Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning 1989 LOCAL LAW NO. A Local Law in Relation to Zoning BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of 5outhold as follows: Cl~apter 100 (Zoning) of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: 1. Section 100-239d. C is hereby deleted. This Local Law shall take effect upon its filing with the Secretary of State. PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD August 15, 1989 3:30 P.M. IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED "LOCAL LAW IN RELATION TO ZONING". Present: Absent: Supervisor Francis J. Murphy Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran Councilwoman Ruth D. Oliva Councilwoman Ellen M. Larsen Town Attorney James A. Schondebare Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Councilman George L. Penny IV SUPERVISOR MURPHY: This is a public hearing on a proposed "Local Law in Relation to Zoning". The official notification to be read by Councilwoman Oliva. COUNCILWOMAN OLIVA: "Legal Notice. Notice of Public Hearing on Local Law. 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 20th day of June, 1989, a Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in Relation to Zoning". 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, Southold, New York, on the 15th day of August, 1989, at 3:30 o'clock P.M., at which time all interested persons will be heard. This proposed "Local Law in Relation to Zoning" reads as follows, to wit: BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: I. Chapter 100 (Zoning) of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: 1. Section 100-239d. C (printed as 100-239.4.C in the Southold Town Code Book) is hereby deleted. II. This Local Law shall take effect upon its filing with the Secretary of State. Copies of said Local Law are available in the Office of the Town Clerk to any interested persons during business hours. Dated: August 2, 1989. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk." I have a notice of publication, an affidavit of publication in the Suffolk Times, in the Traveler-Watchman. Also, an affidavit from the Town Clerk Judith T. Terry, that it has been posted on the bulletin board. We have two communications. One from the Planning Board."Dear Mrs. Terry, The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, July 10, 1989. Resolved that the Southold Town Planning Board recommend to the Town Board that they adopt the Local Law in Relation to Zoning which deletes Section 100-239 d.c. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact th.is office. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr." We, also, have a communication from the Suffolk County Planning Commission, "Gentlemen: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections Pg 2 - Public Hearing - y~15/89 ~. A14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the above referenced application which has been submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination. A decision of local determina- tion should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kuntz, Director of Planning". There are no further communica- tions. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Ruth. You've heard the official reading, is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the Town Board on this proposed Local Law? Sir? FRANK FLYNN: Once again, we have an example of one of those critique legal notices, which informs the typical resident of the Town of Southold precisely nothing. I venture that scarcely one person out of a thousaqd understands the import of this proposed action. Despite the discussion on the August 1st Board meeting, no effort was made to explain the proposed deletion to the public. The amount of consideration given to this matter is indicated by the August 2nd date of the latest; legal notice. This veiled method of publication and the public ignor- ance and apparent apathy, which result are strangely at odds with the Board's policy as ~l~z~ated by Supervisor Murphy. If quoted correctly by the press, he stated in New~y 8/1/89, page 25, quote, basically we have always wanted the public to decide what they wanted us to do. I submit that it is impossible for the public to decide on a matter of importance, which is announced in a manner, which is designed to obfuscate the issue. Let me read into the record, that portion of the zoning code which the Town Board proposes to delete in its entirety from Section 100-239.4C, quote, all buildings located on lots adjacent to any freshwater body shall be set back not less than 75 feet from the edge of said water body or not less than 75 feet from the landward end of the freshwater wetland, which ever is greater. Unquote. What you purpose to delete is a direct, simple, s~ccin~:t, and unambiguous prohibition on building within 75 feet of freshwater bodies or their wetlands. This setback requirement has been in the Town Code for a number of years and has serve well in protecting the wetland environment. Now it is proposed to delete it in its entire~y in a r~ann whic~~ can, at best, be described as questionably. I have several questions to ask the Town Board, which I don't intend to be rhetorical in nature after which I shall expect answers at the conclusion of my statement. One. Who instigated the proposed deletion, and who cleared it for presentation to the Town Board for a vote? Two. What is his for their motivation? Three. Who will benefit from the deletion, certainly not the ordinary citizens and residents of Southold? I have been the recipent of a lecture from the dias, the substance of which ~es that I was ignorant of the provisions of Article 97, which essentially duplicate the subject section to be deleted. Over the span of some 70 years, I have developed more than a passing familiarity with the English language. Any statement that this sectic~n, that it is now proposed to delete, is covered with the same force and effect in Article 97, is simply not true. From a firm, unequivocal prohibition on building in the wetlands, it is proposed to make this a discretionary matter for the Board of Trustees. Need I point out that rather than the former straightforward prohibition, it is now proposed that descisions vital to the future of the physical environment, as well as that of the character of neighborhoods be made an arena subject to both politcal consideration and for special interest pressures and influence. My past experience has lead me and others to repose little confidence in the impartiality of the Board of Trustees. Some may recall that the last Town Board election marked the emer- gence of the preservation of the environment as an issue of paramount important to the electory. In fact the vote of the majority constituted a mandate for stricter environmental control. It is therefore more than passingly strange, that in the Pg ~ - Public Hearing - 8/15/89 vital area of wetlands' preservation, there has been a systematic weaRering of safeguards to the point of virtual elimination. There have been recent..there has been a recent veritable of events calculated to undermine control over the wetlands. One. The mandatory setback from tidal wetlands was eliminated. Two. The requirement that the Trustees have in had, permits from State and Federal agencies having jurisdiction before action was also eliminated. Now it is proposed to eliminate mandatory setbacks from freshwater wetlands. I might add that future assaults on the integrity of the Town's wetlands are in the planning stage. In conclusion, I submit that by approving this proposed deletion, the Town Board would be opening a Pandora's box. One. There is a clear.legal question as to the status of the Board of Trustees and it's right to act in these matters, as well as that of the Town Board to delegate such authority to the Trustees or others. This question must ultimately be confronted as it has been in other venues. Two. It is a sad commentary on the state of affairs in the Town of Southold, that while the State of New York is spending untold sums of taxpayers' money to inventory and map freshwater wetlands in order to preserve and conserve them, the Town is simultaneously deliberately weaken it's control over their development. I submit that the proper action for the Town Board would not only to retain the reference section in the Town Code, but, also, to revise the Code to reincorporate the previous unambiguous prohibition against building in tidal wetlands. I would now like to reinterate my questions of and to the Board, mainly who instigated the proposed deletion, and who cleared it for presentation to the Town Board to put it for a vote? If you'd like all three in a sequence, I'll give them to you. What is his per or their motivation and three, who will benefit from said deletion? Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Flynn. Jay, would you like to? TOWN ATTORNEY SCHONDEBARE: No problem. Mr Flynn, in response to your question, the history of this goes back, as you may remember, although I don't think you here, around 1984, when at that time the Town Board was the one that used to give out wetlands' permits. Trustees were only giving advisories, opinions to the Town Board, and the Town Board had the sole authority to give out permits. That was one of the areas that I remember having a discussion with Paul Stouten- burgh, formerly Councilman of the Town, The two of us in discussing the matter came to the conclusion, that it really didn't lie within the Town Board to do so. The expertise in the area, it was more with the Town Trustees, so the section of the Code dealing with wetlands, chapter 97, was amended to delete therefrom the Town Board, and insert therein the Town Trustees. Somewhere between '84 and the present date, and can't say exactly when, it was presented to the Town Board that while we had control over the wetlands area, and we could prohibit building within the wetland area, what was happening, there was construction going on adjacent to the wetland areas, and that that construction was having an adverse effect on the wetland areas, and it was recommended at that time that we put a 75 foo~ setback from the wetland area. This is the upland area we're talking about now, 75 feet upland area. The idea being, at that time, still is now, because that was history behind this, which as I'm giving it to you, is that it was not a prohibition of building within that 75 feet, but rather we were saying, we want to know what it is you are building within that 75 feet. We are not taking or confiscating anyone's I~roperty. All we're doing, we saying you can build within that 75 feet, but if you are we want to know what it is, so we can look at it to make sure run-off, etc. does not go into our wetlands. That was the intent. The Town Attorney, at that time, made proposals and it was put into the ordinance. As time went on it developed that we wound up with dual jurisdiction. We had a situation where the ZBA was having the power because it was implanted in the Zoning Code, and also, under our wetlands code, it was under the Trustees. We had situations where two Boards, then, were having to handle the same issu~ at the same time. It would be nice, if you didn't have any problems, but we Pg 4 - Public Hearing 8/15/89 had a definite problem of one Board doing something different than what the other Board did. For instance, we had (tape change) as far as what the wetlands were to be. They were going to go along with that one. Consequently, the Trustees were going down, and they were, also, stacking out the wetlands, and we had a situation of two different lines, Same town, same applicant, same property, two different lines, with one agency going according to a third agency's recommenda- tions. We decided that overlapping jurisdiction was not accomplishing anything. It was presented to the Town Board, that between the two agencies, the Trustees under the Wetlands' Ordinance, and the ZBA under the variance part of the zoning, that the Board that knows what it's doing, and I know you might not agree with this, but if you think through it, the Board that knows what it's doing and has the most familiarity with wetlands would be your Town Trustees. Now I realize you're suing the Town Trustees, because, you don't like their prior decision in the matter dealing with..adjacent to your property. FRANK FLYNN: You must be all of course you realize that. TOWN ATTORNEY SCHONDEBARE: I realize you don't like Town Trustees, but let me..just hear me out, because you asked the question. I~m giving you the answer, where all this came from. The ZBA, I would say almost 99% of what it does, is a type 2 action under SEQRA, type 2 being in't not involved with SEQRA. It has nothing to do with it. It's all setoffs, etc. The ZBA rarely gets involved in any SEQRA process. They rarely get involved, and I can't remember them involved. I think there is one, in a DEIS. Rarely get involved. Whereas your Trustees get involved all the time. Your Trustees ge~ involved with SEQRA. Your Trustees get involved with the DEIS. So if you have an overlapping jurisdiction which of the two Boards is more capable of handling the situation. You might not agree with the decision of the Town Board. The decision of the Town Board was that the Trustees are more capable of handling this situation, then your ZBA. Again, you're referring to building within the wetland areas. No one's authorizing anyone to build within any wetland areas. We talking the 75 foot upland area. That's what it's always been. FRANK FLYNN: I know. It's the adjacent area.. TOWN ATTORNEY SCHONDEBARE: Adjacent area of the man's property, the home- owner's property. Those matters at that time were deleted, I would say last year. Now we have the updated Master Plan, as you well know. The updated Master Plan. included other areas of the present zoning at the time. One of which was the dual jurisdiction issue. The Town Board knew at the time it passed it last year, amending this section, that in fact was going to come back again in the Code, when the Master Plan or the updated zoning, was passed. Low and behold, updated zoning was passed. Low and behold, it's obviously, there it is, because it was in there originally because it wasn't taken out before you finalized the updated zoning, and couldn't change it anymore, so I indicated some time pass that with some changes that have to be made to reflect back. This is one of them. That's on your saltwater, etc. The issue then came up and presented to me as Town Attorney, wetlands, freshwater wetlands. Before we were doing saltwater, then the issue was freshwater wetlands. We likewise had the same dual jurisdiction with freshwater wetlands. The question was then presented, what are we going to do about that? We're still having dual jurisdiction. We got rid of it on the saltwater, are we going to keep it Under freshwater? If so, what's the purpose of doing so? I went to the ZBA. I,spoke to the Chairman of the ZBA. I said, do you wish to still retain jurisdiction under freshwater wetlands? He indicated to me that he did not. I, then went to the Trustees. I spoke to the Trustees, and asked them, do they wish to r~tain jurisdiction? They said, yes. I said, do you mind if the ZBA goes out? !They said, no. That's basically, Mr. Flynn, P.g 5 - Public Hearing 8/;~789 ,~ how it all comes about. A determination one, legislative history was never to preclude anyone from building on their property within 75 feet. That is, as you're well aware, of the recent Supreme Court decisions a taking of an individual property without just compensation. We weren't doing 'that, when the Town Board passed this thing originally. What we were saying is, you can, but you go to the Trustees for a permit, you go to the ZBA for a variance. That's the purpose of the ZBA to issue variances. That's their main function in life under the law. That's what they do. All we want to know is, what is it that you're building? That's it. I believe that summarizes it. No one's benefiting out of this. No one~s,.. anyth.ing else you said. I don't understand. · FRANK FLYNNN: I don't think you can possible say that you're not weakening this section as it reads, .literally in the Code today, and secondly, it may surprise you that I'm not given rash action. I don't come up here and speak totally unpre- pared. I~ve had legal advice to this question, that it is very questionable that the Board of Trustees has. any jurisdiction in this matter whatsoever, and secondly, I've had legal advice that it is within the 10e'rogative of the Town Board to transfer it's rights to the Board of Trustees, and that's essentially what I'm saying. TOWN ATTORNEY SCHONDEBARE: So long as, we might be at an impasse in the difference with regards to the powers of the Board of Trustees, and the setup. So long as you under.. FRANK FLYNN: This has been TOWN ATTORNE'YSCHONDEBARE: Okay, that's one issue, so as long as you realize, because you made statements that ~/e~re allowing people to build withinthe wetlands. That's not true. FRANK FLYNN: I didn't say that. TOWN ATTORNEY SCHONDEBARE: I wrote it down. Maybe you mis~:poke but I have that written down. You didn't mean that obviously. FRANK FLYNN: I didn't say that. TOWN ATTORNEY: SCHONDEBARE: Maybe I miswrote it then. FRANK FLYNN: I said it was a di:scretionary matter with the Trustees. That was my exact quote. TOWN ATTORNEY SCHONDEBARE: We're not talking... FRANK FLYNN: now it becomes a matter of discretion for the Trustees TOWN ATTORNEY SCHONDEBARE: But it's not the wetland area we're discussing. We're discussing the upland area of the person's property. We might have a difference of opinion with regard to the Trustees, and their powers, etc. That's one' thing. So long as you know that the history behind why it was done, two, how it was done, three, no one's profitting, no skullduggery, I think I've indicated to you, that I went around by and large, and I'm not benefiting out of this thing. FRANK FLYNN: I say that there is a potential, shall we say it kindly, for error where as no such 'potential existed before, and therefore by broadening the scope, you are in effect weakening you control over, shall we say, the adjacent wetlands, and acting at odds with the obvious intent of the State of New York, which is currently making a survey of these adjacent wetlands, and wetlands for the proposed Page 6 - Public Hearing 8,~,~/89 intention of preserving them for posterity. There is no point..we're obviously at odd, there's not point.. I appreciate your explanation but I remain unconvinced. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Anyone else like to comment on this proposed Local Law? ALICE HU$S.IE: Alice Hussie, League of Woman Voters. I, too, am talking to this subdivision 239.qc, the title of which is building setback requirements adjacent to these water bodies and wetlands. There is nothing in the wetland's ordinance, now I checked this out, I checked back to the wetlands. There is nothing in the wetland's ordinance that speaks to setbacks perse. The wetland's ordinance talks about the location of any proposed structure. They talk about a decription of the area. They talk about wanting a topographical map of the area of the proposed structure, but they don't talk about specific numbers of how close you can get. What they do say though, is that a permit i$ required. This is 97-20A a permit is required, and then in B, they say the Trustees may waive the permit requirement. We want to go on record protesting the deletion of Chapter 100, Section 239.z~dC. It's another illegal delegation of the Town 13oard~5 authority. The Zoning 13oard and the Trustees have to work under what you set up for them. They are here to carry out what you make the law. You can not give them the law. You have to make it, and it was wonderful. It was good .with the 75 foot setback. Don't take it out. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Alice. Anyone else? ALICE CREMERS; I'm Alice Cremers. I'm speaking and representing the North Fork Environmental Council, and even though we under-stand that Section C100.239 is being deleted from the Zoning Code because we were told it was duplicated in Section 97-13 of the wetlands, we'd like to know why the restriction of building within 75 feet is not included in wetlands. They do not say buildings. TOWN ATTORNEY SCHONDEBARE: If I understand your question, you've also premised that with, that you can't build within the 75 feet. ALICE CREMERS: No. I know. I understand that. TOWN ATTORNEY SCHONDEI3ARE: Okay, that was an~,other legislative, and we're not taking anyone's property. ALICE CREMERS: 13ut in the wetlands section it doesn't say anything about building. TOWN ATTORNEY SCHONDARE: Read the definition of operations. ALICE CREMER: That's just a definition, it's not a restriction. TOWN ATTORNEY 5CHONDEBARE: Well, that's what you would go by. You're not going to do a negative. You not looking. We're saying that if you're going to build within 75 feet, you're going to need a permit. ALICE CREMERS: Yes, but they waive it. TOWN ATTORNEY SCHONDEI3ARE: The ZBA can grant a variance, too. I don't understand the problem. See that's what we're getting into. The ZBA's function is grant variance, not to prohibit them. The person can go to the ZBA and get the same distance to build within the 75 feet area. ALICE CREMERS: Under the zoning, they could get a permit there, too, the Pa, ge 7 - Public Hearing 8/~'~/89 Zoning Board of Appeals has to give them a permit. TOWN ATTORNEY:SCH_ONDEBARE..., .Give them a variance. That's the term. ALICE CREMERS: Oh, is that way it is. TOWN ATTORNEY SCHONDEBARE: That the term. They would give them a variance. That's the function of the ZI~A, is to give out variances, ALICE CREMINS: Why is ~t being changed? Why don't they just leave it? TOWN ATTORNEY SCHONDEBARE: Because we're serving no purpose to have the two Boards entertain the same application. The person' would come in with one application, and have to go to two Boards of the Town, one of which is not qualified at all to be getting involved in wetlands, SEQRA and DEIS's, and that's the ZBA, and I don't think it's putting the ZBA down, or saying anything dispar- aging about them. That's not their function. They don't have the expertise or the knowledge. They're basically zoning to give out variances, or special permits, special exceptions. It didn't serve any function. It was an exercise of going through the procedures for no apparent reason. It's quantity over quality. 1 mean, we all know you have to go to the DEC, also. We haven't mentioned that. But you've got to go to the DEC. We all know that if you go to the DEC, they're understaffed, undermanned and underfunded. They're pushing papers back and forth over there. We don't, and I don't think any Board in this Town relies on the DEC to handle these things for us. That's another level, but it's not accom- plishing anything. The ZBA was another level, but I questioned what it was accomplishing. The Trustees is where it lies. We may have a difference of opinion, but that's it. FRANK FLYNN: With reference to the ZETA, we're talking here about the Trustees having the right to waive the requirement.. TOWN ATTORNEY SCHONDEBARE: I don't understand, you say waive it. FRANK FLYNN: To waive the requirement for the permit. TOWN ATTORNEY SCHONDEBARE: No, they don't, not within 75 feet. They have..if they issue the permit they have a right to waive. I think you were referring to other permits that would be obtained by the ZBA, before the Trustees would act. Is that what you were referring to? FRANK FLYNN: I'm referring to the Trustees having the right to waive the requirement that a permit be issued. I'd have to read the Code exactly to quote for you, but really what I had in mind was the ZBA. Now the ZBA, although it's not recognized apparantly has to meet very strict requirements before granting a variance. I'm not an attorney, but I've had enough experience without to know what the requirements are, and it's much harder to get a variance where you held to the strict standard of the law, then it is to get permit from the Trustees. TOWN ATTORNEY SCHONDEBARE: No. I think that would be, again, something that we'd differ on, a different interputation on. FRANK FLYNN: Well, there, again. Thank you. TOWN ATTORNEY SCHONDEBARE: That's what makes a law suit. P, age 8 - Pulbic Hearing 8/~/89 ~.. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Is there anyone else who would like to address, the Town Board? (No response.) Any Town Board member like to comment on this proposed Local Law? (No response.) Hearing none, I'll close this public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF A SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD August 1, 1989 8:00 P. M. PROPOSED "LOCAL LAW IN RELATION TO ZONING". Present: Supervisor Francis J. Murphy Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran Councilman George L. Penny IV Councilwoman Ruth D. Oliva Councilwoman Ellen M. Larsen Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Assistant Town Attorney Robert H. Berntsson SUPERVISOR MURPHY: This is a hearing on proposed "Local Law in Relation to Zoning". The official notice to be read by Councilman Penny. COUNCILMAN PENNY: This one is going to be a tough one, because it just deletes a certain section of law. Maybe Rob could explain it before I read it. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY BERNTSSON: There's been a lot of questions on this relatively simple amendment. What had happened was, when the Town Board passed Local Law Number 3 of this year, they added to the existing Code a section called 239d. When it was sent off to the General Code Publishing Corporation, that does our Code Book, they took it upon themselves to renumber that as 239.4. So, if you look in our Code Book you will not find a 239d. You'll find a 239.4, and I believe the confusion was in that regard, that there is nothing in the Code Book that we're deleting, however to be consistent in the Local Law that was passed, we have to delete the number as it was passed. So, that's what it is. COUNCILMAN PENNY: "Notice of Public Hearing on Local Law. Public Notice is hereby given that there has been present to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 20th day of June, 1989, a Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in Relation to Zoning". 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, Southold, New York, on the 1st day of August, 1989, at 8:00 o'clock P.M.~ at which time all interested persons will be heard. This proposed "Local Law in Relation to Zoning" reads as follows, to wit: BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: I. Chapter 100 (Zoning) of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: 1. Section 100-239d. C is hereby deleted. II. This Local Law shall take effect upon it filing with the Secretary of State. Copies of this Local Law are available in the Office of the Town Clerk to any interested persons during business hours. Dated: July 18, 1989. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk." I have an affidavit of publication from the Suffolk Times, one from the Traveler-Watchman, an affidavit of posting by the Town Clerk that this has been posted on the Town Bulletin Board for the required time. I Pg 2 - Public Hearing, ~ on Zoning ,"~ have the fol.lowing communications from the Town Planning Board,"Dear Mrs. Terry: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, July 10, 1989. Resolved that the Southold Town Planning Board recommend to the Town J3o ard that they adopt the Local Law in Relation to Zoning which deletes Section 100-239d.c. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly your Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman." Another one from the Suffolk County. "Gentlemen: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the above referenced application which has been submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination. A decision of local determina- tion should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kunz, Director of Planning". There are no further communica- tions. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: You've heard the official reading. Is there anyone here who would like to address the Town Board on this proposed Local Law? (No response.) As you can see, you just can't use an eraser. You have to go the full gambit. Anyone want to address? Yes? F, RANK FLYNN: NOW, I became aware of this on Thursday. I believe the intent was to properly inform the residents of the Town of the intent of this by the Town Board, and of the Code Committee. What we have here is what can be best descibed as a exercise It is__that this is supposedly the Code of the Town of Southold. I have searched, many other people have searched, there is no such entry in this Code. The end result of it is, that people have not been aware of the full intention of what the Code Committee is submitting to the Town Board for its approval. What is being submitted to the Town Board for its approval is something that is not in any type of subsequential order that ever prevails in the Town Code. I have checked the Town Code for many years, and system in the Town Code has been to cite the section, subsequent to that a sub- section by a capital letter and subsequent to that sub-paragraphs by small letters, a letter by numbers, and then subsequent to that by small letters. In other words, what has been done here deviates the system that has prevailed in the Town for years. So there is no constructive notice to the residents of this Town as to what has been proposed to do here, and I submit that this is defective notice to the Town, to the residents of the Town, and further, I think the Town residents should be informed that this is just another step in the sequence by which the Code Committee has been recommended that this of all the protections that have been previously afforded to the wetlands in this Town. First, we elimhr~at~ the required setbacks from the saltwater wetlands. Now, we propose, or the Code Committee proposes that the Town Board eliminate the mandatory setbacks from the freshwater wetlands. In effect, we have no protection for the wetlands in any case. I will submit to you that concurrently with all this, the State of New York is preparing freshwater wetlands maps. What is the purpose of it if the Town has no intention of protecting these freshwater wetlands, and conceivably you can either build up to the edge of these fresh water wetlands or within the freshwater wetlands. I would question for whose benefit, this revision in the Town Code is proposed? I think that summarizes exactly what I have to say, and I think very true of the people in the Town by reason of this so called public notice of any knowledge of what is proposed here tonight. And further, I am suspicious of this reason this is done, and the method by which this done because in almost every other instance when you site something that is going to revise the Code, you give some narrative description of it. Here you give an incorrect description to those of us who subscribe and update the Code, and you don't even give a hint in the public notice of what is intended to done to sacrafice Pg 3 - PH, LL on Zon ~. ,,""~. what land areas to potential developers there are. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else would like to address the Town Board either for or against this proposed Local Law7 COUNCILWOMAN OLIVA: I would just like to say to Mr. Flynn, that this did not come out of the Code Committee. This came directly from the Town Attorney's Office. COUNCILWOMAN LARSEN: Rob, would you explain? ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY BERNTSSON: I think to further clarify that. It came from long discussions between the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Board of Trustees to our office. What this is, is overlapping jurisdiction between the Board of Trustees and the Board of Appeals. They both have jurisdication on the freshwater wetlands within 75 feet, and its an attempt to reduce the amount of approvals neccessary for the applicants that come in. The Trustees are the ones that are the experts in the wetland field, and the purpose behind it was to remove the jurisdiction from the ZBA, who once somebody went to the Trustees, and got their approval, and to thereafter go to the Board of Appeals, and apply through them as well when they had already gone through'all the steps for the Board of Trustees. This is just a matter of overlapping jurisdict'ion between the two agencies, and that's the purpose behind this Local Law, and the purpose comes from many discussions between the Trustees and the Board of Appeals. FRANK FLYNN: Can I comment further on something? Despite this explanation, the effect of this is. to eliminate the long standing mandatory law in this town, that all improvements be setback 75 feet from the mean high water line and the freshwater wetlands. Now it's not a question of whether the Trustees or the Planning Board, or anybody else, is going to have jurisdiction. The fact of the matter is that you by approving this are eliminating what has stood here in the Town for years, even prior to the intensive development that we are anticipating today, mainly a mandatory setback from the wetlands. Thank you, COUNCILWOMAN LARSEN: Mr Flynn, if I could just address that for a moment. First of all, the freshwater wetland, there is no mean high water mark. That only applies to saltwater where the tidal... The setback in the Town of Southold on a freshwater wetland is 150 feet, and it's not based on the water level. It's based on the predominent vegetation in the area. If you look at the Code, you'll see that the Town of Southold subscibes to the DEC regulations on it, which is 150 foot setback. FRANK FLYNN: In the Code it says 75 feet. COUNCILWOMAN LARSEN: In that section, it's 150 feet if you go'to Chapter- 92, which is wetlands. FRANK FLYNN: Well, what we are discussing, I believe, is a change in the zoning code wherein it states 75 feet. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: The Town Attorney will review. FRANK FLYNN: I'II be glad to settle 'for a greater setback. COUNCILWOMAN LARSEN: 'It's 150 feet on the Trustee's.. Pg 4 - PH, LL on Zonir'~''~ SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Any other Town Board members have any other comments? (No response.) Anyone else in the audience? (No response.) Hearing none, I'll close the public hearing. ~ JL~dith T. Terry Southold Town C:lerk · EG)LL NOTICE .. :. ,NOTICE OF PU~ILIC o toc, L · ;bee~ .pr~md to . ~d o~ ~e To~ o~'Sourhol~ , 'Suffolk Co~3~ Ne~ ~brk. on lhe ,~h day of'Jun~ 1~9. a :. · Lo~ L~w ent~le~ "A Lo~ 'Law in ,Rel~d~ . N~'~r~ : .~s prdpos~ '~1 Law in BE IT ~NAC~D by ~e Town ~o~d So~o~ ~ follows: L chap~ l~tzo~gl or Code of l~e ~il of ~o~thold So,hold To~ ~e~b)' deleted.' H. T~ ~ Lawsh~ take ' ~if~t upon i~ ~g ~[b be , ~o~ ~crk to. any i~temsted ' ~ SOLI~H~LD T COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK 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 ' /z~ ~ day of_,..__,.~.~ .... , 19 °':~" ?.. ~ Sworn to before mc this ......... ./.~. ......... day of Notary Public BARBARA A. NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York  LEGAL NOTI~ NOTICE OF P[-~LIC ' }TATE OF ~.Y~} ~,' ~B~C NO~CE IS ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0~ OF SUF~L~ ~: w ~ To~ B~ ~ ~ To~'~ ' ;~ Sou~old, S~fo~ Coanry, New ~ Y~, on~c~y~J~e, 1989, Pa~ricia Heaney of ~tt~u~, m · .~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~. . :. a,~ .. ~ .~ duly swor~ ~s that he~ b'~i~l~ ~ ~ T~n ~ To~ of ~:- _ SOUTIIoLD TowNCLEKK Saf/~ Ca~y. New ~, · '~TO~ ', · day ~ J~e, 1989. 6~5-~TJ~ ..... :- ' ~d ~un~, being du~v ~Qm, says that he/she ~ principal ~ ~ J- ~ ' ·; ')'~:.C[~k o[ THE SU~O~K TI~S, a Weekly Newspaper, . '" "' "- published at MatlltUok' in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk "'nd State-of NeW York, and that the Notioe' o! which the annexed is a printed coW, bas be~n regulmly published in s~ld Newspaper' once .each Week for 1 weeks successively, comm~ing on the 77 day of Prlacipal Clerk ' NOTICE: OF · PUBLIC H~ARING ,~., ON-~CAL LAW ~c~ Law ~tkl~, · apubfich~ngonthe~e~d '~ ~ Law at t~ 5oatho d To~ New Y~k, on the "personnel Re afi~% o Zon ~ jeads C~ .. I~ B~d of rbe ro~ Sou~old ~foBows: ,- ' t. ~a~r I~(ZonMg~ofthe Code of ~e l*.~¢of ~u~old ~ ff~e~v ~end~ a~ follows. ' ~eceby 'tlr. T~ LBcal Law s~aH take efkct upo~qts fihng4~hh the r~' av~able ~.~e O,~e of the :~.; Iowa Cl~k ,fo- any Mterested ~ pers6~ ~u~g2~bom L, DATE~' Jhly 18; "1~9; ' ' :~ ,- ~ - JUDIIH'E TERRY ~ _ . IX,~ 27'8949} 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 Traveller-Watchman once each week for .........................../ weeks successively, commencing on the ........ .%~..7..7 ...... Sworn to before me this ........... .~.F .~..-... day of Notary Public BAR~ARA k SCHNEIDER Ou~iif~d ~n SuffoJk Cou~ / LOCAL LAW NO. , 1989 A Local Law in Relation to Tractor Trailers BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of 5outhold as follows: I. Chapter 86 (Tractor Trailers) of the Code of the Town of Southold will read as follows: 1. Section 86-1 Outdoor parking and storage. Except as hereafter provided, the outdoor parking or storage of unlicensed tractor trailers. whether on wheels or otherwise supported, with or without cabs, for any purpose whatsoever, is prohibited in all districts except when parked for the purpose of loading or unloading or otherwisei in the conduct of business, and then for a period not to exceed; twenty-four (24) hours. Section 86-2.A. Permit requirements; fees. A person or a firm, partnership, corporation or any other type of business wishing to maintain a tractor trailer for a period exceeding twenty-four (24) hours shall obtain a permit fr~m the Town Board for a fee of thirty five dollars ($35.). 3. Section 86-2. B. The permit shall allow the parking of one (1) tractor trailer for a period not to exceed one (1) year which permit may be extended provided site plan approval is being diligently pursued. Section 86-2. C. C. A permit shall be obtained for each tractor trailer. 5. Section 86-3. Exemption for not-for-profit organization events. Trailers parked as a consequence of an event sponsored by a local not-for-profit organization shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter for a period not to exceed one (1) week. 6. Section 86-4. Extensions of time. An extension of time may be granted by the Town Board. This extension may be granted if the Board determines that the need for the additional time is due to a problem which is beyond the control of the party requesting the extension. II. 7. Section 86-5. A. All tractor trailers parked within the Town at the time of the adoption of this chapter shall be exempt from its provisions for a period of one (1) year from the date of adoption. 8. Section 86-5. B. Trailers parked on construction project sites and necessary to the construction project shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter during the period in which construction is being done on said project. 9. Section 86-6. Penalties for offenses. An offense against the provisions of this chapter shall be punishable by a fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250.) or by imprisonment for not more than fifteen (15) days. or both. This Local Law :shall take effect upon its filing with the Secretary of State. PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD June 21, 1989 3:32 P.M. IN THE MATTER OF A TRAILERS". Present: Absent: PROPOSED "LOCAL LAW IN RELATION TO TRACTOR Supervisor Francis J. Murphy Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran Councilman George Councilwoman Ruth Town Attorney Jay Town Clerk Judith Councilwoman Ellen L. Penny IV D. Oliva * Schondeba re T. Terry * M. Larsen (out-of-town) SUPERVISOR MURPHY: This public hearing scheduled for today is on "A Local Law in Relation to Tractor Trailers". The official notice to be read by Council- woman Oliva. COUNCILWOMAN OLIVA: "Public Notice is hereby given that there has been pre- sented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 6th day of June, 1989, a Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in Relation to Tractor Trailers". 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, Southold, New York, on the 20th day of June, 1989, at 3:32 o'clock P.M., at which time all interested persons will be heard. This proposed "Local Law in Relation to Tractor Trailers' reads as follows, to wit: BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: I. Chapter 86 (Tractor Trailers) of the Code of the Town of Southold will read as follows: 1. Section 86.1. Outdoor parking and storage. Except as hereafter provided, the outdoor parking or storage of unlicensed tractor trailers, whether on wheels or otherwise supported, with or without cabs, for any purpose whatsoever, is prohibited in all districts except when parked for the purpose of loading or unloading or otherwise in the conduct of business, and then for a period not to exceed twenty-four (24) hou rs. 2. Section 86-2.A. A. Permit requirements; fees. A person or a firm, partnership, corporation or any other type of business wishing to maintain a tractor trailer for a period exceeding twenty-four (24) hours shall obtain a permit from the Town Board for a fee of thirty-five dollars ($35.). 3. Section 86-2.B. B. The permit shall allow the parking of one (1] tractor trailer for a period not to exceed one (1) year which permit may be extended provided site plan approval is being diligently pursued. ~ Pg 2 - LL, Tractor, 4. Section 86.2.C. C. ^ permit shall be obtained for each tractor trailer. 5. Section 86-3. Exemption for not-for-profit organization events. Trailers parked as a consequence of an event sponsored by a local not-for-profit organization shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter for a period not to exceed one (1) week. 6. Section 86-4. Extensions of time. An extension of time may be granted by the Town Board. This extension may be granted if the Town Board determines that the need for the additional time is due to a problem which is beyond the control of the party requesting the extension. 7. Section 86-5.A. A. All tractor trailers parked within the Town at the time of the adoption of this chapter shall be exempt from the provisions for a period of one (1) year from the date of adoption. 8. Section 86-5.B. B. Trailers parked on construction project sites and necessary to the construction project shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter during the period in which construction is being done on said project. 9. Section 86-6. Penalties for offenses. An offense against the provisions of this chapter shall be punishable by a fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250.1 or by imprisonment for not more than fifteen (15) days, or both. II. This Local Law shall take effect upon its filing with the Secretary of State. Copies of this Local Law are available in the Office of the Town Clerk to any interested persons during business hours. Dated: June 6, 1989. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk." I have any affidavit from The Suffolk Times of publication. Also, an affidavit of publication from the Traveler-Watchman, and an affidavit from out Town Clerk, Judith T. Terry, that it was posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board. There are no further communications. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Ruth. You've heard the official reading of the proposed Local Law. Is there anyone who would like to address the Town Board on this proposed Local Law? JOE GREGEI_IA: My name is Joe Gregella. I'm the executive secretary for Long Island Farm Bureau in Riverhead. I was just a little concerned in reading this, about the implication for farmers in Southold Town. Some farmers use trailers, that have the wheels removed for refrigeration of their crops as they come out of the fields. They store in the trailers temporarily until they load their trailers for market, and it could have an effect upon them. Also, it's been permitted use for some time, that they store crates and boxes and other things that they use on farm operations, and I was wondering if that had been considered in the writing of this law. The other thing, I think I understand the intent of the law that's proposed, but I'm not sure that requiring a permit is going to remedy the situation that you're looking 'to take care of. That's really all I wanted to say about it. I was concerned for the farmers, that may have these trailers in their yards. .. · Pg 3 - LL, Tractor, Tr~rs SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Good point. Thank you, Joe. Anyone else like to address the Town Board? (No response.) Over on the left? (No response.) Anyone in the middle? (No response.) Any Town Board members want to make a comment? COUNCILWOMAN OLIVA: I think we can address the problem very easily, Joe, I think it's valid. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: If there are no more comments we'll close this public hearing. Southold Town Clert( . NOTICE OF - PUli,Il2 HEAI~ING ON , LOCAL LAW ' · PUBLIC ~IOTIC£ I$ HIiREB¥' - ~_GIVEN rh~ Ihcre ~s been procured NO~ B F~R GIVe' ,~ ~e Tom ~d of~6-To~ :L~ho[d Town H~L Ma~ of I~, 198q, at 3:32 o'ci~k P~ aL ~ch ~e ~ ~i~ ~o~ ~h~ ~ (1} y~r rrbm ~e ~te of ' ~o~J off ~-~0~ off ~u~ald as ~ aon. pmJ~t ~ and ~- ,' ~oHo~: ' ": ~ ~to~¢~st~onp~- m STATE OF NEW YOS~ )SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Yvonne Liel~Le±n of MalUtuok, in said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she is PrinoipaI Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly #eWspaper) published at Mettituok, In the Town of SouthOld, ~)unH of Suflollt a~l State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy) has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for ] weeks successively, commencing on the 3_5 day of Principal CIsrk ~mppo~e~:L '*'iuh or wkbom :ab for any ~ what:m~ver, i . ~ ~. ~s ~ ~ sh~ ~e effc~t load~g' or untoa~ng ~wi~Sccm~ (24)' ~r~ sh~ o~ (~.}. ~,' ~y~ Excm~oa for nbt4or-pro~l~ exem~ ~r~ ~e pr~to~ r'2 pUBLIC~I::IEARI~G= ON LOCAL LAW BY GIVEN that there has been. present~,d to~h¢ Town Board of the Town of~S6uthold, Suffolk , County, New York, on the 6th day of June, 1989, a Loc~.Law entitled "A Local Law i,n~P, ela- lion to Tractor Tr~ile~-'g.' l .~ . NOTICE' IS I~U~ER GIX EN fl~at, he.To~Boa~l Ihu Io%'-fl (ti Son hud will hoM lint.. Mum I:[oud. Sn.!lho!d¥' at which ~e all sons. ~1 be h~rd. This propos~ "L~ Law ?ends as follows, to wit BE IT.ENA~ED by To~ Board 0f the To%a. of Southold as follows: , ~ [. Chapter 86 (Tr~-~or ~lers) of the Codec~f ~he %~ of Southold will'~d as foRows: ~ Outdoor parki~g;i and . storage. ~cept as he~r p~6- - vi~e~ the outdoor parking 0r storage of unficensed tractor t~le~, whe~er on wh~ls '~r" otherwise supposed, ~th 6r without ~bs, for any pu~ose ~hatso~ec is proMbited in ~tfi%ts ~xcep~ whop payked for th& ~a?pbse?f loffdi~ or duct of bu~ifiess, ~bd t~e~-for a ~lod not to ~ed twemy-four ~-~ ~=: ~r~R requirements fe~:: A person o[. a~, part- n~sMp, ~c~porati~n. or any other t~of b~iness ~shing to ~intaln fi tm~t$~ailer for a period exceeding ~venty-four (~)'hours shall ob~n a permit from the To~n Board for a fee of ~i~y-five doR~s ($35). 3. Section 86-2.B. B. ~e p~mit sh~l ~ow the p~g of one (1) tractor ~ler for a period not to exceed one (1) year WMch pe~it may b~ &xtended prov dod site plan -a~roval is b~ng diligently pursued· ' L 4.. Secfioa"86-2.c_ - ~...c.A.per~ shall be ob- liged for each trfid~r trailer· ~. qec~;on 86 5. ~ar~ed As a:co~uence of an COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK ss: Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been pubEshed in said Long Island Travele~Watchman once each week for ....................... ~... Weeks successively, commencing on the ........... /~-- ~ ........ ,., Sworn to before me this .................... ~day of Notary Public BARBARA A. SC',4NE~]ER NOTAR',' PUBL',tL State of New York Qb.,:,led ,n ~ ~alk Ceunty / the extension. 7. Section 86-$.A. ' A. Ali tractor t~allers · parked within rhe Town at the - time of the adoption of this chapter shalI be exempt from the provisions for a period of one (1) year from the date of adoption. 8. Section 86-$.B. B. Trailers parked on '=cOnstrudtion project 'sites fi. Rd necessary to.the construction project shall be exempt'from the ~'- pr0visi'ons 0f this chal:;ter dur- ing th~ peri6d ir/which coiu- s(, struction is being done on said !~ project. .~ offense against the provisions of · this chapter shall be punishable ' by a fine of not more than two ' hundred fifty dollars ($250.) or -by imprisonment for not more than fifteen (15) days, or both] [I. This Local Law shall take effect upon ~ts filing with the Secretax3/of. State. Copies of this Local Law are available in the Office of the Town Clerk to any [nterested persons during business hours. DATED: June 6 1989. JUDITH' T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK IX, 6/15 '89 (5)