Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarina Parking Zone Amend 1990LOCAL LAW NO. - 1990 A Local Law in Relation to Zoning BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of $outhold as follows: Chapter 100 (Zoning) of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: 1. Section 100-191(A) is hereby amended to read as follows: Type of Use Required Number of Parking Spaces Marina 1 space per 4dry racks, 1 space per 2 boat slips, moorings or dock spaces, plus 1 space per employee. II. This Local Law shall take effect upon its filing with the Secretary of State. PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD April 24, 1990 8:02 P.M. IN THE MATTER OF A PROPOSED "LOCAL LAW IN RELATION TO ZONING". Present: Absent: Supervisor Scott L. Harris CoUncilman .George L. Penny IV Councilwoman Ruth D. Oliva Councilwoman Ellen M. Larsen Councilman Thomas H. Wickham Town Cle~-k Judith T. Terry Town Attorney Harvey A. Arnoff Justice Raymond W. Edwards (out of town) SUPERVISOR HARRIS: The second public hearing of the evening, is one entitled amending Chapter 100, Section 100-191 (A) of the Code of the Town of Southold. George, would you read the legal notices, please, and communications that follow? COUNCILMAN PENNY: "Public Notice is hereby given that there has been presented to the Town 13oard of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 27th day of March, 1990, a Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in Relation to Zoning:. Notice is further 7~iven 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 24th day of April, 1990, at 8:02 o'clock P~M., at which time all interested persons will be heard. This proposed "Local Law in Relation to Zoning" reads as follows: 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 100-191(A) is hereby amended to read as follows: Required Number Type of Use of Parking Spaces Marina I space per 4 dry racks, 1 space per 2 boat slips, moorings or dock spaces, plus 1 space per employee. 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 inter- ested persons during business hours. Dated: April 10,1990. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk." I have affidavit of publication from the Suffolk Times, a like affidavit from the Traveler-Watchman, and any affidavit of posting from the Town Clerk, that it's been posted on the Town Bulleting Board for the appropriate time. I have the following communications. From the County of Suffok, Department of Planning, 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 determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kunz, Director of Planning. From the Planning Board, Town of Southold, from Bennett Orlowski, Chairman. The Planning Board has been asked for its recommendations on a proposed amendment to Chapter 100-191 (A) of the Zoning Code. The proposed change will amend the parking requirements for mai-inas. The following resolution was adopted at the Planning Board's public meeting on April 9, 1990. WHEREAS the legislative intent is to accomodate a.new type of boat storage in marinas and also to develop a parking requirement that is based on actual needs; and WHEREAS the Town Board had authorized a parking survey of a local marina during the summer of 1989, which results showed that the Town's current parking requirement was excessive; and WHEREAS the Planning Board finds that the parking requirement should reflect actual conditions in the field; and WHEREAS the Planning Board finds that the current parking requirement for marinas does not take into account the parking needs generated by the dry rack storage of boats, which is a type of storage that reflects a steady trend in the marina industry towards maximizing the use of upland, in the face of increasing regulation of and competition for the waterfront; BE IT TBEREFORE RESOLVED That the Planning Board recommends the passage of the proposed amendment which will change the requirement from one parking space per slip, mooring or storage capacity to one half. a space per wet slip and one quar~:er of a space per dry rack storage space. The existing requirement of one space per employee will not be affected by this amendment, and the Board supports its retention. It'.s a communica- tion from Bennett Orlowski, Jr. The Office of the Building Inspector, I would suggest the propo, sed law on racks, in the Marine I & II Districts, be extended to address the following consi¢leration: 1). Define under 100-13. 2). State whether this is part.bf M:~i~niMarine business or to be considered an accessory thereto. 3). If accessory, it would have a present height limit of 18'-0. Would that include the boat on top or the empty rack? 4), Would this type of unit requires a Special Exception from Z.B.A. and/or amended site plan? Answers to these would cut down on public aggravation immediately. That's from Victor Lessard. We have no further communciations. I would just like to address, briefly, how this came up, and I see that the Planning covered a lot of it in their letter to us, but approximately a year ago, the Planning Board in addressing site plans for marinas, that are going into dry rack storage, came to the Town Board with a difficulty. The difficulty was, is that they had no requirement for dry rack storage in marine uses, and they find that this is a trend with the cost of marina space, and the increase use on only weekends, and an occasional use of boating, that more people are happier, ratl~er than store the boats in the water, to store them out of the water, and they felt that this was a trend, and they asked the Town Board, as is required in the Code, to draft on this. Well, we sat down. Ruth was the Chairman of the Code Committee last year, and we sat down for probably two or three months, and addressed different, we got imput from different sections of the community on this, and we found' that we were getting, one side wanted one thing, and one side wanted another. The marinas presented us with documentation on national level, and other people presented us with documentation on a local level from neighhoring towns.. The Town went and spent, i in the ir~terest of fairness, approximately a thousand dollars last summer. We have here from July 22nd to September 4th, we had a report of the actual marina parking on weekends. I believe it was done on both Saturdays and Sundays. On reviewing all of this documentation, the Town Board,and the Planning Board, and the Legislative Committee, agreed that on the legislation, which is presented here today, and that is why the Planning Board is recommending it. I just want to tell you, at this point, I'm just telling you the background of it. I'm not speaking for the legislation. I'm not speaking against the legisla~cion. I'm trying to give people a background, because I received a lot of calls, questioning why this is coming up, and was I sponsoring this? This is a Town Board response to the Pianning Board's request, and that's all it is. Thank you. PH - 4/24190 LL, Zoning,Pgf% ~ SUPERVISOR HARRIS: At this time, I will entertain comments on this public hearing. Please' direct all your comments to the Chair, when you come up to the podium; please state your name, and organization, if any, that you represent, and I will start on my right. Is there anyone on my right, who would like to speak either for or against this proposed. Local Law? ALICE HUSSIE: I always seem to be number one here. Ali~:e Hussie, League of Woman Voters, Riverhead-Southold. The proposed amendment on 100-191.A is contrary to the Town Board's goals and standards as set forth in the Town Code, Chapter 97, Sections 11 A:and B. To review, 97-11A reads, the Town Board of the Town of Southold finds that rapid growth, the spread of development, and the increasing demands upon natural resources' are encroa'~hing upon, or eliminating many of it's wetlands, which if preserved and maintained in an undisturbed and natural condition, constitute .important physical, sobial, recreational and economic a$~e~s-~o the existing and future residents of the Town of Southold. 97-11B says, it is the intention of this chapter to protect the citizens of the Town of Southold by providing for protection, preservation, proper maintainence, and use (~f it's wetlands in order .to minimize danger, and then it.lists three or four lines, where fish, and fowl, and everything else, that we don't want to damage. Continuing, therefore the Town Board declares the regulation of wetlands of the Town of Southold, i~ essential to the health, safety and welfare of the people of Southold Town, close quote. This' proposed change in the Code presents a very real potential of putti-ng more boats in the water than the-water can sustain. The fuss over pa~king !ets in a ';back do~r" approach to marina expansion. By increasing the parl<~ng spaces, argument can be made that it is illogical to provide so many park- ing Space, if you are not going to have a comparable number of boats. Local marina operators note that only about 25% of marina capacity is used by residents of S~)uthold. Simple arithmetic, then, tells us that 75% of marina use is for non- residents. Can we afford to cater to those 75 out of 100 people who come to play in Southold, and then leave us with the clean-up, and other residue of overuse? The Town has the obligation to protect its natural resources for its citizen and taxpayers. Asking for ½ a Parking space per slip and ~ space per dry rack is unconceivable It is over use. A look at codes of neighboring towns with similar coastlines tells the following: Brookhaven, Islip and Freeport allow one parking space per slip and dry rack counts as a slip. Babylon, Huntington, East Hampton and Southampton require 1¼ - 1½ spaces per slip and in some codes, a rack counts as a slip. Marinas are located in areas with the most ideal conditions for protection from the elements and rough seas. However, that protection factor is the same one to consider when one thinks of the flushing action required to keep the water clean. With the deterioration of water quality, fish and wildlife habitats are jeapordized,;and projecting into the future, the very reason that people have for using the waters here will be ruined and the boating and recreation industry will self-destruct. You are about to bite the hand that feeds us. People visit the North Fork for its ex-urban assets: trees, birds, open vistas, beaches, relaxed atmosphere, fishing, sailing, things that at one time attracted them to Sheepshead Bay,and Northport,and Babylon, and Freeport, now places they run to us, in order to escape. The League of Women Voters, Riverhead-Southold reads into the record it's opposition to this amendment and strongly urges the Town of Southold to work with the New York State Division of Coastal Resources to make any changes in accordance with New York State approved marine criteria already in place. To paraphase the mandate of the, New York State Department of State to Town Boards, you must do what is best for the majority of your citizens, not the minority. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you for your comments. Is there anybody else, that would like to comment? Pg 4 - PH, LL Zoning BILL LIEBLEIN: I'm Bill Lieblein, Port of Egypt Marine, and I would, also, like to speak in favor of approval. At the Code Committee meetings last year, there was a great deal of discussion, ~s to regards what other towns did and so on and so forth, and as a result of that, it was determined that you would do the study, which you did. The study shows that what we had been saying has been true. As the person who is running a dry rack operation fo'r twenty years, we have never seen over 15 to' 20 per cent of our boats go out on any one time, on any one day. With regard to this change in parking, increasing the destruction of wetlands, I would say that it would be just the opposite. To meet the boating needs of the next 20 to fifty years in this town, if dry rack is used, it reduces the amount of waterfront, .that has to be destroyed to create a marina, and if the town wants to control how many boats are going to be used in the town, they should set a limit as to the number of the boats, and not use parking as a means to deter that. The Town has a very limited number of spaces, if you look at the zoning map in which new marinas can be built based on the present zoning, so the Town will basically, and the Town residents will be depending primarily on the exi.sting marinas to meet that need in the future, and again, requiring massive parking areas, that are not required,~ ~loes not make sense, so again, I'm in favor of this. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you. Is there anybody else in the denter, that would like to speak? RICHARD RIZZI: I'm Rich Rizzi, Southold Marine Center, and I'd just like to thank you people for considering changing parking to the actual conditions really are. The survey last year, showed approximately 20%, I believe you said, that number of cars per slip. At my paricular marina, I believe, we run about 10%, and one other thing I'd like to point out, my particular marina approximate'ly~75% of the people are Southold Town residents. They are not outsiders, l'd like to thank you, and I recommend you do pass this act. Thank you. CHARLES WITZKIE: My name is Charles Witzkie. I'm a resident of Southold, and run a marina in the town. Our rate of local citizens is near 50%, and the least we've ever had is 34%. We've never had a parking problem, never had a car park ' on the road, and we do have approximately 100 boats. I believe it should be passed as it's read. If they do allow us to expand, it's going to be used on upland facilities. This is going to better for the The boats will be out of the water. There will be no discharge in the water. I believe it should be passed as is. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Is there anybody else, in the center? SKIP GOLDSMITH: Skip Goldsmith. Goldsmith's Boat Shop. Southold. I've heard a lot of talk over the years about boats being a contributing factor to pollution. l'm sure to some extent this is true, but a while back there was a study made, and it was determined at that time, with the amount of pollution caused by boats in the country, as a whole, amounted to 1/10th of 1%, and I think that being a seasonal business, boats are very minor, as far as pollution is concerned. I think we need to address our concern about road runoff, and things like that, rather than to address the boaters as being a pollution factor. I, for one, would also, like to say, that I think if you go down to the park districts you'll find that 75% of the people, that use the park district today, are outsiders and not the local people. It's not just the marinas, and I think that we're maybe barking up the wrong tree in a lot of things we're doing. I think, we only have a few marinas in town, and I'd like to see a committee from the town or any other of the groups, that are represented here, whether it be the Environmental Council, League of Women Voters, come around, visit the marinas, and see what's needed. See what the plans are, that the marina owner has for the future, because we defin~tely Pg 5 - PH, LL Zoning need marinas, there's no doubt about it, and I think we lack cooperation in this town. I've never seen one person come 'into my marina, look the situation over, and say they want to help me make a determination as what going to happen in the future. I think we need to work together, and this parking issue is one thing that I'm not too familar with, but I think that the way it's written, it should be passed, and I think it's the cooperation that we need to have in this town from everybody. I think it will go a long way to help in solving a lot of problems that we have today. Thank you very much. NORMAN BOOS: I'm Norman Boos. I have a marina in Cutchogue. We never had a parking problem in the eleven years, tbat I'm there. I just want to thank the Town for making that survey, and bringing out the truth of parking in marinas. I suggest this I~e passed. Thank you. VIRGINIA MOORE: Virginia Moore. I belong to the League of Woman Voters. I'm a director of the North Fork Environmental Council, and as my old friend, George Penny knows, I'm a boater, and I've been about 20 years at Brewer's Marine, until I moved to Albertson's Marine this last year. I haven't had much experience there, yet, but I can tell you about my problems at Brewer. In the last few years, it's gotten increasing hard to find a place to put your car, when you go to get on your boat. It's gotten to be almost impossible to find a place close enough, that you don't have to play pack horse getting the batteries and the other heavy goods down to the boat, and when you're working on your boat in fitting off time, it really gets to be a madhouse with all the boats up on the racks, and not enough space to put the cars, and George, I'll be interested to see what happens now that they're digging away so much of the land there, whether you have trouble finding places, too. I think what the marina operators, with all due respect to them, are overlooking, is the fact that the way things are now we might be using 34%. In my experience at Brewers, it a beck of lot more than 34%, but if you scale down your requirements the way it's proposed, there won't be any parking places left for the late comer. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Is there anybody else in the center? ROBERT SCHNEIDER: Robert Schneider from Mattituck. l'd like to say that I support the concerns of the Environmental Council, and those expressed by the League of Woman Voters. As a resident, who lives accross from a marina, I see first hand the effects on the environment. On a Sunday morning, the noise, the horns from the boats, the beer bottles, the beer cans, the soda cans, the unit experent in the water, that's obvious after a busy weekend, are realistic evidence to me of the problems that additional boat traffic at the marinas would present. I'd appreciate if the testimony of one person, who lives accross from a marina and who's life is disturbed regularly by that marina, I'd appreciate if that were taken into account, as well as the more global issues, that have been described to you. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Is there anybody else in the center, who would like to speak? If not 1'11 move over to my left. Is there anybody, who would like to speak? RONNIE WACKER: My name is Ronnie Wacker, and I'm with the North Fork Environ- mental Council, and I think maybe George, your error was just in evidence of were your heart is. You said that it was one parking space per boat, it's the Code proposal is four parking spaces per boat, but I think really,as boatman your- self, you know it will be a lot better to do it the other way, the way it is right now. It's been a year, since the Town Board anacted zoning ordinances, last January, and you all told us, don't worry, we know they're flawed, but we'll pass them now, and we'll fix them later, and now it's a year later, and the Code Committee has come up with a change. Unfortunately, they .want to fix something that isn't broken, or rather that makes sense the way it is. They're suggesting that we change the requirements for parking spaces in marinas. We were hoping that, you know, with this promise that you'll come up with improvements, that they would come up with something that would improve things, but this change is not an improvement. It's going to create more crowded conditions in the water. The Code, now, calls for one parking space per boat at a marina. Other towns on the East End have similar requirements, from One to one and a half spaces per boat, Southampton, Easthampton, Shelter Island, Riverhead even. The Town Code Committeee now suggests the proposal to drop requirements for parking spaces to a quarter space per boat. in dry rack storage, and a half space for a boat in the water. Well, at first it seem that cut~ing pa-rl~ing spaces might be beneficial. Less road runoff, can't quarrel with that, less pollution. Yhis coin has a flip side. Fewer parking spaces, really mean more boats. It depends upon how you look at it. If I am operating a marina, I would think how I could put in more boats. If I~m an environmentalist, then I'd say, great, fewer parking spaces, less pollution. But you could have four times as many boats in line storage, and double the number in' the water. Just considerate it. We're concerned now about pollution of oul' creeks and bays. We still don't have scallops in Peconic Bay. How much more pollution will four times the number of boats add to the creeks and bays. Suppose the other towns around the bay were to relax their standards. We all share the same waters. It seems to me, that our coastal rules should be decided with consideration for the acc~tmulative impact on the bay we share. We can no longer act unilaterally, and hope that everything will turn out for the best. That nobody will notice that we are using more than the lion's share of a natural resource upon which we all depend. You know, Earth Day reminded us that we are all interconnected and interdependent. Trees cut down in the Brazil rain forest threaten global warm for the rest of the world. It's just as simple as that. You know, there's nothing that happens anywhere that doesn't affect someplace else. Isn't it about time we consulted with our sister towns to see what is best for all ot: us. I'd, also, like to ask, why did a Town Board give a declaration of no-significant effect on the environment on this suggested change. I seems to me that there must be an effect. You know, it's on the water, and anything that happens on the water has some effect. I do think that we should give this a little more thought. Thank you. DAN ROSS: Dan Ross with Brown's Wood Association. There's association members here in numbers tonight, and the association is strongly opposed to this amendment. We wish to join in prior statements of those opposed, and just for the record state that we really don't understand why the Board would consider this amendment, which would have such an impact on the Town's wetlands. A number of the marina owners have stated that they had no problems with parking, so the question has to be raised of why change the parking situation then. The question should be asked, are we going to be the leaders of the East End towns in this area, and what's going to be a consequences with respect to the competition? What are the marina owners in the surrounding towns going to say with respect to the parking ordinance in their own towns? I don~t understand why this Board did not request a recommendation from the Trustees. It may be you see it as a clamming issue, and not so much as an environmental issue, but it's the Trustees who have jurisdic- tion and say over the wetlands in this Town, and it seems like a slap in the face not to request their imput from those who have worked so hard in this area. We would request that the Board seek imput from the Trustees, as it has from the Planning Board, and give the Trustees time to submit to you their recommendation. Thank you. Pg 7 - PH, LL Zoning .~-~, F. M. FLYNN: My name is F.M. Flynn. I am a resident of the town. I have a prepared statement, that I'd like to make. It will take a matter of a few minutes, but that pales into insignificance as to compared to the years along contributions of the marinas, which is the background of this matter. I must apologize if I have difficulty with my presentation, l'm under a form of chemical treatment, that makes it very difficult for me to talk, however, I shall read my statement. I shall not mince words. There is something rotten in ~he Town of Southold, This proposed amendment epitomizes it. I submit you cannot vote on it without you, and the public, knowing, and considering, its origins, its total ramifications and its overall impacts and cumulative effects. At the very least, due to the Town- wide effects on such proposed legislation, a DEIS and a GElS would be required prior to any vote thereon. This proposed amendment represents the culmination of an approximately five year history of the Southold marina industry's covert influence on the Town. During that period they met constantly with, respectively, the Town's Marina, Code and Legislative Committees. The public was excluded from participation. Tonight's hearing affords us our sole opportunity to comment thereon and publicly expose what has really transpired without the knowledge of most T, own residents. During this time, the marina operators dictated the exact, and outrageously broad terms of the Master Plan' zoning for Marina Districts. All nonconforming marinas were made conforming by the Master Plan. This entire zoning district was tailored to the demands of marina operators. Sitting members of this Board participated, actiyely or passively in this sordid exercise. The five days minimum legal notice given is typical of the regard ~he Town shows for the opinions of its residents. Contrast this w.ith the five years of conferences with the marina operators. This for an amen.dment that would have devastating effects on the environment, health, safety and welfare, and the very character of the Town. Courtesy of the Legislative Committee, we are now presented with a proposed amendment that consitutes a masterpiece as a brazen, cynical, and deliberately deceitful attempt to conceal its true purpose from a naive and unwary citizenry. Anyone who maintains that the real purpose, or thrust, of this proposed amendment really concerns itself with vehicular parking, is in my opinion, is either uninformed, a fool or a liar. The true and artfully concealed thrust is to provide marina operators with increased profits by means of a windfall concocted to permit them to accomodate four times as many boats as permitted by the present Zoning Code. In addition, it proposes to make them a gift of the utility 'of, and hence the value of, four times the value of the waterfront property they actually own. The marina operators have apparently been proceeding on the assumption that this hearing is merely "pro forma"; that the passage of this amendment is assured. If so, who gave them such assurance? Is this to be regarded as a done deal? As long ago as at least one and one-half years, the Port of Egypt submitted detailed plans to both the Planning Board and the ZBA based entirely on the reduced parking requirement incorporated in this proposed amendment. Incredibly, the Planning Board ignored the devastating impacts of this project and issued a Negative Declara- tion. By so doing, it defied SEQRA regulations. The regulations require identification of areas of relevant environmental concern. A Negative Declaration must take a hard look at them, and must provide a reasoned elaboration supporting the basis of this determination. The Planning Board has done hoe of these and, apparently based its decision on a faulty, incomplete and misleading Long Form Environmental Assessment submitted by the applicant. As further proof of the marina operators assurance, the ZBA has temporized through five hearings on the Port of Egypt's outrageous demands for variance-s which would among other things, result in building coverage twice that permitted by the Zoning Code and ignore the parking requirement for several hundred additional vehicles. As I have repeatedly informed the ZBA, none of the proof required of an applicant, by law, was submi,tted, nor could it be. The question remains, why was the application not denied summarily? Instead, to salvage the situation, we are presented with a Town-wide rezoning. Pg 8 - PH, LL Zoning Nevertheless, the Port of Egypt has continued to predicate its application for variances upon the assumption of a change in the Zoning Code upon passing of this amendment. At the last public hearing before the'ZBA a-memorandum was introduced, which quoted the proposed amendment exactly, both in wording and format. This was over two weeks before the resolution concerning the proposed amendment was presented to the Town Board for consideration. What conclusion is a reasonably informed person to draw from these actions? It is in light of this background that I propose to discuss those factors which the Board must consider in reaching its determination. I refer, of course, to consideration of, the environ- ment in all its aspects, health, safety, and welfare, traffic, fire hazards, and the I~alanced, orderly development of the Town in accordance with the pious concepts incorporated in the Zoning Code'and the hamlet concept of the Master Plan. Town officials' opinions have evidently been swayed by the efforts of biased, self-appointed, self-interested "experts. Thus far, the residents of the Town have gone unrepresented in that category. I propose to change that. As is my right, I now propose to spread my own qualifications on.-the record of th'is proceeding as an expert on marine industry, the valuation of waterfront properties, and the effects of zoning on value. My first employment in th~ marine industry was prior to World War II when, as a college student, I worked summers for Todd's Shipyard and Robbins Drydock in Brooklyn. At the beginning of World War II, I was detached from my infantry regiment and placed under naval command in Virginia to assist in the development of equipment and tactics for the use of small landing craft in the invasion of North. Africa. In 1946, under government auspices, I returned with a small group to Omaha.. Beach to study the feasibility of raising, and salvaging the 13[ockade fleet and Mulberry Harbors off the beach. Subsequently, I was vice- president of the Flynn-Learner Company which operated shipyards and dockside facilities at Alemeda, California, Sand Island (Pearl Harbor) on Oahu, and Guam. Our corporation was also engaged in the joint-venture operation of a shipbuilding yard in San Diego. I was assistant to the CEO of a corporation which participated as a joint-venturer in shipyard operations !n Philadelphiaj Camden-and Wilmington areas. At one time, my company was offered contro'lling interest in the New York Shipbuilding Company in Camden, New Jersey. Those familiar with industry may remember it as the first or second largest private buil. der of capital ships for the Navy. My function was to analyze the operation, weigh its future prospects, and appraise its value. I have negotiated for dock space, among o~her places, with the Brazilian Navy in Rio de Janeiro, Vickers-Armstrong at Barrow-in-Furness and the Italian Navy and the Ansaldo Compary at La Spezia, the home port of the Italian fleet. ! was also in charge of our open cover insurance policy with Lloyds wich provided full coverage for our ship movements, cargo shipments and related operations anywhere in the world. Prior to my retirement, I was an officer of a corporation which had among its assets a marina with a capacity of approxi- mately 300 boats. This has some pertinence with waterfront and marina operation. In my later years, I was retained by variou~ government agencies as a consultant, appraiser, and qualified expert witness. My relationship with the Attorney General is particularly germane to the situation at hand here. The Atto.rney General was always particularly concerned about claims made against the government based on the probability of a change of zoning. His office took particular pains to instruct me as to the law in this area. I attended seminars, received pe~'sonal instruction and was provided with the latest court decisions and case studies. There are two overriding influences on real estate valaes. The are location and zoning. Location is fixed. Zoning is variable. Changes of zoning are the most sensitive part of Town officials duties and the ones most subject to abuse. Zoning is the money tree. Exercise of this power can make one property owner rich at the expense of the entire communcity. Historically, the abuse of the zoning power has been the most frequent source of municipal scandal and corruption. The Court of Appeals has described spot zoning as, the antithesis of good zoning. Spot Pg 10 - PH, LL Zoning are signs of resurgence, including, hopefully, the return of the scallop. The County has declared it a Critical Environmental Area. Plans are well advanced at the federal level to designat it as a Federal Estuary, as is the case with the Chesepeake. Yet, this amendment proposes to exploit this common resource to an extent as much as six times that permitted in neighboring communities. The increased traffic will consist primarily of small boats, Which, contrary to statements made, are among the worst sources of pollution in all its phases. A-gain, for whose benefit is this destruction o~ the environment to be wrought? I am perhaps naive in believing that the protection ,of the public's health, safety and welfare is the first duty of an elected official. Such considerations are completely ignored ty the proposed amendment. Not only would it vastly increase heavy traffic, including large trucks, over residential streets, but it would immensely increase the risk of catastrophic fires. I need hardly point out to any informed, unbiased, person the risks of storing fuel-laden boats within 15 feet of other structures. Marina fires are among the most dangerous and have long lasting effects. I suggest you check t,heir history including incidents at Long Beach, Lido, and most recently, at Lindenhurst. Consider, if you will, the question of required emergency services and of accessibility to combat such conflagrations. Consider the question of the quality of life of nearby residents and the destruction of their property values. The present situation in the Budd's Pond area is an example of abominable planning and fiagrant example of the Town's unwillingness to exercise its Police Power on hehalf of its residents. Marina operators in the area have long incorporated Route 25 into their operations. Route 25 at this point is a narrow, curving two-lane, heavily traveled State artery. It lacks any traffic controls, curbs, curb cuts, sidewalks, delineated driveways, or marked crossings. Pedestrians have been killed in the immediate area. The marina operators cross the highway with impunity. They use travelifts, forklifts, trucks and trailers to transport boats and heavy equipment regardless of public safety. This amendment would exacerbate this intolerable situation. It might just possibly interest the Board, that I was a consultant to the Department of Transportation. I was the recipient of many case studies involving highway construction and safety. The Department's criteria recommended the construction of underpasses for small farm equipment and cattle. Do not highway travelers rate the same prot~ection? The existing marin~ operations present the prospect of carnage. How many other illegal and inequitious priviledges are to be afforded marina operators and others? My investigations led me to discover that land, zoned for, and used for marina purposes, has been assessed for years as vacant residential land. The Master Plan had the effect of making every non- conforming marina conforming. The range of permitted uses was increased immea- sureably. I long ago warned this dictated reassessment. Nothing has been done. Marina operators have installation in Town underwater lands and earn profits there- from. Yet, even with the Town's budgetary problems, they are assessed no rents. This application only serves to underscore certain of the more ridiculous provisions of the Master Plan. It encourages the construction of places of public assembly, i.e. motels and restaurants, within areas of high risk of conflagration; an our- rageous disregard of public safety considerations. Was it mere coincidence that the Marina Committee tailored the requirements of plot sizes to exactly conform to the existing improvements on the Port of Egypt property? The Port of Egypt property has seven, contiguous acres. It has a motel requiring 3 acres, a restau- rant requiring 2 acres, and a marina also requiring 2 acres. Total-seven acres. The minimum size for a marina is a travesty. As I have stated, such a site could accomodate over 900 boats. As an equilivent residential site it would accommodate approximately 3.7 occupants. Has anybody considered the effect on our infrastruture, traffic increases, demands on utilities, etc. of this intensity of use? The laissezfaire attitude displayed by the Town has encouraged further depradations. As I have stated, the ZBA has before it an application which would develope a property to twice the permitted building coverage and be short several hundred parking places. The Town's reaction was to appoint the applicant to the Waterfront Revita- lization Committee. As such, he serves as an official representative of the Town Pg 9 - PH, LL Zoning zoning is defined as the singling out of one owner's property for his benefit, at the expense of other property owners. The Town of Southold's Legislative Committee proposes to do this on.a grand scale by singling out an entire class of property owners and enriching the marina operators at the expense of the entire community. I submit, is this amendment not the equivalent of spot zoning on a massive and unconscionable scale? As to the questions of reduced parking proposed by this amendment, this constitutes nothing less than a calculated effort to confuse and obfuscate its real intent, and the cumulative impacts which will certainly ensue. Inexperienced, naive and gullible people have been shown vacant parking spaces in the summer season and fed some pap about conditions in Australia and the Puget Sound areas. Has anyon bothered to investigate the somewhat less remote situations in, say, Lindenhurst and Freeport? The plain fact is that marinas have adequate parking in the summer season. It is the off-season requirement .for boat storage that dictates the need for space. The Department of State's Marina Criteria recognizes this need. I invite the Board to inspect the off-season storage situation at, for example, the Port of Egypt and Albertson's marinas. Boats are currently stored, some two high, all over the property, including portions that are reserved for other uses by the Code. The proposed amendment would increase this concentration with no provision for increase in actual land area. Incidently, some of this storage encroaches on State property. What kind of fools does the Legislative Committee think we, the Town residents, are? The sole control the Town exerts over the number of boats a marina may accommodate is the ratio of one boat per parking space. This amendment proposes to abrogate this standard and permit the accommo- dation of four times as many boats at any marina in the Town. It would permit several thousand more boats in Southold? For whose benet~t and at whose expense? Phrased in the simplest possible terms, if a marina has 40,000 square feet of net parking area, it can now accomodate 114 boats. Under the proposed amendment, it could accommodate 457 boats. If the entire minimum plot a~ea for marinas of 80,000 square feet as required by the Code, were utilized for parking, a minimum sized marina could accomodate 914 boa~s in accordance with this proposed amendment. Multiply this by the number of marinas in Town and consider their location and concentration. There is, if possible, an even more sinister, and hidden aspect of this proposed amendment. Buried .in its artful wording is the gift to marina opera~o'rs~ of the utility of, and hence the value of land they don't own. In the example given, the marina operator would be made the gift of three additional acres of waterfront land. The area required by the Code for 457 boats is 160,000 square feet, or four times that proposed by the amendment. Thus, the owner would profit from the arbitrary creation of three chimericial acres. Increased profitablility for owners is ruled out by law as the basis for granting variances. This amendment proposes to do just that, on a Town-wide basis, for the benefit of marina operators. The requirements of New York State's Department of State Coastal Management Program and its Marina Criteria have been ignored. As a specific example, the Marina Criteria ~pecify, demonstrable need, as the requirement for new construction or expansion. The marina operators admit current vacancies. Even more important from the standpoint of the amendment's impact on the Town, is the admission by the marina operators that only 25% of the l~oats currently accommodated belong to residents of the Town of Southold. Thus, 75% of the current accommodations are available ~o non-residents. The proposed amendment would quadruple the accommodations. Thus, only one of sixteen boats would be those of residents. Fifteen of sixteen, or 94% would be available to non-residents. The basic questions is how far is the Town Board prepared to go for the benefit of non-residents and the increased profits of marina operators? Is it prepared to sacrifice our environment, the health, safety and welfare of residents and the very character of the Town? The Pe.ccnic Bay, in particular, is a resource of inestimable value, shared in common wi~h all the municipalities fronting thereon. Arduous effors have been made to restore and protect its environment. There Pg 11 - PH,LL Zoning at various conferences and seminars. Somewhat perversely, I welcome the public vote on this matter. We have heard so much rhetoric from Board members about concern for the environment, orderly and balanced development, and the preserva- tion of the Town's character and way of life. They also profess to s'ubscribe to the pious sentiments cited in the Zoning Code.. The vote on this matter is a public test of the real sentiments of Board members, which I trust the electorate will record and remember. In closing, I would like to suggest that the proposed amendment be entitled:, in shol, t form, as the, bad penny amendment. Like the proverbial bad penny, which returns to haunt you, passage of this amendment would haunt the Board, and the residents of the Town forever. I have a copy of my remarks for the Board, as well as for anyone else who might be interested. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Is there anybody else, on my left? TOM LOWRY: My name is Tom Lowry. I'm from the New Suffolk Civic Association, and I shall not mince words. We would like to associate ourselves with the remarks of Alice Hussie, and Jean Marriner, and Mr, Flynn, and Ronnie Wacker. One slip, one car. We want nothing more. If you allow more, what you're going to end up with is giving the marina operators more land in essense, that will be debased land, and it 'will not be a leveraged buyout. This will be a leveraged sellout, anc~ we don't want it. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you. Is there anybody else. NANCY SAWASTYNOWICZ: Nancy Sawastynowicz from Orient, and I would just like to say, that this change in the code is a scam for the marina owners to just expand and the majority of the people using these marinas are not locals. They are people that are using these boats for weekends, and they're sleeping on them. That was never brought up. I think it's a big impact to our bay, and I would also, would like to bring out the fact that the bigger these marinas get, the more boats, that means we'll have to hire more bay constables, which we've already hired a third one. That's an impact to the taxpayers. Why should we have to pay for all these marina owners to make millions of dollars, when the locals aren't using them? There's just a few locals, that go there. I just think it's a big seam, and they even said themselves the amount of parking has worked well, why change it? It's just cut and cream. Leave it the way it is. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Is there anybody else? ANN CREMMERS: I'm Ann Cremmers, and I represent Southold 2000. We strongly oppose the passage of the proposed Local Law in relation to zoning in the marine district. Southampton and East Hampton have even more strigent rules for parking than we have, and since the Peconic Estuary is shared by all towns, it's Southold's responsibility to, at least conform, and not place a larger burden on the bay's already fragile system. Please, we urge you. BETTY BROWN: Good evening. It's a pleasure to be here tonight, and my name is Betty Brown. I come from Aquebogue. I wanted to say that in the fall of 1989, the Department of State held five regional coastal conferences. Many issues were examined and proposals were discussed for changes in managing New York State's coastal resources. To be certain it will present a challange to all involved to successfully identify conflict, pollutant, educate and manage our most valuable natural resource for generations to come. It is anticipated that an even more of the population will rely on the coastal area for energy, food, water, recreation, Pg 12 - PH, LL Zoning housing and jobs by the 21st century. Population projections indicate that over 70% of all population growth in New York State from 1988 to 2010, will occur in coastal counties. People's increasing use of the shore is unquestionably the cause of the decline and quality, of the coast, and the principal reason why addressing the problem is critica~l. People all ever the North and the South Fork, public officials included, are se~iously worried about the health of our water. Thousands of dollars are being spent, as well as scientist working desperately to determine the cause of our unhealthy waters. I come to you this evening, as a friend from the neighboring township of RiYerhead, a Vice-President of the North Fork Environ- mental Council, and an officer of Save Your Bays. I am no stranger to the conflict and development pressures. I'm sympathetic with local government's burdens anc~ managing the cons~uences of such growth, while maintaining the public welfare. It is obvious to me here this evening, that in light of all Suffolk County is doing, all o~ the h~undreds of thousand of dollars spent, and all the public interest, and private interest, that by enacting this law this evening, you will not only be acting prematurely, but illegally. Thank you. ~ SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Is there anybody else, who would like to speak? response.) If not, I will declare this hearing closed. (No COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ss: STATE OF NEW YORK ~' :' ?~ NOTICEOF PUBLIC ~ARING ON LOC ~L L~W ~.z: ;PUBLIC NOTI~ is' hereby '~'ive~ 'tha~ t~e~' has' been ~' V~semeo ~0 ~e Town Bo~d of ~he ~o~ of Soa~hold, Suflblk Co~,:N~ ~rk. on ~he 27~h NOTI~- IS '.FUR~HE R ~he Yown o$ Sourhold ~I~ hold Hal~ Ma~ Ro~, Sou~ho~u, ~ Relafioa ~o. reads fo~ows: ~ BE IT E~'A~ED b~ the ~own B~d of ~e ro~ of' 'is hereby ~ended ~ fo~o~ ~nded ~o read as f~ows: Req~ No. of Type of:Use ' P~g SVaces ' M~na 1 s~ce per 4 ~y ~cks, I space per ~ 'boa[ sups, ~oo~ 'or dock spies, plus I · ]~ This Loc~ Law sb~ ~ke ~' Cop~brt~s Loc~ ~ are a~able in the or,ce of me Town Clerk to-~ imer~ed perso~ d~ ~smess hoars SOUmOL,D TOW~ 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 ........... /..~. ?. ..... Sworn to before me this ........... J. ~ ~.'~. ..... day of .......... ~ ...... ,~9.~,e. Notary Public BArB^R^ ~. S~HNEJI~£R I',~OTARY PUBLIC, ~ate ~f New Yo~ PI.~LIC HEAP. tNG ON ' LOCAL LAW PU[tLIC NOTICE is hereby to the. '{'o'~'i{ Rea~& ot thc T~ of $omfiold, SuffoLk County. New ' i990.a Local raw ~fit}[led. aA L~.~l I~w in _Relatin. lo Zonin~r~. NOTICE 15 f '-----------------b~THER GWEN , $~uthold l-ow~l Hall. Main Road. ~ BE IT'ENA~J bD,by ~e lown ~ ~d ~ ~e To~ of S~lhold ~ ~'. ~o~a .'- "- ~, .~de~ f~w~r,: ~ , Re~ h'am~ rags or ~k ~:~* '" ' ~s.p~s I ~ . ........ ~: ~9-~TMg STATE OF NEW YORk'} C~f OF ~erk O[~E SUFFOL~ TIMES, a Weekly Newspaper, published ~ MattRuc~ in the Town of ~utheld~ ~un~ or Suffolk and ~ate of New Yo~ ~d that ~e Notice of which the ~nexed b a ~int~ ~, ~ b~n~gu~ ~bli~ in eaid ~ewspaper once each week for / weeks supereX, commenein9 on the /~ day of