: If you have a huge parcel, that one additional lot is almost nothing. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Well, let's go further. Okay? Sort of the covenants on that lot or the restrictions on that lot, is that it could be built for your children, it could be built for your farm labor, you don't have to build it to be affordable. You have to build on affordable criteria. The covenant only goes on it when you go to sell that lot or that building that you put on that lot. That is when the covenant kicks in that it must be sold within the parameters of affordable criteria. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: So until then, it is free to be built and use any way that you want? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Right, you want to put labor help in it, you want to build it for your children, you want to build it and rent it... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Or you want a fancy house. The affordability... COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: That home must be built within the affordable criteria... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: ! thought that you said that would only kick in when you go to sell it? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: The home must be built under the affordable criteria, okay? To the size limits and modifications and if you look at our code it gives you the income level that needs to be able to buy that house, so you have to keep that in mind when you build it. You are not going to build a large house and then go to sell it under the income levels required... COUNCILMAN MOORE: Unless you are really kind. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Right, unless you are really kind, that is exactly right. So when you go to sell it, you are putting an affordable lot back on the market. In the meantime, you don't have to do it for that, you can use it for farm labor or use it for your children. You can give it to your kids but when it is sold, it falls back to that criteria to the covenants and restrictions put on the deed. Number 7, if you go down that page, we talk about exclusions and exceptions. ! have a little note here next to mine and ! always use it as the Dorowski case, a family that years ago, a few years back sold development rights to 75% of their land, cut out a four or five acre parcel but didn't file the further subdivision map to create the four separate lots; they should be exempt if they happen to lay in this overlay zone. Except for the five acres. MS. SPIRO: It is not guaranteed that they get a subdivision... COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Exempt from the requirements that they would have to ... JUSTICE EVANS: And how is this determined? Through files in the Planning Board department? September 24, 2003 Special Town Board Meeting 7 COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: That is how I would believe it would be done. COUNCILMAN MOORE: As of a certain date. VALERIE SCOPAZ, PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Well, we know when everything has been sold. We have a record of that. COUNCILMAN MOORE: ! am sorry? MS. SCOPAZ: We know when the development fights have been sold. We have those records. JUSTICE EVANS: So that when you look at a map, it won't necessarily show them. MS. SPIRO: Right, but when you do the research, when it comes in you can easily piece it together. JUSTICE EVANS: It will be in the files there, so you know... COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: There are not thousands of them, either. MS. SCOPAZ: Normally part of the research in the Planning Office, when we get an application to subdivide, we normally check those things anyway. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: This point 7A, those parcels on which 80% has already been permanently preserved suppose a person has a 20 acre parcel. You sell the development rights on 80%, 16 acres of it; the remainder of that parcel would qualify under this exemption, right? However, as soon as you sell the development rights, they create a new parcel. COUNCILMAN MOORE: They start a new tax map parcel, in some instances you set-off, you go to the Planning Board, you set off the four acres you are talking about. Lot one and lot two is the 14 or 16 acres, in other instances you just walk into 16 of my 20 and the County assigns specific numbers and establishes, in the Planning Board parlance, it is not a separate parcel. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: ! would like to listen to Melissa on this. MS. SPIRO: ! believe what the intent of what you are saying is, here is the big parcel, somebody came in, they sold off 80% of the development rights, yes you are going to have different tax map numbers and all of that stuff but the intent was that it used to be one big chunk and that they should be able to come in. That is what your intent is, ! think that we can write that so that it is very clear because parcel, lot .... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Well, we can write it but can we track it. MS. SPIRO: Definitely we can track it. COUNCILMAN MOORE: We did an appeal last night, the Kaloski appeal was exactly... September 24, 2003 Special Town Board Meeting MS. SPIRe: No, it was not. COUNCILMAN MOORE: In a sense, their argument was that they came in... MS. SPIRO: That seven acre lot was not part of the ones where they sold the development rights. This is not what we are talking about. COUNCILMAN MOORE: Okay. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: In the situation that ! am trying to describe, the cut-off... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Okay, the point is that we can track this. Despite the fact that the.. MS. SPIRO: The one thing that ! would like to point out that means that most of the development rights that we have done in the past are not conserving 80% of the parcel. You know, there are 72's%... COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: ! will be quite honest, ! put 80% in there; that is open for discussion. We think that it should be closer to 75% or 70%, ! put 80% there because that is the goal. That we put that out there, if we want to lower that because years past we didn't have that goal, that is what we are here to talk about. That is the only reason that 80% is in there because of the goal that we set. MS. SCOPAZ: Well, what actually you have is stating it from this day forward that future, that anything in the past you will bless it because we didn't have a goal but you can say that from this day forward, the 80% requirement is in effect. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Right, something like that instead of going backward, anybody that came in with intent is handled... MS. SPIRe: That is through your subdivision, the problem is if you have a subdivision somewhere in here you are talking about that anyway, it is two separate things. This was addressed in the past. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: B just says that these parcels with executed contracts dated prior to the effective day...forget about that. Turn the page one more time and we are just talking about exemptions, exclusions, any parcel under five acres we are not trying to catch. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Even though that is sub-dividable? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Even though it is further sub-dividable. And maybe we ought to address them in a different manner but as far as my intent here, ! wasn't looking at that, ! was looking more at large tracts and the sensitive lands. These are any parcel zoned R-400, of course goes with larger. Hamlet Density... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: What are you saying here? Any parcels... COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: ..excluded. September 24, 2003 Special Town Board Meeting 9 COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: These are to be excluded? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Right. From the overlay zone. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: So the ten acre, that is mostly Orient and places like that. Hamlet Density, AHD. Why did you delete the next two? You were thinking of them and then decided not to? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Yes, just to put them out there and I deleted them out. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Aren't these almost trivial, because they have to be on the AG inventory list, don't they? MS. SPIRO: Some of them are. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: The Marine? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Well, maybe the Marine but there are some Hamlet Density parcels. There might be a Marine on the 2% map. I am not quite sure, I would have to look at that a little closer. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: From a practical point of view, it is going to incorporate the AC zone, the R-80 and the R-40. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: And the HD. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Is there any land on the CPS list in AHD? MS. SPIRO: Yes. When we did the CPS, we did anything over 2 acres... COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Actually, I said HD because I have been debating that in my own head for a while. Do you keep the HD in or do you keep it out? And my last draft, I made this exclusion that it was out of the overlay zone. MS. SPIRO: You may want to do a review of the CPS map prior to... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Deciding on this. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Right, I have looked at it myself, there are some parcels on there that we might want... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: From a practical point of view, the great bulk of this land is going to be in the AC zone, R-80 and there is about 150 acres also in the R-40 zone. Isn't that a little... COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Yes, the bulk of our Office space in the land is AC in town, is our AC and our R-80. so by nature, that is the way that it is going to be. September 24, 2003 Special Town Board Meeting 10 COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: When we talked about this a few weeks ago, there is 157 acres, isn't there? That was in the R-40... COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: In the AG inventory study. MS. SPIRO: Right, so the CPS is probably going to be larger than that because the AG inventory when they subset, and we could easily calculate.. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: I asked for a map showing the AG inventory, the Community Preservation Fund, on one map in different colors so that we know exactly which is which. We have separate maps, I wanted one map to overlay them on top of each other. John is working on that. There are, what I though should be added conceptually. If in a RID, those covered parcels with no more than 5% agricultural structures may sell, and sell 100% of the parcel with no cutouts except for the small lots, I will read that again. If you are in a RID (Rural Incentive District), you joined the RID, the parcel covered, with no more than 5% Ag structures and you sell 100% of the land except for the Ag structure area and where your single family house is. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Why not use whatever criteria that we have for preserved lands? Whatever criteria that we have for preserved lands, wouldn't that go in the RID? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Let me go further and then we can go back to that. Let's just go down to what does this mean? Under the bulk schedule the total number of lots within the PDR sales price, would be calculated on a 20 acre parcel, there would be four lots, so on a 20 acre parcel there would be four lots. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: So we are assuming five acre zoning? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: In the overlay district. Yes, that is correct. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: So the whole RID, even at the outset, would start with five acre zoning. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Hold on. Then the applicant will receive credit for his affordable home, remember that we are going to give him an affordable lot by a matter of right then the number of lots, which would be five--because you have the four plus the one; would be multiplied by 1.25%. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: That is just not going to fly with me. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: There would be no partial credit. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: This is totally .... COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Just listen. We can go back, this is a first time draft, hearing it. This is not... September 24, 2003 Special Town Board Meeting 11 COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: But this whole RID in this page is based on a five acre yield, am I right? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Yes, it is. Yes, and number two I have, if left RID, if the owner left the RID, he will not be able to take that 100% incentive with him, if he leaves, he leaves. Again, an allowable use, agriculture use is currently the AC zone. That is my version of a RID. You preserve 100% minus your structure and your Ag structures, that gets carved out but then you preserve the rest of the working farm. In essence, we will give you a 25% dwelling unit bonus on top of your yield map allowable plus your affordable, we will count that affordable lot that is given as a matter of right into a 25% increased dwelling units and that is how the dollar value for development rights would be calculated. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: There is a lot in this that ! can agree to but ! will have real trouble with that. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: This one here, Tom, this is my first conceptual plan. If you would like to and ! don't ask for it right now because you are not prepared but if you would like to set another meeting up at the end of the week or early next week to keep this thing rolling with your concepts for RID, let's sit back down at this table and do it. This was my first draft, my first shot, my first concept on it. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: It seems to me that for preserved property, reserved property in subdivisions and PDR property, RID type property; ! think that it would be helpful to have one common set of restrictions, that would apply to all of them. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: ! think that ! sort of do. As you go through this, all the covenants and restrictions would be the same on that reserved preservation. If it was sold by development rights, if it was the cut-out from the yield on an upzone for the large lot, they have the same covenant restrictions as the PDR program. If you are in the RID or same covenant restrictions would fall on that land also. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Let me say, ! am open, ! mean ! would want to think about it a little bit but ! am open to the idea of a 5% agricultural structure allowance. ! think that is, ! think it is going to be useful for us to come up with a number and that... COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: To be honest, it was a shot in the dark... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I did a little work on this before, remember you and I were going to spend a little time on it and there is some logic in differentiating between permanent structures and temporary structures and being more generous with temporary structures and more restrictive with permanent structures. But anyway, ! think that this is a useful... COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: And that argument is a well-made argument, as far as ! am concerned. A temporary greenhouse has less...with the 25% increase in dwelling units, ! was trying to address the equity issue. September 24, 2003 Special Town Board Meeting 12 COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Is that 25% or one more per lot, per parcel? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: 25%, everyone gets one lot as a matter of right for their affordable use but then we will add 25% dwelling units on top of that. So, if you have a 50 acre parcel if you do the math, it gets to close to three acre zoning as you get up to a large parcel. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Say that again. Run the example past me again. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: A 50 acre parcel, five acre zoning, you are down to 10 lots, now you get plus one. You have 11 lots because you are affordable. 11 time 25% is 2.75. So you get two lots more, alright? So now you are talking 13, now that was 2.75 that ! rounded down to two. ! am willing to make the argument that we round up to the nearest acreage, as far as ! am concerned. That gets you really close to three acre zoning on that parcel, or again, sale of development rights not for development but sale in the RID in development rights. JUSTICE EVANS: And you are not looking at the real yield. Say you have a big parcel, farmlands but there is also wetlands there and that you wouldn't.., are you taking that into account if your yield came way down on that or no? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: ! would go by how we are currently doing it. There has been talk back and forth that we are not counting wet lands... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: The answer is no, that land is not calculated as yield. That is how our planning group works. That is excluded from yield. COUNCILMAN MOORE: Even if you sell the development rights, you don't get the credit. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: That is correct, it is out. MS. SPIRO: We end up owning the land in which there are wetlands... COUNCILMAN MOORE: ! understand. MS. SPIRO: We don't pay them for it. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: ! didn't even think about that, honestly. ! just thought that we would continue doing it the way that we are doing it. So when you work the RID through and on the larger parcels, you get closer to three acre on a 20 acre parcel, in essence four acre zoning. Again, on sale of development rights. So, it is in some way addressing the equity side of the argument and yet the Town is getting the preservation.. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: It is trying to mitigate the ill-effects of a five acre upzoning, basically. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: For the person who wants to preserve, absolutely. For the conservation minded, preservation minded person, it is mitigating the situation. And that is my attempt. That is the compromise that ! am trying to put forward, as let's mitigate it in some manner. September 24, 2003 Special Town Board Meeting 13 And the only other item that I put together here is that I went through the AHD code with the help of Greg on this one and we all talk about permanent affordability, and if we are going to create affordable lots, how do we address permanent affordability? And most of the code is currently what is in our code book as you read through it. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: ! can't deal with this this morning, could you just summarize what the changes are? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: That maybe we talked about putting accessory apartments in this code, right now an affordable home can't have an accessory apartment. ! thought that maybe we could talk about if a new home is built for affordability, do we want to allow it to have... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: This whole, these pages, deal only with the affordable housing district. The allowable uses and the requirements and restrictions etc. for those building in the affordable housing district. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Or building on this affordable lot that in my plan would be given. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Would this new lot that you would give in your plan be in an affordable housing district or would it be in this new overlay district? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: It would be in the district but with each home.. JUSTICE EVANS: In which district? When you say, be in the district? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: He is asking, ! said that we are going to create an affordable lot. think that what Tom is asking is, will that affordable lot be zone AHD by itself in the middle of the overlay district or .... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Or would it be in the overlay district? TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: That is something that obviously the group can talk about. The one thought originally currently in here right now, is that the way, or in the other one that John was laying out, the overlay district, is that the way that affordability would be protected would be that it would incorporate the contents which are in here but you burden it with a covenant restriction on the property; filed with the County so anybody could show up with a (inaudible) report, it would be enforceable by the Planning Board or the Town Board or the Community Development Director who currently runs this, to enforce that affordability clause, Tom. If it turned out that you... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Okay. Would it be in the affordable housing district? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: It would be in the overlay district but it would be treated like the affordable housing district parcel in the middle of it; ! don't know, ! don't know the answer to that. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: In fact, it can probably be done either way. September 24, 2003 Special Town Board Meeting 14 COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: It probably can be done either way. I am looking to just create that, create that opportunity. JUSTICE EVANS: We would have to have a trigger, if someone goes to sell that house, how can it COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: That is sort of going to be addressed here. Again, the accessory apartments were just a thought. MS. SCOPAZ: ! just had an idea. In some places, when you create a separate lot with this, it just get automatic rezone, so to speak. It is labeled as an affordable housing district, so maybe that is an option to look at. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Right, that is something that we can work through. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: So all these pages are basically what is already in our code? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Right. ! will go through the changes. That is all ! want to go through is the changes. The one change where you see it goes from 50% to 75%, all that is really saying is our current code says that if you are doing an affordable housing project at least 50%, ! want to raise it to 75%. The next page has the eligibility requirements. It says there was a change; you work and reside, ! want to give preference to volunteer firemen, our EMT squad and teachers in the school district. ! always thought that was the argument from the crowd, our volunteer firemen can't find a place to live, we are not going to have EMT's; so let's give them priority on this list. You must work and reside in the town, our current code says one year, ! choose to change that to five years and you must be... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: This is five years going backwards. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Going backwards. That is D, 1 and 2. They both really say the same thing, one is work and reside, one is reside and work. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: The difference is five. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Five and the eligibility. We don't have anything in there now about priority for EMT's, volunteer firemen and schoolteachers. That is one of the major differences. TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Just one thing, Tom. On number one versus number two. The number one criteria is you both work and live in Town and number two was you work or live in the Town. MS. SCOPAZ: Say that again, Greg. ! didn't follow that. TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: The original criteria was that the entire priority was you both work and live in Town, the next priority was work or live in Town. So, that is the difference between one and two. September 24, 2003 Special Town Board Meeting 15 COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: If you go on to the next page, it says the dwelling units in the AHD district reserved for moderate income families must, we took out the word may, must be resold to moderate income families. And a big change, that the owner shall work with the director in determining the eligible moderate income families under the rules... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Work with the director? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: That to me, goes down to the fact that, ! am assuming and ! believe it has to happen, that we have a Director of Housing. That deals with future affordable housing problems and growth and the situation. They will maintain the list of eligible people, they will maintain where the lots are... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: The owner of each of these units shall work with the Director, is that what we are saying? Is that what we mean by the owner? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Yes. The owner of the unit, when he goes to sell, when he re-sold, must be re-sold to someone on the list. Okay. Is the language perfect, maybe not but that is the concept trying to get forward there. And the last page that has all the big changes on it is really, that is just to say that there will be covenant restrictions filed on that parcel with the County, with the Planning Board, with the Director of Affordable Housing so that it can't fall through the cracks that it is being re-sold. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: So this is just a legal hold? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Yes, that C and R's will be put on the property. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Without wanting to sound critical, first of all, that is fine. I mean, most of it sounds helpful to me but it really only addresses affordability in the affordable housing districts. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: No, it addresses any new affordable housing district and any new affordable lot created by... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: This new overlay district. But it really doesn't deal with affordability in conventional subdivisions. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: No. It does because if someone came into the Town with a conventional affordable housing subdivision like we have done in the past.. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: No, with a conventional subdivision. Not a conventional affordable housing. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: It addresses when anyone comes in with a conventional subdivision, it does say, it does give the potential to have at least one affordable lot on any subdivision. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Is that in here? September 24, 2003 Special Town Board Meeting 16 COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Yes, that additional lot that... MS. SPIRO: The family lot. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: That is if it comes in through this overlay district? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: If you are in that overlay district and you come in for a subdivision, does it guarantee... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Because somebody might not want to use that extra... JUSTICE EVANS: The plan is not trying to speak to the affordability problem. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: It doesn't address the affordability problem as a whole for Southold Town, it may be mitigates a little bit but the potential for, and if that lot is going to be created, that is what it is going to be created for. Again, it is going to be created for that or it is going to be created for labor help or a rental but it can never be sold to anybody who does not fit income levels that we address in the affordable housing district. So, that will limit the size of the house .... JUSTICE EVANS: It can be... COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: It can be gifted, I put down that it could be gifted to immediate family. But again, if that immediate family goes to sell it, they are stuck under those criterias. MS. SCOPAZ: Can ! ask one question? Does this also provide for the Town to, on it's own, on a hamlet area to be pro-active and actually rezone properties to this? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: It is an AHD. To me this is just a first step for the affordability, I know that you and ! had talks about the halo zones and hamlet zones and all that kind of stuff and ! feel that that is where you might make the biggest bite out of the apple on affordable housing in this Town. But we will take that argument for another day. ! spoke to Pat Cleary the other day and asked him to think about how much he would want to charge the Town to be hired as a consultant to create halo hamlet zones. ! said that we are going to ask the question eventually, start thinking about the number. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: When he met with us, we explored that with him. In our Committee. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Right. ! had a phone call with him the other day and said, have you got anything yet and if not, you have got to come up with a number to bring before the Town Board and let's don't stop it at these changes, let's get him on board to help us create the halo zones and the hamlet zones and again, that is the bigger chunk that will really have the deeper effect on affordable housing. But this gives us a step in the direction, it also answers that question of the farm labor, ! want to have a house for my children, so it gives that lot that we are talking about creating by a matter of right. Answers a lot of questions that came about at the public hearings. Again, it is that first step. That in essence is my plan in concept. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Okay, can we all digest this and think about it? There are some elements here that it seems to me are worth pursuing. September 24, 2003 Special Town Board Meeting 17 COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: My only response to what you said there, Tom, was that I don't expect everyone to walk away saying this is great, let's go. But ! would like to say, let's digest, let's look at it and ! would like to meet, say Monday again and come forward with changes to what ! have put forward or if you have a different concept or idea that you want to put forward, let's meet back here Monday, 9:00 and hear the other ideas or concepts because ! feel that ! have put a lot of effort and time into it. ! think that ! have addressed a lot of issues, ! am feeling that if no one has any better ideas or concepts, then let's move out. ! am not saying that ! don't want to hear your ideas or concepts but let's don't drag it. Let's meet again, ! will do it Friday or Monday, ! will give you to Monday to read and digest and talk about it, if you have questions you can call me and ! will answer any of them, explain it again. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Could we take a few minutes before we go to...I would like to, not really new ideas. ! just wanted to, everybody quotes the Blue Ribbon Commission, we heard about it 100 times last night. ! thought that it might be smart for us to go back to that. ! summarized like a table of contents on the first page, ! photocopied the whole thing--all seven pages, which is by the way quite a difference from a thousand page of a DGIS, which ! find totally indigestible. There is something to be said for brevity, even if it isn't perfect. ! included on the first page the recommendations from it and ! just thought ! would review it with the Board as a basis of where we came before the whole process got caught up in the DGEIS process. First, of course we established the goals which were 80, 80 and 60. And we also, it wasn't officially a goal but it was a stated right in the report and it was a stated part of our deliberation that there would be no substantial equity loss. Now we all know that nobody can predict what the market is going to do and we also understand that there might be some loss at some stage but there would be no substantial long term loss. Now, the 80 and 80 were separate, that is not 80 for the combined open space and farm land but there would be a preservation of 80% farmland and 80% of open space. The tools to do it: the first tool that we thought was important is to codify the conservation subdivision process or at least to institutionalize it somehow in Town government. At the moment it is kind of hanging out there in a rather tenuous state. The rural incentive district we felt was important and unlike what John has proposed, it was assumed that it would begin at the current zoning and if there were to be an upzoning somewhere in Town, people would have an opportunity to get in the zone, in the RID at the current zoning. Not only assumed, it was stated that way, in our discussions. The purchase of development rights and open space, the current program is important and should be continued and there was some modifications that were proposed to that current program. One of them is, the issuance of preservation credits, some of which could be re-joined to the land. That would facilitate a lot of rather innovative things that could be done with joining development and moving development in certain areas to others. The use of those preservation credits in change of zone decisions, ! will give you... COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Can ! just stop you for one second, Tom. The established goal that you have in number one is to establish the 80, 80, 60; with no substantial equity loss. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: ! am not saying no equity loss at all. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Right, as ! was going to say as ! explained as ! was going forward. What ! put forward with the way that the RID would work out with the incentive lots... September 24, 2003 Special Town Board Meeting 18 COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Would comply with this. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Would comply with that. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Good. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: It would come close to meeting that substantial equity loss. If the upzoning meets the 80, 80, 60 goal. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: If it does meet with this, it would make it much easier, for me at least to come together on it. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: ! will tell you that ! had my own copy of this with me because ! have used it, met some of the goals that were in there. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Good. Let's keep going. The purchase of development rights and open space, the current program of course would continue. Proposed modifications to the program: we proposed the issuance of preservation credits that would allow a certain amount of flexibility in how this is used. For example, the change of zone decision. If there is a person asking for a down zoning to get additional density, we could make them be required to purchase preservation credits. Preservation credits to country inns or some other ways that would help finance the program, as John repeatedly said, having to buy everything. Buying and selling preservation credits on the open market to permit non-contiguous clusters. Perhaps rewards of longevity in the RID, if people want to stay in the RID for 100 years, give them a few preservation credits at the end of that time. That is just some ideas, it isn't that we have to do all of these but those were some of the things that the Blue Ribbon Commission and there probably a lot more innovative things that we could do, if the Board sat down and talked about it. Zone changes were tools that the Blue Ribbon Commission thought about seriously. The final report proposes that any zone changes be contingent upon progress in meeting our goals; any zone change- contingent upon progress...let's go through these first. Let's start with the last one: quarterly Town Board review and structured decisions regarding a need for a zone change. If we are meeting our goals without needing the zone change, let's not make the zone change but we should have a structured quarterly review and if we are not making our goals or whatever goals we set, then the zone change would kick in. That is what point A, contingent upon the progress of meeting the goals means. And secondly, any zone change that we would put in place should lag by at least a year, after the inception of the RID. This assumes that we would have the current zoning in place when the RID is established. Which is different, ! guess from what you are proposing? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Right, but the bottom line is it is different but I think the bottom line is, you get back to the established goal, you have a front and I think in the end where we are trying to mitigate the equity loss claimed by an upzone, so in essence where you are saying one way-we have a different way of getting there but I think that we are both saying let's mitigate that loss. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Well, we will take a look at it. Point C is strengthening the Town's planning and preservation capacity. There was nothing much in the DGEIS about this because that all seems to be oriented towards legislation that the Town Board would do but I view this as perhaps the most important, one of the most important recommendations that came out of this and one of the most September 24, 2003 Special Town Board Meeting 19 important needs in the Town. This is strengthened our planning and preservation capacity. This is not legislation. Read what it says. Systematic monitoring and reporting on a quarterly basis should be done on applications received, acres, dollars; we should retain conservation advisors, we need to strengthen the staff, the budgets and the interdepartmental coordination. All three. We haven't addressed it and it is not in the documents that we have been really talking about. COUNCILMAN MOORE: I agree. I think this is a good time now, because we are waiting for the Supervisor's budget. So that very topic that you are talking about will be addressed there. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: We are just about finished actually, we are reviewing the Blue Ribbon Commission final report and we are right at the bottom of it, actually. Costs and timetables of preservation and the numbers have been batted back and forth. I have, on the very last page of this, about two or three months ago made a revised estimate and you can look at that when you want. It is very different from the numbers in the FGEIS and the DGEIS, I don't really want to get wrangling this morning about those numbers but they are all supported with assumptions and you may not agree with the assumptions and then of course the numbers don't follow but at least there is a different set of numbers here that follow from a structured set of assumptions and I would like you to just take a look at it. But I don't really want to get tangled up in that this morning. E., Information meetings, I thought and the Blue Ribbon Commission thought were critical to doing this, if you are going to try to make these changes in the Town, there needs to be more than just a perfunctory public hearings and then the code amendments. Attached is a copy of the Commission report, including by the way a list on one of the appendices back here the voting records on each of the particular items under discussion. SUPERVISOR HORTON: A question that I wanted to bounce to the Planning staff and this is something that you might be able to answer right away, maybe it is already in place and maybe it is not but I know I was in conversation with Supervisor Heaney, Southampton and I asked him if they have this in place and that is regardless of what the zoning is, regardless of what it is; in the subdivision code and maybe you can answer this or any of our lawyer people, is there a requirement in our current subdivision code that requires a full environmental impact statement on any full yield subdivision application that comes in? MS. SCOPAZ: No, it is not a specific requirement. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Is that something that we can add? MS. SCOPAZ: (inaudible) proposed at one time here... COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Before we get too far off the track, Josh, I am sorry... SUPERVISOR HORTON: I just want to get that answered, is that something that we can...what is the amount of work that would go into requiring that? I know that wasn't reviewed as one of the 43 tools but it is something that I think is within our purview to implement, to have a full environmental impact statement, full yield subdivision that would come before the Town. At the expense of the applicant. COUNCILMAN MOORE: (Inaudible) It is inappropriate to summarily decide that a particular type of application, without doing any analysis, presumes the need for a full impact statement. You have September 24, 2003 Special Town Board Meeting 20 already, you have taken two steps down in an entire environmental review process. Theoretically, the argument would come that you are doing it to punish someone for coming with a full yield, we are going to drag you through the process, we are going to take you kicking and screaming... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: You are right, Bill but... COUNCILMAN MOORE: Not to say that you can't require it and I assure you from my days on the other side of the lectern, the applicants went through that process. I will give you one instance. I own a small lot in the existing subdivision, done back in the 1960's and the Trustees had me do an environmental impact statement for a single house, when I first got married and was going to set up my place here in Town, to the point where I paid a man to count birds... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: What was the logic? COUNCILMAN MOORE: for a single family dwelling. They thought that my house was going to have an adverse impact on the headlands of the creek there down by (inaudible) so ! spent over $5,000 in the early 1980's for an impact statement for one house. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: The way to do this, if we wanted to do it... COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Wait, before we go on to something... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Give him a chance before... COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Well, I wanted to ask him a question before we get too far away from this. COUNCILMAN MOORE: They decided that particular house, in that location .... the DEC and the State changed the regulations to eliminate that kind of thing. But anyway.. SUPERVISOR HORTON: The reason that I put it out there, in regard to the subdivision code that we discussed quite a bit even prior to moratorium or even prior to the ElS being conducted, is that in an overhaul which is something that you have requested and recommended for some time now, in an overhaul of the subdivision code is that something that you as a planner, and you don't even have to answer this right now... MS. SCOPAZ: ! would like to answer it. The only way that ! am aware of that you can require that because as Bill explained, you cannot do it just summarily but if the Town were for instance, to declare a special groundwater protection area zone or were to say that if farmland was a critical environmental area, as designated by State legislation and it was to call it that; then you could say that any action in this area might require a full environmental statement. COUNCILMAN MOORE: And even then it creates a presumption, if the application comes in for some small project, that department whether Planning or Zoning or whoever or Town Board or whatever the applicant had to come before could say, this project doesn't satisfy the presumption, you don't have to do it; the presumption doesn't trigger. September 24, 2003 21 Special Town Board Meeting MS. SCOPAZ: All you can do is say that any action is a Type ! action, that is all you can say. And when it is a Type I, you have to take a very hard look. SUPERVISOR HORTON: The reason that ! put it out there is regardless of what the zoning is in place, it seems to me that you almost want a mechanism in place that so many subdivision applications, they are unique to the specific area. And do you want to place that can, do you want something in the code that can automatically trigger. You take an area like Hog Neck, which is on a number of levels, environmentally sensitive and as well access area so, with that specific area would you want that conditioned upon environmental review or... MS. SCOPAZ: That is something that you can look at. Definitely. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Would you like us to run through everything again so you can catch up? SUPERVISOR HORTON: No, ! will let you go on with your conversation. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: ! will go over, later, if you would like, what ! have put together. SUPERVISOR HORTON: ! will definitely give this a read. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Critical environmental area is a weighted area. JUSTICE EVANS: They don't trigger automatically anymore. COUNCILMAN MOORE: ! know. The Town has to designate those on a map. So anybody who walks in, those are the critical environmental areas. Having so designated them, it then creates a presumption that an action in that thing is a Type ! it presumes that it could have a significant impact. TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Which is disprovable by the applicant. COUNCILMAN MOORE: It is disprovable. You cannot make it automatic. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: However, Josh's idea is, whether you can do it exactly the way that he is proposing it but the idea is a valid way to try to make full (inaudible) subdivisions less numerous and less attractive and put the incentives .... COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: ...justify it because of that and you then... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: ! am not saying you have to do it as an environmental thing... COUNCILMAN MOORE: That is a punishment process because you have chosen to exercise your rights for full yield. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Or to put incentives on the other side. September 24, 2003 Special Town Board Meeting 22 SUPERVISOR HORTON: No, no. That is not at all... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: That is where I am coming from. SUPERVISOR HORTON: I want to clarify where I am coming from. I asked the question, is it appropriate in our subdivision code, regardless of the zoning to mandate a full environmental impact statement or environmental review in that process. MS. SCOPAZ: You can't mandate, you can only... SUPERVISOR HORTON: Could we put our feelers out for other communities that... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Why do you react negatively to the idea of making a full... COUNCILMAN MOORE: You can't sit there and say... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: You can't be arbitrary about it but why can't we structure in incentives? He has just structured in an incentive, if you do an RID, you can get this and you can get that. COUNCILMAN MOORE: You are using a State environmental tool to address... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: No, I don't want to use a State environmental tool. Let's find some other tools. But let's find some way to discourage full intensity subdivisions and to promote preservation. COUNCILMAN MOORE: And the way you do that, is you create incentives to do other things. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Correct. And dis-incentives to do the wrong things. What is wrong with that? SUPERVISOR HORTON: This is where it is at right now, the question that ! posed was can we codify, can we necessitate or have in legislative language requiring a full environmental impact statement within our subdivision code? That was the question. Tom put out there, ! think thinking freely, expressing himself freely; had his idea. Bill brought in some other points to counter that or to highlight that, so ! just ask that that is something that the Planning Department start actively... MS. SCOPAZ: What ! can do is send a copy to Southampton, ! will send a copy to each of them and explain how it is set up. That they set up a CEA in a Type ! area (inaudible) but ! will confirm it. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. Very good. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Before we go any further, are there any questions on what I put forward? If there is, ! will answer them. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: As I said, we need to digest them. September 24, 2003 Special Town Board Meeting COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: think about it. 23 Alright. Do we want to set a meeting for Monday? To digest it, to SUPERVISOR HORTON: If you are going to do it, could you do it after Tuesday, again please. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Okay. Tuesday morning? SUPERVISOR HORTON: ! prefer Thursday, Thursday midday. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: That is over a week away, ! can do it Monday, Tuesday. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Let's do Wednesday. That is a week away. SUPERVISOR HORTON: ! would like to see Thursday afternoon. JUSTICE EVANS: ! can do mornings, ! can't do afternoons. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thursday morning. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: ! would like it sooner, ! would like to continue... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: John, there is a lot of stuff to digest here. He hasn't even seen it yet. SUPERVISOR HORTON: ! can digest it quickly. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: This is two special meetings, in between two regularly scheduled meetings. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Absolutely. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: ! think that that is unprecedented. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: It is not that it is unprecedented, it is very important stuff that has .... let's keep it rolling. SUPERVISOR HORTON: There is nothing wrong with setting a special meeting. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: So, one week from tomorrow. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: ! have ideas, ! am willing to get other ideas. ! am willing to hear these ideas critiqued. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thursday morning. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Morning is better for you? JUSTICE EVANS: Mornings are much better for me. September 24, 2003 Special Town Board Meeting 24 SUPERVISOR HORTON: Is Thursday morning okay? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: No sooner for anybody? JUSTICE EVANS: ! wouldn't mind doing it sooner but... COUNCILMAN MOORE: Hopefully, we will have our ideas in writing before hand. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: So Thursday's meeting will be with presentations and ideas .... or new concepts that someone is going to bring to the table. SUPERVISOR HORTON: ! will rearrange my schedule Thursday morning. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: That is a long way off, to keep this thing moving. JUSTICE EVANS: Well, if anyone else has ideas or concepts to address this, let's have it beforehand, so that we can look at them and be ready to discuss when we come in. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: That is what ! want, ! don't just want to have another meeting so that we can.., we can come forward with true, hard facts. SUPERVISOR HORTON: We will meet Thursday morning. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: If anybody has anything... SUPERVISOR HORTON: Stop trying to railroad the Board, we have agreed on Thursday morning. JUSTICE EVANS: No, no. He is not trying to .... SUPERVISOR HORTON: Well, that is the way that it feels, ! have made a very specific point that Tuesday ! am delivering the budget. ! made it here this morning, ! can be here Thursday morning. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Okay, fine. There is not attempt to railroad. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thursday morning, 10:00 A.M. MS. SCOPAZ: Can ! just mention a couple of things. There are some maps that you may want to use when you are reviewing whatever. We have had several maps printed and they are available. The one that is behind you is the Community Preservation Project Plan, the other one behind the Supervisor is the Farmland Inventory, the one next to it with all the names on top of it is a composite of this map. It shows potential target areas for preservation development. Two Town Board meetings ago, we were asked to create a map that showed all the subdividable open space and all the subdividable farmland. The subdividable farmland is identical to the 1999 farmland inventory that has been updated. The subdividable open space is whatever was not in the inventory. This map is essentially what you see on the Community Preservation Project Plan, as land targeted for acquisition. We also on this map show September 24, 2003 Special Town Board Meeting 25 the non-subdividable parcels because there was some question as to which portions of those were less than two times the zoning. I just want you to know that this map is here. The one that is on the wall, over there has superimposed on it the water main map which was recently updated by the Suffolk County Water Authority in terms of, what is different about it is that it is showing more mains put in. This one shows that map, superimposed over the one that I just showed you here. SUPERVISOR HORTON: We need to adjourn into public meeting, to set, pass a resolution passing the public meeting. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: All I can say is, we will meet Thursday at 10:00 or 9:00, it doesn't matter, I will make my schedule work. If anybody has any ideas, comments, have them in writing prior and I will say that from my last couple of months, Valerie; if there are any questions, she has more maps and data in that office of hers to help you out with anything. Chick has been very helpful. I spoke to him and to Pat. MS. SCOPAZ: I am available, anybody can call me or make an appointment. There is lots of information here, there are lots of maps and they are helpful. We have a lot of visual stuff. I am going to try to put as much of it up in the hall as I can. But just so that the general public can come in and look at them. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Let's move into the public meeting. Are there any members of the public that would like to address the Board on the resolution setting the public meeting, special work session? (No response) #645 Moved by Supervisor Horton, seconded by Councilman Moore, it was RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby sets Thursda¥~ October 2~ 2003 at 10:00 a.m. in the Meeting Hall at the Southold Town Hall~ 53095 Main Road~ Southold~ N.Y. as the time and place for a special Town Board meeting for the purposes of discussing the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy and ideas and planning tools aimed at achieving the Comprehensive Planning Goals of the Town and for any other Town business. Vote of the Town Board: Aye: Councilman Wickham, Councilman Romanelli, Councilman Moore, Justice Evans, Supervisor Horton. This resolution was duly ADOPTED. #646 Moved by Supervisor Horton, seconded by Justice Evans, it was RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby rescinds Resolution 626 adopted at the September 23~ 2003 regular Town Board meeting: WHEREAS the Town Board wishes to appoint a hearing officer to consider disciplinary charges against an employee, now therefore be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby retains Mary C. Wilsom Esquire~ as hearing officer in the disciplinary charges brought against a town employee, and be it further September 24, 2003 Special Town Board Meeting RESOLVED that the Town Clerk be directed to forward a copy of this resolution to Richard K. Zuckerman, Esq. Vote of the Town Board: Ay(:: Councilman Wickham, Councilman Romanelli, Councilman Moore, Justice Evans, Supervisor Horton. This resolution was duly ADOPTED. 26 #647 Moved by Councilman Wickham, seconded by Justice Evans, it was WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to appoint a Hearing Officer to consider disciplinary charges against an employee and suspending that employee without pay pursuant to the Civil Service Law; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby appoints Marv C. Wilson. ESQ. as the Hearin\! Officer in the disciplinary char\!cs brou\!ht a\!ainst a Town employee: and FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby suspends the employee without pay for not more than thirty days pending the determination of the charges effective the day after the charges are served upon the employee; and RESOLVED that the Town Clerk be directed to forward a copy of this resolution to Richard Zuckerman, Esq. Vote of the Town Board: Ay'~: Councilman Wickham, Councilman Romanelli, Councilman Moore, Justice Evans, Supervisor Horton. This resolution was duly ADOPTED. Moved by Supervisor Horton, seconded by Justice Evans, it was RESOLVED that this Special Meeting of the Southold Town Board be and hereby is adjourned. Vote of the Town Board: Aye: Councilman Wickham, Councilman Romanelli, Councilman Moore, Justice Evans, Supervisor Horton. This resolution was duly ADOPTED. * * * * * ~~ Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk