HomeMy WebLinkAboutHamlet Density Zoning- 02/1994 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Review of Hamlet Density Zoning In Southold Town
Report to the Town Board
February 1994
This study was authorized by the Town Board in January of
1994. !ts purpose was to assess whether undeveloped
properties in Town that are zoned Hamlet Densisy (HD) are
appropriately zoned.
This study was undertaken as part of the Town Board's
ongoing commitment to implement the Town's Comprehensive or
Mas%er Plan. Part of this process includes evaluating
whether the current pattern or location of HD-zoned
properties is furthering the Goals and Policy Objectives of
the Comprehensive Plan.
Ail vacant HD-zoned properties in the Town are reviewed in
the report. They are listed below in the. same manner that
%hey are identified and reviewed in the report:
SCTM~ Hamlet Location Acreaqe
~1 040-3-1 Greenport, unin. 17.1
~2 040-4-1 Greenport, unin. 10.55
#3 046-1-2.1 Greenport, unin. 3.5
#4 035-1-25 Greenport, unin. 132.08
#5 045-2-10.3 Greenport, unin. 20.07
~6 102-1-33.3 Cutchogue 46.16
~7 045-2-1 Greenport, unin. 1.2
~8 035-1-24 Greenpor~, unin. 62.3
The repor~ provides a planning policy framework within
which to evaluate the available data about each parcel.
The recommendations in this report indicate whether the
current HD zone needs to be changed or left untouched;
based on whether the zoning is in conformance wi~h public
planning policy, but without recommending specific zone
changes.
REVIEW OF HAMLET DENSITY ZONING IN SOUTHOLD TOWN
Report to the Town Board
February 1994
~EVIEW OF HA~tLET DENSITY ZONING IN SOUTHOLD TOWN
Report to the Town Board
February 1994
iNTRODUCTION:
The purpose o~ this review is ~ study the current ssatus
of each vacant property ~hat presently is zoned for Hamlet
Density. The study includes an assessment whether tha~
designation is in keeping with the intent of the
Comprehensive or Master Plan for the Hamlet Density
zoning district.
Initially, this report will describe the reasons for the
review. It then provides a detailed analysis of ~he
pertinent policies of the Comprehensive or Master P~n
affecting the Hamlet Density zoning and the history of the
zoning that preceded it.
Next, the report includes an analysis of the properties in
a uniform manner. Each property is described as to its
current physical ~ocation, including zoning. Each property
is reviewed in terms of any current approvals and
development. Each is analyzed as to its conformity with
the Jomprehensive or Master Plan and other public
policies. Lastly, a reco~endation is made as to the
appropriateness of the zoning.
NEED FOR THE REVIEW:
The need for this review evidenced itself in different ways.
First. with one exception, the parcels to be reviewed have
been zoned HD for long periods of time ranging from 5 to
36 years. Second, these properties are either undeveloped
or under-developed. Third, seven of the eight parcels are
located adjacent to or within close proximity to,the
Incorporated Village of Greenport.
The fact that these properties remained undeveloped over
such long periods of time raised several questions: which
ranged from why the properties were rezoned in the first
place to why the properties remained undeveloped. The
clustering of these properties adjacent to and around the
Village of Greenport also raised questions as to the
consistency of the Town's actions in context with its own
Comprehensive or Master Plan.
With one exception, the HD zoning designation was
assigned to each parcel in response to a petition by the
property's owner. The rezonings occurred periodically,
starting in 1958. The potential availability of public
water and, in some cases, sewer, services from the Village
of Greenport evidently was a factor considered by previous
Town Boards in granting these parcels the HD zone. All but
one of the undeveloped HD parcels either are adjacent or
within close proximity to Greenport Village.
The resulting pattern has had a significant negative impact
on the Village of Greenport. The Mayor of the Village had
a general discussion with the Town Board on January 4,
1994, in which he indicated that the cumulative impact of
the added density would not only strain the present
infrastructure capability of the village's public water and
sewer systems, it would increase Greenport's already
disproportionate share of the Town's affordable housing
units; a situation that was documented in Suffolk County's
Equitable Housing Study of 1991.
The Town has not undertaken a specific study of the
appropriateness of HD rezonings since the Master Plan
Update was conducted during the early 1980s. This review
will look at the appropriateness of the HD zoning
designation for those parcels that are zoned HD and that
are undeveloped.
This is in keeping with the Town Board's cormnitment to
implement the Town's Comprehensive or Master Plan. Charged
in 1992 with suggesting ways to implement this vision, the
Town's Stewardship Task Force recommended to the Town
Board, in September of 1993, that it "Revise the Zoning
Code and Map to better comply with goals of the Master
Plan". In conjunction with this recom~endation, the Task
Force also suggested to the Town Board that it "Review
Zoning Map a~d revise to eliminate zoned districts which
are incompatible with their present use and physical
2
2ontexs." This review is in response to those
recommendations.
AUTHORIZATION FOR REVIEW:
The Town Board Resolution of January 4, 1994 states the
reasons for this review, the Board's intent in authorizing
it, and directs staff to carry out the study.
METHODOLO~f USED IN ANALYSIS: CRITERIA FOR REVIEW:
The methodology used here reflects the purpose of this
review which is to examine the eight vacant parcels
currently zoned Hamlet Density and to determine whether
they are appropriately zoned in relationship to the goals
and objectives of the Town's 1984 Update of its
Comprehensive or Master Plan, the 1991 Report of the US/UK
Countryside Stewardship Exchange and the ongoing work of
the Town's Stewardship Task Force.
Each of the eight properties were reviewed systematically
using the following format:
Site Data
Notable Physical Features and Limitations
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Status of Development: Approvals and Infrastructure
Public Policy
Reco~nendation
The Site Data section will identify the parcel by its Tax
Map Number, its location and its acreage. Information
about the zoning and ownership history of this parcel will
be presented here also.
The section on Notable Physical Features and Limitations
will £eview the relevant, available environmental data and
its significance or potential impact on the parcel's
develcpment potential.
The Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning section will
describe the land uses and zoning of the surrounding
properties, and will discuss the significance of those uses
and ~esignations for the subject parcel.
The following section, Status of Development: Approvals
and Infr~s~ac~ure, will review the current status of any
applicanlons and apprcvals for the subject parcel.
The Public Polic'! section will examine the
appropriateness of the Hamiat Density designation relative
to the vision set forth by the Town's Comprehensive or
Master Plan Update in 1984, the 1991US/UK Countryside
Stewardship Exchange Report and the Stewardship Task
Force's draft recommendations of 1993.
The last section, Reco~nendation, will list a
recommendation for either leaving the Hamlet Density
designation or changing it.
Public Policy in the Context of the Comprehensive Plan and
the Zoning Code:
Because the Public Policy sections of each case study
presume an understanding of the Town's Comprehensive or
Master Plan and of the Town's ongoing efforts to implement
its vision, as well as an historical knowiedge of elements
of the Zoning Code itself, the following section has been
included here. Its purpose is to provide a detailed
analysis of the public policies that were considered in
this evaluation of the pattern of Hamlet Density zoning in
Southold Town.
The Comprehensive Plan
Southold Town has been engaged in an ongoing effort to
implement the Goals and Policies of the 1984 Comprehensive
or Master Plan Update as evidenced by the work of the
Stewardship Task Force (STF). Appointed by the Town Board,
the STF has been charged since its inception in 1992, with
the "study and exploration of emeliorator!z recommendations
of the Southold Town Zoning Map and Ordinances, in order to
foster and implement the ideals and goals of the existing
Master Plan, incorporating the recommendations of the
US/UK Stewardship Exchange."
The recommendations of the US/UK Stewardship Exchange
reflect the collective thinking of a teem of eight
professional planners who met with government officials and
a wide range of community representatives about planning
issues during 3uly of 1991. They found six areas of
agreement with the Comprehensive or Master Plan. These
included:
t) "Concentration of new residential and co~ercial
development in and around existing hamlets and
villages .... " along with the
2) "Preservation of the historic character of the
villages and hamlets, carefully controlling design
of new ~evelopment to maintain compatibilin¥." and
"~4aintenance and improvement of the environment
through provision of an appropriate infrastructure
to protect water quality and to manage natural
resources properly, and to guide development to
appropriate locations."
IA Report by the 1991US/UK Countryside Stewardship
Exchange Team To The People of the Town of Southold,
North Fork. Long Island. Nove~%ber 1991. p.8.)
The aforementioned issues had been derived from the Goals
and Policies of Southold Town's 1984 Master Plan Update.
That document set forth a nua%ber of C~als and subsequent
Policies which have a bearing on this study, and which are
stated in Appendix A of this study.
In September of 1993, the Stewardship Task Force published
an interim report in which it made a series of draft
recon~nendations to i~lement the Goals and Policies set
forth by the 1984 Master Plan Update. The preface to its
reco~nendations on the Character of Hamlets and Rural
Setting states:
The ha~Llets are the historic focus for residential and
business activity in Southoid Town. We consider this
to be a desiraJ~le pattern of development, which should
be encouraged by allowing appropriate new residential
and co~nercial development in the existing centers.
In order to facilitate this growth, ce~rafui planning
should undertaken by the Town, so that a rural,
pedestrian oriented village quality, consistent with
our history and traditional pattern of development, is
fostered.
The long history of Southold has given rise to a
tremendous richness and diversity of buildings and
working landscapes. Vigorous steps should be taken to
assure the preservation of these structures and
landscapes, without infringing on the rights of their
individual owners. All residents benefit from the
prese~;ation of our historic and scenic heritage, not
only for our "quality of life", but for the economic
potential it offers the Town.
Purpose of the Hamlet Densit~ Zoning District:
This policy of concentrating residential development
%hroughoun %he Town's hamlets is reiterated in the Town's
Zoning Code, which states that the purpose of the HD
Zoning Dis%rict is:
"to permit a mix of housing types and level
of residential density appropriate to the
o
areas in and around the major hamlet centers,
particularly Mattituck, Cutchogue, Southold,
Orient and the Village of Gre~nport."
The Zoning Code specifies that the HD district may be
designated by the Town Board upon its own motion, as well
as by petition of the property owner on parcels located
within one-half mile of a Hamlet Business district of the
hamlets of Mattituck, Cutchogue and Southold; and
within one-quarter mile of the H~mlet Business district of
Orient and within one-half mile of the boundary of
Greenport Village.
In the Master Plan Summary of 1985, three criteria were
set forth for the estaDlishment of a Hamlet Density
district: location relasive to the ha~Llet business area,
the availability of utilities and the provision of moderate
cos5 housing. The report suggested Greenport be considered
as a hamlet. It also suggested that the maximum HD
development be permitted "only where necessary utilities
are in place or can be assured and where there is the
proviaion of moderate cost housing." (p.9). Finally, it
states the "The Hamlet Density category is also designed to
support the establishment of innovative techniques for
getting the optin~nn use out of exSstin~ housing."
(Emphasis supplied.)
Uses Allowed in the Hamlet Density Zoning D~strict:
The Zoning Code allows within the HD district only two
uses by right:
1. one-family detached dwellings, and
2. two-family dwellings.
A Special Exception from the Zoning Board of Appeals is
required for other uses such as:
1. multiple dwellings, townhouses, row or attached
houses;
2. accessory apartments in single-family residences,
(as regulated elsewhere in the Zoning Code);
3. bed and breakfast establishments, (as regulated
elsewhere in the Zoning Code);
4. wineries, (as regulated elsewhere in the Zoning
Code).
The Zoning Code provides guidelines or parameters within
which the Zoning Board of Appeals may grant the Special
Exceptions only for accessory apartments and for bed and
breakfast establishments. No guidance is provided to the
Zoning Board for the institution of multipie dwe%lings,
townhouses or row-houses, and wineries.
The Zoning Code: Historical Back~round:
Throughout this report, it is important to remea%ber that
while the "A" Residential-Agricultural zoning district
always permitted residential and agricultural land uses,
the required minia~m acreage for a lot in this zone changed
through the years. The following list shows how the
minimum acreage changed (by the year the amendment was made
to the Zoniug Code).
Year Minimum Acreage in "A" or "R" zones
1957 12,500 square feet
1971 40,000 square feet
1983 80,000 square feet
1989 80,000 square feet in A-C and R-80 zones
(40,000 square feet for areas zoned R-40 only.
Other residential zones provide for three,
five and ten acre minimum acreages.)
As will be seen, the in-depth analysis of each property
will show that each parcel originally had been zoned for
residential use. Some of the parcels have had more than
one zoning designation in their history, m~stly because the
Town changed its zoning code and map several times since
the first Code and Map were adopted in 1957. A brief
synopsis of the changes that have been made to specific
zoning districts is provided in Appendix B.
The Impact of Public Water and Sewer Services on Density
in HD:
The minimum required lot area within the HD district is
20,000 square feet per one-family detached dwelling.
Suffolk County's Health Regulations require the provision
of public water where lots are smaller than 40,000 square
feet in area. However, where both Co~unity (P~blic) waser
and Sewer services are available, and a Special Exception
is granted, the density may be increased to one unit for
every 10,000 square feet. Thus, the development potential
of a parcel zoned HD is inextricably tied to the
availability of public water: and for the higher densities,
the availability of sewer. In other words, for the HD
zoned property to be developed in accordance with the
intent of %he Code, it £equires access to public water and,
some£imes, sewers.
Number and Location of Properties Zoned Hamlet Density:
There are thirteen properties in mainland Southold
Town That are zoned Hamlet Density (HD), only five of which
are developed. Three are located in Greenport: one is the
Driftwood Cove Apartment Complex, another is the
Seven-Eleven store, and the third is a large historic house
adjacent to Brecknock Hall. The fourth is the Founders
Village Condominium complex in Southold. The fifth is a
large house in OrienE on the north side of SR 25, about 87
feet wes~ of Young's Avenue.
On Fishers Island, there are fifteen developed properties
that are zoned HD. Ali these parceis, save one, are
located within the boundaries of the abandoned Army base;
and appear to have been developed either as base offices or
officer's quarters.
Of the eight vacant HD-zoned parcels, seven are located
around Greenport Village, which for a long time was the
only source of both public water and sewer services
within the Town. There appears now to be some limitation
on the Village of Greenport's ability to be the focus of
all HD zoning given the current demand on its already
strained water and sewer facilities. Cutchogue has the only
other vacant HD-zoned property. The remaining ham]ets in
Southoid Town have no vacant HD-zoned properties.
ANALYSIS OF HAMLET DENSITY PROPERTIES: PARCEL BY PARCEL
Only those properties zoned Hamlet Density that ~ere vacant
as of January 1994, were selected for review. The individu-
al parcels are listed below in the order they were rezoned
starting with the first, in 1958. This is also the order in
which they will be reviewed. Throughout the remainder of
this report, the parcels will be referred to by the identi-
fying Parcel and Tax Map numbers (SCTM#) noted here.
SCTM~ Hamlet Location Acreage
~1 040-3-1 Greenport, unin. 17.1
#2 040-4-1 Greenport, unin. 10.55
#3 046-1-2.1 Greenport, unin. 3.5
~4 035-1-25 Greenport, unin. 132.08
~5 045-2-10.3 Greenport, unin. 20.07
~6 102-1-33.3 Cutchogue 46.16
~7 045-2-1 Greenport, unin. 1.2
#8 035-1-24 Greenport, unin. 62.3
The format used in the analysis of each parcel is:
PARCEL # and TAX MAP NUMBER
SITE DATA:
Location:
Acreage:
Zoning Histo~f:*
Ownership History:**
NOTABLE PHYSICAL FEATURES AND LIMITATIONS:
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING:
STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT: APPROVALS AND INFRASTRUCTURE:
PUBLIC POLICY:
RECOMMENDATION:
One or more maps showing the subject parcel may accompany
the written text: they will be found at the end of the
analysis of that parcel.
* Zoning History was culled from the Town Clerk's Change
of Zone files.
** Ownership History was traced from Property Cards in
the office of the Town Tax Assessor.
PARCEL #i - SCTM ~ 40-3-1
~ITE DATA:
Location: South Side County Route 48, more ~han
10O0' east of Chapel Lane, Greenport
Acreage: 17.1 acres
Zoning History, :
Year Rezoned: 6.13.58.
The original petition was to change the zone from
"A" Resideatal and Agricultural to "B" Business.
Between January and May of 1958, the applicant
changed his request to "M" Multiple Residence,
which was subsequently granted. The file does not
indicate why the property owner asked for the
change of zone, nor why the Town Board granted
the request.
Ownership History / Year Acquired / Miscellany
*Kace Realty Co 3-10-82
Kontakosta 3-10-82
Sanzone (Smith Est) ~
Brereton ?-?-79
H. Smith & Ano
Sledjecki
Transfer sub-
ject to
$184,000 mort-
gage
1/4 interest
(which was sold
to Sanzone
in 1982 for
$35,000.)
?-?-54
?-?-49 or earlier'*
* Kontokosta is a principal in KACE Realty
** Property cards only note ownership as of 1949 when
the records were started.
NOTABLE PHYSICAL FEATU.~KE8 AND LIMITATICNS:
There is little environmental information in the sine
plan file. A review of %he aerial photograph reveals
this to be a heavily wooded parcel which appears ~o
drain in a sou~her!y direction. The topography drops
off to the sough from 35 feet above sea-level near
County Route 48, to about 10 fee~ at its sou~hernmos~
point. The proper:y may have freshwater wooded we~-
lands on or wi~kzn :lose proximity.
SURROUND~_~ I~ND USES AND ZONING:
The ~roperty is currently bounded on the north Dy CR
48; 5ne west and south borders by land owned and
zoned b~ the Village of Greenport as PD or Parkland,
and 5he east border by land zoned R-80. North of CR
48, lies an R-80 district, which contains residential
waterfront homes. ~
within 500 feet of the perimeter of this parcel (but
not contiguous) there are properties zoned RR and HD.
The ?~R properties to the northwest, diagonally across
CR 48, contain motel and resort condominium uses,
along with one residential use and an unfinished mo-
tel. San Simeon Nursing Home, which is zoned HD, is
about 800 feet to the west. The remainder of the HD
property to the west is mostly undeveloped, and is one
of the parcels under review (Parcel #7). The KOA
Karapqround lies due east at a distance of about 500
feet.
STATUS OF PEVELOPMZ/~T: APPROVALS AND INFRASTRUCTURE:
On July 11, 1983, the Planning Board granted site plan
apprcvai to construct 108 dwelling units in 27 build-
ings. The property owner has yet to obtain governmen-
tal approvals for water, sewer and curb cuts. No
building permits are known to have been issued.
PUBLIC POLiCY:
Although the subject parcel is adjacent to land owned
by the Incorporated Village of Greenport, it lies
4,500 feet or more ( one mile equals 5,280 feet) from
the developed portions of the Village, and is even
further from the business center.
It is surrounded by vacant woodland, which is zoned PD
or Park District. The Village changed the zone of the
surrounding woodland from R-1 (Residential) to PD in
1987, in response to directives from the State of New
York's Department of Environmental Conservation. The
PD district is defined as follows:
"An area reserved for recreational and firematic
use by the citizens of the Village of Greenport
as regulated by the Park Local Law, and in which
village utilities and other public uses may be
maintained and expanded."
The only uses permitted within this district are:
i) Nature trails
2) Sports playing fields
3) Firematic events
4) Utility facilities including necessary
appurtances but not limited to:
a) water towers
b) sewage treatment plants
c) electrical plants ~
5) Municipally operated camp sites
6) Municipally operated trailer park
7) Watershed maintenance
Much of the PD zoned land is environmentally
sensitive, freshwater'wooded wetland. Given the
restrictive nature of the Parkland District, it seems
inconsistent for the Town to concentrate its highest
density residential use on the subject parcel.
Further, this parcel is not within walking distance of
the Village ham]et, and the necessary utilities do not
seem to be assured at this time. For these reasons,
intense development of the site does not seem to meet
with the Goals and Policy Objectives of the Comprehen-
sive or Master Pkan.
RECOMMENDATION:
The site could be developed in a manner not requ. iring
multiple density uses. Rezoning to a lower density is
recomended.
'./
R-80
'HD
RR
HD
· LB '
" LIO R-40
%.- R-~o
/
/
· .. I - .- -- ." :~':' ,,}.,, ·
'~' I " ',~,~,.',.'~. '. ...... ,' ':'
· ~.:.. · .~. '~'.. ·.~..~,. ~... ... . ·
" ~" . V' '' o · ', ,,,1"' .:. " .
~,',. , ,., PD ....... .':
'..~'../" "'"'' ........ i~ .,.'-...
· ~- · . :,~ : '~.xL.:' .' ~. ,.-'-.. ':- ' '.' '!,':"::
...~ ~/;' ,~/,,,~ ·. : ~ .
,
~ ...; ~ ."-~ .7.'
I.- ~,,' ':" ? '::*:~ ':''~ '. ?~/? .,~-/. ,,:i',,v'.,~ ,..'
'.:'. ?D" '"
.'....; .....':. :.. , · ~/~ ·
/
.. :' '!~':.:. :.: :." '..:'F:;~.'
· .. . . . .,.::.. :..('... ,.. ·
.acs
PP~RCEL ~ - $CTM ~ ~0-~-1
SITE DATA:
Location:
South side of County Route 48, approxi-
mately 400 feet west of Moore's Lane,
Greenport
Acreage: 10.55 acres
Zoning History:
Year Rezoned: 11.7.68
The petitioner applied for the zone change be-
cause, in his own words, "The premises currently
enjoy a non-conforming use status, as a rooming
and boarding house; deponent wishes to enlarge
that use."
Ownership History / Year Acquired / Miscellany
Geier Estate or Heirs 1993
Marcucci o
J. Geier & Ano
Langone
1966
1949 or earlier
Contract
Vendee
$37,000
NOTABLE PHYSICAL FEATIFRES AND LIMITATIONS:
In the absence of a definitive confirmation by the
Town Trustees and the State Department of Envirop~en-
tal Conservation, it is estimated that between one-
quarter to one-third of the southern or lower portion
of this parcel contain freshwater wetlands. These
wetlands probably are part of the system of wetlands
in the Village parkland to the south. There is no soil
boring on file for this property.
The wetlands are likely to pose severe constraints on
the potential yield of this property due to the mini-
mum siting distances that structures and septic sys-
tems must maintain from wetlands: as required by vari-
ous Town, County and State regulations. Wet soils
also pose problems for siting septic systems unless
sewer service can be obtained. The environmental
impacts of sewering on this wetland ecosystem are not
known at this time.
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND DENSITY:
The property is bounded on the north Dy Ccunty Rsuta
48. Its east, south and west borders are bounded by
the Village's parklands. North and northeast of CR 48
lies undeveloped land zoned R-40, and a partially
completed subdivision development, also zoned R-40.
Just beyond the Village parkland, fifty feet to the
west of this parcel, the land is zoned R-80.
STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT: APPROVALS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
There is a large house and two or three other build
ings or barns on the property. The structures are
visibly in need of repair. There are no site plan
approvals for any proposed construction. And, there
is no site plan application on file.
PUBLIC POLICf:
The limited environmental info~-mation available on
this site suggests that this property is not suitable
for the Hamlet Density intensity of use. The environ-
mental sensitivity of this parcel is highlighted by
the Park District zoning of the surrounding property
by the Village of Greenport. The constrainss are such
that the availability of public water (and probably
sewer} are abso£ute prereq~isises for development at
the HD density to occur. The presence of extensive
wetlands is likely to compromise the potential yield.
Further, it is inconsistent to piac9 the highest resi-
dential density in the midst of Park District zoning.
The Town's Master Plan and the subsequent
recommendations for its implementation argue for chan-
neling new development towards the existing ham]ets.
This policy requires that new development be directed
first to vacant land within the h~m]ets, then to va-
cant land in close proximity thereto. It also re-
quires where rehabilitation or renovation of the exist-
ing building stock can both preserve the character of
the hamlet and provide alternative housing choices,
that this be pursued first, before creating new resi-
dential centers isolated from the hamlet.
This site fails to meet the criteria for proximity
and accessibility to a hamlet. It is not within wai~k-
ing distance of the Village center. Further, the
necessary utilities do not seem to be assured at this
time. For these reasons, this parcel's zoning does
not seem to meet with the Goals and Policy Objectives
of th~ Master Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
This parcel cou±d be developed in a manner not
requiring multiple density uses. Rezoning to a lower
density is recommended.
6
RR
R-r-80
r h
HD
LIO
~D
R -40
,/
'R -80
&q6-/- ~.l
'/
PARCEL #3 - SCTM # 046-1-2.1
SITE DATA:
Location: South side of State Route 25, about
577 feet east of 9th Street, Greenport
Acreage: 3.5 acres
Zoning History:
Year Rezoned: 10.27.70
The original petition to rezone this property
from "A" Residential and Agricultural to "M-l"
General Multiple Residence was changed to "B-2"
Business at the recommendation of the Planning
Board. At this time, there also was a pending
petition on the adjacent property to the east,
now the site of Driftwood Cove Apartmenss, for a
change to the "B-2" Business zoning district,
too. (The "B-2" district allowed for a more
intensive multiple residence use than did the
"M-i" zone.) The two properties were rezoned
"B-2" in 1970, within two months of each other.
In 1989, both parcels were rezoned Hamiet 5ensily
by the Town.
Ownership History / Year Acquired / Miscellany
Aliano 1974 $73,5(~0
Casola 1972 $55,000
A. Cassidy 1949 or earlier
NOTABLE PHYSICAL FEATURES AND LIMITATIONS:
There is little environmental information available
for this parcel. It is covered with old-field vegeta-
tion. The property does not appear to have any environ-
mental constraints. This is not a large site. Develop-
ment of this site to its Hamlet Density potential will
require the extension of both public water and sewer.
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING:
The property is bounded on the north by State Route
25 and a 7-11 retail store, which is also zoned HD.
To the east is the Driftwood Cove Apartment complex.
To the south, the tracks and right-of-way of the Long
Island Railroad. To the west is a lu~nber yard. The
north side of SR 25. is zoned B Business and is deve2-
oped.
STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT: APPROVALS AND INFRASTRUCTURE:
The property was larger at the time it was rezoned.
Slightly more than half an acre of it was developed
into the 7-11 store in 1985. There are no other site
plan approvals on this parcel. Nor are there any
active applications for an KD use.
PUBLIC POLICY:
This site meets the criteria for the location of the
Hamlet Density zone. It is within walking distance of
the Village business center, schools, churches and
other services. It lies adjacent to affordable hous-
ing, and could be developed in a simili~r manner.
However, the small size of this parcel, which the
current owner exacerbated by splitting off an addition-
al .55 acres in 1977, is an obstacle. Development of
this property will require the provision of both pub-
lic water and sewer, the availability of which is not
assured at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
Since it meets all applicable criteria, except the
availability of public water and sewer, this parcel
could be left as zoned. However, the fact that
Greenport Village and unincorporated west Greenport
bear a disproportionate share of the affordable hous-
ing within the Town must be factored in and dealt with.
If the proportionate share of affordable housing is
felt to be of primary importance, this parcel could be
rezoned to LIO, in keeping with the LIO zoning to the
west which borders this property.
[
......... - ..... L','~,5'. ........... @
RR
HD
LB '
LIO
.:/'/
R-80
R -40
AHo
o35"- /_.2.5'
HD
'/
P~qCEL ~4 - SCTM ~ 035-1-25
SITE DATA:
Location:
North side of State Route 25, approximate-
ly 1,139 feet northeast of Sound Road,
Greenport
Acreage: 132.08 acres
Zoning History:
Year Rezoned:
1971: 57.55 acres
1983: 74.53 acres
The Change of Zone Petition files do not show why
the rezoning was requested. The 1971 rezoning
also created 12.43 acres of Business Zoning
around an historic residence, known as Brecknock
Hall.
In 1983, the amount of land in the "M" Light zone
was increased by 74.53 acres for a total of 132
acres. A filed Covenant and Restriction holds
the total number of dwelling units to 350, and
sets aside a reserved scenic area of 37.92 acres.
This parcel was rezoned HD in 1989, when the Town
eliminated the "M" Light Multiple Residence zon-
ing classification from its Zoning Code and Map.
Ownership Histo~/ / Year Ac.~uired / Miscellany
Wolowitz, A. 1993
LBV Proper%les 1992
Greenport Dev. Co. 1984
Brecknock Assoc. 1980
G. Schad 1969
Pollert & Wife
$4,000,000
(foreclosure)
$3,850,000
$ 354,000
no consideration
$ 800,000
1949 or earlier
NOTABLE P~fSICAL ~-~-ATURES AND LIMITATIONS:
The property is aDout 1,500 feet from the Village
boundary. It contains about 2,700 feet of prime water-
front on Long island Sound complete with bluffs and
beaches. This property is ~isted by the State as
being par% of the Eastern Bluffs Complex which stretch-
es from Orient 7clnt west to Miller Place. The some-
what rolling ~errain contains matt_re old field vegeta-
tien, woods, ponds and associated wetlands, in 1988 a
large excavation was started where one of the
ponds/stormwater drainage facilities was to be locat-
ed. The sand has been removed from the premises, but
the pond was never completed. The excavated area
remains open to the weather without benefit of erosion
controls. ~
The likely increase in traffic from the development of
a parcel of this size are likely to require modifica-
tions to State Route 25 and possibly the intersection
of SR 25 and Sound Drive.
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING:
To the north lies Long Island Sound. To the east lies
the Island End golf course, which is zoned R-80. To
the sou%h are State Route 25 and two historic residenc-
es, one of which is Brecknock Hall. Brecknock Hall is
located within the LB district. The other historic
residence is located within the HD district. To the
west lies vacant land that was just rezoned from R-80
to HD and R440. South of SR 25 opposite this parcel
there is a mix of zoning: a vacant R~80-zoned parcel,
a vacant Residential Office-zoned parcel and an estab-
lished residential co~unity zoned R-40.
STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT: APPROVALS AND INFRASTRUCTURE:
In 1987, a site plan for 350 condominium units was
approved by the Planning Board. ~incethen, t~ree
building permits have been issued: one to construct
the pumphouse for ~t~_e. public supR1y_well; one to~uild
a foundation for the recreation center, and one to
build a foundation for one of the residential build-
ings .... Certificates o~.~ccup_anc~.were i$sued for the
pumphouse and the residential _foundation. in 1991. The
permit for the recreation center was voided in Decem-
ber of 1990 without the foundation being built. To
our knowledge, there has been no building activity
since ~hat time.
There is a unresolved dispute over the cost of the
water and sewer contracts. Curb cut approval and
other permits from the NYS Department of Transporta-
tion are not on file, and may not have been obtained.
Landscaping and excavation bonds are still on file
with the Town.
PUBLIC POLler:
9ne zoning and the site plan on ~his parcel contra-
~icts ihe Goals and Policy Objectives of the Comprehen-
sire Plan in severa~ ways. First, although the west-
ern edge of the property is within 1500 feet of the
Village boundary, it is separated by a heavily-trav-
elled State Road and it is not located within easy
walking distance to the hamlet's business cgnter,
nearly a mile to the south.
Second, the placement of high density residential
zoning on prime and sensitive waterfront property
contradict~ our policies of encouraging the preserva-
tion of environmentally sensitive areas, and of promot-
ing development pa~erns that are responsive to or
protective of sensitive coastal feat%~res and scenic
vistas, as well being co~m~ensurate with available
water supplies.
Third, the size of this HD-zoned parcel relative
to the Village hamlet threatens to draw from the ham-
let rather than work to preserve and strengthen the
hamlet center. Although the nearby Limited Business
zones are, strictly speaking, not within the purview
of this review, its sheer size (~ore than 16 acres in
total) require that its combined impact with 5he HD
parcel on the Village be considered.
The net effsct of !33.+ acres of HD-zoned land and
acres of LB-zoned ~and adjacent to one another on the
north side of SR 25 creates enormous potential for the
development of a satellite hamlet with i~s own busi-
ness district jus~ 1200 feet north of the Village
boundary, and less than a mile from its business cen-
ters. While the Comprehensive Plan calls for the
creation of a new hamlet, creating one adjacent to an
existing one that is in need of economic revitaliza-
tion and has strained water and sewer facilities is
not consistent with the other goals of prese~ing and
strengthening existing ha~ets.
The Town would not profit from such a situation, and
neither would the Village. The economic stability of
Greenport Village is important to the Town because of
Greenport's position as a transportation'hub, as a
major deep-water port, as a tourist designation, and
as provider of public water to significant portions of
the Town. The two governmental entities cannot afford
to work at cross purposes with the other.
Finally, the draft Long island Coastal Zone Management
plan reco~ends that this entire site be preserved in
col]junction with its recom~aendation that undeveloped,
relatively undisturbed forested properties within
Eas%srn Bluffs Complex by acquired to protect wildlife
habltas. The Eastern Bluffs Complex encompasses
soundfron~ from Cr~ent west to Mi~er Place.
RECOMMENDATION:
Rezone the property to a lower density residential use
that better protects coastal resources, and that pro-
vides for a level of residential development that is
more compatible with the existing infrastruqture and
econcmic development of the hamlet of the Village.
[': .
AHD
HD
R~40~
R-80
R-4~
PARCEL ~5 - SCTM ~ 45-2-10.3
SITE DATA:
Location: East side of Chapel Lane, south of County
Route 48 and north of State Route 25,
Greenport
Acreage: Originally 26.57 acres: Now 20.07 acres.
Zonin9 History:
Year Rezoned: 2.25.75.
This property was rezoned by the Town at the
request of St. Peter's Lutheran Church for the
express purpose of constructing "multiple resi-
dences for a senior citizen retirement co~unity."
Ownership Hisuor¥ / Year Acquired / Miscetlan¥
Richard Mohrtng 1993
NFB & Trust 1993 ?
St. Peter's 2hurch 1974
Chapel Lane Assocs. 1971
foreclosure
$175,000
$ 34,500
mrtge.
DeShrage 1968
King-Greenport Assocs. 1965
Judysteve Ccrp. 1965
King 1949 or earlier
NOTABLE P~fSICAL FEATURES AND LIMITATIONS:
A full scaie environmental review was never conducted
on this parcel so the information available is limit-
ed. The site is presently wooded, with some old field
around the disturbed portion of the site where the only
four buildings of the proposed elderly housing complex
were constructed. There are serious drainage problems
that will add to the cost of development on this si~e
due to the depth of ~he clay substrata. The depsh of
the clay also means that this site cannot be developed
without public wa%er and sewer.
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING:
The property is currently bounded on its north the San
Simeon Nursing Home. To the east lies another parcel
being studied in this review, (Parcel # 7), and the
village Parklands; to the south, a garage building,
St. Peter's Lutheran Church and the former S .ky~ay
Drive-In Movie Theatre. Chapel Lane borders ~te entire
western edge of ~ne proDersy.
The woodland to the east of this property is in the
Village's Park District. Parcel ~1 (in this study)
lies approximately 1000 feet to the east of this prop-
erty. The property's south border is zoned Limited
Business. A church, a garage and a former ~rive-in
theatre lie within this LB district.
With the exception of strip of LB zoning north of SR
25, all the land west of Chapel Lane clear to
Albertson Lane is zoned R-80. A LILCO Substation lies
within the LB district to the west of Chapel Lane, as
does the Drossos Motel complex about a thousand feet
or more from the intersection of Chapel Lane and SR
25. Much of the remainder of the land west of Chapel
Lane is vacant, probably due to the fact that towards
Albertson Lane, much of the area is covered with fresh-
water wetland.
STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT: APPROVALS AND INFR~TRUCTURE:
In 1984, a site plan for the southwestern portion of
this parcel was approved. Four buildings containing
eight dwelling units were constructed. Public water
and sewer service was connected and Certificates of
Occupancy werm issued in 1986. However, the units were
never occupied.
In 1990, the Planning Board gave approval to a condo
minium unit designation map showing 36 dwelling units
on 7.74 acres, This map included the eight dwelling
units that were constructed in 1986. There is a site
plan application pending for this condominium plan.
No plans have been filed for the remainder of the
property which includes 12,6 acres of HD zoning and
atx)ut 10 acres of LB zoning (the drive-in and the
garage.)
PUBLIC POLICY:
The limited environmental information available sug-
gests that this property is not a suitable site for
the Hamlet Density intensity of use. The constraints
on the site are such that the availability of public
water and sewer are absolute prerequisites for develop-
ment. Furthermore, due to the depth of the clay sub-
strata, the potential yield on this site is likely to
be compromised because of the amount of land that will
need to be set aside to handle stormwater drainage.
The stormwater drainage is a matter of concern because
this property drains to the wetlands and the Bay to
the south.
The Town's Master Plan and the subsequent recommenda-
tions for its implementation argue for chan~eling
development towards the existing hamlets. This policy
requires that new development be directed first to
vacant land within the hamlets, then to vacant land in
close proximity thereto. It also requires where reha-
bilitation or renovation of the existing building
stock can both preserve the character of the hamlet
and provide alternative housing choices, that this be
pursued firs~ before creating new residential centers
isolated from the hamlets.
The site fails to meet the criteria for proximity
and accessibility to a hamlet, especially for afford-
able rental housing. It is not within walking dis-
tance of the Village hamlet, and the necesary utili-
ties do not seem to be assured at this time. For
these reasons, the site does not seem to meet with the
Goals and Policy Objectives of the Master Plan.
RECO~ENDATICN:
The prope~zy should De zoned to a densizy level more
compatible with its environmennal constraints, and
more consistent winh the Comprehensive or Master Plan
recommendations for a parcel remote frcm a hamlet
center.
· 0,[o
:LEi
_ .j
R-80
~.R -40
, .,7#.:
"--LC'z!
R -40
/
. ~. . ~ · . .: ~.'. .'.
,.~ . '..k, :: ~' " ':" "'
.- '-.,.: / .'. x~x .,,,',..'v. . ...: .
· . .. ~. I.... . ~ .:-. \\.,.'/ ~'~ .: . ... .- .'
· ' ' ~'" "' "" ' ~'/~" "' ' ..... > ..... ' '' ": '
'"~.~ ... 7' .- · .../:. ,~ .... ..v. :- .. . .
-'x ~ ' ./ ~. ,' ,~ ~ . . . ,.
'.. '7.' .'" \'~"'"'"'-' "" '"
': ,; <~ ".' '<2' -'"v,' '.. '": .?nn,c~-,¢,,~,~> '
-, ,:.. ".'. . ..2" · ... .~ .,: ......... , .,q-- h ....'...
· "::.'..,::~, ' ~+/./ ' . , ,.~'2', ,, ', ,," ~z~ , '
· Ti_.-. "?':'"'e"~'/ : ": '~ " ":,'"'""::'"" " ....... ""
.~.4:.. :.,:,; ~,,', .__ · ....../ ,..--.. -.. . ..., ....,.._
· , ..:....:. ~,- - ., '., ,,,,,,z~_, ~ : ., :..-.:.. : . . . - ...~.
'-'z',~ ..... '-' ':W · ' '\..' ' ',~-:~-'-- '.'.'; : -~"
,: ':,'- 'i. '-.\ ::.; :~' ,.:.. ~.... . -.
:, t~!~ -. ':
.:; .~,. I .~-
~ ', ,;[~ '..
PAR, CEL ~6 - SCTM ~ 102-1-33.3
SITE DATA:
Location:
Northernmost end of Griffing Lane, about
1,076 feet north of State Route 25,
Cutchogue
Acreage: 46.16 acres
Zoning History:
Year Rezoned: 2.01.83
In 1982, the property owner petitioned for a
change from "A" Residential and Agricultural to
"M" Light Multiple Residential for the purpose of
constructing a residential cormm~nity for senior
citizens adjacent to the existing business dis-
trict of Clltchogue.
~wnership History / Year Acquired / Miscellany
Nocro Ltd. 1986
Seacroft Ltd. 19B6
Leisure Green 1983
Leisure to Leisure 1~82
Leisure 1973
Mill Matt Agency Inc.
Mandaro & Ano
1971
1949 or eartier
$ 69,002
(31.5
$i0i,500
NOTABLE PH-fSICAL FEATURES AND LIMITATIONS:
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for this
project contains detailed environmental information.
The final EIS for thls project has ncr been completed,
This parcel was in agricultural use, but has lain
fallcw for many years resulting in old field vegeta-
tion on the site. The full development of this site
will require the provision of pt!blic water supply and
a satisfactory means of wastewater disposal.
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING:
This parcel is bordered to the north by a residence
for a vineyard, and a wooded parcel that is the site
of a new clustered residential subdivision, all of
which is zoned Agricultural-Conservation (A-C). To
the east, the parcel is bordered by another vineyar~
and other land in active agricultural production, all
of which is zoned R-80. To ~he south, nhe parcel is
16
bordered by Grilling Street, School House Road, a
bu[_~ing, vacant land, and the grounds of Sacred Heart
Church. Ail of this land except the church is zoned
Hsanlet Business (HB). The church property ~s zoned
R-40. The properties that abut the western border of
this parcel are zoned R-40 also.
STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT: APPROVALS AND INFRASTRUCTURE:
A sine plan application for a 160 unit condominium
complex for senior citizens was made in 1984. A Draft
Environmental Impact Statement was submitted in 1988.
The applicant was asked to submit a Final EIS in
1989. There has been no further action on this appli-
cation since tha~ time.
PUBLIC POLI~f:
The current zoning of this parcel is in keeping with
the goals and objectives of the Town's Comprehensive
or Master Plan. The property is within walking dis-
tance of the traditional core of Cutchogue hamlet.
The property contains good agricultural soils, but is
not environmencall¥ sensitive. Due to its location
just north of the hamlet's traditional center, this
parcel, when developed, is likely to strengthen the
hamlet.
This project has generated much opposition withLn the
community. And while its large size will have an
impact on traffic, and the functioning and character
of the Cutchogue hamlet, it nevertheless meets the
criteria for location within the hamlet center and the
provision of alternative housing choices.
RECOMMENDATION:
This property is zoned appropriately at this t~]e.
· .?
E)
,/
A-C
A-C /
'" ~.. R 80
R -80
PARC-2L #7 - SCTM ~ 45-2-1
SITE DATA:
Location:
South side of County Route 48, 805 feet
east of Chapel Lane, Greenport
(Also approximately 1400 feet west of
Parcel ~1.)
Acreage: 1.2 acres
Zoning Histo~;:
Year Rezoned: 1-10-89
This parcel was rezoned by the Town when the 1989
Zoning Map was adopted. Prior to this time, this
lot was zoned "A" Residential-Agricultural.
search to date has not unearthed an explanation
for this change: so we don't know if this rezon-
lng was intenLional or a drafting mistake.
Ownership History / Year Acquired / Miscellany
John Siolas & wife 1985 $38,500
Delandas 1974 $15,000
Pauli 1964 two parcels
$
King 1949 or earlier
NOTABLE PHYSICAL FEATURES AND LIMI~ATIONS:
There is little environmental information available on
this property. The aeria3_ photograph of this property
shows it to be wooded. It Slopes towards the south as
does ~he San Simeon ntursing home site 50 feet to its
west. There is a 50 foot buffer between this parcel
and San Simeon Nursing Home, which is an intensely
developed site.
The small size of this properny probably is its big
gest physical limitation. It is likely to be
ecnonomically inefficient to develop according tc the
HD potential.
SURRCUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING:
This proper%y is bounded on r_he north by CR 48. To
the east and south lie the Village Parklands. To the
wesn iles San Simeon Nursinq Hcme, which is zoned HD
a!sc.
This L~operty was origiaally bounded by 7~rcel ~5. in
1993, t~e owner of Parcel #5 filed for a lot-line
change. The northern part of Parcel ~5 was given to
the nursing home to provide for ins future qxpansion.
As a result, 5he area of the nursing home site in-
creased from 3.58 acres to about 10 acres. The lot
area of the subject parcel decreased from 26.57 acres
to about 20 acres.
STATUS OF DEVELOPMY~NT: APPROVALS AND INFRASTRUCTURE:
There is no record of any antempt to develop this
parcel in the Planning Board's files.
PUBLIC POLI~f:
This parcel shares with Parcels ~1 and 5, the same
drawbacks and lack of compliance with the stated goals
and intent of the HD district and the Master Plan as
it pertains to preserving the hamlets. Using the
crileria set forth by the Master Plan Update
and subsequent recormnendations, the HD zoning makes no
sense unless this parcel were to be merged with the
San Simeon Nursing Home. However, it is under separane
ownership at this time.
The existence of the nursing home presents a dilemma.
Southoid is a retirement community as well as a resort
community, The average age of the population in
Southold is 44 years, and the trend looks as if it
will continue upward. There is in an insufficient
supply of nursing facilities in Town, and this alone
is an argument in favor for the build-out of the origi-
nal proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
The parcel's small size and close proximity to the
intensely developed nursing home site will work to its
disadvantage as a strictly residential lot, unless the
50 foot buffer between the parcel and the nursing home
is preserved. If this buffer is maintained, the fact
that %he lot is 420 feet deep and is bordered on its
east and south sides by parkland will work to its
advantage am a residential lot for one residence.
/
R-80
RR
HD
R -40
/
HD
PARCEL ~ 8 - SCTM # 025-1-24
SITE DATA:
Location: Nor%h side of State Route 25, 564 feet
east of Sound Drive, Greenport
Acreage: 62 acres
Zoning Histo~f:
Year Rezoned: 12.07.93
This property originally was zoned R-80 which is
equivalent to two-acre residential density. The
lower 42 acres of Khis parcel were rezoned Hamlet
Density: and the northerly 20 acres on Long
land Sound were rezoned R-40 or one-acre residen-
tial density. One of the s~ated reasons for this
change of zone was to provide affordable housing.
Ownershi? Histo~.z / Year Acquired / Miscellany
Jem Realsy Co. 1979 $400,000
~. Rath 1977
Time Strzctures Inc. 1963 $115,000
split from
P. Sinuta
NOTABLE P~fSICAL FEATURES .~D LIMITATIONS:
This property is adjacent to Parcel #4 which was
analyzed earlier, Detailed environmental information
is available from the Draft and Final Environmental
Impact Statements. The site contains prime farm
soils, but has not been used for agriculture for many
years. It is covered with transitional old field
vegetation and young woods. The parcel's 1,441 feet
of soundfront contain bluffs that range in height
from 30 to 50 feet. The bluff area is considered to be
stable, but subject to erosion from human activity as
well as northeasters. Behind the bluffs, the property
slopes to the south, dropping to 18 feet above sea
level at SR 25. There is abouc 576 feet of road front-
age.
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING:
This parcel is bordered on its north by Long Island
Sound; and on the east by more than 133 acres of most-
ly undeveloped land which was studied earlier as Par-
cel #4. Most of Parcel #4 is zoned HD, but ~ke scuth-
western corner of it is zoned Limited Business (LB)
and it contains the historic residence known as
Brecknock Hall. To the south lies Porky's Restau-
rant and State Route 25. The area around Pqrky's
Restaurant is zoned LB also. To the west, this parcel
is bordered by residential homes fronting on Sound
Drive, all of which are zoned R-40.
STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT: APPROVALS AND INFRASTRUCTURE:
No applications for subdivision or site plan have been
made.
PUBLIC POLICY:
When this parcel is viewed in conjunction with Parcel
~4, studied earlier, and the LB zones (Porky's Res-
taurant and Brecknock Hall), it becomes evident that
the net effect of this zoning pattern is to create a
very high density residential and business center just
outside the Village boundaries. This would appear lo
be contrary to the several of the goals of the Master
First, the parcel is separated from the Village by a
heavily travelled State road, and is not located with-
in easy walking distance to the business center of
Greenport Village, which is nearly a mile to the
south.
Second, the size of the FD parcel (42 acres), when
considered with the 133+ acres of the adjoining HD-
zoned property to the east (Parcel ~ 4) and the 16
acres of LB zoning abutting it, will work against
attempts to strengthen and preserve the character and
economic integrity of the Greenport Village hamlet and
business center. Greenport's role as a transportation
hub, deepwater port, tourist designation and provid-
er of public water is important to the Town as a
whole; and this should be recognized by the Town in
its public policies.
Third, this parcel, together with Parcel ~4 will have
an impact on the volume of traffic at the Sound Drive,
SR 25 and CR 48 intersection. The State has ac~unowl-
edged this impact by requiring road and intersection
modifications for develcpment associated with Parcel
64, and may well require additional modifications for
this site. ?our~h, the availability of public wa~er cr
sewer tc ~nis site is nc% assured at this time.
FinaLly, the appropriateness of the R-40 designation
must be addressed. The R-80 zoning designation that
preceded this rezoning was the base zoning in Southold
Town since 1983 when the Town increased the minimum
required lot area for its sole residential zone, "A",
from one acre to two acre. In 1989, the Town reaf-
firmed its 1983 decision by zoning the subject parcel
R-80, which is equivalen~ to the two acre density.
The recent rezoning to R-40 had the effect of placing
twice the residential density on the most environmen-
tally sensitive part of the property, which is con-
trary to our policy of encouraging the preservation of
environmentally sensitive areas, and of promoting
development patterns that are responsive to sensitive
coastal features such as bluffs. The sensitivity of
this site's waterfront and bluffs can be judged by
noting the New York Department of State's recorm~enda-
tion that the adjoining parcel to the east (Parcel ~4)
be prese~zed in its entirety because of its importance
as wi£dlife habitat and as an example of the Eastern
Bluffs ecological complex.
Further, the trade-off of twenty acres of R-40 zoning
on sensitive coastal property for the provision of
forty-two acres of affordable housing to ~ne south has
no basis or supper5 in our public policies for land
use planning. There no demonstrated need for new
affordable single-family housing in a hamlet that
already contains a disproportionate share of the
Town's affordable units. In fact, the Town has not
seen to it that opportunities for new affordable hous-
ing are spread throughout the Town so that each hamlet
is able to provide such opportunities for its resi-
dents.
RECOMMENDATION:
Rezone the property to a lower density residential
use that will protect its sensitive coastal resources,
and that will provide fer a level of residential devel-
opment that is more compatible with the infrastructure
and economic development of the Village h~mlet.
??
~,HD
f~-qO
HD
R~40
R-80
R-41:
APPENDIK ~
%oala and Policies for 1984 Master Plan Update
(Underlining emphasis added.)
GOAL: Overall Planning
Provide a community of residential hamlets which are:
comprised of a variety of housing opportunities and
commercial, service, and cultural activities; serving to
establish a sense of place; set in a open or rural
atmosphere; supported by a diversified economic base
(including agriculture, marine commercial and seasonal
recreation activities) that maximizes the Town's natural
assets, including its coastal location; and are striving
for a compatibility between the natural environment and
development.
POLler: Overall Planning
Implement planning policies which provide for a nUmber of
housing types, promote agricultural preservation,
encourage the preservation of environmentally sensitive
areas, protect grcundwater, encourage water-dependent and
wa£er-enhanced uses of coastal lands, and suppor5
commercial and industrial activities in appropriate
locations.
GOALS: Housing / Residential Development
Preserve the existing housing stock and provide the
opportunity for the development of a variety of housing
types to meet the needs of people at various stages of the
life cycles, various income and age levels and household
compositions.
POLICY: Housing / Residential Development
Encourage housing development, of varying types and
densities, in and around existing hamlets.
GOALS: Environment
Prese~;e and enhance the Town's natural environment.
POLICIES: Envircnment
R~str~c% ~eveiopment in wetlands, tidal marshes,
bluffs, Junes and beaches.
Promote a development pattern that is responsive to
sensitive areas exhibiting prime agricultural $o~ls, poor
drainage, high water table, high erosion hazard, flood
hazard, sensitive coastal features, great scenic quality
and woodlands.
Promote development patterns that are at a scale that is
co~nensurate with the available water supply.
GOALS: Cultural Environment
Preserve and strengthen the hamlens as cultural,
residential and commercial centers of activity in the Town;
as a means of creating viable uses for historic buildings
and areas and encouraging a "sense of place."
POLICf: Cultural Environment
Plan for intensity and mix of deveioF~~ nt of hamlet
centers that improve the viability, fu~lznioning and
aesthetics of hamlet commercial centers without changing
the scale of the centers.
GOALS: Waterfront
Maximize appropriate use of coastal areas in a manner
that protects sensitive coastal areas, maximizes access to
the water and achieves economic benefit.
POLICIES: Waterfront
Increase the number and quality of public beaches.
Insure physical and/or visual access to scenic vistas and
waterfront areas.
GOALS: Transportation
Insure adequate movement of people and goods within
Southold, as well as into and out of Town, in a manner
that maximizes safety and maintains the integrity of
residential and agricultural areas.
~,_ALS. Community Facilities/Utilities
Ensur~ the provision of an adequate range of con~unity
faci~iSies, services and u%ilities %o accommodate existing
and future Town needs in a convenient and cos~ effective
These Goals and Policies were drafted as a means of addressing
the relevan% planning issues. (Copies of the April and May 1983
memoranda from the Town's planning consultants which detail
[hese issues follows.)
25
Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner, Inc. 555 ',;Jh~te Pia~ns Road. Tarr,/~own. NY 105-~1 914/631-9003 212,',~65-2666
April 26, 1983
TO: Southold Planning Board
FROM: RPPW, Inc.
RE: PLANNING ISSUES
The Town Master Plan has to address various issues, many of which
are interrelated and many of which require consideration of
alternative responses. Based upon the preliminary analysis of
the various factors affecting planning in Southold, the fo!lowinq
are the issues to be addressed in the Plan:
A. Overall Pattern of Develocment
Protection of Town's Rural/Exurban Character reflected
in a comblna=ion of hamlet centers, r__mi_nd, large
expanses of undeveloped land accommcdation of new
development within this framework
2. Suitabii%ty of Land for Develoument
development or retention of farmland
proximity to/adequacy of community services
protection of environmental features - wetlands;'
tidal marsh; dunes, beaches and bluffs; scenic
vistas; waterways - creeks and ponds;
· physical constraints - high water table; steep
slope; poor soil permeability; flood hazard areas;
erosion hazard areas - siltation
· drainage problems
3. Acriculture
· economic viability; chan~ing structure; cost of
changing crops
· availability of farm labor
· impact cn water quality and on water quantity
· preservation of land for fa~-~minq or open space
Water Supply - Quantit'f and Quality
· protection of subsurface water from pollution
emanating from development and agriculture;
implications for development policy
sufficiency of potable water to service future
development, especially in Orient, East Marion and
along coastline
· approach to supply of water - individual wells;
small central systems; few larger systems
· implications of importing water; desalinization of
salt water
HousinqJResidential Deve!omment
· distribution/density
· lack of affordable hcusing for iow, moderate and
middle income seqmen=s of population
· absence of small units - older and younger one and
two person households
· seasonal vs. year-round housing
· conversion of seasonal to year-round
Pooulation Mix
..... e~c_;
· aging of population - decline of ~=~o- ~ "~
implications for volunteer services such as fire
and rescue service; chancing service ~ =~-
· year-round/seasonal implications for services
Aooroved - Unbuilt Subdivisions
· why unbuilt - density; location; physical
conditions
· implications for water consumption; other services
· ownership pattern - affect upon future planning/
zoning
Traffic and Transportation
· adequacy of existing major east-west roads to
accommodate traffic; technical capacity - desired
levels of traffic
· safety at several key locations
· private roads - emergency access - implications
for access to beaches
· need for or appropriateness of improved north-
south roads
· need for and location of a Town airport
· adequacy of service by buses and trains year- ~
round/summer season/time of day
· need to encourage expansion of ferry service to
markets in New England
expand
27
L
L
9. Economy
· seasonality of economy - need to expand and/or
create year-round economy; increase jobs for young
adults
· stability of aqriculture and fishing - need to
protect resources (farmland, fish habitats)
appropriateness of encouraqinq aqriculture and
fishing as elements of economy; mariculture
· need for flexibility on part of farmers and farra
workers - retraining
· limited growth potential for commerce and industry
including fishing and agriculture
· expansion of seasonal/tourist economy
10. Historic and Cultural Resources
· preservation as part of Town's quality; heritage
· enhancement for economic purposes
11o Seasonal Develomment
how much, where and what type (seasonal
residences/transient tourist) land consumption
and potential damaqe to environment; importance to
economy jobs and tax base; limited demand on
many services
12. Hamlet Centers
· preserve scale and character/concentration of
housing and services
· focus of Town's economy - commerce - limit strip
commercial development
· historic preservation program
Community. Facilities
13. Schools
· potential consolidation - potential increase in
shared services
· extent to which existinq physical plant can
accommodate additional enrollment
· school plant as resource for recreation/cultural
and educational activities coordination of use and
programming
14. Sewer
· implications of expandin~ Greenport system
limited capacity
L 28
· use of individual inqround systems or small ~
central inqround systems - limitation on density;
impact on subsurface water
· new treatment systems -ccst; level of development
necessary to support versus desired density of
development
15. Water Supply
· protection of quality of supply
· continuation of individual wells versus central
supply
· treatment of individual and public/community
systems wells; costs
· import water or.desalihization
· establishment of Town supply and/or treatment'
district to serve all or par~ of Town
· expansion of Greenpor~ system
16. Public Safety
· Fire - assurance that all areas of Town covered
need to improve accessibility to some areas;
future availability of manpcwer; substandard
private roads
· Police adequacy of '~ ~=
. _ ~-c ...... s for future
development; seasonal expansicn
· Emer~enc~iRescue - sufficient for emergencies;
only one ammuiance service for ~ ~
~ qe .... a_ medical
transportation; manpower
17. Recreation
18.
· need to assure access to water fc~ recreation
including boat launch and moorln~ sites, beaches,
and scenic vistas
· need additional recreation areas and Open space
areas in scme parts of the Town
· swimming pool; youth center(s)
· access to school facilities assures availability
of basic facilities to all areas of the Town
Landfill
· life of present facility limited expand or
pursue alternative source of disposal
· landfill on aquifer - threat to subsurface water
· methane gas - use for energy or dias/[,ate
29
Coastal Issues
19. Access to Water
· beaches - swimming, bathing, walking, viewing
scenic vistas
® boat launching on north shore/launchin? and
mooring on south shore for commercial and
recreational fishermen
· attractiveness for rrivate residentiai/commerr~al
development often precludes maintenance of acces~
· use for resort facilities
20. Quality of Coastal 7~Iaters
· critical to fishing industry and recreational
fishing
· swimming~water sports
· marine haDita~
· encouragement ~f ma~Lcu!~ur~ deve!cpment
21. Coastal Land Use Conflicts
availability of land for marine cc~.~ercial uses
a priority objective
· need for additional boat slips - d~edqing
· competition with water-enhanced uses such as
restaurants, ryte!s
as
22. Protection of Sons,sire Coastal u-nvl-o'" ....... .... t
· tidal marshes
· dunes, beach_z,
· scenic vistaa
· water qualit>-
bluffs
23. Salt Water Intrusion
· need to protect ground water - limit on coastal
area develspment
24.
Navicability of Waterways
· siltation and dredging
beds.'$pawning .yround~
- disruption of
shellfish
The Master Plan will address these issues. The next step will be
to establish a se~ of ~oals to serve as a mechanism to measure
the response to the issues. The process for establishing a
concensus on goals will be one of the initial steus in Phase II,
the preparation of the Plan itself.
3O
PPW
/
1_
I_
June 20, 1983
TO: Southhold Planning Board
FROM: RPPW, Inc.
RE: PLANNING GOALS
A clear statement of the Town's long range goals is an impertan~
element of the planning process in that it fo?r...s the basis loc
various long and shorn range objectives, policies, strategies,
and programs. Such a statement will help to crysta!ize in the
minds of residents, business people, and public and private
decisionmakers the precise directions in which the Town should
develop. Such a statemen~ is useful in setting priorities as
well.
While the goals are general, if there is a consensus or general
agreement on them and on their interpretation, they provide
'justification for more specific elements of the planning and
development process.
To achieve this consensus and a sense of priorities, a process
for refining the initial statement needs to be carried out. This
memorandum sets forth an initial statement of goals which can
serve as a basis for discussion.
This initial statement is drawn from several sources including
meetings of the Master Plan Workshcp, discussions with various
representatives of Town agencies, private business, institutions,
and environmental and real estate groups.
This initial statement does not necessarily reflect the order
priority. It may very well be that as discussions proceed,
priorities will become evident and adjustments will be made.
of
The main purpose of this memo is to stimulate thinking and
discussion on this imucrtant topic as a basis for the Tcwn Plan.
31
PROPOSED GOALS ~;D POLICIES
Overall Plannin~
Goal
Provide a community of residential hamlets which are:
comprised of a variety of housinq opportunities and commer-
cial, service, and cultural activities; serving to establish
a sense of place; set in an open or rural atmosphere;
supported by a diversified economic base (includinq aqricul-
ture, marine commercial and seasonal recreation activities)
that maximizes the Town's natural assets, includinq its
coastal location; and are striving for a compatibility
between the natural environment and development.
Implement planninq policies which provide for a number of
housing types, prcmote agricultural preservation, encourage
the preservation of environ~enta!ly sensitive areas, protec~
groundwater, enccuraqe wateJ-dependent and water-enhanced
uses of coastal lands, and suppor~ commercial and industrial
activities in appropriate locations.
Housinc/Residential Deve!omment
Goals
Preserve the existing housing stock and provide the oppor-
tunity for the development of a variety of housing t}'pes ~o
meet the needs of peeple at various stages of tke lif~
cycle, various income and age levels and household composi-
tions.
Pol'{cies
Encourage housing development, of var~'inq types and den-
sities, in and around existinq hamlets.
Using available assistance programs as well as land u~e,
requlatory techniques and procedures to provide such assis-
tance as may be needed to provide affordable housing,
especially to younger and older segments of the ccr~nunity
and to allow retired or moderate income homeowners to
maintain their properties.
Maintain the integrity of residential neighborhoods by
preventing through traffic movement and by discouraqi~q Uses
that %~-~ incompn5ible with a residential environmenT.
L
L
L
L
Goals
Prsserye ~he Town's prime farmland and encoura.~e its con-
tinued use for agriculture.
Policies
Limi~ non-agricultural uses in designated prime agricultural
areas through methods such as agricultural zoning and
easements.
Promote a Town agricultural preservation program, incor-
porating purchase of development rights, transfer of devel-
opment rights, public information training and financial
assistance programs to enable farmers to diversify into more
profitable crops.
Environment
Goals
Preserve and enhance the Town's natural envircnment.
........ it_ce
Maintain and protect Southold's aqricu!t .... ~ ~=-' =_ and
pastoral and open quality.
Insure that there is adequate quantity of potable water to
serve Southold's year-round and seasonal pcpu!anlons.
Policies
Restrict development in wetlands, tidal marshes, bluffs,
,. dunes and beaches.
Promote a development pattern that is res~cnsive to sensi-
tive areas exhibiting prime agricultural sci!s, poor drain--
aqe, high water table, high erosion hazard, f!ccd hazard,
sensitive coastal features, great scenic quality and wood-
lands.
Protect the Town's water supply from further contamination
by encouraging the use of techniques that reduce pollution
from fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides (agricultural
and residential), requiring adequate water supply and septic
system conditions for new development, and employ, lng minimal
maintenance dredging of streams (to minimize salt Water
int~asion) .
Promote development patterns that are at a scale tha~ is
-~..en_u .... with the a a__-b_e water supply.
32
Maintain and improve surface water quality b7 reducing
sources of pollution and utilizing modern runoff control
techniques to reduce stream siltation.
Maintain finfishinq and shellfishing habitats by reducing
sources of pollution and by limiting dredging of streams and
disturbance of wetlands.
Cultural Environment
Goals
Preserve the historic, cultural, architectural and archae-
ological resources of the Town.
Preserve End strengthen the hamlets as cultural, residential
and ccr~err!al centers of activity in the Town; as a means
of creatin~ viable uses for historic buildings and areas and
encouraging a "sense of place."
Policies
Prcmcte the inventorying of cultural resources and encourage
the esuablishment of Town historic districts and
tion of historic buildings and sites.
Plan for intensity and mix ~f development of hamlet centers
that improve the viabilit':,, functioning and aesthenicu of
hamlet commercial centers without chancing ~
_ ~.,e scale of the
Economic Dove loument
Goals
Strengthen and d~versify the Town's econcmic base as a means
of stabilizinq and expanding the tax base and year-round and
seasonal employment eppor%unities.
Policies
Encourage diversification of agricultural crops and the
marketinq of Southold as a prime location for climate-
sensitive forms of agriculture.
Strenqthen the Town's important commercial fishing and
agriculture industries.
Promote vacation and seasonal uses with respect for the
Town's year-round needs, environmental features and rural
heritage.
34
l
I
I
!
L
[.
Improve the Town's existing commercial areas but do net
encourage large scale expansion of current development.
Encourage the development of further- public and private
maricu!ture activities in the waters adjacent to the Tewn.
Encourage the development of land based support facilities
for the Town's fishing industry.
Provide opportunities to accommodate office and research
development, light lndus~_y and industries related to other
elements of the economy.
Limit strip commercial areas and encourage the concentration
of commercial uses in existing shopping areas.
Waterfront
Goals
Maximiza appropriate use of coastal areas in a manner that
protects sensitive coastal areas, ma:.[Lmizes access to t~=
water and achieves economic benefit.
Policies
Promote water-dependent and water-related uses ia watarfrcnt
areas which are not environmentally sensitive.
Protect the quality of coastal waters.
Increase the number and quality of public beach~ ,
Insure physical and/or visual access to scenic '.~is~ ,s and
·waterfrcnt areas~
Promote co~ercia! and recreational __sh_ng and boating
opportunities where there are no conflicts ~'i~. ~:<isting
residential development or sensitive natural lea%utes.
Promote maintenance of ex'istinq navigable water:~'a~.s.
Goals
Insure adequate movement of people and gccds within
$outho!d, as well as into and ou~ of To~{n, in a manner that
maximizes safety and maintains the inteqrlt~~ of res!den~ial
and agricultural areas.
35
Policies
Encourage
riot.
the use and/or development of public transports-
Encourage roadway and intersection improvements that will
improve the flow of traffic and promote safety.
Com~nuni t,.z Facilities/Utilities
Goals
Ensure the provision of an adequate range of community
facilities, services and utilities to accommodate existing
and future Tow~ needs in a convenient and cost effective
Policies
Immrove, maintain and expand where appropriate to accc.~.Jno-
date present and future development of the water supply,
sanitary sewer, storm drainage and solid waste disposal
systems in order to support the desired level of development
and to maintain and protecna healthful living environment,
a viable economic base and the natural enviroranent.
Provide an open space and recreation system adequate in size~
and location to serve the total (seasonal and year-round)
population.
Assure availability of and/or access to a full range of
modern health servlces, including emergency services, for
all citizens.
Provide a full spectrum of accessible educational facilities
and services to meet the needs of all segments of the
community in the most efficient and effective manner.
Promote the pr~vision and availability of necessary ~ocial
services, includinq appropriate neighborhood, senior citi-
zen, and day care facilities.
Provide a full range of public safety services (police,
fire, ambulance, rescue, etc.) necessar'f to create an
environment of personal security and protection of property.
36
Brief Synopsis of Changes Made to Specific Z~ning
Districts in the Southold Town Code 1957 - 1989
In 1957, ~here were only three zoning districts: "A"
Residential and Agricultural, "B" Business and "C"
Industrial. The "A" district permitted one-family
dwellings and a number of other community facility-type
uses, but not multiple dwellings. The "B" district,
however, permitted two-family dwellings and multiple family
dwellings, provided however that the lot area and other
requirements of the "A" district were complied with.
In 1958, the "M" Multiple Residence District was added to
the Zoning Code. This district permitted all the uses
allowed in the "A" district, plus multiple dwellings
designed for and occupied by not more than four families.
Hotels, motels, boarding and tourist houses and cottages
were also permitted. The minimum lot area required in this
district was 12,500 square feet.
It is interesting to note that in 1958, the "B" district
permimted multiple family dwellings as regulated by
specific provisions of the "A" district. In fact, the "B"
district allowed densities up to twenty families on one
acre of land. By contrast, the "M" district only permitted
a density of four families per 12,500 square feet or abou~
fourteen units to the acre.
In 1966, %he Zoning Code was amended to provide two
multiple residential districts: "M" and "M-l". The "M"
Multiple Residence district a£1owed all the uses permitted
in the "A" district plus dwellings designed for and
occupied by not more than four families, boarding and
tourist houses, motels and hotels, tourist cottages and
camps, and non-commercial marinas. The "M-i" distr~ct was
similar except that it did non allow hotels, motels,
tourist cottages or camps, and non-commercial marinas. The
mitk~tm required lot area remained at 12,500 square feet
per lot.
The 1966 Code also had three business districts, of which
only the "B-2" district is of interest to us here. That
district allowed all the uses allowed in the "A", "M", and
"M-i" districts along with multiple dwellings and l~nafide
commercial uses. The maximum allowable density was still
twenty units to the acre. And, the allowable density in
both multiple residence districts still iLmited to the
equivaiea5 of fourteen ~o ~%e acre.
37
In 1971 the entire Zoning Code was revamped. The "M"
Oistric~ was renamed ~_he "M" Light Multiple Residence
District: and, the "M-i" Multiple Residence district was
renamed the "M-i" General Multiple Residence District. In
~he "M" Light district, all "A" uses were permitted by
right, along with multiple dwellings for up to four
rant[lies and boarding and tourist houses. The "M-I"
General district permitted ali the uses allowed in "M"
Light. But other uses that previously were permitted as of
right (such as non-commercial marinas, multiple dwellings,
motels and hotels and tourist camps) now required a
Special Exception. In 1971, the required minu~mun lot areas
increased, dramatically, to 40,000 square feet for "A" and
"M" Light districts; and 80,000 square feet for "M-i"
General districts.
Also in 1971, the three business districts were
consolidased back to two dissricts. One parcel under
review in this study was changed from "B-2" to "B" Light
Business. All uses that were permitted in the "M" and
"M-l" districts were also permitted in the "B" Light
district, exactly as provided for in the multiple residence
districts. In keeping with other increases, the minimum
tot area in the "B" Light district was increased to 20,000
square fee~.
In 1989, major changes were made to the Zoning Code, which
is the one we use today. In this Code, both multiple
residence districts were eliminated, and a new district,
the Hamlet Density HD District, was created. The
business districts were changed also. Today, the B General
and HB Hamlet Business districts closely parallel the
business districts of the previous code, meaning that
multiple dwellings are allowed by Special Exception within
these zones.
38