Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBischoff van Heemskerck, Joan 7.2025 Palmeri, Allison Subject:FW: Subject: Submission of Comments on Draft Zoning Code and Request for Distribution Attachments:Southolds Housing Problem Isn't a Shortage 07122025.pdf; The Flawed Foundation 07202025.pdf; A Zoning Rewrite Gone Wrong 07192025.pdf From: Noncarrow, Denis <denisn@southoldtownny.gov> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 7:01 AM To: Krupski, Al <alk@town.southold.ny.us>; Subject: FW: Subject: Submission of Comments on Draft Zoning Code and Request for Distribution Please see email and a?achments. Thank you Denis Noncarrow Southold Town Clerk. Town of Southold, New York www.southoldtownny.gov denisn@southoldtownny.gov 631-765-1800 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. From: joan@jbischofflaw.com \[mailto:joan@jbischofflaw.com\] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2025 2:58 PM To: Noncarrow, Denis <denisn@southoldtownny.gov>; Lanza, Heather <heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us> Cc: DeChance, Paul <pauld@southoldtownny.gov> Subject: Subject: Submission of Comments on Draft Zoning Code and Request for Distribution Dear Denis, Please find enclosed my written comments regarding the Town’s Draft Zoning Code, as requested by the Town Board. I respectfully ask that these comments be entered into the official record and shared with all members of the Town Board. Additionally, I respectfully request that you forward this commentary to the Town’s Housing Advisory Committee for their consideration. My comments address the following key concerns: 1 1. A Flawed Foundation – urging the Town Board to address fundamental issues within the Master Plan before attempting to revise the Zoning Code. 2. A Zoning Re-Write Gone Wrong – calling for a pause in the current process and a return to the drawing board, following necessary corrections to the Master Plan. 3. Southold’s Housing Problem Is Not a Shortage, But a Preference Problem – encouraging the Board to avoid building on open space and instead prioritize the repurposing of existing structures and use of current regulatory tools. Please confirm receipt of this email and the attached comments. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Best regards, BISCHOFF LAW PLLC Joan H Bischoff van Heemskerck Attorney at Law (m) 631 948 0234 (f) 631 765 8729 7160 Hortons Lane, Southold, NY 11971 Southold, NY 11971 joan@jbischofflaw.com www.jbischofflaw.com The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipients named above. The e-mail message may be an attorney-client communication and as such is privileged and confidential. If the Reader of this e-mail message is not the Intended Recipient or an Agent responsible for delivering it to the Intended Recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this e-mail in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or telephone. *Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication. THANK YOU. ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. 2 Southold’s Housing Problem Isn’t a Shortage — It’s a Matter of Local Choices By JoanBischoff vanHeemskerck It’s hard not to sympathize with young people growing up in Southold who find themselves priced out of the very place they’ve always called home. They want to live where their families are, where their roots run deep, where their community means something — but for many, buying a home here feels increasingly out of reach. They see prices rise, inventory shrink, and the places they call home transform into enclaves only the wealthy can afford. Their frustration is valid, and their desire to stay rooted in familiar communities is deeply human. Their frustration is valid. But too often, the only “solution” anyone offers is to build more housing — and fast. Pave over open space, jam more density into quiet streets, and fundamentally change what makes Southold… Southold. But this rush to build is not the only path forward — and certainly not the smartest. There are many better, more local solutions that haven’t even been given a chance. Traditional approaches have not worked because they confuse symptoms with causes. We need to start leaving our old and conventional ways where they belong: in the it-didn’t-work trash bin. If we really want to address the problem, that is. Let’s Start with the Obvious: Costs Are High Because of Taxes and Excessive Zoning Regulation, Not Just Prices Southold’s housing market is expensive, yes — but not just because of home prices. The tax burden on homebuyers is crushing. Property taxes, transfer taxes, mortgage recording taxes, and other fees add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of buying a home — and they hit first-time buyers the hardest. If we want to make housing more accessible to young families and local workers, why not start by cutting the government’s cut? Reduce or eliminate the Southold transfer tax for first-time buyers. Set real, reachable targets for the first time home buyer exemption for the CPF. Offer tax credits for intergenerational transfers or accessory dwelling units. The Town has tools at its disposal — it simply hasn’t used them. The Coming Shift: Fewer People, More Homes Meanwhile, we’re ignoring the larger demographic picture. The United States is approaching a plateau in population growth. Birth rates have dropped below replacement levels, and immigration—while still significant—is no longer guaranteed. The Census Bureau projects that growth will stall in the coming decades and potentially reverse after mid-century. Southold School enrollment growth is stalling, and some enrollment is already going down. That means we are building for a future that might not exist. Some American cities—Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland—already have more homes than they need. Property values drop. Infrastructure decays. Yet we continue to frame this as a national “shortage.” The truth is, this is not a national crisis. It is a deeply local problem that must be addressed locally. The Real Problem: Mismatched Preferences Demand is not evenly distributed. Everyone wants to live in walkable towns, near good schools, with access to jobs, transit, and culture. But these places—because of local zoning and political resistance—have artificially constrained supply. That’s why prices in desirable areas spike. Meanwhile, housing sits vacant in places that lack opportunity. This isn’t a supply crisis—it’s a preference bottleneck. And attempts to “solve” this imbalance with top-down mandates from Washington or Albany are not working. They flatten local nuance, impose one-size-fits-all answers, and often worsen the very problems they claim to address. It’s a Local Problem — and It Requires Local Solutions We’re often told we’re facing a “housing crisis” — as if it’s some uniform, national emergency that demands a statewide or federal response. But that’s not Southold’s situation. This is a local issue. And it can only be solved locally — with local knowledge, local priorities, and policies tailored to Southold’s unique geography, economy, and community identity. What we don’t need is a one-size-fits-all solution designed in Albany or Washington and forced onto the East End with no understanding of our infrastructure limits, groundwater vulnerability, or rural character. Southold is not Queens. It is not Riverhead. Our community deserves — and requires — a different approach. The Workers We Depend On Can’t Live Here Let’s be blunt: many of the people who power our local economy — teachers, landscapers, mechanics, healthcare workers, tradespeople, municipal staff — can no longer find housing in Southold. Businesses are losing employees or failing to hire altogether because there’s nowhere affordable to live nearby. Commutes stretch longer. Loyalty drops. And the very fabric of our community begins to fray. When the people who serve your coffee, fix your truck, staff your shops, and take care of your kids can't live within 20 miles of their job, that's not just a housing issue — it’s a warning sign that the community is becoming unsustainable. The Failed Fix: Cracking Down on Short-Term Rentals Hasn’t Solved Anything Southold has already tried one “solution” that hasn’t worked: cracking down on short-term rentals. The assumption was that if we ban or limit vacation rentals, the housing market will magically become more affordable for local families and workers. It hasn’t. Vacation rentals didn’t cause the problem, and restricting them hasn’t fixed it. Meanwhile, there is a far more promising solution hiding in plain sight: legalizing the hundreds of accessory apartments, garage conversions, and in-law suites that already exist across Southold —many of them clean, safe, and long-term rented. These apartments provide quiet, flexible housing without damaging open space, overwhelming roads, or changing the face of neighborhoods. Because of outdated zoning rules and bureaucratic red tape, these units remain underground — invisible to the Town and legally vulnerable. Why not bring them into the light? A sensible, streamlined legalization and inspection program would add real, safe, already-built housing stock without laying a single new foundation. Young People Need to Learn How to Buy a Home — And That It’s Still Possible There’s another piece of this puzzle that rarely gets mentioned: too few young people are being educated about how to become homeowners. In my law practice, I’ve had the privilege of helping many first-time buyers successfully purchase homes — including in Southold. It’s not easy. But there is a path. With the right planning, the right guidance, and the right tools, homeownership is absolutely achievable. We just don’t talk about that anymore. We should be teaching responsible financial behavior as early as high school — savings, credit, budgeting, and how a mortgage works. We should be encouraging young people to plan ahead, improve their credit, and understand their options — including down payment assistance, creative financing strategies, and other programs that already exist but are underutilized. Renting has a place, but it builds no equity, no generational wealth, and no real stake in a community. The American Dream is still about owning a home — and yet most housing policy today seems focused entirely on rentals. That’s a mistake. We need to put ownership back on the table — not just as a wish, but as a realistic goal for local residents. At a time when monthly rents are climbing to the point where they rival — or surpass — mortgage payments, it makes less and less sense to treat ownership as out of reach. Zoning Rules Have Driven Up Costs — and Made Southold Inaccessible More than anything else, it is Southold’s own zoning code that has driven up the cost of living. Decades of restrictions — from large minimum lot sizes to bans on multifamily and seasonal workforce housing — have made new housing not only difficult to build, but prohibitively expensive. Ironically, attempts to “fix” the zoning often just create more regulation. Even when reforms are proposed, they come layered with new requirements, public hearing gauntlets, fees, and delays. The process becomes longer, costlier, and more adversarial — and nothing gets built that serves local people. If we want more housing for Southolders, we need simpler, smarter, and more targeted zoning relief — not just for big developers, but for families trying to make room for a parent, a grown child, or a local worker. Overbuilding has hidden costs. Overbuilding Isn’t Just Wrong for Southold — It’s Dangerous: Let’s be honest: Southold doesn’t have the roads, water infrastructure, or septic capacity to absorb aggressive new development. And that’s before we even talk about preserving open space, farmland, and fragile wetlands — the very things that make this place worth living in. The idea that we can solve a housing issue by stuffing more people and cars into overburdened areas — and still preserve the environment, aquifers, and quality of life — is fantasy. We must protect what’s left of our natural buffers and open space. Otherwise, the very things that make Southold desirable will be destroyed in the name of “affordability.” The “Affordable Housing” Label Has Become a Political Shield And let’s not ignore the elephant in the room: once a project is labeled “affordable housing,” the conversation is supposed to stop. We’re expected to clap politely and support it, no matter how vague, disruptive, or misguided it may be. But what does “affordable housing” even mean here in Southold? What income level is it pegged to? How is it funded? Who qualifies? Will the beneficiaries actually be local residents — or simply those who qualify under regional formulas written for Suffolk County as a whole? If I actually understood what “affordable housing” meant — clearly, consistently, and transparently — I might support more of it. But right now, the term is so vague it can be used to justify just about anything, including projects that have no measurable benefit to Southolders and no demonstrated chance of working. Southold Deserves a Smarter Path Let’s focus on what can work — right here, right now: Legalize existing accessory apartments with proper safety and inspection standards. Cut or eliminate Southold’s real estate taxes for first-time local buyers. Including reachable limits in the CPF exemptions for first time home buyers. Target zoning reform to allow modest growth without overwhelming infrastructure or destroying farmland. Preserve open space and don't ruin that successful program in name of "affordable housing" whatever that is. Define "affordable housing" clearly, and tie any public support to local residency or employment. Help educate and guide young people toward ownership, not just endless renting. Conclusion: Build Smart — and Teach Smart We don’t need to overbuild. We need to build smarter. And we don’t need outsiders telling Southold how to “solve” a problem they don’t even understand. We need to stand up for local control, local decision-making, and the character of our own community. For young people trying to stay here, for workers who keep our town running, and for the future of Southold as a livable, natural, rooted place — we owe better than slogans and shortcuts. Let’s protect what we have, educate the next generation, and finally let Southold lead itself — with care, clarity, and common sense. Joan H. Bischoff van Heemskerck 7160 Hortons Lane Southold, NY 11971 The Flawed Foundation: Southold’s Master Plan Failed Us — and the Zoning Code Draft Is Proof By Joan H. Bischoff van Heemskerck By now, many North Fork residents are rightly outraged by the Town of Southold’s draft zoning code. I’ve previously written about the disaster of this zoning proposal — how it threatens property rights, burdens small businesses, and strays far from the character of our community. But the zoning draft — as alarming as it is — is only a symptom. The deeper problem is the flawed foundation it was built on: Southold’s so-called Comprehensive Plan, or “Master Plan.” This master plan is held up by the Town as a community-driven blueprint for the future. In reality, it’s a confusing, disjointed document that lacks clarity, accountability, and real public ownership. It has become a textbook example of participation fatigue masquerading as civic engagement. Over the past decade-plus, the people of the North Fork have been through endless rounds of meetings, hearings, focus groups, and workshops. Residents showed up. They gave their time, their ideas, and their patience. And yet today, nobody knows where it all stands. Ask around — no one can tell you what the plan actually says, or how it translates into the zoning draft now being pushed through. This is participation fatigue at its most disheartening. People are exhausted from being consulted but not heard. The plan was released in fragments over many years, under different boards and planning staff. It sprawls across thirteen chapters and was written largely in-house, but again under the auspices of non-local outside consultants and committtees. And now it’s being used to justify sweeping changes that most residents never truly understood — let alone agreed to. A Plan Already Outdated Here’s the deeper truth: the master plan is already outdated — not just because it was started in 2009, but because of the earthshaking changes brought to the North Fork during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID triggered a historic demographic and cultural shift. The North Fork became a haven — and in the process, a revelation. Urban flight brought new residents, new pressure on infrastructure, and new appreciation for the region’s quality of life, open spaces, and small-town feel. But the plan was finalized before these realities came fully into view. It fails to grapple with the North Fork of today, let alone the one we’re heading toward. Tourism Is a Lifeline, Not a Threat The master plan claims to “preserve rural character,” but in practice, its zoning offspring stifles the very people who give this region life: farmers, vintners, oyster growers, small business owners, and working artists. Let’s be clear: the real enemy of the North Fork is suburbanization, not tourism. Paving over farmland and open space with cul-de-sacs, subdivisions, and generic housing stock is what destroys rural communities — not tasting rooms or farm stands. And yet the zoning draft, following the logic of this flawed master plan, continues to place burdens on tourism, hospitality, and agriculture-based businesses while offering little resistance to suburban sprawl disguised as “controlled development.” We must stop pretending that tourism is a threat. In fact, a sustainable, well-managed tourism economy is one of the best tools we have to preserve what makes the North Fork so unique: working farms, vineyards, oyster beds, and beaches. Tourists come here because it is not suburbia — because it is different. And that difference is our competitive advantage. Tourism offers a viable economic future that allows landowners to resist development pressure. It gives farmers a market, wineries an audience, and maritime businesses a reason to stay local. Unlike developers, the tourism economy has a real interest in protecting the land, the culture, and the open space that drive it. And yet, astonishingly, the master plan has no dedicated tourism chapter. No stand-alone discussion of its value, its challenges, or its needs. No thoughtful assessment of how agritourism, marine tourism, farm stands, vineyards, and seasonal visitation fit into the broader vision of the Town’s future. This omission is inexcusable. A true master plan — one grounded in economic and environmental reality — would place tourism front and center as a pillar of preservation and prosperity. It would outline strategies to manage tourism’s impacts while nurturing its benefits. It would recognize that the North Fork is the envy of communities across the region precisely because it has avoided the fate of suburban sprawl, thanks in no small part to its tourism economy. Affordable Housing and Open Space I’ve also written previously about affordable housing, which remains a constant theme in the planning conversation. But what the master plan fails to grasp is that in desirable areas like the North Fork, the problem is less about housing supply and more about housing preference — and the inability of ordinary people to compete with market forces in a beautiful, low-density area with high land values. In that context, the idea that we can “solve” affordability by building on what little open space remains is not just misguided — it is self-defeating. There is no greater threat to preserving the North Fork as we know it than covering our last working fields and natural landscapes with high- density, subsidized, or government-backed housing developments. That is not planning — it is surrender. Instead, the Town’s master plan should have focused on repurposing and revitalizing our existing hamlet centers, encouraging second- and third-floor residential units above shops and restaurants, and bringing new vibrancy and mixed-use density to downtown areas that already have infrastructure. This would simultaneously support affordable housing goals, small businesses, and walkable communities — without sacrificing the farmland and open vistas that make the North Fork irreplaceable. A Future for Young People Another critical failure of the master plan is its failure to nurture opportunity for young people starting out today. Under the current, overly restrictive zoning regime, it is nearly impossible for a young person to build a small farm, launch a farm stand, start an artisan food venture, or open an artist’s workshop — the very kinds of businesses that used to grow organically here. The North Fork thrives on small, creative, homegrown ventures — but our current code has no incubator zones, no flexible pathways for new ideas, and no welcoming tone for those who dream of making a living in the place they grew up. Instead of empowering the next generation to carry forward our agricultural and artistic traditions, the plan smothers them under layers of red tape. A Plan That No One Owns The Town may believe the plan was the product of public engagement — but there is no public confidence in what was done. And that is a failure of leadership, not participation. The plan sprawls across dozens of documents released over many years, drafted by committees and consultants long gone. There’s no single, coherent summary. No simple roadmap. And now that it’s being used to justify massive zoning changes, the consequences of this confusion are profound. One could even argue this lack of clarity is deliberate. What We Need It’s time to say what many already know: You cannot build a working zoning code on a broken planning process. Southold’s master plan is not the community mandate it claims to be. It is an exhausted artifact of a planning process that burned through people’s time and trust. The North Fork doesn’t need more rules — it needs better ones, grounded in reality, shaped by those who live and work here, and aimed at preserving this place not as a museum, but as a living, thriving community. That means updating the master plan to reflect post-COVID realities. That means creating a tourism chapter that recognizes tourism as a preservation tool. That means protecting farmland and open space by revitalizing our hamlet centers. And above all, it means giving the next generation — our farmers, makers, artists, and entrepreneurs — a chance to thrive. Joan H. Bischoff van Heemskerck 7160 Hortons Lane Southold, NY 11971 A Zoning Rewrite Gone Wrong: How Southold’s Process Fails the North Fork By Joan Bischoff van Heemskerck The Town of Southold is undertaking what should be a serious and thoughtful revision of its zoning code—an effort with enormous implications for the character of our community, the viability of local businesses, and the future of our neighborhoods. Instead, what we’ve received is an opaque, top-down process led by an out-of-town consultant with little knowledge of the North Fork, dominated by unelected civic groups claiming to speak for entire hamlets, and culminating in a draft code so vague and out of touch that it threatens to do more harm than good. The town’s decision to outsource the zoning rewrite to consultants unfamiliar with the North Fork was the first mistake. These consultants were not chosen for their connection to our communities but for their ability to deliver a product—any product—on time and on budget. As a result, we now have a draft code written with generic assumptions that might work in a suburban subdivision outside Charlotte or Raleigh, but which simply do not apply to the deeply unique, historically layered towns and working landscapes of the North Fork. Indeed, one of the great strengths of the North Fork—what gives it its irreplaceable charm—is precisely that its land use pattern is not the result of a rigid grid of use-separated zones and overlays. It grew organically over the course of nearly 400 years, shaped by farming, fishing, faith, and the rhythms of nature. It evolved with time, adapting in practical and sustainable ways to the needs of its residents and the landscape itself. To now impose on it, retroactively, a master- planned framework designed for a brand-new subdivision is not just tone-deaf. It is destructive. The public input process has been equally flawed. Rather than meaningfully engaging residents, the town held a series of sessions in different hamlets that were less forums for democratic participation than stage-managed workshops. These sessions were often dominated by highly organized, unelected civic associations—groups with no electoral mandate—who presented themselves as the voice of their entire communities. In reality, most North Fork residents do not belong to these groups, and many are unaware of who leads them or what they claim to stand for. Worse still, the breakout sessions focused on general, high-level topics—such as the purpose of zoning or the character of the community—that should have been addressed at the very beginning of this process, not after a full draft had already been written. These are foundational questions that should have guided the consultants and informed the framework of the code itself. Instead, the town is now seeking public input on basic principles after presenting a draft that fails to incorporate or reflect them in any meaningful way. It’s a classic case of putting the cart before the horse—asking residents to weigh in on values and goals only after a complex, prescriptive zoning document has already been produced. What we needed was a community-driven foundation from the outset; what we got was a post hoc consultation exercise disconnected from the substance of the code. Equally troubling is the fact that the very professionals who work with Southold’s zoning code on a daily basis—land use attorneys, planning consultants, permit expeditors—have been largely absent from this process, not by choice, but by omission. These are the people who navigate the code every day on behalf of homeowners, builders, farmers, and business owners. They know where the real friction points are, where the language breaks down, and where longstanding practices have diverged from outdated text. Their practical, working knowledge is indispensable in making a code that functions not just on paper, but in real life. To exclude them from the table is to design a code in a vacuum, without the benefit of hard-earned experience. That’s not reform—it’s self-sabotage. When residents asked detailed, legitimate questions—What happens to our many sub-third-acre lots under the new code? How will this affect tourism-related businesses that are the backbone of our economy? Why is the language so vague?—they were met with non-answers. We were told “those details still need to be worked out,” or that the document was “just a draft.” But zoning is detail. Zoning is law. And vagueness is not a virtue in the law—it’s a danger. The draft code, as written, would render a majority of existing lots in Southold non-conforming. This alone should be cause for alarm. When most property owners are placed in technical violation of the zoning code, it opens the door to arbitrary enforcement, bureaucratic overreach, and legal confusion. More importantly, it sends the message that the town sees its residents not as partners, but as problems to be managed. And that is not the only way the draft zoning code strips property rights from residents and business owners across the North Fork. What’s equally troubling is the Town’s failure to clearly and transparently communicate how these sweeping changes will affect individual properties — house by house, right by right. Rather than providing a detailed, accessible explanation of how long-held uses and entitlements may be restricted or eliminated, the Town has offered vague generalities and bureaucratic jargon. One could reasonably argue that this lack of clarity is not merely an oversight, but a deliberate strategy — a way to minimize public pushback by keeping the true consequences of the proposed code buried in technical language and procedural fog. And for local businesses—especially those in the tourism and hospitality sectors—the code is a disaster in the making. The North Fork Chamber of Commerce, not exactly a bastion of political hyperbole, has taken the rare step of formally opposing the proposed code. That speaks volumes. At a time when local shops, farm stands, restaurants, tasting rooms, and inns are struggling to stay afloat in the face of rising costs and seasonal volatility, Southold is proposing to layer on more uncertainty, more permitting hurdles, and less flexibility. Underlying all this is a dogmatic lack of understanding about the kind of sustainable economy we actually need on the North Fork—one that blends agriculture, tourism, culture, and small- scale enterprise in a way that both respects the land and allows people to make a living from it. This code seems not to understand that balance. It treats every mixed-use situation as a problem to be zoned away, rather than a local strength to be protected and encouraged. Perhaps most galling of all, the town has never clearly articulated what it believes is broken in the current zoning code. What, exactly, is this overhaul meant to fix? What problem is so pressing, so fundamental, that it justifies scrapping decades of accumulated local knowledge and precedent in favor of an abstract and untested new regime? No one at the town level has offered a coherent answer. And that, more than anything, should give every resident pause. Zoning is not just a technical exercise. It is a reflection of our values: what we want our towns to look like, how we want them to function, and who we believe they are for. A zoning code should grow out of a deep, respectful conversation with the people who live under it. Instead, we are being handed a generic document developed by strangers, laundered through unelected intermediaries, and justified with platitudes about “modernization” and “resiliency.” The Town of Southold must halt this misguided process. It must return to the drawing board— not with hired consultants and civic club insiders, but with the actual residents, business owners, and farmers of the North Fork. A real zoning code rewrite begins not with imposed vision statements and kindergarten breakouts, but with clear answers, real transparency, and a deep understanding of who we are and how we got here. Anything less is not just bad planning. It’s bad governance—and the North Fork deserves far better. Joan H. Bischoff van Heemskerck 7160 Hortons Lane Southold, NY 11971