HomeMy WebLinkAboutDGEIS SCIS PH 6/19/03
1
2
e 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e 25
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
TOWN BOARD
STATE OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------x
TOW N
o F
SOU THO L D
PUB L I C
H EAR I N G
In the Matter of,
THE DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT of SOUTHOLD
COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
--------------------------------------------x
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York
June 19, 2003
7:30 p.m.
Board Members Present
JOSHUA Y. HORTON, Supervisor
THOMAS H. WICKHAM, Councilman
JOHN M. ROMANELLI, Councilman
WILLIAM D. MOORE, Councilman
CRAIG A. RICHTER, Councilman
GREGORY F. YAKABOSKI, Town Attorney
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE, Town Clerk
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
2
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Good evening,
and welcome to the Public Hearing on the Draft
Generic Environmental Impact Statement. We'll
begin the meeting, please rise and join with
me in the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Whereupon, all rose and
joined in the Pledge of
Allegiance. )
SUPERVISOR HORTON: We will
commence this Public Hearing prior to opening
it. A brief explanation for you. The first
hour will be dedicated to an explanation of
what the Draft Generic Environmental Impact
Statement is, and what's included in it and
some of the text incorporated within that
document. And that will be led by a group of
people that are sitting in front of me facing
you. I'll actually turn this over to
Councilman Wickham to open this Public
Hearing.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: This is to
certify that the following resolution, Number
349 of the year 2003 was adopted at the
regular meeting of the Southold Town Board on
June 3, 2003.
Whereas, the Board has assumed
lead agency status in the review of the above
referenced action and for the purpose of
compliance with the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, SEQRA and would be
necessary and issue --
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: I see
people making noise.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Can everybody
hear me? That's unusual. Let me start again.
How's this; is this any better?
MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: Yes.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Whereas, the
Town Board has assumed lead agency status in
the above-referenced action, the action being
the preparation of a GElS, for the purpose of
compliance of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act, SEQRA;
And whereas, the Board found that
a Generic Environmental Impact Statement would
be necessary and issued the appropriate
determination via a positive declaration to
require such document for the proposed action,
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
3
considering that the recommendations may
result in potential impacts, which may include
cumulative and/or generic impacts;
And whereas, the Board is familiar
with the scoping processes outlined in SEQRA;
And whereas, the Board held a
public Scoping meeting on January 29th of this
year, Southold Town Hall, hearing room a
period of 10 days were provided following the
public Scoping meeting to allow for submission
of written comments;
And whereas the Board accepted the
final scope as complete on April 8th;
Whereas the Draft GElS has been
prepared in conformance with the final
scope. I think many of you have seen the copy
of this draft that's now under consideration.
Whereas, the Board has reviewed
the document and determined that it conforms
to the required content as stated in the final
scope and is therefore adequate for public
review and comment.
Now, therefore, be it resolved
that the Town Board hereby accepts the Generic
Environmental Impact Statement after due
deliberation and review of the prepared
documentation for the purpose of public and
interested agency and party review;
And be it further resolved that
the Board hereby directs the Town Clerk to
file a notice of complete Draft EIS and Notice
of Public Hearing in accordance with the
notice of filing requirements.
So, be it further resolved that
the Board hereby sets the hearing date for the
Draft GElS at a special Town Board Public
Hearing on June 19th at the Southold Town Hall
hearing room, at which time the hearing will
start with a public information session on the
proposed action and the DGEIS documents from
6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. followed by an
opportunity for the public to comment on this,
on the DGEIS beginning at 7:30. Comment
period will remain open and the hearing will
be continued on June 23rd at 4:30 p.m. and
again on June 24th at 7:00 p.m. At least ten
days will be provided for written comment
after the close of the Public Hearing.
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
tit
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
tit
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
4
Be it further resolved that the
Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town
Clerk to file the Notice of Public Hearing in
at least one local newspaper at least 14 days
prior to this Public Hearing. She has done
that; in fact, we have filed it with two
newspapers. There have been a number of other
efforts to publicize this GElS. It's on the
web; is it not? It has also been made
available two copies each to all the libraries
here in the Town of Southold. There have been
other distributions. I know my copy has been
photocopied several times for various people;
so there's a lot out there.
I don't have much written comment
yet because this is just the beginning. The
only comment I actually have on this so far is
a letter to the Board from the Krupski family.
I'll just quote from them that, "We object to
the use of our picture in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement.
"This picture represents an
endorsement of a document that seeks to
destroy the rural quality and agricultural
heritage of the town.
"This does not accurately portray
agriculture, but instead would undermine and
eliminate it as it exists today.
"We, the undersigned in the
family, demand that all pictures, images and
specific references to our pumpkin farm be
immediately removed from all drafts." And
that's basically the only comment in writing
that we have before us tonight.
And I think, Mr. Supervisor, we
can turn it over to the team to outline to us
what's in the document.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you,
Councilman Wickham. As mentioned, Councilman
Wickham, in his reading of that formal
resolution, that this is the first of three
public hearings to be held on this document;
tonight being the first, the 23rd and 24th,
all being here at the Town Hall, as well as
there will be a period of ten days for the
public to provide written comments to the
Southold Town Board on this document.
At this point, we're going to
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
5
spend the next 45 to 60 minutes hearing from,
I'll announce from left to right, Melissa
Spiro, Chick Voorhis, valerie Scopaz and
Patrick Cleary, all of whom were basically
made up the moratorium team that did a lot of
the research and work that went into this
document; and they're going to spend the next
hour or so explaining what this document is as
a Power Point presentation to accompany it.
And I will now turn it over to Chick Voorhis
prior to public comment.
When we do have public comment,
after this portion of the meeting, I do ask,
and I will repeat this probably time and time
again, that when you approach this Board from
the podium at the front of the room, you speak
cleary from the microphone so we can keep an
accurate public record. State your name and
the hamlet in which you live for our public
record, as well as, if you could, please,
write your name and hamlet on the clipboard
that's provided on the podium there.
So, Chick, the floor is yours.
MR. VOORHIS: Thank you,
Supervisor Horton.
My name is Charles or Chick
Voorhis. I'm a member of the moratorium team
and the Town Board has asked us to prepare
some information on the work that has taken
place to date and to outline the procedures,
again, that will be followed during the course
of the hearing, after which we will open it
for public comments.
We're going to go through kind of
a who, what, when, how, where, why type of
scenario to give you some background, and as
part of the how part, we will go through some
of the key elements of the Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement, emphasizing
these with Power Point presentations to assist
with understanding.
The beginning here, we're going to
have Valerie just talk a little bit about the
moratorium, some of the background that
brought us to this point, and the parameters
for that moratorium.
MS. SCOPAZ:
you all hear me? Yes.
Thank you Chick, can
Okay.
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
6
As you know, last year I asked for
a moratorium and in August of 2002 the Town
Board enacted this moratorium. It's been in
effect since that period of time. Basically,
the moratorium only affects subdivision
applications that are of major or minor types
of applications.
There were some exceptions to the
rule. If you had some types of preservation
projects you were allowed to go through or
line applications or certain types of set
offs. The moratorium did not cover commercial
site development. It did not cover issuance
of building permits. It was simply the
applications before the Planning Board for
subdivision of land for residential
purposes.
Chick is going to go and give you
more background about what we are going to do
here tonight.
MR. VOORHIS: Basically the action
that's here before us tonight is known as a
Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. And
I'll just read from the scope so that it's
clear exactly what that action is.
"The action involves the
evaluation and more appropriate the
implementation by the Southold Town Board of
the recommended planning and program tools and
measures as described in the planning studies
undertaken within the Town over the past 20
years.
"The study's plans and
recommendations have been reviewed in terms of
current needs and Town goals to achieve the
Town's vision as articulated in these 19 plans
and studies as reviewed as part of the
strategy.
"These recommendations were
consolidated and summarized to be considered
by the Town Board for implementation in the
form of amendments to Town procedures, the
Town Code and various Town regulations in
conformance with the Town's master plan.
"As a result, the proposed project
involves legislative changes and with no
physical activities specifically proposed.
"The Town Board intends to
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
7
initially consider all prior recommendations
with an emphasis on those that protect
farmland and open space, promote affordable
housing and preserve natural resources. The
Board may prioritize, narrow down or select
implementation tools that best achieve the
goals of the Town."
This section is really brought
out -- this section is discussed in great
detail. In Section 1 of the Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement identifying
those tools, the Town's goals and specifically
laying out the proposed project that was
considered.
Now the Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement, also known as
the DGEIS, is an information gathering
document that is intended to clearly describe
the project, the existing environmental
conditions, the proposed or future
environmental conditions or impacts due to the
project, and also to examine mitigation of
potential impacts and explore alternatives to
an proposed action.
So that is what we're considering
tonight, and that is what is in the various
sections of the document.
MS. SCOPAZ: Thank you, Chick.
The next question that might be in
your mind is who is involved in this process.
As you see here we have Town Board members.
We have Town Board members here; they're the
lead agency. We have two councilmen of the
Town Board, who are liaisons between the
moratorium team and the Town Board, that is
Councilman Tom Wickham and Councilman Bill
Moore.
Throughout the whole process we
kept in touch with the Town Board through our
liaison councilmen, and also through actual
work sessions with the Town Board. All the
members are here tonight to receive your
comments on this draft document.
The team itself, we're going to
introduce ourselves. We're a mix of people
from the legal, planning and environmental
professions. Two of the members are not here,
that's Lisa Kombrick and Jim Gesualdi, both of
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
8
them are attorneys. Lisa Kombrick is an
attorney with extensive experience in
Southampton Town. She's now in private
practice. She was instrumental in helping
Southampton Town implement their version of
the proposed rural incentive district.
The other person, Jim Gesualdi, is
an accredited member of the American Institute
of Certified Planners. He's also an attorney
at law, and he has a specialty in land use,
planning and zoning matters. He is a member
of several professional organizations, and
he's been recognized by the American Bar
Association for his work in this area.
I'm going to ask Melissa to give
her own bio.
MS. SPIRO: Thanks. Melissa
Spiro, I'm a planner, have a Master's in
planning from the University of Rhode Island.
I've been working in the Town of southold
since 1988. I started working here for the
Planning Board. My main focus was on the
subdivision process and reviewing, and I work
very closely with the peconic Land Trust on a
lots of subdivisions. I also worked closely
with Valerie Scopaz and the Peconic Land Trust
on the 1999 Farmland Inventory and Protection
Strategy. And in the year 2000, the Town
Board created a land preservation department
and it was sort of a natural occurrence for me
to be transferred over to that department, and
I've been head of that department since it was
created. Thanks.
MR. VOORHIS: Chick Voorhis once
again, and my background is varied. I started
in environmental science, specifically
environmental geology at Southampton College,
and later I gained a Master's degree in
environmental engineering at Stony Brook
University.
I have been employed in government
for ten years, including the position as
Director of Environmental Protection for the
Town of Brookhaven overseeing implementation
strategies, wetlands programs, wildlife
protection, environmental review and project
review.
I started in consulting practice
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
9
in 1988 and have had several different firms,
most currently the firm of Nelson, Pope and
Voorhis. I'm a member of the American
Institute of Certified Planners, which is a
nationwide exam given by the American Planning
Association, and I'm also a Certified
Environmental Professional.
MS. SPIRO: Patrick.
MR. CLEARY: My name is Patrick
Cleary. I'm a planner. I'm one of the
planners on the team. I've been a practicing
planner for about 23 years. I am the
principal of Cleary Consulting; we're a
planning firm located in Northport in Suffolk
County. Prior to the inception of the firm in
1990, my experience was in municipal planning
and private consulting as well. My
undergraduate degree is in environmental
science. My Master's degree is in planning
from the University of Massachusetts. I also
am a member of the American Institute of
Certified Planners. I am a licensed
professional planner in the State of New
Jersey. I am a member of American Planning
Association, Oberland Institute, American
Society of Consulting Planners, and host of
other professional organizations. I'm on the
national board of the American Society of
Consulting Planners and our firm does work for
municipal clients primarily throughout the
entire metropolitan region.
MS. SCOPAZ: Thank you. For those
of you who don't know me, I'm Valerie Scopaz.
I'm with the Southold Town Planning Department
since 1987. I've been in the field since
1979, prior to working here in Southold, I
worked in various planning and zoning
positions for the Town of Smithtown Planning
and Community Development Department, and
prior to that as a consultant for Long Island
Regional Planning Board on the Waste Water
Management Plan.
Other work experiences include
research and writing for the Preservation
Foundation in Washington D.C. on various
coastal and groundwater resource protection
issues, and I'm reviewing environmental impact
statements for federally funded transportation
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
10
projects at the U.S. Department of Interior in
Washington.
I've also had the opportunity to
travel to China as part of a people-to-people
international planning delegation and to
Scotland as part of the U.S.-U.K. Countryside
Stewardship Exchange. I'm also an accredited
member of the American Institute of Certified
planners and also a member of the American
Planning Association and the New York Planning
Federation.
Our reason for giving you this
background is just to let you know who we are
and what we do, so you have some idea where
we're coming from.
I also want to mention to you --
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Valerie, as a
note, we would like to start the Public
Hearing portion at 7:30 promptly.
MS. SCOPAZ: We have, as part of
this project, we have pulled in together the
work of the Town geographic information system
staff, planning staff and other support staff.
There has been an ongoing dialogue between the
moratorium team and different department
committees within Town Hall. We have met with
the representatives of the Planning Board,
Zoning Board and the Trustee Board, and we
have talked with department heads and members
of the highway, engineering, assessors
building, building department and code
enforcement officers. We have also talked
with the Suffolk County Health Services and
the Suffolk County Water Authority. This
document has been circulated to many other
public agencies in part of this review
process, so we will be getting input from them
as well as from you.
This is for the public input,
there's no final decision being made
tonight. There is no policy decisions being
made, no recommendations being made.
The next part of the presentation
Pat's going to go into some of the
requirements that we are required to fulfill.
MR. CLEARY: That's right. Why
this format and why this tool and why this
convenient document. The Town Board, serving
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
11
as the lead agency in considering this group
of action is required to address the State
Environmental Quality Review Act. It's a law
that requires a decision-making body to take a
hard look at the environmental -- the
potential environmental impacts of an action.
And an action doesn't have to only be, as
Chick mentioned earlier, the construction of a
building or the subdivision of a parcel of
land, it can be the adoption of rules or
regulations. And that's really what we're
looking at in this exercise. It's not the
physical construction of something, but it's
the rules that may in the future govern
construction within the community.
This action is called -- is
classified as a Type 1 action, which is the
highest level of sort of scrutiny, regulatory
scrutiny that is offered under SEQRA, and as a
result of that, the Town Board elected to
prepare the Generic Environmental Impact
Statement as the best way to deal with that
level of review.
The document itself is a Generic
Environmental Impact Statement, as you heard
earlier, and that means that the analysis in
it is not specific to a particular
construction protect. It is more generalized,
and it addresses the consequences of the
choices that are involved in this action.
The project began, as Valerie
mentioned, last summer. The Town Board
authorized the creation of this moratorium
team and this team has been working diligently
since that time to assemble the material
that's compiled in the impact statement that
you have before you today.
The moratorium team began
immediately preparing the information that
went into this document in anticipation of the
Board's action to require the document. As
Mr. Wickham described earlier, the pos. dec.,
the positive declaration requiring that it be
done was adopted in January, public scoping
was held in the end of January, where we had
the opportunity to visit with many of you,
final scope was adopted in April, and the
document itself was accepted in the beginning
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
12
part of May.
Who, what, when, where. Where
question: This is a Town-wide evaluation.
And that's again a little bit different than
the experience many of you might have had with
impact statements. Some of the actions we're
considering are site-specific but generally
most of these reach the four corners of the
community, another reason why we're
considering this a generic environmental
review. So the where portion of it is the
entire Town of Southold.
Now the how piece. That's
Chick.
MR. VOORHIS: We're getting into
some of the substance and basically we've been
at work using state of the art geographic
information system technology and software and
hardware that the Town has invested in and
made a commitment towards over the past
year. This has been done with the assistance
of John Sepenoski, head of the data processing
department and a land preservation committee
member. We've also researched planning
techniques used on Long Island as well as
across the country performing that research
using web services, using different
periodicals and journals, using direct
contacts, Valerie has traveled to different
parts of the country in order to gain
information and brought it back here to
evaluate it.
Environmental impact analysis
procedures were conducted consistent with
industry practice in the manner that is
prescribed by various literature. There was
research and fieldwork, actual fieldwork that
was taking place during the course of the
preparation of this document as well as
modeling an analysis of the various facts that
were collected.
What we've done is created a
compilation of the existing Town conditions
based on current environmental facts and
information, and a complete understanding and
synthesis of all of the Town planning studies
over the past 20 years has been completed.
This is very important to set the background
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
13
to understand the direction of the Town and
the context that we're working in.
We also have a number of products
that come out of this as a result and these
are beneficial products that are with the Town
forever really and can be built upon and used
for Town planning purposes. These include a
full update of the GElS layers and graphic
database. There's been a Town wetlands map
prepared with field verification and various
mapping techniques with aerial photography,
checking of soil types and land topography.
Archaeological information has been collected,
demographic information which recently became
available through the U.S. 2000 Census has
been considered, and a full build-out analysis
has been prepared as part of this. There's
been a major effort toward tracking and
statistics, so that we could understand the
track record of the Town and how different
land use decisions have taken place in the
past and consideration of planning board
techniques, Town Boards policies, purchase of
development rights and other aspects that the
Town is using currently.
There was a very substantial
housing needs assessment from 1993 that has
been updated for the purpose of this study,
and housing opportunities and land use
techniques have also been outlined. There's
been a hamlet boundary designation methodology
created to help strengthen the hamlets and
achieve some of the goals that the Town has
been looking at for many years. Efforts have
been made towards tree preservation and
outlining potential local law parameters that
will be used in the future if this is one of
the techniques that the Town wishes to
consider. Also, planned development districts
is a very useful technique that has come about
in other parts of Long Island and the Country
that is incorporated into this.
There has also been an examination
of Suffolk County policy on transfer of
development rights, looking at that as a
potential tool, and many other benefits that
you'll see and reading the document and hear
about tonight.
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
14
Now we have prepared and that you
might want to get ready, just a couple of
quick Power Point presentations to give you a
more graphic feel for some of the work that's
taking place. And while Patrick is setting
up, the first one involves the build-out
analysis that was painstakingly formed in
order to understand the full theoretical
build-out of the Town under its current
zoning.
MR. CLEARY: Thanks, Chick. We
want to spend about five minutes to share with
you the methodology that went into our
build-out analysis. The build-out analysis
was critical to us for a couple of reasons.
The first and most the obvious is
that it produced a window toward the future.
It gave us an idea of how the Town might
develop under existing land use rules and
existing zoning conditions. The second thing
the build-out analysis did for us was it was a
forum for us to sort of organize that data
that Chick described to you. It was the
framework that forced us to integrate with
John and the GElS system, with all the
information that exists in the community and
put it into a useable format. So it did that
for us. But ultimately, what did the
build-out do, it really tells us how much
additional growth will occur in the community
and where. And that's under the existing land
use and zoning controls that are in place
today. So our build-out analysis is an
evaluation development potential based on
existing zoning in the community today.
Now that table that was handed out
to you is a summary table of the build-out.
And what I'm going to do is sort of go through
that with you so you have a better
understanding of the methodology we used to
prepare that.
The build-out analysis was used
the main tool for the build-out analysis
was -- by the way, if you don't have a copy,
we can certainly make additional coples for
you, but it's also in the document and the
venues where the document's available as
well. I think it's in the appendix. Chick,
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
15
do you know where it's referenced? We'll get
that for you.
The build-out analysis, again, the
technology we used the GIS method, the
technology to help us do these calculations,
so effectively, the build-out involves six
fundamental steps. We calculated the land
area within each of the zoning districts by
parcel. We accounted for all the existing
development that's already in place in the
community. Then we started to deduct things.
We deducted lands that were already protected
through the efforts of Melissa and so
forth. We then deducted lands that probably
wouldn't get built on, environmentally
constrained land, wetlands and slopes and
beaches and so forth then we added, we did the
calculations; we added a yield factor and
coverage factor that produced an estimate of
future construction, and then we did the map.
And the format of this, where this all is
presented is in that table that you have
before you, which is the build-out matrix.
What I'm going to do now is
quickly go across from left to right and tell
you what each of those columns mean.
First column, Column 1 is just the
zoning districts, and it identifies each of
the community's zoning districts.
Column 2 and Column 3 identifies
the lot sizes for each of those particular
zoning districts, again, the building block of
our analysis.
Number 4, Column 4 presents the
yield factor. Now the yield factor is a
number that we applied to estimate potential
growth, and the best number we had available
to us was the number that the Long Island
Regional Planning Board developed some years
ago during the 208 study. We evaluated that
factor in a number of different ways. In our
opinion it still remains the best yield factor
we could apply. We then applied coverage
factors to calculate non-residential growth,
commercial growth, and that factor was based
on actual approved projects within the Town,
back for a number of years. We reviewed every
approval and determined how much people were
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
e
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
16
1
2
building on particular parcels; that was
translated into a factor, and that's how we
calculated what would be built, and that was
based on lot coverage, which is basically the
square footage, the footprint as a percentage
of the lot itself, as illustrated on that
figure in front of you.
Continuing across the table, Land
Area by Zoning District, an exercise John
helped us with. That calculated the acreage
by zoning district.
Column 7, Acreages of Protected
Land. Continuing to move across, Community
facilities, it was important for us to
understand what properties and what land would
not get devoted to potential new development
in the future, churches and schools,
libraries, municipal facilities and so
forth.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
As you go across we start to see
subtotals, so we can keep the math straight as
we run across the columns.
Columns 10 and 11 are the
developed non-subdividable parcels in the
Town. Those are the properties that have a
use, have a residence, have a commercial
structure that could not be subdivided to
allow additional development to occur. We've
taken account of those.
We continue with the subtotal;
then we continue from the subtotal to Column
13, which is the vacant non-subdividable land;
the same theory but in this case there are no
buildings on that property which could not be
further subdivided. Subtotal again.
Then we go to Column 16, the
developed subdividable, again, these are
properties that have a use, have a dwelling,
have a commercial property that could be
subdivided to create an additional yield. So
someone may have a large parcel that could be
developed for additional uses.
Then we tried to calculate out of
that the developed part of the subdividable
parcel, and the example is in the R40 one acre
zoning district, if you had a three acre piece
and there was a house on it we would assign
one acre to that existing house, leaving two
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
17
acres of potentially buildable land, and
that's how that mathematical calculation was
done.
We then go to a subtotal again, on
Column 19; then we move on to the deductions
for those environmental constraints that I
talked about earlier. We deducted from our
calculation wetlands, properties that would
not be devoted to uses because they probably
would not get a permit to build in a wetland.
We did not -- we calculated from that the
portion of the wetland parcel that might be
built now, that's the 90 percent wet vacant
property.
We then went to Column 22, Beaches
and Bluffs. Again, we don't expect to see
development on beaches and bluffs, it's in our
gross land calculations, but we had to take
them out.
Column 23, Slopes. We took 15
percent slopes as a maximum that we thought
would not be constructed upon, we've got a lot
of that in the community, so we deducted steep
slopes out.
We then -- 24 lS the Net
Subdividable Areas to Develop. And what that
means is the Town has over nearly 9,000 acres
of developable land. Now we also calculated
existing development, what's there already;
and we used our same technology and
methodology to evaluate that.
And then Column 26 is the
Development Potential. Sounds pretty simple.
And what I'll do now is just give
you a real quick example, going across and
we're going to take the example of the R-80
district. If you follow R-80 across, you'll
see these numbers. First, we have the total
land by area by zoning, in this case over
7,000 acres.
Then we start moving. We deduct
protected lands; we deduct community
facilities. We have a subtotal.
From that, we deduct developed
non-subdividable. We're now at 14,000 acres.
You get a subtotal.
We keep going. We deduct vacant,
non-subdividable, just as I described prior,
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
18
before. We've got a subtotal. We deduct the
developed part of that subdividable property,
that's the illustration I showed you
earlier.
Following along, we have the
subtitle, now we're deducting our wetlands.
We've got 500 acres of those.
Beaches and bluffs in that zone,
136 acres, take it out.
We've got steep slopes almost 60
acres that comes out.
And that equals net
area to develop. Those are the
trying to get to, 2,600 acres.
to get those numbers.
Then we do our calculation, the
yield factor I described earlier and we take
out those portions of those wet properties
that could be built upon, and we have 1,300
units that could be constructed in the R-80
zoning district, and that's following across
our example.
So we wanted to take that time to
describe to you how the build-out analysis was
done. These are the findings, 6,333 dwellings
could be constructed in addition to what's
there now. An additional two and-a-half
million square feet based on these formulas
added to that. Add that to what we've got,
that's nearly 19,000 dwellings and potentially
seven million square feet of commercial space
under existing zoning controls, without
preservation efforts in place.
MR. VOORHIS: And it is important
to understand that this is in effect a
snapshot. That it's basically the conditions
that could exist if no other techniques were
put into place. It limits those areas that
are already protected, but it does not
consider the ongoing programs and purchases of
development rights and so forth.
It's also important to establish
this type of procedure for repeatability. So
that -- if you'll bear with me I'll get into
the next presentation -- for repeatability, so
that this can be simulated in the future. As
changes take place, you have a methodology, a
spreadsheet and you can go back in and use
subdividable
figures we're
Really cooking
.
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
19
those techniques again.
As I said, it's the theoretical
full build-out projections. Now, what we're
going to be doing is taking those projections
and performing impact analyses on them to
determine what type of growth could occur and
what impacts might occur to various resources
and community facilities.
As we have been talking about,
we've looked at the build-out potential under
DGEIS existing zoning conditions. We've also
looked at quantification of some of the
techniques that the Town is considering where
there's widespread acceptance, we're looking
to preserve 80 percent open space and
agricultural areas and reduce density by 60
percent in some of the more critical areas of
the Town.
So this is the purpose of
performing in this exercise to compare those,
and we've considered a number of resources in
doing that; of course, potable water, solid
waste, traffic, school children, are some of
the things that are quantifiable and can be
used as part of the simulation.
We've analyzed the full impact of
this development using a model and called it
the "Region Impact Assessment Model." It was
prepared using Excel spreadsheet technology.
It's used for the impact assessment of
build-out conditions and also to compare
conditions under different scenarios.
It's done by determining the
impact on Town resources that will occur as a
result of the increased number of units and
commercial square footage, as Pat has
mentioned. We assume that the Town's existing
zoning and development controls remain in
effect, and we've built on that build-out
analysis to perform this impact analysis.
There are a number of components
to the Regional Impact Assessment Model, and
basically it's set up in a form where we have
a data input sheet that allows us to set our
assumptions, use the various multipliers that
are accepted in the planning and environmental
fields. It prints out for each zoning
district those parameters and resource areas
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
e
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
1
20
2
where we're able to quantify the results.
There's an imbedded and micro
computer model that simulates the
concentration of nitrogen in recharge under
full development conditions in each zoning
district, and there's a summary sheet that
spits out all the data at the end, so that you
can easily use it for comparison purposes.
The resources that are considered
we have general use parameters and coverage;
we need that for some of the groundwater
pollution modeling. There's a water resource
analysis component, demographic analysis for
population of number of school age children.
There's a tax revenue analysis in order to
determine the number, the amount of taxes that
would result from the build-out; and that's
very important in assessing school district
impacts. We've determined the number of
school age children; we know how much tax
revenue goes into the school district, and we
can begin to look at that difference to see if
we're in a surplus or deficit situation.
There's a solid waste generation
analysis and also a transportation trip
generation analysis.
We've prepared multipliers based
on information gained from the Town through
the Tax Assessor's office, the Solid Waste
office and reviewed tax bills, used u.S.
Census data and training multipliers to set up
this model with the best information possible.
And, again, just a very brief
example, we'll go across the AC district.
This is what the individual sheet looks like
that's in Appendix F-2A, and the build-out
analysis is in the Appendix attached.
Looking at it in more detail,
there are a number of tables set up that take
the numbers available in that zoning district
and uses that multiplier factor to determine
the number of uses. This is exactly out of
the build-out analysis.
The coverage is established by
assuming certain varias for rooms, recharge,
natural areas, landscaped areas and home
sites. And that's important for the nitrogen
budget.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
21
This water resource analysis looks
at the sewage flows for each type of use and
projects out the amount of sanitary waste
that's generated that's used in the sonar
model to compute nitrogen and recharge. In
the AC district it's 1.78 milligrams per liter
as compared to a drinking water standard of
10. So that shows that the Town does have low
density zoning in those areas and resulting
concentrations can develop.
The demographic analysis looks at
school age children in population. This is
what the tax revenue analysis looks like
actually breaking down the tax revenue by
each taxing jurisdiction so it could be
determined what percentage of your taxes from
that development would be received.
The left box is the school tax
analysis. That basically takes the number of
school age children times the cost to educate
those children and subtracts it from the taxes
generated to the school district, and in the
case of AC, there's about a $6,000,000 deficit
that is expected because residential -- single
family residential development typically does
not cover itself in terms of tax revenue, and
you need other tax ratables such as industry
and commercial activity in the various areas
of the Town, and specifically, in the school
district.
A solid waste analysis is applied,
just take a number of pounds per person per
days times the number of people, and trip
generation similarly is the number of trips
per unit during the peak hours based on the
number of dwellings. And that allows us to
come up with this comparison of scenarios
we've performed it for the full build-out
condition, and, again, for the 80 percent land
preservation and 60 percent density reduction
in the AC and R-80 districts.
The impact summary is a sheet at
the end of the model that basically takes all
of those zoning districts, totals them up for
each of the parameters that I just explained,
and at the bottom gives you the final numbers
in terms of each of those parameters. Some of
the more interesting ones are that nitrogen
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
22
and recharge varies from in the high 1 to 2
parts per million or milligrams per meter
range up to 5 or 6, and school district
revenue, does end up being somewhat of a
deficit, meaning the need to plan, seek State
aid and insure that we have a proper mix of
different uses in the community.
These are fairly intuitive. I'm
not going to go through them in detail. But
it just basically shows that in full build-out
conditions, each of these areas increases in
terms of sanitary water usage, trip generation
all of those parameters. And basically, in
summary, if the Town's remaining open space
were fully developed in conformance with
zoning, there would be a significant and
quantifiable increase in these areas that we
talked about.
The next part involves an 80-60
analysis, and I'll just quickly scroll
through. In considering the legislative
actions, not all of them are quantifiable, but
some are in particularly the open space of 80
percent and the density reduction allow us to
plug that in to those specific zoning
districts to see what the result is.
This is the resulting summary
sheet that is also in Appendix 2A or a later
one, 28 I believe. And there's a comparison
that basically shows that under the density
reduction and open space preservation, there
is a $6,000,000 benefit in terms of taxes to
the school district; there are of course less
units -- much of this is intuitive -- less
people and so forth, but it gives us sort of a
baseline of future projected conditions, and
allows us to look at different scenarios and
determine the measurable benefits of those
actions. These include a reduction in
residential units, reduce water use, nitrogen
loading and increase preservation of open
space and ecological resources, a decrease in
vehicular trips and a decrease in the number
of school age children and deficits. And this
is just a table that you can't see, but it
compares them in a little bit different
fashion that, again, emphasizes those points
that I discussed.
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
23
We're going to go into the next
part. We have about ten minutes left, and
we'll get to the public portion.
MR. CLEARY: Two quick final
pieces we wanted to share with you that we
thought we wanted to talk about. The first is
the hamlets.
When we went into this exercise
there was a lot of work that had been done and
there was a great emphasis placed on the
community's hamlets. And we started to work
toward dealing with that issue, and no one
could say where the edge of a hamlet was,
where was the boundary of a particular hamlet,
and we thought that was a bit of a concern, so
what we decided to do was take a detour and
really focus a good deal of time on the
hamlets. And Appendix 8A of the DGEIS
presents a methodology of dealing with the
hamlets. There's a two-pronged approach.
The first is we made an effort to
create a boundary for each of the community's
hamlets, a hard line, a line on the ground
where the hamlet starts and where it ends.
We then looked inside that
boundary, and a lot of the evaluation to this
point has revolved around keeping development
away from the agricultural areas and the open
space areas and redirecting it into the
hamlets. So once we started to look inside
those hamlet boundaries, we realized there's
not a lot of room left to build to redirect
anything into the hamlets, so we were left
with a bit of a problem. So that was the
second piece of our approach. We tried to
define the hamlets, and please take the time
to look at that. And then we tried to develop
a system that would encourage development in
the immediate vicinity of the hamlets. And
what we've created is a -- what we're calling
a "Halo Zone," which is a floating zone that
surrounds the hamlet, that affords some
additional density as an incentive to bring
development from the outlying open space,
agricultural areas, into the area immediately
adjacent to the hamlets and in the hamlets, if
that were possible. So I wanted to take a few
minutes to touch on that, as Appendix 8A.
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
24
A final piece that we looked at in
this exercise if it's nothing else, it is a
reaffirmation of that whole range of facts
that govern the Town and apply to the Town and
we looked at those that apply to housing and
population.
Housing is such a critical issue
in a community, we wanted to make sure we had
the facts right. We looked at population, and
I am just going to tell you things you may
already know, but some of it's kind of
interesting. The 2000 population -- and this
information was collected from the 2000 Census
and a series of other demographic
organizations and some of it was collected
internally. The 2000 Census pegged the
population in the community at 20,599. By
2002, LIPA had estimated its population had
increased to 21,000; based on our work with
the build-out analysis, saturation population
and that other table you probably can't see
too well, the saturation population, how many
people that can fit in the community will be
over 30,000, about 31,000 people. That's a
lot of people.
The population in the community is
not evenly distributed; it's spread out among
the hamlets unevenly. Southold holds the most
with over 5,000 followed by Mattituck and
Cutchogue.
The age of you all, something to
be aware of. The community is primarily
middle aged, but the fastest growing portion
of the community are the 65 and above. It's
something to be keenly aware of as we plan for
the future of the community.
Housing units. There are 13,769
units as of the year 2000. Ninety
of those are single family detached
That is a fairly limited range of
opportunities.
If we use our build-out models,
the red indicates where we are. The yellow is
our estimate of full build-out, how many
additional dwellings can be constructed, and
we're talking about 6,000 additional dwelling
units that could be constructed in the
community, for a total number of over 20,000
housing
percent
homes.
housing
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
e
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
25
1
2
dwelling units.
The housing stock is old; some of
you may know that by your efforts to maintain
your dwellings. Well-maintained but old.
Twenty-five percent of the buildings in Town
were built prior to 1939. Occupancy date,
however, is quite interesting; most people,
that second bar (indicating), have occupied
their dwellings within the last 10 years.
Only 16 percent of the people in the community
have lived in their home for over 30
years. It's kind of an interesting fact. The
National Housing Opinion Survey that was done
in the late '90s revealed some interesting
statistics. Most people have a favorable
opinion of their home; most people have a
favorable opinion of their neighborhood. I
don't know about their neighbors but their
neighborhood.
We looked at a whole range of
additional demographic factors, households and
group quarters, special needs populations
where grandparents were the primary caregiver
in the community. But the one that became
most important to us was the elderly
population, and this was a description of the
elderly population by hamlet. That large bar
shows Southold accommodates most people that
fall into that category in the community.
We looked at employment, 16,682
people are in the work force in the community
right now. Thirty-seven percent are in the
professions, 26 percent are in sales or office
work, and interestingly, only 1.9 percent of
the Town's work force are employed in
agricultural or in the traditional maritime
industry. It's an interesting fact.
Incomes, the median household
income in the year 2000 was nearly
$50,000. The median family income was about
$61,000. We are greater than the State
average; we are substantially lower than the
County average, only Riverhead is lower than
Southold in terms of median incomes. That's
that table that describes that right there
(indicating) .
The income distribution, wages
make up most of your income, but that purple
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
26
slice, retirement income is a growing slice of
the pie.
Cost of housing, the 2000 Census
indicated that the median value of a home in
the community was $218,000. We had some
questions about that, so we looked at the sale
of every home in the community for the past
three years, over 900 sales, accounting for
over $336 million. In fact, the actual sales
price for homes was $390,000, that was the
average sale price. Quite an issue. That's a
description of the sale prices, and it's
interestingly distributed by communities. As
you can see Fisher's Island, most of the more
expensive homes were in Fisher's Island.
Finally, to conclude on this
piece, housing costs, the monthly housing
costs as recorded in the 2000 Census. The
average was over $1,400 for individual
mortgage payments, 41 percent of the people in
the community devoted more than a quarter of
their income to their monthly mortgage
payment. Over 23 percent devoted over 35
percent of their monthly income to meeting
their mortgage payment. It was even worse for
renters, 54 percent, over 25 percent of their
monthly income, a fully 41 percent of people
who rent homes in the community pay over 35
percent of their monthly income to pay for
their rent.
So we wanted to touch base
quickly. It's a very desirable community. It
remains so. The population continues to
increase. Housing opportunities are at this
point limited, and the housing costs are
rising rapidly. It's an issue of supply and
demand. So we wanted to share that with you
as well.
MR. VOORHIS: We're just going to
quickly go through - -
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Much left?
MR. VOORHIS: I'm sorry, go
ahead.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Do you have
much left ?
MR. VOORHIS: Very briefly, ground
rules, procedures and so forth.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Okay, continue
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
27
with that.
MR. VOORHIS: And basically, as
you know, we're here to receive your input
this evening, that's the purpose of this
hearing, that's the purpose of the circulation
of the document throughout the community. And
the DGEIS has been compared to the Scope and
accepted by this Board, but it's just a draft
document. It really doesn't become final
until we have the comments throughout the
comment period, and those are addressed
satisfactorily. No decisions have been made
at all on this project, and the purpose of
this hearing is to make sure that we've
gathered the information, that we have
assessed the impacts and that we are
essentially putting them forward into the
decision-making process.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Chick, if you
don't mind, I'm going to actually intervene at
this point. We have been an hour into this
hearing, and over the course of that time,
more and more people are arriving. I have
people down both wings, both hallways of Town
Hall, and in the interest of having this as a
truly open meeting and one in which everyone
can get a seat and have the opportunity to
participate in this meeting, please understand
this and take this lightly and work with me,
but I'm going to recess and reconvene the
meeting this evening at Southold High School
in the Southold High School auditorium. I
understand that may be a bit of disruption to
this meeting, but, again, in all fairness to
everybody who's here tonight, standing all the
way down the hallway, both sides of the
building, I think it's a prudent move to do.
So, at this point, we're going to
recess, and we'll give people some time to get
there. We'll reconvene at 8:00, commencing
the meeting at 8:00 sharply. At the Southold
High School in the auditorium.
MR. VAN BOURGONDIEN: Josh, do you
think in that half-hour you can get Louisa
Evans and Bill Moore here? This is one of the
most important things that is taking place in
Southold, and two Board members are missing.
I'm not a happy camper.
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
28
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Van
Bourgondien, thank you. Eight o'clock and
please do attend. We'll be reconvening at
Southold High School auditorium at 8:00.
(Whereupon, at 7:30 p.m. the
Public Hearing was adjourned to recommence at
8:00 p.m. at the Southold High School
auditorium located at 420 Oaklawn Avenue in
Southold, New York.)
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you for
your patience in working with us to reconvene
this public hearing on the Southold Town Draft
Generic Environmental Impact Statement.
Most of you, I believe, were at
Town Hall with us as the, according to our
consultants and planners, gave a Power Point
presentation and some brief explanation as to
what this document is.
At this point, I'm going to open
the floor to the general public to address the
Town Board on this document itself, specific
comments on this document.
I will ask, we have a number of
people here tonight, we'll have to do our best
to limit our comments to about five minutes,
if we can, in the interest of everybody who's
here who would like to share.
As we mentioned, commencing of
this Public Hearing, that we will have two
other public meetings, public hearings on this
document, June 23rd and June 24th, and that
the place was initially at Town Hall, and I'm
going to have to do some more fancy footwork
to see if this is going to continue to be our
place of meeting for these public hearings.
So at this point, what I'll do is
I'll open the floor to the public and ask you
to give a show of hands, and, if when you do
address the Town Board, it's very important in
keeping an accurate public record that you
state your name and place of residence clearly
in the microphone located here in the center
aisle of the auditorium, your name and place
of residence, please. And at that point
there's also a sheet if you wouldn't mind just
jotting your name and the hamlet in which you
reside on that sheet.
So I will open the floor to the
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
29
public for comment on the DGEIS.
Mr. Krupski.
MR. KRUPSKI: Good evening.
Albert Krupski, Jr., East Cutchogue.
I'd like to address the Board and
the Team tonight, not as a member of the
farming community, I'll save that for a
separate night. I don't want to confuse two
different issues.
I'd like to address the Board and
the Team as a Town Trustee and President of
the Town Trustees.
This year, for the past few years,
I've been on the Board. I was first elected
in 1985. There are currently two Board
members here tonight, Miss Foster and Peggy
Dickerson. We had our last Board meeting last
night at Town Hall, and I'm here really not to
comment on the draft because we have had a
hard time getting copies. And that's -- my
comment tonight is that last Friday we had to
really beg for a copy. Thank goodness Betty
Neville, who always comes through, came
through with a copy.
I reviewed it somewhat over the
weekend, certainly not completely. I gave it
to Jim cain; he reviewed it somewhat. He gave
it to Peggy and it hasn't quite made it around
the Board, and it hasn't been reviewed at all
by our attorney either, who I heard, about
three hours ago, did get a copy.
I think when you spend $200,000 on
something that's supposed to be important for
the Town, it would be important if it were
coordinated with all concerned agencies.
For those of you who don't know,
the Town Trustees have jurisdiction over the
wetlands and underwater land in Southold Town.
Our jurisdiction goes back to 1676 Governor
Andrews of New York issued a Colonial patent,
and it gave the Town the ownership of the
underwater land among other things. The Town
still owns us. We also have jurisdiction
under Chapter 97 of all activity within one
hundred feet of those wetlands.
Now the only thing I noticed in my
short and brief and incomplete review of the
document is that it said that the Town
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
30
Planning Board issues freshwater wetland
permits, and I just want to make that clear
that I do know how many wetlands permits the
Town Board of Trustees issued this year and
last year and for the last 18 years. All the
of them. And, so I want to request more time
for our Board to give this document a thorough
review, so that we can make comments on what's
actually in it, and not speculate as to which
direction it's going or whatever, 'cause
that's not fair to the document or the people
who worked on it.
So, I don't know how much time
would be necessary. Next Monday seems like a
stretch, considering that I believe not all
Board members here have a copy. I do not have
one. I haven't had one for a few days, and I
would like to give it a fair review.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you,
Mr. Krupski.
Mr. Esseks.
MR. ESSEKS: Good evening. My
name is Bill Esseks. I'm an attorney. I
practice in Riverhead and I believe I'm
knowledgeable about the SEQRA process.
I appear here representing many
farm families. I'm going to have to put them
in writing, including Dr. Damianos and various
property owners.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Speak into the
mike, please.
MR. ESSEKS: I apologize.
My name is Bill Esseks. I'm a
lawyer. I represent a lot of farm families
I'm here to speak with regards to
the Draft Generic Environmental Impact
Statement. But I'm also speaking with regard
to what I perceive to be the purpose of the
process and the alternatives especially the
so-called 80-60 alternative, and I want to
preface what I said have to say, and I hope it
could be more than five minutes because I
represent more than one party -- I want to
read from Armstronq versus the United States,
and this is something that everybody should
take into account when they read the draft.
That is, "That the Fifth Amendment guarantees
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
31
that private property shall not be taken for
private use without just compensation" -- that
means money -- "was designed to bar government
from forcing some people alone to bear public
burdens which, in all fairness and justice,
should be born by the public at whole." In
many ways, that's what we're talking about
here tonight, and that's what's being
discussed in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement.
I'm upset that you don't have a
map up showing all the green and where all the
houses are and where all the farms are and
where the AC district is and where the R-80
district is. That map, showing in colors how
the Town is laid out, where the housing is,
where the open space is and where the farmers
are, tells a story much larger than all the
words that I can say or all the consultants
can say or you can say.
The 80-60 proposal, that is, for
those who haven't read this or heard about it,
would mean that today on 100 acres, a farmer
could have today about 47 lots; two-acre
zoned, 50 percent open space, 47 lots on 100
acres.
Under the proposal, it's going to
go to five acres instead of two acres and
you're going to have 16 to 17 lots on 20
percent of the property, and 80 percent will
be open. And if someone wants to turn their
100 acres or 200 acres into a subdivision,
you're going to have to put an agricultural
easement on 80 percent. And beyond that,
there is the perception or the specific
statement that a purpose for doing this is to
preserve the public view across this farm
shed. In effect, a view easement is being
demanded of the person who owns the open
space, the farmland or the R-80, in exchange
for using that property. And I submit that
where a Town Board -- if it does this -- where
it says that we're going to take into account
public use for neighbors or travelers or
itinerants in setting up our land plan, who
are saying that you, the owners
of this vacant property, these large tracts,
now zoned R-80 or AC, are now going to have to
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
32
give up part of their property, their right to
use their property, and to allow a view across
it; that is something the public should pay
for as opposed to the farmer giving up. And
that is a challenge that I hope doesn't go any
further than the SEQRA process.
If the Town Board is bound and
determined to acquire easements over 80
percent of these properties, there are
different ways to go about it.
The easiest way is to pay for it;
to negotiate it. That is the traditional way
where people acquire these things. I do not
see an examination of that in the EIS.
Another way to do it is to condemn it. If a
property owner is bullheaded and says I won't
sell, you have a right to condemn it. You'd
have that power. Then a court fixes the just
compensation. I don't see an examination of
that, a review of that. I think that's
missing from the SEQRA process.
Another thing you can do is you
ask to set up an Improvement District. You
have improvement districts for other purposes,
highways, water, lighting, park. In those
districts, each person In their district, in
their tax bill has an extra line that covers
that improvement. You could have an
improvement district for acquisition of
easements, they'd be view easements. If that
is such a valuable property right, valuable
public amenity that you're going to force
somebody to give it up, consider, besides
negotiation and condemnation, consider
repaying them through an improvement district.
However, all I see in the DGEIS is
the attempt under the police power to take it
away without compensation and without
providing a remedy whereby you can get money
for it. There is a brief -- I think, I may
find it -- Oh, here it is -- the TDR idea.
The TDR law that has been upheld so far, so
far I should say, it required the State and
County to put up I think it's the sum of 125
or $130 million in the bank. I do not believe
that you should come up with a TDR program or
an involuntary TDR program without having a
huge bank account.
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
33
I also heard earlier this evening
some concerns about TDRs, where you would put
them in the downtown areas that are already
built up. But a TDR, unless it's evaluated
based upon where it's coming from instead of
all being treated the same regardless of their
location, I believe is unconstitutional.
To have a piece of the land on
59th Street and Park Avenue treated the same
way as a piece of property in Queens or the
Bronx can't be proper. They have different
values, and I don't see any discussion about
that at all.
I'd like to discuss some of the
issues that I think are specifically not
covered in the DGEIS, the Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement.
The first is lack of consideration
of the condemnation alternative, lack of
consideration of the purchase alternative,
lack of consideration of the improvement
district alternative, lack of consideration of
the effect of this requirement, 80-60, upon
the existing -- I understand very
successful -- sale and development rights
program. That program is working well. I'm
told by my clients that that is the subject of
thousands of acres over the years being
retired voluntarily at negotiated
prices. Now, what's going to happen to that
if you're going to take thousands of acres
involuntarily, or say if you want to develop
your property, if you want to subdivide it the
way everybody else does, you're going to have
to give up 80 percent. What's that going to
do to the voluntary program? I don't see that
being discussed.
There is another issue being
discussed that's allied to the ones I just
touched on, and that is the transfer of value.
And I hope, Mr. Supervisor, at the next
hearing, you'll have a large map with all the
colors on it, so that the people can look at
it and people can point to it. Because if you
look at that map, you can see that certain
properties would be very heavily benefitted by
this involuntarily.
So as the farmer's value goes
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
34
down, he is restricted to only 20 percent of
his property. And if that view easement is as
valuable as they seem to be saying in their
Environmental Impact Statement, that right to
a view, and that perpetual right to the view
easement is going to result in other
properties going up in value. Now, have we
studied that? Have you studied that? And
what is going to happen to the taxation?
The Town's taxes remain relatively
constant going up, and, the farmers and the
open space parcels are paying a percentage,
you're going to take that down with the 80-20,
and you're going to give a reported right to
other people and their taxes are going to go
up. Do they know that? Have you told the
public that you're going to enhance the value
of their property; and, thereby, the assessor
is going to be able to increase the value of
their property for tax purposes? Have you
measured that? Should you measure that? And
if you failed to measure that, are you not
violating your duties as the lead agency in
this proposed rezoning?
What is the effect of this going
to have on the future of farming? The
farming on the south fork is not doing as well
as it should, and I spend a lot of time there
so I don't want to start a fight with them.
But from my knowledge, the farming is doing
reasonably well here in the future, and what
are you going to do to that?
I mention that because if I have a
commercial building, I can practice my
business in that commercial building, make a
living there, the commercial business and my
land and building are going to go up in value
with the passage of time. I'm getting a
double reward. I'm making money and my
equity's increasing.
You're telling the farmer that you
are the only person in this town who has a
business where you can try to make a living,
but we're going to make your equity go down.
Has that been decided? Has that
been discussed? Has that been analyzed? Is
that fair? I'm not sure that we'd deal with
fairness in that part of my discussion, but
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
35
just in the process, has that process been
analyzed? Some people say that after they
adjust that hopefully after a dip, you'll
start to go up. But if everybody else is
going up like this (indicating), and the
farmer is going up like this (indicating), you
have chosen that person, that entity, that
person, that business, to be treated
differently than anyone else and that's not
fair. I think it may not be legal, but it's
certainly not fair.
There is discussion as to what
farmer's are going to be able to do once they
subdivide their property 80-20 percent. Part
of that choice is you're going to have to
tell, the Town's going to be involved where
the greenhouses go and the fences go and where
things go that might interfere with the view.
It's interesting that the view from the public
that's coming in from the city and from
Riverhead, from the west or the view from the
local people, which is a different issue, but
who's going to decide; who's going to make
these decisions? I don't think that's been
thought through.
When I was here in January, the
Supervisor of East Hampton came in and spoke
very eloquently. He said, you know what
you're doing even thinking about this? You
people know about the trade parade.
I see in the DGEIS that there's a
question about traffic. Your traffic is going
to increase. As you raise the value of the
houses, as you increase style, if you can
reduce it enough -- by doing this, in spite of
the rezoning, is going to reduce, quite
dramatically, the number of housing units that
can be available. As you do that, you drive
up the value remaining houses, supply and
demand. I heard that mentioned by a
consultant earlier this evening. When you
reduce that supply, demand doesn't go down,
the demand actually goes up because the place
is a more desirable place to live, and the
cost of housing goes up; as the cost of
housing goes up, you drive out your middle
class.
You go talk to the supervisors in
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
e
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
36
1
2
East Hampton, Southampton, you'll find out
that everybody who works -- virtually
everybody who works in the schools or the town
halls or for any utility, or for any people
who do the work, the plumbers. Rich people
can't do a damn thing. It has to be the
people who come from somewhere else that come
in here, clog up the roads. I don't think
that's been thought about.
A perfect example, and you should
put it in your Impact Statement, you should
analyze it, is go find out where the school
teachers are, where they live. They can't
live in the Hamptons. They can't even get to
work. Like tomorrow, I'm going to go to my
Watermill office. I'm going to leave at 5:30
to get there; if I leave any later, I'll be
with all the plumbers and electricians in
bumper to bumper traffic. I don't see that
being analyzed in your Impact Statement and
you should do it.
Now, the next to the last thing is
something that you should consider, and to the
extent that I can, I try to insist that you
put it in your Impact Statement.
Right now, I'm involved, as the
papers will tell you and others are involved
in the formations of villages in the Town of
Southampton. And those villages are being
formed because public property owners don't
trust the Town Board. They feel they have
been lied to, cheated, taken advantage of, and
they vote with their veto. They don't leave
the community, they leave the town. They form
their own village. It's not hard. You need
five square miles and 500 houses. That
alternative must now, I submit, be a part of
your examination, your review. I'm not making
that up. This happened once already in the
Town of Southampton. It is happening while we
stand here, and I'm involved in a third one
there. It is not a big deal. We can either
get annexed or secede; you get your own
zoning; you rent your own firemen -- not
firemen, the police and everything else. It's
not a big deal. That should be addressed
because you're supposed to take into account
in your DGEIS the natural consequences or even
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
.
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
37
1
2
the unnatural consequences of what you're
doing, and what you're doing is you're revving
people up to do things that you may not want
them to do.
Finally, I said in January and I
say now, notwithstanding what anyone else
says, if you don't do an economic analyze,
you're going to make it much easier for me to
bring a lawsuit to set aside DGEIS. If your
consultants tell you you don't have to do it,
more power to you. I shouldn't complain, I'm
not going to spend more time on it, but you're
foolish not to do the economic analysis.
I hope to come back and argue with
you some more. I hope that you'll have some
maps up so we can point out who gets the
benefits of this change of zoning and who gets
hurt. I hope your consultants will agree with
some of what I say, and change, put in the
supplement, take into account my suggestions.
And I thank you very much for your attention.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you,
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Mr. Esseks.
Sir, in the blue shirt, Mr. Weir.
And I guess at this point it's
probably right for me to say that limiting our
comments to five minutes is not practical, and
this is a weighty document, so I will afford
the public, each and every person, as much
time as they need to address the Town Board.
MR. WEIR: Steve Weir. I'm not a
lawyer so it probably won't take me more than
five minutes.
Greetings, my name is Stephen
Weir. I live in Riverhead. I'm the
Vice-President for First pioneer Farm
Credit.
I'm in charge of well over $100
million in loans to Long Island's agriculture.
A good portion of those loans are outstanding
to Southold's farmers and are secured by
Southold's farmland.
In February 2003, the Suffolk
County Farmland Protection Board and
Agricultural Economic Committee, of which I am
a member of, hosted an expert dinner speaker
series in Polish Hall in Riverhead. The first
speaker was Nathan Rudgers, the Commissioner
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
e
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
1
38
2
of Agricultural for New York State.
He spoke on transit agricultural
and farmland use, nationally, statewide and on
Long Island. One amazing fact stood out to
me: Over the past ten years, millions of
acres of farmland have been lost in New York
State. Lost not to development, but to what
the commissioner calls fallow uses.
The reasons given all pointed to a
lack of an economically viable farm industry
in the affected areas. Farming disappeared;
so did the farmland and so did the open space.
It appears that you can't have farmland
without an economically viable farm industry.
So at Farm Credit, we were very
surprised to see no economic or financial
analysis on Southold's agricultural industries
and its farmland in the DGEIS. I would have
thought that that needs to be done. The lack
of that analysis is of great concern to our
industry and here's why: The DGEIS is
proposing significant changes to Southold's
agricultural industries, including a
limitation on the number and density of
development units allowed on farmland.
These proposed initiatives offer
changes to the economic equilibrium which
exist today in Southold's agricultural
industries. Zoning changes of upzoned land
are likely to decrease the value of farmland
and farmer's equity. The impact on farmland
values resulting from the 80 percent open
space requirement in Southold is unknown.
This report did not present an
analysis of the impact on farmland values. In
addition, this report didn't present an
analysis on the impact that lowered farmland
values would have on Southold's agricultural
industries.
From our experience, the impact of
lower farmland values can be significant and
here's why: Farmer's use land to produce farm
products that are sold for profit. Farmers
will keep farming if they can reasonably
expect that profits will continue in future
years. Unfortunately, farm profits are
predictable and generally low. So the farmers
rely on their real estate assets for financial
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
e
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
39
1
2
security in off years.
Farmers rely on land as a source
of financial security that they expect will
appreciate in value over time. If a farmer's
perspective of future appreciation changes,
their financial security is diminished.
Facing low profits, lower expected real estate
appreciation, farmers will be more likely to
give up farming. Real estate is a cornerstone
of agricultural enterprises; reducing real
estate values interrupts business structure
and permanently endangers the health of
agricultural in many ways.
First, lowered land values reduce
farmer's equity. Equity of a borrower is a
key component in making a loan decision. The
higher the equity the more likely loan
approval can be granted.
Second, lower equity also reduces
a farmland owner's ability to survive the bad
years. Agricultural has historically been
plagued by periodic and unpredictable years of
poor earnings and losses; this year is setting
up to be just one of those years. In order to
survive those bad years farmers use their land
to cover those losses either by pledging real
estate for loans or In Long Island selling off
development rights.
Third, lowered land values reduce
the amount of collateral that farmers have
available to pledge. Southold's farming is
a capital intensive business with huge
financial requirements. Debt has long been a
necessary component of running a farm
business. In our agricultural economy,
reduced land values will reduce farmers'
ability to borrow from Farm Credit and from
other lenders.
Fourth, decreasing land values
motivate farmers to sell real estate. Farmers
will want to preserve their equity to selling
real estate now to avoid further losses down
the road. This is especially true if lowered
land values result from conditions that a
farmer cannot control, such as regulation and
public policy.
The great news is that Southold is
blessed with great farmers, great natural
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
e
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
1
40
2
resources, access to great markets, access to
capital and an established infrastructure. It
is our opinion that this plan will interrupt
that. By how much? In reading this report,
we can only guess. Guessing in a business as
serious as farming is a risk most of us can't
afford to take.
Since farmland protection is a
stated goal of this report, we can't
understand why you didn't consider the
economic impact on farmland and the farming
industry in Southold. Thank you.
MR. VAN BOURGONDIEN: Good
evening, Ladies and gentlemen. I'm really
still upset that Louisa isn't here. Thank
you, Bill, this is a very important issue.
At this point I'd like to
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
acknowledge
AUDIENCE: Speak up.
MR. VAN BOURGONDIEN: My name is
Bob Van Bourgondien. I had the pleasure of
speaking to Mrs. Egan last night, and I don't
know if the moratorium team knows anything
about the dynamics of a farm and a farm
family, not only that, I don't think they
understand the dynamics involved in turning
that farm over to the next generation.
I am very proud to be a third
generation farmer, and it's taken a lot of
equity in the business to continue. I've seen
a lot of equity in the business not there. We
would not have been able to continue farming
without it. So that definitely has not been
taken into account.
There is a socio-economic I know
we accounted for; I thought it was 2.4 percent
of the population, and before we left the
other hall I understand we accounted for 1.4
percent.
To understand how we got here
tonight, we need to go back in time. Around
March 2000, a five acre zoning was announced
with Ben Rulowski and a quote that still
resonates with me today is, Bob, don't worry,
five acre zoning will make it easier to
develop your property. Maybe he meant that
you might want to develop it if it goes to
five acres. And conversations with Scott
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
e
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
41
1
2
Russell, who informed me that this was not in
the best interest of agriculture. He couldn't
understand what the other side of Town Hall
was trying to do to agriculture. In fact, he
spoke on the farmer's behalf on the first
informational meeting as Chair of the
Agricultural Advisory Committee asking for a
list that would affect farmers and landowners.
Gene Cochran attempted to thwart that list.
A few other things bothered me
along the road. There's a comment at the
first informational meeting when Greg
Yakaboski said under five acre zoning with a
one acre cluster effectively sterilizes four
other acres. What fair-minded Southold
landowner wouldn't cringe over that comment?
With that said, it's ironic that
exactly two years ago today, on June 19, 2000,
Southold farmers had their tractor rally.
This was a peaceful display of dissatisfaction
with the Southold Town Board's five acre
upzoning proposition.
On June 28th -- coincidentally is
my birthday -- Senator LaValle in the year
2001 sent a letter to Gene Cochran, offered to
explore preservation efforts along with
Assemblywoman Acampora and the Governor, along
with Farm Bureau's Long Island director in
conjunction with the Town Board. It's obvious
that the Board neglected to explore this
tremendous opportunity.
I can only imagine Gene's retort
to Senator LaValle: It's my way or the
highway. Well, we know what having an
attitude does. Obviously someone hit the
highway.
At every opportunity the
agricultural community has tried to prompt
preservation as the best and fairest way to
preserve Southold. Now, I'm going to fast
forward -- because there's a lot of people,
fair-minded people of Southold really
cringing -- so I'm going to fast forward. At
a recent meeting that Scott Russell put
together with some of farmers and Tim
Caulfield of the Peconic Land Trust, we met
with Craig Richter; that was about two months
ago, so I've skipped a lot of time in between.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
.
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
1
42
2
Among Scott's proposals, he suggested
extending the moratorium for another two years
to get all the tools in place for
preservation. Every farmer is different, all
the tools need to put in place for farmers of
different types and different farm family
situations to make use of those tools. The
comment, one of the comments that Craig made
was they'll lynch me. Hmmm. One only has
to wonder -- SOS -- and extend the moratorium.
And I kind of doubt that the N.F.E.C. has
extended the moratorium under the current
rules. Hmmm. . makes one wonder.
As Chair of the Agricultural
Advisory Committee, I want all of agriculture
to thrive and evolve, whether it's sod,
horses, grapes, vegetables, nurseries and my
competitors, as well as Bob Van Bourgondien,
Third Generation Farm Family and continue to
the fourth and fifth generation. I object
strenuously to a lot of the flaws in this
document that might make that very difficult
for my farm family. However, I'm becoming
increasingly convinced the four republican
Board members don't care about the Van
Bourgondiens or other Southold families for
that matter; otherwise, over the last two
years they would be working with us on the
other tools.
I also question why there's a
problem with not having enough money to
continue preserving what we were preserving.
The Community Preservation Fund goes to the
year 2020. We brought in three and-a-half
million dollars. What are we going to bring
in -- is that discussed in the GElS, what kind
of monies we're going to bring in for farmland
preservation? The County accounts for
farmland preservation in the N.F.E.C. and gets
a little bit bigger piece of the pie. I think
that ought to be and instead of knocking
heads, we'd get a lot further and be a lot
fairer to a lot of people in this Town.
I won't go any further than this.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Thank you.
MR. SCHRIEVER: My name is William
Schriever and I live in Orient. I've been
there for 50 years. I've been living in
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
.
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
1
43
2
California the last 16 years part time, and I
moved back here. So I'm now 100 percent
resident.
You know, I've been working in a
Town out there, city called Fremont, which is
the fourth largest city in the Bay area. It's
about ten times the size of this town and, of
course, there's corresponding issues and much
more activity of this type, and I've had a lot
of experience with these environmental impact
statements, and these opportunities to
interact with the government. And I can tell
you that this is without a doubt the most
useful part of the interaction between the
public and the government, because for when
one of these documents is prepared, the
government has to dig back in its files and
cough up all this information, which you could
never get otherwise. And they got to tell the
truth. And they got to give it to you
straight. And it's just a wonderful
opportunity to find out what's going on.
I learned a lot by reading this,
and not so much the text, but in the various
attachments to this thing there were a lot of
useful information. So it's a very useful
thing. But the other thing that's so nice
about it is when you make a comment, or you
ask a question, they have to answer it. I
mean, they're obligated to answer every
question you ask, and that's something. You
never get that opportunity at any other time.
So take advantage of it. If you ask a
question, they have to give you an answer in
writing and it will be published. So this is
your time to shine.
I just want to -- I haven't
written my comment out. I've been on this
thing; I'm bleary eyed. I've done nothing but
this for ten days, and I can't say that I have
read it all, but I have struggled with trying
to understand it. And in writing up my
comment, I came to an interesting conclusion
that I just got to share with you, and that is
that in attempting to preserve the farmland,
which is the only part of this thing that I'm
really interested ln, there is an interesting
paradox, and that is, as I interpret it, and
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
e
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
1
44
2
I'm not a lawyer -- I have great respect for
Bill Esseks, and I really appreciated what he
said, and I hope he will work on this -- but
what I'm interpreting out of what I'm
observing is that the Town could zone all of
the farmland. If it didn't pick and choose
but it just took all of the farmland, it could
zone it to prohibit residential development,
the AC zone, which was contemplated and then
apparently for some reason dropped.
Now, the way I interpret what I
have seen, like in the taking of my wetlands
and so forth, whenever the government does the
same thing to all members of the class, it
seems that it's fair regardless of what the
outcome lS. If you went from quarter-acre to
half-acre, to one acre to two acre, for every
eight development rights -- so you lost
seven-eighths of what you had, nobody ever
compensated you for that, and now you're
fighting over the last scraps basically. So,
if you simply zone to prohibit residential
development on the farmland, and you do it to
all members of the class, the way I interpret
it, it appears to me that there's no
computation required. You didn't compensate
all the other times you took the development
rights. The one-eighth that are left, if you
take that one more, but you do it in the same
way that you do all the others, I don't see
any reason why you can't take the last
one. In all the other zoning activities, they
take away rights and stuff, and they never
compensate you.
But the interesting thing and the
paradox comes from the fact that if they zoned
for say five acre zone, just to use the
current example, if you zone for five acre
zoning the same farmland, and then you want to
take away the rights to develop that as
residential property, you end up having to buy
back all those rights that you gave the
parties in the zoning; in other words, you're
giving them the rights that you're going to
have to turn around and tax the hell out of
everybody to buy it back. And this is the
paradox.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
The only way to preserve farmland
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
e
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
1
45
2
is to start out by simply prohibiting the
development of that farm. That is the only
way you will ever preserve it.
Now, the next question is: Is
there a need to compensate the farmer for the
loss of those development rights? And I'm
sure, if you do it fairly, I don't think there
legally is. I think that maybe you may feel
some obligation to do it, and apparently there
is some sort of consensus that we should do
it, but the interesting thing is that there is
a way to do it and not tax anybody, but to, in
effect, by paying the farmers in development
rights, which they cannot use on their own
land, and then allowing them to sell those
development rights to other people, who have
land on which they can use them. You can make
all the new development that comes into a Town
repay the farmers for the loss of their
development rights without doing any
purchasing of development rights in the
conventional sense at all.
I mean this, as I see it, is an
extremely attractive option. I have not
written it up yet. I'm going to write it up
in great detail as fast as I can. I don't
know that I'll have it by the next meeting,
but it is a concept which I think shows a lot
of promise. But you can't start by giving the
farmers the right to develop their property,
'cause once you do that, you're giving them a
right that you're going to have to buy back,
and we can't afford to buy all that land
that's just not possible.
So we've got to figure out some
way to compensate the farmers by making the
people who do develop land pay money to the
farmers that the farmers could have gotten if
they had developed their own land, and it's a
way that I believe will work.
One of the comments in this buried
deeply In this document, there's a comment
that the transfer of development rights won't
work on farmland because of some health
department restriction about nitrogen or
something. They said it would work on open
space, but it wouldn't work on farmland. I
don't know any more than I just read it in the
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
e
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
46
1
2
book, but it's interesting. If you don't --
if the farmer never has had development rights
on his own land, then you're never
transferring a development right from that
land to any other land, and, therefore, that
nitrogen on that land has no bearing on the
whole process. All you're doing is giving a
farmer a ticket that he can cash in to get his
compensation. You're just paying him out of
the monies that are paid you for the right to
develop other properties. And his own land,
there was never any development right on that
land; and, therefore, there was nothing for
the health department purposes. You're
never -- you're never transferring a
development right. You're simply handing him
the ticket that he can cash. So it's a
problem only of a financial transaction rather
than a transfer of development rights.
So it's very important in my
opinion, if you want to preserve farmland, you
cannot lssue development rights on that land,
because it just, it messes up everything you
want to do. You can compensate the farmer but
you can't do that.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you,
Mr. Schriever. Mr. White.
MR. WHITE: My name is Michael
White. I'm the Chair of the Long Island
Chapter of the League of Conservation Voters.
I'm also on the State-wide board of the
League. And I appreciate the opportunity to
make some comments this evening.
Taking a look at the Draft GElS
and having an opportunity to listen here this
evening, one of the main problems that I have
with this document is that I can't tell what
the action is that you actually intend to
take.
The action is not defined, and
therein lies the problem. The first problem:
What is everybody expecting to happen as a
result of this GElS?
It talks about comprehensive
implementation strategies, planning and
programing tools, a series of planning
measures, an accumulation of plans and
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
e
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
1
47
2
interrelated planning measures, but simply
put, what is it going to do?
There's a list of 43 tools, I
think they're called, but the question remains
is: Are we going to consider doing all 43
tools or are we going to consider doing only
one of those tools? And what's lacking is the
analysis of the interplay between those tools.
What if you do only do one, would you tell us
the other 42? If it's not clear what you're
going to do, then what it appears to be is a
cover for some stealth plan or some
predetermined measure.
The action has to be clearly
defined. I'll give you an example: The five
acre zoning example, there's been five acre
zoning which is clearly a tool to limit the
density of development on property. It's
certainly not the answer to open space
preservation, but if you do five acre zoning
and you don't address the other parts of the
tools wherein to reach the obstacle or
overcoming the obstacle i.e. to prevent four
houses, or the detriments to farming and the
farming community that five acre zoning is
going to mean, how can you just do five acre
zoning without doing analysis if you don't do
those goals and the strategies that you
intended to address in the first place.
Also, with respect to farming, the
League believes very firmly that we're not
going to have preservation of open space on
the east end of Long Island or in Southold
without a very strong and well-funded farmland
preservation program as recognized in the
Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement.
Southold is made up of not only
this beautiful open space, but it acknowledges
the importance of the agricultural heritage to
this community, and what this community and
the people of this farming community mean to
this Town. The farms, the vineyards, the
farming community and the people itself, but
what's conspicuously absent in the Draft
Generic Environmental Impact Statement is
choosing anyone -- five acre zoning without
considering transfer of development rights,
adequate funding of farmland preservation
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
e
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
1
48
2
programs, money for purchase of farmland
development rights, all those other aspects,
so you can't operate in a vacuum. If the
Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
is going to be one or 43 actions, or 43 of the
actions, you've got to do an analysis of the
interplay of those 42 or 43 tools.
Additionally, what's conspicuously
absent in the document is a discussion of the
success of some of the present measures that
the Town is doing. I think this Town deserves
a lot of credit to be recognized for how much
open space is already being protected without
necessarily anyone of these 43 tools that you
have in mind, or one of them. So I think the
document has to, rather than consider if we
don't do one or 43 of these and full build-out
alternatives, that's not necessarily going to
be the result.
The result is at least the
maintenance of the present successful programs
that the Town has undertaken. So we
congratulate the Town and the Town Board for
trying to come to grlps with these important
issues, but I [eel it's very clear at least
with respect to the present document that the
document doesn't meet the regulatory or
substantive issues that the Town Board is
trying to enact. Thank you very much.
MR. KEIL: My name is Eric Keil,
Mattituck resident. I would also like to call
on the Town Board and the Committee to make a
more lengthy than three-meeting investigation
and review of this work. I didn't have the
luxury of having ten days to review this
document, but Just in the one day that I did
spend on it I found a large number of errors,
mischaracterizations, mistakes and significant
errors in the computations relating to the
theoretical density reductions based on a five
acre zoning increase.
If you look at Appendix Fl Part 2
it states that we have 5,500 subdividable
acres in the AC zone. This comes out to using
the formula as theoretically 2,078 units.
Unfortunately, when you add in the number of
vacant units, you come up with a total of
2,321 possible units In the AC district. I
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
e
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
1
49
2
don't know, what's unfortunate about this is
the statistical analysis that you used to
determine the density. You totaled all the
acreage so that you have a fairly significant
error to the tune of approximately 145 lots.
So that you overstated the benefits of five
acre zoning by 145 in the R-80 zones by almost
40 percent.
I don't know if you understand
what I'm saying or not, but if you -- you
totaled all the acreage and lumped it
together, in your statistical analysis and I
don't think you intend to rezone land that's
already subdivided, and so that's what I'm
talking about.
This error also went to your
analysis of the R-40 zone as well, and what
the impacts of the proposal are, if you
extrapolate, the same error was carried in to
that zone as well. That's with less than one
day's investigation of this report.
I think the more we investigate
this the more errors we could find. I know a
lot of time's been spent on this, over eight
months, and I think that three Public Hearings
is not enough time to flush out all the
problems that can be in here.
Additionally, I think that we
should extend the moratorium and keep the
Public Hearing process public and that the
recommendations that come out of this work
truly will do what the community intends them
to do. I'm not sure that the Town Board or
the committee understands what I'm talking
about, but I'd be happy to explain further if
the point wasn't well made.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: We'll check.
MR. KEIL: I guess that means no.
In other words, if you look at table density,
reductions are calculated, that's where the
errors occurred.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you.
MR. MEINEKE: Good evening, my
name is Howard Meineke. I'm the President of
the North Fork Environmental Council.
Well, there's been a lot of
impassioned oratory here and that's also a
tough act to follow, and what always bothered
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
e
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
1
50
2
me with impassioned oratory is it isn't always
necessarily firmly fixed on fact; so it
immediately becomes a battle of show biz
presence to make your points, as opposed to
fact; and that is inevitable at a time like
this, but it bothers me.
Now, Mr. Esseks is an excellent
speaker, certainly knows a lot about this
issue, but when he was talking about zoning,
he made it sound, or what I heard was that
this upzoning is bound to fail in court. And
I don't doubt that there are a variety of very
acute reasons and logical ways to make it
fail, but there are very many examples of
upzoning that did not fail in court, and there
are places that preserved themselves
successfully in the long run by using
upzoning, and we have yet have not had
explained to us places that preserved
themselves over the long run without using
some mandatory efforts. So I think there was
a spln in that and we should realize that
upzoning has been approved in many court
decisions.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Now, another thing I thought I
heard is traffic. We talked of the trade
parade, and somehow when we got to upzoning
and reducing build-out, it sounded like we had
a bigger trade parade. Well, maybe I
misunderstood. Let's go back at it.
If we maintained the two acre
zoning, there was something like 5,000 houses
if no preservation was intact. Five thousand
houses is a lot of traffic. It makes a big
change on the whole rural atmosphere of our
Town, so let's not just focus on open space
and farmland because what we have to offer
here is a whole magical situation, and traffic
and the increase of frenzied activity and the
inability to turn out of the King Kullen and
little aggravations like that have a lot to do
with the quality of life, have a lot to do
with that makes this place special.
Now, more houses make more taxes
and more taxes is something that the fixed
income people here should listen to carefully
because it's very important. Some people may
move out of here and go to Carolina because
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
e
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
51
1
2
they think they can find a slower pace of
life, but a lot of you that like it here may
move to Carolina because it's more affordable.
If you keep the taxes down you have a chance
to do legislation that will give you
affordable housing. If you don't keep the
taxes down, you might have affordable houses,
but if you can't pay the taxes, you can't live
in the affordable house.
At the present rate houses on two
acres somewhere in the existing housing stock,
so the affordable housing argument is
something in my view of a paper tiger because
you have to do something legislatively to make
affordable housing, and if you control taxes
and don't allow the build out to get out of
control, you could have affordable housing.
Now, the report, you should read
it. I think that there is so much oratory and
everyone that speaks to the report has a side
of the argument. I didn't hear too many
neutral voices out there, so there is spin and
I think if you're going to make up your mind
and you're going to write letters and speak
and possibly ultimately later in the years
vote on the issue, go to the library, get the
report and read the report and make up your
own mind, because I don't think when you
filter out everything you are hearing tonight
you're going to have a base of facts that are
going to let you make up your mind honestly.
Now, the report did have a section
where it looked at what it called a "No action
Alternative." Now, the no action alternative
is, Let's keep doing what whatever we're
doing. Let's utilize the voluntary methods.
Let's do what we can. All that stuff that is
not mandatory, and the report said that the no
action alternative will not achieve the entire
desired goal. And this is your 80 percent, 60
percent, and this is the goal that's been
unanimously approved by the Blue Ribbon
Commission and is essentially the goal of 30
reports that are gathering dust, reports in
the basement of Town Hall.
Reenforcing our ability to buy the
land, Now, I do a lot at N.F.E.C., but one of
the things I don't do is hobnob with the
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
e
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
52
1
2
inside track or have personal phone numbers of
people that can get me money for land
preservation. But I do come from a small
business background, and I do know that when
you have red budgets, you're very careful
where you spend your money, and everybody in
the County, every municipality has a very red
budget. So if we are going to plan on that
the funding for land preservation will pick
up, think it if will, but I feel as though
it's a pipe dream, that's a judgment call.
A lot of things are judgment.
It's all in the future. You can't know. You
can just apply your brain to the problem and
see if what you think taking dedicated monies
and putting them in this, I have trouble
seeing big money coming to land preservation
out of the budget crunches that are out there.
Now, maybe we should extend the
moratorium. I certainly do not press for
premature discussions, but I have heard a lot
of criticism of the report. It's a detailed
report. There's a lot in it. I think it's
very difficult to do a document of that size
error free. I don't think anybody could do
that. Now, whether we're uncovering errors of
such weight that we can't act on it, maybe
there's some legal opinions that that is
true. I'm not sure that I believe that.
I think what with that the
potential of water coming, because we all know
that there has been an absence of development
pressure because the land under the farms --
the water under the farms is all polluted, and
we know that the builders are working their
way through the separate -- single and
separate lots, which don't require it, and
there will be very heavy development pressure.
There will be the potential of building a lot
of houses; there will be a pressure to get
that 6,300 house number, we know that. But
there are a lot of us that feel that traffic
and construction right now, this place is
losing a lot of what it had, and this place is
not just for the people who live here. It's
for people from up west, any number of people,
and here they do their farm standing. They
come out here and they take vacations and play
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
e
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
golf. This is a natural resource for the
metropolitan area to the west that shouldn't
be casually wasted. I look at it as an
endangered species, and I think we're at risk
of killing off that endangered species, and I
would urge the Board to consider the
moratorium if the work load appears that
that's necessary. But I do think that working
through it and the no action alternative was
clearly vetoed by the report.
The report does speak
optimistically of the number of the other
upzoning reports. I think the Board should
separate out what has to be done to stop the
bleeding, and what has to be done to make the
whole, to utilize everything that's in the
report. And they should start to work on the
upzoning alternative, along with whatever
parts are necessary to make it all work.
But I think that that's a very big
document, and I don't think the Board is able
to put 27 operations all on the front burner
and get anything done. And this is a matter
of if we say we're going to do that, we will
extend the moratorium, and at the end of that
moratorium, we'll have a meeting just like
today and worry about extending it again.
Thank you.
MS. WICKHAM: Good evening, my
name is Gail Wickham of Cutchogue.
I do appreciate the extent of the
amount of work that went into it by the
planners and everyone else involved.
I'd just this evening like to see
if I could clarify the full buy-out --
build-out analysis report, because that 6,000
figure is the one that's going to get the
press here and even Mr. Meineke acknowledged
that it is probably an inflated figure that's
not going to happen.
I wanted to clarify over what time
frame that full buy-out was contemplated; was
that as long as it took?
MR. VOORHIS:
MS. WICKHAM:
MR. VOORHIS:
MS. WICKHAM:
statistical analysis like
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Yes.
I'll
Yes.
When
that
53
assume yes.
you're doing a
on a
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
e
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
54
1
2
theoretical basis, you're making a lot of
assumptions, obviously, did you contemplate
any specific margin for error In that area?
MS. SCOPAZ: What do you mean by
margin of error?
MS. WICKHAM: Well, when you do a
statistical analysis and you come up with an
estimate, generally there's a deviation of the
figures from what could, in fact, occur.
MS. SCOPAZ: I think the answer to
your question, very briefly, what we did in
the analysis, keep in mind that the purpose of
doing the build-out is to give you some kind
of benchmark, someplace to start your
comparison to get your alternative. You have
to start somewhere. The numbers that we got
from the Suffolk County Planning Department
seemed to us too high, so we went through the
whole exercise of taking out of the mix
properties that would not normally be
developed because they're unbuildable.
MS. WICKHAM: Right. And that was
part of your analysis in getting some of the
assumptions that you made. But once having
reached that number, I guess the answer I'm
getting is there's no estimate in your report
as to what the margin for error could be, and
so it could very conceivably be less in terms
of what might actually happen.
I don't know whether in coming up
with your assumptions you gave any reduction
for the fact that not only does the Planning
Board have area criteria in subdivisions, but
that there are significant Health Department
constraints that may further reduce your
density. I didn't see an analysis for that,
and I'm not sure that, although I did see you
took out wetlands in terms of coming up with
acreage figures, I don't know if you went
beyond that and assumed, which I think is a
good assumption, that even on an upland parcel
there are areas that are too close so that you
would be further reducing the ability to
subdivide a property.
So I do think there are probably a
number of lowering assumptions in that number
that need to be explored, and also, I think
it's important that the public understand that
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
e
4
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
55
1
2
it does not appear that that figure presumed
any additional preservation efforts on a
voluntary basis. And so this is the absolute
worst case scenario in a perfect developer's
world, where nothing bad goes wrong for a
subdivision, and that's not the real world
when you're subdividing property, so I'd like
to explore that more in my next comments.
Thank you.
MR. SAMUELS: I'm Tommy Samuels,
and I live in Cutchogue.
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Is that
3
5
6
7
8
T-O-M-M-Y?
9
MR. SAMUELS: It's ironic that
those who are the greatest supporters of five
acre zoning, for example Mr. Romanelli, use
the no-action scenario as the fact, in my
conversations with him. That it's either/or,
like what the heck have we been doing all
these years? The Town's done a remarkable
job, the County's done a remarkable job,
everything seems to be working, Mr. Wickham
informs me that there's actually a ten acre
per residence situation. The use of the scare
tactics of the no build-out -- of the
build-out, is reprehensible. That really is
not going to happen. But I'd like to address
the moral issue. And the moral issue, whether
it's a legal issue, for me it's a moral issue,
you're asking a small number of residents of
this town to bear the burden of the open space
for the rest of the Township.
Let's just suggest for the moment,
I bought my house in 1959 for 27,500; it's on
the water in Nassau Point. I've been offered
$2,000,000 for it. Why don't we have a
capital gains tax for people that sell their
houses that have made 26 percent a year or
whatever it's been; why don't we do that? Why
don't we do that? Because we can't do it. We
can't do it legislatively. But anybody who is
in this town for any length of time has
profited greatly, tremendously, but yet you're
asking the farmers, of which there are few,
say 1.4, but how many farm families? How many
families that were farm families that had
their property in some way decreased in value
over the years? How many are there?
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
e
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
56
1
2
Apparently there's more than you
believe there are. Now, I know you, John, and
I know you, Craig and I know you, Bill, and
you're not mean-spirited, and you're not
immoral. I just don't think you see the
issue.
3
4
5
To Mr. Meineke, I would say it's
not going to be Greenwich here. It's not
going to be Muttontown; the type of community
that Southold is why I'm living here and not
in Southampton. It's different. People are
conservative; for the most part they're not
wealthy. There are exceptions. But if you
look at waterfront property, where there isn't
anymore, where now it's tear down and build
another one, that's where the great increases
have occurred, and they're dragging along the
other homes.
But the farmers should not bear
the burden by themselves, we've got to figure
out a way. And there are ways. No action is
not going to happen. I have prepared in my
lifetime, probably four environmental impact
statements, and I know what you can do with
them. It depends on which direction the
person hiring the consultant wants it to take,
and I don't blame these people, these
consultants at all, because that's the name of
the game; that's the way it works. That's why
SEQRA is such a weak situation. It's used in
devious ways in both directions.
Long story short, there's nobody
that I appreciate more in this town than the
farmers who have succeeded. They are really
good businessmen. It is tough. It is tough.
This year is going to be a brute with the
weather we have had; and to ask them to give
up the appreciation of their real estate
values. Is not fair to them. It is
immoral.
I hope you extend the moratorium.
At least until December as Mr. Wickham is
suggesting. Give the Town a chance to look at
this document, find if there are, in fact,
errors. If there are errors in there, I'm
sure they are inadvertant. I personally feel
that it was prepared in too short a time
period. I think there was too much to do in
6
7
8
9
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
e
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
57
1
2
there.
3
I remember my son chairing the
U.S.-U.K. Study. They worked on it for two
years, two years. The Town didn't implement
any of those recommendations. The hamlet was
defined in the U.S.-U.K. Study.
But what happens when you want to
do something within the hamlet halo -- which
lS an awful word for it, hamlet halo. Try
something; try to build something in the
hamlet. There are people in this room who
have attempted it. NIMBY rears its head.
What you need, get started with a housing
authority that has bonding potential; buy some
land for some people; people set up a program
of buildings and houses, some garden
apartments for young people so they can earn
some equity and save some equity. Do what
East Hampton did, on resale you only get the
rate of inflation. You have to sell it back
to the housing authority. Give them a break.
Start with that. If you want to go upzoning
in certain areas, go ahead, but don't kill the
farmers. Do not kill the farmers. They're
some of our best people.
I went to my grandson's
graduation, sixth grade graduation, and I
looked around and I heard the names and there
were an awful lot of farm kids and ex-farm
kids, and they were beautiful kids, some of
whom want to live here. My granddaughter
wants to live here. So let's give the farmers
a break. Don't act precipitously. You have
many events coming up that would give you a
better feel as an actual referendum on this
entire issue. Some of you on occasion have
indicated the willingness to listen. I hope
you all do. But the no action scenario just
isn't going to happen. Thank you very much.
MR. HUNTINGTON: I'm Ray
Huntington from Cutchogue.
I read the report, to the extent
that I believe I was able to in the time that
I have had it. I've been looking for some
things in particular.
It is a comprehensive review. The
various Southold -- Southold's various
(inaudible). It contains many interesting
4
5
6
7
8
9
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
.
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
58
1
2
facts about our town, useful facts and the
availability of the text on the internet is a
very good plus.
People of good faith submit that
without a GElS in today's world it is
impossible to move forward with the changes
that we need. The shame of that is that it's
true.
Be that as it may though, because
what I was really looking for in this report
was apparently not instructed for by the Town
Board, and that was an action plan. Some may
say that's the next step, and that's fine, if
we had time, but there's a management role to
be played here.
I've been educated in management.
I've enjoyed a full career practicing. As a
young engineer I took pride in my drawings. I
believe that they were the product. My boss
enlightened me, however. He told me that I
was not paid for how pretty my drawings were,
rather, that I was paid to transfer the ideas
in my head to those who were going to produce
the product and get the result. I changed my
style.
Our product here, the thing we're
talking about is the preservation of our
lifestyle as well as we can manage to do
it. It's a time-limited problem that we have
studied for years. The time frame with
which -- within which this situation can be
addressed is almost at an end. We need an
action plan now.
I suggest that the Town Board
instruct the moratorium team to extract an
action plan from the Draft GElS and do so
forthwith. I have taken the first step
towards this by reducing the five inches to
one-half inch. I have it right here.
It does remain that for the Town
Board to devise a system to win over these
pages and instruct a team to write a set of
objectives that can be accomplished. Then,
with the objectives set at hand as an action
plan, it remains for the Town Board to debate
and act. These are the steps that I know are
not foreign to you. Those are the things that
you do all the time. But this study has
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
.
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
59
1
2
ranged so far and so wide that it will never
be completed the way we're going.
I'm going to get a little
tutorial. Unlike a goal, which is a hope or
an aspiration, an objective is a statement of
work that is measurable with respect to time,
resources and result. It's completion
advances the system towards the goal. Goals
and objectives are different.
Now that we almost have a GElS,
let's work on an action plan in parallel,
let's surface those items which seem to have
the most viability that will focus on energies
and we will get there in a shorter period of
time. This is necessary because there is not
much time left.
One last thought I would like to
offer to the members of the Board, and that is
to ask yourself on this job, who is the
taskmaster. Who is the taskmaster on this
effort? And, does the taskmaster understand
your expectations? It's an important
question. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: If many more
people leave, we're going to have to go back
to Town Hall, sir.
MR. NICKLES: Good evening, I'm
here tonight -- John Nickles, Jr., Southold.
I'm also the President of the Southold
Business Alliance.
I'm here tonight to present to the
planners, consultants, the Town Board and the
residents of Southold Town some new ideas from
the Southold Business Alliance. It should be
considered as comment in the DGEIS. A few of
the tools that were considered in the study
are discussed, as well as a few new tools and
ideas that may not yet have been considered.
Southold Business Alliance would
like to present to you a way to control growth
without more restrictive zoning. The
following, which I'm about to read, is a
summary of that plan. They call it the
F.A.I.R. Growth Management Plan for a Rural
Southold. Fair lS an acronym, stands for
"Foster Agriculture, Investment in guaranteed
preservation and Responsible growth"
The F.A.I.R. Growth Management
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
60
Plan for Rural Southold employs an
incentive-based approach that will be driven
by the demand of the market. The more the
market demands, the more landowners or
developers will try to meet or exceed the long
term goals of Southold Town or raising taxes
by site plan advocates who will. It means
that as demand rises among the limited annual
supply, the rate of preservation will rise
with it.
The residents of Southold Town
pride the local agricultural economy and the
quality of life that a rural community
provides. This legislation recognizes that
the best way to achieve preservation is to
assure the success of agriculture. The Town
finds that the ownership, use and value of
private property is integral to this stated
purpose and therefore resolves the following
facts, policies and measures.
(1) Foster the business of
agricultural in Southold Town. The best way
to do this is by simply not placing new
restrictions or regulations on their
land. Regulating what type of farming is
acceptable in Southold Town and using scenic
overlay districts to prevent expansions of
indoor agriculture, agricultural industries
locks out more advanced efficient,
environmentally friendly and evolving
agricultural technologies. These technologies
may very well assure agriculture's success
well into the future.
(2) Recognize the success of
voluntary preservation efforts and create new
incentives for landowners to choose
preservation.
(3) Recognize that restrictive
zoning and burdensome regulations have impacts
upon the business of agriculture and on
business in general.
(4) The purchase of the
development rights and scenlC easements are a
guaranteed investment in the preservation of
farmland and open space properties; investment
in future of a rural Southold is the only way
to guarantee permanent preservation.
(5) Create incentives to utilize
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
61
conservation opportunity subdivisions on all
farmland and open space properties guarantee
review and approval within one year of
application. Development rights, along with
the fee simple of the land, remain intact to
be sold or gifted to any public or private
land preservation entity.
(6) This is a new tool.
Responsible growth rate limitation. Create
legislation that limits the total number of
new house permits to be issued in any given
calendar year. The responsible growth rate
limitation should be derived both by the
average new house permits over a ten-year real
estate market cycle to be fair to the local
building community, and it should also be
derived by what the Town of Southold believes
is responsible and sustainable to meet our
long term goals. A balance must be found that
respects the property rights of undeveloped
landowners as well as the wants and needs of
the Town.
(7) A new tool. Building permit
restrictions. Recognize that it is preferable
for new homes to be built on already existing
in-fill lots, these are the lots that are
established in the community that have been
sitting there. Currently there are
approximately 2,000 of these existing lots.
Create a new policy for existing stock for
single and separate vacant parcels. The Town
reserves a fixed number of new house permits,
and that's a number that should be determined
as effective to make the plan work and that's
also fair to property owners, for these
in-fill parcels. This fixed number of parcels
should be reserved until October 1st of each
calendar year and then set the policies that
implement the goals of the Town.
(8) This lS a new tool.
Responsible Development Rate Limitation,
create legislation that limits the total
number of building lots that may be created in
any given calendar year. This rate of
development should be derived both by the
statistical growth rate of the Town, the
anticipated growth rate of the Town, as well
as what the Town of Southold believes is
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
62
1
responsible and sustainable to meet the long
term goals. Once again, a balance must be
found that respects the property rights of
undeveloped landowners as well as the wants
and needs of the community.
(9) Recognize that the
subdivision of land within or near developed
areas is preferable to the subdivision of land
within or near undeveloped areas. Set
policies that implement the goals of the
Town.
(10) And this is the final tool.
It's a new tool. Competitive evaluation and
selection process. Creation of this process
would further provide the competitive
incentive and framework for site plan
applicants to meet or exceed Southold Town
goals. Guidelines for site plan applicants to
achieve the long term goals of the Town should
be codified and a related scoring system for
site plan applicants should be enumerated.
In conclusion, the F.A.I.R. Growth
Management Plan allows the landowner to
maintain all of the economic benefits of two
acre zoning with an impetus to achieve five
acre density or better because of the limited
amount of development allowed on a limited
basis and the competitive nature of site plan
approval. Any landowner or developer would
choose an option that seeks a maximum economic
benefit in the shortest amount of time.
Once again, if there were strict
limitation of the number of subdivision lots
created or approved annually, subdivision
applicants would not risk being passed over by
another who would choose to go the expedited
conservation root. If we implement annual
responsible growth and development rate
limitations, we can guarantee managed growth.
Preservation can be achieved and growth can be
managed without rezonlng land, without taking
individual's land or development activities
and without jeopardizing successful voluntary
preservation programs.
This plan is fair. It shows
respect for the property rights of every
Southold resident, while guaranteeing a
manageable rate of growth combined with
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
e
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
63
1
2
powerful incentives to preserve at a minimum
five-acre density or better, and there are no
limits imposed upon voluntarily preservation.
Members of the Town Board issued a
challenge to the residents of Southold Town to
find a better way to achieve preservation than
five acre zoning. If this challenge is
sincere then the Southold Business Alliance
presumes that the Town Board will look upon
this plan and combination of tools most
favorably. The doom sayers keep reminding us
that developers are coming; that they have no
where else to go with their truckloads of
money, and it is a certainty that they will
try to build out our Town. They keep telling
us that we're at a crossroads, that we have to
do something and do it before it's too late.
With that in mind, the Southold Business
Alliance offers the residents of Southold Town
this business program conceived and designed
to address the fears of the worst-case
scenarios that may arise with overwhelming
demand and rapid or disorderly growth.
The strength of this plan is that
its success will actually increase as demand
increases. We invite those individuals and
groups who have been in favor of five acre
zoning to join us in support of the F.A.I.R.
plan, specifically the North Fork
Environmental Council, Save Open Spaces Now,
our Town planners and especially the Southold
Town Board. The demand for real estate on the
north fork and your support will guarantee the
success of this combination of tools.
I have complete master copies of
the plan. This was just a summary that I read
to you. And I'll distribute them to the Town
Board, the Planning Board and the media, and I
also have a short executive summary of the
points of the plan.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Any members of
the public that would care to address the
Board on this Public Hearing?
MR. MARSCHEAN: I would like to
congratulate the people who, not having heard
the beginning of some of the people's
comments, I would like to congratulate the
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
It
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
It
25
64
people -- I'd like to thank the people who put
this report together.
I've worked on environmental
impact statements during my career as a
professional engineer, and the engineer before
me I congratulate. I endorse a lot of your
comments.
I believe there should be a
project manager that directs the action plan,
but the report itself I think is a good one.
It establishes a baseline for this community,
regardless of some of the people acting a
little bit picayune about some of the
statistics.
I think the only thing I can be
critical about is that some of the people on
the Town Board felt that there wasn't an
executive summary for this particular report,
and there was. I went through this report on
horseback and some of the comments I would
like to make is that I think most of the
people in this Town who have not been afforded
the opportunity to read this report I think a
shorter document could be put together just by
Xeroxing certain sections of this report,
which I would like to just mention right now.
I think the first 22 pages, if I
remember correctly, of the executive summary
should be made available to people at the
library, along with at least three or four
tables, Table 3-1, 3-2 and 3-4, as at least a
minimum document that should be made available
to people at the library so that they can read
it at their leisure.
To have a document like this left
at the library for only one person to take out
and one document to stay and for the short
period of time that people were allowed to
examine it, I think was not a very good thing.
In fact, the Blue Ribbon
Commission, one of its precepts was that it
was supposed to have Town Board meetings like
this, which it never did. And the thing is, I
think this 1S the thing that's causing a lot
of people to maybe come up here and make some
statements without any knowledge, and it's not
because they don't have the wish to have the
knowledge; I think that we have not done a
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
e
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
65
1
2
good job educating the people of this Town as
to what we face.
Some of the comments that I'd like
to make that I think this report serves as a
good baseline for is that Table 3-1, which is
the full build-out analysis, and whether
people are going to quibble about how that was
put together or not, I don't think this is the
night to do something like that, I think we
should talk in global terms. As you look in
all the particular areas that have been
defined, such as the AC area, R40, R-80, all
through that table, you'll find out if you sum
up the property that's less than two acres,
less than two acres in this Town, starting
with R-40 and R-80 and working your way
through, you'll come up with a number that's
about 4839, which is what I came up with just
through a calculator. The total that I came
up with, the total I didn't agree with, and
I'm not going to worry about quibbling about
getting the same total as you did; maybe I was
doing this at a time of night when I shouldn't
be doing it -- but it was 7160. So the lot
size, less than two acres comes out to 67.6
percent. So if you're looking at land that's
at risk in this Town, it's not the farm land.
It's land that's less than two acres in this
Town. That's what the report says.
And then if you take land less
than one acre, it's 48.3 percent. And if you
take land, and if you -- I can't read my own
handwriting --
So the thing is what I'm trying to
point out here is that the land that is being
developed in this Town at a very rapid rate by
spot builders and you people who live in
places that are less than two acres, and I
assume most of the people In this audience
live in places that are less than two acres,
you can see it around you. This is what's
happening. And the reason that they're
building in less than two acres is a very good
reason, is because, another theme of this
report, which I think lS a very good theme of
this report without stating it as such, is
that all you have to do is sum this report up
In certain sectors, in certain three words:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
66
Follow the Water. This is where people live.
Follow the water. This is where all these
hamlets have grown up, and this is what we
have right now, 20,000 people live where the
water is.
You've already heard that the
farmland doesn't have the water, and any water
that they do have is polluted. So people, if
they're going to buy property on the east end,
they're going to go where the water is, and
they're not going to get themselves into a
situation where they have to worry about the
quality of the water.
Now I can speak a little bit about
the quality of the water 'cause I happen to be
working right now as a consultant on the power
plant in Greenport, that's why I was late
getting here tonight. Just so you people
know, we have fired off the unit. We've
worked three months since March of this year,
three months and one day. We will now have 54
megawatts for the infrastructure of the people
of this Town, so that when they start lighting
up their barbecues and using some of the
power, air conditioning, if you remember last
summer, you'll have 54 megawatts of power in
this Town starting July 1st, when the plant
goes commercial.
Now, one of the sidelines of
developing the power in this Town is that we
had a problem and we still do, I think to some
extent because all the lawyers haven't gotten
their act together, that we have a water
problem with the power plant. Many of you
people were reading some of the reports in the
papers. You read about where the water
quality wasn't available from SCWA, which is
Suffolk County Water Authority --
That's another thing I might want
to criticize, some of the people in the report
here. When you have acronyms, I know you've
done a very good job of spelling out what the
word is when you have acronyms, but after you
read for about ten or 15 pages, maybe at 2:00
In the morning you forget what the acronym is,
so in the summary I told you to put in the
library, make a table of contents for the
acronym so if somebody wants to refer back to
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
67
1
what the acronym meant, it will be a handy
reference for them.
The point I'm making about the
water is that we are now using gray water at
the power plant. For those people who don't
about know what gray water is, it's water that
is coming from the waste treatment
plant. It's being used at certain times of
the year where it can be used and certain
times of the year where it will not be used is
where Suffolk County Water Authority wouldn't
be able to supply, which is during the summer
months when your greatest demand is on their
well.
We have a water problem in this
Town whether you people know it or not. So
another criticism of this report is I think
that somebody ought to make a matrix table,
you have all the data here, where you have all
the water in Table 2-1 of the amount of water
that we have available and try and cross
reference that with the lot sizes so you know
where the water is with respect to where the
lot sizes are. And you'll be able to see a
very nice way where the people, when they come
here, if they're going to develop houses and
so forth and so on, this is exactly how it's
going to occur. People will do this; they
will follow the water. So you should have a
cross reference table between where the water
is and where the lot sizes are as you broke
down in your Table 3-1.
Now, further on with the water,
because this came upon late in the design of
the power plant, you had to put in an R-O
system. For you people who don't know what
that means, that means a Reverse Osmosis
system, which is a cheaper form of
desalinization. And because we're using waste
water now, that design had to be backed up
with a filtration system; so this is part of
the enterprise that we have at this power
plant.
Now, why am I telling you this?
Because the thing is that if we're going to
build out to some degree, whether it's the 80
percent, 60 percent slash number that we
talked about at the Blue Ribbon Commission,
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
68
the thing is I think you ought to get Steve
Jones and the Suffolk County Water Authority
who the report refers to is also doing some
kind of parallel report I think right now, get
him involved so that you can have some idea as
to what the cost of putting in an osmosis
system is, reverse osmosis system for a well
that is not a good well and to save that well,
and you can still use that water. The
alternative to that if you're in a very poor
area, you must think about modular
desalination plants, and these things are not
that expensive. But people have to realize if
they're going to move here, this is the
situation that they're going to come into if
we start this any degree of build-out with the
remaining property that's in this Town.
So I think the water matrix, Steve
Jones, input to you as the Town, you people
have to approve where he puts wells and lines
and things of this nature, but I think the
public is entitled to know that water is a
critical problem in this Town. I guess maybe
I was the only one that spoke about this, but
there are other things that are critical in
this town, I think they've probably been
spoken to already as far as traffic and other
infrastructure problems.
So I apologize for being a little
bit late tonight, but I just wanted to
announce to you that we have a real tremendous
success in Greenport tonight, and I'm a tired
guy and I'm going to go home to bed.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Steve Mudd from
Southold.
Couple things I would just like to
clarify, if I could, please.
Many discussions about the pluses
and minuses and negativities and all the above
regarding landowners that are involved, and
people that really don't have anything at
stake. And one thing that has been
repetitious since the beginning of the
discussions, from Dr. Cochran's
administration, was there was no continuity in
feelings about loss of equity.
Now, Steve Weir has gotten up
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
69
tonight, in my opinion I thought he spoke very
graciously, put facts on the table. Steve
Weir has made other presentations to Town
Board members at other public hearings. He's
been discredited because he's Farm Credit, and
he's not a bank. He's not a normal bank, and
what I have with me tonight -- I'm
disappointed this hasn't come up before
because some of the people have received these
letters before from bank presidents from our
normal lending institutions here on the north
fork.
One from the president of Suffolk
County Bank, one from the president of
Bridgehampton Bank, Steve Weir's letter, which
is discredited because he's not a bank, and
North Fork Bank. I believe everybody here is
familiar with all three of those lending
institutions.
I'm not going to sit here and read
all three letters, and I made copies for
everybody because I think it's way past time
and due on this, I don't buy that lost equity
crap that I've heard so many people, some of
which are sitting here at the table tonight,
and I'd like to resolve that issue, and I'd be
willing to contest the discussion about it
with everybody in regards to what the bank's
position is on this loss of equity.
I'm going to read one letter. It
happens to be from Suffolk County National.
I'm not going to sit here and read all of
them. I made copies. I'd like to turn them
in for everybody's review. It says:
"It has come to my attention once
again" because these banks have been
contacted again, some of the letters I have
are dated 2001. They didn't get any
recognition or acknowledgement that there is a
loss of equity, so this is another one that's
dated June 13, 2003, from Suffolk County
National Bank, President Kohlmann.
"It has come to my attention once
again that Southold Town has legislation
pending regarding upzoning. It is my belief
that this upzoning would cause one of the
basic principles of our country, the right to
private ownership of land, to be violated.
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
70
"For the farmer, his land
represents his equity, his legacy, his life,
and the economic value of that land affects
his well-being and possibly the lives of
future generations to come. Typically for a
farmer his only wealth is his land; therefore,
I believe that the upzoning to five acres is
unjust to the landowners. Should the zoning
proceed as pending, the Southold farmer would
not receive fair compensation for his land if
he were to sell it" -- post five acre zoning
change -- "The multiple expressed as quantity
times unit value most often does not compute.
That is to say, the economics of five acres is
not five times the value of one acre but most
often less. It is my view that, as proposed,
this legislation essentially compels the
farmer to consider selling his land sooner due
to the consideration of reduced value and
potential change of zoning again downstream.
"Additionally, the
landowner/farmer is not the only one impacted
by the proposal, but rather it will take its
toll on the neighboring businesses as well.
Farming requires capital with debt and
collateral being a viable component.
Diminished land value lessens available
collateral thereby reducing his ability to
borrow.
"In closing, as a member of the
local business community, I respectively
request the authors" -- excuse me -- "the
authors of this legislation to reconsider for
the good of the landowners, the people who
made Suffolk County and Southold Town what it
is today."
And I made copies and I'd like to
leave them here for some of the Board members.
On a similar note -- I have North Fork Bank, I
have Bridgehampton bank as well (handing).
I'm confused over a comment that
Mr. Meineke made this evening, stating that
all the building that is going on now is way
too excessive as we speak. And this is prior
to even a consideration of the zoning change
that we're talking about possibly
implementing. Coincidentally, I spoke with
one of our local asphalt companies a couple
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
71
days ago, and I asked this individual who runs
a local company, what is his percentage of
work that he's doing in major subdivisions
versus single separate lots -- separate single
lots that were pre-existing, less than two
acre density; he said 99.9, to nothing,
there's nothing going on. But on that note,
I'm confused over Mr. Meineke's statement
about excessive building that's taking place
now and the traffic of trades people that's
taking place now. It's not on farmland. I
don't think anybody's going to dispute that.
And it would be kind of nice if certain
members of certain groups would spend some of
their efforts on trying to critique that
situation that we have at hand, if they put
half that focus on that versus what we're here
for this evening, I think we would solve a lot
or our issues.
I want to thank you for your time.
I made copies for everybody and thanks.
MS. KRUPSKI: My name is Helen A.
Krupski. I reside in the Main Road in
Peconic.
I'm not going to comment too much
on this document that we received. Some of us
have looked at in part, some of us have not
looked at all as we haven't had time as yet.
But I'm going to speak about this more on a
personal nature.
There was a letter in the local
newspaper and Mr. Wickham read part of it. I
would like to read the entire letter In full,
in its entirety because I would like it to be
part of the public record. I'm a little bit
horse tonight; can everybody understand me?
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Yes.
MS. KRUPSKI: A picture
represents a thousand words, and I think
that's true.
This is the letter. It's an open
letter to the Southold Town Board. I'd like
to address it to the committee who came up
with this $200,000 document that we're all
talking about tonight.
"The Krupski family objects to the
use of our picture in the Southold
Comprehensive Implementation Strategy and
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
72
Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement.
"This picture represents an
endorsement of a document that seeks to
destroy the rural character and agricultural
heritage of Southold Town. This document does
not accurately portray agricultural, but
instead would undermine and eliminate it as it
exists today.
"We, the undersigned, demand that
all pictures, images and specific references
to Krupski's Pumpkin Farm and Krupski Farms be
immediately removed from all drafts, including
the DGEIS on the Town's website.
"In addition, we demand an apology
from those responsible for using our image,
our logo with our name on it without our
consent.
"If you want to know how this
proposed document will negatively impact
agriculture ask a farmer."
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you,
Mrs. Krupski.
On behalf of the Town Board, we
apologize for that being in there, and we'll
see that it's removed.
Yes/ sir.
MR. CONWAY: It's going to be a
bit of a subject change, even though I do have
a personal interest in the zoning changes.
My name is J.L. Conway. I am one
of the Commissioners of the Southold Park
District. I would like to comment on some of
the references in your study about the parks
located within the Township of Southold.
On Page 1-42, Item Number 27 under
the heading of "Administer Parks of Town-wide
Significance," second sentence states: "These
partitions are supported by tax levies." We
feel it should also note that only the
residents of the park district pay the taxes.
On Page 1-45, Item Number 32,
under the heading of "Park Districts/School
District Boundaries Conformity," it is
recommended that the boundaries be redrawn.
Again, we would like to point out that only
park district residents pay park district
taxes, and it is their tax dollars only that
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
73
maintain park district properties.
On Page 2-58, under "Park District
Beaches," the park's inventory of Southold
park district is listed, fourth park listed is
the Horton Point site; the second states:
"The lighthouse site was converted into a
museum maintained by the Southold Historical
Society." This is not correct. The
lighthouse and the grounds are owned and
maintained by the Southold Park District. The
ground floor of the lighthouse is on loan to
the Southold Historical Society for use as a
museum.
On Page 3-41, Item Number 27,
under "Administer Parks of Town-wide
Significance," the first sentence states:
"This tool will provide for Town
administration of parks having Town-wide
significance." What does that mean?
SUPERVISOR HORTON: I don't have
an answer to that question.
MR. CONWAY: Does anybody? I'll
leave you a copy of this and we'll send you a
letter from the park district so we can have
that one response clarified.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Costello.
MR. COSTELLO: My name is John A.
Costello. I am from Greenport. I was born in
Greenport, and I know what people are trying
to do with the plan for Southold. They're
trying to keep Southold the way we love it,
the way it was, the way it is. And let me
thank the farmers, all the farmers for
persevering and keeping it as much like it was
as it is now. They've sacrificed.
Mr. Samuels said that, and by God they've done
it. They have done the biggest part in
keeping Southold the way Southold is.
The ma-pa delis are gone.
7-Elevens are here. Things are changing.
People are coming. People want the farms.
They want that type of life, and, personally,
I am for the four, five acre zoning. I am for
25 acre zoning. Find out where the most
sensitive environmental lands are; categorize
them; evaluate them; save them. We all want
them. Band Pond, Hallock's Bay, we want the
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
74
sensitive lands to stay. It's not all the
farmers. It has nothing to do with farmers.
The five acre zoning shouldn't be pertaining
to farms. It should be pertaining to
sensitive lands.
Do you know who's going to own a
25 acre lot? The wealthy. Who's going to own
a ten acre lot? Again, the very well-to-do.
The five acre lot, again, money is going to
own them.
We have to do and compensate and
try to keep the most valuable assets of
Southold Town here. It's our view. It's the
farm kids. It's their grandchildren. They're
going to leave.
With 25 acre zoning, ten acre
zoning, five acre zoning, they're going to
leave. They can't afford to stay. So to
compensate for that, you need the two acre,
the one acre and you also need the quarter
acre.
There is ways to get water. Put
the water in. Get the small lots. Make it so
that we, and our children and our
grandchildren can stay here. Without it,
we're all going to lose. You're not going to
have Southold.
They're struggling to stay here
now, and it's not the farms. It's not the
five acres on a particular farm or any farm.
Those people that persevere and continue to
persevere, I just hope all the farmers, their
children will stay farming and their
grandchildren will keep farming.
Please, do it all. Don't do one
portion. Do it all. Go for the 25 acre and
the quarter acre. Do it all, please.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Baiz.
MR. BAIZ: Good evening, I'm Chris
Baiz of Southold. I just have a few
comments.
I think the best day in the last
five years was a November evening in 1999 when
this community pulled together and voted in
the community preservation funds for farmland
and farming preservation.
Since then, elements have been
tearing us asunder, creating fear, and
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
75
basically stealing our democracy from us by
creating this fear amongst us. I'd like to
see this community come back together again.
A community that works and earns
preservation earns the right to have it. A
community that goes in to asking one element
of the community to bear all the brunt of
preservation while the rest can reap the
rewards, whatever those are, increased house
values, protected public view sheds, that the
farmers have provided in the first place, and
kept there, but now taking that privilege that
the farmers have given them and declaring it a
public right by not allowing farmers to put up
fences as needed or hedge rows or hedging as
necessary, basically corrupts the process for
us and what we do.
What I would like to see is a
return, basically, to our principals of what
we have been doing and doing so successfully.
This report so elegantly points out that we
have been so successful in AC and R-80 land in
terms of the rate of preservation over the
last five or six years, that we have been
doing it depending upon how you want to count
lots in or out, 18 to 21 acres of preservation
for every new building lot created.
Now, this plan (indicating),
you're telling us that you want us to do it
only at five acres. It sounds like this is a
development, a builder's plan to me and not a
farm and farming preservation plan.
We have been far more successful
doing the other. The issue becomes how fast
can we keep the preservation coming. It's my
understanding there are over 1,500 acres in
various stages of coming through the process,
for the purpose of coming through the process
of development rights, and I mean, why isn't
it being finished; why isn't it getting done?
I hear various stories happening
on various farms where we have been working
with the County or we have been working with
the Town and trying to get these done for
three to five years, and it's always come up
at the corner -- I won't say your office --
but at the Town Hall corner, that's where the
problem lies, and I'd like to see these things
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
76
get unblocked in Town Hall.
The other aspects that I think are
important to review is this value of
preservation. Some have argued that it's too
expensive for the taxpayer. The value of
preservation is such that the local taxpayer
on the bonded issues that we've passed since
1983 or '85 is costing us three cents out of
everyone dollar of preservation value.
That's the burden to the local -- direct
burden to the local taxpayer, three cents on
every dollar of value. Thirty percent comes
from contributions vis-a-vis the peconic Land
Trust. Thirty to 40 percent has been coming
from the County over the years; and presently
now, the remainder is to be coming from the
CPF bonding.
Now, this three percent bonding
three cents on every dollar of direct costs to
our local taxpayers, has been calculated out
recently, everything cumulatively to date, is
costing every household on average $50 a
year. Now, if I said that there are two
and-a-half members in a household, that means
that every year it's costing $20 a person for
that local bonding.
This document costs $10, direct
cost for every man, woman and child in this
Town, and it is a development plan. It's not
a preservation plan. Our current practices
are four times as good as that. So, let's get
back on track from where we were and get this
ball rolling so that we can keep acquiring the
development rights of the farmland and keep
the farmer farming that land with his value
intact. We don't need a plan such as this.
If the community really needs this
plan, then, guys, put it up for a referendum;
don't leave the decision up to the six of you,
let the Town vote on it. Because this is
probably -- if you want to make this the
issue. This is probably the single most
important piece of whatever you want to call
it, all of you just put a name to it. Thank
you. This is the single most important piece
of paper in terms of its long term effect that
probably ever faced Southold in its 350-plus
years, okay.
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
We're doing a far better job than
it costs here to do this. If we had the $10
for every man, woman and child that this
report had taken care of, we could have
afforded a little more development right
preservation. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Would anybody
else care to address the Town Board?
Yes, sir, in the back.
MR. COOPER: Doug Cooper from
Mattituck. Mr. Baiz stole a lot of my
comments. I disagree with him a little bit on
the cost of this document. I think it's
probably $20 per person.
MR. BAIZ: By the way, I said
direct costs.
MR. COOPER:
into what our cost our
staff put into it. So
considerable.
One of the questions I have is for
the moratorium committee is what is the
build-out that you expect under five acre
zoning? Do you have any build-out scenario?
What kind of --
MR. CLEARY:
in the FEIS.
MR. COOPER: Right now you don't
have any answers? When you did your document
did you have any answers?
MR. CLEARY: Yes, we have the
build-out scenario.
MR. COOPER:
can't give them now?
MR. CLEARY: The format for the
response is the FEIS, that's when you'll get
the response.
MR. COOPER: Of the reports that
this Town, the Town has done over
years, how many of these reports
upzoning?
MR. CLEARY:
response right now?
MR. COOPER:
went before
the last 20
recommended
response.
reports
MR. CLEARY:
MR. COOPER:
that you people
77
He's not counting
planners, our own Town
the cost is it
The answer's coming
But you don't -- you
You're asking for a
I'm asking for a
I don't recall.
From my study of the
have studied, I don't
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
78
know of any of them that recommended five acre
upzoning or any upzoning. Therefore, I'm
surprised that you studied these reports and
now you automatically want to upzone. The
reports did make a lot of other
recommendations. I don't see a lot of that in
your reports.
On Page 3-28 of the first part of
the report, you compare us to Napa Valley, you
compare us to Maryland and Montgomery. We are
not those places. Those places are vastly
different than what we are. I would like to
see a comparison of a place similar to us. A
place with preservation history and
preservation tools that we now have.
As Mr. Baiz said, I find it
amazing that the average build-out on the AC
and R-80 land is pushing 20 acres, equivalent
zoning, and you are pushing a five acre
zoning. As Mr. Baiz said, and I totally agree
with him, it's a development tool and this is
a development plan, pure and simple. You want
to build our town out faster and heavier than
we're now doing, and the taxes will therefore
be much higher than what is taking place
today.
The cost to the taxpayer -- and
I've often heard this -- the cost to the
taxpayer will be too much. Well, the cost of
the taxpayer will be much higher with the five
acre zoning build-out, I'd like to see a
report on that, what that kind of cost will be
than under the preservation that we are now
doing.
We are now -- it is now being
funded by private contributions, County and a
two percent money. There's very, very little
coming out of the local taxpayer's pocket, if
any. Thank you.
MS. DZUGAS-SMITH: You'll have to
excuse my appearance, but I was farming until
8:00. I haven't had time to --
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Please state
your name.
MS. DZUGAS-SMITH: Oh, I'm sorry
I'm Donna Dzugas-Smith. I haven't had time to
read your report, I've been driving a tractor.
I can listen to it maybe if the cow's not
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
79
loose on the North Road.
I think the main thing you're
leaving out is that quality of life. People
come out, they look at the farm; they look at
our cow, our goats, they look at the open
land, and that's what's drawing them out and
what's keeping me here is my open land and my
way of life for my kids.
And you know what, it scares me
when I see a report like this written by
professional people that haven't lived on the
farm, haven't worked their fingernails down,
haven't gotten the dirt everywhere and don't
live in a house full of dust and can make
decisions like this. You have to realize what
you're dealing with. I don't see you knocking
on people who have grandfathered their little
lots in a quarter acre, half acre, one acre
and saying give up your equity in that lot,
you cannot develop it. The farmer has an
equity in the style of life they live and in
the land they own. You don't have a right to
treat us any different than any other citizen
in this Town.
And I'll tell you, I get things in
the mail all the time from developers up west.
They must get our acreage from the County,
Hey, we'll buy your lot. For some reason,
they're confident they'll get it developed
into two acres. And I, as a resident, don't
have that confidence.
What you've got to bring back to
all this, it's very simple, honesty. Get the
politics out of it. Get the money out of it.
Deal with the people. That's what's getting
people out here. They like the people
element. You have to stay with the people.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Anyone else
care to address the Town Board? In the back.
MR. GERGELA: Good evening, my
name is Joe Gergela, and I'm the Executive
Director of Long Island Farm Bureau.
Many of you in the room know me,
know my family. I grew up in Jamesport. I
was a potato and vegetable farmer just down
the road on Sound Avenue. But many of you
don't know that my roots are actually in
Southold. My father's mother, my grandmother,
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
80
her family farm is where Steve Seluski's farm
is, right across from the Mudds. That was my
grandmother, and her maiden name was Zebeski,
and I still have her family in the Town of
Southold. So all my life growing up I spent a
lot of time not only in Riverhead but also in
Southold. In my teenage years, I went to your
beaches. I know many of the folks in Town.
So I'm somewhat of a local boy.
The reason that I say this to you
is because I represent, I think, some of the
finest character of people, hard-working and
care about their communities, and you folks
are very lucky to have them live in your Town
in Southold. And I don't think that the
farmers of this Town have been given the
respect that they deserve for what they do in
their contributions to keeping this community
the way it is.
Many of these folks that are
working on the farms and vineyards and all the
various types of agriculture, it's a business.
It's a business. It's an industry. And they
do it to make a profit. The best way to
preserve farmland lS to allow them to have
that environment by which they can be
profitable. My father told me that 25 years
ago when I farmed with him.
The document that you have
developed and there are a number of concerns,
and I would be very redundant to repeat them
all, but some of them I think are very
important things that need further study.
Steve Weir made an excellent
presentation. One of the things that I picked
up was the lack of -- glanced over many of the
alternatives and things in that report. The
economic analysis, it's glanced over and I was
surprised to see that you do mention that
there is a 20 to 30 percent hit on equity if
you go to five acre zoning. That should
bother the conscience of people. Second point
is the impact on the traditional farmland
preservation program and what will be the
impact on that program, which has been
successful for more than 25 years.
One thing that I will tell you is
that several of you Board members have worked
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
81
damn hard in furthering that program, and I'm
going to say it here not only because of
Josh, but Bobby Koz in Riverhead and Stentini
in Southampton, Jay Schneiderman in East
Hampton, the Village Mayors and Supervisors
Association have worked damn hard in working
with the Farm Bureau and other elected
officials seeking the funds for real
preservation.
It was stated by several people
that that document is a development plan, not
a preservation plan. And I agree with that.
What I don't understand is why, knowing that
there's 1,500 acres before the Town's
committee and Suffolk County's committee, why
there is not more emphasis by this Board in
demanding in other levels of government that
we find some more money. Maybe we can't get
it all, but there is no effort being done to
find the funding to compensate landowners who
voluntarily want to preserve land in this
Town. You got 1,500 acres before you with no
action. You got people doing conservation
subdivisions before your Planning Board, your
Planning Department and the Town Attorney's
office that are sitting there not being acted
on.
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Joe, tell
the truth here, please. I can't stand hearing
lies any longer. There is not 1,500 acres in
front of us. No one has walked away from our
land preservation committee because no funding
has been there.
MR. GERGELA: They have seen
supervisors, and the Board is not responding
to them.
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Anyone that
comes before the Farm Preservation Board has
not been walked away because there's been no
money. So talk the truth if you're going to
stand here and talk.
MR. GERGELA: It is not false.
They are before the committees, why are they
not being acted on if there's such --
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Nothing is
not being acted on. Tell the truth, Joe.
MR. GERGELA: Why are they not
going forward?
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
82
SUPERVISOR HORTON: This is an
opportunity
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Where's the
documentation?
have the
MR. GERGELA: Here, I
data on this program for
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI:
have it.
you.
Bring it
I
on.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: I'd like to
lower the tension in the Board. This is an
opportunity for the public to address the
Board. The comments will be incorporated into
the minutes and the minutes will be presented
to the Board and the team and our legal
department, and all that information will be
deciphered.
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Just put
the truth out.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: And move
forward. And I ask that nobody on this Board
become hostile toward the public regardless of
what they're trying to say.
MR. GERGELA: All I'm trying to
say is we've struggled trying to get certain
elements of data too because voluntary
preservation is working, and that's not coming
out for some reason fairly.
There are a number of alternatives
in the document, and these are good
alternatives. And what I'd like to see you do
is extrapolate and take some data, and do some
modeling for the alternatives. The
conservation subdivision process, we want to
see that happen; that's very beneficial.
The writ, transfer development
rights, I know that that is a difficult issue
in this Town. We've worked on this over the
years. We have been trying to do it in
Riverhead for many years. It's finally
starting to move forward. We're not quite
there yet. It's an important tool. It may
be, may not be able to be widely used in
Southold, but I think it's deserving of
further extrapolating and building upon
because it can be a useful tool. What I'm
suggesting is that there are alternatives that
need further scrutiny to be looked at.
As far as the document, and I'm
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
83
not a lawyer, so bear with me on this. One of
the things that we would like to see is a set
of conditions in this draft that clearly
states that any restrictive zoning,
recommendations or alternatives should be
subject to further SEQRA review down the
road. That way we make sure that whatever
actions that you take are based upon certain
conditions and thresholds; that you have
explored other possibilities at least as far
as discussion.
One thing, and again, I'm not a
lawyer and I'm not quite sure if I'm
understanding this document, but one thing
that I am concerned of for the farm community
and all the landowners is the right to
protest, and there are provisions in municipal
boards, such as things for super majority to
be able to revote, and that's a form of
protest. I would like to see as part of this
process that that right is retained; that the
Town is aware of that, and will give the
landowners a fair chance at due process and be
able to protest if that day comes.
And, John, all due respect, I
wasn't trying to be hostile. I was just
making the point that there is an awful lot of
landowners who have gone not only to the Town,
but the County as well.
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Joe, I
wasn't trying to be hostile either. I just
would really respect the truth when you speak,
and I welcome the documentation that you --
MR. GERGELA: I have a data base
that will show you the numbers.
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Please do.
MR. GERGELA: And it is a work in
progress, with all due respect. There are
people that have gone forward that may
build
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Not even
close, the numbers aren't even close.
MR. GERGELA: Be that as it may, I
wasn't meaning to be disrespectful to you.
So these are a number of things
that I have picked up on that I think were
important and should be considered as part of
the SEQRA process. And you know I think that
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
84
Bill Esseks represented the farmers on it
tonight pretty well on the legal stuff. I
hope he will continue to do that.
We are working with the farm
community and one of the things I have been
talking to and have been seeing with Riverhead
is can't we work out some things that can
better serve the community than bashing heads
all the time, and we haven't been able to have
that kind of a process and maybe that we're
all remiss in doing that. But I think that
there are a lot of alternatives that need a
further exploration before you take drastic
action and go forward with an upzone. And I
thank you for the time to speak to you
tonight.
MR. ROONEY: My name is John
Rooney from the Hamlet of Southold.
I just two weeks ago became a
member of the board of the N.F.E.C., but I
hasten to add, especially to the farmers
tonight, I am not here as an ideologue. I am
new to that board and I am here essentially as
a citizen. I have come to a lot of hearings
about the moratorium as a citizen. So I am
not speaking as a representative of N.F.E.C.,
and, in fact, I've had discussions with them
in terms of the complexities of this, so I am
not an ideologue.
What is, unfortunately, most
impressing me tonight is the number of people,
and I have included myself, who have come up
here and have had an awful lot to say while
admitting they have read very little of the
document if any. I have tried to download it
at home and read what I could, but I'm having
a lot of trouble with it because pages
disappear and it seems to jump around and not
easy. And the gentleman earlier who said that
maybe we should have some sort of a summary
put out, I think that should be done.
I've gotten the feeling that this
whole thing -- I'm having difficulty with
tonight -- that people are being asked to
comment on a document that was only very
recently released, that was very hard to get
your hands on and that very few of us have
really read in any depth. So how can we
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
25
85
comment on it. And my understanding was also
that it's not particularly taking a position.
I know that the five acre zoning thing is out
there, but officially the document is not
taking a position, and yet we're arguing as
though this was a hearing on five acre zoning,
which it is not. So I'm sitting here hesitant
to speak because I feel am I really not
qualified to say anything intelligent about
this.
So I have a tremendous respect for
the farmers of Southold, believe me. I have
an environmental point of view as well, but
the point is, let's take our time and before
we get overly excited with each other, let's
at least all be able to read this as
thoroughly as possible and maybe we'll find
that there is more commonality.
Things like R-I-D, for example,
very little has been said about that. Even if
we went to five acre zoning, my understanding
is that there are many things that would have
to be done, I believe, not just five acre
zoning, but other things, sophisticated things
in combination with that that would reduce the
loss of equity of the farmer.
I'm not out to bash or make them
pay for it. I think in some ways the taxpayer
maybe should carry a heavier burden. I think
there are various ways taxation should be
heavier for people who want to build
McMansions. There's a lot of things. I think
a lot of the farm speakers were right in terms
of spreading the expense of all this.
My point is, without trying to
sound like a Polly Anna, but I think that we
really can be a lot more rational in the
discussion but the first thing is the
information has to be made more available,
more time has to be allowed before we have
these hearings, because I think they
prematurely come to head-bashing that
Mr. Gergela just spoke about, and that's not
going to help anyone of us. Okay, so please
try to do what you can to get that out to us.
Thank you.
MS. NEVILLE: Excuse me, could you
spell your name, please?
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2
- 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e 25
86
MR. ROONEY: R-O-O-N-E-Y, John
Rooney, Southold.
MS. NEVILLE: Thank you.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr.
Rooney.
Would anybody else care to address
the Board this evening? It's only 10:40.
We'll leave this Public Hearing
open and the next date is June 23rd at 4:30, I
believe, in the afternoon. It will be held at
Southold Town Hall. Keep it in mind that I
will have an alternate space available, and if
it looks like we're loading up in Town Hall,
we will make note of where we're meeting.
We appreciate your patience this
evenlng. We appreciate your coming down and
participating in this process. It's the
utmost importance to us as we move forward as
a Board. Thank you.
(Time ended: 10:42 p.m.)
C E R T I F I CAT ION
I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for
the State of New York, do hereby certify:
THAT the within transcript is a true
record of the testimony given.
I further certify that I am not related by
blood or marriage, to any of the parties to
this action; and
THAT I am in no way interested in the
outcome of this matter.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
hand this 19th day of June, 2003.
Florence V. Wiles
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
and lhe Dephmnent ot I ransportat~on res~.Ien'[ ne sa~d~ .....
SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL
53095 Main Road, Southold, NY
ON DGEIS
(Draft Generic _Environmental Impact S_tatement)
prepared for the proposed
Town Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
(A Planning Study for Southold Town)
PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION
Thursday, June 19, 2003 m 6:30 to 7:30 p.m.
OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC TO COMMENT
Thursday, June 19, 2003 -- 7:30 p.m.
Monday, June 23, 2003 -- 4:30 p.m.
Tuesday, June 24, 2003 -- 7:00 p.m.
(10 days provided for written comment after
close of public hearing)
D
F,
F
d'
it
Imp
deb,
mgs
24.
inct
err
Sou
inte
LIP
U.S
2
spr¢
Ma
Cul
1,6'
and
ma.
.cell '
the
PUBILC HEARING ON DGEIS OF SCIS
~ ~ Dra~t'~eneric Environmental Impact Sl~tement of $outhold Co,mprebensive Implementation Strategy
~- ..... ~ ~ { ~./v~ ~,.,'//~ ~,..~. ~o~'~
P),~qse legibly nrint all ~nformatioll /~/. c~ ~,
ATTENDANCE SHEET JUNE 19, 2003
PUBILC HEARING ON DGEIS OF SCIS
Draft Gen~ic Environmental Impact Statem~ut uf Southold Comprehensive Implementation $trateKy
Ple~e.lt~iblv orint all ~!~ormafion
ATTENDAN~ SHEET JUNE , 2003
PUBILC HEARING ON DGEIS OF SCIS
Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement of Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Please legibly print all information
Name
Street Address/PO ,Box Hamlet
OTICE OF CCEPTANCE OF THE DRAFT GENERIC EIS
&
SCHEDULING OF PUBLIC HEARING
Lead Ageno':
Contact:
Address:
Town of Southold
To,am Board
Hon. Joshua Horton, Supervisor
Toxvn Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Date: June 3, 2003
This notice is issued pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining
to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act - SEQRA) of the Environmental
Conservation Law and Chapter 44 of the To,am Code of the Town of Southold.
The lead agency has determined that the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
(DGEIS) prepared for the proposed To,am Comprehensive Implementation Strategy is complete
and adequate for public review and comment.
Title of Action:
SEQR Status:
Description of
Action:
To`am of Southold
Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
Type I Action
The proposed action involves the evaluation and, where appropriate, imple-
mentation by the Southold Town Board of the recommended planning and
program tools and measures as described in the planning studies undertaken
within the To,am over the past 20 years. The studies, plans and
recommendations have been reviewed in terms of current needs and Town
goals to achieve the To`ann's vision as articulated in the following plans.
· Parks, Recreation & Open Space Survey (1982)
· Town Master Plan Update and Background Studies (1984/85)
· USFUK Countryside Stewardship Exchange Team (1991)
· Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (1
· Town Affordable Housing policies and program (1993)
· Fishers Island GrowthPlan (1987-1994)
· Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (1994)
· Seaview Trails of the North Fork (1995)
· Peconic Estuary Program (1995)
· Economic Development Plan, Town of Southold (1997)
· Community Preservation Project Plan (July, 1998)
· Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiatives
· County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999)
· Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (1999)
Location:
SCTM No.:
· I Water Supply Management ~1 Protection Strategy (2000
· Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (2001)
· Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2003)
· North Fork TravelNeeds Assessment (2002)
· Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, Final Report (July 14, 20C
· Southold Town Code, Zoning Code and Zoning Map
These recommendations are being considered by the Town Board for
implementation in the form of amendments to Town procedures, the Town
Code and various Town regulations, in conformance with the Town's
Comprehensive Planning. As a result, the proposed action involves
legislative changes, with no specific physical changes proposed. The Town
Board intends to initially consider all prior recommendations with an
emphasis on those that protect farmland, and open space, promote affordable
housing and preserve natural resources. The Board may prioritize, narrow
down or select implementation tools that best achieve the goals of the Town.
The basic goals of the above-referenced plans and studies include:
· The Town's goal is to preserve land including open space, recreation and
working landscapes.
· The Town's goal is to preserYe rural, cultural, historic character of the
hamlets and surrounding countryside.
· The Town's goal is to preserve its natural environment; to prevent furth
deterioration of resources and to restore degraded resources back to pristi~
or near pristine quality.
· The goal of the Town is to preserve and promote a range of housing and
business opportunities that would support a socio-economically diverse
community.
· The Toxvn's goal is to increase transportation efficiency and to create
attractive alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic
and historic attributes of the Town, State, County and local roadways.
The Board will solicit inter-agency and public input, and will consider
potential impacts under a public forum provided through a Gener/c
Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) procedure. The proposed action
will provide a means to ensure that the above-listed Town goals will be
achieved through a comprehensive, well-established and well-considered
land use decision-making framework.
The proposed action would apply to the entire Town.
All of District 1000
Potential Environme~Impacts:
The proposed action involves the evaluation and, where appropriate, implementation of 20 years
of planning recommendations in a comprehensive manner and consistent with current Town
needs. By virtue of the fact that the initiative is intended to implement the past planning studies
of the To'am, it is consistent with the Town Comprehensive Plan which includes the zoning code
and building zone map, zoning decisions, goals, legislative actions and the record of decisions
that forms the Town's direction in terms of achieving its vision. The action is not expected to
cause significant adverse impacts, since it advances the goals of the Town. However, the action
is of Tovcn-wide significance, and does involve changes to natural and human resources. In
consideration of the factors noted above, the following potential impacts have been identified:
The proposed action may result in impacts to the natural and human resources of the Town,
individually, cumulatively or synergistically. Zone changes anct/or Torch Code revisions may
be necessary to implement recommendations.
The action may set a precedent with regard to the growth and character of the Toxvn and/or
individual communities.
Notice/Action:
The Southold Town Board has reviexved the Draft GEIS prepared for the proposed action and,
based upon its review of its contents and required contents established in the Final Scope,
determined that the document is adequate for public review and comment, and hereby schedules
a special public hearing on the Draft GElS for June 19, 2003 at the Southold Town Hall hearing
room (53095 Main Road, Southold), at which time the hearing will start with a public
information session on the proposed action and DGEIS document from 6:30 to 7:30 p.m.,
followed by an opportunity for the public to comment on the DGEIS beginning at 7:30 p.m. The
comment period will remain open and the hearing will be continued on June 23, 2003 at 4:30
p.m. and June 24, 2003 at 7:00 p.m.. At least 10 days will be provided for written comment after
the close of the public hearing.
For Further Information Contact:
Greg Yakaboski, Esq., Town Attorney
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Telephone: (631) 765-1889
Copies of this Notice Sent to:
Town of Southold Supervisor's Office
Town Clerk of the Town of Southold
Toxx~n of Southold Planning Board
Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold Town Trustees
Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services
Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works
Suffolk County Water Authority
Suffolk County Planning Commission
NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, CormTUssioner, Albany
NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Regional Office at Stony Brook
NYS Dept. of Transportation
NYS Dept. of State
US Army Corps of Engineers
inc. Village of Greenport
Towns of Riverhead, Southampton and Shelter Island
Parties of Interest Officially on Record ~vith the Town Clerk (if applicable)
STATE OF NEW
SS:
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, New York being
duly sworn, says that on the 5 day of June ,2003, she affixed a notice of
which the annexed printed notice is a tree copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a
most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town
Clerk's Bulletin Board, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York.
NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE DRAFT GENERIC EIS
&
SCHEDULING OF PUBLIC HEARING
Southold Town Clerk
Sworn before me this
5th day of June ,200~u.
(~/ / ~qotary Public
LYNDA M. BOHN
NOTARY PUBLIC, State of Nm~ Yo~
No, 01BOB020932
Qualified In Suffolk Count/
Term Expires M~ch
EIS & SCIIEJ)ULII'(G OF
PUBLIC;; BJWUNG
Lead Agency. Town. . of
Southold 1'own
Board . 'U'
Contact: Hon. J~ . QIlOn,
S~
Address:Town Hall, 'Road
53095 Main .
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Dt#e:June 3\ 2003 !
T1riuotice s issued p\lfSllllllt
l& 6.NYCRR Pljrt 6F of the
imjlIementing re~ns per-
taining to ArtiCle 8 (S\llte
Envirorimental Quality Review
Act - SEQRA) of the
Environmental Conserval1on
Law and Chapter 44 of the
Town Code of the Town of
Southold
'"" :;,!TIt . J..,r.J.J Fr 1Il_ .,....u..@~...
'''-rllJ'';';:':::'~. 'ng page se,rve)ts Dlitural environment; to
......"'....-. pn;'Veiif "fiirtIiet'iJe(l!rionttioil qf
resqurces and to resl!>~,degraded
~es back to pnstme or ilear
pr,iS6ne quality.
"11\e goahlf the Town is to
~e and pro!l1'!~ a range ,!f
'!cillsi.nl! and tiuSlness opportuni-
ties.t!Ilit would support a socio-
ecooolllically diverse communi-
ty. .
.~ ,Town's goal is to
increase fransportation efficiency
and to Create attractive alterna-
tives to automobile travel, while
~ the scenic and historic
attributes. of the Town, State,
County and local roadways.
'The Board' will soliCtt inter-
~and~ !ntmt.an:,~
a PJJbIic.~proviuu.r:r througb
a Genenc)~nVlroll111elltallnul8Ct
Statement . (GElS) proceaure.
The prllpOsed action Will provide
a means to ensure that the above-
listed . TOwn~' oals will be
achieved throu a comprehen-
sive, well-esta6 ished ana well-
considered' land use decision-
~ framework.
Location: The . proposed
action would apply to the entire
Town.
$CTM No.: AIl of District
1000
Potential Environmental
Impaets: .'
The proposed action involves
the ev8lualion and, where aJlPl"O-
priate, implementation of 20
y'ears . of pfanning recommenda-
tions m a comprehensive manner
and consistent with current Town
needs. By virtoe of the fact that
the initiative is 'intended to
imPlement .the PaS! planni!,g
stuaies of the Town, It IS consIS-
tent with the Town
Comprehensive Plan which
incluae!i the zoning code and
building zone ~, zonin& deci-
sioilS goa:Js; Ieg.slatiw iiCtions
and the record of decisions that
furms 'the' Town's direction in
tenus of lIchieving its vision.
The ac.tion is not expected to
cause' . . sigriificant adverse
impacls Sifice. it advances the
goals of lIIe Towll. However, the
action is of Town-wide signifi-
cance, and does involve changes
to natural and bumari resources.
In consideration of lIIe.factors
noted . ah'ove, '. lIIe fOllowing
P!>tenl1a1lmpacts have been
Identified: . .
I. :l'Il:~Prowsedaction may
result ./Il I!fipabts. 10 lb~ natunil
apdhliimin res9\INes of the
Thwn, iUdiviilti.l!JlY. Cumulatively
or, ~'iJ.'$islicallY.~echanges
lU1(j{(}J'IOWPCqjfefllvisinns may
be'~',th' itilplement rec-
O\Wl)~,
.. 2: The' action may set a
precedent With regard to the
gt!l.W1 wth. .ana. Chllract. . er. Of. . the
'foW!l. and/or individual,commu-
rl1lillSi" " . '.' .,.".
NO&et..
TheSo1)thold ToWn BOard has
ri:viewed the IJrafl GElS pre-
pared fur the. prOposed actioO
::.....~updn i~~ew orits
'alUd .~UU... contents
~ 'in'IIIliFillal S~""",
detetJnined. ttiat the~rr.
Iide\liiiIte for PlIbIlli .review Rnd
e.,/WJel't aIid here&r schc$les
a ,~ial puh'lic heai'ing on the
Driul GElS for June 1 ~, 2003 at
t\je .8oU$OI.d Thwn .Hau bearing
room (53095 Mam Road,
Soulllold),at Which time the
h~'wiU start with 8 public
~'~onth~.
~'aetioniindDGEIS4
~.fn)rn<6:30 ~"1:30J4l1', fbl-
\OWett'bYan'~ty'for the
til!bliiHo oo.~tbrt1he-DGEIS
be.mgitlningIll1: O. 'r. .ltl. Th~com-
ment period wiI . reIDaIIl open
and tile heariiIgWilllie continUed
on JUne 23;'Z003at 4:30 p.m.
and June 24, 2003 Ill. 7:00 \l.m.
At least 10 dayS will he proVIded
fur' written.~ after the
close of the public hearing.
For Further Inforiilatilln
The lead ag'~~s . deter-
minedtbat tile . ..,. Generic
EiIvironmen.ta1 talImp8cl. . .... 'S1atem.... . ent
(DOEIS). prepat!:d. Jor'l1\e Pr0-
posed "town OQlllj\rehenswe
!mpllll)lel11ation StmilJgy is com-
plete l\i1I1 adeqiiilte'rcir public
review and comment.
TItle of Aciibn:. Town of
Soulllold .' .. Comprehensive
lmplemeritation StriItegy
SEQR status: ''fVpe I Action
DeSCription, qfA'itlOn:The pr0-
posed action mvolvesllle evalua-
tion spd,. where. .apprllpriate,
implementation hr' lIie Sonthold
1'own QclanI of tlie =ommend-
ed pllll\liing lInd 'progmn, lI)Ols
and m~s as descnOed in the
planning stodies und~rtaken
within t!:ie Town over the past 20
years. The studies, plaDs and
recommendations have heen
reviewed in ten:nsof current
needs and lowll gOOls to achieve
the Town's vision as articulated
in the fullowing plans.
. Par.ks, Recreatinn & Open
Space Survey (l9l!2}
. Town Maslei PIan Update
and Background Studies
(1984/85)
. US/UK CoUntryside
Steward-ship Exchange Team
(1991).
. Long Island Comprehensive
Special GroUUdwater Protection
Area Plan (1992)
. Town. Affordable Housing
policies and program (1993)
. Fishers fslaiid Griiwth Plan
(1987-1994)
. Southola Town Stewardship
Task Force S!!!dY. (1994)
. Seaview T\'ll1ls of the North
Fork (1995)
. Peconic Estuary Program
(1995)
. Economic DeVeIOI?....~ me. .nt
Plan. Town ofSoulllold 0,,-,)
. Community Preservation
Project Plan (July, 1998) .
. Southold Township: 2000
Planning Initiatives
. County Route 48 Corridor
Land Use Stody (1999)
. Farm and Farmland
Protection Strategy (1999)
. Town Wilter Supply
Management & Waterilied
Protection Strategy (2000)
. Scenic Southold Corridor
Management Plan (2001)
. Town of Southold Local
Waterfront Revitalization
Program (2003) ,
. North. Fork Travel: Needs
Assessment (2002) .', <
. BIui: RiblxlIlCo\l1l1lission for
a RuralSouthold, Final Report
(July 14,2002\ . . ' " .
c~O'::'~Zo.ld~i/:f~'~~
These reco~e:.&tions are
~~.. ..~.. DSI...:. tlwon.th. ~.Tothwn
~'I.,. . . _', me
fI . f' . " ' li
.8&..1~ "th"T... "to Qwn
t"';"""~~' e ,own COde and
various Town regulations, in
conformance' with the Town's
Co~veJ'lannin" . As. a
reslllt, the; .... ," ~'i>'ac(j9n
inYolv~s 'fe~= chanlles,
with ;,Jlp'" SlI""'. 'fic' I1bYSICaI
changes proposed. The Town
Board intendS to initially consi4-
er all prior recommendations
willi an eDlphasis on th~ tbat
protect failtUan.~.. and.. open
~pace, promote ,lQiordaQle hoos-
mg and. .JltpServe natural
re~ The BOard may prior-
~. \l8!7OW dowll or select
itilplen1e4tatiQn tOOls that. best
8l'liieve, lIIeis~<1(,tbI:.'l'P.Wn.
;the~g .Qf1b8 ..' f-
f;~tP.,......., .)1.11 dM. ~,~s
, .....;the T~wn,'Sjl!)l!l.. is .to pre-
setve Il!l1'I inCluding pt>en space,
recreajioll. and . workjng land-
~ Town's goal is to pre_
serve rural, cultural, historic
charncter of the hamlets ahd'Sur-
~ countryside.
, . The "'roWn's goal is '1IY pre-
Contact: .
'Greg 'Y8bboski;-Esijo,' Town
Attomer.
Town HaII,5309S Main Road
P.O. Bolt 1179 '
Southold, NY 11971
Telephone: (63H 765-1889
. IX 6/5103 (770)
~~A - Tr4JIeler Watchlllllft - Tbursday,.Jun~ ,,",(!O3
~ ........... from preceding """e serve its natural envir?Dmeot; to
-- ~ prevent further detetiombon of
resources and to restore degraded
resources back to pristine or near
pristine quality.
. The goal of the Town is to
preserve and promote a range of
l!!"l8ing and business opportuni-
tillS'tJu\i would support a socio-
ee"ononiically diverse communi-
ty. .......
. ;', lie .Town's goal is to
increase transportation efficiency
and to create attractive alterna-
tives to automobile !mvel, while
preserving the scenic and historic
attributes of the Town, State,
County and IClCaI roadways.
The Board will soliCIt inter-
agency and public input, and will
consider potential impacts under
a ublic forum rovided throu
enen nvrronmen
Statement (GElS) proce ure.
The proposed action WiII provide
a means to ensure that the ahove-
listed Town ~oals will be
achieved throu a comprehen-
sive, well-esta6 ished ann well-
considered land use decision-
making frameworl<.
Location: The - proposed
action would apply to the entire
Town.
SCTMNo.: All of District
1000
Potential Environmental
Impacts:
The proposed action involves
the evaluation and, where appro-
priate, implementation or 20
years of planning recommenda-
tions in a comprehensive manner
and consistent with current Town
needs. By virtue of the fact that
the initiative is intended to
implement the past planning
stuilies of the Town, it IS consis-
tent with the Town
Program Comprehensive Plan which
inelunes the zoning code and
building zone map, zoning deci-
sions, goals, legIslative actions
and the record of decisions that
fonns the Town's direction in
terms of achieving its vision.
The action is not expected to
cause. significant adverse
impacts, since it advances the
goiils of the Town. However, the
action is of Town-wide signifi-
cance, and does involve changes
to natural and human resources.
In consideration of the factors
noted above, the following
potential impacts have been
Identified:
1. The proposed action may
resnlt in impacts to the natural
and human resources of the
Town, individually, cumulatively
or synergistically. Zone changes
and/or Town CoOe revisions may
be necessary to implement rec-
ommendations.
2. The action may set a
precedent with regard to the
growth and character of the
Town and/or individual commu-
nities.
Notice/Action:
The Southold Town Board has
reviewed the Draft GElS pre-
pared for the proposed action
and, based upon its review of its
contents and required contents
estaBlished in the Final Scope,
determined that the document is
adequate forJ'ublic review and
comment, an hereby schedules
a special public hearing on the
Draft GElS for June 19, 2003 at
the Southold Town Hall hearing
room (53095 Main Road,
Southold), at which time the
hearing will start with a public
information session on the pro-
posed action and DGEIS docu-
ment from 6:30 to 7:30 p.m., fol-
lowed by an opJlortunity for the
public to comment on the DGEIS
beginning at 7:30p.m. The com-
ment period wil remain open
and the hearing will be continued
on June 23, 2003 at 4:30 p.m.
and June 24, 2003 at 7:00 p.m.
At least 10 days will be proVIded
for written comment after the
e10se of the public hearing.
For Further Information
f.
The lead agency has deter-
mined that tile Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement
(DGEIS) prepared for the pro-
posed Town Comprehensive
Implementation S!mtegy is com-
plete and adequate for public
reVIew and comment.
Title of Action: Town of
Southold Comprehensive
Implementation Strategy
SEQR Status: 1'vDe I Action
Description of Aciion:The pr0-
posed action involves the evalua-
tion and, where appropriate,
unplementabon by the Southold
Town Board of tile recommend-
ed planning and pro@llD.l tools
and measures as desc in the
planning smdie." un e en
within the Town over the past 20
years. The slodies, plans and
recommendations have been
reviewed in terms of current
needs and Town goals to achieve
the Town's vision as articulated
in the following plans.
. Parks, Recreation & Open
Space Survey (1982)
. . Town Master Plan Update
and Background Studies
(1984/85)
. USIUK Countryside
Steward-ship Exchange Team
(1991)
. Long Island Comprehensive
Special Groundwater Protection
Area Plan (1992)
. Town Affordable Housing
policies and program (1993)
. Fishers Tsland Growth Plan
(1987-1994)
. Southold Town Stewardship
Task Force Stud:r (1994)
. Seaview TmiIs of the North
Fork (1995)
. Peconic Estuary
(1995)
. Economic Development
Plan, Town of Southold (1997)
. Community Preservation
Project Plan (July, 1998)
. Southold Township: 2000
Planning Initiatives
. County Route 48 Corridor
Land Use Study (1999)
. Farm and Farmland
Protection Strategy (1999)
. Town Wilter Supply
Management & Watcrsliea
Protection S!mtegy (2000)
. Scenic Southold Corridor
Management Plan (200 I )
. Town of Southold Local
Waterfront Revitalization
Program (2003)
. North Fork Travel Needs
Assessment (2002)
. Blue Ribbon Commission for
a Rural Southold, Final Report
(July 14,2002)
. Southold Town Code, Zoning
CoOe and Zoning Map
These recommendations are
being considered by the Town
Boaro for implementation in the
form of amendments to Town
procedures, the Town Code and
various Town regulations, in
conformance with the Town's
Comprehensive P1anning. As a
result, the proposed action
involves legIslative changesj
with no specific physlea
changes proposed. The Town
Board intendS to initially consid-
er all prior recommendations
with an emphasis on those that
protect farmland, and open
space, promote affordable hous-
ing and preserve natural
resources. The Board may prior-
itize, narrow down or select
implementation tools that best
acliieve the goals of the. Town.
The basic goaIS of tire above-ref-
erenced plans and studies
include:
. The Town's goal is to pre-
serve land including ~ space,
recreation and workmg land-
scapes.
. The Town's goal is to pre-
serve rural, cultural, historic
character of the hamlcts and sur-
rounding countryside.
. The Town's gual is to pre-
Contact:
Greg Yakaboski, Esq" Town
Attorney
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box II 79
Southold, NY 11971
Telephone: (631) 765-1889 sworn, says
_ IX 6/5/03 (770) Advertising
Coordinator, of the Traveler Watchman,
a public newspaper printed at Southold,
in Suffolk County; and that the notice of
which the annexed is a printed copy, has
been published III said Traveler
Watchnum once each week
for...../.....weeKfi; ~ccessively,
6iom e fing.,,~n the......0.........day of
.... .~~;rc.......,2003.
.. . /-x.../.~'-:Y~.~.
;;:
,..--
:s
S~~~before me this.........day of
"Q tJ,....., 2003.
-~- - . L . / - .'
/;".-,. / C/0, ?' /../
~>~. 'c"", ..../6~ .Go... /.~ ~~. ?~:;(:.
Notary Public
Emily Hamill
'OTARY I'liBLlC, State of'cw York
No. 01 H.'\5059984
Qualified in Suffolk County
Commission expires May 06, 2006
NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE
OF TIlE DRAFT GENERIC
EIS & SCHEDULING OF
PUBLIC HEARING
Lead Agency: Town of
Southold Town
Board
Contact: Hon. Joshua Horton,
Supervisor
Address: Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box II 79
D Southold, NY 11971
llte:June 3 2oo3~' .
This notice is iSSUed pursuant
!<> 6 NYC~ Part 617 of the
1ll1plementing regulations per_
tam~ng to Article 8 (Slate
EnVironmental Quality Review
Act. - SEQRA) of the
EnVironmental Conservation
Law ,and Chapter 44 of the
Town Code of the Town of
Southold.
2003 · ]he S~ff,i~IR T~mes · '1~
SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL
53095 Main Road, Southold, NY
ON DGEIS
(Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement)
prepared for [he proposed
Town Comprehensive Implementation Strate~
(A Planning Study for Southold Town)
Public Information Session
Thursday, June 19, 2003
6:30- 7:30 p.m.
Opportunity for Public to Comment
Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 7:30 p.m.
Monday, June 23, 2003 - 4:30 p.m.
Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 7:00 p.m.
( I 0 days provided for written comment after close of public hearing)
SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL
53095 Main Road, Southold, NY
ON DGEIS
(~Draft G~eneric E_nvironmental Impact Statement)
prepared for the proposed
Town Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
(A Planning Study for Southold Town)
PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION
Thursday, June 19, 2003 -- 6:30 to 7:30 p.m.
OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC TO COMMENT
Thursday, June 19, 2003 -- 7:30 p.m.
Monday, June 23, 2003 -- 4:30 p.m.
Tuesday, June 24, 2003 -- 7:00 p.m.
(10 days provided for written comment after
close of public hearing)
..
.
.
TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SEQRA RES()'::lJTI()~
Jung3.; Z!J.l;ll1
SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
ACCEPTANCE OF DRAFT GElS
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold (the "Board") has assumed lead agency
status in review of the above-referenced action and for the purpose of compliance with
the State Environmental Quality Review Action (SEQRA), as codified in 6 NYCRR Part
617,and
WHEREAS, the Board found that a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) would be
necessary, and issued the appropriate determination (via a Positive Declaration) to require
such document for the proposed action, considering that the recommendations may result
in potential impacts which may include cumulative and/or generic impacts, and
WHEREAS, the Board is familiar with the scoping process as outlined in SEQRA Part 617.8
(Scoping), and
WHEREAS, the Board held a public scoping meeting on January 29, 2003 at the Southold
Town Hall meeting room, and a period of 10-days were provided following the public
scoping meeting to allow for submission of written comments, and
WHEREAS, the Board accepted the Final Scope as complete on April 8, 2003, and
WHEREAS, the Draft GElS has been prepared in conformance with the Final Scope, and
WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed the document and determined that it conforms to the
required contents as stated in the Final Scope and is therefore adequate for public review
and comment.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby accepts the Draft
Generic Environmental Impact Statement after due deliberation and review of the
prepared documentation, for the purpose of public and interested agency/party review,
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town Board hereby directs the Town Clerk to file a
Notice of Complete Draft EIS and Notice of Public Hearing in accordance with the
Notice and Filing Requirements of SEQRA and circulate the Draft EIS to public,
interested agencies and parties of interest (noted below), in accordance with 6 NYCRR
Part 617.12, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town Board hereby sets a hearin
for a special Town Board Public Hearing on
hearing rOQrti(53095 Main Road, Southold), .
,
Southold C.ehensive hnplementation Strategy .
SEQRA Resolution
BElT Ji'UR'JlIJm:RESOLVED, tha1;:theTo~~oari;lof:theTo~l!lf.Sl!luthold hereby directs
the Town Clerk to file Notice of the Public Hearing in at least one (I) local newspaper, at
least fifteen (15) days prior to the Public Hearing.
Town of South old Supervisor's Office
Town Clerk of the Town of South old
Town of Southold Planning Board
Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold Town Trustees
Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services
Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works
Suffolk County Water Authority
Suffolk County Planning Commission
NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Commissioner, Albany
NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Regional Office at Stony Brook
NYS Dept. of Transportation
NYS Dept. of State
US Army Corps of Engineers
Inc. Village of Greenport
Town of Riverhead .
Town of Southampton
Town of Shelter Island
Parties of Interest Officially on Record with the Town Clerk (if applicable)
2
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
.
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631) 765-6145
Telephone (631) 765-1800
southoldtown.northfork.net
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 349 OF 2003
WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
ON JUNE 3, 2003:
WHEREAS, the Town Board ofthe Town of Southold (the "Board") has assumed lead agency
status in review of the above-referenced action and for the purpose of compliance with the State
Enviroumental Quality Review Action (SEQRA), as codified in 6 NYCRR Part 617, and
WHEREAS, the Board found that a Generic Environmentallmpact Statement (GElS) would be
necessary, and issued the appropriate determination (via a Positive Declaration) to require such
document for the proposed action, considering that the recommendations may result in potential
impacts which may include cumulative and/or generic impacts, and
WHEREAS, the Board is familiar with the scoping process as outlined in SEQRA Part 617.8
(Scoping), and
WHEREAS, the Board held a public scoping meeting on January 29,2003 at the Southold
Town Hall meeting room, and a period of 10-days were provided following the public scoping
meeting to allow for submission of written comments, and
WHEREAS, the Board accepted the Final Scope as complete on April 8, 2003, and
WHEREAS, the Draft GElS has been prepared in conformance with the Final Scope, and
WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed the document and determined that it conforms to the
.
.
required contents as stated in the Final Scope and is therefore adequate for public review and
comment.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby accepts the Draft
Generic Environmental Impact Statement after due deliberation and review of the prepared
documentation, for the purpose of public and interested agency/party review, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town Board hereby directs the Town Clerk to file a
Notice of Complete Draft EIS and Notice of Public Hearing in accordance with the Notice and
Filing Requirements of SEQRA and circulate the Draft EIS to public, interested agencies and
parties of interest (noted below), in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 617.12, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town Board hereby sets a hearing date for the Draft GElS
for a special Town Board Public Hearing on June 19, 2003 at the Southold Town Hall
hearinl! room (53095 Main Road, South old), at which time the hearinl! will start with a
public information session on the proposed action and DGEIS document from 6:30 to 7:30
p.m., followed bv an opportunity for the public to comment on the DGEIS bel!inninl! at
7:30 p.m. The comment period will remain open and the hearinl! will be continued on June
23,2003 at 4:30 p.m. and June 24, 2003 at 7:00 p.m.. At least 10 days will be provided for
written comment after the close of the public hearinl!, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board ofthe Town of Southold hereby
authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to file Notice ofthe Public Hearinl! in at least one (1)
local newspaper, at least fifteen (14) days prior to the Public Hearinl!.
Town of South old Supervisor's Office
Town Clerk of the Town of Southold
Town of Southold Planning Board
Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold Town Trustees
Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services
Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works
Suffolk County Water Authority
Suffolk County Planning Commission
.
.
.
NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Commissioner, Albany
NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Regional Office at Stony Brook
NYS Dept. of Transportation
NYS Dept. of State
US Army Corps of Engineers
Inc. Village of Greenport
Town of River head
Town of Southampton
Town of Shelter Island
Parties of Interest Officially on Record with the Town Clerk (if applicable)
PI~~L 4'.#CI."Q--~L.
Elizabeth A. Neville
South old Town Clerk