Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB-05/10/2005-PH1HEARING ON "A LOCAL SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD PUBLIC HEARING May 10, 2005 8:00 P.M. LAW IN RELATION TO HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES." 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 Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 29th day of March 2005 a Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to the Height of Buildings of Residential Structures" and NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, on the 10th day of May 2005 at 8:00 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 the Height of Buildings of Residential Structures" reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 2005 A Local Law entitled "A Local Law in Relation to the Height of Buildings of Residential Structures". BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, as follows: I. Purpose- To clarify and establish clear standards governing the maximum building height of residential structures to further preserve the character of single-family neighborhoods. The changes will create a clear definition for "Height of Building", create a separate definition for "Flat and Low- pitched Roof", establish a maximum building height for the flat and low-pitched roof, and create a height limit of twenty-eight feet on lots with a width seventy (70) feet or less. Additionally, this law introduces a "building height envelope law" which is designed to prevent overcrowding and prevent the loss of open space, air, sunlight and privacy to neighbors. This new law establishes a vertical and horizontal building envelope based on the building setback to the nearest property line. II. Chapter 100 of the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: § 100-13. Definitions. May 10, 2005 2 Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures B. Definitions and Usages. FLAT AND LOW-PITCHED ROOF- Any roof that has a pitch of less than 4:12. HEIGHT OF BUILDING -- The vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the existing natural grade adjacent to the building, before any alteration or fill, to ............................................... e .......................... e ........... : v ....... to e lowest point of the eaves for flat and low-pitched roofs, and to the hi~hest point of the ridge for other Wpe roofs. ~100-32. The Bulk Schedule for Residential Dis~icts is amended as a~ached. ~ 100-34. Buildine Heieht Envelope. A. Lot width of sevenN (70) feet or less. All buildines on lots within the A-C, R-80, R-120, R- 200 and R-400 dis~icts shall be set back from all properN lines so that the heieht of any point of the buildine shall not exceed the horizontal distance be~veen the nearest properN line and the closest point of the buildine, on a ratio of 1:1 B. Lot width over sevenN feet, when cons~uction is on vacant lot only. All buildines on lots within the A-C, R-80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 dis~icts shall be set back from all properN lines so that the heieht of any point of the buildine shall not exceed the horizontal distance be~veen the nearest properN line and the closest point of the buildine, on a 1:1 ratio; C. Do~ers are pe~i~ed into vertical setback on all buildines, not to exceed ~venN-five percent (25%) of the total roof leneth. D. No~vithstandine any provisions to the con~a~, the mahmum heieht limit for all buildines shall not exceed the maximum in the bulk schedule. May 10, 2005 3 Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures 3£T~ACK LnT WlDTN 70 FEET nR LF~S ALL CIqNSTRUCTIIqN 1 So lX VERTICAL SETBACK 35' 11' WHEN NBN NBN LBT ~IDTH BVER 70 FEET EBN%TRUCTIBN I% BN VAEANT LET ONLY 1 $o 1 VERTICAL SETBACK 35' aREA LBT WH]TH BVER 70 FEET WITH EXISTING PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS PYRAMID DIAGRAMS NB VERTICAL SETBACK May 10, 2005 4 Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures § 100-30A.5. Buildin~ Height Envelope All buildings on lots within the R-40 district shall be set back from the properW as set forth in §100-34. 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. Strike-through represents deletion. Underline represents insertion. May 10, 2005 5 Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures Town of Southold Bulk Schedule for Residential Districts District AC R-40 R-80 R-120 R-200 R-400 HD RR RO Reside~ Unit wi Commu Water Sewe Availa Minimum Requirements for 1-family detached dwellings 1 Lot size (square feet) 80,000 40,000 80,000 120,000 200,000 400,000 20,000 20,000 40,000 Lot width (feet) 175 150 175 200 270 270 75 75 150 Lot depth (feet) 250 175 250 300 400 400 120 120 175 Front yard (feet) 60 50 60 60 60 60 35 35 50 Side yard (feet) 20 15 20 30 30 30 15 15 15 Both side yards (feet) 45 35 45 60 60 60 30 30 35 Rear yard (feet) 75 50 75 85 100 100 35 35 50 Livable floor area (square feet per 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 2 850 3 850 dwelling unit Maximum Permitted Dimensions Lot Coverage (percent) 20 20 20 10 5 5 25 25 20 Building Height (flat and 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 low-pitched roof) Building Height (all other type 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 roofs) Building Height (lot width 70 ft. or 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 less) Building Height (lot width 71 ft. or 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 greater) Number of Stories 2 ~/z 2 ~/z 2 ~/z 2 ~/z 2 ~/z 2 ~/z 2 ~/z 2 ~/z 2 ~/z NOTES: 1 See text of chapter and Density and Minimum Lot Size Schedules for applicable districts. 2 Except one-bedroom or studio in multiple dwelling may have 600 square feet. Minimum floor area may be reduced up to 200 for moderate- and; or lo 3 Except one-bedroom or studio in multiple dwelling may have 600 square feet. May 10, 2005 6 Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I have notice that this has appeared on the Town Clerk's bulletin board outside, it has appeared as a legal in the newspaper. We have a comment from the County of Suffolk, "Pursuant to requirements, this is considered to be a matter of local determination." I have many other communications on this but we thought that tonight it would be appropriate to hear from the people who have come to address the Board on this first and the written communications can be recorded afterwards. SUPERVISOR HORTON: At this point, we open the floor to the public to address the Town Board on this public hearing. Yes, Ms. Oliva. COMMENT FROM AUDIENCE SUPERVISOR HORTON: Actually, Mr. Yakaboski, what I am doing actually is a suggestion that was at the last public hearing that I thought was a good one by Mr. LaRocca that people who are able to be here and may have schedules, to allow them to speak first and that is what, I am going to try that out tonight but we will make sure it is read into the record. And you know, you are here for the launch of me taking Mr. LaRocca's advice and actually enacting it here from the dais. You are here for history. It was a good suggestion. RUTH OLIVA: Good evening, Ruth Oliva, Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals. We certainly heartily, four-fifths of us at any rate, of the Zoning Board, really approve of this amendment to the code and we hope that you will take this under consideration. This is basically addressed to those lots that are 70 feet or less because there is a real problem. We have one case just in point, that is coming up, just to give you an example, it is a 40 foot lot in an area that there are small lots. The person wishes to build a home 2 1/2 stories tall with a side-yard setback of three (3) feet on each side. So you can see the problem addressed. We just feel that this proposal will give a benchmark for the applicant from which to start with. That he knows how far and how wide and how high he can go and then it is up to him, whatever he wishes to do with his architecture. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Could you give that example again? The setback? MS. OLIVA: The building wishes to be, it is a 40 foot lot... SUPERVISOR HORTON: Forty foot wide. MS. OLIVA: Right. They wish to build 2 1/2 stories, so that means the height will be at least 30 feet and the side yards will be 3 feet on each side ..... SUPERVISOR HORTON: And the homes on either side of that are what? MS. OLIVA: There are homes on either side. It is in a community that all have fairly small lots but people have taken into consideration their neighbors. SUPERVISOR HORTON: So the homes on each side of that are not the same size as is being proposed? May 10, 2005 7 Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures MS. OLIVA: That is correct. So this is really what the purpose is and I think it gives the architects a starting point and it gives us the ability not to have so many variances and therefore they don't have to go through the systems and drag it out, that they can get to build their houses in a more expeditious manner, so we really heartily wish that you take this under consideration. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Ms. Oliva. Mr. Yakaboski? GREG YAKABOSKI: Greg Yakaboski, Southold. Once again, thank you for the Board for this opportunity. With respect to what Ruth just had to say, I would respectfully disagree with Ruth. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Actually, if you don't mind, so we are not getting into rebuttal .... MR. YAKABOSKI: I was just using it as a point of reference. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Alright. MR. YAKABOSKI: The example which just came up, I have some other comments but the example which just came up was that, look there is a problem. Here is the example of the problem, somebody came in with a small lot with a three foot setback. They went to the ZBA to get a variance. That is an administrative relief procedure. They didn't have to do that. Those people could have come in under the non-conforming bulk schedule, not never been, did not have to go to the ZBA. The ZBA has the right to turn them down. I don't see how that illustrates the problem, which kind of leads into what I wanted to say about this. With respect to both of these laws, ifI can, my comments can go to both... SUPERVISOR HORTON: certainly. MR. YAKABOSKI: .... public hearings? I was looking for three things, one, what the problem was and with respect to that maybe a few specific examples will be helpful just to work off of. Number two, why this particular proposal solves the problem illustrated and number three, that the particular solutions do not create additional problems or unforeseen problems. I was unable to access the local law via the website tonight, it was just a malfunction going on. I don't believe it addresses setbacks, if I am correct, Tom? When you read, you talked about a building envelope but not a setback envelope. SUPERVISOR HORTON: That is correct. MR. YAKABOSKI: So my first question to the Board would be, why was, there are two bulk schedules. All a bulk schedule does is say as-of-right your setbacks and your lot coverage, that kind of thing, under the law. There is a conforming bulk schedule and non-conforming bulk schedule. Since we are talking about small lots, mostly going to the non-conforming bulk schedule. One example, the one concrete example that I know that comes to mind is there is a house up towards Horton's Point lighthouse, there is a big house up there on the right, people talked about that a couple of years ago it was going up and it would be nice to have the dimensions for that just to talk about it but it seems to me that one of the problems there was, or anywhere is that people are upset about, is that the non- conforming bulk schedule which I cannot recite off the top of my head, Mike Verity is in the back or Pat might have it, there are short setbacks or excuse me, not very big setbacks for a small lot. It might be that some of the problems which, I don't know what they are, which are fostering these laws to be May 10, 2005 8 Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures proposed, would really be more appropriately solved by looking at that non-conforming bulk schedule and what the as-of-rights setbacks are. Because they are awfully tight to the property line, if memory serves. I don't remember the exact dimensions on a small lot. So people, don't think I am picking on small lots, there is not much smaller lot than mine. But so we will start there. One, I think it will be helpful for this Board, it must have happened for the planners, for Mike Verity, for somebody to put forth two or three concrete examples of the problem, just illustrating them, just to hear the setbacks; so when you are looking at the solutions, what would actually be allowable, what was the problem, what would be allowable? Number two, so again, I don't know the exact problem we are trying to solve and therefore I can't answer my second question which is to see if this solution, proposed solution, solves that problem. It is a little difficult under the current facts as they are put forth. Dan, Bill, the rest of the Board, I don't know, I don't want to call people individually and talk off the record somewhere about proposed legislation. I view it a little differently, I will just agree to disagree with the Board members. You come here, you ask the Board-our managers, what is going on, what is the problem? They illustrate it for us, they give the facts. It is a little disappointing being on this side of the fence and you realize how difficult it is, both from a time point and knowledge point, gathering the facts, to put together information so you can make valid, on the point comments to the Board in response at a public hearing such as this. I brought it up before, I bring it up again, it would be very helpful for you folks to consider just putting some concrete facts out there, some concrete examples. Here is the problem we are trying to solve. Here are the dimensions, what is going on, here are a couple, three or four real life examples, cross out the names; there we go. I will go right down to creating additional problems. One additional problem would be, it would seem to me and I do not know the answer to this, there are an awful lot of small lots in town, just the way the town developed; it seems to me that this law would add to the non-conformity of a lot of those lots and a lot of those structures. Tenfold. You are talking Captain Kidd's Estates, you are talking all down by Bayview, you are talking by Ole Jule Lane in Mattituck, you are talking all throughout Greenport. You are probably talking the majority of the town is affected by this law. Probably nine out of ten people, ninety-nine out of one hundred people do not know, realize, that their property is affected by this law right now. And I just urge you folks up there to be real careful before you put forth a law, excuse me, before you enact a law which is going to affect ten, twenty, excuse me, ten to fifteen thousand people in town, that you know your facts, you can articulate clearly, succinctly what the problem was, why the solution is here because now you are getting to non-conforming and again, Mike and Pat can probably in a more recent example can answer better than I. John Romanelli, I know a lot of people call him, I am sure other constituents call you folks. A fire in a non-conforming building, if it destroys a certain amount, all of a sudden it can't be re-built. So by creating this non-conforming, you have existing houses which I believe might not be able to be rebuilt. It would have to come to the ZBA to get rebuilt. They are going to have to, they are required, they fall under different building department guidelines when they come in for different plans and projects. I can't articulate, I don't have those laid out in front of me, again a specific example could provide that. Number two, I go into comprehensive planning in the town. A lot has been made and Josh has talked a lot about, your entire tenure here, about affordability of the town. It is one of the main tenets of the comprehensive planning of the town. And I would urge this Board to talk to your planners, bring your planners in, talk to everybody, I am surprised Philip Bellz isn't here and the rest of the folks who deal with affordable housing. There has been tremendous focus on getting, helping people buy new, new people who haven't bought, buy houses. There is a much larger constituency who fits within that affordable population group who is already here in town. A lot of folks might be fighting to stay in town, you are looking at space issues; both for living and storage space. They are looking at value issues for appraisals processes, maybe new loans, May 10, 2005 9 Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures refinancing. Things like this. And probably a lot of issues I can't think of right now. And I do not think, by Philip Bel~z not being here, I think it shows, I am not going to make any assumptions, I would just hopefully that this Board if asked could say, 'hey we looked at how this affected affordable population' or households which fit within this criteria and we looked, we took that into account. Because this is probably going to affect most of your folks on those small lots, in the small houses, perhaps non-conforming houses. Again, I would urge the Board not to vote on this tonight unless they have some specific properly examples that you could show and show how, what the problem was and how this proposed law solves that problem. If you can't show that, you talked about it earlier, about Vinnie LaRocca, you are trying to allow people who are here to come up and speak right away before you read all the written communications. Take into account that they took time out of their busy days to be here. Along that same vein, I think these folks deserve, it would be helpful, helpful, helpful to the community, to the people you represent, I think, to have specific examples and facts and put those in front of the people and just show, lay it out....here is what is going on. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Okay. MR. YAKABOSKI: I am not here trying to be antagonistic. SUPERVISOR HORTON: You have made that point. MR. YAKABOSKI: You know ..... SUPERVISOR HORTON: Here, Mr. Yakaboski, MR. YAKABOSKI: I didn't interrupt you, sir. Unbelievable. And again on that point with respect to the SEQRA, I think it is um, I wished that the Board had held off on the vote on the SEQRA, again just (inaudible) looked at the comprehensive planning aspect of it, not that something that something would have turned up before or not turned up but again just from a decision making process to look at it. That is all. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. Mr. Simon. Mr. Yakaboski, this is not a place to go back and forth .... MR. YAKABOSKI: Step up to the plate when somebody interrupts and just say so... SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Yakaboski, I am saying something now. MR. YAKABOSKI: Thank you. MICHAEL SIMON: Michael Simon, speaking for himself and also as a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals. I was aware of the possibility of this, what I think much needed piece of legislation, before I had any idea that I would be in any sense an officer of the Town of Southold. And I was listening to the remarks of the previous speaker .... May 10, 2005 10 Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures SUPERVISOR HORTON: I am going to step in now, and say this forum is to address your comments on specific legislation and not rebut each other. I tried to make that clear to Mr. Yakaboski and I am going to lay the ground work now. MR. SIMON: Okay. I will then address the consequences of the legislation as I have read the legislation. Concerning the effect on making houses more non-conforming for one thing, it specifically limits this rule to building on vacant lots. Not on lots which are all ready building but furthermore and I think it is worth addressing the argument, if not the maker of the argument, that if there were going to be concern about making properties non-conforming, there never would have been any zoning in this town at all. The houses that are non-conforming, most of them, were built before there was a zoning code. So they were created as non-conforming when the zoning code was enacted. There might be a desire in one possible world for everyone to have full information about how this would work with a variety of types of houses, not necessarily actual houses but how this would play itself out. And that people are perhaps at a disadvantage at a hearing like this because they don't have a list of actual scenarios, on the other hand, when one talks about the effects on other considerations such as affordable housing, in the absence of some argument to show how this would have some discernible effect on these other very important issues but of which are not the primary aim of this piece of legislation, I am not sure how useful those uses are. I would support the laws for the simple reason that I am aware and have been aware for some time is of properties being built cheek by jowl near other houses and being built higher than they would be under this law. I happen to live next door to a house on, I have a piece of property less than a quarter of an acre, as many of the house, the lots in New Suffolk are. There happens to be a one-half acre lot adjacent to mine. It was empty. Because it is more than 40,000 square feet, there was a five foot setback required for an accessory building. Result is five feet from my property line, there is a 25 foot high accessory building, which would not have been built under this law, couldn't have been built at that time, the idea of having a relationship between setbacks and height of building is certainly germane with regard to what it looks like or what it feels like to be living up against a windowless wall, five feet from the edge of one's rather small lot. And I think that is going to be the case throughout the town. And I don't understand frankly, and I haven't heard anything or read anything one way or the other how this is going to affect the salability of lots or the possibility of affordability of lots, those things, they work in very different directions but I suppose that one might argue that anything that made the hamlet more attractive, more unified, might increase the demand for property in this town and unfortunately one of the by-products of that is it moves in the opposite direction from the affordability issue. And the only response I think that could be made is that this piece of legislation is not about affordability. We do need legislation concerning affordability, I have not been shown that this is it but that is not an argument against enacting it. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. Would anybody else care to address the Board on this public hearing? Yes, sir, Mr. Strang and you will be next, Mr. Dinizio. GARRETT STRANG: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for acknowledging my time here. A few things I would like to address, specifically... SUPERVISOR HORTON: Your name and place of residence? May 10, 2005 11 Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures MR. STRANG: I'm sorry. Garret Strang, architect, Southold and a resident of Southold as well. I would like to address specifically the item that is in front of the Board at the moment, in front of the audience here tonight. I have some questions as well as some points I would like to make. But I would like to open it by sort of echoing a comment that was made by Mr. Yakaboski with respect to small lots and small homes and the restrictions that this legislation would place upon them. It would generally in many case, not in all cases but in many cases, prohibit a home from being expanded upon vertically, which may be the only option available to the owner to increase his living area as his family or their family grows. There are a fair number of young families in the community, who bought modest homes because they could afford them. They are at a point in their lives where they may be outgrowing their homes and need to expand them. If they can't because of this legislation, it puts them in an unfortunate position of one, having to sell that home and trade-up to another home which in doing uniquely puts them in a position of having to pay the 2% tax that we have for the preservation of land which is a burden to them to have to incur that cost, or the alternative to leave Southold Town to find another place to live where they can get the house that they need. So that is just a thought that came up that I thought should be given some consideration. With respects to the specifics of the legislation, as I read it, I had some thoughts that I would like to share and as I said, some questions. With regard to definitions, it is my position that low pitch roofs really should by definition be those that are a pitch of 2 on 12 or less, not 4 on 12. I don't really think a 4 on 12 pitch is a low pitch roof. And I will, a little bit further on here I will give you an idea of why I think that really is the case. I also think that with respect to building heights that the building heights by definition really should parallel or adopt the New York State building construction code definition of building heights so there is a continuity there between zoning and when, the code requirement of the State of New York. With respect to the building height for a low-pitch roof or a flat roof, as I read the proposal it makes reference to that this would be measured from grade to the lowest point of the eave and my feeling is that it really should be to the highest point of the eave on a low-pitched roof because the example I will site is this; if you had a building that you were allowed to be at 28 feet to the lowest point of the eave, with a low-pitched roof and by the definition that is proposed, a 4 on 12 pitch, once that building exceeded 21 foot in width, you would be already over 35 feet in height, compared to a building with another type of roof that would be limited to 35 feet. So you could exceed that 35 feet in height following the definition and what is spelled out here on a 4 in 12 pitch, starting at 28 feet at the low end going to whatever height you want to. There is no limit as I see it in this legislation, on a low- pitched roof. So I think that is something that may need to be looked at a little further. Another question or a question I had is, I know in the pyramid part of this law there is a reference to donners but as far as calculating building height, there is no reference to how donners impact on a building height. Are the donners considered in the building height, are they not considered in the building height? So I think that is an open issue, as least as I read it. I may not be reading this accurately, so I think it might be in need of some clarification. The other thing that I see also is that if you compare a flat or low-pitch roof building to a building with an other type of roof, a gable roof or gambrel roof, hip roof, this square box building with a flat roof or low-pitch roof at 28 feet height, even if that were meant to be the height that it could be maximum, compared to a pitched roof with 35 feet to the ridge, visually has much more impact, that box, it has much more visual impact and physical impact than does a pitched roof. So again, I am not sure that that's what the intention of this legislation is. Because we are almost making people, if they want more space, then build a flat roof and get away from the traditional character that we have here in Southold Town of the pitched roof because you can get more bang for your buck with a flat roof than you can if you went with a gable roof. Now, I would like to move into the height restriction aspect of things, and just preface this, I am admiring the fact May 10, 2005 12 Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures that this legislation is being entertained and I know there has been a lot of effort put forth by both the Board, the Zoning Board and other members who had input in this and I admire them for that and I think we are probably heading in the right direction but I do think it needs some more help. So that being said, I believe that height restrictions on buildings should be proportionate to the lot dimensions, not necessarily the lot area. The disparity, as I see it, is basically if we look at it very simplistically of this cut-off point of 70 feet, that if you have a lot of 70 feet, you have this rule, if you have a lot that is 71 feet you have that rule. You could in essence build a taller structure on a 71 foot lot next to the structure you could build on a 70 foot lot. Example being a building, let's say they both have 10 foot side yards, so they are meeting code, okay? And if we apply the pyramid law, the house on the 70 foot lot could be build up 15 feet in height, yet if he had 71 feet, he could go up 20 feet. So it is kind of not fair just for the one foot differential. So what I am thinking or my way of thinking is possibly they could be considered to apply a ratio or proportionate ratio instead of this, and eliminate this 70 foot line thing. And just say that the setback would be if a lot, based on a setback, if the setback of a building was 15 feet or less, you could use a 1:1 1/2 foot ratio and if it was greater than 15 feet, you could use the 1:1 ratio and forget about how wide the lot is. Just put it in place that way, I think it would be fairer because then you wouldn't have one building looming over another, they would be more in keeping, more compatible. So, the question that I have, is there going to be or has there been consideration given to any exemptions for buildings that are in the flood zone and as such are required to be elevated above grade, above the base flood elevation? Because in some instances, you could have buildings that have to come up four or five or six feet above grade before they can even start their structure and they could be seriously adversely impacted by the pyramid law. So I don't know if there has been any consideration given to that. And am I correct in understanding that additions to pre- existing structures on lots over 70 feet in width are basically exempt from the pyramid status? That they can go vertically up providing they are meeting the setbacks? SUPERVISOR HORTON: And as it reads, yes. MR. STRANG: That is the way it reads. Well, would there be exemptions then with, for structures less than 70 feet? Because we have a lot of houses in the villages and hamlets or whatever that are and narrow lots and again, their only way to go up or the only way to expand is to go up and if they are not on a lot that is over 70 feet wide, they are going to be not able to expand. So, once again, there needs to be some more consideration given to that. A thought, I noticed that donners, back to the donner issue, dormers are allowed provided or allowed to be exempted from the pyramid section up to 25 percent of the roof area. I think more appropriately, 50 percent. It should be 50 percent, because 25 percent of the roof area for a donner makes it in some instances, especially again on smaller homes, would make that donner totally ineffective and wouldn't make any sense and I don't think 50 percent donner area on a roof is excessive, proportionately to the building. And one other question I had, is there any height restrictions being proposed for the remaining residential districts that are not sighted in this legislation, as well as our commercial districts, marine districts and other districts? Or are those buildings not going to be under any height restrictions? SUPERVISOR HORTON: There is nothing in legislative fonn but I can tell you that size and height and setback for general is an active discussion with the Board. MR. STRANG: Okay. Because again, I think there were two or three residential zones that aren't addressed in here that I think maybe should be in some capacity or another and as I wrap up in May 10, 2005 13 Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures summary this particular situation, I don't know if the Board would consider implementing in this change or in this code change, a grace period or phase in for projects that are presently in being drawn up for clients or people who are planning on building, they may be nearing completion of drawings and have invested a fair amount of time, effort and finances in having their building or home designed, that may find out that they can't build that home if this is a 'boom, drop the gauntlet' type of a legislation. So, I don't know if there is a way that they could document by making an application to the Building Department showing that they are substantially along with their project but not yet 100 % complete, to meet the application process of the Building Department. So, I think that would be a hardship to people as well. And I thank you for your attention. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you for your comments, Mr. Strang. Appreciate it. Would anybody else care to address the Board? Mr. Dinizio. JAMES DINIZIO, JR.: James Dinizio Jr., Greenport, New York. I am also a member of the Zoning Board. I am the fifth. Now, I will tell you, one thing is, anything in this law, any house that is affected by this law should not be seen by the Zoning Board, ever. The Zoning Board has no extra teeth, whatsoever, in anything that has been affected by this law. Because it deals with conforming uses and conforming setbacks and you are lowering those conforming setbacks, okay? So, I hold no extra teeth in this, other than to say to you that the example of a 40 foot lot with three foot setbacks is not a valid excuse for this law. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with this law. You should take that into consideration. SUPERVISOR HORTON: If I could ask a question of you because you are a member of the ZBA, the example that was given of the three foot setback and the 40 foot lot, is it your contention that this law wouldn't affect that? MR. DINIZIO, JR.: No. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Okay. MR. DINIZIO, JR.: This law deals with conforming uses. Now, the example that was given to you is a three foot setback. That is non-conforming, it is a completely different part of the law. Okay? And, although it doesn't fall under any different rules other than there is a Board that listens to their reasons for wanting to build so close to the property line and we have taken care of that, many times. I can tell you today, two days from now, my Board is going to consider a house that is going to be two stories tall, nine feet away from the property line, running 42 feet along the property line. Now, that is a whole lot more obtrusive than this is, on a 70 foot lot. I just wanted to ask you a question, to see if this makes any sense to you at all. You are, in your purpose saying to us here in the town that your reasons for this is to prevent over-crowding. Now, a 70 foot lot has a 10 foot setback, as does a 100 foot lot. As does any lot that is less than, I forget, 80,000 square feet? Whatever it is. I am just trying to figure out how you prevent over-crowding when the setback is going to be the same? You are going to have two houses that are 20 feet apart, in those particular, in any instance, that are conforming. You are saying to the house that is the 70 foot lot, they cannot build a second story. You are saying to the house that is on a 100 foot lot that they can. But how do they gain any more privacy or how do you gain any less overcrowding because they're still going to be 20 feet apart? That is really, this, there is, you are not controlling anything here. It seems to me that you are just picking on people who have 70 May 10, 2005 14 Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures foot lots. Now, it doesn't make any sense to me how, number two, they are going to gain anymore open space. It is the same thing. If you have a 35 foot house, that is 10 feet away from your properly line, it is going to be just as obnoxious to the person next door who has a 70 foot lot as it does a 100 foot lot. You don't gain anything from it, okay? No more air. Or I don't know, maybe you have measured it, no more air is going to move in between those two houses because it is still 20 feet. You have done nothing to set those houses apart. Give me a second. Same with sunlight, same with privacy. I understand where you are trying to get at but honestly, this whole thing came about because of people who were wanting to expand their non-conformings, okay? This doesn't address that. Okay? This doesn't give the Board, my Board, any concrete set of guidelines from you that says that if you are three feet, you can't go more than 15 feet high. You are four feet, you can't go more than 16 feet high. Okay? That is how this all came about, is the decision made by (inaudible) and I believe was made wrongly because the Zoning Board is supposed interpret the code. In order for you to interpret the code, it has to be in the code. Okay? Now, the Zoning Board made this decision. No one could figure it out. So, do you know how we explain it to them? We give them our decision. Well, if it is not in the law, if it is not in our code; then it shouldn't make any sense to them. Walz decision was made up by the Zoning Board, three foot setbacks, it was the most horrendous thing you ever wanted to see. The guy wanted to go two stories high, three feet away from the properly line. I would never do that to my neighbor. But we have no guidelines, we can do what we want to do and basically, we do. And I can tell you, it is not, there is no conformity in our decisions, in my opinion. If you are going to do something, this is not it. You have to give direction, you have to give something in our code that tells people when they read the code, that that Walz decision exists. Okay? That is what you have to look at. Here, like I say, you still are going to be 20 feet apart, no matter whether that lot is 70 feet or 100 feet, so it really doesn't make a difference. They are not gaining anything in open space or air or sunlight, they are not gaining anything. All you are saying is 70 foot lots can't have a two story house. And number one, how many lots does this affect? Does anybody have any idea? I mean, this is the Town, we deal with zoning, we deal with lots. We should know this. And Tom, I am going to say it, yeah, why don't you find out and send each one of those people just a little card telling them you are considering devaluing their properly and let them come here and make their comments. Because I took this notice off the board, I see nothing in here about donners. So, maybe people came in and they looked at that board and I know you changed it because I saw it in my own papers but you know, I am part of the town. I am on the Zoning Board. I read everything. I ask you not to consider this tonight. It needs much, much more work and it needs more work by people who understand the ramifications of a decision like this. You not only, with the 70 foot lots but you are changing the dimensions of a house by your 30 foot rule, 35 foot tall rule. People will never see that. They still are going to see in the code 35 feet and look at a house that was built under the code and say 'I want a house just like that.' Where the peak of the roof goes 42 feet because it is measured from a different distance. They are never going to know this. This is only going to happen when poor Mike Verily has to tell them. You know, sitting down there in Town Hall, you know, I am sorry, you can't have this house that you just spent $20,000 on plans for. Well, why not? My neighbor has it. No, because we changed the rules. And honestly, I see no good reason for changing the rules. This Town, you know, when you are talking about the health and the welfare of the community, you are talking about the whole community. Not just some neighbors that are upset about having a larger house than theirs being built in their neighborhood because they are not used to it. The house that was mentioned up there at Horton's, I understand it went for a million and a half or a million two, I don't see where it devalued that neighborhood in any way. I mean, certainly they got a lot of money for that house. And I am just hoping that maybe you would reconsider, drop this whole thing. We are not benefiting in any way May 10, 2005 15 Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures from this. But the Zoning Board does, honestly, needs a lot of direction from the Town concerning that Walz decision and it is because there are so many ways you can interpret something, there are so many lots that you can look at. And if we don't have any guidance at all from the Town Board, then we are just going to continue to grant variances or not grant variances based on each individual circumstance and you know, the Town Board, if they see a problem, they should be fixing it. And like I said, if you look at, I mean, I got off the Board right after that, I was off for two years. When I came back, we had people standing up in this very room, I don't know why I am here. They had no idea why they were here, other than Mike Verity told them to come here. And finally, we had them, they put on there 'due to the Walz decision' It shouldn't be a decision of the Zoning Board bringing people here, it should be a decision of the Town. Should be your, the Board's decision bringing people to the Zoning Board to ask for variances. Not a decision by the ZBA. Alright, I have bored you with that enough but I hope that you should reconsider this. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. Dinizio. Would anybody else care to address the Board on this... ? Yes, Mr. Goodale. BOB GOODALE: My name is Bob Goodale, I am from Mattituck. I have a small lot, I have another small lot, I would like to build on it like I did with this one. I mean, I have to notify my neighbors, everyone all around the block and now there just is going to be one larger layer of bureaucracy upon it. Please don't give me anymore bureaucracy. We have laws, they are in place, let's work with them. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. Goodale. Are there any other comments from the floor on this public hearing? Yes, Ms. Gould. JENNIFER GOULD: My name is Jennifer Gould, I live at 1820 Truman's Path in East Marion and I live on a 40 foot lot. Forty feet wide. I am very much in favor of the proposed law, I think from my reading of it and Mr. Ross, please correct me if I am wrong, it applies to both non-conforming and conforming lots. By that I mean, if you have a building that exists and it has conforming setbacks, the law applies to it .... SUPERVISOR HORTON: That is correct. That is, your question... MS. GOULD: On my lot, my structure is non-conforming. I have a setback on one side of six feet and the other side, 12. The law still applies to me. SUPERVISOR HORTON: That is correct. MS. GOULD: And it should. Now, it said here and I read it in the newspaper and conversation that it is going to create a mass system of non-conformity. I think, I have done Freedom of Informations on the ZBA zonings on similar properties such as mine because I am in the process of a ZBA hearing right now and what you will find on most small lots, less than 70 feet, is that they already are pre- existing, non-conforming when they are that size. It is just the way they were built. And the purpose of this law, it is all in the eyes of the beholder but to me it preserves my property values ifI know the house next door, when they want to re-build, that the ridge isn't going to be higher than 28 feet. I have a one and a half story house. My ridge is 20.5 feet and you can stand up in my second floor, I mean, May 10, 2005 16 Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures this is not a hardship. People have talked about hardships tonight. If you have a hardship, I can't see why you can't have a vertical expansion if you have a conforming 20 foot setback. As I understand this law, it means if you have an existing structure at 30 feet, your roof has to start going in. How is that a hardship? But if it is a hardship, if you are in a situation where you are pre-existing, have a five foot side yard and you want to go up a second story and up this law, it will be 7.5 feet, so you would go to the ZBA. These people are already going to the ZBA and as Ms. Oliva said, this is providing the ZBA with a benchmark for those variance situations. So most of these lots that are less than 70 are going to be in the ZBA anyway. If they are not, it is not going to be a hardship on them because if you could start a roof at 30 feet, how is that a hardship when the max is 35 feet now? The problem under the current code now is there is no clear definition of where that 35 feet is and that is the point of the law. But I think there is a lot of misconception and maybe we do need some examples. In the next hearing, I am going to be happy to give you an example about the problems under our current home with accessory buildings. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Ms. Gould. Are there other comments from the floor on this? Yes, Mr. Nickles. JOHN NICKLES, JR.: Good evening, John Nickles, Jr. Southold. I love houses. I am a real estate broker. I pay attention to them, I look at the lines of their roofs, I look at the proportions of the setbacks that they have, the proportions to their neighbors. This is something that I think is very important, it is going to have a big impact on the town and if the Town Board decides that they have to do something to make homes more proportional to their lot sizes, I think there is another way to do it. This isn't it. Architecturally, I think the main problem that you are dealing with here, this law is going to affect mostly lots under 70 feet. It is also going to affect in a big way, lots that are just over 70 feet and just up to 100 feet. Anybody that has a conforming lot, which is 150 feet wide is not going to have any problem with this law. I agree with that. So any new subdivision, there is not really going to be any problem. I think there are some lots out there, they are 150 feet wide and people are not going to build them probably even 30 feet from the side yard. So I think that a pyramid law really is not going to have any effect on these conforming properties. It is all of the existing non-conforming properties which is probably most of the stock out there that this is going to effect. I probably spent way too much time on this because I have been coloring your diagrams, figuring out actually driving around town, looking at different types of house styles and 'hey, would that fit under this proposal? That might, would that one, probably not.' But beyond that, I think when you look at this proposal architecturally, the main thing that you are changing here, besides considerations for height, is you are changing the shape of your buildable area. I have a problem with that, architecturally. I don't know if there are other architects out there that would agree with my point of view but I think when you get on your smaller lots and you force everything to grow underneath a shape like this instead of a shape like this, you are forcing gables to face the street. You are discouraging ridges to run left to right and gables to face the side yards. You are forcing people to, if they are going to build a gabled roof house, to grow that house on whatever size lot it is, underneath this pyramid. And I think that is problematic. Now, if you take my little diagram here and the easiest way to look at is to just, this is a 50 foot wide lot as an example. You have your yellow areas which are the minimum setbacks on a lot this size, presuming it is less than 20,000 square feet. That is ten and 15. And where the orange is, that is what the current building envelope looks like now and what this proposal is going to do is basically draw sort of a lopsided pyramid through this. Now, people are going to be able to go to the Building Department and say, 'okay, my minimum is ten and my maximum is 15. I will do 12 1/2 - 12 1/2. I can May 10, 2005 17 Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures center it. It's not really that big of a problem.' But as you take your, as you move this line across here for your lot width, watch how this think shrinks. So when you get to, actually when you get to 35 feet wide as a lot width and you have your 15 foot setback and your 10 foot setback, by the code, without going to the ZBA, you are going to be allowed to build basically a 10 foot wide house. However, it will still be able to go 28 feet high. It is problematic. I know that that's not what you guys want to do, I hope not. I think there is probably a better way to go about it. Mr. Strang talked about the idea of addressing lot width when it comes to, it sounded like he was talking about proportion of you know, lot width proportional to height. I think that the Town Board should look into something like that, something that doesn't say, hey, it is going to be this shape or it is going to be that shape. That is one of my problems with the law. You hear me talking about properly rights a lot. I am not really going to do a lot of properly rights stuff tonight. I think that the architectural considerations and some of the things with the non-conformities and what that is going to do to the town are bigger issues. But I do have to mention a couple. If you look at the heights and setbacks, you have got three different scenarios. What I would like to see is, I would like to see the law treat people equally. Now this law, in an attempt to not make so many of these properties non-conforming as I read it, I think that was what the intention was-that was a good intention; all lots over 70 feet with existing principal buildings will be exempt, no vertical setback. That's good but people that have the lots under 70 feet and are vacant or have a house on them, they are not exempt. That is problematic to me. There is a lot of these tiny, little lots. You have your minimum non-conforming setback in the Town of Southold is 10 feet. Let's talk a little bit about the reason why I think we are coming to this point. The Zoning Board of Appeals is looking for some direction from the Town Board, obviously, I think and to say that this is going to address that, I mean, the Town Board could put in its intention, this law is meant to be a guide for the Zoning Board of Appeals, under no circumstances or they would have to be really hardship circumstances, if you are inside of a non-conforming setback, then you ought to be able to be able to have relief from the code. The Town Board could do that now, by the way, as the code is written, without changing the building heights, without creating a pyramid law. I am going to go back to some of the architecture. Like I have said, I spent too much time on this. I went around and I took a lot of pictures, I am going to give them to the Board. And I will just go sort of in order of some of the photos that I took of houses that I know will be affected by this law. This is a historic house, it is 2 doors west of the American Legion in Southold on Route 25. This lot is 78 feet wide. Now, I did my best guess estimation. It was either the little short line underneath because on 70 feet or wider, your pyramid is 45 degrees, it is not 1:1 1/2, it is 1 :, so here is one example. So, even if this line is incorrect and this line out here, we are still cutting these corners ofl~ Your 70 foot wide lots, this is not going to be non- conforming the way the code is written. I like that, it is one of the things I do like about it but the problem that I have with it is if we get on these smaller lots, you are going to eliminate these type of roof lines. You are going to force the roof lines to either have the corners cut off them or for people to face their gables toward the street so they can fit the house there. I will just go through them. Here is a house on Town Harbor Lane, right around the corner from my office. I am just showing it because I wanted to give you perspective of the house with the neighbor. This is the house, this is the neighbor. This house has probably been there since the 20's or the 30's. Beautiful, old house. Wouldn't be able to build it under your law. As you can see, it is fairly obvious. I don't need a survey, the properly line is right in the middle of the driveway somewhere. Here is a better look at the house. You would be discouraging this type of properly. And maybe if you cut this ridge that runs left to right ofl} you may be able to fit that type of house on the properly, take away this part. Once again, gables facing the road. Lined up, over time. Imagine that, one after the other. Here is another house, Youngs Avenue. It is less than 100 feet wide. I think it is certainly wider than 70 feet. Draw a 45 degree angle through May 10, 2005 18 Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures the corner of this house. Once again, is it non-conforming? Not under this law. Can you build this again on a similar properly? Probably not. Hortons Lane, another house, same concept. Some of the nice architecture in the Town of Southold, I love old houses. This used to be Dr. Campbell's house, my childhood doctor. Comer of Main Road and Oaklawn Ave. Can you build it? This is a corner lot, so in all fairness, yeah, they would probably have to go to the ZBA anyway, because they have got two front yards but look at the architecture, look at, try to figure out if something like this would fit under a pyramid. I doubt it would. Here is a great house, this is an old house they just renovated on Tucker's Lane. They paid 290 for it. It was a terrible house, a beautiful house but the house was a gut job. It had a lot of bad things going on inside. But they got their building permit, they renovated it. It is on a small lot. It is less than 1/4 acre. It is less than 70 feet wide. This is something we are trying to discourage. I mean, I can go on and on. I just want to go through the rest of them. There is only a couple more. Pequash Road, I have always loved this house. It is a cool house. It is a design, I think it would be great if more people built these kind of houses in the Town. It is probably about a 70 foot wide lot. So under either scenario, there is going to be either a sharp line going through the roof, the top part of the roof or through the middle of the house. So if this is less than 70 feet, this house is non- conforming. Just so you know. Most of this stuff is estimation but I have been in the business 10 years now, I have got a pretty good eye for these things. It is probably a ten or 15 foot setback, you can see how the two driveways are split. Very common. Once again, the ridge runs left to right, tough to do under a pyramid. New Suffolk, New Suffolk is a charming little town. People love it. People are going to try to expand their houses over time, I think a lot of us would like to see things stay the same. It is sentimental. Sometimes we look at progress and we don't think it is progress but, here is a little house on King Street, 50 foot wide lot. Can't build it, non-conforming. New Suffolk, here is a little house on 4th Street, less than 50 foot wide lot. Can't build it, non-conforming. Here is a house right next door, cute little house. But I don't know ifI would want every house to look like that on the street. Probably can build it, under your proposal. And it might be conforming to your proposed legislation. So, what I am worried about, largely, is architectural. And I really don't want to see that the Town change the shape of the building envelope. I think it is problematic. I think that there are some issues in regard to sunlight, I mean, there is some validity to that. But drive down through the Village of Greenport. There are plenly of 28 to 35 foot houses and even more and they are on 50 foot or 55 foot lots. Every one of those lots in the Village of Greenport, you know, in the heart of the Village between First and Fifth or Sixth. For the most part. I would have to say it is probably 90 percent or better. And you know, certain times of the day, there is no sunlight there. I understand that the people have the little house next door and now all of a sudden you have a 2 1/2 story house. I understand where people are coming from but what I want to avoid is, make every house gable faces the street. It is not an ugly house but this type of law, the smaller the lot gets, the more that becomes the only option they can do. Here is something that ran in the newspaper last December, some people may remember it or may not, this is something, I have never visited this house. I got it out of a real estate magazine. I knew that there was a pyramid law in Quogue and there is just nobody that would design a house like this unless there was a regulation telling them that they had a height restriction. So I gratuitously drew my 45 degree line, because that is what it is over there and look, it fits very well with the sideyards. And this house grew underneath the code. No doubt in my mind. Got an entryway here. They couldn't even really get a second story, so they created some kind of multi-level scenario and there is probably a finished basement area down under here. But this house grew underneath the pyramid. I would hate to see that happen out here. There are a lot of small lots that could develop in that way. And here is a house in Southold. This is probably part of the reason why we are going to look at building heights, setbacks. This is a beautiful, old house. It happens to be right on the properly May 10, 2005 19 Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures line. They used some expensive plantings to screen the property. I don't know, it is not bad. But I guess people are trying to avoid things like this. This house I think is four or six feet from the property line. It is in Mattituck. Drove past it, noticed it. Neighbors house is just out of the picture, it is a one story house but this house didn't have to be as close to the side yard as it did. I am sure the Zoning Board of Appeals decided that on the merits of the application, that is what they should do but I know there are a lot of people that don't think that is a great idea. A while back I had asked Supervisor Horton to consider a proposal and pass it along to the Board. I think he did. A lot of what the problem is that you are not sure how to treat these properties that have these pre-existing setbacks, because so many of them do. They are three feet from the side yard, they are six feet from the side yard. I and some of my colleagues came up with a way to address these properties. The code says you can have 35 feet high. The minimum setback in town anywhere on a residential property is ten. You have these little houses on 40 foot wide lots, 30 foot wide lots, 50 foot wide lots, maybe they are three feet away. I propose that you create something called a building height multiplier. You take the maximum height allowed in the district, the minimum setback allowed, divide the maximum height by the minimum setback. In this case it would be 35 divided by 10. 3.5 would be your building height multiplier. That means for every foot from your side yard, by right, you can go up 3.5 feet. Now, I heard somebody say something that this is going to have less applications going to the ZBA. This is going to have more applications going to the ZBA if this law goes through. If you adopt this proposal, you will have less applications going before the ZBA and you will have a concrete reason why certain properties that are preexisting, which is a lot of them that have preexisting setbacks and a rationale on what the limit ought to be. A mathematical sort of reverse pyramid off of your setbacks, actually. It creates an imaginary line from that point up in the sky, 35 feet up and 10 feet from the side yard down to the side yard. So that would be a way to regulate these properties. I would like to see it start with this because a lot of the problems I think that people are addressing are addressing these building permits that are going before the Zoning Board of Appeals and they are saying, well, you know let's go 35 here. And I can see that there is, there is a rationale and there is very good reasoning why people that live next door do not want to see a 35 foot high wall, three feet away. And this would be a way to deal with that. Those are my comments for now. Thanks. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. Nickles. Would anybody else care to address the Board on this specific hearing? (No response) We will close this hearing. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Josh, should we read some of the... ? SUPERVISOR HORTON: Oh, yes. Prior to closing the hearing, even those these notices are incorporated into the record, actually what I ask you to read is the Planning Board notation. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: This is a note from the Planning Board dated May 9th. "The Planning Board off'ers the following comments and recommendations at this time: 1. A height of 22 feet is excessive for accessory structures and should remain at 18 feet. 2. It is not clear whether or not the height limitation of 22 feet for accessory structures is applicable to agricultural structures. (Actually, these comments have to do with both of the public hearings tonight.) 3. The new restrictions for accessory structures are applicable to properties in the R-40 Zoning District as described in the purpose section of the legislation. However, the text of Section 100-33 fails to include the R-40 Zoning District and should be amended accordingly. 4. The Planning Board supports the concept of preventing excessive massing of residential structures. Therefore, with respect to the height limitations May 10, 2005 20 Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures for residential structures, the Planning Board has no objections to the Local Law as proposed. However, additional new legislation is needed to address the issue of existing nonconforming structures. An existing structure should be allowed to maintain the existing setback without the need to obtain a variance as long as the degree of nonconformity does not increase. If you have any questions or need further assistance." We have in addition other letters that are quite lengthy. I don't know if it is necessary to read them into the record tonight? SUPERVISOR HORTON: No. We will just make sure they are incorporated as part of the record. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Some very thoughtful responses. Some pictures. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Very helpful, actually. So we will close the hearing and we will move to the next hearing, which was scheduled for 8:05 P.M. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk