Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLL 2004 #08STATE OF N~"W YORK DEPARTMENT OF' STATE 4 I STATE STREET ALBANY, NY I 2;'3 I -000 I GEORGE E. PATAKI April 1, 2004 RANDY A. DANielS Town of Southold Town Hail 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE.' Town of Southold, Local Law 7 & 8, 2004, filed on 3/15/2004 To Whom It May Concern: The above referenced material was received and filed by this office as indicated. Additional local law filing forms will be forwarded upon request. Sincerely, Linda Lasch Principal Clerk State Records & Law Bureau (518) 474-2755 LL:cb SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD PUBLIC HEARING March 9, 2004 5:05 P.M. HEARING ON "A LOCAL LAW IN RELATION TO DETERMINATION OF SITE PLAN REQUIREMENT" Present: Supervisor Joshua Y. Horton Justice Louisa P. Evans Councilman John M. Romanelli Councilman Thomas H. Wickham Councilman Daniel C. Ross Councilman William P. Edwards Town Clerk Elizabeth A. Neville Town Attorney Patricia A. Finnegan COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there has been presented to the Town Board of the Toxvn of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 3rd day of February 2004 a Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to Determination of Site Plan Requirement ' and NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Laxv at the Southold Toxvn Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, on the 9th day of March 2004 at 5:05 p.m. at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. The proposed local law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Determination of Site Plan Requirement ' reads as follo~vs: LOCAL LAW NO. 2004 A Local Laxv entitled "A Local Laxv in relation to Determination of Site Plan Requirement" BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, as follows: I. Purpose The intent of this change is to authorize the Building Inspector to make the determination that a site plan is required, pursuant to the provisions of the Town Code. The term "Building Inspector" as defined in Chapter 45 and used throughout the Code, is being added to the list of definitions in Chapter 100. Further, the word "required" was omitted from the current printing of the Town Code, and is being added for the purpose of clarity. II. Chapter 100 of the Code of the Town of So uthold is hereby amended as follows: § 100-253. Approval of site plan required. A. No building permit shall be issued for any structure or building for ~vhich use a site plan is required pursuant to this Chapter 100, until: IV/arch 9, 2004 Public Hearing-Site Plan Requirement 2 (1) a determination has been made by the ~ Building Inspector as to xvhether a site plan or an amendment thereto is required r~n~,. The Building Inspector shall make a determination, which shall be forwarded to the Planning Department for their comment within five(5) business days of receipt from the Building Department. The determination of the Building Inspector shall become final upon issuance of the determination to the applicant by the Building Department, but in no event more than fifteen(15) business days from the filing of the application. (2) When If-required, tkat an applicant shall present an approved site development plan or approved amendment of any such plan that has been secured by the applicant from the Planning Board a.-:~ prcz,er~ed to the Building Inspector, along xvith all necessary approvals and permits as may be required by other public agencies. III. Severability. If any clause~ sentence, paragraph, section~ or part of this Local Law shall be adiudged by any court of competent iurisdiction to be invalid, the iudgment shall not effect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. IV. Effective date This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by law. This was published, them is an affidavit of posting in the Town Clerk's bulletin board outside there. I have a certification that this has appeared in the Suffolk Times newspaper, I have a SEQRA memorandum, this is from our Toxvn Attorney: 'Attached please find a copy of the SEQRA determination received from McLean Associates regarding the proposed local law' and that SEQRA determination is attached. And the bottom line of this is 'As such the action is not subject to SEQRA review'. I have a recommendation from the Planning Board, dated March 9, this is to the Supervisor and members of the Town Board from Jerilyn Woodhouse, the Chairperson. "The Planning Board has reviewed the legislation regarding determination of site plan and offers the following recommendations, 1. In order to provide sufficient time to review the Building Inspectors initial determination, 10 business days are needed within the Planning Office. This time frame ~vould afford input by the Planning Board during its work sessions. 2. The 10 day clock should start the day the initial determination is submitted to and is stamped in the Planning Department Office. 3. The legislation should state that only the Chief Building Inspector has the right to make the final determination. The Planning Board supports the Town Boards efforts to improve the site plan review process. Toxvards that end, it strongly recommends the continuation of ongoing efforts to streamline the process and improve coordination between the Building Department and the Planning Office, using the recommendations previously set forth by Planning Staff in a memorandum dated February 2, 2004." I have a notice here from the Suffolk County Department of Planning, "Pursuant to requirements of Section A-1414 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the above referenced application is considered to be a matter of local determination as there is no apparent significant County-wide or inter-Community impact." And I believe that is all the notices and communications relevant to this hearing. March 9, 2004 Public Hearing-Site Plan Requirement 3 SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Councilman Wickham. We offer the floor to the public for comment. Yes, Ms. Tole. CATHY TOLE: Hello, Cathy Tole, in Greenport. Some of the comments made by Jeri Woodhouse seem very appropriate. A five day period for responding to something like this could be very difficult to say the least. If we haven't included a lot of the considerations that they have to make, including frequency of their meeting; getting input from other members who do not serve full-time on this Board; to consult with the staff and to say the very least, to give staff time to prepare the report. To actually type the report that is submitted by the Planning Board. Five days just seems almost impossible to fit it in and therefore it would create almost a kind of a rush on their part that would not be necessary and could be very significant. The other thing is, the comment that Jeri Woodhouse had made in her letter about having the Chief Building Inspector be the only person allowed to make the final approval of the site plan seems somewhat appropriate in order create one unified set of rules, so to speak and a smooth administration of the law, to have each individual building inspector kind of set their own rules could not serve the interest of the area that they are working in. I hope that you will listen to her comments, I know she requested at least 10 days, I would think a fifteen (15) day period would be even more appropriate because if something is submitted to them the day after their meeting, they can only get together two weeks later and give a report back fi'om the full committee if it were required, with a one day lapse. So, maybe you could even give them a little more and give them a little breathing room of 15 days. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Ms. Tole. Would anyone else care to address the Town Board? Yes, Ms. Schroeder. GWYNN SCHROEDER: Good afternoon, Gwynn Schroeder, North Fork Environmental Council. And I am just going to read some prepared comments. Back in 1995, when the Town Board elected to give the responsibility of site plan determination to the Planning Board, they did it for good reason: to promote openness and transparency of government. When a project is reviewed in the Building Department, there is no opportunity for public review and input. The applicant submits their application and a Building Inspector will make the decision if a site plan is needed or not, and if not, issues a building permit. But when the project is reviewed by the Planning Board, it is discussed openly at a public meeting. Projects will appear on an agenda posted on the Planning Board bulletin board, most likely a member of the press, myself, other interested parties, other NFEC people will be present at the work session. When the Planning Board not only do they have the benefit of the input from professional Planning staff but you are having four or five people look over an application and not just one. And finally, by having the Planning Board review applications, it makes the Building Department staff less vulnerable to pressure, say from elected officials, to push a project through. And this is not a reflection on the current Building Department staff or our current elected officials, but illustrates how potential abuses could occur and how they may have occurred in the past. This has come up now because of a 1999 ruling in the Planning Board's legal battles with Cross Sound Ferry, xvhen the judge ruled in the case that the Town Board had no authority to delegate such authority to the Planning Board. I don't know if that is necessarily the case and I think if you really were determined you could find a way to keep that in the realm of the Planning Board but I have to second what has been said by a lot of people here tonight, what has been said by a lot of people here tonight, the Principal Planner sent you a memo and outlined in that memo, she said that things are pretty much March 9, 2004 Public Heating-Site Plan Requirement 4 proceeding, they are not making a determination of site plan necessity; the Building Department is but she did outline ways that the whole process could be better managed, better communication, better utilization of the GIS. There are so many things, I think that is one of the major problems is that there is no set criteria that people can follow and there is bad communication and [ think if you did some simple things, like had a check-off list about why a permit was approved or not approved, it might simplify things. And I second what everybody else said, five days is just not long enough for the Planning Board to review. For instance, if I go to a Planning Board work session on a Monday night and find that something is on the agenda, I may not have time to research the issue, respond to it, any other concerned party cannot. And txvo weeks ago, there was not a quorum at the Planning Board work session, so they couldn't discuss anything, so everything had to be tabled for a week. So at the very least, I hope that you would extend the comment period for the Planning Board to at least ten (10) business days. Thanks. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Are there other comments from the floor on this public hearing? Mr. DiNizio? JIM DINIZIO: Jim DiNizio, Greenport. The last speaker is right, except that transparency in our government is not the purview of the Planning Board. That is your responsibility. You are supposed to set the agenda, you are supposed to set the roles that the rest of people in town follow. And we are supposed to, the public I am talking about, are supposed to have our input now, at a public meeting. We are supposed to decide what the rules are. And that transparency is going to work both ways. Someone can go to that code book and look and see what is required of them to build a building in this town and follow that. Someone can go to, a public person can go there, look and see what can be put on a piece of property that is next to them. Okay. That is all part of zoning, it is all part of what you allow, what you direct the Planning Board to do. The Zoning Board made a decision based on what is in the code concerning this and what you are deciding right now is not to allow the public to comment on whether or not a site plan is required, okay? That is not anywhere in our code, that the public gets to decide that. You decide that and the code decides that and the person who enforces the code and the person who looks at the code is the Building Inspector. And a site plan is a small part of an application for this town, that a businessman ~vould have to do to build a building. Not only is he required to have a site plan, if he needs one, he is also required to meet the setbacks, building height, he is required to drainage, Health Department, all of those things and the site plan is no more or less important than any of those things I just mentioned. And if you are going to hold out a site plan for public purview as to whether or not someone needs one now, okay, that is your ten days. That is the thing that these people are asking for. You are asking for people to come about, after a gentleman has spent his time and followed the rules and then hold himself out to the public as to whether he is required to have a site plan or not from 5, 10, 15 people. I don't know that that is, any part of our town code says that. You have requirements for site plan, if the Building Inspector is making mistakes, if he is not enforcing the codes as you sees them, as you have written them down; then that is where the problem needs to be taken care of. It doesn't need to be delegated to a five person Board, xvhere everybody can hang a notice out and come out and take potshots at a person who wants to do something he is allowed to do in this toxvn and that is what has been going on xvith the site plans since then. Now we ignored the fact that the Zoning Board made the decision that it is the Building Inspector who has the say as to whether a site plan is required, okay? We are not talking about whether a site plan needs to be followed. We are talking about, in this toxvn, in our code, who requires a site plan and that is all we are talking about. March 9, 2004 5 Public Hearing-Site Plan Requirement And the person that that has to be is the Building Inspector and that is because he has other responsibilities to that applicant besides just a site plan. And so, a 10 day wait, a 5 day wait is not something you need to have in our code. It is not something that has to be required because people don't need to comment on whether a site plan is required, okay? The Planning Board shouldn't have that control. You have that control, you should say when a site plan is required. The Building Inspector should follow that law. The Planning Board should then see to it that the site plan meets the code after it is decided that a site plan has, you know, is needed. So I urge you from my own point of view to take that five days out, let the Building Inspector do his job because I think all you are doing is subverting his authority allowing the Planning Board power that they should not have. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. DiNizio. Other comments from the floor? Mr. Nickles? JOHN NICKLES, JR.: Good evening, John Nickles, Jr., Southold. I think that the business community, one of the main problems that we have had over the years is lack of definition in the code as to what requires site plan, what doesn't. There is a very nebulous phrase that is in the code, change of intensity in use and I think that that is really the source of a lot of our problems. That is something that we are going to have to see if we can work out. What we are talking about tonight really is just abiding by the court decision in 1999, it xvasn't like an aside in the court decision, actually it was the first thing that they said. 'In accordance with the above, the court finds and declares 1. That 100-253 of the code of the Town of Southold as amended to authorize the Planning Board to determine whether a site plan or amendment thereto is required is invalid and that the Town Board has no power to delegate such authority." That was the first part of their decision. So what we are really about here tonight is bringing ourselves into line with the Supreme courts decision, they have referenced that it is the enabling legislation of New York State that requires the Building Inspector to be the one that has the interpretive power. The Zoning Board of Appeals also basically made that same determination back in 1992 prior to ~vhen the site plan law was administered in 1995. So I would ask that the Town at the very least, bring this code back in line with the enabling legislation of the State of New York. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. Are there other comments from the floor? Mr. Samuels. TOM SAMUELS: Tom Samuels, Cutchogue. I agreed 100% with Jimmy DiNizio on this. The reason there is a Southold Business Alliance is largely, one of the principle issues that has disturbed the business community has been the Planning Boards relationship to building permits and site plans and so on and so forth. We have a toxvn code, we have elected officials responsible for the enforcement of that code and we have a Building Inspector who has sworn to uphold that code. I perceive and perceptions are important here to the business community, I perceive that there may have been some opposition among the Town Board to using Mr. DiNizio's recommendation. Overall, in the business community, actually every part of town government, clarity is important and making things as easy as possible for business community is very important. We are in this toxvn, a town of mom and pop stores primarily, with the exceptions of the supermarkets, etc. We are not going to have any big box stores. We have small businesses that are trying to make it and some are very successful. We should encourage that. We try to encourage it by shopping in town and we escape the perils that Riverhead has. But for the small business oxvner in Southold Town, make it simple. Make it very March 9, 2004 6 Public Heating-Site Plan Requirement simple. It is very important for the business community, the small business community. The business community has been overlooked in previous administrations and some of the things that happened in that period were just horrendous. What brought me to really consider this was the Dick Mullen incident, which would not have applied in this, there was a site plan required for that. But Mr. Mullen, who I consider one of our town's best citizens, was put through the rigors of-at great expense and time. All because of a cacophony of a few people, who then hired an attorney from Southampton town. So I urge the Board to possibly look again at the referrals to the Planning Board and I have no quarrel with the Planning Board whatsoever. I have no problems with the Zoning Board. But to keep it as simple as possible, let the Building Inspector make a decision based on the code. That is all that is required. I don't see where, the public can make all the inquiry it wants into legislation such as this. But let the buck stop at the Building Inspectors desk. He can make the decision. Change the code if you want to. But let him make the decision. Keep it simple. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, sir. Are there other comments from the floor? Mr. Chick. DAVE CICHANOWICZ: Dave Cichanowicz, Southold. As owner of a couple of businesses in town, it is key that you know a strategy of how you are going to proceed. And for expansion or improvements or changes or anything that may apply in my business as well as any business in town, going to the town, of course, you are going there ~vith a very large question mark. Some of the key problems that we have had in the past is not knowing what we can do, clearly defined. What is written in the code can be interpreted by hopefully, just one person that could clarify and shorten the length of the process in which a businessman can make his future decisions. Again, as Tom Samuels and Jim DiNizio said, simplifying things, none of us business owners are looking to do any shortcuts or cut any comers or do anything against the codes but clarity and having a person to make a decision and to speed up the process would be a tremendous help to the business community. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. Cichanowicz. Are there other comments from the floor? Ms. Norden. MELANIE NORDEN: Melanie Norden, Greenport. Josh, your administration and particularly this Board, has addressed many issues having to do with conflicts of interest and in fact, we have had a lot of political brouhaha about who is in what political party and needs to recuse or resign themselves and this has been a hallmark of what you have cared about in terms of ethics in public government. One of the problems that I have with all of this is that Mike Verity is an active builder in the Town of Southold. And in effect, if you are leaving a decision up to a Building Inspector alone, you are actually asking a participant in a particular industry to enforce his very own industry. And I think that that brings to mind much of what we have discussed when we talk about conflict of interest. In point of fact, I object to having only Michael Verity as the Building Inspector being the last word of record, because in point of fact, if he is both building in the town and a member of an industry, I do not see how he can make a decision that is wholly and effectively in the public good. Now, not every Building Inspector in every town is an active builder who has crews out there, but our Building Inspector does. So, you are essentially asking our Inspector to enforce the law, which seems to me a clear conflict of interest. He is a member of a profession and you are asking a member of that very profession to enforce the law on the public's behalf. And I think that when we have talked a lot about conflicts of interest, you have also addressed many issues having to do with the appearance of a conflict of interest March 9, 2004 7 Public Hearing-Site Plan Requirement and you yourself and the Board have stressed repeatedly that you are not saying that somebody actually compromised A, B, C, D or E. The real issue, the nut of the issue, was whether it appeared to be that way. Now in this particular case, it more than appears to be, at least to me, that somebody who is an active representative of a particular industry should not have sole enforcement power with respect to enforcing the laws for that industry. That, I think, would lead to something that is utterly hierarchal in the town and utterly inappropriate. And I think if we are going to address across the board, conflict of interest issues, if we are going to say in fact, somebody could be compromised; and remember, your administration has perpetually focused on could be, not is or should be. Then we really have to look at whether in fact this makes a lot of sense. Delegating or anointing power in one person only is always a problem in any form of government and all of us know that the town code is laborious, unclear, unspecified in many occasions and all legislation, no matter how good or how bad it is, is in effect open to interpretation. There is not a black and white interpretation of the site plan and not a site plan, of a setback and not a setback, there are variations on this all the time. And there are many things that have been built in this town that have not been built to specification, either because nobody enforced them, which is most of the case, somebody was too busy, somebody never got to the site, somebody didn't do the plumbing and somebody did this and that and blah, blah, blah. In point of fact, to say that we have a code that is purely definable and understandable and utterly enforceable and not open to interpretation, is nffive, number one. And now you are asking this code; that is open to interpretation, as all legislation is, to be then administered hook, line and sinker by a member of the very industry that you are asking him to enforce. I think this really needs to be addressed. And I would encourage this Board to in some way examine this a little more thoroughly for the public. One of the advantages of having Planning Board involvement and participation in a process and I would say that if you are not going to give them more than five days, you are just giving them lip service and it is ludicrous, is to prevent this very kind of thing happening. I mean, I could get up or another builder could get up or some other person who is building a home could say, hey, I don't think it is appropriate, I am going to sue this Town because a builder and somebody xvho is in this industry itself, is the only person who is going to decide on whether my building is good and maybe he doesn't like the builder that I am using and maybe if I had used him, I would really actually get my building permit more quickly and more easily. So I don't think it cuts both ways. I think we need a full definition on the role of Mike Verity and how in fact, he is able to distinguish himself and whether he can recuse himself on any of these particular projects. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you very much. Are there other comments from the floor? Mr. Arm. CRAIG ARM: Craig Arm, Southold. I think basically, some of the gist of what everyone is trying to say here is that whether you agree with Mike Verity or don't agree with Mike Verity, overall it seems like doing something to enact some good legislation, some good guidelines for somebqdy to clearly make a decision, instead of leaving something open to interpretation from one individual, that if we had some sort of a checklist or clear definitions and clear guidelines, I think that alone, no matter who it was making the decision, would certainly solve 99% of all the questions that come about. That is about it, thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. Are there other comments from the floor on this public heating? Mr. Samuels. March 9, 2004 8 Public Hearing-Site Plan Requirement MR. SAMUELS: I know Mike Verity. I don't know him well at all, I don't file any building department applications or anything else but it would seem to me that the Town Board had the confidence in Mike Verity to appoint him as Chief Building Inspector. Casting aspersions on his character, or potential character... MS. NORDEN: Nobody has done that. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Excuse me, excuse me. He has got the floor. MR. SAMUELS: It is extremely unfortunate and I believe uncalled for in the absence of anything has come up. So I don't know quite where that accusation comes from. If one of the problems in small town government, there are so many conflicts of interest... SUPERVISOR HORTON: Actually, if we could, on this specific public heating, that is really what we need to keep focus. I don't mean to cut you off, sir but to focus on this piece of legislation that is up for public hearing. MR. SAMUELS: So noted and I end my comments. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Very well. Mr. Lieblein, you had your hand up. BILL LIEBLEIN: Bill Lieblein, Port of Egypt. I came in late because I forgot about the meeting, had to catch a ferry. I live on Shelter Island now but as everyone knows, my business is in town. I would urge you to do whatever you can to simplify things, I have been successful in getting permits to put my sxvimming pool in, to put my storage building up. And the process was quite lengthy, I think the pool took t~vo years and the building took a year and a half or almost two years. I know there are some things that are more complicated and perhaps my storage building required the amount of time it took but putting a swimming pool in, I thought was excessive for what was involved. So I would just urge you to work towards simplifying things on projects that are not that immense, to let the Building Inspector act as he had in the past, as he had before everything was passed on to the Planning Board. So anything that you can do in that direction, I would urge. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, sir. Are there other comments from the floor on this public hearing? Yes, Ms. Tole. MS. TOLE: I have a question. Does this local law that you are passing today, moving site plan review from Planning to Building Department do anything to clarify what is required for a site plan? SUPERVISOR HORTON: No, it is not ~ite plan review, it is just... MS. TOLE: All it does is move the same innocuous set of rules and regulations fi-om one place to another place? March 9, 2004 9 Public Heating-Site Plan Requiremem SUPERVISOR HORTON: Actually it doesn't do anything with the innocuous rules and regulations. It makes who determines, ~vho actually goes through those innocuous rules and regulations. MS. TOLE: Then I am not sure how this clarifies anything for the business people in this town. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: I can answer that. MS. TOLE: Thank you. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: I think it does help out. You know, the Building Department, I will say over the years, has gotten a bad rap for holding up site plan applications. Recently, there has been a few applications throughout this community that have been passed back and forth between department to department because there is no clear-cut determination who is going to make the final say. We have a site plan, one up on the North Road, Daffodils, it has been hanging around this place for two years because we cannot get a building inspector to write final determination. He is leaving it to the Planning Board and when the Planning Board makes a decision, he says well, then maybe it is different. This legislation, at least puts one person in the position to stand up by his word, not to hide behind another Department, or hide behind another Board, because one person has to say, I think you need a site plan or I don't think you need a site plan. He has to make that determination. Now, if he says you need a site plan, it goes right back to the Planning Board, you have got to go through all of the steps that the Planning Board requires for a site plan. And the clarifications aren't that innocuous, you know, there is some gray area but for the most part, it is not that gray. If you are doing some sort of construction on a commercial piece of property, you are going to site plan, there is just no two ways about it. But this legislation puts one person responsible, one person in position to make that call and projects have been lost in this Toxvn for years because we cannot get that one person to put in writing and stand behind his word. And this says, by code, you have to put it in writing. And then, at least as a business owner, you know what to do from that point, instead of being pushed back and forth for two years. MS. TOLE: Okay, I can see that as something positive. However, are we settling this on one person, that being the head of the Building Department, or on each and every individual inspector that might create a fiefdom with the inspector from Greenport versus the inspector from Cutchogue. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: I believe that if it comes out of that Building Department, the Chief Building Inspector, who is the head of that department, is responsible for what came out of that department, yes. If it is written by another inspector, I have to assume that the Chief Building Inspector authorized for it to come out because he is the man in charge of that department. SUPERVISOR HORTON: And that is the departmental policy, as well. MS. TOLE: And that is the legislative intent, then. SUPERVISOR HORTON: That is correct. March 9, 2004 Public Hearing-Site Plan Requirement COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: That is correct. 10 MS. TOLE: Oh, okay. That being said on the record has some significance. The only other thing that I would add is nobody came up here and attacked Michael Verity and nobody should go back to him and infer that he was attacked in any way. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Right. SUPERVISOR HORTON: That is correct. Are there other comments on this hearing? (No response) We will close the hearing. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk Local Law Filin NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 41 STATE STREET~ ALBM~FI(~ NY 12231 (Use this form to file a local law with the Secretary of State.) Text of law should be given as amended. Do not include matter being eliminated and do not use italics or underlining to indicate new matter. Town of SOUTHOLD LOCAL LAW NO. 8 2004 A Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to Determination of Site Plan Requirement" BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, as follows: I. Purpose The intent of this change is to authorize the Building Inspector to make the determination that a site plan is required, pursuant to the provisions of the Town Code. This Amendment will be consistent with New York State law. The change will also provide the Planning Department the opportunity to comment on the determination of the Building Inspector, before it becomes a final determination. II. Chapter 100 of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as tbllows: § 100-253. Approval of site plan required. A. After the filing of an application for a Building Permit, the Building inspector shall make a determination as to whether a site plan or an amendment thereto is required, and this written determination shall be forwarded to the Planning Department for comment. The Planning Department must provide written comments on this determination to the Building Inspector within five (5) business days, or be deemed to have waived the opportunity to comment. After review of comments, or after the time period for comment has elapsed, the Building Inspector shall issue a final determination to the applicant, which shall in no event be more than fifteen (15) business days fi.om the filing of the application. No building permit shall be issued for any structure or building for which use a site plan is required pursuant to this Chapter 100, until, if required, an approved site development plan or approved amendment of any such plan has been secured by the applicant from the Planning Board and presented to the Building Inspector, along with all necessary approvals and permits as may be required by other public agencies. III. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not effect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. IV. Effective date This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by law. (If additional space is needed, attach pages the same size as this sheet, and number each.) oos-239(Rcv.t ~ ~9, ( 1 ) (Complete the certification in the paragraph that applies to the ~ing of this local law and strike out that which is not applicable.) 1. (Final adoption by local legislative body only.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. 8 of 20 04 of the (Cz:x-2y)(C!'.y',(Town) ~) of. SOUTHOLD was duly passed by the TOWN BOARD on March 9 ~ 20 04 , in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. 2. (Passage by local legislative body with approval, no disapproval or repassage after disapproval by the Elective Chief Executive Officer*.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. of 20___ of the (County)(City)(Town)(Village) of was duly passed by the on 20 , and was (approved)(not approved)(repassed afXer disapproval) by the and was deemed duly adopted on 20__ iu accordance with the applicable provisions of law. 3. (Final adoption by referendum.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. of 20 of the (County)(City)(Town)(Village) of was duly passed by the on 20 , and was (approved)(not approved)(repassed after disapproval) by the on 20 . Such local law was submitted to the people by reason ofa {mandatory)(permissive) referendum, and received the affirmative vote ora majority of the qualified electors voting thereon at the (general)(special)(annual) election held on 20 , in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. 4. (Subject to permissive referendum and final adoption because no valid petition was filed requesting referendum.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. of 20 of the (County)(City)(Town)(Village) of was duly passed by the on 20 , and was (approved)(not approved) (repassed after disapproval) by the on 20 Such local law was subject to permissive referendum and no valid petition requesting such referendum was filed as of 20__, in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. * Elective Chief Executive Officer means or Include.s the chief executive officer of a county elected on a county- wide basis or, If there be none, the chairperson of the county legislative body, the mayor of a city or village, or the supervisor of a town where such officer is vested with the power to approve or veto local laws or ordinances. (2) 5. (City local law concerning Charter revision proposed by petition.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. of 20 __ of the City of having been submitted to referendum pursuant to the provisions of section (36)(37) of the Municipal Home Rule Law, and having received the affirmative vote ora majority of the qualified electors of such city voting thereon at the (special)(general) election held on 20 __, became operative. 6. (County local law concerning adoption of Charter.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No of 20 of the County of State of New York, having been submitted to the electors at the General Election of November 20 , pursuant to subdivisions 5 and 7 of section 33 of the Municipal Home Rule Law, and having received the affirmative vote of a majority of the qualified electors of the cities of said county as a unit and a majority of the qualified electors of the towns of said county considered as a unit voting at said general election, became operative. (If any other authorized form of final adoption has been followed, please provide an appropriate certification.) I further certify that I have compared the preceding local law with the original on file in this office and that the same is a correct transcript therefrom and of the whole of such original local law, and was finally adopted in the manner indicated in paragraph I , above. Clerk of the 12~ty legislative body. City. T~wn or Village Clerk or officer designated by local legislative body Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk (Seal) Date: March 11, 2004 (Certification to be executed by County Attorney, Corporation Counsel, Town Attorney, Village Attorney or other authorized attorney of locality.) STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing local law contains the correct text and that all proper proceedings have been had or taken for the enactment of the local law anted hereto. // Patricm A. Fmneg~n,e,Esq, TmOn Attorney Title Town of SOUTHOLD - .' Date: March 11, 2004 F'IMES 298-3200 these advertisers are online? rReview Newspapers' 2E DIRECTORIES customized to suit your needs. fl Meg at 631-298-3200 Times/Rcview........Total Response providing to the Orient FLre Dismct latin care qervice from April I. 2004 lo March 3 I. 2005 Specifications tot tile abo~c item may be obtained b}. ,m interested bidder By: Ed,~ ard Loper NOTICE TO BIDDERS LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING -- NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER LOCAL LAW NO. 2004 A Local Law entitled "A Local Lan in relatinn to De emfinatinn tff Site Plan BE IT ENACTED b3 the 'to~n Board of the Town of Southold. as fo[- L Purpose The intent ot thts change make the deter~n' ation that a site plan follows: § lid 253. Approval of site plan reqmred deemed to have waived the opportunivv filine of the avvlicatinn. No buildine or buildin~ for ~xhich use a site vlan is until, if requited, an approved gite Dated: February 24. 20tkt BY ORDER OF FHE TO'~qW BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SODTHOLD Elizabeth Neville. Town Clerk Glim SI-IS slaow unvei never-before-se 5outhold s ene ~'~ outhold 1850-1950: A Photo ~k~ Retrospective" is an exhibition of o I ~ black-and-white images of Southok [ · displayed to the public for the first ,~a~,.~' "The images chosen show the are ,~ral quality, but also reveal the coming of modem age in Southold,' said Southold Historical Society director Geoffrey Flemi "It's a wonderful selection of images, a fez glimpse into the past." The exhibition is also the first photograt retrospective of the area, and is expected I crate a lot of interest, said I Fleming. ~ Man), of the photographs capture the people, building events, houses, vehicles and, es as they appeared betwee~ and 50 years ago are part of the Southold F LibraD,'s *Vl?itaker Collection, and ~e amc first images ever recorded of Southold Tow "I tried to choose the most unique phot graphs, and the ones I hadn't seen before. Vanessa Patterson, a Southold resident a~ American history student at SUNY/Ston5 Brook, who has spent a year and a half as intern at the Southold library, sorting out 1,000 old photographs that had sat jumbk cardboard boxes for decades. Now the photos, genealogies and over ~ books of the Whitaker Collection are catl logued, conserved and organized in a wa5 makes them much more useful as historic research material, she said. Included in the exhibition are works b5 known Cutchogue photographer Charles Meredith (1889-1966). who, after moving from Canada. set up a photographic busi~ An 1890s view of a carriage from Corey A LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREB'~ GIVEN, Be'ltd of the 1-~ n of Southold. Suftolk STATE OF NEW YORK) Count)'. Neb York. on the 23th da) of Febmarv 20(14 a Local Law ennded ~ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Determination Or Site Plan NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER Joan Ann Wet GIVEN tbat thc Tox, n Board of the Tox~, of Soutbold xxill hohl a public in said county, bein0 duly sworn, says that he/she is Pn hearing on the aforesaid L~al Law at eLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published at Mat1 th~ So,,,~.U To,.. m,. ¢3~5 Road. So.thohk ~ ~-"" th~ hold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and t ~.~ ~.~..4, annexed is a printed copy, nas peen regularly pUDI ~i,ren aC oppoAunity to bc heard. , )ROe each week for I week ~e pro~¢d I~ aw entitle, ~ . "l.aeal Law in relation ~ ag on A ~cal Law entitled "A Local La~ BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold. as roi Sworn to before me this DepCment the opp~¢um? to pla~mg etemfinatton pi the IL Chapter t~} of the Code follows: app , er ubtic agencte~. reqmred b5 otb .p J~ha{I not a~CCt the ~, hd~t~ of h TO~ OF sOUTHOLD CHRISTINA VOLINSKI NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK NO. 01-VO6105050 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires February 28, 2008 Principal Clerk RECEIVED i: Soulhold Town CIer~ STATE OF NEW YOP'" -~-'/---~-,~_z~¢-¢5~_~_. of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal clerk of TH E SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, pub- lished at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly pub- lished in said Newspaper once each week for / weeks successively, commencing on the /.,Z.g,, _day of j-~--~,/3 2(%/'¢/; /~/ "'Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this /,~¢ day of__ ,,~"~,Z~ 20.,~/~ CHRISTINA VOLINSKI NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK No. D J-VO6JOSObO ~,~tlCllJfied if1 Suffolk County Comml~.~lqn EXphe$ February 28. 200,8