HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Comm.1987 LOCAL LAW NO. 1987'
A Local Law to establish a Landmark
Preservation Commission and to prescribe its dutie~
BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows:
I.' Chapter 56 of the Code of the Town of Southold, designated Landmark Preservation
and originally adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Southold on January
18, 1983, as Local Law No. 1 of 1983-, is hereby repealed in:its entirely and the
following Landmark Preservation Law, to be known as Chapter 56'of the Code of
the Town of Southold, be and hereby is 'enacted in its place and stead:
Section 56-1. Short Title
This' chapter shall be known and · may be cited, as the "Landmark
Preservation Law of Southold Town".
Section 56-2. Declaration of Purpose and Policy
The Town Board finds there exists in-the Town of Southold structures,
buildings and sit~s of hisl~oric or architectural significance, antiquity,
uniqueness of exterior design or construction, which should be conserved,
protected and preserved to preserve the architectural character of Southold
Town, contribute to the aesthetic value of the Town, and promote the general
good, welfare, health and safety of the Town and its residents. Therefore, it is
the purpose and policy of this chapter to establish a Landmark Preservation
Commission and the procedures which it can follow to assist Southold Town
owners of .buildings, structures and sitAs in' order to conserve, protect and
preserve such structures, buildings and sites thereby preserving the unique
character of Southold Town which will' substantial'ly improve property and
commercial values in the Town and make its hamlets even better places in which
to live.
Section 56-3. Definitions
As used in' this Chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings
indi cared:
COMMISSION --The Landmark Preservation Commission established pursuant to
this 'Chapter.
EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES - The architectural style, design,
general arrangement and components of all of the outer surfaces of any building
or structure.
HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE - The quality of a building, structure or site
based upon its identification witfi historic' persons or events in the Town of
Southold.
ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE - The quality of a building or structure based
on its date of erection, style and scarcity of same, quality of design, present
condition and appearance or other characteristics that embody the distinctive
characteris{ics of a type, period or method of construction.
LANDMARK - Any structure, building or site which has historical or
architectural significance.
LANDMARK DESIGNATION - The designation of a Landmark pursuant to the
provisions of this Chapter. ..
STRUCTURE - Any assembly of materials, forming a construction framed Of
component structural parts for occupancy Or use, including buildings.
Section 56-4. Landmark Preservation Commission
There is hereby created a Landmark Preservation C(~mmission which shaJ!
consist of a minimum of five (5) members to be appointed by the Town
Board, to serve without compensation. These members shall consist of the
following, to the extent availa'ble in the community: an architect
engineer; an historian; a licensed real estate broker; an attorney; a
resident of an historic district; a resident who has demonstrated
significant interest in' and commitment to the field of historic preservation
evidenced either by involvement in' a local historic preservation group,
employment or volunteer activity in' the field of historic'preservatioh, or
other serious interest in'the fleld.i Ail' members shall have a known interest
in: his(oric~ preservation and architectural development within' the Town of
Southold.
The term of office of each member appointed to said Commission shall be
two (2) years, provided, however, that of those members first appointed,
three (3) shall be appointed for one (1) year, and two (2) shall be
appointed for two ~2) years. If'a vacancy occurs other than by expiration
of a term, it shall be filled by the Town Board by appointment to the
unexpired term.
Meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public.' Meetings of the
Commission shall be held monthly at such times as the Commission may
determine, or .at the call of the Chairman, or at the request of two
members. A majority of the authorized members of the Commission shall
constitute a .quorum for the transaction of business. The Commission shall
keep written minutes of its meetings, showing the vote of each member
upon all questions voted upon, and such minutes, toge'ther with all records
of the Commission shall be promptly filed with the Town Clerk.
The Commission shall recommend from its members, for Town Board
approval, a Chairman who shall serve for a term of one year, or until his'
successor is appointed.
The Commission may incur such expenses in the performance of its duties
as may be authorized and appropriated by the Town Board.
Section 56-5. Dutie~ of the Commission
The duties of the Commission shall include:
Employment with Town Board approval of staff and professional consultants
as necessary to carry out the duties of the Commission.
Promulgation, with Town Board approval, of rules and regulations as
necessary for the conduct of its business.
Adoption of certain criteria for the identification of significant historic;
architectural, and cultural landmarks.
Conduct of surveys of significant historic, architectural, and cultural
landmarks within~the Town.
E. Designation of identified buildings, structures and sites as landmarks.
Acceptance, with Town Board approval, of the donatioh of facade
easements and development rights; the making of recommendations to the
Town government concerning the acquisi'ti0n of facade easements or other
interests in real property as necessary to carry out the purposes of this
act.
Increasing public awareness of the {/alue of historicj cultural and
architectural preservation by developing and participating in public
education programs.
Making recommendations to the Town government concerning the utilization
of state, federal or private funds to promote the preservation within the
Town.
Recommending acquisition of a landmark structure by the Town government
where its preservation is'essential' to the purposes of this act and where
private preservation is not feasible.
Approval or disapproval of applications for Certificates of Appropriatness
pursuant to this act.
Section 56-6. Landmark Designation
A. The commission may designate an individual property as landmark if'it:
1. Possesses special character or! historic or aesthetic interest or value
as part of the cultural, politii:al, economic or social history of the
locality, region, state or nationl; or
2. Is identified with hisl~oric persohages; or
Embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style;
or
Is the contribution of a designer whose creation has significantly
influenced an age; or
Represents an established and familia~ visual feature of this
neighborhood, because of a unique location or singular physical
characteris~ic;
The Commission may designate a group of properties an historic distric{ if
it:
contains properties which meet one or more of the criteria for
designation of a landmark; and
2. by reason of possessing suct~ qualities, it constitutes a disl~inct
section of Town.
The boundaries of each historic' dilstric~ designated henceforth shall be
specified in' detail and shall be filed, in writing, in the Town Clerk's
Office for public information. The Town Clerk shall forward reports to the
Planning Board, the Building Department and the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
Notice of a proposed designation shall be sent by registered mail 'to the
owner of the property proposed for: designation, describing the property
proposed and announcing a public hearing by the Commissioner' to consider
the designation. Where the proposed, designation involves so many owners
that individual notice is'not feasible, notice may instead be published at
least once in a newspaper of general circulation and at least thirty (30)
days prior to the date of the public hearing. After the Commission has
issued notice of a proposed designation, no'building or demolition permits
shall be issued by the building inspector until 'the Commission has made its
decision.
The Commission shall hold a public:, hearing prioP to designation of any
landmark. The Commission, owners and any interested parties may present
testimony or documentary evidence ~t the hearing which will become part
of a record regarding the historic, architectural, or cultural importance of
the proposed landmark. The hearing record may also contain'staff reports,
public comments, or other evidence. Staff reports will be made availa'ble to
the public. A decision shall be rendered within thirty (30) days after the
close of the hearing.
The designation of property, as a Designated Landmark, pursuant to the
provisions of the Chapter shall not become effective until such property is
entered in Register of Designated Landmarks and filed with the Town
Clerk. The Town Clerk shall forward reports to the Planning Board, the
Building Department and the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Section 56-7. Review of Alterations, Demolition or New Construction Affecting
Landmarks or His[oric'Dis[ricts
Certificate of Appropriateness - No person shall carry out any exterior
alteration, restoration, reconstruction, demolition, new construction or
moving of landmark, nor shall any person make any material' changes in its
appearance, its light fixtures, signs, sidewalks, fences, steps, paving or
other exterior elements visible from a public street or alley which affect
the appearance and cohesiveness of the landmark, without first obtaining a
Certificate of Appropriat~eness from the Landmark Preservation Commission.
B. Criteria for Approval of a Certificate of Approprial~eness
In passing upon an application for a Certifibate of Appropriateness,
the Landmark Preservation Commission shall not consider changes to
inl~erioF spaces, ' unless they are open to the public, or to
architectural features that are not visible from a public' street or
alley.
The Commission's decisioh' shall be based upon the following
pti ni:iples:
Properties which
shall be retained,
possible; ·
contribute to the character of the landmark
with their historic'features altered as little as
lb). Any alterations of an existing landmark shall be compatible with
/tS historic 'character; and
lc). New construction on the property shall be compatible with the
other features of the landmark.
In applying the principle of compatibility, the Commission shall
consider the following factors:
la). The general design, character and appropriateness to the
property of the proposed alteration or new construction.
lb). The scale of proposed alteration or new construction in' relation
to the property itself.
Texture, materials, and color and their relation to similar
f_eatures of other proper'ties in the neighborhood.
{d).
Vist~al compati bi'Ii ty with surrounding properties, in~:luding
proportion of the property's front facade, proportion and
arrangement of windows and the rhythmic spacing of other
properties on the street, including setback.
le). The importance of historic, architectural or other features to the
significance of the property.
C. Certificate of Appropriateness Application Procedure
Prior to the commencement of any work requiri'ng Certificate of
Appropriateness the owner shall file an application for such a
Certificate with the Landmark Preservation Commission, The
application shall contain:
(a). Name, address and telephone number of applicant.
[b). Location of property.
(c). Elevation drawings of proposed changes, if available.
(d). Perspective drawings,
properti es i f 'avai lable.
in~:luding relationship to adjacent
(e). Any other information which the Commission may deem necessary
in order to visualize the proposed work.
-4-
No building permit 'shall be issued for such proposed work until
a Certificate of Appropriateness has first been issued by the
Landmark Preservation Commission. The Certificate of
Appropriateness required by this act shall be in addition to and
not in' lieu of an3/ building permit 'that may be required by any
other ordinance of the Town of $outhold.
The Commission shall approve, deny, approve the permit with
modifi~:ations or schedule a hearing within ten [10)' working days
from receipt of the completed application. The CommisSion may
hold a public hearing on the application at which an opportunity
will be provided for proponents and opponents of the application
to present their'views.
All decisions of the Commission shall be in'writing. A copy shall
be sent to the applicant by regis[ered mail and a copy filed with
the Town Clerk's office for public inspection. The Commission's
decision shall state the reasons for denying or modifying any
application.
D. Hardship Criteria '
An applicant whose Certifi~;ate of Appropriateness has been denied may
apply for relief from the Landmark Designation on the grounds that
designation is' working a hardship upon himself. In order to prove the
existence of hardship~ the applicant shall establish that:
The property is incapable of earning a reasonable return, regardless
of whether that return represents the most profitable return possible;
The property cannot be adapted for any other use, whether by the
current owner or by a purchaser, which would result in'a reasonable
return; and
Efforts to find a purchaser interested in' acquiring the property and
preserving it 'have failed; or
4. Maintenance of the property as a private residence, becomes
unaffordable.
E. Hardship Application Procedure
After receiving written notifi~:ation from the Commission of the denial
of a .Certificate of Appropriateness, an applicant may commence the
hardship process.. No building permit or demolition permit shall be
issued unless the Commission makes a finding that a hardship'exists.
The Commission shall hold a public' hearing on the hardship
application at which an opportunity will be provided for proponents
and opponents of the application to present their views.
The applicant shall consult in' good faith with the Commission, local
preservation groups and interested parties in a diligent effort to seek
an alternative that will result in' preservation of the property.
All decisions of the Commission shall be in'writihg. A copy shall be
sent to the applicant by registered mail and a copy filed with the
Town Clerk's Office for public'inspection. The Commission's decision
shall state the reason for granting or denying the hardship
application.
F. Enforcement
All work performed pursuant to a Cert'ificate of Appropriateness issued
under this ordinance shall conform to any requirements including therein.
It shall be the duty of the Building Inspector to inspect periodically any
such work to assure 'compliance. In- th~ event work is found that is not
being performed in' accordance with the Certificate of Appropriateness, or
upon notification of such fact by the Landmark Preservation Commission,
the Building Inspector shall issue' a stop work order and all work shall
immediately cease. No further work shall be undertaken on the project as
long as a stop work order is in effect.
G. Maintenance and Repair Required
Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to prevent the ordinary
maintenance and repair of any exterior architectural feature of a landmark
or proper.ty which does not include a change in design or outward
appearance.
No owner or person with an interest in real property designated as a
landmark or included within'a historic dis'/rict shall permit the property to
fall into a serious disrepair so as to result in' the deterioration of any
exteriol~ architectural feature which would, in the judgment of the
Landmark Preservation Commission, produce a detrimental effect upon the
character of the property itself.
Examples of such deterioratioh in~:lude:
1. Deterioration of exterior walls or other vertical supports.
2. Deterioration of roofs or other horizontal members.
3. Deterioration of exterior chimneys.
Deterioration or crumbling of exterior stucco or mortar.
Ineffective waterproofing of exterio/- walls, roofs, or foundations,
in~:luding broken windows or doors.
Deterioration of any feature so as to create a hazardous conditibn
which could lead to the claim' that demolition is' necessary for the
public 'safety.
H. Violations
Failure to comply with any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be
deemed a violation and the violator shall be liable to a fine of not less
than $250.00 nor more than $500.00 for each day the violation
continues.
Any person who demolishes, alters, constructs or pern~its a
designated property to fall into a serioas state of disrepair in
violation of this ordinance shall be required to restore the property
and its site to its appearance prior to the violation. Any action to
enforce this'subsection shall be brought by the Town Attorney. This
civil 'remedy shall be in addition to and not in' lieu of any criminal
prosecution and penalty.
I. Appeals
Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Landmark Preservation
Commission relating to hardship or a Certificate of Appropriateness may,
within fifteen (15) days of the decision, file a written application with the
Town Board for review of the decision. The Town Board may confirm,
reject, or modify the decision.
Section 56-8. Termination of Landmark Designation
Whenever a designated landmark is destroyed or its exterioP is altered to such
an extent that it ceases to have architectural significance, the Commission may,
by resolution, dh-ect that it'be removed from the Register of Designated
Landmarks. Prior to taking such action, however, the owner shall be given
written notice of such proposed action, and shall be given an opportunity to
appear before the Town Board and be heard thereon.
Section 56-9. Severability
Each of the foregoing provisions of this chapter has been adopted in' an
endeavor to preserve and extend the public welfare by preserving the
chacteristics of historic and /or architecturally significant structures or sites. In
the event that any portion of this chapter shall be determined invalid; such
determination shall not affect or result in' the invalidity of any other provision
contained in this cb~pter.
II. This Local Law shall take effect upon its filing with the Secretary of State.
PU 13 LI.C HEARING
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
AUGUST 11, 1987'
8:00 P.M.
IN THE MATTER OF A PROPOSED LOCAL LAW ENT. ITLED, "A LOCAL LAW TO ESTAB-
LISH A LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND TO PRESCRIBE ITS DUTIES."
Pres ent:
Supervisor Francis J. Murphy
Justic~ Raymond W. Edwards
Councilman Paul Stouteriburgh
Councilman James A. Schondebare
Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran
Councilman George L. Penny IV
Town. Clerk 'Judith T. Terry
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: I will open this public hearing as it is now 8:00 o'clock.
This is'a proposed "Local.'Law to establish a Landmark Preservation Commission and '
to prescribe its duties." I would like to ask Councilman Schondebare to do the
official' reading of the notice.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: "Public Notice is hereby given that there has been
presented to the Town Board of'the Town of Southold, .Suffolk County, New York,
on the '16th day.0f..June, 191~7, a Local Law entitled, "A Local Law to establish
a Landmark Preservation Commission and to prescribe its duties." Notice is fu'rther
given that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public'hearing on
the aforesaid I~oi:al Law at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York,
on the 11th day of August, 1987, at 8;00 o"clock P.M., at which time.all interested
persons will' be heard."
It/lis quite lengthy' and I would be here for quite some time in reading it.
13asically, since I -helped to ~vork on it to some extent with the Landmark Commission,
what it simply does is to give tne Landmark Commission the ai~ility to designate
a given structure within the Town, or a site within the Town, as being a landmark,
and once that designation is given there are certain rules and procedures, etcetera,
which come into play should the owner of the premises wish to make any repairs
or any changes with regards to the landmark. That is a sum and substance, and
rather short, but that's the gist of the whole ordinance.
I have an affidavit of publication of this ordinance in The Long Island Traveler-
Watchman. I have an affidavit of publication of this ordinance in The Suffolk Times.
I have an affidavit of posting of this ordinance on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board.
We have a letter from the Planning Department of the County of Suffolk which
says that this 'is 'not a matter within the jurisdiction of the Suffolk County Planning
Department.
What we had done in the past. is that we have already had a public hearing
previously on this same Local Law. That is we had put it up once before. We
had a public'hearing on that at that time. A vote was taken at that time and the
results of the vote was three to three in opposition or three in favor and three
opposed, in'which case it failed. You need at least four out of the six up here.
on the dais 'to pass it.' We then, at my request basically, I asked the Board to -
put it back on fOr a second hearing and we requested of the Landmark Preservation
Page 2 - Landmark
Committee to send out notices to all homeowners or property owners whose properties
or hOmes~ could be affected by this'Local Law. So the Landmark Preservation Committee
did'do what we requested. They gave us a lis~ of all the names of the individuals
that they had available, and I realize, and I think the Board members realized,
that it 'might not be complete list and I don't think we think it is a complete list,
but they did'.the best they could at th~ present time, and through the good efforts
of the Town Clerk, Judy Terry, her office sent out al'l the notices and I .think
it 'was '535~'notices went out to various owners that could be identified at ,this stage.
We have for anyone's perusal the responses. They are kept in this file. They
are a pubiic'record, and anyone is entitled to take a look at them. And again,
through the good efforts of the Town Clerk~ we simPly listed how many came~in
in favor, and how many came in'in'opposition. And rather than reading all the
responses that we got, I can just tell you that in'opposition to it 'we got 106 responses.
In favor of the prapbsed law we got 42 responses. So if you sent in'a response
to us it!s in here and we all got copies and we've all seen it and we~ve all read
it.' A number of the responses didlif~ fa'ct:have comments contained thereon. I'm
not going to sit here and read this whole fil~. You are certainly free to come
into ~he Town Clerk's Office and take a look at it 'any time you want. What we're
concerned about here tonight, and what we're basically looking for is the people
whose homes or property could be affected by this~ to state their'opinion to us
if they have not already d~ne so in a letter, or if they wish to say a few more
words they're certainly entitled to do so. What we're looking for is'those people
whose properties are going to be affected by this Local Law.. That's it, Frank.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Jay. What we'd like to do now to giv.e every-
body a chance, and rather than take one side against another side.-on whoosh; in.~
favor and who's not in'favor, I'd like to start in the front on the left~ We'll
m~ove ~o the. back and go in the middle. Move to the back and then over here
on the right. And anyone who would like to comment to the Town Board on this'
proposed Local Law may. So I~d like to ask in the front over here, anyone would
like to address the Town Board? I'd like you to use the mike and identify yourself
so the Town Clerk could make it a part of the record.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Frank, before you begin. I~ve heard on the street
a few times, you want to know where the proposed law came from. And correct
me if I'm wrong, it came from Albany, I believe. It came right out of the State
of New York~ their proposal to us as to what it is ....
ART KENNIFF: It's from New York City.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE:..as to what it 'is or what it would be. New York
City's law?
JOHN STACK; Chairman,'-ra~dka¥'k":~reservation Commission: From New York State.
ART KENNIFF: It's a direct copy of New York City's law.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: New York State. Mr. Stack knows. Where did'tyou
get it-from, the Landmark Commission?
JOHN STACK: Historic Preservation Office of New York State.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Historic Preservation Office in New York State.
that's Where it 'came from.
' ~age 3 - Landmark ,- .... '-~-:'
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: John, maybe you as Chai:rman of the Commission, would
you like to make a comment first?
JOHN STACK; I'd rather do it at the end.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: At the end. Okay, fine. Again I'll move over here to
the first couple of rows,: Is there anyone who would like.to address the Town
Board? Mo~,ing back..second, third, four row? In the rear? Go ahead, Tom.
THOMSEN McGOWAN: Tom McGowan, New Suffolk. Owner of a house that was
built as a church meeting ho~se and for many years served as the New Suffolk
Public:School. First I would like to thank themembers of the Landmark .Preservation
for giving me personally the house. The-material about this proposed law-was
addressed to me. The house is 'actually in'my wife's name, so I am deeply grateful
to the Commission for that favor. Beyond that there is one area of the law that
rather concerns us. It is'an old building. There are, as in all old buildings,
things that from time tO time have to be repaired. Thank God .at the moment we're
able to keep up with it. But we look ahead to the time when I am retired, and
our income is'reduced~ and we wonder where the money is 'going to come from for
some of the maintenance that is 'required. by this ordinance. For example,, the
windows are the large, large size school house windows', which are almost impossible
to get unless you have them handmade. We'worry first if we would not be able
to replace them as they presently are, because there .would be nobody to make
them,, or if we could find somebody, where would the money come from te repair
them? In effect this ordinance will' force people to spend money they don't have
on maintenance under some circumstances as I read this proposed ordinance as
presented to us; Also, while there is'reference in here to hardship cond~ti0ns,
including hardship'in'the sale of the property, what provisi'on is there? How difficult
will=it 'be to obtain an easing of the provisions of the ordinance if.it becomes impossible
to sell the property because of the restrictions placed upon it? These are questions
I don't think the ordinance adequately addresses. A possible, source of funding
to assis~ the homeowner i'n maintaining an historic structure and a clear procedure
which will be possible to carry out to make it possible to sell a property if t. he
time comes When that should be necessary. Those are the. two main' concerns I
would have. Otherwise in general I favor the concept of .this' law and I recognize
that it must have some teeth, but I Would like to see the Board address those concerns
to a further degree. Thank you very much.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Tom. Over on the left, Pat?
PATRICK GORMAN: Members of the Town Board and my fellow neighbors. I have
to..oh, my name is Pat Gorman. I would have to quote, with all due respect to
you Frank, I have to quote John Nickles here in The Suffolk Times this past week
and his 'interpretation of this proposed law, and I intend to agree with him. He
says, "The law is firing the wrong target." And he says the regulations for 1980
buildings being court requirements that are almost impossible to apply to structures
over 100 years of age. And he also says, "The owners shouldn't have to appear
before these numerous regulatory bodies to get relief from building regulations
that should apply to historical structures." And he says:that "current voluntary
Landmark Law has been very effective." Quote Mr. Nickles. I also see here in
the Landmark law that even though the~.it does not even have to have the consent
of the owner before this 'structure can be nominated for a Landmark. In 1940 I
fixed my old shack up in Cutchogue, and because I put a new porch in the front,
and I didn't solici't this; they were going to put a shingle on my house designating
it as something, and it was unsolicited. I didn't want it.' I didn't want the people
going in through my house day and night, and now I' do not want my house to
P'age 4- Landmark "~'
become a public'spectacle for people to be going in and coming at my door every
hour of the day or night. I'm paying my tax. Nobody helps me pay my tax. I'm
repairing my house, and I don~t want to stand here and say that somebody's going
to tell me on this 'Board, or any other Board, how to repairlmy house. How to
paint it. How to structure it. I think we're all free Americans and I thir~k ,t~is .
law i.s arbitrary, and I agree with John. Nickles. I don't know what Frank's reaction
might be. I'm sure we'd like to hear it. But I as one taxpayer am in total dis-
agreement with it, and I echo the sentiments of John Nickles, and I hope some
of the people in tills room will do likewise. Thank you very much.
WARREN CANNON: My name is Warren Cannon. This law. . proposed law..is of
the surrender of property rights that are normally associated with the ownership
of property. I think there are circumstances under this 'that's justified. Two
circumstances. One is where there is'a real obvious recognized .aide, and ~second,
where there are no adequate alternatives. I .don't think either of those circumstances
applie§ yet, today. I don't think we have a situation where we have a loss of
say one percent a year.~f historically or architecturally signi.ficant structures in
the Town. I think it only relates to two or three structures in the last.twenty
years, of real significance, and one of those was a_most:_dubious case. Secondly,
I [hink there are alternatives that really need to be explored' before you force
property owners to sacrifice their rights. You need incentives for registration
and Strong disincentives for deregis[ration. We need flexibility in the application
of 'building codes:to;'~emodeling preservation. And a considerably greater ease
in the processing of the requirements that are imposed in'a law, whether it 'be
voluntary or involuntary.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir. Anyone else on the left like to address
the Town Board? Yes, ma~am.
LISA MEYERHOFF: My name is Lisa Meyerhoff, and I am the Public Relations Consultant
for the Greenport-Southold Chamber of Commerce. I'd like to read a letter into
the record if I may-to Town Board members. "This is to inform the Southold Town
Board that the general membership of the Gre~nport-Southold Chamber of Commerce
is opposed to the proposed local law regarding "Landmark Preservation" being considered
by the Southold Town Board at a public hearing on Tuesday, August 11, 1987.
A vote of the general membership' of the Greenport-Southold Chamber of Commerce
was taken at a regular meeting held on July 20,' 1987 and our members are opposed
to the proposed "Landmark Preservation Law" by a vote of 7 to 1. we hereby
urge the Southold Town Board not to adopt this'proposed local Law." Thank you
very much.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Anyone else on the left? Yes, Jean.
JEAN T[EDKE: I'm Jean Tiedke and I live here in S~uthold. The quality and
varieyt of the built' environment, which is what we're talking about, with which
mankind has surrounded itself over the eons, is just as important as the natural
environment which surrounds us and nurtures us. Both are necessary if mankind
is to survive. Maintaining a connection with our past through careful, careful
implementation of a landmark preservatioh law will' enhance the lives of future generations,
if'we don't sink into the ocean first, which apparently could happen in the next
cehtury. I Wholeheartedly support the concept of your historic preservation' legis-
lation, but I do have some questions and some comments. Some property owners
appear to be concerned that property values will drop if they are labeled a "land-
mark" requiring exterior restrictions. It' seems more likely to me that the opposite
is true. Many people would be delighted to be in an acknowledged historical home,
~. ~, ,.~
"F~age 5 - Landmark '~-~' ,,,'
and property values do increase in these historic homes that are well kept. One
was my aunt's house on the Main Road. It's a beauty. In Section 56-5 of your
legislation, p~ge 2, Section C, it 'says something about certain criteria'are defined.
I could not find the definition. Section D, in the same section, is 'the conduct
of surveys of landmarks, or is it to determine what are the~landmarks? · Now that
to me is 'a crucial' question, because I could not ~gure out what you meant. That's
56-5.D. In 56-6j Landmark Designation, Section C, lines 5 and 6~ Notice of Designation
published once may not be suffici'ent. A number of these houses are.owned .by
people who are out of T~own, or even out of State. Se what do you. call newspapers
of general drculation? Newsday? New York Times? The Suffo.lk Times? The
Traveler? What do you mean? And there should be more than one ad. Section
56-7j' paragraph C, page ~. I think photographs should be added to the bottom
of that as Section F. Section 56-7. G, page, 6, on the maintenance. This 'is a problem
that many of us here in'the room have. Serious disPepair and deterioPation. How
do you define7 How do yeu define it? And how do you determine whether they
affect the charact~er of a property? There's no mention of.incenti~ves to maintain
or improve property, such as tax rebates for a given period of time, or possible
fundipg from federal or state grants, which I understand is'awailable. The Greenport
proposed historic'preservation law allows relief if an economic hardship exists..
Now ~hey tell me an economic'hardship may be difficult, but ,it'S somet:hing that
I think you should explore also. Apparently our law does net include anything
like a hardship clause. Section 57-7. H, page 6, on violations. 'The fines for failure
to comply are unbelie~ab~lA~ Absolutely unbelievable. This 'could add up to $3,000
a month, $6,000 a month. It's impossible
FROM THE AUDIENCE: More like $3,500 a week.
JEAN TIEDKE: I'm sorry, I'm not a good mathematician. It seems to me a much
more practical approach could be found. Couldn't you find a carrot instead of
using a stick? It usually works. Section 2, H, Number 2 is also a threat it seems
to me. It'certainly will not help to swing public opinion to support your landmark
resolution. Again, wouldn't a carrot instead of a stick be better? I do support
your concept, but I think it 'needs study.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Jean. Over on the left?
WILLIAM ESSEKS, ESQ.: My name is Bill Esseks. I'm an attorney, l'm representing
Grace Lewis. I have a couple of minutes to go on this; As I read the law, the
proposed law, it's mandatory. You go into it,' Or'the Commission puts you into
it whether you wish to be there or nott and I think that is the principle basis
why there are people here speaking against. That's why. I'm here speaking against
on behalf of Mrs. Lewis, As I read Section 96-A of the General Municipal Law,
which is the law which allows municipalities and villages, counties and'~owns and
cities to set up landmark commissions, it only can deal with property that abutts
on a p~blic,;.stree~-not on-a p~rivate road, not on a private drive. Mrs. Lewis
owns, I believe eight houses, at least seven of them on private roads, and I believe
they are automatically exempt by statute. I don't ~nd that in your law,.but your
law can be no broader. You get no greater powers than Section 95-A can, and
it is the strict language of 96-A of the General Municipal Law, the cases that interpret
it 'stand to the proposition that houses on private drives or private streets are
not subject to this law, and if'you purport in your law to..l would hope it is the
intent of your law not to cover houses on private drives and s~reets, because that
was the intent and it would clearly violate it. Assuming that that's not your intention,
assuming that you're only purporting to houses or other buildings on public
streets quite different.. Assuming that it's mandatory I believe that the
criteria set-forth in Section 56-6 are so vague that (mike off--repeat~-) I believe
that the criteria for landmark designation set forth in~---~ection 56-6 are so ~ague
Page 6 - Landmark ~'~ ~
that the Commission members could appoint, designate any parcel, and I want to
give you an~.example. Let's start at the bottom: $. ,Represents an established and
familiar visual feature of this neighborhood because of the unique location or singula~
physical characterisliic~'! That can cover anything. It can cover a closed up gas
station, an out house, a potato barn. No matter how attractive, how old, how
new, or how ugly.' It represents an established and familiar visual feature of this
neighborhood. Wouldn'~'t that be an out house? Wouldn't that be a potato barn?
Wouldn't that be crummiest looking old closed down gas station? That's not the
intent, but that's what it 'says, and that's the power that inadvertently the Town
Board would be giving to the Landmark Commission. Number;~sa~zs'~.these are
your criteria, and there's four after each one, so if any one of these ¢~iteria'could
~sult in a parcel being put in a landmark status.. Number 4 says, "Is'the contribution
of a designer whose creation has signi~antly influenced an age." If Philip Johnson
~lesigned the ugliest creatio~ that he ever created and it was in this~community~
because hers a well known person~ that parcel could be-~that building could be
a landmark. That's not the intention. It"s not well drawn, to 'be generously kind.
Item 3, criteria'Number' 3 in~ $6~6 says, "Embodie~ the dis~inguis~in~ characteristics
of an architectural style." Everyt.hing has an architectural style~ It may be an
ugly-~it 'may be an insigriifi~ant-~it 'may be poor--it may be a Io~sy architectural
style~ but everything has som~ degree of architectural style, and that's ~e.t what
was intended. I don't thin~ you intend to give the Commis~io~ the right to say
that any architectural style means that it 'can be pu~ into landmarks. You wouldn't
want to do something like that. 56-A, the third item, says, "Is identified with
his~ori~ personages." What kind of histor~cpersonages? · Good one~? Bad ones?
Mediocre ones? I don~t believe the fa~ that (a) an old person lived there, or
a convicted burgular, embezz]er~ spy. That's not what was intended. You mean
historic personages of certain types of characters, but the drafter of this, whether
it's a state, cit~ County, town or otherwise, he didn't m~an any h. istoric personage.
I assume he meant some qualifications on that~ and not the open check book list
written' here. The first criteria'says, "Special character or historic or aesthetic
interest or value,as part.of the cultural, poiiti~al, economic or social history of
the locality, region, state or nation." I submit that can cover absolutely anything.
I believe that nobody can object~ no one should object, to. a criteria being drafted
that would affect certain' typ.~s of houses that have ce~'tain types of style, and
reasonable people could agree on reasonable language to figure out what those things
should be, and give it 'reasonable latitude, reasonable crit~riaand direction and
good faith in'the members..the good members of the Landmark Committee could
come up with with something that will be valuable to the community. Then you
deal with the question of whether it'~ mandatory or not. If it's going to be mandatory
I think you're going to have to gi~e them taxx abatements for the period of time
that they're forced to be unde~ this status. You're going to have to have a way
to get out of it 'so that when they want to pass it from one. generation to 'another
they're not covered by what is in effect a li~n, a taking, that requires extensive
time to fix it 'up to a certain mode, and e×pensive ways and delays that are incident
to the this type of commission° and what type of appeal that would be done with
it. I submit that it~ a good idea that's gotten off to a bad start. It needs to
go back to the drafting board. Thank you very much.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Anyone else on the left? Anyone else on the left like
to address the Board?
RUSSELL E. MANN: My name is'Mann, Russell E. Mann. I want to go on record
as being very strongly opposed to the proposed q~ote~..landmark preservation law
of $outhold Town. This 'law would deny the owners of homes and properties designated
F~age 7- Landmark
as landmarks of their property rights. The owner has no voice as to whether
or not his home or house or property is a landmark. The Commission would have
this power. That's in Section 56-5, "The duties of the Commission shall include,
designation of identified buildings, structures and sites as landmarks." So I, or
anybody else who has a property in'Southold Town can't say, no, I don't want
to be in this package. Thus the Commission can designate anyone's home as land-
mark. As soon as the desigi~ation is proposed no building permit 'shall be issued.
So if the Commission comes along and says, wet~iwe think this 'house ought to
be in this thing. We propose it. And I need to do a job on my house, I Can't
get a building permit.' That's what the law says. Once your property has been
designated a landmark you can't make any exterior changes without the ,Commission's
approval. And you can quote 56-7',iA., and I Won't take your tim~ to lis1~en.to
me read it because it's in' there and I guess all of yo)u, or most of you, have a
copy of this~ and if 'you don't have a copy I guess the Board has copies that any-
one can get, is'that right?
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Certainly. Everyone, I think, had a marling with
a copy in it.
RUSSELL MANN: Well, all of those who were on the list for proposed desilgnation,
but a lot of people who might be opposed to it 'whether they're on the designated
list or not,
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Might be a lot of people don't even know about
it 'yet.
RUSSELL MANN: Unfortunately some of them don't know about it, but it 'was in
the paper, so I can't blame the Board for that. In summary, this law puts the
property owner at the mercy of the Commission concerning any repair, alteration,
etcetera, that he might need or want to do. And remember the Commission can
designate your property as a landmark, thus they can take away your rights. And
what if 'you don't comply? I think somebody just recently mentioned that you will
be fined no less than $250 a day, or more than $500 a day. That seems to be
an extremely strong penalty. In closing let me say that if my property is designated
a landmark and I want to make a change I'm going to make it.' The Commission
or the Town wants to fine me~ so be it.' I'll take it 'all the way to the Supreme
Court if I have to, because i'm not going to have my property rights taken away
by a law. Now let me say that I'm not outside the spirit 'of this thing because
I bought an old house five years ago that was falling apart and spent a great
deal o[ ~oney bringing it 'up to date. Then I wanted to make an addition, and
without anybody prodding me, I made sure that the addition conformed almost exactly
to the older part of the house, the trim;:the windows, whatever I could. Something
about the windows, as somebody said before, it's hard to get old windows made,
so my windows look a litt'le different, but the trim around them is the same. So
l'm not knocking the idea of keeping the Town looking good, but I can't see my
rights beingl,taken away. Now, I just took off one hat and I.m putting on another.
i'm a member of the Southold American Legion, and remarks I just made were mine.
They're not the Legion~s., The Legion received one of these communications and
the Executive Board of the Legion voted as follows: "1 am not in'favor of the Law."
This recommendation of the Executive Board will be passed on to the Legion member-
ship: The general Legion membership hasn't taken place, but the Executive Board
meeting did, and they're opposed to it, so I can hand this in to you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Russ. Anyone else?
Page 8 - Landmark
ARTHUR TYRRELL: My name is Arthur Tyrrell. I probably own one of the old
buildin§s we're talking about. I want to go on record that I:am strongly in favor
of a Landmark Commission. I differ completely from the previous two speakers,
but I do agree with them, that this 'document is very~badly drafted, and I think
most of the opposition comes basically from the loose drafting. It should be taken
back and redrafted. There is 'every reasson confidence that it will' stick. I
would remind the Board,'which is also in their--- I presume, that the preservation
of historic'areas is a great economic'significance~-~d this should not be overlooked.
If you look at Charleston, South Carolina, Savannah, they are drawing in'millions
of dollars from tourists, because they have preserved t~his historic thing that we
should pireserve here. I fought this document because it 'does not. really set forth
what is 'intended. Basically I do think you .have to have control. I have seen
beautiful Victorian buildings painted in' lurid'purple and shocking pink, and of
course you don't want this. ltrs obvioUS there should be some palette which, is'
acceptable 'but not necessari.ly One that you have to dictate to people. I think
my objections to this 'come mainly under the legal. I think this'is'legally weak.
I think soci~ally it 'is impossible when you suggest that a hardship may be settled
in a public meeting. Y~ou have, according to the economic'report that's just' been
,. almost 40%' of the pOl~ulatio~ are senior citizens. This means that:they .have
retired, probably on a fixed income. Those that have retired say 20 'to 25 years
ago on a completely adequate pensioh now find it rather difficul~ to do these things
that they would like to do. I do believe that you could have drafted ~his sl~owing
that funds would be avai~lable for this--and they should be available whether it's
a case of hardship or not. I'll try to keep this as briefly as I~Ossible. Thirdly,
my objection is political. You say that the commission should 1Se appOinted-~not
elected, appointed, and it should possibly have on its board a~ engineer, hi~[orian,
an architect, a lawyer, and God preserve us, a real estate agent. I- would, have
thought .that this Town Board has had enought to do w'.th appointed thi.ogs that
they would try to avoid'this' I think that this should be absolutely strict. People
should be s~,]e~ted not on this; If they want spedalized experience, then they
should be provided with the funds to engage those people. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the back?
DONALD SPATES: Good evening. My name is Donald Spates, and I reside on
Bayview Road in Southold. My home is under consideration as part of the Landmarks
Law. Hope this sounds all right. It sounded good at home. I would like to say
that I am in complete in agree with the intent of this law being discussed tonight.
I would also say that I am in complete disagreement with the Way the law has been
proposed, for it'a rather than encouraging instrument. In an attempt at brevity
I will not speak ad nausium about the needing of the home in'American tradition,
but will allow this year of the Constitution and the importance Of the sanctity of
the home in that august document to speak for itself. I would rather take this
time at the risk of being characterized as Southold's Rodney D.angerfield, to complain
that I donlt get no respect from the Town Board. Do the architects of this landmarks
document show me that they respect my rights by attempting to remove them from
me~ Do the architects of this landmarks document show respect for my intentions by
composing a document of shall nots and penalties which are just legal threats rather
than encouragment and inbentive~ Do the architects of this landmarks document
show respect for my intelligence in expecting me to surrender to these threats?
At the risk of chidding these members of the Town Board who honestly'have served
our Town in'such selfless fashion~ I say this law is antiquated, i'm its;~offensive
nature. I urge the Town Board to approve a Landmarks Preservation Law, but
not this particular one. Thank you.
Page 9 - Landmark '~ '~'
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir. Anyone else in'the back? If not, moving
into the middle here. In the front rows? Bill~
WILLIAM RULAND: My name is'William Ruland. I live in. Mat~ituck. I too am one
of those houses. To be very brief, I made a written comment, I'd just like to
reiterate to the Town Board that I cannot support, and I hope that you would
not support this local law in this fashion. I find it 'offensive that any land owner's
rights are threatened, especially with the mandatory sense. I think that if 'anyone
voluntarily would ~vant to go into something like' thisj that's all well and good.
But for some arbitrary body to tell any~land owner that this is 'what yob're going
to do,and if you don'[t~do i't~we're, going to fine you,or if,yOu: do what you want,
we're going to fine you. I just don't think that's right and I think that the. Town
should reconsider the whole thing and especially'this 'and. vote it 'down. Thank
you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Anyone else in'the middle here?
PAT BAILEY: My name is Pat Bailey. I just wanted to say that I would like to
go on record as being against this. One'of the things that you recognize is 'the
fact that most people that have sent in'their'letters are against it.' Secondly,
if'the law did go through it would be depreciate rather than appreciate your property,
in'that if ~/ou...~zent to sell it and you had a small house and someone said, gee,
I love this house, I have our kids and I want to put two dormers upstairs. And
you have to say to them, uh, uh, this 'is a landmark. You might have difficulty
getting rid'of your house. Thir~l, I'd like you to recognize the fact that. many,
many houses along the Main Road and all the in-roads have been improved and
people'are making their:houses, the old houses, upgrading them. There are shacks
that have been upgraded to the point where you wonder that it ever was a shack.
Again I feel the same..way he did~ I think it should be on a voluntary basis.
also wonder, and I J-ead the Newsday. In Newsday on the. business section, the
Supreme Court is 'challenging Long Island's--the laws of these municipalities in
that they're saying that the people have not gotten the.rig'ht to use their'land
as they have thought when they bought it 'that they had the right to do. I have
a piece of business property on the Main Road and it's a I~tle old house that I
have not change the structure of, and probably would not, except that it is'business
property. What happens down the road in 25 years when I have passed away or
whatever and my children want to sell that piece of property? It's very valuable,
being on 25. And again I'd like to say I am against .it. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Helen?
HELEN PROUD: Helen Proud of Orient. First of all I want to make sure that
you understand that basically I support this kind of legislation, but I too have
several comments and questions about the current contents. In' the first declaration
of purpose and policy there's a phrase in there which says, "which it 'can follow
to assist Southold Town owners of buildings, structures and sites, in order to
conserve, protect and preserve such structures." The remainder of the law as
I read it does Iitt'le, in my opinion, to assis~ the' owners of such buildings. Regard-
ing the commission. With all due respect to the Town Board, usually the political
appointments of commissions and so forth, follow party lines, which is normal.
don~t see anything in:here about how to remove commissioners. One of the major
things that I also feel may create problems, and I have seen it 'in this 'Town, is
the fact on the penalty to people if they do not maintain these properties. It's
Page 10 - Landmark "~ "-~
all well and good if people can afford to keep up the properties themselves, but
what happens if there is collusion, God help us, among people in Town who see
that somebody has a Landmark Preservation, they cannot make payment, they are
being fined, and somebody else acquires it? At what point is 'there any assistance
to that owner to maintain'their'property rather than be fined? I think those are
my major questions.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Helen. Yes. Mrs. Wickham?
ANN WICKHAM: My name is Ann Wickham. I live in Cutchogue. The Landmark
Preservation Commission has copies of the testimbny I gave at the first hearing
on this subject, and since that hearing, and after reading the intent of the Local
Law I see no reason to change my min~J. I am unalterably to quote, "designating
landmark structures" without the consent of the owner, since i!n this case designating
means regulating. This is'in'.effect the taking of a property to control.it, and
giving nothing in' return. I think I appreciate preserving buildings of historic
interest as much as anyone, 'but there are many such buildings in this'Town, and
the owners by and large take pride in'them. It would seem to me that the only
regulation necessary would be a law regarding demolitibn. Reading through this
new. L(~cal Law one~.gets a sense of severe regulation which would be completely
repugnant to an owner of historic property~ TOo many hearings are called for
which become too long a process. No hearing or decision time. is. scheduled in the
case of hardship; and the fines of $250 to $5'00 a day are frightfully
not to say ridiculous. Do we want this Town taking over control of our homes?
I for one do not.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you.
ALLAN NORDLINGER: I'd like to try to move away from the things that have gone
on before me. My name is Allan. Nordlinger. I am here representing my wife who
owns property on Orchard Street, which is the subject of the notice, and like Russell
Mann, I had some dealings with the American Legion. I'm a member of it, and
I know that a number of the members are unalterably opposed to the law. I want
to say that I endorse heartily'the things that Bill Esseks said, and I go with him
on everything but one point. That is 'that I don't believe in this concept at all
of this kind of a Landmark Preservation Law. I think before you adopt such a
law that you should take into consideration the concept of private property and
constitutional requirements that no one is to be deprived of property without due
process of law, or without just compensation. This has been a part of the American
law for a long, long time. We're celebrating now 200 years of it, and I hate to
see people being depri, ved now of thei. r property without just compensation. This
statute is a big'mouthfull of large words, and I think that we might spend days,
if not weeks and months arguing about what they mean~ but there are some noble
thoughts expressed in your statute. For example, you say that if'you adopt the
law the objective is to preserve the unique character of Southold Town, which
will 'substantially improve property and commercial~values in the Town and make
its hamlets even better places in which to live. Well I'm not at all sure that.it
will'improve/property values in the Town. As a matter of fact, ~in a number of
places where they have Landmark Pr'eservation Laws, the property 'values of the
properties that are designated have deteriorated. But if you do improve the property
values in the Town, then why should you charge the owner with the expense of
maintenance and with fines--small, amounts--if 'he doesn't maintain them? If you
think it will'improve the Town and and will improve everybody, then take it, but
it 'take it 'at everybody!s 'e[xpense. Seems to me that taking it,' requiring of them
to do something, reducing their property value~ is taking without just compensation,
and taking without due process of law. Bill pointed out that the law itself is vague,
and I thoroughly agree with him. As he pointed out, and I would like to repeat,
P~ge tl - Landmark
the way the law is phrased it could mean any building in'the whole place. And
I don~t really know what's magic about some of these old buildings, just because
they're old. I don~t feel great because I'm old. Age has some benefitS, but not
an awful lot. If I walked into Town Hall tomorrow morning with' an application
to build on a piece of property, exactJ¥ the same as many of the 600 that have
been talked about so far. There would be raucous laughter reverberating all up
and down the halls, because, why? You can't build them. The properties are too
small. In' a lot of cases they're only ten feet ~from.the road. A lot of them are
awfully ugly, in my opinion. Perhaps not in' the views of .the commission. And
a lot of them are on plots which don't come up to zoning laws that this Board has
established. This Board says you have to have a good piece property and build
somethirig nic~, and we want it ~to be nice so we improve the property, values. But
if ! came in as a developer and asked you to build 600 .houses of at least two or
three that I think that are on your- rolls, you would really throw me out. Nor~lin~r
is 'nuts.. Leave. So ! think that the standards are not only vague, .as Bill pointed
out, but also they're 'entirely 'subjective. You. know, what's cu!tura!, what's aesthetic,
what's architectural, what's historic~ You and ! can disagree on very easily. And
I'm not at all sure that my views aren't as good as anybody on the Commission,
with all due respect to the Commission, as to what's beautiful a~d what's historic,
and what's cultural, and many of your other b~g wo~ds. R.ut !'Wou!d like to say
that my wif~ opposes and she put in~her letter to the Town Clerk. I know that
a number of peop!e~.~on the American Legion oppose it~ and I oppose it. Thank
you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you.
FREDRICKA WAC:HSBERGER: My name is 'Freddie Wachsberger. I am in'favor
of the law, but there are problems as it is'~:'written ....... designed building elsewhere,
and I must say it gives me a lot of confidence to know that the buildings on my
block are going to stay the same that they are through the Laodmark Designation.
It 'has certainly not damaged the property value of my house, and I'm a frequent
reader of Historic Preservation, the magazine which details' all of the work that's
being done and restoration and designation around the country, and it has been
clearly shown that a great many areas have enjoyed significant appreciation of property
values because of it. As you can see I am speaking in favor of the concept of
this law, and I did' believe that voluntary really is not enough. I think it 'has
been enough so far, and that this 'area has been preserved so far, because it has
been only very recently, with the pressures of development that have taken over.
I think at this point we probably do need a Landmark Preservation Law with teeth,
and I would like to suggest also while I~m speaking for the concept, that all of
us--ail of you who have historic houses probab!y also enjoy the fact that you're
surrounded by historic houses, as I enjoy with my other property. And I think
you want to take a look at the fact that you're not really giving up ybur rights
without gaining something. I agree that there should be financial incentives too,
but I also think you ought to take a look at the fact that you would be gaining
something by being sure that those hisl~oric'houses are going to stay just as beautiful
around you. As far as this'law goes, I agree that there are problems as i~'s written.
I think with that .the Criteria are too loosely defined, but I also think there should
be criteria'for the appointment of the board that would make, these decisions, these
designations. I definitely think that one of the criteria 'should be that there should
be no conflict of interest. That there should be no real estate people, there should
be no construction people, that there should be no one who can in any way derive
any financial' gains or losses from any such designation. That should be specifically
omitted from anybody who is considered for this Commissior~. Thank you.
Page 12 - Landmark
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: ThaOk you.
KEITH JENSEi~I: My name's Keith Jensen. I'm from Southold. I was one of those
people who received a letter, although I~m not sure Ihwas .the right person. What
happened was,the letter was addressed to my name, corner of Hobart and Korn
Road,. I sald, "Well, I live next door to that. My very good neighbors live on
that corner." I Pead the law and letter and mentioned it to my neighbor who~s
a summer person, and she asked to see it,' and in her spare time she went to the
Clerk's Office and wha~ bothered me was, it 'was her house, not mine, although
mine is very similar. That in doing something, like this 'you know where a corner
lot is if you have ata× map. If you know the tax map number you know the. owner.
If he lives in Oshkosh, he lives in Oshkosh,you can mail 'him'the letter. It'bothers
me the fact that letters were sent to people, or not sent to people--of know of
at least one or two other cases--w, here the real owners-did not receive the letters--
what was done with them I don't know. If you're going to .have an organization,
and you're going to have a Landmark Committ'ee, you sbiould be able ,to at least
look at a map and take the numbers down and, take those. 'numbers and tTnd out
who the owner is: Secondly, when she went ~hey showed her a p~cture of her
house. This'picl~ure was not taken from 'the street, it 'was taken from her yard.
She and I Were both very upset in the,fact that someone, and there-'~re agencies
I Understand, that ~can take pictures from w~ith~n' your prope~?ty. Why the picture
taken from within her ~ard would get .to thi,s cemmittee~S~iport~olio I feel is wrong.
That is what scares me. If'you-are going to s~art: something, le,t!~ do it right.
Let's get the numbers, let's ~,et the, prop~ert~eS,i~let's g.et- the owners and start
from there. A lot of people have voiced otl~er objections. M~ only other objection
is I think it is important that we do have a ;Landmark P~eser~ation. Commit~'ee. 1
also fee that it 'should be a voluntary commi.~tee in the T~w~, with inbentives for
the people to make them say, "i Want to be. in:this:" YOU s.l'iot~ld want to be con-
sid'ered, and there has not been anything shown in thatrresp~ct. But I'm worried
about bureaucracy. Thank yo~..
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. I would like to offer the apologies of the
Town for that. We will' look into that aspect. Anyone else in the middle? Sir?
DONALD VAN CLEEF: My name is Donald VanCleef~ and I reside in Orient. Basically
I see merit in the bill that's proposed, but I'd like to speak briefly to the point
that I think there needs to be great differentiation between architectural and historic~
characteristics in'terms of criteria. We happen to live in a house that's less than
50 'years old. As I read the language my sense is that the law would be equally
applicable to a building that was built' yesterday if there were significant architectural
characteristics. My sense is that the bill'was originally put forth to preserve the
historic nature of the Town. I think that as written it 'provides a lot of restriction
on buildings that are relatively new or brand new a~d do not need to be included
to take care of the things that were originally intended. Thank .you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the middle? In the back?
Sir?
WALTER R. CROON, JR.: My name is Walter R. Croon, Jr. I own a home on
Old North Road, which was originally owned by members of the Horton family.
I'm also happy to say l'mLthe owner of a home in Huntington that has been listed
on their List of Historic Dwellings, as well as the National and State Register of
Historic Places. Initially I support the concept of this legislation.' My concern
is in its implementation. Everybody has focused on different areas. I'd like to
make re[erence to Section 56, Subdivision 7-A, Certificate of Appropriateness.
Page 13 - Landmark ~ "~'
To extend the law to include light fixtures, signs, sidewalks, fences, paving,
etcetera, appears to be extreme in its ramifications. For example, we'll make
a application for a light fixture, an application for a TV antenna. The procedure
require for filing of an application, together witl~ perspective drawingsi~to the
Commission, who will act within ten ~orking days of the receipt of the application.
Should the application be denied, relief must be sought under a hardship' criteria,
which requires another application, to be followed by a public hearing. If again
this 'is denied, an appeal to the Town Board is 'to be made within 15 days. There
is 'no reference as to what will happen if'it'S not filed after the 15 days. My criticism
is that the. law extends its jurisdictiob far,beyond the initial' structure, creating
an undue burden to the owner. The Commission, all appointed, act as a.prosecutor,
a judge and a jury in'all matters, relating to the structure. -The hardship cri.teria'
does not.extend itself into all areas of denial. My recommendation' is 'that for the
determination of a structure for landmark status, it 'should be first' listed with
the National and State Registers of H.is~oric:Places. The code should be. limited
to buildings and outi~bQildings, and not to be extended to light; 'fixtures and signs
and fences and steps and paving. As most of the owners of' these properties are
aware o'f these matters and would ordinarily maintain'~hem to be in conformi,ty with
the building. The Commission should make their recommendations directly to the
Town Board, who can approv'~, or deny the Certificate of Appropriateness. As
elected officials they should be the determining factor in the issuance of the certificate,
rather than the Commission who have no accountability to the general public. Thank
you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir. Jim?
JAMES CRON: Thank you, Mr. Murphy. James Cron, representing Joan Mary
Cron who owns some property in New Suffolk. I believe this was sent to her,
although it 'went to Gary Cron, Esq., and unless the Board knows something about
my family I don't, we don't have any Garys. What I would like to point out, this
law basically in'toto is ill'conceived, ill~advised and I'm sure in practice will deteriorate
from there. If you need an example I think we can all conger up what's happening
with the Department of Environmental Conservation, another organization that was
good in intent and very bad in practice. Many of the other speakers had mentioned
the civil ramifications for the failure to comply with the mandatory aspects of this
law. Can we say jail~ As this law also invokes civil 'as well as criminal prosecution
and penalties. I think somebody being thrown in jail for a nice house is a little
absurd. That coQcJ~des my remarks as concerns my client. As concerns myself,
I would like to thank each and every member of the Board who is going to.vote
in'favor of this'law, you're all very good for business. Thank you very much.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. In the rear?
DAVID BRAWNER: My name is David Brawner, and I live with my wife at Main
Road, Orient. Unfortunately the letter I received, it didn't say which of two houses
I own that might be a candidate for designation. I believe probably both. I~m
playing double jeopardy here tonight. I have a lot of problems and a lot of them
have already been covered. I don't know that we should take time tonight to get
in~o all o¢ them. I worked on this project I guess 15 years ago with Charles Webb.
At that time we were unsuccessful in trying, to push through a law, or a change
in regulations, or bring about Building Department restrictions, which would do
some of the things that this law purports to do. The thrust was quite different.
We were thinking in terms of areas. I think they're referred to as historic districts.
There you have a completely different thing then you have with an isolated house
Page 14- Landmark ~ ~'~
located say within--not within four or five miles of another structure--possibly
would be designated. So Charlie and I had different problems. :We obviously were
thinking in terms of protecting the historic registration of Orient Village. My problem,
in spite of being interest in'and in favor of some aspects of preservation as purported
to be done i'n'this law, really starts right basically in the declaration of purpose
and policy. I won't read it, because everybody has it, but there are. certain things
that I jhs~t~started raising red flags right off the bat. By the way, I have my
own attorney here. I didn't know he was going, to be here, and I'm a little intimidated
by the other attorneys, so these are what I consider problems, but I'm not a lawyer.
"Should be conserved, protected and preserved to preserve the architectural character
of Southold Town." Now that's a pretty nice concept. I'm not at all sure I know.,i
Wha~ it says, and 'i'm not sure that the Commission knows what it 'says. If we're
talking about some 600 dwellings, if that is 'the number, 600 dwellings compared,
to how many dwellings that we have in'Southold, is the preservation of those 600
really going to change the agricultural character of Soutbold Town? I think not.
The preservation of Orient Village, or several other homogeneous group of. houses,
certainly will improve or conserve the architectural quaJi~oi~ our ,community. But
a house here and a house there, I don't ~belie~e will really do that.' But let's let
that go for the' moment. Then we-~.and ~o~e pre~ious speaker has~ already mentioned
this--contribute to the aesthetic value of the Town. Now what I may think cont~'ibutes
to the aesthetic value much be a far cry from what somebody else things. I think
that is 'very vague, and really meaningless in this law, unless we are going to
say that any old house, just by the virtue of its antiquity, does contribute to
the aesthetic value of the Town. Ahd then we have phrase her~, "and promote
the general good." Now, I don't know if that's something lawyers 'want to hang
their hat on in the future. I don't know what that means--promote the general
good. So I'm going to let that one go. Now I think ~ve're beg~ipning to stretch
it a little bit here when we get to say, "and promote~he w~elfare, health and safety
of the Town." Now that's really troublesome, because I think I could make a pretty--
very good a~rgument that the two houses that I own don't necessarily contribute
to the safety and health of the inhabitants, and certainly for those truly extraordinary
people who serve on our volunteer fire department, rescue Isquads, and even our
fine police department. When they come into a house like mine in' case of an emergency,
I'm not sure that they think they are protecting because we main(ain in that house
their health and safety. For those of you ~ho are familiar wi,th beam and post
s~ructure, the perlons in'my roof are six' by six, and' that's a far cry from a two
by six, or a two by eight that is in' normal modern construction~ The sumners
that go across to the main bearing structures on the second floor and tie into the
second floor plates, they're twelve by twelve oaks. No I think if One of~those
things starts breaking loose, we're not really contribiJting to the health and' welfare
of our police department. So I have a little question on that. And then [ also
have the same question ,that somebody else raised about the commercial value of
property--commercial values. As a matter of fact Charles and I' did a great deal
of research ten or twelve years ago, and we were in contact with many villages
and towns that had such regulations, and we were unable to document that there
was indeed an increase in value. Yes, there was income produced through increased
activity with the historical societies and so on, but we could no~ document that
there was a in~rease in value, even those houses that w~ere designated. So, I
have some real questions there. But let's assume for the purpose of argument,
yes, all these good things are going to happen. If we pass this law, and if.it's
proper'l.y, admi~istered, all these good things are going to happen. Wrong. I think ,
you immediately raise a very serious moral and ethical question, and it's been alluded
to here before tonight. If indeed, as it says here for all of these good things,
of the Town and its residents, then by golly if we're going to put costs on the
owners of these designated landmarks, then the entire resident community should
be willing to help support those costs. I don't know how you do that, whether
Page 15- Landmark ~'~ '~='
it's taxes or whether it's creating a fund to help subsidize these expenses, but
they are v,ery real costs, and I for one owning two of those houses would be happy
to sit down in'a working group 'with the. Landmark Commission and spell those out
and document them. '1 have ~ome very recent things that I could easily document
those costs. They are very real costs. It"s one thing for me to elect to do them
by my self, because of my own desires, it's something entirely different wt~en the
Town says you must do them. So I feel that there is a moral and ethical question
here. I don't know that's a legal question, but it seems to me that if all of these
good things are going to benefit all of the community, that all of the community
ought to boar the cost. By the way, it's the same argument I made very ineffectively,
obviously, about five acre zoning. I wasn!~ against five acre zoning, but I thought
that the cost--if 'there was a cost to the land owners--that it should be considered.
At least!:in~-that case nobody could ar'gue that there wasn't a direct tie~i~' between
safety and health and adequate water supply, and a sound en,zironmentaF~condition.
There obviously there was a tie-in, direct tie-in'to safety .and, health. So I'm going
to get off direct costs. There are actually a number of things. Adminis[ration
is always mentioned. Well, having had several battles, mayb~ that says more about
me then it does about the Town, with various problems that l faced with the Town.
I Can see some of these things that are talked about in'this 'proposed .law are so
subjective that you could be years. A applicationt'for ap.p .r~p,riater~ess, or more,
just the identification, or designation of the landmark. There's o~e thing I would
like to talk about and then I'll get off the soap box. I thinl~ ih owning an old
house and in laws of this 'nature there is a very significant indirect cost. Maybe
it's a concept, maybe I won't be able to explain this concept, but the i,~direct cost
are going to come because this law flies in the face of reality, a~d. wh.at, history
teaches us. This law says in' effect that once it's passed, on o~ce the ~ast nai.I
or peg was driven into a house, that house became a static'entity. That's :what
this house now is.' The law has been~;,passed. That's it. Tl~at isn't what it's
all about. As a matter of fact for those of us who really enjey a~d ar~ willing
to pay for work, the fascination, really, of old houses is to. see bo~v they did change
through the years. How through generatio~ after generatio~ 'riley 'were'added
to to accommo~l~te size. How they followed the fortunes of a f~mi'l¥, up and down.
How they followed actually in war and peace. Houses are dynamic; They're as
dynamic'as the people who live in them, and as a society or era in'which they
were built and they're existing. What this. law says to an ow,net of a designated
landmark:is~ "Sorry, friend, as of today your house just died.;- Y~u~lca~'t~.change
it.' It can't grow to meet any needs of your future generations. It's got to .stay
just the way it is." Now that is contrary to history. It's contrary to all of the
fine old houses. One case in point and then I'll get off. I own the Orange/Petty
Ho~se. The Orange/Petty Ho'use, as near as we can tell. from the Augustus
Diary.; was built' in 1816. It~replaced the home that wa~ taken ~down atithe same
time that was built probably in 1668. Part of the material in the house .came from
the original house. When Orange/Petty's son came home to hel~ work on the farm.
a wing was attached. Now they didn't build that wing to look like the original
homestead, They built that wing to reflect what was in.'¥ogue at the time. the wing
was built', and it doesn't look anything like the original house. Then along about
somewhere just before 1900 the Orange/Petty Jr., who ~y that time was a widower,
married a lady from Shelter Island, and she said, no way am I going to live in
the old part of that house. So we built another wing. This one happens to be
Greek Revival. Pretty much Greek Revival. It's not pure, but it~ pretty much
Greek Revival.. Now, this law would have prevented that so I Wouldn't 'have the
structure today that they want to preserve, if'this 'law was ir~ effect at the time
that the house was there. I've got a lot of points that I would love to bat around
with the Commission if they had an opportunity for a working:s~ssi~n, and preferably
with Counsel present. I can go through it here, but most of it ..... but: I'm not
against the concept, and I'm not even sure I Would be against some sort of mandatory
Page 16 - Landmark ~"~
provisions, particularly if they were directed at preserving communities. :Where
we have communities, homogeneous groups, such as Orient Village and I am sure
there are others. As a matter of fact I don't think this particular law goes far
enough, because I think where you have homogeneous villages, particularly.those
that have already been declared on the National Register and the State Register,
I think we need buffers all around, really. ' And I think also that we need some
protection for any yacant properties that today .exis[, so that we can control what
is built' in'those areas. But I do think there should be compensation for anybody
owning those prope¢tie~. So I"m not against the concept, but I think it flies in
the face of realL~y an~l 'history, and I do believe that we ough~ to certainly clarify
a whole lot that's in'here and I'd be willing to help do that.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. You did top Jimmy.
GERALD DORMAN: I,m Gerald Dorman from Orient, Village Lane and Navy Streets,
and I'm speaking:' for myself, but also for my daughter who can't be here because
she!s up in Massachusetts. She has Vin~ Richards' old house on Navy Street, and
she is 'opposed to this law as layed out as we received it. I also oppose it, not
because we oppose the concept, but because we feel that many of the details that
have been given here are major flaws in'the moving of this forward. The question
of references to the Commission for a variance is 'going to involve a great deal
of work on the part of the individual, with elevation drawings, with elevation drawings
for the surrounding properties. These are items that are technical and they may
be needed, but to me it looks as if this is going to prolong a prolonged, i-n~estigation
before we can get material taken care of. It's hard enough now days to get people
in to do the work for us, but if this comes up with the long detention of getting
permission to get it 'done, I'm afraid it's going to be put off for a long time. l
agree with many of the previous speakers so I'm not going to go into the details
and reiterate what they have said, but I just want to be on record that I am opposed
to it, not the concept, but to the law as'we received it.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Anyone else in the middle? In the back.
ROBERT PRIT'CHARD: I just want to say a few short words. Bob Pritchard,
Main Road, Southold. I already sent my letter in and I objected to the law the
way it's written. It's totally un~,~me~i.can as far as I'm concerned. I think that's
the main' reason. Nobody should be able to tell me what to do with my property.
I've been in the service. Many of us have been in the servi(~e and the Constitution
wasn't written that way. As' far as houses go, what i.s old and what is~t old?
My house is 'only 85 years old. I don't think it'~ that old. Why should it be
considered as a historic piece of property? Six'hundred houses in'Southold are
to be considered as historic structures? I don~t think there's that many structures
in New York City that's historic. You have to use a litt'ie common sense, and this
law does not have any of it.' I am in favor of preserving old houses. I think
every one of us :are in one way' or another, but not on this 'type of law. Thank
you very much.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. In the back.
DAN REITER: Mr. Murphy, my name is Dan Reiter. I received two letters--or
my family received two letters. I find this law, from my interpretation, unconstitutional.
It does take away rights, and the only right that I can find as I read through
it completely is 'that I still have a right to pay property taxes. A couple of years
ago my wife and I found a house in'Mattituck and we loved it. We bought it.' We
want to preserve it. We found out the only way we could get , and I
think it's a concept that you doh't want to lose. Number two, I think it is very,
Page 17- Landmark
very poorly writt'en. Let me go back to one last thing. Let me just state.that
I oppose this. I think it's unconstitutional, number one. Number two, there should
be a fair reimbursement if you want to use the property. I think there's no 'consider-
ation for the owner. And lastly I think it would set a very, very dangerous precedent
to have this law go into effect as it is written~ because it 'just disregards' ownership,
and I think that would be very dangerous.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thankyou. Anyone else in'the middle? Over here on
the right? Sir.
ROBERT (2LARK: My name is 'Robert Clark and I own a house in Mattituckr and
we received the letter. I received it 'in the name of my business. I am an interior
designer, ~and it 'was addressed to me and my partner, not to me and the partners
of my house. And it said that it ~was a building on my property. I have four
buildings on' my property. I was born in a cold water flat in Brooklyn of Scotish-
English parents. My father said~ "You work hard." And we worked hard. As
a young man I came to Peconic. My grandmother had a house. My hearts desire-
I got that house. I ~fi×ed that .house and sold that house to. buy the house in Mattituck.
I am ;an ;~nterio~ designer. I a' member of the National Trust of Scotland, of England,
of the Unlaced States. I hav~ worked personally on ~ I have worked personally
on most of the historic'houses and organizatiof~s in the 'United States, but my past-
time--i'm 5~ years old. ! have my dream house. My father said to support your
local community. I do nol:hing in'my house with~outside help. I do nothing--
Mattituck is ~the first town I go to for any repairs. I 'buy everything by my local
merchants~ but I sit 'on the weekend and ! ~lream that I want to put .a swimming
pool in my hQuse~ or I Want to put an addition ~n my house. I certainly know
about historic houses. I have worked on them. And I could, have purchased one.
I did. not purchase one.~ I may never get those wings put. on my house, or the
addition put on, but I do'not want the ~ight taken away to do that, and I'm sure
as an inCOmer_ to~.a community--! wasn't born here, but [ chose it,'~.ar~d I love it,
and I wan~ to do what I want to do on my property. At the same time I spend.
every penny I make in Manhattan and then drive all the way out here' at' double
expenses, to do it properly. I see others doing it.' If I want a blue :hous~ [ don't
want to be told that a bl~Je house is 'not one of the historic'colors. And there
must be many other people like me. And it's so very wrong. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Yes?
IRMA DOMHASE: Good evening members of the Town Board and fellow property
owners. My name is Irma Domhase and I am a property owner in'Southold, but
tonight I'm representing my parents, Mr. and Mrs. John Hutter, and my aunt and
uncle Mr. and Mrs. Herman Ohlmann. We are all in opposition to the proposed
law. In the case of my parents, any change in their'property status would represent
a very serious hardship to them as they are counting on it as their'primary source
of retirement income. The particular house that is *referenced was built by a developer
from New York City as a summer bungalow, and does not even enjoy the same historical
status as other houses. It's not listed in any of the historical books, and frankly
they are perplexed as to why it was even chosen as a prospectiYe house. In the
case of my aunt and uncle- who are in their'eighties and on fixed pension, the
only items of any historical significance are three windows and a beam in their
basement, and the rest of the house has been renovated over the years and was
moved from the Main Road in Southold about 40 years ago. And believe me, if
you saw the house you would know that it has no historical significance. They
plan to leave it to their chi]~dren who may need to expand it to fit 'their needs for
their children and grandchildren, and they shouldn't be penalized if they need
Page 18- Landmark
to do this. This law represents a se;rious decline in value to some properties,
but conversely some will gain at the expense of others. In sum we feel that owners
should be willing participants in the process on a voluntary basis. Hardship should
not be caused in' the p,'ocess and individual rights should not be infinged. There-
fore we respectfully ask that the Board reconsider the plan. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Anyone else on the right? Sir.
JOHN KERBS: My name is John Kerbs, Southold, Route 48.
love me because l~m going to be up here about 30 seconds.
provision in this law. My wife and I bought this piece of property, our house,
35 years ago. Worked for itl paid for it. It's ours. If I want to paint it red,
green or otherwise, which I'm not going to do, I want to be able to do it. if there
is anyone here in'the audiehce, in'the Town, on the Board, that would like to
buy my place--I'm serious--It's on the market. And before w~.leave -here tonight
meet me out in [he hall--I'm dead serious~-and we'll save the broker's commission..
That's how I feel about, it. Really I can't accept someone telling me what to do
with my property. Period. Thank you very much.
You're all going to
I object to the mandatory
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you.
ARTHUR KENNIFF: Board members, I am Art Kenniff. My wife and I probably
own the oldest house in Southold. It"s' the old Colonel Youngs home. It was built
340 years ago in 1647. It's stood on the .same plot of land on Youngs Avenue for
the entire 340 years. We purchased the property about 25 years ago and we have
treated it 'with loving care. If you have never -owned an old ~home you have no
idea of the cost to maintain' it and the problems of just trying to find out if someone
will'do the work. Very few will'work on an old house, and their favorite term
isj "It's going to cost a lot of money." How much is it going to cost? "Just a
lot of money." Our objection to the proposal of the ordinance, or any substitute
ordinance that might be proposed that has punitive action as proposed in this ordinance,
which is not only a fine, mind you, but also if 'you read the small print it 'says
quite a bit about criminal action. So you might even have to go to jail if"you want
to stand up to the Commission. I don't agree. The fine--I don't think you can
enforce it 'anyway. I don't want to cause any discussion between the Landmark
Commission in Albany or anyone else, but I took the trouble after reading an article
in ~'he New York Times on the 2nd of August, about their Landmark problems,
and' I thought maybe.l better go into New York and see just what their law is.
I did so, and if'this law came from Albany, so did'theirs. It's almost identical.
I don't know whether any of you people took the trouble to read The New York
Times, whict~ is 'my Sunday occupation--I, read~-"Despite Protections, Landmarks
Decay. At Broadway and 20th Street in Manhat[an, a mansard-roofed building
from the 19th century looks to be a breath away from the scrap heap. While neigh-
boring buildings have been rejuvenated without precise historical accuracy-the
cast-iron facade of the former Lord & Taylor Dry Goods Store is 'crumbling, despite
its designation 10 years ago as a city landmark." And I'll skip because this is
a long article and I'm going to give it to the Board so they have the opportunity
to read it.' "Throughout New York City the landmarks preservation law attempts
to freeze' bui'ldings in time by prohibiting alteration or demolition except in rat
instances. But the city provides almost no money to help maintain the landmarks
the law protects. As a restzlt, some buildings are falling deeper into disrepair
precisely because of their landmark status. That irony is the result of stringent
regulations, which eliminate all but the most expensive options for repair and
restoratibn. An owner who lacks the income or inclination to spend top dollar may
Page 19- Landmark
simply allow a building to deteriorate." They have the same provisions. I skip
a lot, and I'm not leaving out anything tha~s detrimental to what I'm saying. "1
would love to be able to redo this building, but it 'would. be an elaborate, difficult
and incredibly expensive proiect,"said Bruce Mailman, who own.a landmark building
on Astor Place. Again Mailman, "The Buildings' Department makes no compromises.
It doesn't deal with landmarks in a rational way. For instance, an apartment building
is supposed to have a light on either side of the entry. But that's not easily dow~
with a landmarked building because you aren't supposed to alter the facade." There's
quite a bit here about other locations, so I'll skip' for time. "After spending a.
hundred thousand dollars or a million dollars, you don't e~en'see a difference,
restoration work is 'like dentis-~ry - most people would rather put it'off, unti~l they're
in'complete agony." I can agree with that from time to time. "By statute, the
Landmarks Preservation Commi.ssion has broad powers.to insure.that owners maintain'
landmark, buildings. But, accordi~g'-,ti~ most observers, t~he commission.does not
exercise these power~s." ' You ,gp..on further and they say, "Secondly, the climate
would not be too favorable for enforcement - especially in' light of the recent Supreme
Cou~_t decisi~ on land use." I think you're all a~quainted .wi~b i~.' There's further
legislation before the Supreme Court now on the same matter and it wi.II probably
give us"-~e- info'rmation. I. ~lon't want to read all of this, but it .comes down to~
tbe~z;p~Oint what's .happening in New York City to the very same .law--it'~ almost
word for word. I don't, want :to disagree with you people. M~ybe New York sent
their§:'to~AIb;an¥,,or Albany sent theirs down, because it's a]most word for word.
it says here that it 'doesn't make any difference whether you're a homeowner, City
of New York, the State of .New York, or the federal government, they don~t have
enough money to keep ~bese buildings up u~der this stringent law that they have
in New .York. I think Iwhat you fellows are looking at up there is ~that you've got
a bad law, ' You've got'a pretty good law on the books right now. There's nothing
wrong with the Landmarks Law that's on the books. You have the. laws in' place.
If'l Want to put an addiction on to my house I have to come to.your Building inspector.
You~' Building Inspector';has to issue a building permit before I can change that
buildi.ng. You've got a Landmark Commission now that can come to~ me and say,
"Hey, Art, we don't like this.- Why don't you do it 'just a litt'le bit.different."
But that's different then coming to me and saying, "You've got to do it this Way."
(change tape)...it doesn't mean anything if for 20 years I tried to.take it down
(referring to his New S~ffol'k Shipyard buildings)~ and you told me it was a, historic
building and I couldn't l~ake it~down. Okay? And I had to have it down in 30
days or else and I'm laying fiat on my back in the hospital. So I know about that
law. S'o that one also stops somebody from taking it down. And in order to take
that building down you'v,e got to have a Demolition Permit 'from you,. people. And
wh~le you're hitting,me on the back to .take the building down, yo~ wouldn't issue
me a Demo]iti0n Permit. l'mean I~m just bring up things that actually happened.
What's going to happen under this law? You see this is even worse. So I!d be
in jail--exactly. They wanted to put me in jail then. All I'm saying is y~u've got
a good law on the books right now, why change it? We're one of [he first 36 -.-
38 units that were designated--asked to be designated as a landmark. We agreed--
my wife and I. We still agree. We think it's a good thing. We wouldn't have
bought and old house an preserved it. But if I had to come to this Town today,
or any other town that had a law on the books that you people are lOOking at now,
I wouldn't buy an old house, and I question if this law is legal for an old house,
then it 'should be just as legal for a new house. So, are you people willing to
put your new houses u;nder this'restriction? Bet you're not. Bet ,you don't want
someone to tell you whether you can change your front walk, or y~u can't paint
your trim red. Ours is 'red, inbidentia[ly. Maybe ( want to paint it pink someday,
i don't know. But I am saying this; you've got a good law. Leave it alone. You
don~t .need another law. ' You don't need more law in this 'Town. Y. ou~ve already
got it. Thank you.
Page 20 - Landmark
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Yes, ma'am.
CONSTANCE TERRY: I'm Constance Terry from Orient Point. My sister and I
own an old house, almost 300 years old. We were asked at the time of the voluntary
landmark preser~tiof~ if we would accept our house to go on the Historic Register,
which we did gladly: But if we were asked today under this law we would say,
no. We have .no intention of changing the house, but we will not be bound by
a law that takes away our rights to property. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Anyone else on the right? Mr. Price.
IRVINC L. PRICE, JR.., ESQ.: i,m Irving Price. I'm an Attorney,,at 828 Front
Street, Grenport,. New York. I represent Mullen Motors, Inc. and Floyd King.
First of all I agree and wish to 'reconfirm for the record all that has been said
by any of the speakers in opposition to this proposed ordinance as though [ had
brought up the matter in the first instance. I believe that one of the problems
of the ordinance that has not been brought up by the other speakers is the make-
up of the society who allegedly prepared the lis~ of these properties mar. ked for
preservation. Quoting ~rhe Suffolk Times .of August 6th, .1987 it 'said, "The list
used by the Commisgion'was based on an inventory of landmark structures being
prepared for Southold by The Socieity for the Preservation of. ~-ong Island Antiquities
[SPLIA'), a group of architectural historians and other professionals in' the field."
To me that's a faceless group. If this were an ordinary tr.ial' o:f 'law anyone objecting
could have an opportunity to exami.ae,and-.~cross examine members of this group~
as to their qualifications. How does anyone know w,ha~;qLiali~fications, they have?
They have never been put to the test as far as I know. That's' my main objection
as far as anything other then what the other speakers have sai~d; I do strong~ly
dissent from the gentleman who said he didn't want any house painted purple.
I believe that he has a right to paint it purple, green, red, orange, any color
he wants to. I Wouldn't do it, but I believe anyone that owns :property has a
right to do it. As far as the particular piece owned by Es~ther~ Pilles and rented
to Mullen Motors, that property was originally purchased by Richard F. Mullen
in 1927 and has been continuously conduced as a automobile ser~vice facility. We
have asked ~he Town Board at least twice by mail,' certified ma~l, to have that
place in'a use district under the Master Plan for the ese as an automobile facility,
as it has been for the last 60 years, and to date we have been,refused. Now, along
comes the committee for preservation of property as. landmarks and takes that same
building and says you can't do anything w~h it. It's an ugly building, and I
don't know where you would ever get doors tike the doors ~[hat~.are on t[3ere, but
it efficient and it's worl~ed, it!s worked for 60 years. My father bought his first
car in 1933 ~rom there. That was the fi:rst car I ever drove, and now you want
to preserve it'just the way it 'is. All they want to .do is use.it- the way it is, and
if they have to make certain repairs or maintenance'~lo it, but not have to do it.
Floyd King received notice through the mai-I that property he owns in Orient was
being considered as being designated as a landmark. He came to my office and
I said; "Floyd, why don't you go up to the Town Hall and find out what property
they're talking about so we can pinpoint it." He spent two hours up heFe. Spoke
to some gentleman named Ralph Williams, and nobody could tell him' which piece
of property he owns in'Orient is being considered. So, on behalf of Mr. King,
no matter which piece of property he owns in Orient that's going to be designated
as a landmark, we object and we again repeat all of the'obj.ections that have been
made by the various speakers here.as thought we were making them in'the first
instance. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir; Someone else?
Page 21 - Landma~rk "~ '~'
RADMILA BRASHICH: My name is Radmila Brashich from New Suffolk. We, 20
years ago, my husband and myself, be bought house. It was 142 years old. Now
162 yea~s old. The property was Mr. Floyd Houston. He had this house for eight
years for sale. He couldn't decide __ ~/hen he sold .to my husband and myself
and he told us, "You're 28 on 'the line, but I' like you.; I give under one
condition, don't change anything outside. Inside anything." __ but l.had
always in my mind something I saw by my own eyes. In' 1947 I tsaw~ in Europe
and Ham'burg in'West Germany, on the river. Elba, completely destroyed, 86
lin' 19'60 my 'husband was American Society. and we went for ¢on~fer~ence. and
we were at two weeks in -~-~-~-burg. Iwas by boat doing Elba both sides almost
completely destroyed, but I said, how they found these old b~s? They said,
we~were lucky. ' b~i'eprints were not destroyed. It was beautiful.
Today' if somebody g~y~ll .see houses 300~ 350 yeai~s ol~, same dolors, same.
You have i'n' France by ~bese beautiful p.~lace. Same, 300 years. Mr. Houston
asked us to keep . It w~s not ag~;eement, writing, but it 'was hand shake,
yes, Mr. Houston, w---~-~l ke~p i.t.' Two years ago Mr. Houston died. My children,
we're sick and tired, we're sick of that--I tried to object and couldntt. They changed
Colo~. I am completely for.~his'law except I do realize' now there's necessary amend-
ments to change. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the Board? Sir.
FRANK CORBETT, Pastor, Southold Methodis~'.CJ~urch: My name is Frank Corbett.
I::happen to be the pastor of the Southold Methodist Church, and I hesitated to
get up and talk because Churches are not taxpayers, they are tax exempt. My
concern though is 'for the people who attend churhes and who support churches,
and what happens to them? Churches are many time 'landmark buildings, and many
times they have suffered hard.ship as they intend and attempt to live with the land-
mark laws. They cannot even be abandoned because of these laws. We are lock
in forever with little chance for change or some beneficial improvement. The costs
of improvement, the cost of change in churches is monumental ordinarily. If it
were mandated it would be a hardship, l~ve.recently come to Southold as many
of you. know, from New York City, but I am a Long Islander. I've lived in Smithtown,
I've lived on Long Island for most of my life, and I'm so glad to be back in a place
where I can speak and be heard and have other people speak and be heard. It
makes me feel as if I~m back in the United States. I've suffered through seven
years of working with, or hoping to work with, a landmark commission that New
York City Landmarks. Commission. When we wanted to build a ramp for the handi-
capped to be able to get into our building-at times of funerals it's very difficult
for some people to get into a building if they happen to be in a wheelchair'or on
crutches or braces of some sort. In order to do that we had to apply to the Land-
marks Commission who said, sure, it would be fine. We can build a ramp, so long
as it's not on the outside of the building. That made it a little difficult for our
people to get in. But [ appreciate being able to speak and I have listened to so
many people saying what I intended to say, and I~just wanted to be on record
for the church as being opposed to the [aw as it is written.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sirZ Anyone else on the right over here like
to address the Board? Anyone in the back? Mr. Stack, do you want to speak?
JOHN STACK: I~11 say something at this time. I~m John Stack, Chairman of the
Landmarks Commission. The process is 'about. complete. You've had input from
the State, the County, Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities,
you own Landmarks Commission, and now the people of the Town, through the
extensive mail survey, and at this hearing. I must thank Mrs. Terry for the
Page 22 - Landmark "~' '~
wonderful job that she did regarding the survey. She and her staff did a very
difficult job and did' it well and with good grace. Regarding that survey, a lot
of people were mis-named, and addresses were had to come by because it was a
windshield survey and that's all we had to go on with the houses in the Town.
Certainly those houses don~t get on to the landmarks from that survey. The Land-
marks Commission has to take the survey and then look at the individual houses
and then do a complete survey on it. At that time we get into lot, block and plot
numbers and the rest of the stuff too. To talk about that, we pulled the~nam.es
from the survey of the hisforic'houses still going on. Everyone with an address
lisfed on the survey received a letter and a copy of the. law, plus those who are
now on the South°Id Town Register of Landmarks. We tried to contact anyone~
whose"~ouse Would be considered. Now the time for diacisi'on is 'at hand. T~e
Landmark Commis~ion;,serves~at the sufferance of the Board and whatever y0u.r
decision is 'on this law, this Commission plans .to conti.nue i,~s work. -Our educational
programs will'continue regarding our slide shows, and they are now scheduled.
Our survey will be continued and.will be completed by June of'88. We will be
starting on our book~"H~w..'Oid Is'- Your House?". Both projects had received grants
from the New York. S¥~te: Council of the Arts. We're working with the Town, Commission
on the Bicentennial of the Constitution. Six stories on local ho'uses that wer, e~here
when the Constitution was signed will'appear in'our local papers. A video of these
houses is 'being completed now. We are also involved wi,th the 350th Anni.versary,
or our 1.990 year, and plan a coloring book of Southold his{oric'houses. ConStructive
reuse of historic:.bbi,ldings'is 'high on 'our agenda; and we continue to werk towards
th~;dyn~mic~historical heritage of Southold Town-., So we will'do our part to conserve,
preserve and protect;,~he landmarks of 5outhold. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, John. Joe?
JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND, JR.: It's late and I'm sorry, but I feel I must say something.
I'm on the Landmarks Commission, and befol~e that I was on the Town Board and
took part in writing the previous law, and took part in presenting this'law with
the Landmarks Commission. It's clear to me and clear to i,m sure you, that the
Town Board can't vote for a law that has received so much opposition. I think
though the one thing that I was concerned with--and actually when the Landmarks
Commission first received the ]aw from the State, we were aware that there might
be considerable difficulty because of the provisions of this 'law, in getting it passed.
But we had confidence ~n our ability to eliminate a lot of the possibilities that people
pointed out--for instance, color of house, materia['of houses, expense, hardship,
and put in an appeals procedure. We felt we could defend this law and that's
why we presented it. More important than that is one thing.' As I Say, I've
participated in the creation of the previous voluntary law--with the destruction
of the Hartranft house I became aware that there: was one thing that was a tragic
flaw in:the previous ordinance, and that was the voluntary nature of the law. A
lot of people have said that's the thing that irritates them the most about the new
law. But if you're going to have an effective landmarks law it cannot be voluntary.
And it shouldn't be, because a landmark is 'not a, landmark because someone who
lives in'it says it is; it's a landmark because of its nature, because of its history,
That does not mean that the other points the people brought up of a positive nature--
positive being forced to versus the big stick--you know, the eventual decision
to 'do whatever they want with their property, thlat may be valid, and that was
sort along the lines we were considering inftially ~before got this law with all the
boiler plate. The main thing that I~m.concerned· about is that it be on record when
someone is going to inalterably change or demolish a landmark, that won't happen
unless landmarks are designated on a mandatory basis. After that happens, if
Page 23 - Landmark '~ ,~,'
the Landmarks Commission cannot persuade, cajole, encourage people to change
their plan, well then perhaps it's the will of this Town that those buildings go
down. But there should be' some attempt made to preserve the buildings, in good
faith, in constructLve input. Things that would have saved the Hartranft. house,
for instance. Something that would have saved-the Klipp house. Somebody said
that they COuld only think=-of two or three houses that went down. We had a woman
at the last hearing' that went through a litany of houses that went down. You
know, preservation in' the past has not been· of particular concern to Southold Town
because of our history, the fabt that we weren't a'wealthy Town, the~e wasn't
a lot of interest in'development. Those houses~ ~'end to stay up just by intertia,.
by the fact that there was no interest. That's not the case now. These houses
are in' real peEil',' and I think that as a Town we have a responsibility to tr.y to
preserve th'em. Perhaps this.'law was too extreme, Perhaps there was too much
in:it~--obviously there was too much in it as the people objected to it. But I do
feel that that one provision that was proposed in this law, that-it 'be a mandatory
process, that landmarks' be designated by the Landmarks Commission, after a~beai-ing,
where the nature of what went into it, the' technical reasons for it 'being a landmark,
be discussed and ~eb~ted. Once that's done then you can change any .other aspect
of this !aw, write .any oth~r~'a~, make .it of voluntary nature, allow somebody to
tear it ·down in a month, but·it 'should be at leas~ look at, because in'man.y instances
the place-can be saved simply by constructive critici'sm and constructive i~.put.
Thatrs all I have to say. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Joe. Anyone else want to address the Town
Board? Sir.
ARTHUR SIMON: I"m Arthur Simon from PeCOnic, and we received a letter from
the Prese.rvatio~ Commission stating that we have a building that is being considered
on this 'Register of Historic Structures. Well, actually there are four buildings
on the property that we own and I would like to have some clarification from w.hoever
sent out these letters as to what building they are talking about. It also adds,
"a number of you are already listed in this·register." I know I was getting old,
but I didh't think that I was going to be listed as an antiquity landmark. I would
like to register a strong protest against this'law as it 'is written, I am firmly against
having this mandatory. It ·should be voluntary, and there's no reason why it can't
work if we do some kind of incentive to get the people to join in, I think that
making it :mandatory is absolutely wrong. I think the rights of the people are
more important than any historic landmark. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir; Is·there anyone else in'the audience
like to address the Town Board? (No response.) Any Town Board members like
to make a COmment at this tim~? (No response.)
MRS. GILLISPIE: I would like to make just one statement, please.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: May we have your name?
MRS. GILLISPII=: Mrs. Gillispie. If something isn't done about the traffic on the
Main' Road We won't have an historid house. There a~e all vibi-ations from the
cars, the 16 wheelers that starts at 6:30 in the morning and goes all day until
quarter of twelve at night, that's the last ferry. We may have a beautiful facade
for the Landmarks Commission, but I'm-.~wondering how long we!II have a.house.'
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Anyone else want to make a comment to the
Town Board? (No respon'se.) Any Town Board members like to comment? (No
response.) Okay, at this time I would like to close the public'hearing.
~ T. ~rr~7~o~t~'~own Clerk
P~;ge 2 - LL - Landmark L~? '-~
Preservation of Long Island Antiquities. and it's sent to me as Chairman of the Land-
mark Commission. "Dear Mr. Stack: The Society is hartened to hear that the Town
of Southold is considering a new Landmarks Preservation Ordinance. While~ virtually
every Long Island town has landmark controls, Southold is' the only town we are
aware of whei-e the owners permission must' be secured to effect designation. .This
provision not only compromises ,your. landmark program but wilt'-prevent your ordinace'
from being designated a Certified .Local Government by the New York St~tevDivision
for Historic Preservation. Ordinance ce~t~if~:ation wo.uld als~ '.let Southold make. appli.ca-
tion for matching grants and allow residents who. are -consideri~ng,substantial~ rehabilitation
of landmark properties which are deprecial~le'to take advantage of:the. ,Federal' investment.
tax credit program. Sincerely, Robei~t B. MacKay, .Ph.D, Director." The second
letter is 'from Arthur VanLoo, who is the in~ventQry Director, who has been working
on the .survey for the last two years. Two thirds of that ~urvey.have now, been
completed. It says, "Dear Mr. Stack: It is g~od news indeed that Southold .is con-
sidering Land'mark Pr~ser~vatiof~ legislation. Whi.le cond.ucting.~dae, ongoing Historic
Structures Survey we 'have, discovered that the Town. is 'blessed with ~an unusually
la,rge number of fine old .buildings. These give the area a unique, special' atmosphere
and identitY. The sense of place. T'he protection'of this;important.and .natural:
re~our.,ce will benefit all your citizens,"
We currently have a',,Landmark Law, but the weakness of this law became all
to appa~,e0t with the destru~;tion of the Hartranft house.' Under ~his proposed law
the Landi~ark Commission~has the duty,to .designate landmarks. The current I.aw
allows the. Commission only ~to recommend .landmark status with the' prior approval
of the owner. P~eservati,or~. is :accomplished in' this 'proposed:law..through a review
of alt major changes to the e×terio~ of the landmark. This ,is '.a.flexible process.,
sdbject to t3ae compromise and appeal. It',would also delay hasty and iii advised
demo,lition or alt~r~titof~, The proposed law was ad,~pted from, a.model provid,ed by
th~ New York State Department of His(oric Preservation. The p~oposed ]a~t~was ·
r~comm~nded because our. Local Law, in'the department's opinion, ~vould not qualify
the T, own of Southold as a Cert, ified Local Government. We a~e assured by the Depart-
ment of Flis.~oric 'P~eserv~tion that this proposed law will qualify us .for this designation
and thereby reduce the Town's financial 'burden. This financial benefit is not the
only, nor the main advantage of this law, Had this proposed law been in effect last
O',ctober the Hartranft house wouJd be standing today. Now, we have the members
of the Landmark Commission here and they'll be available for any questions you may
wish. Thank you.
DEPUTY SUPERVISOR KEIJAWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Stack. Are there any other comments
from the audience? In favor?
TOM LOWRY: I have a letter from the New Suffolk Civic Association applauding
the proposed law. "The New Suffolk Civic Associat~ion wishes to go on record as
approving the proposed Landmark Preservation Commission in order to'preserve the
Town's architectural heritage and .to prevent such occurrences, as the Iss of the old
Hartranft house recently. Sincerely yours, Linda I~letcher, President."
DEPUTY SUPERVISOR KUJAWSKI: Jean?
JEAN TIEDKE: The character of Southold Town is so dependent upon the appearance
of our built environment and its relationship and the accessibility to our natural
resources such as our bays and our creeks and our trees and our woods w.hich are
badly disappearing. A Landmark Preservation Commission is more than long overdue
and it should consider buildings, views, woodland, waterfront area for inclusion.
Now, I don't know how far you can go on that, but the further you can go the better
off the' Town will be a hundred years from now. This is what we have to view.
I certainly heartedly support Mr. Stack's comments.
page 3 - LL- Landmark
m
DEPUTY SUPERVISOR KUJAWSKI: Thank you, Jean. Are there any other comments
in support of this'law?
LAWRENCE WALTZ: My name is Lawrence Wai.tZ. I live in'Cutchogue. I livein
a Landmark house. The old Richard Hallock house. Over the.last 35 or ~0 years
I've seen many beautiful houses and homes disappear-from, our area. When.many
of us came to this 'area there was a New England flavor of beautiful houses' that
were here. Mr. Hartranft was a friend 'of mine. and I often went into his house and
I w=as sor. ry to see that go- .Many others have gone along wi-th it, and~1, j'ust want
to say that I approve and recommend that you-approve this change i.n.:the ;law,as ..:'
a former Southold Town Historian. Thank you.
· DEPUTY SUPERVISOR KUJAWSKI: Mrs. Pim, did' you have a comment?
CON,lIE PIM:. I hope you can hear me. My name is Connie Pim;. and I live in
Mattltuck, and I'm speaking for h~y husband also.. Tonight on our way here on the
north side of the Main' Road in;Peconic we noticed, another very nice flat space with
freshly tilled ground where a house used to stand. Now that'was just an ordinary
fa'rm?'hoase near a sod farm, and [ ~have no idea why it's-gone, but it's not there
tonight. My husband and 1. ha,Jo spent a good deal of. time and money fixing up
our old house in Mattituck, and we' are in favor of the protection that might be
granted to Our house in the future might make a new. owner think .twice before
Fadically changing it 'and destroying what is-'there that's beauti-ful. _In t.he past
eighteen years in' this community we've seen many: houses go that would have kept
our Town even more beautiful. Some have been moved' to places where they're more
appreciated. One. very old house in Cu~chogue.has been moved., to the 50uth Shore.
AnOther one .on Sound Avenue has gone to Old Rethpage. Several have been lost
to fire. Some have been torn down by local, institutions, large banks, who don~t
have to wait for anything. And some have bee'n torn.down .by speculators:who have
every right, to make moneys but hawe also no reason te wait. around .and see.i,f.the
ho[zses could be saved, and Ir~aean wai-tii3g ~or'~q~ite;a;:~whil~;~-,not just th~ree weeks.
There's nb ~emergency. About ten years' ago a. friend .dflours was r~hinkiRg of making
a/subdivision of old houses. Moving threatened struc~,u, res or ones tha~ needed repair
to a tastefully'arranged subdivision, and my husband.and I d~ove him around our
community j:ust to look at .what might be avai~abie for sach.development! At that
ti~me there were about twenty houses that we, felt would fit in his--would ;fit ,his needs.
Most of those houses are now gone. Our frif~nd .was no~ able to caFry ~)ut his plan--
iI~ :was raa'lly just a persoaal dream that he had. .How~¥er, it made us aware' of what
w~as available then and how they have gone a~vay. A ~f~Wl-weeks ago: a ~r~end of.ours
had a nice Italiannate house for sale on-the ~orth'sJde.Of Main'Road in IC~tchogue.
They were able to sell and keep it as a.n old ~build,ing, bar-.th'ay: said..mos~ of the'
p~ople who wanted to buy. their proper~y war, ted to tea~';.~t-.'down. .Fortudately they
had t'he financial .strength to wait 'and look arou.nd for :~! sul:table buyer that would
keep it. But we almost, tonight, would see another pie.wed .lot in' the. middle of
C~tchogue. which would be probably an unatt~ac~i~ve~-mo~ern ,bui'lding in a fear months,
There's another house Jn Mattituck for sale. It's been ,for~:sale quite a while. It's
known as the 1766 House. The owner of that house has said' that most people w~o've
al~proached her are interested in tearing the place down.. So any law that would
m~.t~e the condition of these threatened structures publi-c, give interested 'people a
little time :to talk and' maybe gather funds and seek a suitable buyer would be greatly
appreciated. Thank you.
page 4- LL- Landmark
DEPUTY SUPERVISOR KUJAWSKI: Mr. Sullivan?
JOHN SULLIVAN: My name is 'John Sullivan and I live in Mattituck and I agree with
everything that John Stack said, and my neighbor Mrs. Pim. Thank you.
DEPUTY SUPERVISOR KUJAWSKI: To the point. Are there any other comments
in support of this law? Yes, ma'am.
ANN WICKHAM: My name is Ann Wickham. I live in Cutchogue. l'm in favor of
a Landmark Law. I~m not completely sympathetic with .the .one ,presented, but I'm
in favor of Some sort of a Landmark Law. My first reaction to this one is there
are .too many rules and regulations. Since I live in a house with landmark~possibi.lities,
I am especially interested. While I think the program, is'a good idea, I think we
have to be careful not to let it become burdensome to the owner. In the first, place,
I feel that regardless of the historic Worth of.a building, if the ow.ner doesn't w~sh
it to have landmal:k status, the owner'~ wishes .should be respected. ~A.f, ter all,
a man's home is his:castle. Further, I would say that'4f 'the Town isgoing tor~require
owners of landmarks to keep up the buildings', regardless of.the cost or inconvenience~
to the owner, and then ~t~"put strings on the: disposition of-them, the Town shou. ld
consider some financial assistance. The. recent Supreme Court case. is very:clear
on i'n'fringement of property rights. What does the Town propose to do for the, owner?
Perhaps a reduction in 'the' assessment? Right now,, wi.th all 'the. proposed, rules and
reguJations I would think few owners would want :their'homes iis~ed as landmarks.
Has the Board considered, instead of all this, a,-,,velunt.ary'program? I believe many
people would welcome assistance in' planning renovations'and change so they'might
be in.' keeping with the historical significance,of the building. L-low about a voluntary
program? Thank you.
DEPUTY SUPERVISOR KUJAWSKI: Thank you. Are there any other comments, in
support? (No response.) Any comments against approval? Yes, sir.
JOHN BERRYMAN: My name is John Berryman. I live in the hamlet of Southold
year a~ound, and I'm also a home owner. The proposed ordinances:presented before
you tonight needs revision. Firstly it is coercive. It invades the privacy of home
owners who may wish to be left alone. A'major deficiency in the law. If we can
go by the items that have appeared in the local, press, only about 50 home.owners
out of a possible'l,000 to 1,.200 have asked for designation.in the past five years.
Fifty out of 1',000o Hardly a groundswell of individual home owners interested in
having their homes designated as landmarks. Two. It's short title.is misleading.
There is no mention of architectural review 'in the title. In some communities where
they do have architectural review boards these are the functions of the local planning
board, not of another agency such as a .landmark preservation.board. In this case
it would only .be duplication if you decide to. have a architectural review board. The
Town Board, as you well know, is currently studying--is currently drafti.ng a zoning
resolution, some of which contains the nucleus of a architectural review, board: and
a review procedure. Thirdly, the propose~l legislation, and those, statistics I quoted
before, .would affect directly one out of every six families in the Town of Southold.
This 'is not just some building here or there or wherever. This is one building--
one out of every six buildings in the Town--one of every s~x families .I should say--
in'the Town would be affected by the law.. Four:thly, as stated tonight, .and.written
in the newspapers, it would not have saved.'the Hartranft property. Again, if l
can read, and believe what I read in the newspapers--like ~1. Smith. said, "1 only
know what I read in the papers," Hartranft was quoted as saying--or is alleged'not--
to have declined the designation 'as a landmark ~building of the property on the corner
of Youngs Avenue and Main Road. I~ve often wondered why he did that. It"s 'an
old house. Whatever. There's only one group in' this Town who could have saved
Pa'ge .5- LL - Landmark
that HartranfL building. That's you. The Town Board. Through the process of
eminent domain. However, that costs money. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
A~ mentioned by a previous speaker, the Supreme Court has issued two major zoning
decisions in the past three weeks. I quote from yesterday's newspaper, "The High
Court 'ruled that if'state and local governments attach conditions to building,permits
that are unrelated to the purpose of the development or~to the problems, created~-by
them, the result' may be a taking,',' that's the main word, ."taking of property, for
which the government must:compensate the land owners." Will the.proposed ordinance
meet the Supreme Court requirements as they are .going to be layed down in'.t, he
future?year I would assume. In the amendments to 'the proposal that I gave you
last Friday I believe I Overcame that problem, that~ the Supreme Court.has raised in
the amendments, in that I!~e 'tat~en away the~mandator.y~ featur~,contai'ned--in:,thef ·
proposed ordinance and' made a voluntary, one on the: part of.the..i'ndividi~al' ~home
owner. The only saving grace of this. proposed, legislati:on, .as:ment-ioRed .b.y 'previous
speakers, was the idea tha~. yes, we can get a g.~ant- fl~om .the .Department of Parks
and Historical Preserva.ti~or~,,of:=-tl~'e~State of New-'York= I. ,don't know~ how much money
they're talking about, but I b~lieve we're .atl.:.sophisficated:, enough to know that!any
time the State or the Federal government gives local towns money--their money--
not your'money--their mo,n~y, there are strings attached to it. '. In addition, talking
about grant money, strings .attached, in'the .past several months.I've heard_much
talk about local control .in!q,uotation marks. I haven't, heard-ar~y~hi~g about~ local
cohtrol here tonight, yet the advocates or.the law would glad.ly give .up their'local
c~ntrol to a burea[~cracy in-.&lbany. Last_~EHday,;as I =mentione~; .I gave. you eight
pages, and the other six pa~es, were articles .from the newspaper, locals 'and the
city papers., of proposed, amendments to ~he or(tinance. Tonight' I've given you more
information on..the latest Supreme. Court decision, regarding land [~e' regulations.
I assume that you will study it/before you reach a decision and ,~nact any 'legislation.
I de make two recomme[~detiens though, .first is 'the postponement of~the adoption
dntil you've studied the rarn'iflcation of the proposed ordinan'~e,.~nd in.' particular,
have the new Town. Attorney) really do a study.on the. ramifications of the Supreme
Court decision regarding land use. Secondly, I would have the ~own ]Board order
the existing Southold Town Landmark Preservation Commission to ',publish, at.its
expense,--at my expense, the taxpayer's expense--in the local ,pa~ers, the ]
to 1,;20'0 buildings it believes should be designated a~ landma.~ks. It might~ be
interesting to see the results of such a publication. Thank you.
DEPUTY SUPERVISOR KUJAWSKI: Yes, sir?
WILLIAM PETERS: My name is William Peters. I~m a member of the Landmark
Pireservation Commission. I~d like to address one point of Mr. Berryman~s cerements.
The proposed l~w has been very carefully written in'consultation with New York
State. It meets established legal criteria of the landmarks 'designation. The point
that all should recognize is that this proposed law retains all power local]y.. The
Eederal, State and County governments have absolutely no say in this law or what
we do in this Town.
DEPUTY SUPERVISOR KUJAWSKI: Are there any other comments? We'll take it
either way now, because I believe that was in support. Commander Kenniff?
ARTHUR KENNIFF: I haven't had time to prepare as some of these other people
have. I~ve driven over 200 i~iles to be here tonight. We own--my wife an I--two
pieces of property in Southold T~own. One is in New Suffolk that was mentioned
this evening, that I've run into a~'p['oblem with with regards to being a historical
location. For over 20 years I tried to get permission from this Town to rebuild that
p~ge 6 - LL - Landmark
area down there to make it an up-to-date, first class shipyard. In 1982 went to
the then Chairman of the Planning I~oard proposing a million ·dollar expenditure. The
reply that the general manager and I got was you can't tear any of those buildings
down~ they're historical. And if you do ·tear them'dow.n, we'll only giv/e, you..35%,of
the area that's there now. So we took that· and we went to an alopraiser and a person
who tells~you what the land is good for. He~-said~?~he best use of;this land is
condominiums, because it will' give ~?ery ·little traffic·to .the area and very few, people
~)~th4~.s ~ha~.~yQu~ar~t to build." So we came to the Town Board and talked-to
them beforehand and they said, '"Yes, that Sounds~ like a good idea, Art. Go ahead
with it.~' Well we all know what 'happened down there, l~m talking.about off the
record.~before we were going to go ahead with it. T'he¥ said, "Go?ahead, 'Put,in
your application. We like the sound of,it.·''· Well, you know what-happened.,
don't have- to talk about, that any more, wJ'~h the-eXception of thaf~ as soon, as. I closed
it down those historiCal 'buildings became--hey, theyl're bad. You. got'to .tearm.them
right down now. I was .in.~he hospital and my son Was..tr¥ing t~ handle'Jt. B~lldoze
them down in' 30 days. So we-did~ Those were histori:cal'~ buildings, and ,~he¥. were.
~ow let',s get to our.home. We own this. hame in Southold, If any home deserves
to ,~e on the .l~dma~l~,,li~.it doest. However, when we were .fi.r~t approached,: my
wife and 1, and they said·this is purely .v. ol~i~tary; y~-:w~fl~i-'not..~e di.rected on what
yo~ can do to your hous.e;, only advised. I have no objection to ·that. I thick,hat's
good. But now I see ifil want to do anything to m.y I~ome I have. to get'permission
to do it. We~ve lived there 25 years ..... When we took the home over i.t was a :total
wreck. We rebuilt'.it 'piece b~ piece and expended consider~able, amount of money
on it. I don~t want to be. told. w.hat I can do wi·th the .outside of. my home. Jt's my
home. I don't think any of you would agree to have your home p~t. on this list~ under
these conditions. You can tel! me, '~Hffy:, lid"needs wo~k. Y~u've got to do it,i and
we're going to direct what you'~-e going rode, and' you'~e going[ to. pay for it.;" That's
what it says. Well, so be i.t. '1 feel the landmark ordinance w~ have now in the
~o~n is s~fici'ent. I would.be prepared to go to court on this~law. I agree with
the;,.Supreme Court. Zoning is going too .far. It's taking the F[~Jh¢s of 'the land
o~er awaY. How many people who have spoken here ·this evening· 'for this'law'would
li~e[ to have their-home put on this ·list? I'll tell you why. ,Gretchen and I never
in~e~d to sell it.' 'But our children might, aad if is designated ailandma~k there
are:very few people around that would buy it, because;it 'has a,covenant, on it, and
the~covenaht is put on by the Town, with no consideration of remr~neratien. I Cannot
under'stand; why you want to take control of my property and te~l me wha~ to do with
it.' As long as I don~t make any changes that you don~t like. l~t ··also allows me' to
pay taxes. That's all it allows. And I question again~ and,l'd,like to.have a s,how
o~ hands from you people. How many of you witl-.put-:;¥our ~ious~ on thal~ list ,under
these conditions? No, I didn"t think so. There's not one person.---It d~oesn"t make
any difference whether it's landmark or not, under these conditions.
RALPH WILLIAMS: You didn't look around yet.
ARTHUR KEI~NIFF: I see one,
RALPH WILLIAMS: That's exactly right. One.
ARTHUR KENNIFF: One. I don~t have anything more to say. I think the law is
wrong. I think it ·violates the Supreme Court decisions recently. They're very
explicit. You people better look at because it's very specific. Thank you very much.
DEPUTY SUPERVISOR KUJAWSKI: Thank you. Are there any other statements in
opposition 'to this local law7 ,(No'response.)~ Are there any statements at all regard-
ing this'law? I~tr. Townsend.
P~ge 7 - LL- Landmark
JOSEPH TOWNSEND, JR.: I'd like to address a couple of the remarks. Mr. Peters
has already addressed the legality of the law quite concisely and I.think clearly.
You're going to hear a Iot~about ,the Supreme Court.decision in the next few months.
I' think anybody that wants' any kind of project passed is going to point t~;tl~!S'u~3r~eme
Court. This lis just the beginning. I imagine you may have heard it 'already. This
law is going to affect many communities, perhaps even a majority, of the communities,
or a law subs~:antial:ly the same as this 'law, on Long Island for some time, ~-ad,as
Mr. MacKay s~id~ we'~e one of the last communit es .that doesn't have a mandatory
landmark. InI fact, a landmark is a landmark. If ,the owner says it is,:not a.landmark
it does not ~ake it not a landmark. ' The owner still has .input into the d.ecisian to
be added on to the landmark list. He has hardships. ~here is. adequate ,pro~/.isi~)n.
If he wants to, use:modern materials in'maintaining .it--~ny,,kind of materials--as .long
as the basic lines of the building are kept the' same.. SomebOdy said' t.he Har, tranff,
house would not .be here if'we didn't have this law. .T. he 'demo'lition permit was gotten
in one afternoon. It went.down the next morning. Mr. HartFan£t, wa$ asked if'he
would put the house on the.'la~d~mark, designation, tf We .were-,on the existi.ng .law
it .might have helped to, have ten days. .As you know, a.public entity--a charitable
entity did manage to purchase that proper, ty afterwards.. 1~ .tool~ a matter.o~ a month
to the negotiate the purchase. It would have .been cheaper with the house on it.
That house would be standing if'we had t.h~s 'landmark ordinance today, l.f, we had
a chance to know that that. buJlding.,was .going down, the chance to.fi.nd a buyer.
S"0mel~ody mentioned that. there are over 1,000 laOdmark structures in 'this Town.
l"m not sure if that figure is 'correct, .but. I don't think_anywhere.near that many
letters went 'out. H~)w many rejections did we, get specifically .to landmark designation?
~¥e have two rejections, Now that's a long way off from a 1,20~ projection. That
shows that of all the letters we sent out only two people decided they didn't want
to be on it.' This'is 'a different story. ~t'S a .more onerous law to the owner of
the property, but I think events:i;~.the recent past have show that to be necessary.
Too many towns have lost--like Southold--have lost their character, Not j,qst' by
Over-building and buildiqg.up the farms and the waterfront, but by the destruction
of a precious heritage that consists of the. houses' and the'work, places of their ancestors.
Spea~h~ of a long history--the residents of the'T'own is blessed with a birth:right.
It's a u~iqt~e;bJ_rth~;,rig~t. .We.have more, landmarks than any other town of our size.
These buildings are every birds important ~as farms and wa~.erfront. We can't afford
to treat:them 'lightly. Too many treasures have already;'ueen needlessly' lost. They
r~ight have been saved. They might have '~ontinued to be prod~cti,ve properties
~ith a litt'le creative forethought. It's a same I~ut houses,~like the Klipp house and
F~artranft house can't be built today. Builc~ings requiring that,'kind of.de~ail and
thesem~terials are things of the past. 'Y°u Ican talk to mos{,Feop,le that. are ir. volved
in'L'enovation a~d most architects and they"l~ confirm that. We'~-e going,to lose some
of these buildings over the years to naturalt calamities like fires and hurricanes--
and by the. way', damn few to hurricanes. ~hey hold. up' p~etty,well. It's up to
us to see that ~e don't lose fa.r more from a far' greater peri'l' and that is poor judgment.
· his new landmark law will give'us .time to l~ok at the plans for Southold Landmarks.
~l~t[mately if a landmark must be torn dowr, lit 'cannot I:~ stopped~ but every alternative
s.lhbuld be explored before that occurs. ~h~nk you.
DEPUTY SUPERVISOR KUJAWSKI: Are the~e any other comments?
ARTHUR KENNIFF: As I said before, I'm not against the landmark law. I'm against
a law reducing the value .of my property. If you put a landmark on the market any~ ~
where in' this state or any other state, you.~educe the 'number of people that are
ir~terested in this piece of property, because .it has a covenant against it. You are
putting a covenant against my property wittlout paying me for it.' You don't, give
/
Pa e 8 - LL- Landmark
me tax abatement. You don't give me anything for it. Y~ou just say, "1 am going
to' put a covenant against your property." it has been said' here about the law--
I don't think this law has ever been tested in court. I don't think it has been tested
in the Supreme Court of the land, but I. suggest that it might be if'it's put in in;.
its present form. Taking of a man's property is something you ought to consider.
Telling him that he has to repair it whether he has the money or not. Where is
the money going to come from':if'you~re going to tell him, "Heyr it's got to be repaired."
What if'he says, "I .don't have the money," what happens then?. Your law says, no,
you must do it.' So I suggest that this law be looked at very carefully. I own .two
propert!es that were asked for landmark:, in' this Town. I must be one of the two
that turned, ~lown, because I turned down in.' New Suffolk. . But my wife thougl-,t
that it 'would be right that we agree on the house.because we want to, preserve.it
also. After all, we preset-veda'it ~for the last. ;).5 years, and ,w~ haven't changed, the
outside one io~a.. Or th~ inside. W.e just- poured a.lot of money in-it '.to keep it ~fror~
falling into a big' heap. ~,',.ow, I think .w.e'¥e done ~our...part ,in keeping the landmark
together. I ?l~,n.ow when. Al Martocchia was: tax collector her, e ,in: Town--tax appraiser--
he' came by and ~aid our house was a State :Landmark and that the taxes, would never
go up on it. That!s what Al said. I ne, er ~checked Up on it. As long as
T~ax C01~le~tor ~0ur ~axes stayed the same. As long as A.I was the Supervisor our
taxes s~yed t~e same-. I never asked .for i~ but when the ~poor fei-low had to go
up, and see .ou, r l~riend upstairs suddenly it was a whole new- batlgame. I would suggest
my taxes ~3re. aS high as a~ybody. I pay as.much taxes inithis Town as most people,
a,~d a Iot',moFe than'some. I object to this'law as the owner of two landmark.properties
ir~:'.th~s T,b~n. Thank you.
DE~PUTY SUPERVISOR KUJAWSKI: Yes?
LAWRENCE WALTZ:. Could I answer one question that gentleman just proposed? He
said that landmark status would depreciate the value of the property. I don~t believe
that's tr~ue. I-:ardly a month goes by that sor~,e real estate agent doesn't stop at
my house and ask us if we won't possibly sell it.' ] think that generally is true
tl~a~:hi~tori~:~l houses are worth more.
DEPUTY SUPERVISOR KUJAWSKI: Any.(~ther-corr~ments?
RALPH WILLIAMS: My name is Ralph Williams. I~m a member of the Landmark ,
Commission and I've got a little sto~y to tell. Mrs. Wickham sort of brought it up.
I think we should carry it a little further. Then I would like to extend an invitation
to the gentleman that inquired about the Supreme Court. I own the Terry-Mulford
House in Orient, I'd like to observe the value of the house changed rather sharply
as a result of the fact that it became a historic property listed or, the National Register.
The value of it now is 'perhaps a hundred times the value that it had when we first
Started., It turns out that the reason that house was preserved and was ..preservable
ki~hd of falls on the part of John Wickham.. He protected the ,place kind. of personally
fo~ a long time by blocking all efforts to get any sort of planning changed that included
the: property on which the house was resident. When finally an agreement was made
b~tween a potential' purchaser and the present owners and the real estate dealer,
it':turned o~t that by a pair of transactions .the famil,/ that had .early owned the house--
early--try 300,~years ago--persently owns the house and consequently could put it
in'the state that you see it 'gradually changinG. The value of Mi'. Wickham~s efforts
is ~one of the reasons that we have a Landmark Preservation group now, because
he saw fit to do the kind of work that we do regularly in evaluating places; in tidying
to understand the complextion of o~r Town ir,'terms of its historical significances;
in:conducting programs in'recommending=to potential users what might be done if
they wanted to, and the interesting part is you give this support directly by saying
Page 9 - LL - Landl~ark ~'
that your home is being preserved, l.t's interesting that. the participation is there,
though perhaps the allegiance is divergent.
ARTHUR KENNIFF: That is not so. It is not so at all.
RALPH WILLIAMS: My allegiance says that I am perfectly willing to list my home
any time this Town wishes to put !t on an extended landmark register. Your allegiance
says you do not wish to do that.
ARTHUR KENNIFF: I didn't say that.
DEPUTY SUPERVISOR KUJ:AWSKI
Board.
RALPH WI LLIA~S:
invitation to ~/ou---
ARTHUR KENNIFF:
RALPH WILLIAMS:
ARTHUR KENNIFF:
RALPH WILLIAMS:
think we better keep comments directed to the
have finally ~one thing, and that is I would .like to extend an
Come look at Iour house. I don't want to look at yours.
Are you ~nwt~g us to formally ....
Sure, come ar, y time you like.
Put him down.I We~ve got another customer.
ARTHUR KENNIFF; It's the old Y],oungs house. Earl Youngs house. Built in 1647.
I suggest that it's as old as yoursI.
RALPH WILLIAMS: It's a good suggestion. I'd take argument, but that would be
okay. Would you .... i
ARTHUR KENNIFF: It's the oldest;house in Southold livable.
RALPH WILLIAMS: Would you care. to sit down with me. and go over the latest set
of decisions made by the courts of tt',e several states in the East and the Supreme
Court on the question of taking? f you would, like. to do that I would like you to
make an appointment at your convenience and we'll sit down and go through the ·
review of the decisions. I happenI to have the record and.I'd be very. pleased to
go througl-~ that ~ith you if you care. Thank you very much.
OEPUTY SUPERVISOR KUJAWSKI:'I Are there any other comments on this Local Law?
Mr. Pim'? '1
JIM PIM': I only wanted to.mentio~that. I think a good example of recent adaptive
use that probably would fit the intent of the ordinance is the Cutchogue Library
remodeling that's recently occurred and everybody probably knows about that.
DEPUTY SUPERVISOR KUJAWSKI: Thank you. Are there any other comments?
(No response.) Okay, I'd like to close this hearir, g.
Judith T. Terry (~
Southold Town Clerk
N.._.otices
I -
~. LIgGAI~ NOTICE
· ; · NCfPlCE OF PUBLIC
!~:ltEARING ON LOCAL ~W'
~ PUBLIC NOTICE
~HE~Y G~EN th~ lhere
~beem', ~z~'d to ~h~ Town
~k~d df~e Tow~ o~ ~athold,
~olk' CoWry, Ne~ York,'
~he l~th da~ .of June, t987,
~aw .~0-'e~h a Lan~ark
,~reserva&~ ~ommmsion ~ te
· ~s~ibe its duties."
~O~CK.-: IS FURTHER
,~e To~ 9f ~hold will Bold a
?~l~e. h~ng pn ~he ~omsaid
'Lo~I ~a~ ~L the ~th,)l~
,H~H.'[~d. South~id New
tare, building or sFre whidh
historical or archi~ec~dra¥~
mfieance.
LANDMARK DESIGNA-
TION - The designation al'a
Landmark pursuant to.the pro-
visions of this Chapter.
STgUCTURE - Aay ~sembly
of materials, forming a
YORK
I SS:
~uFFOLK
rural part~ for occupancy or us~, ' '~.,,~.~.8.~"0 of Greenport, in
including butl~hgs- :~ being duly sworn, says that he/she is
Section 564. Lan~ark;~eser-
ration Commission : ' ' k of THE SUFFOLK ~MES, a weekly
A. There is hereby :sr~ .a-,'[ ..... * in the Town
-' ~fi~ark ~ese~wtioA ; published at ~re~HP~"~' ' .
Commi~sio~ whi& ~1 con-
sist of a minimum of-five (5) , CouRtY of $uffnlk and St~[e of New
membe~ te ~ ap~i~md by :: lat the Notice of which th6 annexed is
the Tow~ Board, [o serve · _ _~.t,, .ublished in
:::': ~hit~-;hSnee~ ah ~s~~i ~- 19~
i.¥ork, od l;he 1 lib day oi A ur--asr.
qO87j at $:0,1 o'c[~k P.M~ ac ~ ~ broker; an atterney; a rem-
~k.,~me"ML ~teres~d ~r- t .dsm of au h~toric dist~c~ a
?~b~ L~dmark:~sma- ~ and mmmime~t te [~ fiel~ - ffrinmpal~lerK
~i~ ~i~g:~:~e~' re~ as fol- . m ~ ~ de~ either by ~yalvement
~"HE ~ENA~EDby ~eTo~ ~ ~ tioh ~-oup, employm6nl or efore me thms~
the TJx, ' o t~ ' fieiJ All members ~h~l have
'~atholg on -J~a~- l& 10&l,: C/'~-.~i ToWuoP~uth°ld'
~.ai L~al ~w No. 1 of 198& is ghe_~m of 0ffi~e of oath,
' ' ~em~r ap~in~ to said
,.hereby tepe~t~d mhs emtrety
'and the fallowtr, g L~ndmark
~as Chapter 56 of. the Code uf the
LTAwn~f~ .So~uL~ohL he a~ hereby
'Se~n 56-1. Sho~ Title-
· m~k- Pr*sessiOn Law
:Sec~io~2. DeCagon of Par-.
The Tq~.Bba~ fi~ ~em
hiao~ceor ~chitectuml sial-
.the a~a] ch~er
%[ ~s eh~ ,~ establish a
missio~ and the p~ced~es
'whi~ it ~ fggo?~ to a~s~t
Southold'To~ ewue~ oLbufl&
lng. ~e '~ique ch~a~r
r~uthold To~ wMck wi[l sub-
mmmeteial ~ues ~ the Town
As u~ in t~s C~pter, ~e
. COM~SION - The~Land-
:established p~ te this
all of the d~ ~ of ~
buiMing or
HISTORICAL SIGN~-.'
lommissi0n' shall be two
~ ~" years, provided, however,
~ ~ that of thoze members first
.~.. appointed, three ia) shall be
] and'two 12 ):shall~oe aPpeinted
~ :~. tilled by the Town Board by.
'k}2 i
appalntment to thb unexpired
~' C. Meetings of'the Commiss4on -
shall be open to the public. ,
Meetings of the Commission
shall he held monthly at suck
~'} ~', time~ as t]xe commission ma!}
~:::} de~ermine, or a~ the call of
~ quest of two members. A
/~' > shall constitute a quorum for
'The Commission shaft keep
written minutes of its meet-
'ings, showing the vote of each
': ivoted upon, mad such mi-
:.~':..nates, together wi~h all re-
,: rcords of the Corarmssion shall
;-;, b~ promptly filed with the
': To~-a Clerk
a~ D. Th* Commission shah recom-
~!; mehd' from its members, for
; Town Board approval, a
'Chairman Who shall serve for
a term of ~ne' year, or until
Z; . his successor is appointed.' ·
i~-E. Th~.Commission may incur
~ such expenses in th~
· : · manee at'its duties as may be
· . authorized and appropriated
by the TownBoard.
; Section 56-5. Duties of the Cam-
mission
shall include:
A. Empl.oymen~ with Town
Board approval of staff and
duties or,he Commission.
B. pr~m~lgatioa, with Town
Board appraval, of rules aaa
· th~:Ca~du& 6fits sin
"~C Aabp~i0~ ~f Ce/rain
i, for the ~denttftdatzon bl%~i'h~ ~,
' - i ~e~nt historJc~ archi~ect~
buildi~s stru~tu~ "~d ~ ~ ~~1~.~.~ ~ .a v. c .d '~ ~r~' b.~mo..m,u~' tdfi ~'
s~tes a~ landmar~ ~ ~. ~,e h~ ~or W dez,g- [~ ~. ':- 0mo~ of ~e prop~y. E; ~9 App~eatmn ~0c
F, Acceptanes ~h~n~ard ~ ..... ~ont~ca P~ P ~ d~ ~
~ ~ which will bacom~ pa~ of a
~3xeeoM r~aM~g the histbfic, [
Town government concerning
%he acquisition of facade ease-
e~rry out thepurpos~ofthis.' ~ ' i" a, ~ ],': I,o'n'h~ ' r...:,.d
tidnpro~.~., i:; q.:-: '1: e:.,..,'., I..,. , '.
m--~ing r~o~h'ait:&~ to ' ~,, ',,',,,,,~
'~ernin~ the utfl~a~o~ o~ ~.... D,.='..~d I.'mq~.',.
~ la~am~ s~m~e b~ the ' n..~'.d I.,;nm.u. ,-
~os~ 0f .~ms act and I w .' h, the Iq,.'.,",
Approval o~ disa~va[ of : %OP,"I ~'
.'Sec~on 56-6. L~dm~k ~esig- ~r 111~'.' e ~ )~ ." ~ Cl.-
per~o.aes;or ~pHmlC ..I,r;,~q Hr .1[.% .vhwh
B. ~e Commi~ion may desig- ~ ~ss[o~ s~L[ not ~ns~er
historic d~st~ct if it: ~ ~y ~o~ the ~....
1. contains propo~i~ ~hi~ ~ ~ arehi~c~a~al ' .~
land~ark; and
such qualities, it consfi- ..-:dl be ba~v~ u[m~ ~ e lcL
~e :boweries of each his- ~ ~' ' h'Hm'c q, th~' i'c,.I ~"m'
: ~ric distri~ desi~ated ~ .i' thp %Mw,;rh dmh
~ncego~h ~hail b~ specified ~ ~' [. ~..aim.d. ~Hh 'l. ir
'. O~ce fo~ public ~[omation, ~'- bb.:
~ard repo~s ~ the Planning ~, ,. e~:-Iinp
' Board. the But[di~ DegaS- ~z~ . ,g~J ~ ~at~le '3
. men: ~d the Zon~g Bo~d of ~J: ~h ~S ~oHc' ~ar-
C: Notice of a propos~ aesi~a- ~-te); .New ~nsWuction 2n .
fion s~]l be ~nt b~ m~s-. ~;;: :: 'rh~ ~ope~y s~ be
7-~re~ ~it ~ the owner of the. ~:
~ - ~mga~ibIe with: .the ,
prope~y prgpo~d foz desig- ~f' o~er fettles 'o~ the
, ' n~fion, de~ribi~g the prop- ~'- land~k.." '
: do:ice is notffeasible, not:ce ~;; .pfi~e~'~ the p~
may i~stead be published at ~- ~'~ ':~b~ of';~o p~dpo~od '
gedeml circulation ~a at ~ ~. ~l;u;7~,;, ,
tke~oftkep~chearmg- ~ ~' 4.,l~-vmvm o,' -~ ~ c.'~
/' After the Commi~ionhas m- ~{ ~ ' .,rllCllOr ;Il -.la.,,,n .{,
~, sued noti~ ~ X pro~ dez~ [ ~ .
[[ si~ation, no building.or ~-~3 ~ c T, ~, rc 'm, I ri' ~.
(~ .maaeirsdecision. . . 1..! I. ·
other propel~:ies on the Certificate of Appropriate-
including
[ c~enee' the hardship
COmmission makes a ~ -
their '-
. the TO~ Clerk's O~tle~ for :
; : Aeei~ion '
the To,am C'[erk'.~ Office for
shall ~,te the reaz~r'a for
O. enymg, or rnocht:,-mg any
c~te o£ Appropriateness has
of earning z re2_-onable re-
toxn. regatdte~ ~1' whesher
~' that r~turu represents ~he ':
prap~,' ~,d ~e~g it !
th~ orclm~rY _ .
~ re tr dr' a~v e~enq~a~
~' ~"~ fail' rata ~' ~6~ 'i
~ep~r so as m result ~.~
~urat featu~ wh
Wo~d ig fie ju~eat O<
5. IneTfe~ivc ~ w~erproofinK
:: of exXenor walls, roofs, or
:~. £oundatio os, including
'./~ ~. Deterioration o£ any tea-
hazardous condition which
couJd lead to the claim that
~[- demolmou is necessary for
~ tbe publi~ safet3t.
bi: Violations
~'~ of the provisions of this or-
;' ' ' dinance shall be deemed a
~ i ~olatton and the violator
?' shall be l~ab/e to a fine af
~i.: · nor less than $250.00 nor
mare than $500.00 for each
~ .day the violatior~
~i~. molisheS, alters~ constructs
~'~!"u ofpermitsadesig~ated _
its=appearm~e prior to the
~" violatton. Auy ~ction ta en-
., force this subse~on sh~[l
'~, to~ey. Tb~ civil remedy
~/'"-v .sha~l be in addition to and
~J~- not in lieu of a~y criminal
~-~:. ~r~seeut~on ~.a oenelW- ',
~; '(Appeals : '
~ :A~y Pe~on a~rinved by a
~:!,deci$ion of the Imndinark
g Preservation Cam~ston re-
? 'lari~g to hardship or a Cer-
n[ tificate of Approprigteness
.~ ma% withln'fifteen ~5) dhys
{~ of fhe.deci~lo-n, file a ~rntten
i'v~.~PPlipa~to~ with ~e Town
· ~: Board:£or revie~ o£t~e deci-
~ sion~ The: Towm Boa/d-ma~.
~. :confirm, reje_~t, O~modify
- decistod. ~ '
~e~i~u. ~562g-Ter~.~na'~°n of
~ cea~e~ ro have.
f ~ignLficance, the- C0mrn~sslan -
~ ma~ h~r rez~lu~lan, ~i~reg that it;
'-: l~e removed from the Re~ter o~
. .~-D e~i~c~t ~ rl~' Prioe to
?Board ar~d be h0~rt] thereon.
. ~ection 50.9 fi~'er2hllit v
E~ch o£ the
~ ~on~ of th~- chapter tins been
! ~erve and ~xreed the p~be wel-
lhre bt @re~erving the charac-
~n¥ [x~ion otrhi-: chapter ~hzll:
' ~ det~rvmned mvxild ~-ach cle-
~ +~e~rnmar,on thali not affect or
! ¢lz~p~er
: ~. LL Th~s l~cal Law shall take
,reflect upOn irs filirf~ with the
· ~ Secretary of State..
: ~] ~opies o£ this Local Law are .
~.~Mlabe n he Off'ce o£ he ,?
~.[~ers~oas during business borers
~ ,qOATED: .Jtdy t4. t957.
LEGAL NO 1-1C E
- N-O'VI'C E OF
ON LOCAL LAW
;P~LIC . Nor[c~lE
~ n.?~L~r,~.~ r,, .ch~ Town
I~atur~--' ~,-~or.,.~d .~,~.;c~,.~ ~'I'ATE OF NEW YORK )
~u~ J~r~ ~-.:.~ =pp,'=,'~' ~OUN~ OF SUFFOLK )
Pro~6~ ~o~ Iindmmrk d~ Richard Williams of Greenpo~. in
m=n~ lot tr, e ,~pprov.] of ~ C~,- mid County, being duly sworn, sa~%,thmT he/she is
~[~ m~hr T .x ~Bn~r,l .f ~.Ce, t,~k~e ~' .~pr~a~ 4ewspaper, published a~ Greenpo~, in the Town
~eR~,~ ~;e?~=-au,r, 'f Southold, CounW of Suffolk and State of New
Principal Clerk
~fore me this ~
,- NO,TICE OE~
~P~I!BI'.$C. - NOTIC'F '
'~ ~omd of :;:~ town o.
~ ~uqiakComu~ Ne~'Yo'k.o
: ~h~.16th~day ~e; 1997, a
~ -~'i r;~ll Law c;:lJ0ed. "A':{
'NOI'ICE IS il'RI]Il R
(;IVEN.qi~I ;lie Io~n Boa, d o1'
. the To~ ~f So~Zfiold will h01d
a pdblic, heat]ag .o~ ~he .
afor~d. L0~I La~ at the
. Road,.h~au,hold. Ncs~ York.
I. Ch'q%<l 36 o1' ill~
.the Town :0f
d~i~ated Landmark'Preg~a-
ttQn and:originally ~adop~ by
I.. Sn0:ilolfi tar, .I;~!,nhr~' Iff,
a- I oc~l[ aw No. [';), 198~. i,
hereby ~ffied in its
and tho;fo lowing Landm~k
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
STATE OF NEW YORK
ss:
Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the
Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN,
a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County;
and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy,
has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watchman
once each week for .................. ./ ........ weeks
successively, commencing on the ~'~3- ~
Z7
Sworn to before me this .... ?.~. ............. day of
n xne purpose otth s Loca . .' ,.. '.', -.-w - Notary Pubtic
Law is that the Town Board ~i- ~:con-:,hc. ~ou..~,. n~ ,,~, ~., .....
S~u'holt ~' I" % mark, nor shelf any person
. . . : rac.m~ ou ulne- ~' .... ' ' 't ~o~m'y ~u~lic, S~te of New York
corm;ruction M6ch ould' c '~;: paving o~._~e~r -,-
laa~ark,.withoa[first
H~c,~e~ti,:dcxaiuco: ~l~c [ow~ ' ~ raining a.Ce~ificate of A~
d', o ~ o e ' 'c ~ .... ood' ~ prsPr~teness f~om t~6 Land-
Toxin and i:. ,c,idml'~. ~ '~omTheCommtsslons~ ~
rh,,~clo,~, il i, iht pul'ao-u mid ~ consider chang~ ,to mten~
in'6rder to' conserve,~protect
buildings aad7 site~ thereby
l!l c~ -'~ in.b ,he
o1' .'~¢ ;I I~ld Io~n al'lief ~il'
lh~ 1,5¢ai law 'd~l'lne~
e~,ml,ii,h ;'~ I ,md,rm~k I~"o.'-~:~- the public, or to.architectural
['rom a public Street or alley.
~. The basis for the Comm~ssmn
a:;Iq >oulhold fo;~[l~.,'a'He,;O ~. ~lecision is set Forth, mld~hefac-
~ors they ~hal[ ~onsider.
Certificate of Ap-
~ cedure. Harxlship Criteria,
Hardship Application Pro-
: M~'intenance .And Repair Re-
' quite/a~nts Eenaity for VioIa-
tions~ Method of Appeal, Te~-
mirmtion of Landmar?
Designation, are all set ~forth in
detail in this proposed Local
~:~ r,i fica',:ze ' a~ c~.i,c~ tHr,,I . 111. This Local Law shall take
'~i effect upon its filing with the
.ink ,!e.b,mu~ . uc c.~ J Seeretary of State.
· ')~' Copies of the ?~. plete LocaJ
dlCalIOII. ;.ppo,mr,e:,, ,,I I le ~ Law are available.in the Office
I m,dm,.,k Ihe-cr~'~ lo,', ¢.om - '. or' th~ Town Cl~k to any in-
· Procedures- for landmark ' terestedpersonsduring business
designation is'~.described; re- hours.
· ' JUDITH T. TERRY,
is as folI6ws: ' SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
· 1T-6/25/87(8)
Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the
Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN,
a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County;
and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy,
has been published in said LonE Island Traveler-Watchman
once each week for ................... ./. ...... weeks
successively, commencing on the ......... .~..r2. i~. ......
da
Sworn to before me this .......... .~../ ........ day of
Notary Public
BARBARA FORBES
Notary Fuhlie, State of New- York
No. 48068~6
Qualified in Suffolk County
COmmission Expires ~ ~ ! 19 ~o
/
LEGAL NOTIC~
NOTICI~~ OF
PUBLIC HEARING
ON LOCAL LAW
PUBLIC NOTICE IS
HEREBY GIVEN that there
has been presented tO the Town
Board of the Town of Sunthold,
Suffolk County, New York, on
the 16th day of June, 1987, a
Local Law entitled, ~"A Local
Law to establish a Landmark
Preservation Commission and
to prescribe its duties."
NOTICE IS 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, Main
Road, Sunthold, New York, on
the ilth clay of August, 1987,
at 8:00 o'duck P.M., at which~
time all interested persons will
be heard.
. Th~.~ "Local Law to
establish a Landm. erk Preserva-
tion Commission and to
prescribe its duties" reads ns
follows, tO wit:
BE IT ENACTED by the
Town Board of the Town of
Southold as follows:
L chaPter ~6 of the Code of
the Town of Southold,
fissignated Landmark Preserva-
tion and oti~nally adopted by
the Town Boasd of the Town of
~outhold on January 18, 1983,
as Local Law No. I of 1983, is
hereby repealed in its entirety
and the following Landmark
Preservation Law, to be known
as Chapter 56 oftbe Code of the
Town of Southold, be and
hereby isenactedinits place and
stead:
Section 56-1. Short' Title.
This chapter shall be kpown
mark P~ecervation Law of
Southold Town,"
Section 5~-2. Declaration of
Purpose and. Policy. '
TheTOWn Board finds there
exists in the Town of Southold
streaums, buildings and sites ot
historic or architectural
significance, antiquity, uni-
queness of exterior design or
construction, which should be
conserved, protected and
preserved to preserve th~ ar-
chitectural character of
Sunthold Town, contribute to
tbe aesthetic value of the Town,
and promote the general good,
.wdfare, bealth and'safety of the
Town and its residents.
Therefore, 'it is the purpose and
policy of this chapter to
sstablish a Landmark Preserva-
EXTERIOR ARCHITEC-
TURAL FEATURES- The ar-
of all of~ the outer surf,~es of
~ HISTORtCAL. .~IONZ-
F~AI~ T~-e~i~ of a
lyli~li~g structm~ or s~te b~-
~ ~n i~ id~tlr~fion with
ToWn'of ~ld.
AR~I~URAL
NIFIC~ ~e qu~ity of a
buil~ng'er s~ct~ ~ on
its date of e~n, s~le ~d
s~t~y of~ ~e, q~Hty ~
d~i~, pre.at ~t~n ~d
appearance o~ oth~
distinctive ch~ati~ 0f a
ty~, ~i~ ot m~h~ ~
~ND~- ~y s~c-
tu~, buil~n8 or s~i w~i~ ~
historical or arcbitecturn]
LANDMARK
:~IGNATi~ ~-
extent available
musiC: an ar~itect- ~
an h~torian; a ~ real
estate broker; an I~l~am~y; a
resident of an historic tiisL~ict;
a residept, who' has
damonsmtted~
ter~t in ~nd ~t l~ the
field of historle
· evidenced ~tber by i~olv~ment
group, employment or
- volunt~ ~ivity in.the ~eld of
historic p~ervati~, or other
~ s~ioas int~t in t~ ~ld, Ail
mem~ sh~ ~ve a ~wn
ter~t ~ h~t~ic ~ation
and ~chit~ural ~pmmt
with~ the Town of ~ut~M.
B. ~e term of offi~ of ~ch
m~ ~t~ to ~ ~-
mission shall ~ two (2)
provide, how~, that of
those m~rs first ap~int~,
th~ (3) shall ~ ap~int~ for
each member upon all questions
voted upon, and such minutes,
together with all records of the
Commission shall be promptly
filed With the TOWn Clerk.
D. The C6mmission shaH
recommend f~omJt~ uglnbers,,
gor Town Board aP~nf~ ~
Chairman who shall serve for a
term of one year. or until his
successor is appo~n ,.tee),
E. The Commi .ss~On ma~.in-
cur such expe~es m the perfor-
mance of its dutks as may be
authorized and apl~',~xia~ ~
the Town Board.
Section 56-5. Duties of the
Commission.
The duties of the Commi~ion
shall iodude:
A. Employment with Town
Bo~d approval of staff and
professional consultants as
tteee,~ary to cen'y out the duties
of the Commission.
B. Promull~tion; with Town
Board approval, qf rules and
· ~ulations as4~:e~a. ~ ry for the
oonduct of its busl~.ss.
C.' 'Adoption of certain
criteria for the identifkation of
significant historic, architec-
tural, and cultural landmarks,
D. Conduct of surveys of
significant historic, architec-
tural, and cultural landmarks
· within the Town.
E. 'Des~nation of identified
hoildings, muctures and sites as
landmarks.
F, Acceptance, with Town
Board approval, of the dona-
tion 'of facade ca.meats ,and
developn~nt ri~hts~ the making
of recommendations to the
Town govermnant ~unccrning
the acquisition of facade
easements or other interests in
real property as necessary to
carry out.the purposes of this
G. Increasing public
awareness of the value of
historic, cultural and architec-
tural preservation by developing
and participating in public
education programs.
H. Making recommendations
to the Town government con-
cerhing the utilization of state,
federal, or private funds to pro-
mote the preservation within the
Town.
L Recommending acquisition
'Of a landmark structure by the
Town government where its
preservation is essential to the
purpose~ of this act and where
private preservation is not
feasible.
J. Approval or di~oproval of
applications for Certificate~ of
£yle; or
4. Is the contribution of a
designer whose creation has
significantly influenced an age;
5. Represent s a~l:~est~]~lls~ hed
and fa~.~'"~ual feature of
t~t~horhond, bec~ase of
~-~'g-unique location or singular
physical characteristic,
B. The Commission may
designate ~t,group of properties
an historic district if it:
1. cuntalns properties which
meet one or more of the criteria
for designation of a landmark;
and
2, ,by reason of possessing
such qualities, it constitutes a
distinct section of Town.
The boundaries of each
historic district designated
henceforth shall be specified in
detail and shall be filed~ in
writing, in the Town Clerk's Of-
rice for public information. The
Town Clerk shall forward
reports to the Planning Board,
the Building Department and
the Zoning Board of Appeals.
C. Notice of a proposed
desi~'~ation shall be sent by
registered mail to the owner of
the property proposed for
designation, describing the pro-
perry proposed and announcing
a public hearing by the Com-
missioner to consider the
designation. Where the propos-
ed designation involves so many
owners that individual notice is
not feasible, notice may in-
stead be published at least once
m a newspaper of general cir-
culation an~ at least thirty (30)
days prior to the date of the
public hearing. After the Com-
mission has issued notice of a
proposed designation, no
building or demolition permits
shall be issued by the building
inspector until the Commission
has made its decision.
D. The Commission shall
hold a public hearing prior to
designation of any landmark.
The Commission, owners and
any interested parties may pre~
sent testimony or documentary
evidence nt the hearing which
· will become part of a record
regarding the historic, architec-
turak or cultural importance of
the proposed landmark. The
hearing record may also contmn
staff reports, public comments.
~ oth~ evidence. Staff repgrts
~ A. Certificate of
'kgpF0~riateness- No person
shell carry out any exterior
alteration, restoration,
reconstruction, demolition, new
construction or moving of land-
mark, nor shall any person
make any material changes in its
appearance, its light fixtures,
signs, sidewalks, fences, steps,
paving or other exterior
elements visible from a public
street or alley which affect the
appearance and cohesiveness of
the landmark, without first ob-
taining a Certificate of Ap-
propriateness from the Land-
mark Preservation
Commission.
B. Criteria for Approval of a
Certificate of Appropriateness
1. In passing upon an applfca-
tion for a Cerfiticate of Ap-
propriateness, the Landmark
Preservation Commission shall
not consider changes to interior
space%unless they are open to
the public, or to architectural
features that are not visible
from a public street or alley.
The Commission's decision
shall be based upon the follow-
ing principles:
(a) Properties which con-
tribute 'to the character of the
landmark shall be retained, with
their historic feaLures altered as
little as possible;
(b) Any alterations ot an ex-
isting landmark shall be com-
patible with its historic
character; and
(c) New construction on the
property shall be compatible
with the other features of the
landmark.
2. In applying the principle of
compatibility, the Commission
shell consider the following
factors:
(a) The general design,
character and appropriateness
to the property of the proposed
alteration or new construction·
(b) The scale of proposed
alteration or new construction
in relation to the property itself.
,(c) Textron,
~ ~ tier relati~
surroun~ffn~ ~f~s,~'~ffl
cJuding proportJon~of the pro-
perty's front fa~c~le. ~oporcion
~. arFa~fi~ent of windows
and the rhythmic spacing of
other properties on the strut.
including setback.
(e) The tmportance of
historic, architectural or other
features to the signficance of the
property.
C Certificate of Ap-
propriatenass Application
Procedure.
2. No buikK~ lin'mit simil be
issued for such proposed work
until a Certificate of Ap-
proprtatcoess has first been
issued by the Landmark Pre~a'-
vation Commission. The Cer-
tificate of Approl~riflte~Mat ce-
quired by this act shall he in ad-
dition to and not in lieu of any
building permit that may be
quired by any other ordinance
of the Town of.Soothold.
3. The CommissiOn shall
prove, deny, approve the perm
with modifications or schedulhedul~
a hearing within tell (10) w6rk-
lng days from r~*ipt of the
completed application. The
Commission may hold a public
hearing on the application at
which an opportunity will ,be
provided for proponents and
opponents of the application to
present thor views.
4. All decisions of the Com-
mission shall be in writing. A
copy shall he sent to the appli-
cant by registered mall and a
copy filed with the Town
Clerk's Office for publicimpeo-
tion. The Commission's dect,
sion shall state the repons.for
denying or modifyia~ ~
,D. Haedshil~ Criteria
An, al~liennt whore ~ C~-
tificate of Approl~iat~s hu
from the Landmark i~i~na-
tion on the ~rounds that
designation is working a hard-
ship upon himsdf, In orde~ to
prove the e~tem:e of hardship.
the applicant shall establish
that:
1. The property is incal~ble
of earning a reasonable return.
regardless of whether that
return represent~ the most pro-
fitable return possible;
2, The property cannot be
adapted for any other use,
whether by the current owr~r or
by a purchaser, which would
result in a reasonable return;
and
3. Efforts to find a purchaser
interasted in acquiring the pro-
perry and preserving it have fall-
ty as a private ,ce~iden~e.
becomes unaffordable.
E. Hardsl~ip .a~pplication
L After receiving written
notification from the Commis-
sion of tbe~¢~nial of a Cer-
tificate of Appropriatene~..&n
applicant may cornm~z~e
hardship process. ~No b~ding
permit or den~olition p~mit
shall be i~sued unle~ the Com-
Clerk's Office for public in~ec-
tion. The Commission,s deci-
sion shall state/he reason for
fflm~ or denying the hard.
sl~p ~pplicaflon.
F. Enforcement
Ali work performed pursuant
to a Certificate of Ap-
pr~priaten~s issued under ~his
ordinance shall conform to any
requirements included thereto.
it shall be the duty of the
~lding4n~mor to inspect,
~any
anU~ ~aphnt la tht ~.ent
wOr~ is found that is not being
nad ali ~ork ~hall imm~llat~
long as a stop work
O:~alntenance and R~h'
Requirad.
N~thing in this ordinance
shall he ennstnmi to prevent tbe
ordinary maintenance and
. repair of any exterior erc~itac-
tumi fentare of a hndmttrk or
a chn~ in d~lS~ or out~d
No owner or person with an
interest in real property
de~l~nate~as · landmatkor in-
chidad within a hi~oric
~11~$ the'prol~nY, to fail
into a.m-ious disrep~r so as to
reso~ in ~he deterin~n of'~nY
eat~fiot trchite~una feature
wh~h wou~M, in the judgment
of the L~k Preservation
Commissions produce a
detrimental effect upon the
chasaever of the propertyitself,
Examples of.such d~e~iora-
tion include:
I. ]~'dfior~tion, of eal~ior
wallS Or other vertical supports.
2. Deterioration of roofs,or
other horizontal members..
3, Deterioration of exterior
chimneys.
4. I~terioration'or crumbling
of extmior stucco or mormr,
$, Ineffective ~ttet~roofing
of ~aartor ~dis, roofs, or foun-
datlom, including broken win-
dov~or doors.
6. l~terioration of any
feature so as to eteat~ · hazer-
dous condi~on which could lead
m the claim that demolition is
necessasy for thc poblk~ ~fety.
H. Vinhtiom.
1. Failure to compl~ v~Mt any
of the nrovisions of this or-
1. Appe~s.
Any person n~fieved by a
decision of the Landmark
· Preservation Commission
relating to hardship or a Cer-
tificate of Appropriateness
may, within fifteen (15) days of
· the decision, file a written ap-
plication with the Town Board
for review of the decision.
Town Board may confirm,
ject, or modify the decision,
Section 56-8. Termination of
Landmark Deagnation.
Whenever a d~nnted
mark ia destroyed or its exte~r
is altesed to such an extent that
it ceases to have architectural
stgnificance, the Commi~on
may, by resolution, dire~r'that
it be removed from tim R~ster
of Designated Landmarks.
Prior to taking ,such action,
however, the owner ~hall be
an oPl~anity to appear before
the Town Board and be heard
thereo~.
Section 56-9. Severability.
F.~ of the forqotng provi-
siom of this chel~r hes heen
adopted in an endeavor to
preserve and extend'~he public
welfare, by preserving the
characteristics of historic
and/or architecturally si~ifi-
cant structures or sites. In the
event tha~. any portion of this
chapter shah he determined tn-
valid, such determination shall
not affect or result in the in-
validity of any other pi'ovision
contained in this' chapter.
Ii. This Local Law shall take
effect upon it~ f'~ with the
Secretary of State. Copies of
this Local Law are available in
the Office of the Town Clerk to
any interested PerSOns duri~
busine~ hours.
DATED: JUly 14~ 19~7.
JUDITH T. TERRY
SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
IT-?/~0/g'/(61)