HomeMy WebLinkAboutDGEIS PH 7/15/03 8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK
TOWN O F S O U T H 0 L D
PUBLIC HEARING
In the Matter eft,
THE DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT e£ SOUTHOLD
COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
Sou~hold Tewn Hall
53095 Main Road
Southeld, New Yerk
July 18, 2003
8:00 p.m.
Board Members Present :
JOSHUA Y. HORTON,
THOMAS H. WICKHAM,
JOHN M. ROMANELLI,
Supervisor
Councilman
Ceuncilman
LOUISA EVANS, Justice/Councilwoman
WILLIAM D. MOORE,
CRAIG A. RICHTER,
GREGORY F. YAKABOSKI,
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE,
Councilman
Councilman
Town Attorney
Town Clerk
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047
2
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
SUPERVISOR HORTON:
I will offer the flour to members ef the
public that would like te address the Town
Beard to input and comment on the DGEIS.
We've dune this before, but I'll
introduce these folks. Starting from my left
is Patrick Cleary, Chick Veorhis, Valerie
Scepaz and Melissa Spire, all of whom have -
which have worked with the Town Beard in
compiling the information and doing the
technical work te comprise the DGEIS.
Se we'll again offer the flour to
anybody from the public that would care te
address the Town Beard to provide input on the
DGEIS.
Yes, sir.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, my
name is Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting with offices in Hain Street,
Bridgehampten.
I'm here representing various
property owners, farmers who will be affected
by the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy
if adopted. I'm also a resident of the
town. I'm here in opposition of the Town and
it is my belief that the plan should be
rejected.
Generally speaking, I find the
study to be grossly unfair. I find it fraught
with error. I believe it will result in a
significant loss of equity to farmers and
effective stakeholders and that those effects
will be great enough to be felt around the
town with respect to the socioeconomic
character of the town.
I find significant contradictions
throughout the study. And the main areas of
objection include your rural - proposed rural
incentive district, which purports to buy time
for properties in the AC zone t.s purchase
development rights or to transfer development
rights also in the town.
I also object to the agricultural
overlay district and the proposal to upzone to
five acres.
I question whether the TDR is at
all workable from the standpoint of the
mechanics involved, the equities and also to
Public hearing
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
the impacts to those folks that will be
located in what's termed '~receiving areas."
I don't believe that the study is
necessary in light of the preservation efforts
that have been going on. And I feel that it
is skewed in such a manner that will create
undue fear among folks who are not
knowledgeable as to the land use processes in
this town.
I'm going to go through some
specific statements in the impact statement.
I'm going to try to be brief, and I want to
start with the statement on residential land
use history, which is found at Page 2-36,
which speaks about the general land use
patterns characteristic of hisloric
development trends and states at the end of
the final paragraph that it was not until the
latter part of the last century when the town
saw its first typical tract subdivision, and
these tracts were generally limited to areas
around the perimeter of the hamlets.
It is, I believe, a true
statement, an undeniable statement, that most
of the development that you have seen within
the past ten years have occurred within
proximity of the existing hamlets, and that
the development pressure in the subdivision
process within what we call the farmland areas
have been extraordinarily limited.
I object to statements that occur
on the following pages that say the
traditional second homes apparently driving
this real estate boom, that these new second
home structures typified by very large
dwellings often in excess of eight to ten
thousand square feet in size, I challenge you
to find homes of that size that are going up
in this town. There clearly are not. Large
homes in this town are less than half that
size, and we don't typically see the swimming
pools and tennis courts that go with them. It
is my belief that those statements are more
characteristic of other areas in the east end
of Long Island, specifically the town of East
Hampton and eastern Southampton Town. That is
simply an incorrect statement.
I note that when we speak of the
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
4
1
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
loss of farmland, that your studies state that
in the 35 year period, 16 percent of the
town's farmland resources was lost. Without
getting into whether I believe that's an
accurate statement or not, I would note that
that is not a large loss. You're going back
to early 1968 in the early days of zoning
where you didn't have the land use controls
that you have today, and when you average that
out over the period from then till now, it's a
very small increase. The fact is that you
don't see a lot of agricultural subdivisions
in this town.
In my own practice, we've done
several, we're working on three now, and I've
never done a subdivision that met full yield.
Yet, when we get to the build out analysis,
we're going to find that it is based on every
available piece of land being subdivided at
the maximum extent permitted by zoning. That
type of analysis from our point of view is
completely fictitious because it doesn't take
into account a number of factors that guide
the development of this town.
The assumptions that follow are
equally questionable. Because, for example,
when you speak of developed non-subdividable
property, and you speak of vacant
non-subdividable property, and you look at
parcels that are to be fully developed, you
base that analysis only on the area of the
land. And the reality is that a subdivision
of land, in order for it to be approved as of
right, has to comply not only with the area
requirements but also dimensioE, al
requirements.
I show you just a couple of basic
pictures, so that you can understand what I'm
speaking about (indicating graph). Consider
properties that are long and narrow, we call
them bowling alley lots. They are prolific
along the North Road, and to see these all you
have to look at a tax map. If you considered
a lot that's 20 acres in size that has a width
of 250, many of them have widths that are much
narrower than that, this study and this
analysis would purport to show you that it
could be divided in this manner, creating in
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
5
1
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
this case eight lots, using your 0.4 yield
factor, but the reality is this can'l be
created. Why? Because the lot depth would be
insufficient. And a whole host ef properties
that you see out there fall under this
characteristic. Se te use analysis solely
dependant upon area, ignoring the dimensional
and the geometry ef the site, is not a fair
analysis.
When you consider this, you will
see that the numbers and the projections
you've made are all high. In fact, in every
analysis presented in here, every single
assumption pushes the number higher. That
causes undue fear, and I feel that that type
of analysis is unwarranted, particularly given
your land use capability, your DGEIS
capabilities which is throughout discussed in
this document.
The second example would be a flag
lot, say up by the Long Island Sound. You
have many of those. That flag lot might be
five acres. From your analysis, that would
suggest that you could create two parcels on
it. But the reality is, you can't because you
have the flag pole portion of it that would
gobble up a significant area of land. This
type of situation is not something the
planning board has the authority to approve.
The final scenario is just a
simple rectangular lot with four acres with
road frontage that could be subdivided in
half; however, there's a house already sitting
on it, and to subdivide it in half, one would
have to remove the house. I ckallenge you to
show me any examples where that has actually
occurred. Again, by ignoring these types of
physical features, what happens in your
analysis is that you artificially increase the
number of lots that can be created, thereby
skewing the debate.
The other central problems with
this involve statements throughout that appear
to contradict themselves. On the one hand,
you regard your acquisition programs, whether
it be purchase of development rights, fee
acquisition, even conservation .subdivision
plans as something that's uncerhain and that
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
will somehow cease te happen tomorrow or by
adoption of the plan or upon lack ef adoption
of the plan. Yet throughout this you also say
that the town, for example en Page 3 7, is te
continue te purchase development rights for
land preservation programs, and when you go
into your regional assessment models, you
reenforce that position; you reenforce that
position over and over again.
But, you talk about acquisition in
the future as being uncertain. You tell us
that there are key funding options available
to the Town, but you leave them out of your
analysis. I submit to you that there is also
another gross error that deals with the recent
guidance issue that was issued by Vito Hunan
of the health department, whiclh is described
in this document to say that under Article 6
of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, land that
is farmed is not permitted to }De counted
towards yield. That's a false statement. If
that were true, you realize there would be no
subdivision of farmland, and we wouldn't be
here tonight.
What that memo speaks to is a
clustering approach that's implemented by the
County, for example, if you had a hundred acre
parcel, but you're in a two acre zone. Let's
say for the sake of argument you were to
cluster it down, without public water you
could conceivably get your 45 lots or so; that
would be approved as-of-right, through the
health department, even though the hundred
acres is farm. If you had public water that
number of houses would be doubled because you
could go to a half acre.
The guidance memo, as I understand
it, was written in response to a specific case
in Riverhead where the zoning was such high
density the land was farmed and the resulting
clusters resulted in lot sizes ~hat were so
small as not to be permitted by the sanitary
code. But in this zoning environment here in
Southold, the requirements of the sanitary
code relative to deductions on farmland simply
don't apply because the zoning in place is
more limiting than the memorandnm that I
believe is relied upon in that statement.
COURT REPORTING AND TRAINSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The basic objection to all of this
is that you're taking land from someone,
you're basically taking - you're selecting
out a relatively few people in the town, and
you're telling them that it's their
responsibility to provide for the open space
needs of the town. You say that when you do
that that there is really not a significant
impact on land values; you say a reduction in
allowable density from two to five acre
yield may affect property of cne quarter to
one-third of the land, and it's my
understanding that that relates to an opinion
given by Gary Taylor who's president of Rogers
and Taylor, a real estate appraisal firm. And
the statement was made, as I understand it,
not in contemplation of clustering. So when
you went from a two acre standard to a five
acre standard, what apparently wasn't
understood, was once that happens you then
cluster back to a one acre standard. When
that happens, I think I beliew~ it was
Hr. Taylor's impression that you would simply
create five acre standard lots. And that is
simply not the intent here.
So these assumptions of value that
you put in here to say that these lands will
not be significantly impacted, I believe is
clearly made in error and should be corrected.
What follows from there is an
opinion based on a fellow named Rober~
Egerton, which is a very, very misleading
opinion which reads: "The most significant
aspect of farmland preservation to a lender
would be the use restrictions that would
affect the value of the collateral. The sale
of development rights is such a program, Farm
Credit has had experience for several years
financing land in Connecticut, Massachusetts,
Long Island and Pennsylvania where development
rights have been sold. In Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania approximately 25 percent of the
land mortgaged to Farm Credit had some type of
use restriction. Based upon our experience I
can offer the following, that borrowing
against land with restrictions en use is very
common, in fact, encouraged as ~ voluntarily
program. As a lender, we would be very
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
3
¥
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
concerned about the confiscation of rights
without due compensation. With the use
restrictions, the maximum loan would be
reduced commensurate with the agricultural use
only. This is not a problem, however, because
loans are made in relationship to the earnings
capacity to repay the loan. On agrieultural
land with high values resulting growth,
alternative demand, the size of the loan will
be limited to the earnings generated from the
land long before the total value is reached.
Lower land values based upon agricultural use
only would result in smaller loans with no
offsetting affect on the earnings potential of
that land. This would likely enhance the
farmer's repayment ability.
You must understand that this is
double talk. It's double talk because what
they're saying is when you impose these
restrictions and you devalue ti~e land, it
won't be a problem to the lending institution
because they're going to lend less money
thereby allowing the payment to occur. That
is precisely to the equity argument.
And there is in your files a
second study which was a study of the economic
impact of land use regulations on the business
of farming in Maryland. This one was prepared
by Legg Mason Realty Group, Inc.
Now, unfortunately in your files the final
pages are missing. But what the group
concludes that the ability to repay a farm
loan is the key to the financial institutions
making of the loans to a farmer. This
conclusion is confirmed in this case by LNRG
Research; however, the situation is not always
clear as is implied by that finding. In those
instances where the ability to repay is
marginal to the value of the land and its
liquidity could result in a go or no go
decision by the lender. The value can also be
important where the borrower plans to use such
funds to facilitate modest development of the
property. The study notes that the lenders
provide loans that present a fair market
value, while a percent loan varies with the
institution and the farmer's ability to pay,
the fair market value provides izhe underlying
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (6131) 878-8047
3
4
5
6
7
$
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
basis of the loan. Since the market of the
land is a function of its potential use,
restricting the potential use negatively
affects fair market values. And it goes on to
show how these values can be affected.
And, if the goal here is truly to
preserve agricultural, why would you bootstrap
the farmer's ability to borrow money,
particularly when the borrowing of money is
what makes agriculture vital in this town.
You've said over and over again in
this study that if not for agricultural we
wouldn't be the place that we are. That
agricultural is open space amenities provides
the value elsewhere. Yet, the same zoning
mechanism seeks to strip the farmer of his
equity, reducing his borrowinq power so that
he can no longer hold on to his farm. In some
cases -- not all cases - but eventually,
every farmer, if you look through these
studies that one time or another finds himself
in a position to be borrowing money. It could
be for the construction of a greenhouse,
operations, it could be for construction of a
barn. So your policies will likely hamper
farming thereby undermining the very purpose
of your zoning regulations.
I would suggest to you that when
that happens, you will see a significant
socioeconomic impact. And while the arguments
that are made here relative to SEQRA
essentially say we don't have to really
discuss economics unless the socioeconomic
character is affected, if you consider putting
farmers out of business because of your
restrictive zoning policies and those farmers
going out of business are the very same people
that create this environment, well, I suggest
to you that you must do a real fiscal analysis
of farming operations and how this regulation
will affect those operations. And I suggest
to you to do otherwise will make your side
deficient in any event.
The question of TDRs, we've never
known them to work. I've done an awful lot of
business in the Town of Southampton over the
years. We know they've had a TDR program for
several decades. To our knowledge only two
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047
1 10
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
parcels have actually been transferred under
that program.
I think what you're going to find
when you get to this transfer of development
concept, that you're going to create such
community conflict you'll wish you never
proposed it. Because it's not just the
sending areas, those people that are going to
be stripped of their rights on their own land
that are affected, it's also going to be the
receiving areas. Those people in the hamlets,
where you have had the most development in in
fill lots are going to see yet greater density
to offset the impacts caused by what is
essentially the sterilization in the AC
belt. You're going to find if you enact that
kind of proposal that it's going to cause
tremendous community conflict, and I advise
you not even to go in that direction.
Fundamentally the build out
analysis, the whole direction that this takes
it's as if it was done in a vasuum because
what it ignores are all the things that have
been going on, particularly fuuding wise,
repeatedly states that the available funding
is uncertain, and you need this upzone, and
you need to strip the farmers of their rights,
and you need to transfer development, you need
to do all of these things because you believe
that at any time all acquisition processes
will stop. Well, I've heard you hired a
lawyer to negotiate acquisitions today. I
suspect if I came to every meeting I would
hear similar resolutions passed. Essentially
there is no indication that any of this is
going to stop. In fact, the indication is
quite the opposite.
If you look at your existing
program to purchase development rights, you
have at your disposal approximately $12
million. You have a $1.3 million grant
already approved, of which you collected
apparently $600,000. You have a two percent
community preservation fund, whLch can only be
spent for the acquisition of properties or
transfer; that's all it can be used for except
for minor expenses involved in the
administration of that process, capped at ten
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1 11
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
percent, which should never be realized. It
should never take ten percent of that money te
effect the transaction. If you consider that
last year you collected some $3.6 million
through this fund, and you consider the fact
that that fund has new been extended to year
2020, under present development pressures,
which is causing all this, you can anticipate
$57.6 million. How much farmland could 56 -
$57.6 million purchase? Quite a bit.
On top of that, what you haven't
considered are what other towns are
considering right now, and that is hhat
because the money stream has been relatively
stable, there are lending institutions, major
lending institutions, that would float bonds
for the amount that you're expected to
collect, which means you could actually get
that money up front. There is no discussion
in this as an alternative as to hew that might
be done. Yet, we all know it's legally
permissible. It takes a little bit of
creative financing, and it's completely absent
in your study.
If it were present and if that
were shown te be a viable alternative, what
would be the point of adopting such a study to
hurt these farmers that created the
environment you love se much? You kill the
geese that laid the golden egg it would
appear.
This is really bad thinking. It's
short-sighted, and if you go down this read my
guess is that you'll do much mcre harm than
geed. Basically, faced with continually
restricted zoning it discourages the farmers
from farming, actually it makes them - they
get to a point where they say, heck with it,
sell it, I've had enough. You are pushing
people te that level, and it is apparent to me
that in drafting this up, you spent very
little time, if any, really talking te the
farmers.
You seem disinteresled as te their
own economic situations. You'wa completely
stepped -- avoided hew they finance their
operations, ongoing year after year and don't
forget you have good years and you have bad
COUNT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 80~7
12
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
years in the weather department. You don't
show any of that in this study. You can't
possibly adopt this study with the important
regulations, the upzening, your transfer of
development rights, your AC zones and the rest
ef it, without going the extra measure te
really bring in the affected people and really
learn hew they conduct their business.
Your ne-action alternative reads
as follows: "The no-action alternative
assumes that no portion ef the proposed action
will take place and the status quo will
prevail.,, Under this alternative it can be
projected that full build-out might be
realized, 20,532 dwelling units and that
saturation population reached 31,656.
Well, we've shown you by examples
like this that each and every term you would
take every interpretation te exaggerate the
amount of development that would occur,
skewing these numbers high. You would also,
by the way, by the same token, look at your
conservation subdivisions and what's going on
in terms ef what people voluntarily do and
lower the amount of land that's actually being
preserved. Se you've skewed it both ways, and
beth ways in the negative, beth ways in a way
te hurt people that shouldn't be hurt.
You, then in the next sentence,
say existing land preservation programs will
continue but net indefinitely, and with no
certainty as to the level ef funding as to
individual property owner's willingness to
participate in preservation efforts. That
sentence appears to contradict the sentence
that comes before it. And under the ne action
alternative, you only have these two sentences
to rely upon. You simply cannot write a
ne-action alternative in that fashion.
If you had considered the amount
ef money you've collected, the amount of money
you have in the kitty, your ability te reach
into the future and pull that money back into
the present, and if you had added that te your
ne-action alternative, I believe each and
every one of you no matter where you stand on
the issue, would conclude we don't nee{] te do
this, we don't need to hurt these people, we
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
don't need te upset the character of the area,
we don't need to upset the economy ef the
area.
In light of these facts, I don't
think you can deny them. I think a fact is a
fact. I think it leaves you with two options.
The first option, of course, is te simply
rescind your prior resolution deeming this
thing complete because it's obviously
incomplete. Your second option is to say,
well, we didn't think about it at the time,
you're right, cause a supplemental
environmental impact statement to be written
that would include these factors. Do it
because you want te be fair, you want to
preserve the open space, you want to continue
farming. You're trying to preserve the town,
but you're not willing te leek at the whole
picture by which that preservation can occur.
So, I am here te advise you, de
one of two things: Withdraw your prier
resolution, take this thing back, work en it
some more; or, two, require a supplemental
that will really get into the fiscal realities
of the farming operations to really get into
what the development patterns have been, te
really get into what the actual build-out is
given the geometry of the lots, to really get
into how could we amass a pot of money to
solve this problem without hurting people?
That is my advice. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR NORTON: Other comments
from the fleer? Mr. Meineke.
Justice Evans just leaned ever and
made a recommendation to me, one second if you
don't mind, sir.
She brought something to light
that I think is good as far as moving forward
with the public hearing because there are so
many different things that are said and things
strike a nerve in some people eno way er the
other. And I'm going to just put this out
there to you, and do with it as you may, but
we will request - perhaps we should have done
this earlier -- that when people speak and
they are finished, that we did not applaud and
we not boo, or just to maintain a level of
civility, if that's possible. It was an idea.
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047
14
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We're here together.
MR. MEINEKE: Thank you. My name
is Howard Meineke. I'm the president of the
North Pork Environmental Council. I live in
Cutchogue.
I just wanted to comment about the
previous speaker. You know, it's amazing what
you can say when you don't touch all the
bases. Now the farms haven't been under
development pressure because there's no good
water under the farms, and when the water
company brings good water, the equation
clearly changes.
Now, he talked about fundinq
options. Now, nobody really knows how it's
going to work out, but we know that every
municipality from town to County, to state to
the federal government from here to California
is in a red condition. And they have many
things they're going to fund that probably is
higher on their priority list than land
preservation. So to assume that there is all
sorts of money out there for land preservation
if we just ask for it, nobody really knows,
but I think that's extremely optimistic.
He spoke to when Gary Taylor made
his testimony in front of the Slue Ribbon
Commission. Now I don't know whether the
previous speaker was there, but I was, and he
started out by saying, when you go to five
acre zoning there would be for some period of
time a 25 percent reduction in value. Then he
spoke about the fact that this i_s on the outer
perimeter of unlimited amounts of money from
Manhattan and west and that is a most
desirable vacation area. And that the RID
would take some land out of play, and that the
fact that zoning went up to five acres as
opposed to two acres, there would be less land
to work with; that very quickly values would
get back to where they were. Now I heard
that. I don't know what the previous speaker
heard, but that's what I heard.
He talks about land equity. Now
the CPF, we spoke with the government guy from
the south fork -- and I'm having a mental
breakdown of his name -- who said that the CPF
can categorically be used to be a credit
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878 8047
15
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
back-up for land that was in trouble and that
would, in other words, be money that would be
a down payment on either development rights or
land. So the fact that an individual borrower
might have a problem, the CPF could support
that loan, and then I come to worry that the
farmers and the landowners and everybody, NFEC
included, would like to see as much purchase
of development rights as possible.
Well, now, if the purchase of
development rights is that desirable, it
sounded that when we talked about this land
equity thing, that when you give away some of
your rights to land, you have given away some
of your borrowing equity, now is the purchase
of development rights going to sink the
farmer? That's strange because the farmers
are pushing that strenuously.
He talked about TDR, and made it
sound as though that is in some way stealing
to the owner. We all know that transfer of
development rights pays the landowner the
market rate for the rights that they transfer;
so there is no loss-no foul on that one, if
you can figure out a way to do it and make the
community happy. And we have a history here
of not being receptive to transfer of
development rights. So he may very well be
right that it may be a non starter, but I
think it should be a starter. I think we
should be trying to work it out. I think it's
important.
He talked about the dollars needed
for acquisition. For a long time the figure
of $200 million is out there as what you would
need today to buy the requisite land, and
that's a big number. We were to bond that I
have trouble believing that the citizens when
they heard what this would do to the tax bill
would accept bonding for $200 million. So I
think you need a lot of money to do this. I
think of speaking of $3.5 million in the
community preservation fund, it sounds like a
lot of money, but when you put it to
development rights that are working at
$30,000, $40,000 per acre, you don't buy a lot
of land there, and the $200 million assumes
that you did all probably some time ago,
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 818-8047
2
i,
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
simultaneously, and every time you take land
off the market, the rest of the land goes up
in price, so the $200 million, really when you
schedule it, at some logical schedule of
purchase, isn't going to be even close to what
it takes to do it by purchasing it.
He suggested that we hadn't talked
to the farmers. There was a six month Blue
Ribbon Commission when we talked to the
farmers for six months, and there were times
when it wasn't easy. So we did that.
Now, I don't know what we have to
do. I think at this point we should accept
the report, and I think we should act on it,
and I think we should pass the conservation
upzoning part of it; that is the most
important part. I believe that the Planning
Department has said there's things in the
pipeline that are not living u'e to the one
resident per ten or 15 acres that has been
advertised for past performance. We will get
that if we don't do the upzoning now.
I think we should follow that
on. I think the transfer of development
rights, albeit it's complicated and albeit
it's been demonized from past discussions, it
is very important, and it is a way to get the
rest of the houses off the farms, and that is
really what the landowners want to do. And
that's the procedure I think we should go
forward with, and I would support the Town
Boards for doing just that.
Thank you very mucH.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you,
Hr. Meineke.
Yes, sir.
MR. STRATTON: Hello, my name's
John Stratton from Cutchegue. We met before,
Josh.
I don't represent any special
interest group here. I just want te state a
fact that I think a let ef people who think
like me, who just don't show up for these
meetings, and I like the first speaker who
spoke. I think a let of people like that
speaker who don't agree with something,
obviously the report must be flawed or they
must, you know, have it wrong. I see the five
COURT REPORTING AND TRAigSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
2O
21
22
23
24
25
acre zoning as the only possible way to go at
this stage of the game. I don't see - if
somebody can come up with a better plan and
make it viable, then I'm all for it. I don't
want to see any farmers hurt, I really don't,
especially the small farmers. Unfortunately
there aren't a lot of small farmers left. I
mean most of the farms out here, what do we
really farm out here, we farm flowers, we farm
grass; we have sod grass, grapes for
wine. There aren't too many road farmers
really left who grow crops. Nobody really
wants to see them hurt, but according to
everything that I've read, and all the people
I've heard speak, that if we ulszone' if they
do get hurt, it's going to be for a very short
period of time. If they get the rural
incentive districts, they're not going to lose
any equity, you know, to borrow.
I'm more concerned about like the
big farmers. The big vineyards, Pindar,
people like that. There's this one farmer
who, I think Gristina, was just selling out.
He bought it for five million a few years ago
and he's selling it for seven million and he's
going down to - buying a villa in Italy or
something. It's true. He's buying a villa in
Italy.
Now this person's been in this
town for three years. You wonder how much he
really cares about the town. You know, I've
only been here a few years, and I don't
pretend to be a local, but these people who
buy, we have vineyards that are owned by movie
directors or movie studios out west. We have
a Chilean consortium that owns one of the
vineyards. Do these people really care what
happens when business goes bad? They're just
going to sell the property. They don't care
if condos go up. They don't care if houses go
up.
Like I said, I don't want ho see
anybody get hurt, but there are certain
advantages to five acre zoning for most of the
population. Obviously, taxes are going to
stay lower. Less houses means less people,
means less pressure on the school district.
You know it costs each kid, it costs about 10
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047
18
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
or $15,000 to put him through school each
year. If you have four acres on a 20 acre
piece of property as opposed to ten houses,
you could assume there's going to be less
children, less taxes.
Also, everybody talks about these
McMansions, everybody, s worried about somebody
building these big, huge houses. I really
don't have a problem with these big, huge
houses. They go ahead and they spend a lot of
money, and they pay a lot of taxes. Generally
speaking, they're out here just for the
summer, weekend houses. They don't use any
services. You know, they're using local
landscapers. They're buying sod from the same
sod farms. Generally people living in two
million dollar houses aren't drinking Pabst
Blue Ribbon. They're out buying wine. So
this is good all around.
I don't understand why
everybody,s got this aversion to quote/unquote
these McMansions. I think it's a good thing.
People want to go ahead and put money
into this town and not use any services, I
think we should encourage that.
Like I said before, I don't want
to see anybody hurt. I'd love to be able to
see us do this in a voluntary w~y, but it
doesn't seem to be working. Nobody seems to
be jumping on board. It would make me feel a
lot better if I could see all the big
landowners -_ I think the biggest landowner in
this town is Pindar - I'd love to see these
people be the first on line to say, yeah, I'm
going to sell my development rights. I'm
going to take the first step. Same thing with
the nurseries and the sod farms.
As far as people with - like that
don't farm, that just have open land. These
are land speculators. You know, just because
you bought 15 and 20 acres years ago, doesn't
give you the inalienable right to make a huge,
huge profit on it. It's a stock market.
You're a speculator. You're tal~ing a chance.
You went ahead, and if I put my money in the
stock market in '85, I made a lot of money.
If I put my money in the stock market in '95,
I lost a lot of money. It's the nature of the
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 818 8047
2
5
7
$
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
It seems like
point of this
hope you guys
you very
game. You know, you win some~ you lose
some. Even those people, if they've had that
land for two, three er four years with the
rising prices ef land, I don't think they're
going to lose a penny either.
In conclusion, I don't want
anybody te get hurt and hopefully you guys can
work together and think of something that
wouldn't hurt either side and the farmers are
happy with. But minus an agreement that
everybody can come to terms with, I think you
have no choice but te go ahead for the good of
the community to enact the five acre zoning.
that's the biggest contentious
report. That's about it. I
can work something out. Thank
much for your time.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Rooney.
MR. ROONEY: John Rooney from
This man just stole all of my
agree with just about everything
Southold.
thunder. I
he said.
What I wanted to basically say,
I'd like to add a few things, but I speak to
Josh and John particularly, please, please,
you guys, please don't let this get
politicized. I have a lot of respect for both
of you. Please don't let them do it. I also,
I see Tom Wickham's family has been here for
centuries, and I see the pained expression on
his face sometimes when people talk about
upzoning, and it bothers me to see that
because I have a lot of respect for him, and
he's done a lot for this town. On the other
hand, in hearing and trying to listen to all
of this, I look at this DGEIS, I even took
out -- I didn't read the entire DGEIS. I
couldn't get it out of the library. I sat in
the library last Saturday. I worked on the
internet at home, and I also looked at the
local waterfront revitalization program,
another three volume tome that came out
recently.
Valerie Scopaz, who to me is a
consummate professional on this stuff, has
been working on this stuff for 15 years and
when you look through that, you see many of
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (6131) 878 8047
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the same things - this has been a fifteen
year study -- says many of the same things
that the DGEIS is saying. So clearly, the
issues are there. I don't think - people
have claimed there's some errors here and
there, that may or may not be. I wish we
could have had a dialogue here where the
people on the committee could have responded
to some of the objections, not to make it into
a free-for all debate but rather to get some
real education back and forth but I guess that
way in which it was done just doesn't allow
for that.
But going for the upzoning does
appear to be the way to go. However, I also
feel because the farmers, if tlhere is any kind
of hit, I think it would be probably
temporary, but on the other hand, we also must
do everything to go along with that,
everything that we can to ease that pain, to
make it palatable to the people who do grow
the crops because I agree without viable
farming what's the point.
And so things like TDR, the RID,
purchase of development rights, I think the
rest of the taxpayers have to be able to share
a load too. And while none of us enjoy paying
taxes, we have to come up with creative ways
of helping people understand that purchasing
also has to be a big part of it.
We also have to come up with new
ways to create in this town and in the east
end - I'm involved with S-E-E D S, which it
is very much related to farming as well as
transportation, but it's also about a regional
approach. It talks about consensus.
Chris Baiz was up here the other
night talking about - he and I may not see
eye-to-eye on everything, but we're both on
that, and we talked about the word "consensus"
as he said at one of the prior hearings. But
we've got to come up with ways to encourage
people to buy local. They cannot go and buy
vegetables that aren't grown out here if at
all possible. I don't want to sound corny,
but it's got to be done. The town has to do
something to encourage agricultural markets.
There was and article in Newsday yesterday,
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047
21
6
?
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
and it talked about a lot of the people out
here, on the Terrys or the Lathams out east
who have stayed according to that article
because of this. We got to encourage not just
going into Manhattan to sell, but doing it
right here. We got to go to IGA and King
Kullen and say, hey, put in the local potatoes
and the local vegetables. Don't buy French or
California or German or Italian wine, only buy
Long Island wine. Create an aura. The
seafood, the same thing. We've got To get our
own people, even if it means spending a few
extra pennies or bucks, you're going to
get quality, you're going to support the local
economy and the local farmer. We have to give
the local farmer support, absolutely. And the
town should try to regionally as well[ as
town wide come up with creative ways to do
that. Because if we do go to five acre, there
is going to be some hurt. Well, we have to
compensate. Everybody has to play a part.
There's no single bad guy here.
We've all polluted the environment. Everybody
who has an lawn probably, unless they have
been totally organic, has put down some kind
of chemicals. Everybody who drives has two
and three cars per house. Every time we drive
over to IGA instead of trying to walk and take
a bike, we are creating oil and it runs off
into the estuary, and the farmers of course,
yes, they too have been polluting for
years. It's unnecessary - unfortunately been
necessary. That's changing. But we've all
So nobody is the good guy in
and nobody is the single bad
done our part.
the White hat,
guy.
Se, again, I ge back te the guy
who just speke befere me. I think he speke
beautifully. And I think that what he was
saying: Stay calm, study all of this stuff,
do what we have to do but do it where we are
all participating. Everybedy's geing te pay a
price because we are all geing te benefit, and
that's the key, okay. And ence again,
especially, Jehn and Josh, but to everybody,
try to keep it as apelitical as possible. I
don't want te sound naive, but, please, de
that. It's yeur responsibility to all ef us,
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
22
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and we're all in this together.
SUPERVISOR HORTON~ Mr. Wipf.
HR. WIPF: I'm Alex Wipf. I'm
president ef Save Open Spaces New, and I'm
from Cutchogue. I've lived here 34 years off
and on.
I'va been trying to figure out a
way to kind of accommodate a lot of the
different currents that have been out there,
both the five acre currents and the people who
want to preserve farmland without doing
anything. And I'm wondaring if anybody has
thought about this construct that I'm going to
throw out there, and that's why - I've been
also talking to Valerie and Melanie. I've
been impressed by the way the moratorium has
worked.
And I think we've learned some
things from the moratorium. One of the things
that we've learned from the moratorium is that
four and-a-half acre or a 75 percent
preservation component is not going to stop
the development of AC farmland. It's going to
continue, and, if I'm not mistaken I read Bill
Edwards' comments on Montgomery County,
Maryland last week, and he said they tried
five acre as an interim step, and he didn't
effectively stop the development of farmland.
And my organization is primarily interested in
not lessening density on farmland but stopping
the development on farmland. So I've come up
with kind of a construct, and I wonder what
you think about it.
What happens if we upzone all R-80
land to R-200, which is five acres, with the
exception of AC farmland. Then we put a
long-term, temporary building moratorium on
all AC farmland say for a period of five
years. Now, the exemption to that moratorium
might be anybody that might want to get into
the farming business. And we could have a
committee of farmers who would take a look at
it, and we could set, oh, if this land didn't
have a house on it, we could say, we would
permit one dwelling per 20 acres, per 25
acres, whatever, you could get a farmer's
committee to decide what would ]De the most
appropriate buildings. It could also
COURT REPORTING AND TRAigSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047
23
4
5
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
establish a grace period for farms that do not
have AC designation - and there are some out
there - they could apply for AC designation
and farms that had AC land that was no longer
viable could apply te lose its AC
designation. You would establish a building
peel of buildable land that would be basically
our open space land at five acre zoninq, and
that's virtually what we have right new.
New the interesting feature ef
this of a temporary building moratorium is
that farmers can still negotiate their sale of
development rights based on two acres. Se
they don't lose the true equity value hey re
t '
losing, which is -- ask Tom Wickham. He sold
a piece ef property last spring, or the spring
before that, if it had been valued at five
acres, it would have been a hell efa let less
than what he get. And that's just the reality
ef it. If you're going to have five acre
zoning, you're going te get less value for
your development rights sale.
Now, the Supreme Court supports
long term moratorium. I think we're safe in
that question -- I mean in that area. There's
a basic question that everybody's been asking,
and they're absolutely right: Will we have
enough money te buy all those development
rights? And the fear is - and I don't think
it's an unjustified fear - is we probably
won't.
Well, if you put everything en
held for five years and still give the farmers
the right te sell development rights at two
acres, you'll certainly get some real clear
sense by that point whether or net we're going
to have enough money. It also placed a very
interesting pressure en the farmer. The
farmer at that point is very well aware that
everything that everybody says tonight has
been only kind ef put en hold, but no eno is
going to permit the development of farmland.
We as a town do not want farmland to be
developed. We do not want the development
business. We want the farm business.
Se we're net hurtin~ the farmer
actually. We're not doing any of the things
that everybody's talking about would hurt the
COURT REPORTING A_ND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
farmer. We're just prolonging it for an
extended period of time to see how things work
out. Not only that, we could spend that time
getting some more money. There are sources of
money that we haven't tapped yet, and I think
we're going to have to do something about
that.
I think you'd have to make some
concessions to the farmers in terms of
pressuring them to sell their development
rights. They haven't sold their development
rights probably because as Doug Cooper is
always saying, it's much betteF to have them
intact if you want to get your loan, the
amount of money you want to gel your loan, you
got to have your development rights intact.
Well, if there's a passion there to say, well,
look fellas, if you don't get down to selling
your development rights at this point - there
are also farmers, by the way who sell their
development rights and use it as part of their
business plan - the town is going in a
certain direction, if you don't sell your
development rights and we run out of money to
buy them, you know, upzoning doesn't look like
such a bad idea.
It's the pressure that it places
on people, and I know that most of us have
been unwilling to say that the pressure of
five acre upzoning has in any way generated
the amount of properties that are in the
- you know, being bought right now, the
development rights are being bcught. But I
believe that there's more now than there was
before the whole five acre issue came up, and
it's a nice dynamic that you have and it
doesn't hurt the farmers.
I think that's everything I have
to say about it. I can't remember what else,
but I'd love to have somebody comment on
it. It's an idea that's just kind of
generated -- it's not against five acre
upzoning. It's for accommodating the farmers
and at the same time taking care of the -
what's that - taking care of tlhe open space
land as best we probably can. You know. Ail
right, thank you very much.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you,
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (6131) 878-8047
25
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
Hr. Wipf. Yes, ma'am.
MS. DOHENICI: Good evening, my
name is Marie Demenici, and I live in
Mattituck.
I tee agree that the farmers
should net suffer the pains of! what we
consider an upzening catastrophe, if you
will. But there are many people sitting in
this room who will speak tonight, many people
who will not speak tonight. I feel it's
important that for these ef us who want to be
heard that we should come up and voice our
opinions because it's the silent majority that
is never heard.
So I want to go on record as
someone who supports upzening. We can talk
about all the pros and cons ef upzening, but
at the end ef the day the clock is ticking and
it's working against us.
Route 58 is fast growing and
spreading like a cancer toward this town. We
have CVS trying te buy the bowling alley. We
have tee much activity going on where that
insidious movement eastward will eventually
take es all.
Currently we have a drug chain in
the Waldbaums shopping center and we have a
drug stere on Love Lane, se whiz do we need a
drug store chain that really won't be happy
until they've built their last building
probably somewhere en Shelter ]island.
What de we de about the small mom
and pep shops who rely on being the only game
in town? Do we want to continue to support
the people who live and work in this
community, or de we want to invite big
business te steam roll us by building bigger
and better te excess?
This community is the last
frontier for rural living, and we must act new
to preserve our community, upzoning needs to
be addressed now. We ne longer have the
luxury o~ dragging our feet. Hicksvi]le was
once a farming community as was Huntington.
What de these towns look like today?
Mini-Manhattans. Thirty years ago these
communities didn't think they would be working
hubs, and all traces of farming are literally
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047
26
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
gone from that landscape today.
with growth of our community comes
increases in town services, school taxes,
traffic, net te mention that LIPA is always
looking te find an opportunity to build a
power plant in our backyard. Our community's
infrastructure cannot support any more growth
without taxing the existing community out of
their homes. I cannot support building new
schools. Our current schools will be
stretched beyond capacity.
When you raise taxes to support
this kind of growth, you tax your middle
income community out ef their homes. And also
there is a lot ef talk about, if, you knew, if
we upzene we become elitist; well, you really
become elitist when you tax your middle income
people right out ef your cemmnnity.
Se my thought is let's come
together as a community. Let's think
preservation whether we call it upzening er a
rose by any other name. We need to act now or
we're already lost. Thank you for your
consideration of this matter.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you,
Hrs. Demenici.
HS. TOhL: Good evening, I'm Cathy
Toll from Greenpert.
I'm going te try not to wander to
far and wide with my comments. I've sat here
through several hearings. Those that I
couldn't attend, I watched when they were
broadcast en TV with great interest. I'm here
for the future of the town.
Some of the remarks I'd like to
make is that the - first of all I'm speaking
in support of upzoning. But more importantly,
I'm speaking in support of adopting the DGEIS.
That's what we're here about; riot just
upzoning, not putting hotels in vineyards,
we're talking about adopting a document that
has been researched, done in an extraordinary
manner in a condensed time frame. I'd like te
commend the people that are sitting at the
mini-dais here because I cannot believe what
they put together under the pressure that
know that they were under.
I've seen some hostility, I think
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (,631) 818 80~7
27
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it's unfortunately the nature of the game and
I'm hoping that it passes; that we can all
discuss this matter as it has been discussed
by the last several speakers.
This is net all about farmland.
And that's something I think is being missed
in this argument or in this discussion. It's
about far mere than farmland. It's about open
spaces, and a great deal of our open space is
net actively farmed land. And[ I think I would
be accurate in saying most of it is not. I
have great respect for the Wickhams and the
Van Bourgondiens and the Coopers and the
ethers that are out there toiling with their
form of agricultural. I'm net se much worried
about Doug and Tom and the ether people who
are out there. I'm worried about when they're
gene. And that's what this is about.
There are a let of people not
cueing up for transfer of development rights.
For the purchase ef development rights, for
any ef the ether options that are there, and I
think it's because - I won't guess as to why
it is, but it's not being done. So we are
examining ether options, and I'm glad the Town
is doing that before the nibbling away at all
of this open space gets te the point where
there is no open space left.
I happened to be in the trustee's
office today, and I saw an aerial photo and I
turned around and I said that's Hassapequa.
And they had house after house after house
after house, and I encourage people to go leek
at it. I grew up in Seaford next to
Massapequa. I rede on farm tractors as a kid
'cause our neighbors were farmers. I dare say
there is not a farm, a nursery that actually
grows product er anything er ef its ilk left
in Seaford, Massapequa, Hicksville - I think,
was mentioned, there might be one farm -- East
Headew, er any of the ether places.
I'm here and I so enjoy looking at
what we have here, and I knew that if we don't
do something now we will be Hicksville,
Hassapequa, Seaford, East Headow. And we will
have crowded out the young people. There is
no affordable housing now. There is ljust
growth and an explosion of taxes, and I'm
COUNT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047
28
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
6
7
8
afraid of that being in our future if we do
not substantially control growth. The first
step is adoption of this document, next step
is te action based upon this document. And I
ask that the Town Beard continue to do that.
If we're worried about mansions,
and I'm not quite sure why we are because I
don't think that's really in the future, we
can limit the size of mansions. It's been
done elsewhere, square footage of houses, we
can't build anything taller than I think 25
feet. Well, you can limit a let of things
through zoning.
We are net going te provide
affordable housing with existing zoning.
We're net going te provide it with five acre
zoning. We're going to provide it with ether
remedies. But we have te take action. We
have te take every step that's possible to
provide for all of these epticns. Itl is
specious to connect one te 2he other. We are
net going to address affordable housing in
traditional ways out here. We have te think
outside the box, and some of the things that
might be proposed are good thinking outside of
the box. But let's adept this document and
then start working on it.
It's net perfect. I've heard
speakers discuss Montgomery County not
comparing te our town. I dare say that
nobody -- I tried te search online. I called
one er two people I know. I don't know that
there is a model for our community elsewhere
that's done upzening. I do believe that if
there were, these professionals up here would
have found it and would have presented it in a
document. We can't wait for somebody else to
do our work for us. Montgomery's as close as
it comes. I knew it's a community that's used
by many planners te look at.
I think many ef the arguments are
emotional, and I can understand it. It's very
personal te people. I would urge the Board te
act beyond the emotions of the moment. I'm
concerned about the tax on people here. Hy
understanding ef this process is that this is
a hearing where this side ef the room is heard
from, not this side is responding
COURT REPORTING ~kND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047
29
]
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
{indicating). And I don't know if you can
respond ~e all the things that are thrown out
to you. I suspect not, and, am I correct that
this is net the forum where the planners and
the preservationists and the consultants are
permitted te respond?
SUPERVISOR NORTON: That's correct,
all the questions and ideas and general input
that are derived from the hearing under law
are required to be answered in writing in the
drafting of the Final GEIS.
HS. TOLL: I'm glad to bare that
clarified because it seems like -
SUPERVISOR HORTON: And, correct
me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's correct,
okay.
HS. TOLL: We're concerned about
the young people - I've spoken with some of
the people up here en the Town Board about it
and affordable housing. I'm concerned abent
the seniors. I guess I'm closer to that end.
I'm concerned about the effects on fixed
income people such as seniors, such as
retirees such as myself. I know what
development does to taxes and it drives people
from their homes. It's another reason why I
want te see the growth and development within
this town slowed. I'd like it done in almost
any reasonable means because of the impact on
especially senior citizens and their taxes.
And, again, we've seen it elsewhere. We don't
need an exact model. We've seen it everywhere
where development blossoms, what happens is
taxes increase, and the effect on seniors is
substantial. Repeatedly people will vote te
pay more to keep senior's taxes down. The
STAR program, the advanced STAR program, any
ef that. I'm happy te pay mere taxes for
their benefit, and I'm concerned about long
term effects en groups such as that. The
effects on young homeowners we~.ld be
tremendous.
I believe that people en the lower
dais here who contributed substantially to
this report had the interest ef the entire
town at heart. I don't believe they went
about attacking farmers. I certainly don't.
But I think that there has to be a way to
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80%7
3O
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
guarantee the preservation of all ef our lives
and all of our ways ef living with it, and
throwing out the baby with the bath water in
this report is not the answer.
I think we have to go and listen
te these experts and leek at the future and
hopefully take action as seen as possible te
adept this, and, again, to take action after
that, and I knew all ef this is going to be
rekindled and rekindled at that point, but
please, push ahead with it. It's all ef our
futures here. Thank you for listening.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. In
the back, sir, you've had your hand up quite a
bit, Hr. Penny.
HR. PENNY: George Penny, resident
of Southold, former councilman and we passed a
master plan and the planners who weren't here
for my last discussion, I'm speaking strictly
on this document, but my overall plea is for a
complete master plan, not what is being done
here.
I'd like to start with the scope
because that's where things really start. And
after reading the scope, which I just get
today, and going through a let ef the
questions that were brought by people during
that sceping session, I find that most of the
questions that were raised during the sceping
session were completely ignored or not
answered at all, which is -- I'm sorry, that's
insane.
Starting with - and I won't ge
into the legalese of Bill Esseks, but Bill
Esseks continues which he says, "You must take
into account the economic consequences of what
you are proposing te do because these economic
consequences are not only economic but they
show up in who's going to live here." Now
that part and who is going to leave, and what
the real estate taxes are going te be and se
on. And that is from Bill Esseks.
There are several calls at the
beginning ef this document for the
socioeconomic consequences of this and there
again, these have net been answered.
There was a comment made in here
by, I believe it was Dr. Samuels - no, this
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047
31
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was Jay Schneiderman, East Hampton Supervisor.
"That means that you basically need a family
income of around $200,000 to buy a home.
Ninety percent of the working people based on
the 2000 Census figures are priced out of the
housing market.,~ That is serious because we
can't get any nurses to live in the community.
We can't get teachers, Town employees, things
are unraveling, and we can't replace these
people, and they can't live in ~_he community.
What does that say to a community?
What does that impact when your kid's school
teachers, they can't run into them at the
pizza parlor at night? What kind of
commitment does a teacher have when they can't
live in the community? And it's getting
worse.
And he continues, "npzening could
be a valuable tool, but look at it
comprehensively.,, Master plan,
comprehensively, don't do it without figuring
out the affordable housing components.
Supervisor Schneiderman again, "I
think what the Town needed te do was to plan
mere comprehensively. It needed to include
people in its definition ef rural character."
That is critical.
Dr. Samuels: "There are two
things that have to be done in this town,
Number 1 is affordable housing, Number 2,
affordable rental apartments." And again,
affordable housing, that is what you have got
to de.
Dr. Samuels: "I want to see a
socioeconomic impact analysis of what you are
proposing to de because I think it is wrong.
I think it is drastically wrong. I maybe
haven't gotten that point across." He didn't
get the point across to the planners because
they didn't answer any of these questions;
although they, in their document, call for
socio and economic issues to be addressed.
And if I went through all that a:ld I think
that's in my previous notes.
What is -- this was Pdr. Esseks
again, "What is proposed is to take the value
of vacant land and transfer it to the houses
that exist. That is the natural progression
COURT REPORTING ~LND 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
32
that if you go forward and -- go forward and
do the rezoning, it is a movement of value
negative to the farmer, positive to the
homeowner. Is it right morally and is it
right politically fo~ you to move that money?
"Now when I go to my Watermill
office on Friday, I get up at 5:00 a.m. and I
leave my home in Aquebogue by 5:30 because
nine months out of the year a 20 minute trip
becomes an hour trip. The people, the Town
Hall in Southampton and East Hampton can't get
people to work there because they can't get
across the canal. The nurses can't get to
work, the carpenter and tradespeople leave
their homes in western Suffolk and in
Riverhead and in Shirley at 4:30 a.m. and 5:00
a.m. and they are crowding me at 5:30. And
you either have to find out ways of getting
the cars and trucks out here, or you have to
find a way to keep the people here.
"As you restrict the number of
houses, the ones left go up in 'value, and
someone has to pay those taxes. You have to
pay more money to get your cops and your
firemen, as you reduce density. Your values
go up and your taxes are going to go up, and
you have got to take that into account because
you have a very high percentage of people on
fixed incomes. Maybe they are higher fixed
income than other places, but they are still
all fixed incomes.
"The forces in the state and
County at the local level are not going to do
that. Your farmlands are not going to become
commercial/industrial. So you're left with a
residential or agrarian economy and a number
of alternatives and some are limited. You
could attempt in a different way to cap your
population, but when you do that you must
understand what is going to happen. The
prices are going to go up, the taxes are going
to go up, the service industry is going to
have to come out from somewhere else and
the -- you are on a peninsula. There is no
way in. You can't fly them out. You can't
bring them in by boats. And nobody wants to
build a new road. So you have problems that
you ought to try to solve before you create
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (63].) 878 8047
1 33
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this problem."
I see transportation was one of
the main goals of this document and yet I see
absolutely none of the issues of
transportation being discussed. And I don't
believe that transportation means that people
should ride their bicycles instead of - or
walk the town instead of using their cars.
I believe that transportation is a
very important factor because if you try to
get into this town or out of tlnis town on a
Sunday when the traffic flow is going, and
there is an accident on the back road, all of
the traffic funnels over to the main highway.
And I tried to get up home from upstate New
York Sunday when exactly that happened.
There was a traffic jam all the
way from the Riverhead lights ell the way back
into Mattituck because of it, because there is
absolutely no way to get in and out of here.
I think anybody that has tried to
do a plan to move people out of here in an
emergency, including the State of New York and
the federal government, has fallen far short
of figuring out how to get people off of Long
Island in general. Well, the north fork is
probably the worst part. We just don't have
the population and we don't hawe the traffic
that the south fork has yet, but it's coming.
This was Long Island Farm Bureau.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Penny, if
I may, you're reading from the 7.
MR. PENNY: Scoping session.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Scope. Ail of
those comments are in the possession of the
planning team.
MR. PENNY: Yeah, but they didn't
answer them. I'm calling for the answers
again.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Perhaps what
we could do so you can get to your own
comments, you can ask to have the entire scope
reviewed by this team.
MR. PENNY: Well, I just want to
read because I think this is good. When it
says the Town of Southampton, s Final Generic
Environmental Impact Statement, which states
the Town understands that maintaining the
COURT REPORTING A_ND TRAiqSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1 34
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
economics of farming is key to preserving
farmland, the initiatives pursued by the Town
are net strictly for the preservation of open
space, but rather te preserve and protect
farmland as a viable agricultural industry.
So I will assume that all. the
questions that were raised in the scoping
session will be addressed and I will not read
them any further.
SUPERVISOR RORTON: Did you make
specific marks of the questions you'd like
answered on your copy?
HR. PENNY: They're highlighted.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: ~ould it be
possible for you to leave that with the team?
MR. PENNY: Absolutely.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: That will be
helpful.
HR. PENNY: Absolutely.
Tables and charts on 3 1 are
distorted and slanted.
~hen you start off with a
potential build-out, a build-out potential of
6,763 units and the goal is to reduce this by
40 percent. And that is the high figure
because the figure -- I believe if you add the
columns is 6,335, but there was a fudge factor
brought in there which brought it up to 6,763.
So if you reduce it by 40 percent, you're
bringing your proposed population increase
down to 2,705 or is that a theoretical
build-out figure? I have a little bit ef
difficulty in telling because we have some
mixed metaphors in here.
When you go into the AC zone, it's
very clear. AC has 2,323 potential units.
R-80 has 1,380, and we have a skewed figure
here of 2,211 units coming out of R 40.
That's a little tough to do when you only have
560 undeveloped lots or acres - I'm sorry,
acres in the R-40. So one could only guess
that this is thrown in here because of a
factor that's addressed a little later on
which said that the assumption is going to be
made that every one of the houses that is a
summer house is going to be populated year
round.
I don't know what that has to do
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
35
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
with development, but there again it switches
over to a population control, verses the goal
which I thought was for build-out analysis.
So, when you skew these figures by 2,211
development potential units, it throws all
your figures off.
Also lacking from this is the fact
that there is already in the town coffers
today $13 million, six million in bonds, six
million dollars from the two percent, eno
million dollars in grants, $13 million.
There is also coming in in 2002
there was $3.8 million from the two percent
money. There is already $1.? million taken
2003. By year end there will be another $2.1
million in the coffers. So if o '
y n re dealing
with $15 million potential by the end ef the
year, that would take out 300 units. Take it
off the total ef the R-80 and AC; take it elf
any one of these figures you want to, but you
have te reduce something by three hundred.
And the reason that I know that this is in the
works new is because the land preservation
committee is about to approach the Town Board
and ask for another feer million dollar bend.
Now why de they need mere money in this year's
voting if, in fact, the money is not being
spent? So this document did not take any
these figures into account.
Also, if you leek at the figures
in the AC zones and in the R-80's, 750 units
are en held. TRey're being held in a hank by
the wineries and the people that: are doing the
commercial farming; 750 potential units are on
held. And what does that mean? Does that
mean they're going te be sold as developmen~
rights? Does it mean that they're not going
te be sold as development rights? At this
point nobody knows. But that figure is
flexible Somewhere between zero and 750 is the
answer. Yet there was ne range of figures put
in~o ~his document.
Let me tell you when something
goes into hold in the wineries, this is what
happens: Vintner pulling up roots, $7.5
million. At 42 acres that is approximately
$124,000 per acre inclnding whatever buildings
he has en the property. His selling price
CO~NT REPORTING AND ~RANSCRIPTION SERVIC~ (631) 878 80~7
36
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
seven and a half million dollars on the same
42 acres is $178,000 per acre including his
buildings. Does anybody realistically feel
that this man is going to go out of business
and sell it to a developer, or that another
winery bigger than him, more affluent than him
is going to come in and buy his property? And
I feel that there's no way thah a developer
can make a nickel by buying property at
$178,000 an acre and trying to subdivide it
into five acre lots. So I offer this to the
town (handing).
None of these statistics, none of
the current sales, I know there's other
wineries, places that have been sold. I know
Lens was sold a few years ago. I know that
Hargraves was sold a few years ago. Laurel
Lake Vineyards was sold a few years ago and
I'm sure there are more. None of them have
been addressed on the economics as to their
effect on the town. And not one of them was
sold to a developer because developers cannot
afford to pay the price of developed acreage
that's already committed to another project.
It just doesn't happen.
So I suggest that we use facts and
figures that are not irrational and are not
illogical and your projections table, use some
real figures. Take out that 1,600 number out
of the R-40, because that number does not
exist for potential development. The houses
are already there; that's a population
explosion figure; that's all it is.
One of the alternatives that was
offered is maybe we should consider making the
R 40s nonconforming by bouncing them up to
R-60. Now, I don't know if anybody knows in
town how the zoning really works, but in the
last master plan the lowest zoning density
that you could find in this town by looking at
a map is R-40. If you have a half acre, if
you have three-quarters of an acre, or if you
have an acre, you are R 40. And also there
are several laws that apply to non conforming
lots. As a matter of fact, this was picked up
by Mr. Steve Jones when he did his report,
which is one of the tabled reports that we're
discussing here. He discussed that for
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 8788047
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
anybody to build on any ef these nonconforming
lets that they be forced to buy some more
acreage, put it into a Town fund, and move en
from there. Well, that report obviously went
nowhere. But I would like to show you ena
zoning map which I have here from the last
master plan from 1989, how many houses, hew
many districts and how many areas in this town
are nonconforming. Because I just think that
this is something that is either net
understood er just totally unknown.
(Whereupon, a large colored map
was displayed.)
There's a little key en the
bottom. These in green are protected
parcels. They were protected in the last
master plan. The yellow are nonconforming by
the fact that they're in an R 40 zone and they
are way less than an R 40 in size.
The orange are nonconforming by
R-80 which means that they are less than R-80
and they're in an R-80 zone.
R-200 are by five acre and by
three acre are R 120. They're in different
colors.
So, what you can see is most of
the housing stock in Seuthold Town is already
en nonconforming parcels. Se why anybody
would want to consider to make more
nonconforming in Seutheld is beyond me; unless
they're feeding some sort of a planning
concept which was never explained to me back
in 1989 when we passed the master plan.
And I demanded that the Town
address this, but unfortunately, the maps were
never changed. But the zoning code was
changed so that they would be recognized for
what they were when they were created and by
bringing up the issue once again of let's make
R-40s one R-60s, yoU're going te throw every
one of these houses, which is in yellow, into
a whole different set of nonconforming
standards. -
And, because there is no
exemptions mentioned in here, all of the areas
in green would fall into the same standard,
and that includes the whole ef Nassau Point
and several other subdivisions. So that's
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878.8047
1 38
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
where tNe R-60 would take you. That was net
addressed as an action one wa}- er another.
It's like nonconforming is a Ridden little
issue that someone wants te pull out ef their
pocket at a later time and make life a little
bit tougher.
COUNCILHAN ROHANELLI: Are they
done?
HR. PENNY: Actually you guys
eeght te have one ef these. I don't knew why
you can't get one in the Town. I tried. I
had te make mF own.
HR. EAIZ: Do you have any idea
How many acres this represents?
HR. PENNY: Ne. You'd Have te go
back to the
HR. BAIZ: Is it a thousand acres?
HR. PENNY: It's almost every
built parcel in Southeld Town.
HR. 8AIZ: Every azea would become
nonconforming?
HR. PENNY: Yes.
the same effect will be by going into ~ive
acre zone, when you have already existing
areas within the five acre zone, everything
within that five acre zone including a one
acre lot would become nonconforming. So now
it's going to be even more colorful than it is
already. And that is not addressed anywhere.
How did I find this out? Very
simply. I have a one acre lot in Southold
that's unbuilt on. It's a one acre lot that
was put in an R-80 zone. It's filed
subdivision. The electric is in; everything, s
been in place, and yet I am in an R-80 zone.
When I read the Jones report I
made a call and said, how am I affected by
this? Do I have to now buy another acre so I
can build on this? I never got that answer.
That answer has still not come out, but I was
accused of being a developer and havinq real
estate interests or something by any p~blic
official who is not within the Town of
Southold. Actually you're doing a sezvice to
the Town because this map is not available
from what I'm told.
MR. BAIZ: This means not only the
far,ers lose but the homeowners ]_ose.
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
39
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Baiz
HR. PENNY: The homeowners
anyone that's within the AC or the R-80 zone,
by the way that this is being approached on a
town-wide approach is going to render many
mere parcels nonconforming, and that is net
being addressed.
Tax cost data, I'
v._ heard there's
people going around town telling you we can't
afford te buy these properties. We can't
afford te keep buying development rights. We
can't afford the average taxpayers cannot
afford. The rate right now for the Town per
thousand is $8.55. So if you have a house
that's assessed at $10,000, that means that
you're paying $85 a year towards preservation.
I don't think that's a big price te pay.
These facts are right from John Cushman, the
Town's accountant who, unfortunately, was not
made part of this study.
Two other things have come te
light. One is the new plan by John Nickels
when he approached the Town with a very
interesting approach. Sometimes by going into
the past and trying to dredge things out ef
some old documents that have been around, you
don't really get the newer concepts that are
going eh.
John Nickels came up with eno out
ef California which he presented te the Board,
and more recently, as it appeared in the local
paper, a plan for saving Riverhead farms. If
it works for Riverhead, why can't it work for
Seutheld? Group sat down, a compromise was
reached, and I suggest that we call the young
lady that negotiated this deal, Eve Kaplan,
and ask her te come and take a shot at the
Town ef Seutheld.
Basically that's where we're
at. We've come a long way and gone nowhere.
We've gone in circles. We have a report that
is totally one-sided. And I can only find by
digging back into my past hew that could
possibly happen.
In the early '90s I ran a scoping
session for the town. It was a Hr. Emanuel
Ketakostitch change ef zeno. I was the deputy
supervisor, Scott Harris was not present for
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
4O
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that. We sat here in public and had a very,
very open public scoping session. Two days
after that scoping session was over, I got a
call from the consultant. And he said,
Mr. Penny, which way do you want this to go.
My answer was: What do you mean? Aad I was
told we can come out in favor of it; we can go
against it, but it's your call . Which way is
it the Town leaning on this? And I said
Mr. Voorhis, I want you to play it straight
down the middle. Let the town make hhe
decision. So sometimes when you're doing
planning and you already have the answer, what
you're doing is not planning.
I suggest we go back out of town.
We go to RPPW. We start again and we update
the master plan, whatever time it takes.
Thank you.
MS. NEVILLE: Excuse me,
Hr. Penny, would you please sign the
attendance sheet on the clipboard, thank you.
HR. PENNY: Gladly.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Yes, sir in
the back.
HR. GREENE: Thank you. Geed
evening, my name is Andy Greene, and I live in
Hattituck.
After considering a number of
places in the northeast, my family and I moved
to the north fork, and the natural beauty ef
the area drew us here, as did the warm,
friendly people we've encountered, and we've
been extremely happy with our decision. My
wife's become involved in the Seutheld
Hother's Club, and I'm planning te resume my
career teaching social studies at the local
school.
Since moving here I've closely
followed the efforts te preserve Seuthold and
the debate on upzening. And I've made an
earnest effort te try and understand both
sides ef the issue. As I am deeply concerned
about Seuthold's future, I've attended two of
these hearings and watched ethers en
television, and I've been struck by a number
ef things.
First of all, it seems that a
number of the people who have spoken hadn't
COURT REPORTING AIqD TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047
4~
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2.
4
6
7
9
really read much of the document, and this was
just a forum to vent their feelings which were
made up long age. Personally, I was very
impressed after reading the document with the
thoroughness ef it and with the effort made by
the highly qualified members to provide
forecast te help make the decision making as
well-informed as possible.
I hope that the members of the
Town Beard will reflect on this fine work and
net follow the example of letting it support
whatever they previously thought.
The second thing is I was dismayed
by the high level ef vitriol which has been
displayed at the hearings, although it's been
absent tonight for the most psrt. Host
everyone agrees that the goal is to preserve
Seutheld. The disagreement is en how to
achieve this aim.
I'm a firm believer that
reasonable people can disagree and nebedy's
position is so morally superior that they
should act so reprehensibly toward whom they
may disagree. We're neighbors trying to reach
the same end; there must be middle ground.
I have read the DGEIS to help
assess the situation employing risk analysis.
Would the risks be greater if the upzening
were enacted, er if it were not. If upzening
were to be enacted there appears te be two
risks according te my understanding of the
arguments put forth by those opposing it.
First there is a risk that lenters would deem
the land less valuable and lend less money to
farmers for their operations, putting the
future ef farming in doubt.
Second is the issue of property
rights, which essentially is don't tell me
what to de with my land.
The first argument I believe
should carry the most weight if it is true. I
would urge that ne action be taken which would
jeopardize the future of farming. However, if
this is a primary reason why upzoning is being
se virulently opposed, there would seem te be
ample room to compromise.
Surely the Town can come up with a
mechanism to guarantee that farmers would
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
42
]
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
retain access to financing, particularly given
that the report states that the likelihood of
a fall in the value of land if upzoning were
enacted would be minimal and short term.
So I pose the following question
to farmers: If a way were found to guarantee
that access to financing for farming
operations were to remain unchanged from
current levels, would you still oppose
upzoning?
Second argument concerns property
rights, which in my opinion is far less
persuasive, and there is certsinly no
precedent anywhere that allows a property
owner to do whatever he likes with his land.
Zoning provides many restrictions. If a
farmer wishes to build a power plant, a
shopping mall or a 50 story ccndominium on his
land, these would not be allowed as these are
not in the best interest of the community.
Likewise, the community can decide that
limiting the number of the houses on open land
is in its best interest.
Let's be honest, those making this
argument are really striving to protect their
money. Even the report states there's no
evidence values will fall long term, and even
though land values have soared since the last
time there was upzoning in Southold, and even
though long term land prices have risen in
Maryland and Napa Valley after upzoning,
there's clearly a fear of falling prices. I
can't blame these landowners for trying to
protect their interests, this ils certainly
their right.
I'm assuming these families went
into farming to farm and not to speculate on
land. By good fortune ~heir ancestors chose
to farm a hundred miles from Manhattan instead
of in Iowa. As a result, they are now
multimillionaires; however, to ask the rest of
the community to bear the risks enumerated
below so that their land may be worth a few
million dollars more than the millions it is
already worth, is not a valid reason to oppose
upzoning.
The other arguments: I've heard
against upzoning are disingenueus, as well as
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047
43
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
utterly baffling. Given this five acre
upzoning requires clustering on one acre lots
and not five acre lots, the clammer against
elitist McMansions seems false. Thus, their
recent argument I heard regarding the influx
of tradespeople causing traffic jams seems
really spurious; and besides, this argument
assumes prices will dramatically rise. I was
under the impression that upzoning was being
opposed because it would cause land prices to
fall.
And let's not confuse the
affordable housing issue with upzoning.
Southold clearly has an urgent need for
affordable housing for young people in the
community who wish to stay here. But whether
we stay with two acre zoning or change to five
acre zoning, the prices of the houses in new
subdivisions are not at the level of starter
homes. Let's deal with the affordable housing
issue expediently but separately.
The risks to not upzoning appear
far more serious. Under the DGEIS maximum
build out scenario, there would be
approximately 6,600 more housing units, which
the document equates with an increase of about
10,000 of Southold's population. This number
assumes only 1.5 persons per household, a
probably low figure unless a large number of
these are second homes. However, an increase
of even 10,000 in population would
dramatically increase population density,
which would be seriously exacerbated in the
summers. And let's be clear, it is population
density increases that is Southold's enemy.
If population density increases,
the risks to the community are numerous.
First there are fiscal risks. The demand for
services will dramatically increase. The best
example is education. The current facilities
are already crowded and will inevitably prove
inadequate. Taxes will soar to pay for new
facilities and staff. Second
there are environment risks. Pollution and
trash will increase significantly with such a
population increase. The scenery ef Southeld
will be increasingly marred.
Third, there is a risk te
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
44
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
transportation efficiencies. Traffic will
show a major increase, making ~ht likely that
we will frequently be sitting in summer
traffic jams like those on the south fork.
Has anybody tried to make a left turn on the
Main Road on a recent weekend? Roads will
wear out sooner from higher usage requiring
more maintenance.
Finally, there's a risk to small
businesses. Once there is sufficient
population density, large national retailers
believe it's viable to set up in Southold,
squeezing out local businesses. I was very
surprised to find Southold's business group
opposing upzoning. Population increases will
clearly put many of its member's businesses at
risk.
Having waded through the document
and considered the arguments of both sides,
the answer is clear. Upzoning has worked in
other areas. Voluntary measures have never
stood much of a chance against the power of
the profit motive. By all means be absolutely
certain that farmers will have the financial
wherewithal to continue to farm.
I personally spent 12 years
working in the arena of finance. I have no
doubt that with the numerous financial wizards
in the New York area we can find a way. I
would happily volunteer to help this effort.
However, to risk all the damage
from increased population density because land
values might have a short term fall is to
protect the interest of the few instead of the
many. Any representative taking that position
is recklessly gambling Southold's future.
Once the problems associated with population
density arrive, there is no going back. We
just have to look to the west to see this.
Perhaps our representatives can
come up with another method than will
guarantee that population density will not
destroy the character of Southold. If,
however, you cannot, then as a responsible
representative you must upzone.
Thank yeu very much for yeur
consideratien.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you,
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
45
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Hr. Greene.
HS. NEVILLE: Excuse me,
Hr. Greene, can you please sign the attendance
sheet? Thank you.
HR. EDWARDS: Hy name is Bill
Edwards. I'm from Hattituck. Before you all
start taking notes, I'm going ke give you a
written copy ef what I say.
Before I start, I would like to
personally thank six very patient members ef
our Town Beard, net to mention our Town Clerk
and our Town Attorney. Someone made the
comment to me today that everything's been
said but not everybody has said it. And I
kind ef feel that way a little bit here, but
my Ged, I came te say it and I'm going te say
it.
I'm here to address a number ef
questions te the DGEIS, which I understand is
the procedure, se that it can be responded to.
And make it a little easier, I've got it all
en paper.
On Page 3 3, I'd like te ask,
while it may be true that revenues in future
years are not predictable te the penny, it is
a fact that the Town will receive ever three
and-a-half million in CPS funds in 2003 and
can project as much or more in the out years;
that being the case, why does the build-out
analysis net allow for any future preservation
by the Town er County, especially in the AC
and R 80 zones, we are, after all, dealing
with our best guess ef what's going to happen
and net some certainty, and our best guess
should include that revenue.
On Page 3 22, the adverse primary
impacts and implications listed for tool
Number 4, which is five acre zoning, de not
include the incremental cost te landowners to
refinancing their loans from the banks. For
every parcel ef land currently borrowed
against by the landowner, these new expenses
will include the cost of a new appraisal at
$1,500 and up per parcel, mortgage filing
fees, attorney costs and especially new title
insurance policies which typica_ly run about
one percent ef the face value ef the mortgage.
These expenses tied as they are te
COURT REPORTING AND TP~ANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the size of the loans and to the landowners
who have them will fall disprcportionately en
these landowners least able tc afford them
because they already ewe money, and could
easily top one million dollars in incremental
expense to the landowners in this town. This
is not geed for farming. This is eniy geed
for title insurance companies and attorneys.
Please review these expenses with
an agricultural lender and I get those numbers
from Steve Weir, and provide an estimate of
their total impact en the farmers ef Seutheld
Town as an immediate consequence of
implementing five acre zoning with clustering.
Page 3-28, in the second
paragraph, the report states that upzening has
net had any harmful effects in other parts ef
the country and refer to several upzening
instances in California and Maryland, only one
ef which, Hentgomery County, Haryland, went
from two acres to five. The rest were larger
areas.
You say that in quote, "In these
cases there has been no documented negative or
adverse impact on the business of farming and
land values stabilized over a short period ef
time." This raises several questions which I
ask that you respond to.
Number 1: What is your authority
for saying that land values stabilized?
Quantify it.
Number 2: Do you mean that the
values stabilized at the same :?ate before the
rezoning er at a lower level?
Number 3: Did you check with each
ef the counties you cite to determine if the
rezoning included clustering, which any
reasonable person would understand had as
major an impact on valuations as the rezoning
itself.
Number 4: Why did you fail te
uncover the fact that Montgomery County's move
to five acre zoning did net include
clustering, the primary cause cf the loss in
the land valuation?
Number 5: Please provide an
example of a town or county which went from
two acre to five acre zoning with clustering,
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047
47
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
25
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
and supply a history of land valuations there
before and after the change over. If ne such
example exists - and it may net - please
provide a reasoned projection on the impact ef
land valuations ef such rezoning in Southold
Town.
On Page 3-29. From a 1991 report
which was quoted earlier this evening by
Robert Egerton, Jr. from the Maryland State
Planning Office, entitled "The Effects of
Agricultural Zoning on the Value ef Farmland."
You quote as fellows: "Lending institutions
de not make er deny leans en the basis efa
parcel's development potential, but rather en
the ability of the farm enterprise to repay
its leans.,, And this was confirmed te me by
Steve Weir as very typical in .agricultural
loans. This may have been true in 1991, but
have you inquired in the year 2003 of any
local lending officer dealing with local
agriculture as to the potential impact of a
change in zoning on their wilhkngness to
extend leans to farmers and to what extent te
debt to equity. If se, what dad you learn?
If you didn't, why didn't you?
On Page 8 13, with respect tea
potential loss in land valuation as a
consequence ef upzoning, the second paragraph
en this page states that a review ef
historical development rights sale data - a
subject of interest te me -- reveals that the
value ef land alone accounts fcr approximately
40 percent ef the overall land value
indicating the development rights of a given
parcel account fur approximately 60 percent ef
the total land value.
Based on purchases ef development
rights made in the last year by Southold Town,
the appraised value of the development rights
is running closer to 70 percent than 60
percent, with the development rights running
even higher than smaller parcels and in
parcels with extensive road frontage. Please
review the accuracy of the 60 percent claim in
the report in light of sales data in Southeld
Town over the past 12 months.
Finally in Page 1-6~ Beth the
Town Beard and the voters ef Seuthold Town
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
Southold,
DGEIS.
have provided a consistent level of support
for the purchase of development rights and
open space. Indeed I doubt that there exists
in this entire country another municipality
which has given so much per capita to protect
the farmland and open space. And everyone in
Southold should be proud of this ongoing
achievement.
Yet in Table 1-1 listing of the 43
implementation tools, there's no consideration
given to enhancing the current level of PDR
funding either through additional bonding or
through bonding against the anticipated income
of the two percent tax, which was just
mentioned here. I don't understand why that
tool was not also proposed as part of this
report.
That's all I have to say. I thank
you very much, and here are copies of the
comment questions (handing).
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Yes, ma'am.
MS. CASE: I'm Tippy Case from
and I'm here to ask you to adopt the
Mrs. Case.
I'm just going back, there have
been so many studies and so many reports going
back to Stewardship Task Force, the Steve
Jones report, the Route 48 study, the Blue
Ribbon Commission, and it seems te me that no
action is ever taken, and we need to take
action fast because Southeld's disappearing
right before our very eyes. And I just think
it's important, and that's why I'm here te
speak. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you,
Greenport.
Yes, sir, ~r. Keith.
MR. KEITH: Hi, Terry Keith,
I would just like to add a few
comments to discussion on country inns which
came up at some of the other hearings
regarding the DGEIS.
My family owns the Silver Sands
Motel in Greenport. For those ef you who
aren't aware, in this document there's a
proposal for country inns be allowed on land
that is zoned AC, R-200 or R 80, basically
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
49
2
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
meaning that country inns could potentially be
allowed on agricultural land and other types
of open space. These country inns would
provide lodging for up to 20 rooms and also
have food services, basically, I'm assuming
being allowed to operate a restaurant because
it wasn't specific.
I'm quoting Page 1 28 from the
document which says, "It is expected that a
country inn will involve overnight
accommodations and amenities, food service,
parking, meeting, gathering facilities,
outdoor recreation, et cetera.,, End quote.
Now, the concept of country inns
is net something that's new. Those ef us in
the lodging business have heard it here for a
number of years now. And we know there's a
number of people who are pushing for it. And
I just want to state for the record that I
think the creation ef country inns is a very
bad idea, and I'm going te give a couple ef
reasons why.
The preexisting motels, hotels,
bed and breakfasts and restaurants will first
of all take a huge hit from the competition.
Despite what many people think,
the market of tourists looking to rent rooms
is not that huge, and you'd be carving up what
is already a very small pie. On Saturday
night and the Fourth of the July and Labor
Day, every hotel out here could rent another
hundred rooms. It's a given. But on
Wednesday night you can't. It's just a fact.
You can drive around and look at 11:00 and see
how many cars are in everyone else's parking
lot and their lots are half full, even in the
middle of the summer riqht now. It's the
midweek that keeps everybody in business, and
the demand is simply not there.
I would like to state also for the
record that I'm not opposed to competition.
Competition is good for the economy. There
have been a number of new hotels and motels
which have sprung up in the last few years,
along with a number of bed and ~reakfasts, and
there's about to be a new hotel in Greenport
along with one on the North Road. But the
playing field is level for us and I think
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
everyone else in competition with each other.
What you're talking about here
will not be. Those of us who own hotels or
motels pay a very high number of taxes every
year, and we do it gladly because we know it's
for the privilege of having such a unique
business out here. But now, under this
proposal, it would be possible for anyone with
open space could - excuse me - could put a
business competing with us on it and possibly
pay agricultural taxes. It was not specific,
so I'm not sure exactly what was intended
there. That simply is not fair if that's the
case. It's not fair for us who have stuck it
out for generations in the lodging business
out here and made the appropriate sacrifices
to do so.
I would also like to say the term
"country inn" is a very sly one. It's
innocuous and sounds like something you would
see in the British countryside somewhere; and
if that was just a handful of rooms ih might
be the case. But what is proposed in this
document is for up to 20 rooms to be allowed,
and with parking and a potential restaurant
and access roads, that's not a country inn,
that's a resort. To give you guys some frame
of reference, the main motel at the S~lver
Sands is 22 rooms; that is only two more than
what is potentially being proposed here. And
it takes up quite a bit of space for the
parking lot. And it seems like what you're
talking about here is not a plan for
preserving the land, it's a plan for
developing it. And you can potentially have
these structures all up and down what is now
open space and farmland.
The document on Page 1 41 has a
section entitled "Economic Development Plan
and Tourism.,, And there's a subsection
beneath that headed "Tourism.', The first item
of action under the tourism heading and I
quote, it says "Introduce country inns.,, End
quote. It's the first thing that's listed
there. So I'm assuming the framers of the
report might be saying that we really need
country inns out here, and I would like to
know their rationale why.
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047
I 51
2
l,
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
Since this is the time to give
questions and input into what will be the
final document, I would like to ask the
planners with regards to country inns and this
document to do the following: To remove the
proposal for country inns from this document.
If you're going to pursue this:, please pursue
it as a separate issue that we can have
hearings on and vote on separately.
If you're going to keep the
proposals for country inns in this document,
I'd like the following questions answered,
please: How do you plan to make the playing
field level economically for the rest of us
who are out here zoned for hotels and motels.
Specifically, what kind of taxes will these
country inns be paying? If some properties
like the ones my family own will no longer be
so unique and hence potentially not as
valuable due to the fact that there will be
country inns potentially all over, will you be
compensating those of us who own hotels,
motels and bed and breakfasts for the
potential loss of our land value?
And lastly, please call these
structures what they are. They-are resorts.
They are micro-hotels. They're hotels. And
I don't think they're of the bed and
breakfasts but Country inns is a very
inaccurate term. It sounds like something
from Lord of the Rings that Frodo Baggins will
be standing outside. It Sounds really cute,
and I just imagine like a little thatched hut
with a little fire going. It's not the case.
Like I said, I'm not opposed to competition
but I'm opposed to unfair competition. So
thanks a lot. '
MS. NEVILLE: Please state your
name for the record, sir.
HR. KEITH: Sure, Terry Keith from
Greenport.
MS. NEVILLE: Thank you.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Would anybody
else care it to address the Town Board? You
stole the show, Ron.
MR. WACKER: My name is Ronnie
Wacker from Cutchogue. And I am going to
repeat te some extent from what Tippy Case has
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
i 52
2
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
said. Because here we are talking about yet
another study on how to save our farmland and
open space, most of which is Jn the hands ef
speculators.
It's the same problem that we have
been studying for the past 20 years. Bow many
studies have we had? I knew for myself I've
taken part in several over the years. There
was the Stewardship Task Force, the US-UK week
long study. I remember everybedy, s excitement
when that report came in. We thouqht now we
really have it made because they t31d us what
was wrong. They told us if we wanted te save
our open space we were doing it all wrong. So
we did talk. We seemed determined that night
te follow their precepts. But I don't know
what happened. I guess the report went into a
bottom drawer in Town Hall someplace.
Host recently there was a Blue
Ribbon Commission, which finally set down
goals. Now this seemed pretty realistic.
Agreed te save and 80 percent of the farmland
and decreased development hy 60 percent, well
and geed. We thought they were practical
guidelines. We have had the moratorium, which
has been extended te give us more time to find
a solution.
Various proposals h~ve been
authored. The RID, TDRs, five acre zoning,
John Nickels offered -- there have been many
proposals. John Nickels offered his F.A.I.R.
proposal. Tom suggested we follow Riverhead's
ideas.
You knew, we're all on the same
level. We're all concerned about saving the
open space that we love around here. But some
of us are afraid that upzoning will result in
loss of the property values. This, despite
the fact that ever since we upzened te two
acres back 1983, property values have
increased exponentially. How many of us today
could afford to buy our own house? I
couldn't.
The consultants they hired said
that they don't see any reason ~hat five acre
zoning would result in decreased land values;
I guess one problem that I can see with that
is that we would need serious attention given
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
to affordable housing for young families.
We're talking about extending
moratorium again. Actually, I don't think
that's such a bad idea if we decide that by
the time the moratorium is finally ended we
have - you, the Town Board, have enacted a
plan that will become law so that we know
exactly what our parameters are. We know
exactly what we can do and what we can't do.
And we know, we have some idea of what our
future will be. I hope that you will take
this seriously.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you,
Miss Wacker.
years.
open. I've rented it to people, other
farmers. I brought my children out here. My
father-in-law was a farmer out here. They
were for generations farmers out here. My
family came from Europe. We're farmers in
Huntington. I own a house out here. I own a
farm out here. My children have homes out
here.
Five acre zoning, going to five
acre zoning, I just want to tell you, if land
values dropped for everybody else that's here
tonight and speaks with their homes, and you
had legislation that would decrease their
values, I don't know if they'd all be so
happy. I think you'd probably ]nave tons of
people coming here saying, why are you doing
that.
The Blue Ribbon Commission went
through; that's not good because it's probably
easier just to go to five acre zoning, but you
do affect our property values. It will go
down. And nobody wants their property values
to go down. We borrow money, the farmers
borrow money; the farmers are ncw a minority.
They have something to do say. Everybody
wants to have something to say about what a
farmer does, how he operates, and a lot of the
farmers are sick of it because we know we're a
minority, and we know we have nothing to say.
We feel we have nothing to say and nobody's
Yes, sir.
MR. KEIL: My name's Otto Keil.
I've been coming ont here for 44
I bought a farm in 1969. I've kept it
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (6!1) 878-8047
2
l,
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
listening.
Oh, it's easy, just go to five
acre zoning. Well, five acre zoning to me -
I don't want to see any more development. I
come out here for 45 years. My father in-law
was a farmer for generations. I have no
intentions of selling our farm. I want to
pass it on to our children. Eut in
eventuality I died, and they had to sell, you
say, oh, you're not going to die tomorrow, and
you put five acre zoning, then it's not worth
as much, that's agreed. And if people's homes
around here went down the same percentage -
you were doing some legislation and it would
cause that to go down, everybody would be here
tonight in the whole town. Besause they don't
want to see their land values go dowN.
Farmers are greedy? I've been
reading the letters while I'm home and it
really turns me off. So, I mean, there's
nothing I can say except to voice myself.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Cooper.
MR. COOPER: Doug Cooper from
Hattituck. I'm disappointed -
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Your name and
place of residence for the record.
MR. COOPER: Doug Cooper from
Hattituck.
I'm disappointed that people would
come up here and encourage this Board to adopt
this DGEIS when it's been pointed out how
sloppy it's been done, how distorted, corrupt,
I know these reports have been ~isleading
completely. I find that very disheartening
that people would still come up and encourage
the Board to adopt this. Ail I can say is
that they don't understand the depth of how
bad a report it is.
I've heard reports that five acre
zoning will result in 60 percent fewer houses
than what we are now doing under two acre
zoning. This is crazy stuff. This is wrong.
This is a blatant lie. What we are now doing
under two acre zoning is equivalent of 18 acre
zoning. Anybody pushing for five acre zoning
is pushing for more houses than what we are
currently doing under two acre zoning, because
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
55
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we are preserving under two aore zoning.
There's an incentive ef preserving due te the
equity of PDRs under two acre zoning, which
will be lest under five acre zoning.
The build-out scenario on the AC,
R-80 land, if built-out under five acre
zoning, I figured would be around 1,400 or
1,450 new houses. What we are currently
doing, under two acre zoning, if we continue
the track record for the last six years, would
give us six hundred new houses. This is a big
difference. There's going te be more
houses -- and people don't understand this -
there's going te be more houses under five
acre zoning than what we are currently doing
under two acre zoning, and that is because it
has been economically advantageous te preserve
with two acre zoning.
I've heard questions about
funding. It's going te cost two hundred
million dollars, where is this two hundred
million dollars going to come from? It's net
going te come from the local taxpayer, very,
very small part might. The County is paying a
third, that's for that sales tax I de believe,
part of their sales tax, and that ranges from
40 to 50 percent tee, County po~rticipation.
We have the two percent money; that will cover
another third. We have charitable gifts money
which is around another third. What is left
for the local taxpayer is probably going te be
nil, and I would not be at all surprised --
because everybody talks about this CPF fund
running out in 17 years -- I would fully
expect that the government, the State will
extend it for another ten years. It's too
much money for the politicians, and it's doing
a worthwhile project. So I think that funding
will continue for a long time.
There was comments that the Town
has talked to the farmer in the BRC, in the
Blue Ribbon Commission. Yes, we've talked.
But what has come from that? You've taken the
goals from the 60 and 80 percent density
reductions and run with that and the other
recommendations from the BRC has been negated,
done away with. There's talk of a RID, what
will be the RID that came from the BRC, I
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047
56
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
don't know, probably not.
What we are doing today, there was
a comment that voluntary preservation is not
working. Voluntary preservation is working
super. It is working very, very good. Every
week there's more people coming into the land
preservation committee offering to sell their
development rights.
There was a question as to why
more people weren't selling their development
rights. I'm going to tell you. Quite
frankly, as a landowner, as a farmer, the sale
of one's development rights is the absolute
last thing you want to do. That is your
back-up. If you need to expand if you have a
bad year and need money, those development
rights are what you have that you can cash in
when you need to. Any businessman, in my
opinion, would be very hesitant to sell their
development rights until that point when
either they need the money to expand, they
need the money to pay their bills, they need
the money to settle the estates and that's a
great way to de it. The PDR money is a great
way for farms to settle their estates, farm
families to settle their estates. It's wrong
for you to expect people to come in and sell
it all at once, but they are; people are
coming in and selling, and that's a very good
thing.
I'm more, when I look at
preservation and the build-out that we are
doing, which, as I said, is equivalent of 18
acre zoning, it makes me wonder why anybody
would want to go to five acre zoning. And
there's talk of guarantees. The landowners
and farmers who have been working on this have
said time after time that we are willing to
sit down if the numbers go bad and look at
upzoning. We have said time after time that
put a monitoring process in. Iii the numbers
go bad, we'll sit down. But why would anybody
want to upzone now when we are doing so much
better than five acre zoning? It makes no
sense whatsoever.
The only possibility - the only
possibility that I can see is there's money in
there. There's money somewheres for people if
COURT REPORTING AND TR~SCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047
1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they upzone. Money in terms of selling fuel
oil. Money in terms of
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Please keep it
to the DGEIS and the DGEIS only.
MR. COOPER: There is a
scenario - there has to be money there
somewheres because the concept of going to an
upzone when we are doing so much better, makes
no sense.
The risks of gein9 to an upzone,
eno gentleman said that it would be a hit en
equity, there would be property rights, these
are the two main risks. No, the real risk ef
going te an upzene is that higher build-out,
and that is going te hit the taxpayer. If we
had anywhere near that 1,400 houses that could
take place under five acre upzsning, that's a
whole lot mere houses, traffic, school kids,
schools, than what we are currently doing
under two acre zoning. What we need is
incentives. If you want to tweak it, and the
Blue Ribbon Commission had some of these
recommendations, we can tweak this PDR
program. We can give more incentives, if it
shows it's not working. That's the way to
go. Why take a plan that is already working
and throw it out, and put in something that
has a lot of doubts, a lot of questions, may
very well give us two or three times more
houses, more school kids, more taxes.
Gentlemen, it makes no sense. Ladies, it
makes no sense.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Cooper, do
you have any specific comments to the DGEIS or
something you'd like to add to it?
MR. COOPER: That will do it.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Anybody else
care to address the Board concerning the
DGEIS?
Yes, sir.
MR. MORICE: Hi, my name is Andrew
Morice, and I'm from East Marion. I also want
to touch base about the country inns, which
really hasn't been really talked about, which
only has a few paragraphs in this thing.
A couple ef things: Why are you
singling out country inns not to be more than
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047
58
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
two miles apart from each other? Why is it
just the country inns; what about preexisting
hotels, B & Bs and other things that fall
under those parameters?
And right now it's high season as
the gentleman for Silver Sands says. Ail the
hotels and motels have eight weeks to make
things happen. Let's face it, it isn't
happening right now. Hotels sro not full
during the week; some aren't even full on the
weekends. How can you suggest to build more
rooms at that time?
You say the five acre zoning is to
preserve the farmland, so why would you let
hotels or as you call them "country inns" to
be built on agricultural land? I know you say
it's good for the farmers and wineries so they
can supplement their incomes with the hotels,
and I do mean country inns, as you do so say.
You and I both know that farmers cannot afford
to build an inn, nor have the uime to run or
maintain these hotels or "inns" as you want to
call them. But, on the other hand, the
wineries can afford to have the inns built,
and they do have the time to run and maintain
them.
I do feel that this DGEIS is not
to preserve the farmland, but to allow the
wineries to build their inns with meeting
places and serve food on their farmland and
have weddings. Now that the wineries will
make all the money for themselves eventually
you will find empty stores and restaurants
with "for rent" signs in our towns. It will
cause the ripple effect.
The people will now come to the
north fork for the weddings and the w~neries
and stay in their inns and eat in their
restaurants, and then go home. The people
came and did what they set out to do. What is
to keep them here? Our farmlands, which will
probably not be here anymore, which is what
sets the north fork from any other place on
Long Island.
We touched base with the hotels
and the businesses on Page 1 41. The tourism
introduced to country inns, other hotels
should upgrade and diversify existing motels;
COUNT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are you going to rezone the e:<isting hotels so
they can add more units or conference centers
when their land is limited? t~ut yet you are
willing te put the mom and pep hotels en the
side and willing to let these country inns be
built when they have land that's a lot mere
than the other hotels and stuff de have, and
eventually the mom and peps will not be able
te compete with a three million dollar hotel.
Why don't you give grants er low interest rate
loans to the other hotel owners and other
innkeepers te up and make things better?
You did say en the last line -
why net de as you say on the last line ef the
economic plan which reads, "An economic
development plan should capitalize on the
town's unique historic character and encourage
the preservation and rehabilitation and the
reuse ef these resources.,, Why not give the
grants, as I just said, se the B & Bs and the
hotels can continue to make a living without
anybody stepping en anybody's hoes?
And let's leave farming te the
farmers and the grape growing ue the wineries,
and restaurants te sell their food, and the
hospitality business to the hotel and motel
business. Let's not put all our grapes and
vegetables in one basket, such as it seems you
are trying te de. Let's all e~joy the way of
life we've come te enjoy on the north fork. I
said my piece.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Any o~her
comments from the floor?
Yes, sir.
HR. OLHSTED: I am Sid Ohnsted
from Mattituck.
First off, I watched two or three
of these meetings en the cable, and the audio
is terrible. You get that fan running ever
there. This is picking up the fan, and if
someone tends te back away a little bit,
somebody tweaks the power, we hear the fan
getting louder. It's a problem. It's got to
do with it because you can't hear some ef the
speakers. It almost seems like some of the
speakers are being tuned down a little bit
maybe.
Mattituck Creek, there's a
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
prepesal fer a park, I was just wendering
where that might ge. Table 3 3, in Book 1 has
an item abeut - Item 7, Hattituck Creek
prevides fer better land use pattern in
sensitive and important areas of tewn,
including - Mattituck Creek is one sf the
mentioned areas, Route 25 west of Greenport
and Hattituck Creek -- changes land use
designatien on privately ewned land; and it
says preper land use is respensibility ef the
Tewn. And now they're saying more land use
review in making additional marine zening on
Hattituck Creek may have negative impacts.
Well there's net much land left te put marine
stuff there; everything is privately owned;
it's all residential.
Ail right, I'm rambling. Farmer's
rights, yeu know, we seem to be stepping en
farmer's rights quite a bit Here and where is
the trend going to ge? Who's going to be
next?
Book 1, Section 3, the list of
agencies and bureaus who will be consulted for
advice and consent on various items. I did
not see the Southold Trustees on that list; I
was just wondering why.
The farms, I think farming is a
terrible way to make a living, I should say a
difficult way. There's no 401K's, there's no
health plan, you have the weather, you have
the fickle market, all kinds of, you know,
pestilents, they have all kinds of things.
And, all right, we're going to improve on the
way we deal with the farms, we're going to try
to buy the rights and all that business - and
the rights are taxable. So there's not much
incentive there so you get your farmer's
rights money and they take the tax out of
you. So it's not as good as it sounds I
guess.
Ail right, people want farms but
they really don't want farms. ~hey want a
picture of a farm. They don't 'want spraying;
they don't want noise; they don't want dust;
they don't want traffic. It's a dilemma, I
guess. What if the farmers start a class
action suit planning on unfair selection or
discrimination, and they don't do anything
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047
2
3
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
except just delay the whole thing. I'm almost done.
There weren't always farms on Long
Island. The woodlands were cut down for
either houses or firewood for New York City,
and there were farms not too far from where I
lived in Queens. I was born in Greenport, by
the way. There were farms in Queens as late
as the late '40s. It's just a trend it
started there. It went to Hicksville and
wherever else they were talking about tonight.
It's coming here. You're going to march us
right to sea. There's no place else for us to
go. We're too close to a major metropolis.
We're burning a lot of gas to get to work, and
we like to live here, but we can't make any
money out here. So we have to go some place
to work.
So that's it, thank you very much.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you,
sir.
Any other comments on the DGEIS?
If there are no other comments this evening,
anyone want to make a motion?
COUNCILMAN RICHTER: Hove that we
close the hearing tonight.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAH: Second.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Ail in favor.
Oppose. Abstain.
The public hearing on the Southold
Town Draft Generic Environmental Impact
Statement is now officially closed, starting
tomorrow - yes, I was checking to make sure
it wasn't past midnight.
Starting tomorrow there will be a
ten day period of time where written comments
can be sent in response or in addition to the
Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement,
and those should be addressed to Southold Town
Clerk's office here at Town Hall, and it would
probably be helpful if you noted on there
"Written comment for DGEIS," so it gets right
to the authors of the DGEIS, the people who
are currently working in the text.
I also just wanted to say that
this process I think has been fruitful from
all walks of life; all points of view have
come out and participated in the public
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878 8047
process, and I think that's really a testimony
te the Town of Seutheld, the residents that
live here. And moving forward we look forward
te continued participation.
Se thank yon all for coming to
these hearings, and tNank you far your input
and your words, and have a good evening.
(Time ended: 10:31 p.m.)
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
C E R T I P I CA T I O N
I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for
the State ef New York, de hereby certify:
THAT the within transcript is a true
record ef the testimony given.
I further certify that I am not related by
bleed er marriage, te any ef the parties to
this action; and
THAT I am in ne way interested in the
outcome of this matter.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
hand this 15th day of July, 2003.
16
17
18
Florence V. Wiles
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047
'405 [11 6h6
'85 111 18124
'90S 111 3!t124
12, 17, 22, 23, 24; 26119;
30117, [8, 25; 31121; 32:2, 23;
5/)16; 52116; 53:4; 54:3, 8, 14;
5!)18; 60:3, 4, 5, 19; 151:18
-0-
0.4 Itl 5:2
O0 [41 IA,I; 32:5, 9; 49118
1,380 III 34:20
1,400 [21 55:5; 57:9
1,500 [11 45:23
1-41 [21 56:29; `58:24
10 [9[ 17125; 62:6
13 [2,1 3~16, 7
16 Itl 4:2
17 [11 55:18
L78,000 ~21 36:z 6
[8 [21 54:24; 56:18
t968 [11 4:5
1969 [u 53:~0
1983 [u 52:21
1989 [21 37:5, 18
1991 [21 4'7:5, I0
-2-
2,211 [21 34:20; 3,5:3
2,323 Ill 3411!)
2,705 Ill 34:17
2-36 [1] 3:8
2.1 II] 35:9
.~0 181 4:23; 1812, 22; 22:24;
~216; 49:3; 50:13; 52:4
.~0,532 m 1219
~00,000 t11 31:3
ZOO0 [Il 31:4
2002 ti] 35:'7
~0~ [5] ]:13; 35:9; 45115;
~020 [1] 1115
22 Ill 5o:16
25 [5] 7:22; 14:17; 22:24;
28:7; 60:5
250 [11 4:24
-3-
3-22 ~1~ 451m
3-28 Ill 46:9
1-29 tl] 47:5
t-3 [2] 45113; 60:2
3.5 [11 1522
].8 IU 35:8
~0 131 32:5, 9,
30,000 faa 15124
300 Ill 3511o
31,656 m
34 I~1 22:4
35 Ill 4:2
-4-
4 [:3] 32:9; ,15120; 46:22
40 [,1] 31114, 16; 47118;
55115
40,000 Ill 152,1
401k's Itl 60:]6
42 [21 13512,1; 36:2
[3 [11 1816
t4 tn 53:~6
t-5 [21 t;117; 5,114
~8 III 48:15
-5-
5 [51 32:5, 9, 10; 46:21
50 121 t2:10; 55115
53095 I~l t11~,
56 I1] 11:t;
560 Ill 31:21
57.6 121 11:6
58 Itl 25111
-6-
~ [11 6:10
5,335 lu 34:15
5,600 Ill 4311,1
5,763 r21 34:.~, 15
~0 [6] 4711!t, 21, 23; 52113;
54:22; 55:23
300,000 Ill 19123
-7-
7 [11 69:9
7.5Ul 3`524
75 [11 22:12
750 Iai 35117, 18, 2]
~.55[11 39:8
~0 I21 52112; 55:2:3
]5 III 39:9
ability 171 8:9, [7, 26, 25;
kb; 12122; 171!1
able [11 18115; 20114; 1613;
5!/:5
about 1671 :t:(,); 4:21; 1i:6;
~:2; 13:7; 1,1:1, 8, 18, 23;
1517, 11, 18; 17111, 17, 25:
181,t, 5; 1919, 12, 17; 20:19,
29, 21; 2112; 22:8, 18; 23:25;
211,1, 21; 25110, 17; 2~19, 21,
22; 271t, 5, 9, 10; 281,1, 2/;
29110, 11, 12, 21, 25; 95113;
49:23; 13114; 45:24; 49:24;
iS:Il, 18; 5723, 24; 58:2;
absent [21 11113; t119
absolute lu 56:8
absolutely m 2119;
abstain Ill 61116
2213, 19, 2(I; 23:2, 3, 4;
18125; 55:4
accept I21 15:21; 1618
access 191 12:2, 5; 50:14
accident lll 33:s
accommodate [11 22:5
accommodating
accommodations
according ~31 17:8;
21:3;
account [5] 4:13; 30:19;
accountant [ u 39:] i
accounts Ill 47:17
accuracy I1] 47:23
accurate [2] 4:4; 27:7
aCCused [11 38:22
chievell1 41:11
chievement [1] /8:15
cquisition 161 5:2/,
acquisitions t11 101~'7
acreage 121 36113; 37::]
action [12] 1217; 2811t, i0;
actively ~1] 27:6
activity in 25:,3
actual Ill 13115
actually 1191 5:19: I;12;
add ~51 19:14: 84:1;; :18:21;
addecl Ill 12:2;t
addition Ill 6h2/I
additional 121 18:7; 60:7
address 171 2::3, 8; 28:12;
addressed lgl 25:22;
administration ~u
adopt 161 12:3: 28:11;
adopted lu
adopting [:31 ~:~5; 26:20,
adoption 131 6:2; 28::3
advanced I [I 29:2o
advantageous Ill 55:10
advantages [~] w:23
adverse [21 45:19: 41;:14
advertised Ill .;:~2
advice 121 13:17; 60:13
advise [2] I():lkh 18:11
aeri~d [~
affec, ted ~6~ z:~; 9:4,
affec, ts ~u 9:3
affluent ~u 31]:~
afford 191 86:,8; 39:6,
affordable 1121
afraid 121 23:2; 52:29
~ternoon I~1
against I~l 7:24; 24:22;
agencies I ~ I 6o:~3
a~eedlzl 52:~2; 54:7
a~eement I il 19:6
a~icultural 117]
[:7; 8:3, 5, 7; 9:5, 7, 8; 25:25;
27:!); 84:4; 46:6; 47:7, 10;
49:2; 50:7; 58:9
agriculture 121 9:11;
47:12
ahead i51 18:6, ~8, 24;
19:7; 30:7
albeit [21 16:14
alex [1] 22:3
all 191] 2:5, 25; 4:22; 5:7;
!1:13, [8, 21, 22, 23, 25; 22:2,
8, 29; 23:15; 24:24; 25:10,
H:23; 32:17; 33:8, 10, 18;
M:4; 35:4; 36:18; 37:24;
51:15, 25; 62:4
alley [zl 4:22; 25:~2
allow [3] 20:7; 45:16;
58:15
allowable i1~ 7:6
allowed l51 42:11; 48:25;
allows [1] 42:8
almost 141 2!1:15; 38:10;
alone Il] 47:17
along [41 4:22; 29:1 I;
I!):24, 25
already [~6] 5:38; 11/:22;
25:13; 35:5, 8; 36:13, 17;
37:15; 38:13, [5; 4(]:8; 42:24;
also [33] 2:13, 22, 23, 25;
24:11; 2(]:8; 35:5, 7, 16;
3(]:23; 48:9; 49:3, 21; 50:10;
57:23; 61:24
alternative 191 8:6;
alternatives [2] 32:20;
36:18
although [2] 31:22; 41:9
always 14] 8:19; 24:8;
2(]:3; 61:3
am [91 13:11; 29:3; 38:19,
amass [11 13:16
tmazing In ~1:5
amenities [21 9:8; ,19:7
among I Il :3:5
amounts [~1 11:18
ample Ill 41:24
ancestors I Il ,12:20
and-a-half 191 22:12;
[5:15
inderson [2[ 2:10
tndrew Ill 57:22
tnother I I*l 6:9; 9:12;
19:17; 52:2; 5511],
inswer [5l 36:3; 3h21;
answered [5] 2~:6; 30:,7,
answers [1] 88:20
anticipate lu ~:5
anticipated Ill ,18:8
anybody ll81 2:8; 17:2;3;
5!): 12
anybody's Ill 59:12
anymore [1] 58:22
anyone 131 39:3; 5o:5;
anything 141 22:7; 27:2//;
28:7; 66:25
anywhere 131 88:16;
12:8; 57:!)
apart [1] 58:2
apartments Ill
apolitical [u 2~:2,1
apparent Ill 11:21
apparently 131 3:18;
29:9; 43:12
appeared [1] '39:n
ppears [21 12:19; 4hl(]
pplaud I11 13:24
appraisal I2] 7:9; 15:23
appraised lu 47:21
approach 151 6:14; 211:1!1;
approached [21 39:3, 1;t
appropriate 121 22:25;
approved[31 4:[8; 6:17;
It):22
approximately 161 7:22;
10:21; 35:24; 43:14; 47:17, 19
aquebogue Id :33:5
are 115t;] 3:5, 20, 21, 23;
d:/L I(], 21, 22, 24; 5:7; 6:7;
11821' 196, 293, 21 I(], 22,
5:5, 25; 2(]:23; 27:8, 10, Il,
i15' 17, 20, 23; 57 5, 8, 11, 25;
51:13, 23
teas 111] 2:20; 3:2, 12, 16,
~rgument I81 6:,6} 8:13;
rgUments [51 9:11];
around [121 2:18; 3:12;
arrive I Il 44:29
article 131 6:16; 20:25;
21:3
as-of-right Ill (]:17
ask [111 Ih13; 23:!); 28:4;
33:22: ;35:14; 39:20; 42:22;
asking Iu 23:14
aspect I1[ 7:18
assess Ill 11:15
assessed iii 3!):9
assessment [11 6:5
~ssociated iH 44:211
lssume [31 [4:12; 18:3;
tssumes I41 12:7; I5:25;
tssuming[3] 42:1!); 4!):4;
50:24
assumption 121 5:8;
3k23
7:14
attacking I~l
attempt I,I 32:20
attend[ ~1 211:~7
attendance ]21 40:121
45:3
attended I ~1
attention ~1 52:25
attorney 131 k221 ]5:7,
24
attorneys I ~1
audio ~ ~1
aura Il} 21:6
authored III 52:16
authority [21 5.;; 46:.;
authors [U 61:25
avai]able [4] ~:1 I; 6:7;
16:141 38:24
avera.ge [2] 4:(;; 39:7
avoided ~l
away 15[ 15:81 27 it;
55:25; 59:22
-B-
b [3[ 1:61 58:3; 5!/:11
baby' III 30:3
back [21/] ]:4; 7:121 12:231
U4:121 1]:221 20:7; 21:201
30:8; 33:8, 101 37:171 148:!];
39:23; ]():9, 131 44:21/; 48:]4,
151 52,:211 5!~:22
back>up 12] ~5:2; 56:9
back.yard In 26:]
bad ~121 11:17, 25; 17:201
21:12, 191 2/:141 1!/:121 53:3;
51:211 56:9, 21, 22
baffling Ill 1:]:2
baggbns rll 51:17
balz [6[ 20:20; 38:8, i0, ii,
25; 39:2
bank II] 35:17
banks I11 d5:21
barn 111 9:]4
based I81 kit>: 717, 23;
bases Il[ 116
basically ISl
basis [z[ 9:2;
basket in
~ath i11 30:3
19, 22; 7:15, ]6, ~9, 25; 8:3,
~2:21, 25; 23:5, 23; 25:7, 16,
22, 25; 26:6; 27:7, 16, 21, 23;
~8:141 2!):6, 22, 25; 30:6, 22;
d41 35:!1, 19, 2111 37:2, 20;
~9:2, 15, 2d; 50:3, 5, 13, 24;
54:9; 55:3, 5, 7, 8, 17, 25;
56:111 57:4, 7, 25; 58:9, 22;
21}, 21, 22
bear In 42:22
beautifully I1~
)eauty II1 45:I6
)ecause [70] 4:12, 141 5:3,
24:7; 25:8; 211:2L 27:131
28:5; 29:8, 161 30:13, 20;
31]:12, 161 37:8, 23; 38:24;
43:6; 14:171 46:3; 48:171
49:4; 50:4; 52:2, 7; 53:20, 24;
54:9, 25; 55:!), 18; 57:5; 59:23
become m 26:9, ]0;
32:]8; 38:]], ]5; ]0:181 53:5
becomes ~1[ 32:6
bed [4~ 49:13, 24; 5]:13, 15
been 159] 3:4, 161 7:22;
23:10, 14, 22; 24:161 26:22;
before [15] 2:4; 8:7;
t.;_beginn,,!ng [11 30:23
umng 1231 4:1 l; 6:7;
50:16; 5!):24
belief 121 2:111 3:23
believe 12:41 2:~61 3:3, 131
believing Ill ,5:20
below I~1 ~2:23
belt I~l
beneath 1,1 50:22
benefit 121 21:231 2!):21
besides I. 43:5
better 181 17:31 18:171
2,1:81 25:20; 56:23; 57:5;
5!):7; 60:3
between I~1 35:2~
beyond/31 26:7; 28:21];
bicycles I~1 33:5
5, 171 20:1C 25:191 39:101
55:7
bigger 121 25:2//; 36:1
biggest 121 ]8:]7;
34:171 3S:/; 45:9; 50:171
blame I]1 42:~8
blatant III 54:23
blood I~l 62:12
blossoms [~1
57:12
45:7; ,17:25; 51:23; 53>1;
54:[?, 20; ) :21
boards l{{ 16:17
boats III 32:24
bond 121 ~5:20; 35:11
bonds 121 ~1:9; 3n:6
boolll .a:25
book 121 i;02, 12
boom III 3:18
bootstrap I]1 9:5
born Ill 61:5
~)orrower t2[ 8:22,; ~5:3
porrowing [5] 7:24; 9:6,
both Il01 t2:tl, 151 19:151
17:25; 58:tl
bothers I1] 1!t:18
bottom [2[ 37:9; 52:i0
bought 151 17:131 ~8:221
bouncing III 3(k15
)ourgondiens [1[ 27:8
}owhng [21 ~:221 25:12
)OX [21 28:13, 14
brc 13~ 55:22, 2,t, 25
breakdown Iii
breakfasts [11 ,19:13, 211
bridgehampton
brief Iii :4:7
)r!ng.121 12:51 32:2t
)ringing [21 3,1:161 37:21
)rings [1] 11:7
)ritish III 55:12
broadcast Ill 26:~8
brought 151 13:201 30:151
bruce I,I 2:10
bs [2l 58::4; 59:11
bucks Ill 21:8
build 191 211:41 28:7; 32:25;
build-out []31
buildable Ill 23:5
building I71 18:51 22:2111
mildings 131 22:25;
)nil] [51 25:16; 38:1];
)uilt-out [4{ 55>4
)usinessman 111 56:16
buying l61 ~v:~4, ~5; ~8:9,
-C-
C [3[ 1:6; 62:8
cable [ ~1
called III 28:17
calling Ill
calls I~1 30:23
calnqt Ill 21:21
came 1101 10:18; 19:23;
24:19; 39:16; 45:9; 18:22;
52:7; 53:13; 55:25; 58:21
can [611 4:20; 5:21; 7:24;
7, 22; 29:2; 33:22; 3G:6;
5]:5; 52:20; 58:6; 51 12, 20;
56:10, 25; 57 13; 58:7, 10, 13;
59:2, ]2; 61:20
can't 127~ 5:2, it; 12:2;
32:7, 8, 21; 38:7; 39:6, 7, 18;
61:9
canal 1~]
c~nnot ~9] ]2:20: 20:23;
cap [1] 32:20
capability ~u
capaeiW [21 S:5; 2~:7
capita 1~1 48:4
capitalize [11
capped ltl m:25
care [81 2:8; 17:20, 21;
2,1:23, 24; 51:23; 57:2]
career Ill 4o:19
cares [1] 17:[7
carpenter [1] 32:8
carry [1] 4k22
cars [41 21:15; 32:11; 33:5;
carving In 49:15
cash i1]
catastrophe I~1 25:5
categorically ~u ~4:z~
cathy [~] ~6:~
caused [1] 10:s
causing [2] il:S; 43:4
central t~] 5:22
centuries t~] 19:17
century r~]
certainly [4] 23:19; 29:25;
certainty [21 ~2:17;
certi~ [2] e2:t0, n
cetera ~l
chain 12] 25:14, ]6
challenge lzl 3:2o;
changed ~zl 3,:m, ~6
changes [21 i~:s;
chan~ng [~1 2mf ,
ch~acter icl 2:]3; 3:18;
characteristic [3~ 3:~,
charitable ~ll
charts N)
check t~l
checking ~3
chemicals nl
chick IH 2:5
children [4] 18:4; 53:11,
shile~ IX) ~7:19
choice IU
fhris [ ~1 2/):2/)
ircles / 11:5!):22
ire [1[ 16:19
itizens [2[ 15:20; 29:16
laim III 47:23
claimed [~1 20:4
clammer [ 11 43::3
clarified Ill 2rt:8
class [ 1[ 60:24
clear 151 8:21/; 23:19;
14:8; 20:3; 1217; 43:8; 14:!)
cleary ti) 2:5
clerk [2i k23; 45:v
clerk's Ill
clipboard I~1
clock I~1
closely I~1 ~0:2o
closer [21 2!7:12; ]7:21
cluster 12l 6:,6; 7:12
clustering 171
13:2; 16:8, 20, 23, 25
clusters I~1 (;:22
code Ill 11:11, 23, 24; 37:19
coffers [21 35:5,
collateral I~l 7:~9
collected 131
12:22
colored r~]
colorful [~1:58:15
colors ill 37:~4
columns III
come [2.] 15:4; 17:3; 19:7;
25:7; 2~:11; 32:23; 36:5;
38:21; 3[):12, 20, 21; 40:5;
55:12, 13, 23; 56:15; 58:19;
comes 131 12:1!); 26:2;
28:21
coming 1~)1 33:16; 31:20;
55:7; 53:16, 18; 56:4, ]G;
commend [1] 26:23
commensurate [1[ 8::~
comment 18] 2:3; 1~:4;
56:3; 61:22
comments [12] 13:17;
-32:I4; 26:16: 33:i9, 22; 18:22;
2ommercial [21 32:1!7;
:ommission
15:22; 57:[2
.*ommitment
committed m 36:.3
:ommittee I51 20:5;
!2:22, 25; 35:13; 56:5
common Il) 7:25
communities 11] 25:25
community [261 10:4, I0,
2, 22; 13:9, 20
:ommunity's I~1 46:~
:ompanies tll 46:5
:ompan.y III 14:7
.~omparlng III 28:16
:ompensate [i} 21:~2
:ompensating III 51:12
:ompensation [11 8:2
:ompete [u 59:6
;ompeting 131
:omplete [21 13:6; 30:12
:ompletely [51 ,1:
complicated [11 ~t;:~L
comply Ill
component [i] 22:12
components [~l 31:12
comprehensive I21
comprehensively 131
comprise [11 2:7
compromise 121 3!):18;
1:24
conceivably I u 6:~7
concept [4[ 1~:4; 37:17;
198: 57:5
concepts [11 39:I5
concerned I,I 8:2; 17:11;
concerning Ill 57:21
concerns tu
concessions [1~ 24:6
conclude [~] ~2:25
concludes IH
conclusion [2[ 8:19; 1!):4
condensed n) 26:23
condition I~1 ~4:~
condominium m d2:10
condos n) 17:21
conduct III 12:5
conference [ i i
confirmed [< s:m; ,17:9
confiscation Ill 8:2
confuse [1[ 4:3:7
connect iii 28:12
connecticut I~] 7:2
consensus [2[ 20:13, 21
consent [ l ] (;11:1:3
consequence [2]
consequences [31
conservation ~:~ 5:25;
consider [5[ k21: 5:6;
37:16
consideration 131 26:13;
d4:25; 48:6
considered 141 ~:2:3;
considering 121
consistent ~1 ,5:2
consortium [1[ 17:i3
construct [2[ 22:8,
construction [2] !):]3
consultant I11 10::3
consultants [21
52:23
consulting iai 2:
consummate [1[ ]3:24
contemplation III 7:10
contentious [ i[
continually I~l ~
continue il0[ ~;:,: 12:17;
continued 111
continues [21
contradict 121 5:23:
contradictions Ill 2:1!t
contributed Iii 23:2:3
control [2] 28:2; 35:2
controls [~[ ~6
cooper [3[ 21:7; 54:13, i5;
57:4, 18, 13
coopers Ill 27:8
cop]es Ill 45:11
cops III 32:13
copy 121 :~:7; 45:5
corny [ i[ 20:24
correct hll 2!t:3, 5, 8, 9
corrected Ill 7:11;
corrupt 11[
cost I11 :39:5; 45:21, 23;
costs 13} 17:25; ~5:24
could1371 4:25; 0:t;t,
0:5; 22:22, 23, 2,1, 25; 23:3,
~9:2, 17; 50:6; 52:22; 57:!)
20uncil [1] ~4:3
20uncilman [8] ~:~7,
:ouncilwoman ~H 1:19
:ounted m s:11
:ounties [u ,16:13
:ountry [26] 16:10; 18::t,
10, 12, 16; 57:23, 25; 58:2, 9,
:ountryside iii 50:~2
[5
:.ounty's [I] 46:22
.ouple ,3] 4:20; 49:12;
:ourse 121 13:5; 21:16
:ourt ]1] 23:13
:ourts [1[ 3:22
lover III 55:15
:pf[~] 14:24, 25; 15:/;
:ps Ill 45:15
:razy [1] 54:23
.~reate [8] 3:4; 5:[3; 7:13;
k20; 10:4; 20:17; 21:6; :42:25
:reatingl21 4:25; 21:16
:reation 111 ,19:]]
:reative r31 ]]:]3; 20:15;
Credit 131 7:20, 23;
creek Iai 53:25; 60:3, ~, 5,
critical [1] 31:15
crops [21 17:7; 20:12
crowded [2] 27:24; 13:22
cro.wding I11 32:10
cueing i51 27:11
current [51 26:(;; 36:8;
currently [71 25:~4;
currents [21 22:6
cushman i I] 39:10
cut [[] 61:3
cutehogue 141 ~4:4;
cute II] 51:17
2va [1] 25:12
-D-
:leis Iii 23:23
:fare [2] 27:i!t; 28:1(;
:lays [21~:5; 40:2
:lebate 1:41 5:22; 20:6;
:lecades III 3:25
:lecide 131 22:25;
:lecision-making
]ecreased 12] 52:13, 24
ieductions I1[ 6:2,
:leeply I11 411:22
teficient IH 9:23
tefinition I11 3hll
temand 131 8:6; ,/3:29;
[9:21
temanded I~l
lemon]zed Ill 16:1I
tensity [~,1 6:21; 7:6;
55:23
department 1,1] 6:~0. ~5;
.ependant [~1 5:5
.epth 121 5::3; 5,20
.eputy I~l :43:25
erived IH 23:6
described [~1 a:~0
designation [~l 23:2,
desirable 12[ 14:m; ~5:7
espite 121 43:~,i; 52:20
estroy Id 44:23
etermine [11 4G:19
determined IH ~2:3
devalue [ 1] s:1 i
developed 14] kls, 16;
23:23; 36:13
:leveloper [/1 36:1, 5, 12;
:levelopers 111:36:12
:leveloping [11 00:13
:levelopment [7:~1 2:22;
4(;:[7; 33:7; 17:8, lG, 18, 20,
:lgeis 122] 2:3, 7, 9; 5:19;
]3:20; 20:3; 26:20; 41:Ii;
:lialo,~gue Ill 20:5
1!):20; 22:15, 2:3; 25:25; 31:20,
:lifference ~1 55:7
:lifferent 151 13:21; 22:6;
t2:20; 37:13, 22
:[iff]cult IH 60:~6
:jigging l II 39:23
:limensional 121
~irectors In
isagree 121 4 h12, 1:3
isagreement Ill ,41:10
isappearing Ill 48:1~
iisappointed 121 5t:1,1,
iiscourages
III 11:19
iiscrimination 111
iiscuss [;41 3:15: 27:;t;
tiscussed Itl 5:10;
iSCUSSion 141 Il:ti;
isheartening ltl 54:19
disingenuous [1[ 42:25
disinterested [~1 i1:2:t
ismayed 1~1
isplayed [21 37:8; '11:3
isposal I1] 10:21
isproportionately N I
46:2
distorted 121:44:12; 54:18
district 131 2:2,. 2:]; ~7:25
districts 121 ~v:10; :47:5
diversify III 58:25
divided I~l ~:25
document I251 5:~;
6:10; 26:22; 28::4, [t, 20;
30:11, 2:]; 31:22; ;4;]::4; 35: 15,
22; I1:2, ;4; 13:11; 1t:10;
18:24; 19:6; 50:13, 20; 51:14,
4,7
documented I~1 16:~3
documents [11 3!):14
does [12[ 20:8; 2!t:14; 31:7,
!/; ;t5:1!1, 211; 36:3, /6; 15:16;
53:24
doesD~t [7[ i:l~; 18:16,
22; 20:7; 24:14, 204 36:M
doing ~241 2:6;
2l:l; 22:7; 23:25; 27:11;
dollar 131 18:10; 35:14;
dollars lei ~:~s; 3~:6,
domenici [3] 2~,:2, 3;
double 12]
doubled [~1
doubt 131 ,11:19; 14:15;
doubts ~1
doug lll 24:7; 27:9; 54:13,
dow~ 12[[ ~:16: 11:[8;
dr [31 30:25; 81:/5, 18
draft [31 ~:~; 6~:t~, 2o
drafting I~l 11:2~;
drag~ng m ~,:z3
dramatically 131 13
drastic~ly I ~1
dr~ler [1]
dredge I~l 3.:1~
drew Ill 40:17
drinking I~l
driw~ I,] 21:15; 49:18
drives [21 2l:14; 29:14
driving ill 3:1~
dropped Hi
]rug [3] 25:14, 15, 16
]ue [3] 8:2; 51:11; 55:2
luring[31 30:~5, 16; 58:6
iust [1] 60:23
twelling [2[ 12:9; 22:2,l
dwellin, gs [1] 3:19
dynamm [11 24:,,
-E-
e 12l [:6; 62:8
each ltl 12:10, 2/; I7':25;
18:2; 46:19; 50:2; 58:2
earlier [2] 13:24; 47:5
early [3] 4:5; 39:24
earnest [1] 40:22
earnings [:4] 8:~. 6. 8
ease [3] 20:11
easier [21 45:12; 53:20
easily [11 46:4
east [9] 3:23, 24; 20:17;
21:2; 27:21, 24; 31:2; 32:7;
57:23
eastern [1] 3:2,1
eastward [1] 25:13
easy [21 16:7; 54:2
eat 131 08:20
economic [91 8:14; 11:24;
3o:19, 20; 31:22; 5o:21; 59:9
economically [21 51:8;
economics 18] 9:38; 34:2;
economy [41 [3:2; 21:!3;
education [2J 20:7; 43:21
edwards 12] 45:,1
edwards' [11 22:~4
effect [5] ~3:3; 2~:~8;
effective r31 2:17
effectively 111 22:15
fffeets [61 2:17; 29:12, 21,
efficiencies [11 44:2
effort 13] 40:22; 41:4;
ffforts 13] 3:3; ]2:]8;
.~gerton [2] 7:17; 47:t;
.~lght [31:4:30; 5:2; 58:5
.qther [81 15:3;
12:10; 37:6; 48:7; 56:12; 6]:4
ditist ~3[ 26:9, ~0;
elizabeth l~[ 1:23
else [9] 24:21; 28:20; 32:23;
50:2; 51:23; 53:16; 57:20;
61:7, 8
else's [I] 49:1[)
~81sewhere 141 9.9, 286,
~manuel [H 39:24
}emergency [~1 33:.4
~motional m 28:22
~motions [~I 28:23
.~mployees [)1 3~:5
.~mploying [31 4 ~:~ 5
empty III 58:18
enact 121 i0:9; 19:8
enacted 141 41:16; 12:3;
encountered Ill 4o
encourage 181 18:11:
20:22, 25; 21:3; 27:~8; 5kl7,
19; 59:10
encouraged [1] 7:25
end IlO] 3:10, 23; 20:18:
49:8; 50:23
ended 12l 53:4; 62:6
enemy ii[
enhance I1] 8:9
enhancing Ill 48:7
enjoy 131 20:15; 27:22;
59:16
23:15, 20
enterprise IH 47:!)
entire 141 19:20; 29:2~;
]3:22; 48:3
entitled Izl 47:11; 50:21
enumerated [1] 42:22
environment 15[ 6:23;
environmental I71
51:17, 20
equally I~1 4:~[
equates Ii1 43:14
equation [~1 ~4:7
equities Ill 2:25
~quity[~ll 2:17; 8:1;t;
!3:8; 17:13; 55:3; 57:7
equivalent I2] 5,1:24~
.~rror 13l 2:16; 6:9; 7:16
.~rrors [~] 2.:4
.~specially 151 17:4; 21:21;
.~sseks [41 30:18, 19, 22;
.~ssentially [41 [t:17;
.~stablish [2] 2;]:2, 4
.~state Ii[ 3:18; 7:9; 30:22;
38:22
estates 131 56:13, I1
estimate Ill 16:7
estuary [1] 2I:I6
et [ ]1 .3:8
~urope il[ 53:13
.~VanS [2[ 1:[9; 13:18
.~ve Ill 39:19
.wening [6[ 25:2; 26:15;
.~vent I i I 9:224
;ventuality I1[ 5,1:6
.~ventually [~l 9:1
every/201 4:10; 5:7, 8;
everybody [141 15:5;
everybody's 1111 18:5, 12;
'everything [~01 ~7:8;
everything's 112] 38:18;
everywhere [1~ 29:i7
evidence [~[ 42:15
exacerbated [1] 43:~8
exact I1[ 29:17
exactly [41 33:,; 5o:7;
exaggerate [][ 12:11
examining [11 27:14
examples 12] 5:19; 12:10
except 131 10:2.1; 5]:12,
xception Ill 22:1!)
~xcess 121 :4:1!3; 25:20
yxcitement i~] 52:t;
exemption I~l 22:21
-~xemptions Ill :47:24
~xist [2] 3]:25; 3t;:17
~xisting 18] 3:15;
~xists [2[ 47:3; .18:3
.~xpand 121 56:[I, 12
,~xpect [2] 55:19; 56:15
expected 12[ ~:10;
expediently [11 ]3:~2
expense Ill 41;:1
expenses ]41 111:25;
I5:22, 25; ,t6:6
experience 12] 7:20, 23
experts I ~ ]
explained I~] 3v~7
exp][osion 121 27:25;
3(;: 18
exponentially I)l 52:22
expression [11
extend 12] 47:13: 55:1!)
extended 131 I ]:l; 24:2;
extending I11
extensive r~ m23
51:25
extra 121 12:/; 21:8
extraordinarily III 3:16
extraordinary I~1 21;:2~
extremely [2~ ,~:~;
eye-to-eye I ~1 20:21
eyes I1~ ~8:17
-F-
f [41 1:5, 22; 52:17: 62:8
face 13l 19:17; 15:25; 58:5
faced t~] 11:10
facilitate Ill
4[):7
fact [201 1:7; 57; 7:25;
15:3; 16:22; 35:5, 15; 3(;:24;
factor III 5:2; 33:5; 34:15,
factors ]2] 4:i3; 13:5
facts 131 13:3; 31;:1~; 39:10
fair v~ ~:5; 8:2~, 25; 0:3;
13:0; 59:8
fallen Iii 33:
f~ling ll~ ~x:
false, [21 (;:12; 13:3
families ~31 ~2:.); ~3:2;
family [(;~ 1o:11;; 31:2;
fan 131 50:2i, 22
:armed [3] 6:1 i, 21; 27:(;
farmer [is] 8:18; 9:0, 11;
~4; 54:4; 55:22; 56:7
:armer's 171 8:9, 25; 9:5;
!armers [49] 2:I2, 17;
23:7, 18; 24:6, II, 20, 23;
25:1; 27:19; 29:25; 38:25;
18; 22:22; 25:23, 25; 34:2;
4(;:5, 14; 59:13; 60:15
Farmland [281 3:15; 4:2,
d3; 27:4, 5; 34:2, 4; 47:7;
18:4; 50:20; 52:2, 12; 58:8,
58:22
~arms [171 14:6, 7; 16:15;
~ast [2] 25:11; t8:17
?ather-in-law [21 53:12;
54:4
?avor [2] 40:5; I;[:15
~ear t5] 3:5; 5:9; 23:16;
Yeatnre t~l 23:11
Yeatures [1] 5:2u
i!dera112] 33:11]
e [1] 5:24
ed]ag Ill i]7:17
feelings ~1] 4~:2
fees [ll 45:24
feet [3] 3:20; 25:23; 28:7
fellas 111 24:10
Felt {41 2:18
[ewer [11 51:22
fickle m 6o:17
5ctitious [1~ 4:42
5eld t21 49:25; 51:8
Yifteen ill 211:2
figure IlOi 15:14, 18; 22:5;
~!gured 111 55:5
:igures 191 3h4; 35:3, I,
Ming I~l ~5:23
29:7; 33:2,1; 51:3
financial [3] 8:~8;
financing i4I 7:21; I1:18;
12:2, 5
find rio[ 2:i5, 11;, 19; 3:20;
14:8, [6; 52:14; 54:19; 58:18
Finding iii 8:2~
Fine rll 4~:5
finished Ill
firemen I~1 32:1/
~irewood Iii (;1:4
13:20
21; 53:15, 20; 54:2, 3, 7, 21,
24; 55:3, I, 8; 56:10, 23;
fixed iH 29:12; 32:16, 17
flawed [~1
flexible I~1 35:2~
float [~l
~oor [~] 2:2, 7; 13:18;
59:18
~ore~ce ~21 62:9, 17
~owors Ill 17:G
fly Ill 32:21
117; 529, 17
food Ill i[):4, 7; 58:11;;
~orced I]1 37:2
'orces Ill 32:17
?orecast l~l ,iL:5
forget [u 11:25
form Ill 27:9
former Ill 30:10
forth [~1 2~:7; 4~:17
fortune I11 12:20
forum [21 29:3; 41:2
forward [t;I 13:20; 11;:17;
found rs] 3:8; 28:19; 42:4
Four {5] 5:17; 18:2; [9:3;
Fourth Ill 19:15
Frame 121 2(;:23; 50:15
Framers I~1 50:24
Frankly 1~ 5(;:7
Fraught III 2:1~
Free-for-all NI 21/:(;
[reach t~F 21:5
requently II1 ]1:3
riday [1] 32:5
riendly I ~1 40:~7
rodo Ill 51:17
front 121 11:11; 14:15
frontage 121 5:17; ,17:23
frontier III 25:21
fruitful l~l (.:21
fudge III 31:[5
Fuel[ il 572
Fully 12] ]:]5; 55:1s
[unction I. 9:2
15;23; ;473; 55:18
fundamentally
10:11
funding 171 11:7; lO:M;
12:17g 14:8; 48:7; 55:11, 20
funding-wise lu ~o:,:4
funds 12] 8:23; 15:15
funnels [ 11
further 121 34:6;
future 1131 6:7; 1223;
26:18; 28:2, 5; 30:1: 10:23;
41:19, 23: 1119; 15:13, 16;
53:7
futnres [,i :~o:7
-G-
gambling I, I [ ,:19
garl]Le [11 17:2; 1!1:2; 25:18;
27:2
gary r21 7:8; 14:11
gas III 6151
gathering [~1 4!):7
geis II1 2[):7
general [31 3:9; 2!):5;
gonorally l41 2:~5; 3:12;
18:7, 9
generated 131 8:6: 24:16,
22
generations I1tl 50:9;
53:12; D4:4
generic 141 1:8; 33:24;
61:17, 20
gontlom~ 121 57:7; 58:4
gentlemen 111 57:17
gooI~o[Yy [2~ 5:5; lB:lb
georgo Itl 59:9
german 11] 21:6
24; 23:12, 19; 2k8, 9, I0;
ge~S 121 27:15; 6i:22
31:9; 32:10; 59:23
~ven [12] 5:9; 7:8; 13:15;
15:8; ~2:2; 43:2; 47:18; 48:4,
7; 49:17; 52:25; 62:11
glad 121 27:14; 29:7
30 [56[ 3:6, 22; 6:4, 19;
[2, 14, 22; 34:19; 36:3; :48:9;
10:1, 5, 9; 53:20, 21, 22; 54:2,
[oal [4] 9:,i; 3,1:13; 35:2;
'oals t3] ;t3:3; 52:12; 55:23
'obble [11
'od ill 45:9
'ocs [41 9:3; 11;:2; 17:20;
5:23
going [llll 3:-3, 6, 7, 20;
24; 35:19, 20; 36:3, 5; 37:21;
]4:20; 45:5, 9, 18; 48:14;
56:7; 57:5, 6, 8, 9; 59:2;
olden ~ 11:16
one [4] 26:2; 27:1o;
k21, 22
~ood [28] 2:]0; 11:19, 25;
19:7; 2[:18; 25:2; 26:15;
]8:14; 33:24; 40:14; 42:20;
16:5; 4!):22; 52:13; 53:20;
hose 1]] 11:16
Dt [17] 18:12; 20:22, 24;
15:12; 46:6; 59:21, 23
'otten [1] 31:20
'overnment 141 14:10,
33:13; 55:19
race [11 23:2
rant III 10:22
rape [1] 59:13
graph I1] t:2~
reene [41 40:[4; 45:2, 3
reenhouse [1] 9:.4
reenport [71 26:15;
,rregory ~1 ~:22
few [11 27:18
rOSS Ill 6:9
Cossly [1] 2:16
Foundl~l 4~:~4
Foup lhl 8:16, 17; 11;:22;
,rroups I~1 29:21
~)TOW 121 17:7; 211:12
,mowing 121 25:1l; 59:13
Town Ill 20:23
rOWS III 27:20
rowth [7~ 8:5; 26:2, 5, 8;
1:25; 28:2; 29:15
uarantees I1] 56:19
52:10, 25; 60:21, 24
uidance 121 6:9, 20
uidelines Itl 52:1~
-H-
had [2(;] (;:15, 18; 7:20. 2:t;
[!):2; 21/:5; 23:3, [0; 27:17;
![1:24; 30:8; 38:7; 40:2;
hadn't 121 16:5; 40:25
hamlets [3[ 3:12, i5; 19:7
hamper [~l !):14
lampton 131 3:21; 31:2;
32:7
hand 16] 5:23; 19:19;
20:10; 30:8; 58:13; 62:11
handful l II 50:12
handing 121 36:7; 18:1l
hands [1] 52::3
happen 161 t;:2; 32:2k
36:i4; :4!):23; 45:i8; 58:5
happened [:31 27:16; ;4;4:!);
52:10
happening Ill 58:(;
happens l8] 5:20; 7:~,
happily Ill 4[:15
aargraves [1] 36:io
harmful 111 46:10
harris Ill 39:25
lasn~t [1[ 57:24
aat 111 2I:1!)
laven~t [51 11:7; 14:6;
laving [t] 11:24; 38:22;
ceded Ill 50:22
eading r~l 50:22
health [31 6:19, ~8; 69:.;
hear I:[] 10:18; 59:22, 2:t
heard [~61 10:17; 14:22,
hearing 17] 2:2; [3:21;
hearings 171 29:22; 26:17;
heart I~l 2!):24
hock I11 11:20
held I~1:45:17
hell ii] 23:10
helpful 121 3/:10; 61:22
helping III 20:15
let I Il 39:20
hereby Iii 62:10
hereunto II1 62:~4
hey I11 2~:5
hi [:q 4s:20; 57:22
hicksville 141 25:23:
27:21, 23; 61:11
hidden nl :38::4
50:3; 58:1
higher 161 5s; 14:12;
32:16; t1:5: 47:22; 57:8
highlighted III 31:8
highway Ill 33:~
hired ~2~ 10:[74 52:23
19:17; 35:25; 36:2, 5, 24;
129, 10; 52:17
historic 121 3:9; 59:10
historical I~1 ~v:16
history [31 3:8; 15:11;
17:2
hit ~dl 20:I0; 19:11 57:7, 9
hold [Gl 9:10; 23:18, 22;
35:17, 19, 23
home [71 3:19; 19:22:
homeowner III 32:3
homeowners 13] 29:22;
38:25; 39:2
homes 1121 3:18, 20, ~1;
26:6, 8; 29:14; 32:9; 43:1l,
honest /U 1213
hope 131 19:9; It:6; 53:7
hopefully [21 19:5;
hoping ill 272
horton 1321 I:1~;
39:2; 40:13; 44:25; 18:12, 19;
host Ill 5:3
host.ility I~ 2625
hotels lml 26:21; ~9:13,
hour [ ~1
22:23; 27:17, 18; 31:24; 39:8;
household III 13:1~
30uses 1281 6:19; 16:15;
M:22, 25; 55:5, 7, 8; 57:!), 10,
sousing[14] 27:25; 28:9,
~oward tu pt:a
however [9[ 5:18; 8:.I, 19;
20:9; 11:23; 42:22; 43:16;
hubs ~1] 25:25
huge it;1 lS:5, 6, 22, 28;
hunan [1] 6:9
hundred t81 (;:15, ~8;
hunting~mn t2l 25:23;
hurt [i,i] 11:]5; 12:15, 25;
21:]]; 23:25; 21:20
hurting [21 ,4:;6; 2;4:2.1
hut Ill 51:18
-I-
[~m [73] 2:12, 13, 14; 3:6, 7;
8; 49:4, 5, ]2, 22; 50:7, 2,1;
i7:23; 60:10; 61:2
'ye 130] 4:9; 9:24; 10:17;
L 17; 26:16, 25; 28:15; 29:10;
;9:5; 40:20, 21, 25, 24; 42:25;
38:8; 49:12; 53:3, 6
ideas [21 29:5; 52:18
snored III 311:16
Snores III 10:13
~gnoring 121 5:5, 21/
lk III 2728
mag[ne [Il 51:18
tamed[ate I;~ 46:8
mpact 117] 1:9; 3:7; 7:6;
2; 61:17, 20
mpacted ~1 7:15
mpacts I1] :3:2;
15:20; 60:8
mplementation 1:31
implemented ~u
implementing 141 ~6:8
implications Ill 45:20
implied I~1 8:20
important 191 8:22; 12::3;
importantly I11 26:20
impressed 121 22:9; 11:3
impression r2l 7:13;
improve 111 60:t8
inaccurate [11
inadequate ri/ 43:22
inalienable I11 18:22
lac Ill 8:16
incentive 141 2:2l; 17:10;
55:2; 60:20
incentives [21 57:~2. 1:3
include 17~ 2:20; .38;
included [21 15:5; 41;:2/1
includes [11 37:25
including [51 3;3:13;
t5:25; 36:2; 38:14; 60:4
Lncome 161 26:8, i0; 2!):13;
incomes {:3] 32:16,
58:10
incomplete I~l .3:6
~neorreet I~l 3:25
ncreased [21 44:17;
ncreases [4} 26:3; 13:19;
ncreasingly Ill ,13:25
incremental [21 ,15:2
indeed ii/ 4s:3
indefinitely m
indicating 1231 4:21; 2!):2;
ndividual [2i 12:18; 15::3
ndustrial nl 82:m
~ndustry 12[ 52:22
inevitably 141 1:3:22
influx Ill ./3:4
nformation l[I 2:6
nfrastrueture 111 26:5
~nitiatives III 3t:2
nnkeepers Ill 59:7
nnocuous [11 5(]:11
nns {251 [8:22, 25; 19:2, ;3,
ti, ]2, 16; 57:23, 25; 58:2, 9,
nput 151 2:3, 8; 29:5;
nsane [Il 30:17
insidious Ill 25:13
instances [21 8:20; 46:ll
instead 151 21:15; ;3;]:5;
institution [21 8:12, 25
institutions t4] 8:~8;
inSufficient Ill 5::3
insurance [21 45:24; 46:5
intact 121 24:8, 9
intended t~l 50:7
intent Iq 7:~4
intentions I~1 54:5
interest [81 16:22; 26:18;
interested I21
interesting t3j 2:4:6, 21/;
interests 121 38:22; 42:18
interim I11 22:15
internet 111 1!t:22
interpretation
ntroduce 121 2:.1; 50:23
ntrodueed [~l 58:25
nvite Ill 25:19
nvolve I2] 5:23; 49:6
nvolved [41 2:25; 1/):25;
owa ii1 42:21
rrational Ill 36:/5
island[91:3:24; 5:12; 7:21;
isn't 121 re:t; 58:5
issued [1~
37:8
17:25; 27:19
[I] 31:7
[]] 11:16
italian II1 21:6
item 131 50:22; 60:3
items ii1 6~)u[
-J_
iam [i] 33:1o
jay Iii
jeopardize Iq m23
john [10[ 1:18; ]6:20;
josh 13] 16:2[; 19:11; 21:24
J.'oshua Ill
jr Ill 47:6
Jumping I~l
justice 121 hi!l; 13:18
kaplan Ill 3,:m
keep, 171 21:2,1; 2!):19;
32:11; 3!):7; 51:11; 57:3; 58:22
keep.s. Ill 49:2~
keil 121 53:.
keith 151 48:2o; 51:21
kept III 53:10
!1:14; 22:5, 17; 23:22; 24:22;
rinds t2j 50:4?
dtty [u 12:22
[BOW [53] 9:25; 11:12;
27:23; 28:17, 21; 29:2, i3;
36:(;; 34:25; 35:12; 3{;:8, 9,
20; 38:6; 49:10; 50:4, 25;
52:5, [t, 18; 53:5, 6, [7, 21, 25;
54:18; 56:2; 58:9, 11; 50:10,
knowledge Ill 9:25
knowledgeable I~] 3:5
known [1] 9:2,1
knows MI 14:9, 13; 35:21;
36:20
kotakostitch I~l :~9:25
kullen nl 2~:5
-L-
[ 121 t:5, 6
labor [1] 49:16
[ack [1] 6:2
lacking 111 35:5
adies [1]
.a,d~r [1] 39:19
ake Itl 36:10
ancaster []1 ?:22
and [95] 3:5, 8, 9; 4:5, i1,
19:3; 22:19, 23; 23:3, 5;
24:24; 27:11; 31:25; 35:13;
16, 20, 23; 43:6; 44:17; 45:22;
18, 19; 48:25; 49:2; 50:]8;
55:4; 56:4; 58:9; 59:3, 1;
30:3, 5, 6, 7, 8
landowner J41 ]5:12;
]8:17; 45:22; 56:7
landowners i91 ~5:5;
,ands III 7:15
.andscape Ill 26:2
andscapers
.ane Iii 25:15
arge [61 3:19, 21; 4 i;
arger ~ ~o:~2
[7:20; 19:23; 55:6; 56:8; 5!):8
ate [21 111:5,
ater [2[ 31:23; 38:,]
lathams lU 2~:2
latter [1} 3:11
laurel [~/ 36:10
law [2] 29:6; 53:5
laws t ~1 36:23
lawyer l II lO:17
leaned III /3:18
learn 121 12:5; 47:13
learned 121 22:10, 11
least [~l 46:3
eaves III 13:
legalese I11 3o:18
egg Id
[end ~2~ s:~2;
~ender [41 7:[8, 25; 8:22;
enacts [21 8:23; 41:18
enz 11] 36:9
lessening lq
lie ~u
59:t6;
ikeslll 42:9
~ikewise I~1 42:12
~imit 121 28:6, 7
8:6;
32:2(); 59:3
~ine [3[ l&iS;
lipa {u ~6::~
iquidity ~ti
isted 12] ,15:20;
isten 12~ 19:[9;
listing ~1 48:5
]2; 51:18; 59:22, 21
live [10] 11:3; 25:3, 19;
]tk21: 3]:5, 6, 9; 40:14; 6l:9;
;2:3
lives lq 3o:2
]5:21; 30:2; 59:12; 60:15
0~0 [11 20:15
oan [9[ 8:3. (~. ~8. 24; 9:2;
located I~1 3:2
od~ng 13~ 49:3, 9; 50:9
ong [~9] 3:21; 4:21; 5:12;
~2:15, 16; 52:6; 55:21; 58:23;
long-term ~1 2[:2o
longer I,II 9:10; 23:3;
22:22; 24:10, 11; 25:24; 27:I8;
44:21; 10:I8; 5(h17, 21; 62:3
lookedl~l m:22
looking I~ 2tk[; 27:22;
23:4, 8; 38:25
Iosingl~l 239
17:15; 51:[3; 52:20
55:3
10t bill 4:7, 23; 5:3, [2, 17;
16:22, 24; 17:5; ]8:(;, 7, [7,
22:5; 23:10; 26:9; 27:li;
28:7; :3(/:[I; 38:[5, ]7; 49:[9;
lots [11[ 4:22; 5:2, 21; 6:17;
louisa ~1 m9
low [21 43:1tJ; 59:6
lower [5[ 8:7; 12:[i;
lowest [~1 36:21
luxury Ill 252;]
-M-
m [61 1:[4, 18; 32:5, 9, 16;
62:6
ma'am 121 25:2;
made [211[ 5:7; v:9, 16;
45:7; 47:20; 50:!); 52:7
main [81 1:32; 2:[1, 20;
33:3, 8; 44:4; 5(kl5; 57:8
maintain [31 13:25;
mm.'ntaining I ~
maintenance [ [I
majority I~ 258
ma~e [29] 9:22; i5:11;
44:4; 45:12; 17:8; 51:8; 58:5,
makes [7] 9:6; 11:20;
56:18, 23; 57:5, 17
12:13; 44:2; 60:7
man [2] 19:12; 86:3
manhattan 131 14:19;
Ilanner [3} 3:4; ]:25;
26:23
mansions [2] 28:4, (i
many [261 4:2]; 5:12;
2(1:2; 25:5, 6; 28:21, 22; 37:5;
]8:8; 39:4; 42:9; 44:9, 19;
~5:14; 4!):14, [9; 52:4, [6, 22
map [51 4:25; 86:22; 37:4,
maps l~J 37:I9
Ilarch [1] 61:7
marginal I11 8:21
marie [11 25:3
marine 12] 60:7, 8
marion [1] 57:23
market [32] 8:24, 25; 9:2;
~1:4; 49:15; 60:[7
markets [~1 20:25
marks iii 3]:7
=arred [1] 43:25
hart)age Ill 62:i2
naryland~6l 8:~5; 22:14;
42:17; 46:[1; 47:6
mason [1] 8:16
massachusetts [1[ 7:21
massapequa I~l 27:17,
19, 21, 24
master [81 311:30, 12;
nat[er [6[ 1:7; 12:24;
!6:13; 27:3; 36:24; 62:13
matt)tuck [121 25:3;
59:19, 25; 60:3, 4, 5, 8
maximum [3l 4:11; 8:3;
may [15] 7:7; 13:23; 15:15,
[6; 20:4, 20; 33:17; 41:13;
12:23; 45:13; 47:3, i0; 57:15;
;0:8
naybe 141 31:20; 32:16;
36:I9; 59:25
mcmansions [3] 18:5,
12; 43:3
]9:9; 32:10; 35:23; 37:1(h 17;
lO:ih 41:20; 45:2, 8; ]7:9,
17; 38:16; 50:6; 54:3, ll;
56:18
meadow 121 27:22, 24
mean 19] ]7:5; 23:14;
~5:19, 20; 40:1; 46:17; 51:11;
58:11
meaning I ti 4!/:2
means [111 11:10; i?:24,
!5; 2[:7; 29:[6; 31:2; 33:4:
17:12; 3825; 39:9; 41:13
mechanics [1} 2:25
mechanism [21 9:9;
meeting [31
meetings [2[ 1[;:23; 59:20
melanie [ ~[ 22:fl
riel)ssa II] 2:5
nember's [11 44:!1
memorandum 1 t} 6:25
mental l~1 14:24
mention 12] 26:3; 45:7
mentioned [41 27:21;
netaphors [31 3~:~8
nethod I~l 3]:22
metropolis 111 6~:8
micro-hotels I~l s~:~s
middle is~ 2~:s,
midnight I~
midweek m 49:20
might~.~l ~:~2; ~:~:
miles 121 12:21; 58:2
million ~:m 10:22; 11:3, 6;
millions ~1 12:23
mind I~ .~:]9
mini-dais [~1 26:2.1
=)hi-manhattans
minimal [Il
m~nority [21 53:22, 25
~i~ute Ill 32:6
misleading [21 7:17;
missed [ll 27:4
missing Ill 8:17
mistaken l~ 22:13
model [2] 28:[8; 29:17
models [11
modest ~ 8:23
mom [31 25:17; 5[):3, 5
moment [il 28:23
money 1541 8:12; 0:5, 6,
]8:7, [3, 2~, 25; 23:15, 26;
~322; 55:15, 16, 20; 56:9, 12,
13, 25; 57:2, ,I; 58:17; 60:20;
monitoring ~1 56:22
montgomery [41 22:11;
nontgomery's [~l 28:20
nonth I~]
months 131 16:6; 32:6;
moore I11 1:20
morally [2~ 32:3; 4~:t2
moratorium [1o] 22:9,
mot)ce [2~ 57:22, 23
mortgage [2] 45:23, 25
mortgaged ~3~ 7:28
motel [31 18:24; 50:15;
motels [71 19:13, 23; 56:3;
mother's iii 10:19
motive [~1
moved Ill 40:16
movement I21 25:13;
oving 13 13:20; 4(:2/)
mr [54] 2:10; 7:13; i3:18;
22:2, 3; 25:2; 30:9; ,4i:24;
much [26} 1:2I; 11:6, 16,
multimillionaires
municipality 121
nanled Iii 7:17
napa l II 32:17
narrow ill 4:21
national 131 ,11:7
needs 12] 7:5; 25:22
negated Itl s5:2~
negative 14] ~2:i5; ~2:~;
negatively Ill
legotiate I21 re:l?; 23:7
negotiated [11 39:13t
lelghbors 121 27:19;
11:2; 258 37:17, 19;
15:2; 51:20, 22
20:17; 26:6; 32:25; 33:9, [3;
~3, 24; 49:9, 23, 2~; 55:5, 7;
newer iii 39:15
newsday id 20:25
~ext ~41 12:]6; 27:18; 28:3;
nfec HI ~5:5
n~bbling ~ ~:~4
nickel HI
no-action [51 12:6, 19, 21,
~obody lml ~4:9, ~3;
~obody's~21 45~2; 53:25
aOlSe [11 60:23
non-conforming N I
~on-starter [1~
~omsubdividable
nonconforming [~2]
1or [1] 58:12
~orth Isl I:22; ~4:3;
northeast H~ 40:m
notary Id 62:9
note 121 3:25; ~:4
~oted Id 61:22
notes [:31 8:2:3; 31:23: t5:5
nothing 13~
~3:25 51:I2
~5:1;~, I h 36:20; 38: 15, 20;
50:5, 19; 52:7, 12; 53:22;
51:22, 23; 50:23; 58:,1, 6, ]7,
nowhere 121 37:4; 39:2I
number r2~31 1:13; 5:8, 21;
numbers I,~l
36:6; 56:21, 22
numerous 12] .3:20;
14:[5
nurseries {3} 38:20
lursery I~1 27:20
-0-
15] 1:5; 62:8
~ject [2[ 2:23; 3:17
ection [2[ 2:20; 7:2
~jections l~1 20:~
)viously i4] ~3:6;
17:23; 37:3
occur [41 3:17; 8:13; 12:11;
~ccurred [2i 3:[4; 5:20
filer ~41 2:2, 7; 7:24; 36:7
)ffered i81 31;: m;
offering l~l 5~:5
office I~1 2~:36; 32:5
)ffices Ill 2:I1
)fficial fll 3$:2a
)ffset Ni
offsetting m
often I~1
~h [3[ 22:23; 54:2, 6
~il [2[ 21:]6; 57:2
)kay l21 21:23; 29:9
)lmsted 121 59:19
37:21; 41:6, 20; 56:15
one [48[ 5:[8, 23; 7:[2;
~0:22; 22:[i, 2i; 23:22; 27:21;
me-quarter I~ 7:7
)ne-sided ~I :.3:22
one-third I31 7:7
ones 12] 32:12; 51:10
on~.oing 12~ ~1:25; 48:5
online Iii 28:17
Drily 120[ 1:17,
I 20 3]:21, 22; 38:25; 39:22;
°perates I~[
operations m
)pinions ~i~
)pportunity
opposite ~ .):20
~pposition ~1 ~:~,~
)ptimistic ~ ~:~
order ~1~
organic [~
~r~anization ~ a2:~
)therwise ~ s:~2
)ttO [U 53:9
ought ~1 3
45:?, 18; 48:17; 5h13; 52:2,
22; 59:15
outconle Ill 62:13
outdoor II] 4!)8
outer [11 bt:18
outside ~3~
over [18[ 1:6; 6:lk !t:7, 2h
13:[8; 21:15; 33:8; 35:2;
overall ~21 30:1 ]; 17:18
overlay [~] 2:~3
overnight lU
owe [1[ 46:3
own [12] 4:8; lO:O; 11:24;
2h?; 33:22; 38:7; 30:3;
5hi(), 12; 52:22; 53:i3
owned [3] I?:18; 60:6, 9
owner ~s [1[
owner~ [21 2:12; 59:7
owns }2[ [7:]9; 18:23
- p -
p [3] h6, 14; 62:6
pabst I1} 18:1o
page [ 121 3:8; 6:3;
4!):5; 50:20; 58:24
pages [2[ 3:]7; 8:17
pain !1] 20:H
pains [[I 25:~
palatable I~l 20:~2
paper 121 39:17; I5:12
paragraph 1:4~ 3:,0; 40:9;
paragTaphs I~1 5?:24
parameters [21 5;t:5;
58:3
parcel lsi 6:~5; 38:~h
parcel's I~1
parcels [81 ~:.~; 5:.3;
park I~1 t;0:2
parking 14r re:v,
50:14, 17
parlor l~
52:5; 5513, 1~
participate ~1
participated ~
participating i~
62:3
particularly [51 5:9; 9:6;
)art[es [1~ 62:12
)ass [2j 16:9; 54:5
)assed [3] to:la; 30:10;
7:18
passes [11 2?:2
3assion [11 24:~0
~ast [8] 3:14; 16:12, i,i;
):14, 23; 4?:24; 52:4; 61:18
)atient [11 45:6
)atrick ~1I 2:5
)attern t~l 60:3
)atterns [2] 3:9;
)ay[i3] 8:25; 18:?; 21:22;
29:19, 20; 32:13; 36:13; 39:10;
13:22; 50:3, 7; 51;:12
paying 141 20:15; 39:9;
payment 121 8:1:t; 15:3
pays Ill 15:12
idr [:t] 48:7; 56:13; 57:13
drs Ill 55:3 ,
eninsula [1} :32:223
ennsylvania I21 ? 2l,
22
penny [201 19:4; 30:!t;
323:17, 18, 20, 23; 34:8, 9, 11;
12; 45:14
people [851 7:3; 9:2/);
12, [8, 20, 24; [8:9, 13, 18, 20;
19:2, 17; 20:3, 5, J2, 16, 23;
54:16, 19; 55:8; 56:4, 6, 15,
25; 58:19, 2]; 60:22; (;I:23
people's Ill 54:v
per [11] 15:24; 16:11;
!1:15; 22:24; 35:25; 36:2;
t9:8; 43:15; 45:23; 48:1
)ercent [26] 4:2; 7:22;
23
percentage [21 32:15;
51:8
lerfect [11 28:~5
~erformance I~
~erhaps ~:41 13:23; 33:21;
)er[meter [21 3:12; 14:18
)er[od 191 4:2, 6; I1: 17;
7:]0; 22:20; 23:2; 24:2;
}ermissible [11 [1:12
~ermit [2[ 22:24; 23:22
~ermitted 141 4:11; t;:11,
person I Il ,16:20
3erson's 111 17:16
)ersonal [41 28:23
)ersonally 131 t1:3;
)ersons Ill 43:15
)ersuasive I~l ~2:8
)est[lents I1] 60:~7
)hoto I~] 2?:[6
}hysical I1{ 5:20
ticked I~l 86:24
ticking I,l 59:24
licture [2] ~3:~h 60:28
)ictures
)indar 121 17:12; 18:1~
)izza III 31:8
}laced I~l 23:20
flant 121 211:4;
aylngl21 19:25; 51:8
)ocket III 38:4
~oints {d i;1:25
~ole III 5:I4
~olicies [:tl 9:[4, [9; t5:24
)oliticians [~ 55:20
)el[tic[zed 1[I 19:15
)olluted [~1 21:~a
301luting I~l 2i:~?
}ollution m ,13:23
1oo1 I Il 23:5
1eels Ill 3:22
)op [2[ 25:18; 59:3
pops iii 59:5
populated I~ 34:24
population Iisi ~2:9;
)oft[on [21 5:14; 12:7
)ose il] ,12:4
)osition 151 0:5, 6; !):12;
}ositive 1ll 132:3
}ossession [1] 33:1!)
~ossibility 121 56:24, 25
Iossible I I()l 13:25; 15:6;
7:2: 20:24; 21:24; 28:11;
)ossibly [3] 12:3; 39:23;
)otatoes []1 21:5
)otential 1151 8:8; 9:2, 8;
potentially [51 19:2;
3ractical [11 52:13
5ractice l~l 4:8
3recedent I11 42:8
)recepts [1[ 52:9
)recisely I~1 8:~3
)redictable 14[
)reexisting 121 49:~3;
8:2
prepared I~
~resent iol 1:15; 827, :5 It; 22t; 39:25
presented [3[ 5:8; 28:1!t;
~reservation [221 3:3;
preservationists
Ireserved [11 12:14
1reserving 14] 34:2;
president 13]
22:3
pressure [71
pressures [11 11:5
pressuring I~l
pretend I~1
pretty HI 52:~2
prevail [11 12:8
previous I, ~:5, 1(~, 22;
pr.eviously IH ~:7
priced ~ 3~
prices [7[ ]9:3; 32:22;
primary [31 ~h23;
prior lb[ 13:5, 12; 2o:22
priority [U 1~:~2
privately 121 6o:6,
probably l~61
53:18, 20; 55:17: 56:2; 58:22;
problem 191 8:h 12;
25; 59:23
problems 131 5:22; 32:25;
procedure 121
process 161 3:16; 10:25;
28:24; 5~:22; 61:24; 62:2
processes 121 3:5: 10:16
product ~1 27:20
professional I11 19:21
professionals I~r
profit 121 [8:23; IJ:I3
pro.am 191 7:20, 25;
9:25; I0:2, 2l; 19:22; 29:20;
57:13
pro.ams 131 5:24; 6:4;
pro~ession ~ il 31:25
project 13[ 36:13; 15:15;
projected 111
projection IH m3
projections 121 5:7;
prolific IH 4:22
prolon~ng IH 2J2
proper I i I
properties 17[ 2:21; 4:21;
property 120[ 2:12; 4:15,
18:3; 23:9; 35:25; 36:5, 6;
~1:20; 42:7, 8; 52:20, 21;
53:21; 57:7
proposal [?1 2:23; 10:10;
t8:25; 5(1:5; 5l:4; 52:17; 60:2
?roposals [3~ 5~:7; 52:15,
7
)reposed [9[ 2:20; 10:5;
I2:7; 28:14; 31:24; 34:I6;
48:!); 50:13, 16
proposing [21 30:20;
Ires l~] 25:1o
~rotect I51 34:3; 42:ll, 18;
)rotected [21 (]7:!1
2rend ~1 48:~
rove I1] t3:22
rovide [~2] 2:s;
>rovided l~l 4s:2
}rovides [41 8:25; 9:8;
3roximity 111 3:15
5ublic ~ 2] 2:2, 8, 8; /~:~6,
[11 ,17:20
[2J 16:,1;
purport rll 4:25
purports [Il 2:21
purpose 1~1 9:i4
pursue [21 51:5
lursued [Il 3,I:2
rash [i] 30:7
~ushes [i]
)ushing Is[ 11:2]; ]5:10;
)utting 131 ri:IS; 2(;:21;
~ualified l~l ~:4
~uality, H] 2,:s
~uantffy Ii1 46:17
]ueens [2] 61:5
question I~l 2:24;
23:1<1; 12:4; 56:6
uestionable HI ~:~
uestions ~31 29:5:
[uickly r~l ~]:2~
uite tv[ 10:20; I I:G; 28:5;
30:8; 50:17; 56:7; 60:II
no III 12:7
':7; 4!):3; 50:23
~uoted I~l ~7:5
}noting I~l 49:5
-R-
r [3] i:(i; ,2 17 62:8
['-200 131 22:19; 37:13;
18:25
r-40 171 3~:20, 22; 36:16,
:'-408 [21 3G:19; 37:21
?-60 [21 3(;:20; 38:2
r-80 [121 22:18; 34:20;
r-80's III 35:17
raise Ill 26:7
raised 121 30:16; ;]4:5
:aises H~ 46:~5
rambling IH
range [ i[ ;]5:22
ranges I11 55:14
rationale r~l 5o:25
~eached [3[ s:~;
reading 141 3~::~4;
realistic ~d
realistically ~ H
realize IH
g8:5; 30:13; 36:20; 3!):15;
:eason 151 29:l,t; 35:12;
h23; 42:24; 52:24
reasonable 131 29:16;
reasoned IH 47:3
Iieceiving 12~ 3:2;
ck~essly l~l ,)4:~9
recognized [11
recommendation
recommendations 12]
Iecreation Ill 4')8
ectangnlar I1~
reduced Iii 8:3
~eductions tH
reenforce ~2~
refer ~
reference r~]
refinancing HI
reflect iH 4
regard ~] 5:24
:egar~ng r21 43:4; 48:23
:egards r~]
re~onally [u ~:~0
repletions ~3]
rehabilitation ~
rejected ~tl
rekindled ~2~
:elated l2I 20:]8; 62:11
~elates ~
relationship r~I
relative ~2] (~:2~;
:emaln I~ 42:5
~emedies ~
remember [21 24:21;
remove [21 5:19; 514
render fl] 39:,
rents! I~] 5117
rented;~l 53;]1
repay 141 8:5, 17 20;
repayment I ]1
repeat Ill 5L25
repeatedly ~
reperts ~41 36:25;
reprehensibly I~1 ~
represent Ill
representative
representatives [ ~
representing I~1
represents ~1 3s:8
request I~1
require I~1
required ~1 2~):6
requirements ~31
requires r~l
requiring ll~ 4~:~
requisite ~
resciud I ~]
researched ~1 21k22
residence H~
resident [31 2:~3:
residential 13~
residents ~
resolution [2~ ~35, ~2
resolutions l~r
responded ~2~
respouding I H
responsibility ~3~ 7:4;
responsible ~ IL23
restaurant [21 4!t:];
50:14
restaurants 141 49:~3;
58:[8, 21; 59:14
restrict I1] 32:12
restricted fi] ll:19
restricting [)1 9:3
restriction I~1 7:23
:estrictions 151 7:]!), 24;
:estrictive H1 9:19
12:21; 52:211, 24; 54:22
resulted f~l 6:22
resulting 121 6:21; 8:5
resume H[ 49:19
retailers Ill
retain Ill 42:2
retirees [~1 25:13
reuse [11 5!):11
:eveals []7 47:17
?evenue 11] ,15:1!t
?evenues Ill 45:13
7eview 14] 46:6; 47:16, 23;
66:7
revitalization I~l
rezone 111 59:2
rezoning[5~ 32:2; 16:18,
[8:10; 48:]6; 52:11; 53:[9;
i5:22; 57:12
55:25
ride Ill 33:5
right [261 4:18; I [:8; 13:7;
:ights [581 2:22; 5:21; 6:4;
3!):7; 41:20; 42:7; 47:16, 18,
20, 21, 22; 48:2~ 56:5, 7, 8,
mSS fi/ 5~:i7
pple I]1 58:m
se rtl 43:5
qsen [I] 42:16
5sing 1~1 )9:3
'isk [7J 41:15, 18; 45:25
14:6, 1o, 17; 57:8
risksI9} 4I:I5, 17; 42:22;
t3:12, 20, 23; 57:6, 8
riverhead [51 6:21; 32:9;
riverhead's HI 52:17
rode I~ 27:19
:omanelli 121 1:18; 38:5
:onnie iii 5l:2,1
roots [1[ 35:24
round I1~ 3L25
:ppw I~l .m
running 141 ,t7:21, 22;
-S-
;-e-e-d-s m
sacrifices I ~l 59:9
safe [1[ 2313
i2:2, 23; 51[:18, 26, 21; 57:7;
lake Il) 6:16
47:16; 56:7
sanitary 1:31 6:~), 22, 23
saturation III 12:!t
saturday [2] 1!1:21; I!):[(;
saving)21 39:17; 52:1!1
SaW 12l 3:1I; 27:]([
say [441 ;3:17; 5:12; ([:3, 10,
Y3:23, 25; 51:6, 12, 20; 58:8,
6:]6; 511:2h 53:18; 60:7
says 181 20:2; 23:21; 30:19;
33:21; 19:6; 50:23; 58:1; 60:6
scenario I11 5:L6; 43:13;
scenery Ill 43:2,1
schedule 12i I6:3
~chneiderman ~21 3~:2,
~chool m 17:25; I8:2;
!6:3; 31:7; 10:20; 57:10, ]6
3chools I:~] 25:6: 57:11
½copaz [2] 2:5; 1!1:2I
scope I,tl 30:13, 14; 33:18,
22
seoping ~7] 36:15, 16;
~3:]8; 31:5; 3!):24; 40:2, 3
scott I~1 39:25
~ea ri[ ([1:8
seafood [)1 2,:7
;eaford 131 27:)8, 2L 23
march I~1 28:17
3eason Ill 58:4
3econdll41 3:18; 5:11;
section 121 50:21; 66:12
see 137l 3:22; 4:7, 22; 5:4,
1[)16, 17, 18, 25; 25:20; 2d:2;
seeks I~} 9:.
seemed 12] 52:9, ~2
~election I,,I 6o:2,5
57:2
sending I ~
senior's ii) 2!1:l!)
seniors [31 2!):12, 13, 18
sense [01 23:19; 56:2/;
57:6, 17
sent [11 61:20
sentence 13[ 12:16, 19
sentences [11 12:20
separate I~ 5~5
separately 12t .~:~2;
52:25
seriously 121 .3:18; 53:7
serve [11 58:16
service [31 :32:22;
19:7
services 15~ is:s. 1:3; 26:3
session 17[ 3]):15, 16;
33:18; 54:0; 39:24; ~0:2, 3
set ~6[ 22:23; 37:22; 14:7
seven 121 17:1k 56:2
several ~1 ii 1:9; 7:20;
9:25; 26:17: 27:3; 30:23;
36:23; 37:25; 46:10, 15; 52:5
share l ~ 20:
she IH ~:~:2o
sheet: 121 Io:12:t5:3
shelter [Il 25:17
shopping 121 25:15; 12:Io
shops 111 2~ ~s
short ID~ 17:.); 33:13 ,12:3
short-sighted I~
shot I~ 39:20
should 1261 2:~4;
shows [11 57:]1
significant [61 2:~7, 19;
significantly 121 7:~5;
10:24
signs [11 55:18
silent [31 25:8
dlver 131 i
[11 10:18
mple t~l
6:2
[5] g:2; 40:20; 12:15
51:2; 52:21
Ie [5] 5:8; ]:12, 19
57:25
40:13; 48:20; 5:21;
57:22; 59:[8;
12] 56:21, 22
[11 5:5
5:i8; 25:5;
[ 1] 6:22
[1] 29:~5
soar [i] 43:22
~oared [~] 42:15
social m 40:m
~ocio [i] 31:22
sold I lOJ 7:22 23:9; 21:7;
ely nl
[ll 52:15
tolve [21 13:16; 32:25
24:0, 5; 2(;:l!), 25; 28:13;
29:10; 32:20; 34:18; 36:15;
30:15; 51:10, 25; 52:19; 53:(;
54:8; 57:12; 58:6; 59:20, 21;
;omebodyl51 17:3; 18:5;
somehow [,[ ~1:2
sort Ill 37:17
sounded I~ ~5:7
southampton's I~
24; 14:7; 46:7; ]7:4, 20, 24,
southold's 161 ,10:23;
[21 22:3; 27:6
~eakers 14~ 27:;3; 28:1(i;
speaks 131 3:9; 6:14;
53:16
special I~
specific 161 3:7; (]:20;
]1:7; 49:5; 50:7; 57:18
;pecifically 121 :~:2~;
il:I)
)ecious [11 28:12
speculate ltl 42:20
speculator Ill 18:2;~
speculators 12] 18:21;
spend 121 18:6; 24:3
;pending I~1 2~:7
3pent 141 1(1:24; 11:22;
spire I~l 2:5
spoke 161 14:14, 18, 24;
spoken [21 29:10; 40:25
;praying ltl 60:23,
)r.eading Ill 20:12
sprang [2] 23:9
sprung [1] I9:23
spurious I II 43:5
square ~2] 3:20; 28:6
squeezing Itl 44:s
~tabilized[.~
~able I'1 ~:0
taff I~
rage I~1 17:2
akeholders
and ~ ~2:21
andard ~5~
standards t~i
standing ~
standpoint t~l
star 12~ 29:2g
~tart 191 3:s; 2s:~s;
~tarted [21 14:1(~;
starter [21 15:IG; 43:11
starting r4~ 2:4; 30:18;
state 112[ 1:2; 4:2; 14:10;
~tatement 1141 ~:9; 3:7,
?tements [41 3:7, 17,
tatistics t ~j
tatus Ill 12:7
?); 5820
rayed I~1
steam III 25:2(]
step 15] ~8:1,]; 22:15;
stelpped I,I
stepping 121 59:~2;
steirilization I,{ to:9
stewardship 121
52:6
stock Ill ]8:23, 24, 25;
3?: { 5
stole {2] 19:{2; 5{:24
stood I~J 44:12
stopping nj
stores I ] l
stoYy {]]
strange {1{
stratton 12]
stream Iii
street [~
strenuously I~
stretched m
strictly~ 3o:,,; 34:3
strip [2] 9:9;
stripped ~
striwng Il] 42:]1
struck ~[
structures ~3[
studios ~,1
study [m~ 2:~6, 2o; 3:3;
studying j~l
stuff~(;I :21 25:21
51:23; 59:5; 60:9
sub'visions ~
subject ~,~
submit ~,1 6:s
subsection ~
substantial ~.
substantially ~a
29:23
50:4; 53:3; 59:15
suffer Ill 25:4
sufficient [~} 44:6
~uffolkNi ,:2; 2:.);
luggest [8] 5:13; 9:15, 20,
22; 36:14; 39:19; 40:!); 58:7
suggested I21 t6:5; 52:17
SUlt 11] 60:25
summer [41 18:8; 34:24;
1{:3; 49:20
summers [11 43:18
mnday [2] 33:7, 9
roper {l] 56:4
tuperior ti] 41:12
supervisor las{ l:16; 2:2;
~8:12, H); 51:23; 58:8; 54:13,
,1; 57:3, 28, 20; 59:]7;
supplement nl 58:m
supplemental [2~ ]3:v.
supply n[ 47:2
support n21 15:4; 16:17;
11:7; 48:2
]upports [21 23:1;2; 25:9
supreme [11 23:13
sure [5] 28:5; 3G:ii; 50:7;
surely []1 41:25
surprised l21 .~4:8; 55:~?
Inspect [2] 10:18; 29:3
wimming n{ a:22
~witches n[ :45:2
-T-
g [,t[ 1:5; 62:8
~able [3[ 36:,5; 48:6; 60:2
;abled [11
;ables ii1 54:~1
take [31] 4:12; ]1:2; 12:7,
11; 13:]2; 1,1:2(I; 16:2; 18:19;
21:15; 22:22; 25:/4; 28:10, 11;
]0:5, 19; 3]:24; ;22:15; 35:10,
11, 15; 36:16; :28:2; 39:20;
18:1(;; 4!):14; 53:7; 57:10, 14;
;0:20
~aken [5] 35:8; 41:22;
48:16; 52:5; 55:23
takes I5] ]0:12;
1(;:4; 40:10; 50:,7
gaking[7j 7:2. 3; 24:28,
~l; 38:12; 44:19; 45:5
25:9; 26:9; 52:9; 5-
,0.20 56:19
18; [6:5, 6; 20:2]; 21:2;
!0:20; 22:!); 23:25; 2(;:22:
~0:2, 18; 52:2; 53:2; 61:7
20:19; 55:I8
taller I ~1
gapped I~l 2~:~
gask[2l ~8:15; 52:6
10; 28:24; 39:5; ]8:8; 55:1,1;
~ing t ~ 26:s
t~payers [21 20:1,1; 39:7
taylor [al 7:8, 9; 14:1,1
tdr [41 2:21; 9:25; 15:1 I;
~drs 12] 9:23; 52:16
;eaeher
:eaehers ~2~ 31:5. 8
teaching
tea~ [31 33:19, 23; 31:9
technical III 2:7
television Ill 10:21
53:15; 56:7
;emporary
22:20; 23:7
;ennis [~[ 3:~=
;estlmony 13~ ~4:~;
text 1~1
than [2~{ 52,; 4:24; 6:25
; 50: 16; 51:22, 25; 55:!);
I6:23; 57:1 I 25; 59:5
thanks I11 51:20
that's 1t~sl 1:3, 23; 5:25;
il:il, 23; 15:[0, 20;
]9:8, 9; 21:18, 23; 22:8; 23:6,
~hatched r:l
;heir [551 7:4; i0:6, 15;
32:9; 33:5; 36:11; 38:3; 41:2,
5025; 52:9; 53:16, 17, 21;
~hem [271 3:22; 1:22, 2.t;
19 16:2; 58:9 13 [4, 22
28:15; 41:23; 54:7; 58:21
theoretical II1 34:17
there [118] 3:21; 5:1; U:7,
]8; 25:5; 26:9; 27:8, lO,
12, 15, 20, 21, 24, 25;
22
there's [37[ 5:18; 14:.;
thereby lsi 5:2~; 8:.];
26, 25; ]3:3, 8; ]6:23; 17:18,
31:6, 2I; 35:3, 16; 36:8; 37:2;
t~ey I91] 1:22: 11:20, 24;
2~, 25; 27:17; 29:2k 30:20;
33:20; 35:1k 37:2, 9, ]6, 12,
8, [3, 23, 24; 53:12, 23; 54:6,
9, 20; 56:12, ]5; 57:2; 58:16,
19; H):3; 23:8, 15; 27:10;
they'~e 131 9:25; I9:2;
25:16
thing lt21 13:6, I2; 15:8;
56:8, 16; 57:2~; 61:2
58:3, 5; 59:7; 60:17
think 1731 7:12; 10:3;
7; 20:3, 10, 14; 21:20, 2[;
26; 25:25; 26:~1, 25; 27:4, 6,
13, 21; 28:5, 7, 13, 22; 29:25;
30:t; 3kl3, ]9, 20, 23; 33:12,
thinkingt2} .:~7; 28:14
third f41 d3:25; 55:1t
~hirty Ill 25:21
~his f2001 2:4; ;]:6, 18, 21;
24, 25; 29:3, 15, 21; 30:3, 5,
33:2, 3, 7, 16, 23, 2t; 34:[3,
22; 35:5, 12, 11, 15, 20, 22, 23;
16; 48::3, fi, 9, 24; 50:5; 51:2,
5I:17, 20, 23; 55:7 8, 12, 18;
56:20; 57:I3, 2,1; 58:15; 59:21
;horoughness
;hose [341 2:17; 13:2, 23;
19:2; 23: 15; 25 7; 26:I7;
t0:25; 32:13; 33:[9; 35:1[;
50:3; 51:12; 56:9; 57:7; 58:3;
thought [61 22:8; 26:11;
thousand ~3~
39:8
~hree [[1] 4:9; 37:36;
three-quarters
through [141 3:6; 6:17;
t[:10; 48:7, 8; 53:20
~,hroughout ill 2:2o;
klO, 23; 6:3
;hrow [3j 22:8; 37:2I;
57:15
throws [. 35:4
thunder I~l
thus [. ,.]:3
kicking I~ 25:~o
fled I~l ~5:25
;ill m 1:6
~imes 121 16:6; 57:16
;lppy 121 18:12; 51:25
;itle [21 t5:21; 16:5
;oday IIII I:6; 10:17;
toeslli 59:12
together [51 14:2; 1!):5;
~oiling I~1 27:8
;old III 38:24; 10:5; 52:7, 8
~,onight 19~ 6:33; 23:2/;
took Ill 1!):2(/
~,ools III I8:6
totally 131 2l:11; 37:7;
touch 121 11:5; 57:23
~ouehed 111 58:21
~ough 111 :],1:21
~ougher I~1:38:4
tourists I~1 ~9:~5
toward l2] 25:~2; 11:[3
25; 31:2; 35:5, 13; 36:7, 12,
town's [31 1:3; 39:11;
town-wide I2~
towns [3[ 11:7; 25:2t;
~races III 25:25
;rack [ i[ 55:11
tractors [1[ 27:1!)
tracts Ill 3:~2
tradespeople [21:32:8;
~raditional r2~ 3:~8;
~,raffic I[ol 26:3; ;]3:7, 8,
transaction [1~ 11:3
transcript I~l 62:10
transfer Illl 2:22; 10:3,
~ransferred l~l lO:2
;ransportation
trash ~[ .3:24
tremendous 12]
trend [21 60:[i; 61:6
~rends II1 3:10
~ried [61 22:I4; 28:17;
;rip [21 32:6
;rouble ~2~ [5:2, 26
trucks [~1:32:[3
~ruly I~1 .:4
~rustee's [11
Irustees ill 6o:1
':3, 5; 9:t;, 2t; 13:10; IklO; tuned [l] 59:2,t
6:17; 17:16, 17; 18:13, 18; ;urn [11 1,1:4
19:19; 20:17, 21; 21:10; 23:23; [turned [1[ 27:17
turns [11 51:11
tweak [21 5T]2, 13
tweaks I~ 5~322
types 121 5:20; 4![:2
typical 121 3:~
typically [2J 3:22; 15:21
typified iii 3:19
-U-
U 121 1:5, 6
unbuilt I~l 38~
uncertain I;31 8:25; (;:7;
19:14
unchanged I~J ,:2:5
uncever ill 16:22
undeniable I,I 3:.3
underlying Iii 8:25
undermining t~ ,:
understand I ~ ~l [:20;
understanding 131 7:8;
understands III :33:25
understood t2r 7:1:;
undeveloped III :31:21
unfair 131 2:l(J; 51:1!);
unfortunately 161
unique [31 50:4: 51:I1;
unjustified I~l
unlimited I~
~sary Ill 21:17
unquote Ill 18:12
unraveling l I1 31:~i
until
f3l 3:10; 25:16; 56:11
unwarranted ~[i 8:,
unwilling 111 24:16
tip [55] 3:20; 5:12, 15;
17:3, 21, 22; 20:15, 17, 20, 22;
34:I5; 35:21; 36:I9, 24; 37:21
39:16; 41:3, 25; 14:7, 22;
Jpdate 111 I/1:9
lpgrade 1~1 58:25
lpon [7] 5:5; 6:2, 25; 7:23;
8:7; 12:20; 28:3
upstate fiI 33:9
upzone (tlI 2:23; 1o:14;
17:9; 22:18; 26:9; 44:24;
.~pzoned nl 52:2~
:tpzoning [39J 12::3; 16:9,
25:5, 9, 10, 22; 26:12, 20, 21;
?3; 42:3, fi, 16, 17, 24, 25;
t3:2, fi, 8, [2; 44:9, I[; 46:9,
irge 12] 28:23; 41:22
urgent Ill 43:8
US I27] 6:7; 18:15; 20:15;
g8:20; 40:17; ,]9:9, 25; ;50:3,
!2; 55:7; 57:16; 61:7, 8
lsage [4] 4k5
use f251 3:5, 8, 9; 4:5; 5:4,
3tJ;14, 15; 60:3, fl, 7
tised 13] 10:24; 14:25;
lslng [3J 5:2; t8:8; 33:5
~tterly [ii 43:2
-V-
V [21 62:9, 17
vacant [2J 4:15; 31:25
zacation fil 14:19
vacuum [ll lO:12
valerie [31 2:5; 19:21;
22:!)
Yalley I~l 42:~7
valuable i3~
valuation [21 ,16:2,k
valuations 131 46:21:
2; 31:24; ;32:2, 12; 42:3;
valued I~1 23:10
values 1211 7:6; 8:5, 7;
gan ill 27:8
~aries I~1 5:24
various 131 2:12; 52:15;
30:13
vegetables [31 20:23;
7erses I ~ 35:2
gery/48] 3:19; 4:7; 7:17,
20:18; 23:2(), 21; 24:25; 28:22;
20:12; 23:1; 34:4; 4~:7
~0; 26:21; 36:10
7intner I~ 35:21
vito ~ 6:9
vitriol I~l 4ks
voice 12~ 25:7; 5,1:12
~olum~ ~1~ u):23
2:13
44:~2; 56:3
volunteer I~1 44:16
~oorhis ~21 2:5; ~0:6
~ot~rs ~11 47:25
goring I~1
-W-
N Ill 1:5
r~acker 13~ 5]:24, 25; 5;3:8
wadedl~l 3~:~0
wait i~l 28:20
waldbaums r)j 25:~5
walk 121 21:15; 33:5
walks ]~1
gcander I~1 26:m
2
~0:21; 21:25; 22:7, 21; 23:23,
~7:12, 23; 58:12; 60:22, 23, 24;
wants [5] [7:8; 32:24;
warm I[I 4o:
watched f31 26:17; 40:23;
waterfront Ill 111:22
watermill 111 32:4
ways 110~ 12:14, 15; 29:15,
24, 25; 51:22, 23. 25; 55:2, 5,
6, 9, 15, I6; 56:2, 17, 20, 21,
23; 57:5, 9, ii, }3: 58:24;
we'll 12} 2:7; 56:22
weather 121 /2:2;
weddings 121 58:~7, 20
wednesday I~l 49:18
week [4] 22:1,t; 52:6; 56:[~
weekend [2] i8:8; 44:4
wookends [11 58:7
weekslll 58:5
woig]~t I~ 4~:~
WOI] }23~ 9:20;
wolLinformed
WO~[ [13[ 7:16; ]}:20;
weren't [:~1:30:10; 56:6;
westem~ ~l 32:9
what's ~5~ 3:2: 12:~3;
whatever ~5~ 22:2h
whatsoever i~ 56:24
!]/; 38:E3, 19; 39:13; ,10:7; , 16, 22; 10:17; 12:7, 16:
i2:7; 51:17; 56:10, Il, 17, 2:3; ~
i7:5; 59::t, 4
where [25] 4:5; 5:1!);
]:21; 7:21; 8:20, 22; (0:7;
[1:20; 12:24; I4:22; 20:5;
]]:22; 25:[3; 27:15; 28:25;
19:3, 48; 30:13; 38:2; 3!):2l;
whereof l(j 62:14
whereupon [~} 37:7
wherever [il 61:7
wherewithal Ill 44:[4
whether [71 2:24; 4:3;
which t~5~ 2:6, 2~; 3:8, 9;
17, 19; 33:25; 34:15, 23; 35:3
t6:25; 37:4, 12, 17, 22; 39:16;
[0:4, 5; 41:2, 8, 20, 22; t2:7;
3:1t, 18; 45:]], 20, 24; 46:1L
15, 20, 25; 47:5; 48:4, 8, 22;
19:6, 23; 52:3, Il, 14; 55:3,
16; 56:18; 57:29, 24; 58:22;
39:!)
while t51 8:24; 9:[6;
20:15; 45:13; 54:]
white m 2m9
who 143] 2:12; 3:5; 14:25;
22:6, 22; 24:11; 25:6, 7, 9, 18,
19; 27:9; 29:23; 36:10, 21;
~6:2; 48:24; 49:10; 50:3, 8;
who's [31 7:8; 30:21; GO:II
whole [9j 5:3;
13:10; 24:J9; 37:22, 25; 54:9;
37:10; 61:2
whonl [2] 2:5; 41:13
why132J 5:3; 9:5; ]8:11;
22:8; 25:15; 27:i3; 28:5;
17:14; 48:9, 18; 49:12; 50:25;
53:18; 56:6, 18, 22; 57:14, 25;
58:2, 8; 59:6, 8, ]I; 60:]t
wickham ~31 1:17;
wickham's Ill 19:~6
wiekhams ~ll 27:7
wide Ill 26:16
width m 4:23
~idths ~ 4:24
wiles [2~ 62:9, 17
13; 2(h6; 27:23, 24; 29:I9;
(2:[5; ,/3:5, 2], 22, 2,1, 25;
]4:2, 3, I, 9, 13, 22; 45:1], 23;
21; 54:22; 55:3, 15, I9, 21, 25;
57:1!); 58:17. [8, 19, 22; 59:5:
willingness 121 12:Is;
wineries [91 35:~8, 29;
winery ~ 36:4
wishes Ill 42:10
withdraw I~l
without l lO( 4:;3; 6:ltl;
~qitness Ill 62:14
adzards Ill ,(4:t5
won't Is1 8:12; 23:~7;
wonder i3l 17:]6; 22:17;
wondoring I3} 22:7;
word [1~ 20:21
words 121 15:2; 62:5
workable I~l 2:25
worked [4} 2:6; 19:21;
workingl~61 ~:9; ~5:24;
worried [41 18:5; 27:9, 10;
worry II} 15:4
worse ill 3t:l(/
Worst Ill 33:15
worth is} 42:23, 2{; 51:7
worthwhile f~l 55:20
!8:~6; 20:10; 22:22, 23, 25;
28:19, 23; 29:22; 34:8; 35: 10;
wouldn't [31 6:13; 98;
write I~ ~2:2o
writing ~(~ 29:6
written 151 6:20; .3:8;
wrong 18~ 16:25; 29:!1;
~'akaboski Ill 1:22
~'ear's fi] 35:14
yellow 121 37:10, 22
yesterday fi1 20:25
yo[ing [(~1 27:21; 2!klo, 22;
31:7; 32:[3, id, i8, 2(J; 83:22;
-Z-
zero Itl 35:21