The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLL 2007 #10 STEVE LEVY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING THOMAS ISLES. AICP DIRECTOR OF PLANNING May 21,2007 RECEIVED Ms. Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Road - P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 MAY 2 9 2007 Soull1dd le.,in Clerk Re: Amend Zoning Ordinance Section 280-10 "Merger"; Section 280-4 "Definitions, Lot Coverage: Buildable Land" SCPC File No.: SD-07-02 Dear Ms. Neville: Pursuant to Sections A 14-21 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the Suffolk County Planning Commission has notified the neighboring town(s) and/or village(s) concerning the above captioned zoning action(s). Having received no adverse response, the Commission will take no further action. Very truly yours, Thomas Isles ;ZZ;"1~ Andrew P. Freleng, A P Chief Plarmer APF:cc G:\CCHQRNY\ZONING\ZONING\WORKING\NARI2005\SD04-01.JAN LOCATION H. LEE DENNISON BLDG. - 4TH FLOOR 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY . MAILING ADDRESS P. O. BOX 6100 HAUPPAUGE. NY 11788-0099 . (6311 853-5190 TELECOPIER (6311 853-4044 FecEx. US Airbill Express From Pflnn8printl/ldprH$hord D," 4- ;13-01 FedEx Tr.cking Numb., 8619 6235 7195 1067-7029-8 Sender'sFedEx Account Number ',"d,', EL I Z ABETH NEV I LLE Name (631 )765-1800 Phone TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Company 5300/5 FWUTE 25 Address O."uAoo,!Suit8,lRoom SDVTHDL.D City NY 11971-4642 "'" ZIP L '*\ Lindo.. L~ UE'~AYf-yYle.M+ '* S+l'rte... 4 \ -'5~+c. S+re.- r :::::::'.""ro,o'o~o~'pcar{s i La (,) ~uy-eCUA- TGf'Q".51'~d""'P"Clf"~Exlocatlon'~""'F.de'.ddr."h.r. ''''" t-J~ ZIP 2 Your Intemal Billing Reference F;m24ch.r.CIllrS'l.ill'~~f""'''''''''''_ 3 To Recipienfs Name Phone ( companvN~ s RecipieJlt's Address Oept/Fl""J/Sllite/FIoo'n City A \ b::w-t~ Icld3] 0359685758 ~- i=-~~~ l.l' en ers 4a Express Package Service ~ ~~~:,o~~~~~~ht 0 ~r.~'i~qvemight sh,pmentswillOedaj""""dOl1Mooday SlIIllrdoyllelllleryNOT...,obl.. \II'IImSATtlRDAYO.I""rv....""l&ll O FedEx2Dav ~c=":I.b:~:r:.~:;Xond u"=SATtlRDAYDal;.e.yi...llcI8"'l L---.-..:: FedExEmtoIoPe rilo oot lMI~.bj., Minimum cho'll&: lJM.lllJuod rate. ----! l'IIcbgesuptor5D1Ia O FedExRrstOvemight EOIti8&tnG>tbW""'''''''"1I1lI doliwlyto..l.ctlocllllOn$.' Saturd....O.ivoryNOT"""I!l>lt. O FedEx Express Saver ~j~o:r~:DTa..'ablo .T._......... 4b Express might Semeo D ~~~~p.::r;f!.e~~ sI1ipn1.rrtliwillbad.I"","donMMdav unl...SATURDAYO.IivoryissolooctoO. 'C.lllorCorllirmll1ion: D f:~Ff~2~~~LP~~rsdOY Shipm.rrtliwillbad.r"",,,"onMot>Oov unl...SATURDAYO.liYoryis_ PdlIfI8S tNfII' J!iJ Ibs. D ~~~~~r~~ight SolordOyO.Irv<<yNDT",,"llblo "Yo..._ 5 Packaging !;71 F,dE, ~Envelope" o FedE>P,,' OF'dE> InoludesFodElSm.IIP... Box FodEllargoPa..anoJfedExSlurdyPak. o FedE>< Tube 'O.oiarodVIIItJ.imit.$500. 6 Special Handling I I d f db dd . S . 3 O SATURDAY Delivery I 0 HOLD_. . ....InO.ClI;Oln~ --1 NOTAvailablefor atFedExLocatioo atFedExLoclltlon FodE< Standard CIVIIrnlghT. NOT AYI!Iileble to, Available ONLY for ~':.~~OW~~~hT.E<~r... FeOE<FnlClVllmight- =~":~~~.:.:.. DII8lIIh.shi........COIIllllnllengeruullll'Olb? I O..lIollrnUstboch.chd. : '\Ii No D ~:.'''''Chod. 0 ~:PO('O.CI.ration D ~'YC~c:UNllM5 _"_kg "-::."""goodslin~U:::~:~:I:::,slipporJ::~:'~koging D Cargo Aircraft Only 7 Payment 8i~ btorFedExAcct.Nll.arCroditClnlNo.IIoIow. ----, rRSende[ _ D Recipient D Third Party D Credit Card D Cash/Check PAct:l.No...Seclion lwiUbobill9d. FodExA,ct~ croditCerllNo. "' Om T"') T""_ TaIIIIlDecl8redValuet I .00 - tOurliabil~isirModtoSlOOu"l.ssVtl-"d.c1a'.ahigl1.'"alll&_SHb.'kfu'dOlllilr;.8'1...og1RsAitil!"l,ugIMwthll ..Nic.'ondilion.onthobackofltlsAi-biland.,Il1.'"rromFodE<s.....ceGuide,l1cludiogllnn1l1otIimit.OIJ'iobiilv_ 8 Residential Delivery Signature Options Kvo"mq"iroa~..,checlOireClorlndi..ct No Signature D ~~a~~~~ba'olt :;W:~%"'d~'t:ry DirectSignature O....oor>eot...cIP..nr. ooo.......VSlQnmr cle4rwry.FoeIlpp/ioJ. ~~:~~~\r:~re D,ed,".nrsaddrss,_ llanoigl1botV'iGadd..ss...... slgnmr<lelrwry.Foe.""u.. 15191 R....D."'11l'06ol'.~'15B27Ml$l-2(11J6ftdE>:ol'RINTEDINU.SA-SRF hAl~_ . DOther ~ \~.:;: z ~ "5 ,. ii ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ = !:i e~ $ ;; e~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ e5 ,. = ~ z e~ c n ~".Z , 1= e~ ~ . , * , ELIOT SPITZER GovERNOR STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE 41 STATE STREET ALBANY, NY 12231-0001 May 11, 2007 LORRAINE A. CORres-VAzQUEZ __OF STATE RECEIVi:D Lynda M Bohn Deputy Town Clerk Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold NY 11971 MAY 1 7 2007 SOUlhlild Tr.vlD Clerk RE: Town of Southold, Local Law No. 10 & 11, 2007, filed on April 24, 2007 Dear Sir/Madam: The above referenced material was received and filed by this office as indicated. Additional local law filing forms can be obtained from our website, www.dos.state.nV.us/corp/misc.html. Sincerely, Linda Lasch Principal Clerk State Records and Law Bureau (518) 474-2755 WWW.DDS.STATE.NY.US . E-MAIL: INFOGDOS.STATE.NY.US I" 1 ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (6311 765-1800 sou tholdtown. north for k. net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTH OLD April 23, 2007 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold ENACTED on April 10,2007 the proposed Local Laws entitled "A Local Law in relation to the Calculation of Lot Coverae:e of Buildable Land" and "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Mere:er Law". Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. ~.t~~~"A. Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Assessors Southold Town Building Department Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Board of Appeals .;/i tL1Uu/~ Signature. Received By /lLeJtdi& JoFl1ftU_ Date: 51.)~7 illiZI # Title: Please print name DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK ~r #8340 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Joan Ann Weber of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1 weeks, commencing on the 19th day of April, 2007. (k~C"/a/~ / / Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this 2007 ()q_daYOf (loIJ CJ')JIShLtUQl CHRISTINA VOLlNSKI D)'l NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF Nr"' NO.OJ-V061050t QUOllfled In Sultolll ,. Commission EXPires Febt,>. " n<:CF.!V::D . , 2,j07 $,:,,'" ,- ."., 'l~\ LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF ENACTMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby ENACfS the proposed Local Law entitled, " A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merger Law" which reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 10 OF 2007 BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: L Purpose - The Town Board has received substantial public comment to the effect that the Town of Southold merger law, as currently constituted, unfairly subjects surviving spouses and other joint owners of property to the loss of the single and separate status of their adjoining properties merely by the death of one such joint owner. Inasmuch as the Town Board believes this result is unjust and not the intended consequence of the merger law, it believes it necessary to provide for a limited exception to the merger of such properties. II. Chapter 280 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amend- ed as follows: S280-1O. Merger. A. Merger. A nonconforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or nonconforming lot which has been held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983. An adjacent lot is one which abuts with the parcel for a common course of 50 feet or more in distance. Nonconforming lots shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements. B. Definitions. "Common Ownership" shaU mean that the parcel is held by the same person in the same percentage of ownership as an adjoining. C. Exceptions. Lots which are rec- ognized under 9280-9 and meet any of the following categories shall be exempt from the merger provision set forth above and shall not be deemed merged by operation of this chapter: (1) The nonconforming lot has a mini- mum size of 40,000 square feet, or (2) The nonconforming lot obtained a lot size variance from the Zoning Board, or (3) If the lot is not on the maps de- scribed in former 9100-12, Editor's Note: Former 9100-12, Exceptions, was re- pealed 11-28-1995 by L.L. No. 23 -1995, effective January 1, 1996, the noncon- forming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from July 1, 1983 to date, or (4) If the lot is on the maps described in former 9100-12, the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from January 1, 1997, to date, [Amended 3--4-1997 by L.L. No. 4-19971 or (5)Each lot is currently developed with a one-family dwelling with a mini- mum 850 square feet which falls within the existing lot lines and which has a certificate of occupancy or would qualify for one, [Added 3-4-1997 by L.L. No. 4- 1997] or (6) If the lots would otherwise be recognized pursuant to this chapter, and subsequently would have merged by op- eration of law as a result of the death of an owner or co-owner of one or more of the adjoining lots, except that the lots shall not be held in common own- ership after the death of the surviving co-owner. III. SEVERABILITY If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitution- alar invalid. IY. EFFECfIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect im- mediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by law. Dated: April 10, 2007 BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Elizabeth Neville Town Clerk 8340 IT 4/19 . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER . Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 SouthoId, New York 11971 ;; 2', Cd j S,' G IFax (631) 765.6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown. northfork. net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTH OLD April 23, 2007 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the To",m of Southold ENACTED on April 10,2007 the proposed Local Laws entitled "A Local Law in relation to the Calculation of Lot Coverae:e of Buildable Land" and "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Mere:er Law". Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. ~r;,-.:p.. Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Assessors Southold Town Building Department s~vf~ ~~ I. p~~ Please print name DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTH OLD TOWN CLERK Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Board of Appeals Date: #l,S"j,7 e4~~ L1~ Title: RECEI\i "D APR 3 0 2007 Soulllu\d l(,~1R Cler\! . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 1197I Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 sou tholdtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 23, 2007 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold ENACTED on April 10,2007 the proposed Local Laws entitled "A Local Law in relation to the Calculation of Lot Coveral!e of Buildable Land" and "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merl!er Law". Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. ~Q ;11... Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Southold Town Planning Board SouthoId Town Assessors Southold Town Building Department Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town ofSoutharnpton Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Board of Appeals ~ AO. v\rl a Ql"\c.L S'ignature, Received By Date:~ ~,~ \.-\a \\o<.1e Please print name Title: l)o~. .-b\ cJ-..u..t. :r~ DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK RECEI\i.:D APR 7 5 ?SJ07 Sou\hdd 'ft."n C\erll . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 sou tholdtown. northfork. net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 23, 2007 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold ENACTED on April 10, 2007 the proposed Local Laws entitled "A Local Law in relation to the Calculation of Lot Coverae:e of Buildable Land" and "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Mere:er Law". Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. flJ-I~Q~'1.l. Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Assessors Southold Town Building Department Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Board of Appeals ~#/&dF / Signature, Received By }.j~1 hSSA l aJlIt'I,t Please print name Date: 4/ a41D1 Title:~~rA. .~ DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK RECEIVi:D APR 2 5 2007 Souir.old Tc.\'1O Clerk . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown. northfork. net RECEIVl:D OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APR 2 4 2007 April 23, 2007 Soul\ivid TC,\,iU Clerk PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold ENACTED on April 10, 2007 the proposed Local Laws entitled "A Local Law in relation to the Calculation of Lot Coveral!:e of Buildable Land" and "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merl!:er Law". Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. ~~~J.I--. Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Assessors Southold Town Building Department Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Board of Appeals 4 ~-O(~ Signature, Received By LrNf)~ RAII/POl.? \"\: Please print name Date: ""'-2.'1.' 01 Title: Sed. A!.sL DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown .northfork. net r.:CElV;:O OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD API1 2 4 2007 April 23, 2007 SOltff,dd Tv/! rl I. ., ~ .... erK PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold ENACTED on April 10,2007 the proposed Local Laws entitled "A Local Law in relation to the Calculation of Lot Coveral!e of Buildable Land" and "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merl!er Law". Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. 1l'~..II.faQ~f~' Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Assessors Southo own Building Department Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Board of Appeals Date: f(U/'2d& 7 { h~ !>So.. Si e, Received By ~~ '1.:-- ~.{ ':) r Please print name l Title: DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK r- . 111: .' i 111 J i;i lJ._ APR 2., L.:'j.I..,:-~1 U .,:) . ,:1 - ,.---.. I L. . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork. net RECEIV;;O L 'j 1 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APi 2 4 2007 \ .~ April 23, 2007 SOI.f!-_- t;1 T[\",l' n"'rk hI., I" l ce.,'. ".,", PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold ENACTED on April 10, 2007 the proposed Local Laws entitled "A Local Law in relation to the Calculation of Lot Coveral!e of Buildable Land" and "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merl!er Law". Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. ~~r;u... Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Assessors Southold Town Building Department Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Board of Appeals ~~~ Signature, Rece By /1,C:~.'L .:7: ~o/ Please print name Date: /)d~7 I , Title: &'i'& ~().~..t DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork. net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 23, 2007 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold ENACTED on April 10, 2007 the proposed Local Laws entitled "A Local Law in relation to the Calculation of Lot Coveral!:e of Buildable Land" and "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merl!:er Law". Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. aj_I~'Q":JL Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Assessors Southold Town Building Department Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Board of Appeals ~ ..' - I] i/.~ J Signature, Receiv By 6!f t,:,; L. ~ LuJ/ Date: ,<. , i:~> : ....j' .......nJ flo'''~1;; S ~4:r Please print name Title: T~ C,< {"R;:- DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK RECEIVED APR 2 7 2007 Sou\huld Tr"m Clerk ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE . TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER . Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown .northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTH OLD April 23, 2007 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold ENACTED on April 10, 2007 the proposed Local Laws entitled "A Local Law in relation to the Calculation of Lot Coveraee of Buildable Land" and "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Mereer Law". Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. lIJ"I~~~'/~' Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of PlamJing Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Assessors Southold Town Building Department Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Board of Appeals ~~.~~ Signature, Received By Date: t{/'P'?1/o 7 $V1>IV'I A _ ~e'{C.me'-IerL. Please print name Title: ~v7#A7nn<""; jDv/.J ~ DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK RECEIVi:D APR 2 7 2007 Sou![,,,id Tc,\,;n Clerk ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE . TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER . Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldt~l1k.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APR 2 4 2007 April 23, 2007 Souihvld TL\'iD Clerk PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold ENACTED on April 10, 2007 the proposed Local Laws entitled "A Local Law in relation to the Calculation of Lot Coveral!e of Buildable Land" and "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merl!:er Law". Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. IiJ _L "Cf'l.~ _:/i.. Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Assessors Southold Town Building Department Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Soutllold Town Trustees Southold Town Board of Appeals tj f1JLtU'l ~ry.W!.J.J Signature, Received By Date: 'f/:J4/eJ7 A. (JJJ.itJ\ S Mrdc'u h Please print name Title: ..Jp {'AJ -IfttJtiJ a.a.D~,u- DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box Il79 Southold, New York Il971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork. net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 23, 2007 Federal Express Linda Lasch New York State Department of State State Records and Law Bureau 41 State Street Albany, NY 12231 RE: Local Law Number 10 & 11 of2007 Town of Southold, Suffolk County Dear Ms. Lasch: In accordance with provisions of Section 27 of the Municipal Home Rule Law, I am enclosing herewith certified copies of Local Law Number 10 & 11 of 2007 of the Town of Southold, suitable for filing in your office. I would appreciate if you would send me a receipt indicating the filing of the enclosures in your office. Thank you. Very truly yours, J~~~O Lynda M Bohn Southold Deputy Town Clerk ~ Enclosures cc: Town Attorney ~ . . NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE Local Law Filing 41 STATE STREET. ALBANY. NY 12231 (Use this form to file a local law with the Secretary of State.) Text of law should be given as amended. Do not include matter being eliminated and do not use italics or underlining to indicate new matter. ('[HINt) ~ Town of '.Tillags SOUTHOLD LOCAL LAW NO. 10 OF 2007 BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: I. Purpose - The Town Board has received substantial public comment to the effect that the Town of Southold merger law, as currently constituted, unfairly subjects surviving spouses and other joint owners of property to the loss of the single and separate status of their adjoining properties merely by the death of one such joint owner. Inasmuch as the Town Board believes this result is unjust and not the intended consequence of the merger law, it believes it necessary to provide for a limited exception to the merger of such properties. II. Chapter 280 of the Town Code of the Town of South old is hereby amended as follows: 9280-10. Merger. A. Merger. A nonconforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or nonconforming lot which has been held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983. An adjacent lot is one which abuts with the parcel for a common course of 50 feet or more in distance. Nonconforming lost shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements. B. Definitions. "Common Ownership" shall mean that the parcel is held by the same person in the same percentage of ownership as an adjoining. C. Exceptions. Lots which are recognized under 9280-9 and meet any of the following categories shall be exempt from the merger provision set forth above and shall not be deemed merged by operation of this chapter: (I) The nonconforming lot has a minimum size of 40,000 square feet, of (2) The nonconforming lot obtained a lot size variance from the Zoning Board, or (3) If the lot is not on the maps described in former 9100-12, Editor's Note: Former 9100-12, Exceptions, was repealed 11-28-1995 by 1.1. No. 23- 1995, effective January I, 1996, the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from July I, 1983 to date, or (4) Ifthe lot is on the maps described in former 9100-12, the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from January I, 1997, to date, [Amended 3-4-1997 by 1.1. No. 4-1997] or (If additional space is needed, attach pages the same size as this sheet, and nnmber each.) DOS-239(Rev.ll/99) 1 .., . . (5) Each lot is currently developed with a one-family dwelling with a minimum 850 square feet which falls within the existing lot lines and which has a certificate of occupancy or would qualify for one, [Added 3- 4-1997 by L.L. No. 4-1997] or (6) Ifthe lots would otherwise be recognized pursuant to this chapter, and subsequently would have merged by operation of law as a result of the death of an owner or co-owner of one or more of the adjoining lots, except that the lots shall not be held in common ownership after the death of the surviving co-owner. III. SEVERABILITY If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other th part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by law. 2 .., (Complete the certifi.on in the paragraph that applies to the ttng of this local law and strike out that which is not applicahle.) 1. (Final adoption by local legislative body only.) I hereby certifY that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. 10 of20..!!1-....: of the (Cellllty)(Cil) )(Town) ('.'illllg8) of SOUTHOLD was duly passed by the TOWN BOARD on AprillO ,20 !!1-, in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. 2. (passage by local legislative body with approval, no disapproval or repassage after disapproval by the Elective Chief Executive Officer".) I hereby certifY that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. of the (County)(City)(Town)(Village) of on disapproval) by the in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. of20 was duly passed by the 20 _, and was (approved)(not approvedXrepassed after and was deemed duly adopted on 20 3. (Final adoption by referendum.) I hereby certifY that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. of 20 of the (County)(City)(Town)(Village) of was duly passed by the on 20_, and was (approvedXnot approvedXrepassed after disapproval) by the on 20. Such local law was subm itted to the people by reason ofa (mandatory)(permissive) referendum, and received the affirmative vote ofa majority of the qualified electors voting thereon at the (general)(special)(annual) election held on 20_, in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. 4. (Subject to permissive referendum and final adoption because no valid petition was filed requesting referendum.) of 20_ of the of was duly passed by the on 20, and was (approved)(not approved) (repassed after disapproval) by the on 20 Such local law was subject to permissive referendum and no valid petition requesting such referendum was filed as of 20_ , in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. I hereby certifY that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. (County)( City )(T own )(V illage) · Elective Chief Executive Officer means or Includes the chief executive officer of a county elected on a county- wide basis or, If there be none, the chairperson of the county legislative body, the mayor of a city or village, or the supervisor of a town where such officer is vested with the power to approve or veto local laws or ordinances. (2) 3 . . 5. (City local law concerning Charter revision proposed by petition.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. of20_ of the City of having been submitted to referendum pursuant to the provisions of section (36)(37) of the Municipal Home Rule Law, and having received the affirmative vote of a m,yority of the qualified electors of such city voting thereon at the (special)(general) election held on 20 became operative. 6. (County local law concerning adoption of Charter.) I hereby certifY that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No of20 of the County of State of New York, having been submitted to the electors at the General Election of November 20_, pursuant to subdivisions 5 and 7 of section 33 ofthe Municipal Home Rule Law, and having received the affirmative vote of a majority of the qualified electors of the cities of said county as a unit and a majority of the qualified electors of the towns of said county considered as a unit voting at said general election, became operative. (If any other authorized form of final adoption has been followed, please provide an appropriate certification.) I further certifY that I have compared the preceding local law with the original on file in this office and that the same is a correct transcript therefrom and of the whole of such original local law , and was finally adopted in the manner indicated in paragraph 1 , above. Coonty legislative bo y. ity. Town or ViIlag;: Clerk esignated by local legislative body Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk Date: April 20, 2007 (Seal) (Certification to be executed by County Attorney, Corporation Counsel, Town Attorney, Village Attorney or other authorized attorney of locality.) STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK I, the undersigned, hereby certifY that the foregoing local law contains the correct text and that all proper proceedings have been had or taken for the enactment of the local law annex hereto. Si ature P tricia A. Finnegan, q., wn i<\ttorney Kieran Corcoran. ESQ.. Assistant Town Attornev Title CtH!Rt:,' ~ Town of '.'illagB Date: SOUTHOLD April 20, 2007 4 Town of Southold - Lette~ B. Meeting of April 10, 2007 RESOLUTION 2007-338 Item # 3 ADOPTED DOC ID: 2755 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2007-338 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON APRIL 10,2007: WHEREAS, there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 27th day of February, 2007, a Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merger Law", and WHEREAS the Town Board of the Town of South old held a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, now, therefore be it RESOLVED that the Town board of the Town of South old determines that this Local Law is consistent with the L WRP; and further RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of South old hereby ENACTS the proposed Local Law entitled, " A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merger Law" which reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 10 OF 2007 BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: I. Purpose - The Town Board has received substantial public comment to the effect that the Town of Southold merger law, as currently constituted, unfairly subjects surviving spouses and other joint owners of property to the loss of the single and separate status of their adjoining properties merely by the death of one such joint owner. Inasmuch as the Town Board believes this result is unjust and not the intended consequence of the merger law, it believes it necessary to provide for a limited exception to the merger of such properties. II. Chapter 280 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: 9280-10. Merger. A. Merger. A nonconforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or nonconforming lot which has been held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July I, 1983. An adjacent lot is one which abuts with the parcel for a common course of 50 feet or more in distance. Nonconforming lost shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements. Generated April II, 2007 Page 8 . Town of Southold - Letter Bol Meeting of April 10, 2007 B. Definitions. "Common Ownership" shall mean that the parcel is held by the same person in the same percentage of ownership as an adjoining. C. Exceptions. Lots which are recognized under 9280-9 and meet any of the following categories shall be exempt from the merger provision set forth above and shall not be deemed merged by operation of this chapter: (I) The nonconforming lot has a minimum size of 40,000 square feet, of (2) The nonconforming lot obtained a lot size variance from the Zoning Board, or (3) If the lot is not on the maps described in former 9100-12, Editor's Note: Former 9100-12, Exceptions, was repealed 11-28-1995 by L.L. No. 23- 1995, effective January I, 1996, the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from July I, 1983 to date, or (4) If the lot is on the maps described in former 9 I 00-12, the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from January I, 1997, to date, [Amended 3-4-1997 by L.L. No. 4-1997] or (5) Each lot is currently developed with a one-family dwelling with a minimum 850 square feet which falls within the existing lot lines and which has a certificate of occupancy or would qualifY for one, [Added 3- 4-1997 by L.L. No. 4-1997] or (6) If the lots would otherwise be recognized pursuant to this chapter, and subsequently would have merged by operation of law as a result of the death of an owner or co-owner of one or more of the adjoining lots, except that the lots shall not be held in common ownership after the death of the surviving co-owner. III. SEVERABILITY If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by law. ~2f' ;11... Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [5 TO 1] MOVER: Albert Krupski Jr., Councilman SECONDER: Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman AYES: Evans, Wickham, Ross, Edwards, Krupski Jr. NAYS: Scott Russell Generated April II, 2007 Page 9 . . LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF ENACTMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of South old hereby ENACTS the proposed Local Law entitled, " A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merger Law" which reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 10 OF 2007 BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: I. Purpose - The Town Board has received substantial public comment to the effect that the Town of South old merger law, as currently constituted, unfairly subjects surviving spouses and other joint owners of property to the loss of the single and separate status of their adjoining properties merely by the death of one such joint owner. Inasmuch as the Town Board believes this result is unjust and not the intended consequence of the merger law, it believes it necessary to provide for a limited exception to the merger of such properties. II. Chapter 280 of the Town Code of the Town of South old is hereby amended as follows: 9280-10. Merger. A. Merger. A nonconforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or nonconforming lot which has been held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July I, 1983. An adjacent lot is one which abuts with the parcel for a common course of 50 feet or more in distance. Nonconforming lost shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements. B. Definitions. "Common Ownership" shall mean that the parcel is held by the same person in the same percentage of ownership as an adjoining. C. Exceptions. Lots which are recognized under 9280-9 and meet any of the following categories shall be exempt from the merger provision set forth above and shall not be deemed merged by operation of this chapter: (1) The nonconforming lot has a minimum size of 40,000 square feet, of (2) The nonconforming lot obtained a lot size variance from the Zoning Board, or (3) Ifthe lot is not on the maps described in former 9 I 00-12, Editor's Note: Former 9100-12, Exceptions, was repealed 11-28-1995 by L.L. No. 23- 1995, effective January 1, 1996, the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from July I, 1983 to date, or (4) If the lot is on the maps described in former 9100-12, the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from January I, 1997, . . to date, [Amended 3-4-1997 by L.L. No. 4-1997] or (5) Each lot is currently developed with a one-family dwelling with a minimum 850 square feet which falls within the existing lot lines and which has a certificate of occupancy or would qualify for one, [Added 3- 4-1997 by L.L. No. 4-1997] or (6) Ifthe lots would otherwise be recognized pursuant to this chapter, and subsequently would have merged by operation of law as a result of the death of an owner or co-owner of one or more of the adjoining lots, except that the lots shall not be held in common ownership after the death of the surviving co-owner. III. SEVERABILITY If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any c I of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provide law. Dated: April 10, 2007 BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Elizabeth Neville Town Clerk PLEASE PUBLISH ON APRIL 19,2007 AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO ELIZABETH NEVILLE, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, PO BOX 1179, SOUTHOLD, NY 11971. Copies to the following: Suffolk Times Town Attorney Town Board Members Town Clerk's Bulletin Board . . STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE, Town Clerk of the Town of South old, New York being duly sworn, says that on the ..aa..- day of ~ I 'L ~ , 2007, she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of South old, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York. Enact Merger Law ~O~~d~/~ lizabeth A. Ne lie Southold Town Clerk Sworn before nr\th~. ~ Q ~dayof~,2007. ~~~m~O tary Public LYNDA M. BOHN NOTARY PUBLIC, Stale of New YllIII No. 01 B06020932 Qualified in Suffolk Coull\r Term Expires March a. 20.u. Town of South old - Letter. It.- Bo~eeting of April 10, 2007 RESOLUTION 2007-338 ADOPTED Item # 3 DOC ID: 2755 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2007-338 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON APRIL 10,2007: WHEREAS, there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 27th day of February, 2007, a Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merger Law", and WHEREAS the Town Board of the Town of South old held a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, now, therefore be it RESOLVED that the Town board of the Town of South old determines that this Local Law is consistent with the L WRP; and further RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby ENACTS the proposed Local Law entitled, " A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merger Law" which reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 10 OF 2007 BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of South old as follows: I. Purpose - The Town Board has received substantial public comment to the effect that the Town of Southold merger law, as currently constituted, unfairly subjects surviving spouses and other joint owners of property to the loss of the single and separate status of their adjoining properties merely by the death of one such joint owner. Inasmuch as the Town Board believes this result is unjust and not the intended consequence of the merger law, it believes it necessary to provide for a limited exception to the merger of such properties. II. Chapter 280 of the Town Code of the Town of South old is hereby amended as follows: g280-10. Merger. A. Merger. A nonconforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or nonconforming lot which has been held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July I, 1983. An adjacent lot is one which abuts with the parcel for a common course of 50 feet or more in distance. Nonconforming lost shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements. Generated April I I, 2007 Page 8 Town of Southold - Lette' Bid Meeting of April 10, 2007 B. Definitions. "Conunon Ownership" shall mean that the parcel is held by the same person in the same percentage of ownership as an adjoining. C. Exceptions. Lots which are recognized under 9280-9 and meet any of the following categories shall be exempt from the merger provision set forth above and shall not be deemed merged by operation ofthis chapter: (I) The nonconforming lot has a minimum size of 40,000 square feet, of (2) The nonconforming lot obtained a lot size variance from the Zoning Board, or (3) If the lot is not on the maps described in former 9100-12, Editor's Note: Former 9100-12, Exceptions, was repealed 11-28-1995 by 1.1. No. 23- 1995, effective January I, 1996, the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from July 1, 1983 to date, or (4) If the lot is on the maps described in former 9100-12, the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from January 1, 1997, to date, [Amended 3-4-1997 by 1.1. No. 4-1997] or (5) Each lot is currently developed with a one-family dwelling with a minimum 850 square feet which falls within the existing lot lines and which has a certificate of occupancy or would qualify for one, [Added 3- 4-1997 by 1.1. No. 4-1997] or (6) If the lots would otherwise be recognized pursuant to this chapter, and subsequently would have merged by operation of law as a result of the death of an owner or co-owner of one or more of the adjoining lots, except that the lots shall not be held in conunon ownership after the death of the surviving co-owner. III. SEVERABILITY If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect inunediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by law. ~~..J~. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [5 TO 1] MOVER: Albert Krupski Jr., Councilman SECONDER: Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman AYES: Evans, Wickham, Ross, Edwards, Krupski Jr. NAYS: Scott Russell Generated April 11, 2007 Page 9 . . SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD PUBLIC HEARING March 27, 2007 4:45 PM Hearing opened 5:10PM COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT, there has been presented to the Town Board ofthe Town of South old, Suffolk County, New York, on the 27th day of February, 2007, a Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Men!:er Law" now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of South old will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, on the 27th day of March, 2007 at 4:45 p.m. at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. The proposed Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merl!:er Law" reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. OF 2007 BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: I. Purpose - The Town Board has received substantial public comment to the effect that the Town of Southold merger law, as currently constituted, unfairly subjects surviving spouses and other joint owners of property to the loss of the single and separate status of their adjoining properties merely by the death of one such joint owner. Inasmuch as the Town Board believes this result is unjust and not the intended consequence of the merger law, it believes it necessary to provide for a limited exception to the merger of such properties. II. Chapter 280 of the Town Code of the Town of South old is hereby amended as follows: 9280-10. Merger. A. Merger. A nonconforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or nonconforming lot which has been held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983. An adjacent lot is one which abuts with the parcel for a common course of 50 feet or more in distance. Nonconforming lost shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements. . . B. Definitions. "Common Ownership" shall mean that the parcel is held by the same person in the same percentage of ownership as an adjoining. C. Exceptions. Lots which are recognized under 9280-9 and meet any of the following categories shall be exempt from the merger provision set forth above and shall not be deemed merged by operation of this chapter: (1) The nonconforming lot has a minimum size of 40,000 square feet, of (2) The nonconforming lot obtained a lot size variance from the Zoning Board, or (3) If the lot is not on the maps described in former 9100-12, Editor's Note: Former 9100-12, Exceptions, was repealed 11-28-1995 by L.L. No. 23- 1995, effective January 1, 1996, the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from July 1,1983 to date, or (4) If the lot is on the maps described in former 9100-12, the nonconforming lot has been held in sinlge and separate ownership from January 1, 1997, to date, [Amended 3-4-1997 by L.L. No. 4-1997] or (5) Each lot is currently developed with a one-family dwelling with a minimum 850 square feet which falls within the existing lot lines and which has a certificate of occupancy or would qualify for one, [Added 3- 4-1997 by L.L. No. 4-1997] or (6) The lots would be considered merged merely by operation oflaw as a result of the death of a co-owner of one or more of the adjoining lots, the lots are greater than 20,000 square feet, and the lots remain in the ownership of the surviving co-owner. lII. SEVERABILITY If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by law. About 12 years ago, the Town Board passed a merget law. Merger means if you have a sub-size, undersize lots, and if they are held in the same ownership, they will be merged into one lot. There were several exceptions built into that proposed law some years ago. This amendment today will expand those exceptions and add one more exception so that a certain condition will escape the merger that would otherwise be provided in that law and the new exception reads as follows: the lots would not be considered merged merely by operation of this law as a result of a death of a co- owner of one or more of the adjoining lots when the lots are greater than 20,000 square feet and they remain in the ownership of the surviving co-owner. During today's work session we have agreed as a Board to delete the 20,000 square foot requirement. So I will read it again with that new . . interpretation. The lots would not be considered merged by operation of law as a result of a co- owner of one or more of the adjoining lots, provided that the lots remain in the ownership of the surviving co-owner. I will try to say it in more colloquial terms. If a husband and wife own a piece of property and one of the two spouses passes away, presumably one of the lots passes to the, at that time those two lots would be owned by the same person. We felt that while the surviving spouse is alive, those two lots should not be considered merged but it exists while the surviving spouse is alive. We don't anticipate the way the law is written giving heirs the opportunity to reach back, years previously, to undo a merger that was done at that time. That is the purpose and that is the legal reading of this proposed law. Now, I have before me a memo from the Town Planning Board. The Planning Board has reviewed this proposed local law and supports the amendment. Please advise if you have any additional questions. I have something here from the Suffolk County Planning Commission, "Pursuant to the requirements, etc., this has considered to be a matter of local determination as there is no apparent county wide or inter-community impacts." I have got the notice that it has appeared on the Town Clerk's bulletin board and it has also appeared as a legal in the local newspaper. And what else do we have here? I know I have seen some other commentary. COUNCILMAN ROSS: Well, this situation usually arises with a husband and a wife, where the husband or the wife owns one piece of property and next to it, the husband and the wife own it, so they are held really differently and maintained as separate status. This does not apply just to husband and wife situations, it is any situations where there are co-owners and because of the death of one of the owners, the two lots, the two properties become owned by one person and hence, merge. And that is what this is inteded to except from the merger law. To make an exception, so those things do not, those lots will not merge as a result of death, which was brought to our attention by counsel here today and I am sure we will hear from them later on. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I should also read a note, a memo from Mark Terry, our LWRP coordinator. "Proposed local law has been reviewed to Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town Code, based upon the information provided on the consistency assessment form submitted to this department as well as the records available, it is my determination that the proposed action is consistent with the policy standards and therefore is consistent with the L WRP." SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Is that all? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Yes. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody like to come up before the Town Board and address us on this specific issue. I see Pat, Ms. Moore. PATRICIA MOORE: I figured since I was the squeaky wheel that caused all the problems a year ago, when I asked the Board to please put it on the agenda. My name is Pat Moore, I am a local attorney. I have had the dubious pleasure of having to explain to families why properties that they have paid taxes on, received tax bills and had always anticipated to be able to sell off in order to help pay for mom's nursing home or whatever circumstances, their particular circumstances might require, I have to explain to them that the law has merged their property. Before I begin, I want to point out that I went to the 1995 adoption of this law and I paid the town $30 for all the copies of all the documents that appeared in the 1995 public hearing process for the adoption of this law. And for . . the record, for the public and the news media, I want to put on the record who was sitting on the Board at that time because I don't believe that there was any harm intended, it was pure, when the law was adopted it was adopted to help people and it was very clear from the transcripts of that hearing that that is what the intent was. Mr. Wickham was supervisor at the time. Judge Evans was sitting on the Board, I think it was your first term. I see Ruth Oliva here, who now sits on the Zoning Board, she was on the Town Board. Joe Townsend was on the Board, he now sits on the Planning Board. The rest of you were in other capacity but not involved in the law, I guess directly. At the time that this law was adopted, there was clearly put on the record that there was an intention to 1., recognize lots that were created by deed because that was the practice at the time and 2., that the, that what had been grandfathered subdivisions that were put into the code that were grandfathered from 1973 through the zone change of 1983 and then continued by reference with respect to certain exceptions until 1997 or 1995 through 1997 when you gave a short grace period for people to correct their deeds. But there was no publication as far as sending notices to the affected property owners and many cases if people do not get the newspaper, the local newspaper or were just not aware, this never became known to them. They continued to get tax bills as they would even today. I see very often people's property cards that clearly the lots have merged since 1997 but they are continuing to receive separate tax bills. What was done at that time and in the transcripts it says it, and at the end of the hearing so you are not distracted I am going to give to the Town Clerk my outline that I am not going to read from it, just as an outline and with a copy of the transcripts so you can see for yourselves what was said. But that that exemption list of all the subdivisions and many of the subdivisions that were approved in the 70's and 80's up through the time of that ordinance, there was a feeling that there was no need to put those exempt subdivisions back in the books, continuing them because this waiver of merger law would take care of it. There would be an escape valve, a mechanism to provide for hardship, if for some reason the waiver of merger law inadvertently took it into affect and that was the Zoning Board. Well, here we are 12 years later and two years ago, the Zoning Board ended any approvals except for the, really the only one that I remember got approved was a husband and wife situation when the spouse passes away but that was for the most part the limited exception. That, the waiver merger law was shut. It was completely shut out and what happened is, it took one case and lawyering done at the level of the New York Supreme Court and then the Appellate division, that came to the conclusion that when you said economic hardship, that even a lot that was under contract for $400,000 did not equate economic hardship. So that is the kind of situation that I have been facing for the past two, and other attorneys that are here as well, have been facing for the last two, some years, where each property that comes before the Zoning Board is denied. I want you to go back to the legislative intent, what you said at the hearing, Mr. Wickham as Supervisor, and clearly throughout the whole transcript of that hearing, there was an intent to protect people. To give people a simplified method to have the lots that got merged, unmerged. Well, that is in practice what has happened 12 years later is the direct opposite. So I urge you to take that issue before you. It is time. I asked you to do it a year ago. I certainly support the legislation you are proposing now. I think obviously it is something t hat is very necessary. But as Mr. Ross knew I was going to say, you haven't gone far enough. Well, you haven't undone the harm that this law has created. Also, another issue that again the transcript clearly says that the code speaks in terms of the merger occurs until you have conformity. Well, I have seen situations where you have one lot that is an acre and a half in a one acre zoning district. It gets sold off. The half acre that everybody thought, well, there have been situations where local attorneys, land use attorneys, very reputable, very respected attorneys were quite surprised by the circumstance because you had lots that, a lot that was clearly larger than intended and an extra lot. . . Well, because when you go in for the single and separate for the smaller lot, it refers back to the larger lot. It undoes the provision of the code that says you don't merge if you have got conformity. Well, you have got one lot that was conforming and another lot that wasn't. Well, you have just left behind a sterilized piece of property. That has also happened in Nassau Point, you have properties, ] have one case where it was a family, one of the owners of the property was in a nursing home, they were trying to preserve the property. This was a third generation of ownership in this Nassau Point property. Clearly very valuable pieces of property. Three lots, two lots made conformity. I mean, you are in Nassau Point, these used to be exempt lots. They used to be half acre lots and the entire neighborhood is half acre lots. Alright, they accepted the fact that the one, that the two half acre lots brought about conformity. Well, now they merged the three lots. Clearly this lot exceeds, far exceeds the sizes of all the other properties in the neighborhood. That was declined at the Zoning Board level. Again, always using the economic hardship argument that, nope, still haven't proven the economic hardship and this has been upheld in the courts and I keep telling you please, if you want to create the fairness that was legislated in ] 995 you have to do one of two things either put back the exempt list because that was the promise made, that you don't need an exempt list if you have got this fairness principle in the waiver merger or change the waiver merger. But to do both you are doing harm and you continue to do harm. And I know you are not sitting on the Board to do that. And I know even, I know two Zoning Board members are here today. I know they are good people, I know they are not intending to do harm but the bottom line is that that is the end result. Just want to be sure that I have got everything. One of the issues that I raised early on when I asked the Board to please consider this is that the fact is that people have been getting separate tax bills. They have been paying for your open space purchases, they have been paying schoo] taxes, they have been paying all the taxes that are, that a single lot demands. When they finally reach a point in their life when it is their time to sell, you tell them, sorry, we have been taking your money but you really can't develop this piece. It belongs to the piece next door. That is not right. It just irks me, you know, I became a lawyer for justice and that to me smacks against the justice. We treat people, we know Enron and other corporations that have stolen people's money, taken people's money, well, isn't the Town doing the exact same thing? By taking people's money in tax bills, asking people to support them to support the services that they are not using; they are paying for roads, they are paying for schools, they are paying for open space, they haven't done anything and when they finally are ready to build on that lot, we tell them I am sorry, you can't. It is time for action and I do appreciate the fact that you have brought it and you have made a slight dent in correcting this law. I urge you, certainly the Board members that were on the Board in '95, there is no excuse that this can't, hasn't been done. And I know it is only two of you, you need that third and I am hoping that the rest of the three of you will, four of you, excuse me, will see the justice in it. And protect your constituency, protect the people that you have been elected to protect. I thank you and I hope that you will take my comments very positive. COUNCILMAN ROSS: Pat? MS. MOORE: Yes? COUNCILMAN ROSS: How would you define economic hardship? Or would you eliminate it? MS. MOORE: I would eliminate it altogether. Because there is no definition, unless you are very careful in how you define it. Economic hardship has been defined in zoning terms as a use . . variance. And that is how the courts have interpreted. And the reality is and this has been argued in the courts but the courts don't seem to care, don't seem to listen; that the waiver merger law was intended to avoid having to go for a variance. That was the whole sales pitch in 95. Oh, we know that those lots that have merged have to go through a variance and then have to go through a re- subdivision and we all know that in 95 the variances were granted routinely because of the circumstances. People recognized that yes, this is an entirely half acre subdivision and you are asking one property owner to make his lot really non-conforming to the rest of the community. Property values are very high. Just because, it is funny, in one of the transcripts somebody talked about well, you have economic hardship. You are looking at spending, losing $150,000, one of the fears in changing the law and taking that exemption out. They were talking about a loss of $150,000. Well, lots now, in Nassau Point, in Paradise Point, in the exempt subdivisions, you are looking at $400,000 to $600,000. That is not insubstantial. And no offense but listen, if you have done your estate planning and you have left to one child that piece of property and given to another child your stocks and bond the equivalent. Is that fairness? I mean, most of the people have done estate planning with appraisals, with the expectation that the lot is developable. So, you know, I have heard you make statements Mr. Ross that you are not trying to protect the heirs. Well, aren't we all trying to protect our heirs? Certainly I don't want the government to get my money. I want my children to get my money. I want my children to have my property. As you do. COUNCILMAN ROSS: The point to the law, though, was to undo and the comments a year ago was you had a wrong through a death; a death creates the merger. And that is the purpose here. To undo that wrong. And the only person who is hurt in that circumstance is the co-owner. MS. MOORE: Absolutely. You have addressed that issue tonight. That is the only issue. But the law, when it was adopted and I, here you go... COUNCILMAN ROSS: Let me ask you about that... MS. MOORE: (inaudible) and please, Town Clerk, give it to all the Board members if you would. Read the transcripts. That is not the way the law was adopted. COUNCILMAN ROSS: The intent not to merge, you indicated two recognized lots by deed? MS. MOORE: Yes. COUNCILMAN ROSS: Was that lots that had been deeded prior to a certain date? MS. MOORE: Yes. COUNCILMAN ROSS: And recognize... MS. MOORE: Well, after that there was subdivision review, so there was no, there really was no issue. We were dealing, addressing a problem that Mr. Wickham's father was on the Planning Board and very, I mean, the farmers on the Board know, very routinely farm lots were split off by deed. If you had a lot that was made conforming, conform to the specifications, oftentimes there would be subdivision by deed. And in fact, when I went looking not too long ago, in the Planning . . Board's agendas for the early 80's through the 70's, it was a long process but I looked at every single agenda and every minutes of every meeting to look for a minor subdivision because it's just like, it can't be. It can't be that this lot was created just by deed. It was hard for me to believe. Sure enough, the Planning Board at the time dealt with major subdivisions and minors that were like 3 to 5 lots. Set-offs were routinely done by deed. And there is a recognition of that and that was good, it was good that it was corrected because there still exists out there lots that eventually passed down and were created by deed. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I just want to touch on the economic hardship issue, when that went to the courts and it was adjudicated, was that the court defending a Town denial? MS. MOORE: Yes. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Because that applicant didn't rise to the Town's view of economic hardship. In other words, it wasn't the court usurping the Town... MS. MOORE: No. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay, so that was basically defending what the ZBA.... MS. MOORE: At least the ones that I know about. It may have been a neighbor opposing that it could have been the other way around. But I think it is mostly supporting the position where the Town says, sorry, it is not enough economic hardship. And that is kind of the beginning. That case was pretty much the beginning of the end. That case pretty much left the road map for the Zoning Board at that point to really limit if not deny for the most part the majority of the waiver merger applications that came before them. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you, Pat. Mr. McLoughlin. KEVIN MCLOUGHLIN: I am Kevin McLoughlin, I am an attorney here in Southold. First of all, I would like to commend the Board on I know what has been a hard job, working their way through this situation. I think Pat has outlined very eloquently the equity involved h ere and the reason why this law has to be addressed. My concern is about the wording of the subsection 6 itself. I want to make sure that everyone is clear that this applies not only proactively from the date that this law is passed but also retroactively so that lots that had been deemed to have merged in the past, particularly the past couple of years when the Zoning Board took a different tact will be protected under this law. It doesn't seem to say in here when this is effective, and that concerns me. And the second thing that concerns me is the last sentence, 'provided the lots remain in ownership of the surviving co-owner.' I understand the intent but what, many of these times when families kept lots separate by putting them in separate names, the whole purpose was perhaps someday one of their children could be deeded their property and therefore have a place to be able to build a house on and remain in the Southold Town community. I am not sure what this language means, so that if you have a husband and a wife owning one substandard lot and the husband owning the other substandard lot and the husband dies and the wife then deeds the other lot to one of her children, is it merged at that point or is it not merged because they remain in single and separate names? . . COUNCILMAN ROSS: Up until the point of death, they are separate by virtue of the exception. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Right. COUNCILMAN ROSS: Upon the deeding, before death, they would remain separate because they are single and separate after that. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: In perpetuity. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: But what happens if, again, a husband and wife own one lot, husband owns the other one, the husband dies, I know right then there is not going to be a merger under this but what if after that, she then deeds the property over to one of her children? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: The single, vacant lot? MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Yes. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That would be an exempted lot. That would not be subject to merger. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: But then what is the, I am, what is the purpose of 'provided the lots remain in the ownership of the surviving co-owner'? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: If you had a husband and wife who owned and just the husband passes away, the wife owns both, the wife passes it now goes into estate, those are merged. In other words, there is no surviving co-owner that has been injured in this. That is the intent. TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: They merge when the surviving spouse dies. The exception goes away when the surviving spouse dies. So if they are not transferred, if the two that she holds aren't transferred, one of them isn't transferred during her life then the merger, the exception goes away when she dies and they are merged. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: The operative word is surviving. She needs to do something about it in her lifetime. COUNCILMAN ROSS: We struggled with the language. I think we are going to, you know, work on that a little bit. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Is it the position of the Board that this, ifit is adopted, this paragraph 6 will be retroactive in its effect? TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: If someone were to come in who has been, who was denied two years ago; told two years ago that those lots had merged. If that person is still alive, still holds both and holds both because the spouse died, if that person comes back in then they will not be merged anymore. The exception will apply. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: So we will have to come back in to the Zoning Board and say... . . COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: No. No. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Just go to the Building Department and say... COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Right. Because they won't be merged. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: What I had asked about was how do you undo previous ZBA decisions and the answer today was, you need to come back in. TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: Come back in. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Surviving co-owner. You need to come back in to the ZBA to have them reverse that decision. Because I was concerned, we have had years of decisions here that are probably going to have to more or less vacate decisions of the last few years. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: But that is the intent of this law, to allow anyone who falls within that exception, no matter when the date of that happening was, the death of the co-owner, to be able to have the merger exempted. TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: (Inaudible) COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: Provided the survivor survives. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Right. So what that is going to mean in some cases is, as soon as this law is passed, people had better get in quickly especially the ones that, and I have at least one case myself where I was denied by the ZBA under circumstances exactly like what this covers, we have got to go back in, I have got an elderly.... COUNCILMAN ROSS: Kevin, I don't understand. If one of the owners is still alive, you don't have to go anyplace. You just have to deed the property out. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: But he said he was before the ZBA and denied. Which means he has to reverse that. COUNCILMAN ROSS: You were denied but this wasn't then. Now you have a new law. It is exempt, you have a law. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: So we don't have to go back to the ZBA. COUNCILMAN ROSS: That would be what I would say. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: Let the Town Attorney speak to that. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah, Pat? . . TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: I think that if you have a decision that said they were merged and you came in to unmerge them and they couldn't merge, I mean, they didn't unmerge them, now you can come back in, you should be able to come back in now to the Building Department and have the exception apply to you. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: And that would be your legal opinion to the Building Department? TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: Yes. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Thank you. CURT KOCH: My name is Curt Koch. Let me go next just because I think he forgot one question. What happens when it is in both names and both parents die at the same time? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: It wouldn't have mattered because it was merged prior to their death. In other words, both of the ownerships, if Joe and Mary owned this and Joe and Mary owned this, those lots were merged when this law was passed back in 1993. Death isn't an issue here. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: It is already merged. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: It is already merged by statute. MR. KOCH: Oh, no. Let me back up. If the husband owns one and the wife owns the other, okay, now, then they both die and now you are telling the children they are merged. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I don't know what the will says, I don't know how those, if Joe has a will and presumably Mary has a will, I don't know how they convey those parcels out. MR. KOCH: Regardless.. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Well, there is no singular estate, so you can't presume that they are merged. It depends on what the will says. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: And doesn't the law usually say one has to, in law, predecease the other even if they both died simultaneously? COUNCILMAN ROSS: We don't want to play lawyer. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: Okay, anyway... MR. KOCH: Okay. Anyway, to me that seemed like the next question and just to add what they are saying, I appreciate the steps that you are taking to rectify this because it does seem very unfair and in many ways, for lack of a better word, the whole merger concept is nasty legislation just because we all know who gets affected by that, it is people that aren't necessarily in tune with planning and subdivisions and lot purchases and not necessarily reading the legal sections of the paper and in many cases, this extra piece of property is a 40lk for them. And just for the record, I am not . . impacted at all with the existing merger code and the changes don't help me or hurt me in any way, I am just happy to see the changes or the attempt to make these changes. So if I were to at least, line 6 there, my suggestion is that the whole concept of it not going to the heirs is removed because the intent, if the parents had these things in separate names, the intent was to keep it in separate names and their passing really shouldn't change anything in any way and as far as going back and undoing the things that the attorneys were talking about, I mean, we all recognize the complexity in that because I guess the question is, how many lots are impacted? If it is 12, I think Southold and the traffic will survive that. And so the way everyone is kind of nodding, we don't have a number in terms of the impact. Ifwe would just unwind all of this. Thank you. SUPER VISOR RUSSELL: The lady behind Dr. Pascoe. You had your hand up. EILEEN GALLAGHER: My name is Eileen Gallagher and I am a Southold Town resident. I am here tonight on behalf of Donna Wexler and her mother, Mrs. Iglesias. They were very personally affected by this law. They had bought two pieces of property that were individually deeded and they were owned by an unmarried couple, so this is a little bit of a twist on what you all have been talking about so far. This unmarried couple was a couple for 30 years. They each owned these adjacent lots. One owned one lot, the other owned the other lot. Their was a decision made by Ms. Collins, who was one of the owners, much prior to her death, she was dying from brain cancer. She was afraid apparently, with her will, that there would be some issues with her estate and she wanted to insure that her companion would inherit that land. So right prior to her death, while she had brain cancer, she decided to merge the lots. And at the time she was advised by her attorney not to do that but this was done exclusively for estate planning purposes. And we are not even sure if she understood the impact of her decision. After she passed away, her survivor, Mr. Devlin, wanted to unmerge the lot so he could sell them and he was under the impression that he could. He put both lots up for sale and they were sold and they appeared to be separate lots because again, all the tax maps, the Town and the County maps all indicated that these were separate buildable lots. They both conform to the subdivision in Calves Neck. So Ms. Wexler bought one lot, her mother bought the other lot with the intention of putting up two houses because Ms. Wexler is now her mother's caretaker, they both wanted separate houses and they wanted to put separate houses up so that they could have individual homes together. Now you know with the land in the town, how often do you find two buildable lots that are together? That are suitable for this purpose? After they bought these properties, they were told by the Zoning Board that these properties, the second property was not buildable and therefore they could not carry out what they wanted to do. Now this puts a hardship on these two women because they are trying to do the right thing. At least Ms. Wexler is trying to take care of her elderly mother. And with this talk about estate planning, my question is I don't fully understand why, when you have a couple, why the land has to be merged at all? Especially because you have estate issues as it was pointed out by Pat Moore, you have some land maybe being left to one child and the other land being left to the other child. And especially when the records of the Town and the County are not clear that these are not buildable lots and these people have no way of knowing ahead of time what they are doing with their estate because they are going on the information available to them, why do these lots need to be merged at all? That is my first question. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Was Ms. Collins a member of the ZBA? COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: Yes. . . MS. GALLAGHER: I don't know. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I remember helping Ms. Iglesias with this. I believe at the time one of the problems was that as a prospective buyer I don't know that they did an adequate single and separate search on the vacant lot. MS. GALLAGHER: Well, they did title search and that is what came up, that they were separate. So when you are buying land, okay, if! was to go buy land today and I did a title search and that title search tells me that there are two separate properties, then that is what I think I am getting. Especially when they are both conforming to the area. But the question I just asked was, why does the lots have to be merged at all when there is a couple involved? I mean, this is an unmarried couple. Okay? So this wasn't even a husband and a wife. But my question really is, I don't understand, especially since we have so many pieces of property around here that are owned by families and they expect to (inaudible) to their estate, why do these lands have to be merged? I don't understand. COUNCILMAN ROSS: The merger concept arises from the thought that land use changes. MS. GALLAGHER: Right. COUNCILMAN ROSS: For instance, in the 20's, 30's and the 40's you bought a Brooklyn Eagle and if you got a subscription, you got a 20 x 50 foot lot somewhere out in the Pine Barrens. Without a merger situation, those lots would still exist. MS. GALLAGHER: But those would be too small and they wouldn't conform to the area around... COUNCILMAN ROSS: There is no merger unless there has been an upzoning that makes the lots that have merged smaller than the zoning in an area that they are in. So if you have... MS. GALLAGHER: So why do you have grandfathering clauses where you allow small lots, that are single lots to still be built on if you are concerned about the zoning changes which make the land you want bigger lots for people to build on? Why do you still allow small lots to be built on? COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: Well, because the people who bought those smaller lots, which are called at that point non-conforming lots, nevertheless, have the right, the bundle of rights that go with that land which includes the right to build a house there. Just because in the interim since the property was subdivided into let's say, one third of an acre, the zoning has risen to one acre zoning, you still have the rights that are associated, that were there in the first place. MS. GALLAGHER: Well, doesn't someone that had bought two lots, right; held them separately, still feel that they have the rights for those two lots? They bought them, they paid a purchase price for building lots and just because they are adjacent and now the area is still, all the houses have been built in the area, they are still half acre lots, these are still half acre lots; separately they are a half acre and one is actually bigger than a half acre. Why would they be merged? I mean, this was a voluntary merger but it was done for estate planning with the intention that after the state was settled . . that they would unmerge them. So, I know it is a little bit of a twist in that the initial merger was done on a voluntary basis but you have to understand, this woman was very ill at the time she made this decision, she was trying to protect her partner and all of a sudden because they were next to each other and they are a couple, you can't unmerge them? You know, it is not just an economic issue, you have people that are trying to stay in this town both young couples and elderly people that want to stay here and live the rest of their lives and it is making it very difficult for them to do what they want to do for both their estate and their heirs and their own living circumstances. Anyone that takes care of an elderly person, an elderly parent or even an elderly relative understands how difficult it is to do that. And we should be encouraging those situations and allowing people to stay here, rather than pushing them away by saying no, you can't do this and no, you can't do that. I also don't feel that if these mergers have been taken place and they have been done, why can't the records be updated? Because you are misleading people, in thinking that they have individual lots of land that are valued because they have buildable lots. And I think that you either have it one way or the other. You merge them, you should correct your records. And I feel that you are trying to make changes to these laws to be more fair but I don't think it is always economic. I think you have issues of families here, estates and everything else that should be considered. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: There were a couple of issues that you touched on. First, I do, when that law was first created, there was a small working group and I was an assessor in those days; I had been to some of the original working meetings and had advocated to a planner who has since left Town Hall, that we should notify single and separate lot owners of this pending law. The problem with this law is that it really rewards people that happen to be real estate savvy and people who aren't real estate savvy have gotten stuck in the cross hairs over the years. There was a process up until a few years ago where there was a relief valve for this law and there was an exception to this merger law and that had been administrated since this law was passed in 1994 and it has worked relatively well. There had been some blights in it, I had seen a couple in Greenport turned down for the lot next door to them, when a couple around the block with the same exact circumstances had been approved; so there is certainly lack of understanding of equitable distribution but on the whole that relief worked well. A couple of years ago, things changed. I just found out tonight that the economic hardship was something that we instituted and that simply the courts defended us. At least at the ZBA level. I think that what we need to do is revisit how to make this law more workable rather than just pick apart the little aspects of it, such as mergers by death etc. but you need to reinstitute a deliberative approach here so that the Zoning Board of Appeals can consider all the criteria when judging whether a lot is good or not. The community standard that is established by the existing houses. If you have 50 houses on half acre lots and one half acre lot left, those are the types of things the ZBA needs to bring to bear and in the old days, they would. They would go out and look; look at a lot and say, well, this person, their intent was to keep it separate, you know the lot is vacant, it is unused. But then in this other case, somebody has got a gazebo on it and perfectly manicured and landscaped, they would say, you know, they have been using that as a side yard for many years and we don't think that they probably now are entitled to that lot. There is a certain amount of discretion that comes to bear with that. It is probably better than the blanket approach, you know,just nickel and dimeing this law to death. MS. GALLAGHER: Yeah, I agree with you. I would like to see a more consistent approach with people getting, you know, answers from the Board as far as what their situation is versus their neighbors situation. You hear too many, this is just a base statement not having anything to do with . . this particular situation, but you hear too many situations where one person gets what they want and the other person doesn't and that is not right. I mean, you have to as a Town Board try to be consistent and I understand the difficulty in writing language that goes into law to try to figure out every situation that you could possibly ever get into. But the ZBA would have to be the only outlet for those big exceptions that no one else could have figured out ahead of time. You can't write laws that are that complicated but definitely when they get to the passing rules, they have to be able to say to the same person, you get it and you get it because you have the same situation and not treat one differently than the other. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Well, like I said, the one regret here was that when the law was passed, people who were real estate savvy got to keep their lots, people that weren't, they were simply two people working all their lives and didn't know any better.... MS. GALLAGHER: That is exactly what I am talking about. The records should be accurate so that people would know what they are doing and what they have... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Well, I want to touch on that, I am glad you reminded me of that. The issue of tax bills, the fact of the matter is just because you are receiving separate tax bills does not entitle you to a separate building lot and had we merged those properties, the taxes would have been identical only it would have been in one tax bill instead of two. MS. GALLAGHER: Well, that one tax bill tells you that land is merged, two doesn't. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah but a good, at the very least and the case, I know who you are representing very well and I do feel bad for her but at least in her case the law had already been passed when she pursued the purchase of those lots. My focus right now or my concern right now is for people who had those lots and just simply didn't know what to do prior to a purchase. The law sort of came down on them. MS. GALLAGHER: It was a voluntary thing done, it was done exclusively for estate planning, it had nothing to do whether or not the lands were suitable for building. They certainly conform to every other house in the area. So, here there was a little bit of twist but I think that the ZBA in certain circumstances like this should be taking a more objective look at these situations and hopefully, with the law as you rewrite it gets broad enough that you don't have to even have the ZBA look at these situations. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Dr. Pascoe? DAVID PASCOE: Good evening, my name is David Pascoe. Zoning changes are never easy and they are always fraught with contention. The proposed law that you raise this evening, okay, I am not really here to speak against the proposed law, okay, the concept of a surviving spouse, right, okay, my concern is, right, okay, that you really appreciate the potential effects of creating a blanket exception, alright? I tried to bring some photographs, right, because I personally only really know of only one scenario where this exists, yes it is in my local community but I think you should be aware other than the fact, right, okay that substantial amounts of money are occasionally involved, right, okay? The zoning usually is implemented, okay, hopefully to improve the quality of a community . . right, okay and that was the purpose of this intention originally, alright? Some people have said things change, right, I think one of the specific situations that I want to try to bring up here, right okay. Nassau Point was originally partitioned and developed, right and intended for weekend cottages, alright? Small, you know, residences, right okay, this changes, right okay. We go from small, you know, residences like this to a scenario, right, where right next to these cottages, right okay, we are now building McMansions, alright. The use of the land does change. My concern is, right, that you don't go and create a blanket, you know, proposal right okay, which doesn't take this kind of thing into effect. Alright? Not only is this happening in one or two situations right, they are building these things this big cheek by jowl, actually up to essentially minimum setbacks. So we have gone from small weekend cottages to this. Now this is specifically adjacent, right, to one of these contented properties, right. This particular piece of property, right okay, is going to affect not just the two adjacent properties, right okay, it is in a situation where it is going to affect nine surrounding properties. The problem is, right, that there are other houses right alongside, along the length of these properties, right, nine properties, right okay, are potentially going to have McMansions built in their backyards. This, right okay, is also going to happen right next to what I am told by one of my patients, was the cottage where Einstein wrote the letter to Roosevelt, alright. So you are talking, right okay about a dramatic change, right okay, in a neighborhood which has existed right okay, I have lived in my present location for over 25 years, alright. I knew these people very well. They used to have a Great Dane called Othello, they used to walk the property line in the evening, right okay, I used to talk to them over the fence. I offered actually to buy, they quote, the vacant lot. They denied, well, they said two reasons we can't sell it to you. Number one, they said it was worth more as one piece than it was as two pieces. The second thing was, right okay, we can't sell it to you, okay, because the garage for our house is in the back of the house and the driveway is on the adjacent property. Now, we come 25 years later, right okay, to a situation, right okay, where somebody wants to change this. The question is, is it the spouse that wants to change this, is it the estate, the potential estate that wants to change this? Who wants to change this environment and why do they want to change it? I am sorry but I personally believe, okay, that the change that they are looking for in this environment, right, I want to make sure I have got the right one, you have got the driveway on one part, you have got the house on the other part, the only motivation, right okay, in separating these two plots is avarice. I am sorry, right okay. This isn't hardship, right okay, it is someone here looking simply, okay, to make a change here for money, alright? This family does not live in this community at the moment. Has got no interest in its preservation or future. If you create a blanket proposal here, right okay, to enable these separations, right okay, what you are really going to do, right okay, is you are not going to really, I believe, in every case solve everything. Right okay. In this particular situation, what is going to happen immediately is it is going to go right back to the ZBA, okay, because you can't separate them without more variances to get around all these other problems. My request is this, I urge you not to use a sledgehammer. Right okay, when a scalpel is indicated. I think the original legislation was valid and I think it filled the intent of the electorate, right or tried to fill the intent of the electorate. Cases, right okay, are not all the same, alright. I think you find you need a forum, such as the ZBA right okay, and direct it appropriately, right okay so that each case is evaluated and resolved on its merits, right, and not write a blank check, right okay which is potentially going to cause as many problems as it is going to solve. Thank you. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: I have a question. The piece ofland you are referring to... . . DR. PASCOE: Yes? COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: Is it presently in the ownership of one person? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I can clarify. For the interest of clarity, in that particular case, the son, the father passed away. The property merged with the surviving mother. The house with the vacant lot. The mother has since been relocated, I believe, to a nursing home down south perhaps, and the son has been pursuing an exception to that lot, the waiver of merger law. The lot still remains in the mother's name, however. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: Gotcha. So it does fall subject to this change. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah. Now, that is a good example of how the ZBA, some time ago, would have been able to go out and evaluate the use of that lot to see if the intent really was to keep it single and separate. And in this case, they built a garage, utilizing that lot for access. Where the ZBA in the old days could have said, you know, we don't see the intent here to keep this a single and separate lot. That has sort of been gone but... yeah, Rich? RICH BURDEN: My name is Rich Burden and I live in Mattituck, New York. I got a little education tonight because of some terms I never knew about with merging and situations like that. I am looking at this whole merger process, I am trying to understand what the benefit to the Town is. Because it is appearing to me that the Town is taking away people's values on their property. People that don't even know, you know, they thought they had this value and does the Town, does the merge really benefit the Town and what is that benefit, okay? Now, I am not a lawyer, I am just a regular guy going to work. Mr. Ross, you have been in my house, right? For graduation parties. Mr. Krupski, you have been to my house to look at DEC issues, etc. I have been paying taxes on separate and single lots there. My lot, next to my house is larger than the lot that my house is on. But it appears, according to the conversations that we have had here tonight that unless I go out and apply for a building permit, I have no idea whether I have got a separate or single lot and I have been paying taxes for 25 years on that separate and single lot. And that lot is in my name, the house is in my wife and my name but I am looking at that lot as a big retirement, part of my retirement. Now I could go out and try to build a house on that and you could tell me, hey, they have been merged for 25 years. I would have told you that you coulda had the lot. I wouldn't have paid any taxes for 25 years. Keep it. I don't need it. Just make sure you keep the grass mowed, okay? I mean, the situation is not good and I think that the Town, as a legislative body has an obligation to tell people what they have because you are kind of changing the laws here. When I read this page, with these six items or seven items on it, I have to tell you, I am bewildered. And I am not... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Rich. This law was done in 1994... MR. BURDEN: Okay. And I am going to go one step further, no one told me. I had no idea. Yeah, it was advertised, I saw but I always thought, separate and single, I was cleared. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I think you came into me and I pulled out your cards at the time and realized that your particular case, based on the conveyance of those parcels that you would be . . excluded from the lot merger law. And there is a reason why your attorney at the time knew enough to put the house in yours and your wife's name... MR. BURDEN: Oh, I knew that. I did that. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Well, you knew enough then, you actually are someone who is real estate savvy, like I said earlier, that was protected from this law. Because you knew enough to do that. And I think your conveyance was back in the mid 70's or somewhere along those lines. MR. BURDEN: Yeah but I have to, I'll through a little oil on the fire, if you want to address this issue. You actually gave, because I researched this when I actually bought the house and I believe the attorney that I walked into at the time was Mr. Cron and Cron, those gentlemen. You actually, so you know how the Town was operating going back even further. The gentleman who built my house, Mr. Tuthill, built that house and built the house with the overhang of the roof on the other parcel before he even owned it. And when I asked about that, they said well, he knew he was going to buy that piece. And they bought it from two different people that had Queens addresses. Today, my house sits on my property line by two feet. Okay? When I went to Mr. Cron about this, his argument said no problem, they just, this is normal business in the town, you have nothing to worry about. They take 15 feet down the middle and they make it no-man's land, okay, and so that both parties own both sides, okay, and again, I bought my house from a couple and I bought my lot from the estate of somebody and I sit here today and I am telling you, unless I go in and apply for a building permit right now, I really don't know that I truly have a single and separate lot. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: You might have a good point. MR. BURDEN: There was one more thing. There is another issue here, you know, it gets a little technical with estates and stuff but the wife and I are out driving one night, many years from now, and it is still the same situation and I die instantly and she lingers for two weeks and then she dies. Now, are they merged? COUNCILMAN ROSS: If she does a deed during those two weeks and this law passes, they won't merge. MR. BURDEN: Okay. But you understand the problem, I mean, there is a lot of loopholes in this thing, I mean, it really comes down to right now, to be on the safe side for me, that I have to take this lot out of my name and put it in one of my kids name, to really protect our family. You know, which kid do I put it in? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I appreciate everything you are saying, Rich, I really do. And that was some of the concerns that I raised but these are concerns that needed to be raised 13 years ago when the law was passed. That law has been part of the landscape for 13 years now. Tonight they are actually discussing undoing part of that law. Not, getting back to addressing the fairness, the fundamental fairness of the original law, I think we need to have that discussion but tonight this law has been part of the landscape, that law where any damage that is done to your lot absent an encroachment, was done when the law was passed 13 years ago. You can't uming that bell. . . MR. BURDEN: But... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: It is not tonight where we are going to take any action on that. MR. BURDEN: But even back then you had people that aren't real estate savvy... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I know. MR. BURDEN: That don't have that and I am trying to understand the overall benefit to the Town by doing this. For example, the recycle law keeps litter off the street, there is a benefit to it. Tell me what the benefit of merging really does. Are we saying that we are going to build 50 less houses out here, is that what we are really saying? Is that really what we are trying to do? Weare building 100 less houses or has some organization come to you and put a plan in effect and says if you kind of put these laws into place, we are going to keep 1,000 houses from being built? I don't understand... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: It was done because the Town has zoning. It has zoning that has been the lay of the land since 1989 when the map was adopted. And how do you take these lots that were created prior to that zoning or prior to the zoning of the day and apply them? Because they were created under different standards a long time ago. We don't have 50 x 150 lots anymore because that is not suitable for the Town. We couldn't support that. Environmentally in terms of, we couldn't support that kind of, this lot merger law was designed to address those lots that had been created long before that master plan was adopted in 1989. What do you do, how do you recognize them, how do you not recognize them? So they put this criteria together on what would be considered single and separate and what would not be. And when they weren't single and separate, they put this safety valve in place to provide for a reasonable discretion be applied so that you can get your lot back. And I think the reason we are here tonight discussing this issue is because that safety valve has been clogged a little bit. MR. BURDEN: But, and I understand that now but if like Mr. Ross, you had a Brooklyn Eagle lot, the, okay, if you allowed that to be sold at that time and you designated that a building lot, then you have an obligation to that person who bought that, even if it was in 1920 and kid handed that law down, how can you take that value away from that individual and not let him continue to build that lot? You allowed it to be considered a building lot at that time, what you are really looking to do is change the landscape of an entire community by upscaling, what do they call it, upzoning the community, by forcing it down some people's throats in a situation where maybe you let it go on previous and now all of a sudden it is coming back to bite you a little or it doesn't fit with your future plans and now you are saying we don't want to allow that anymore. COUNCILMAN ROSS: I don't think the community, the Town, really recognizes a lot as buildable until the building permit is issued. And I think what you said about your lot is correct. If you want to know, get a building permit. MR. BURDEN: Right. So then I got to go spend the money or do a single and separate check... COUNCILMAN ROSS: Which is what you need to get a building permit. . . MR. BURDEN: Well, okay but also, let's go back a step further. I don't want to build on my lot. I am hoping it stays like that for another 25 years. I should know, my tax map is separate, it has got a separate tax map number, it, you know... COUNCILMAN ROSS: Rich, do a single and separate search. MR. BURDEN: Okay. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: You know, I have got to tell you, Rich, you made a lot of good points tonight, they are just points that should have been raised when we were adopting a master plan in 1989, when we were passing the lot merger law in 1994. Those were the times. Tonight's law doesn't, just so you know, the proposal tonight on this doesn't restrict anything further, it actually releases some ofthat restriction. MR. BURDEN: The problem why I wasn't down here in 1994, was because I was paying taxes, I had three kids put through college and I was working 12 hours a day, okay? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I agree. MR. BURDEN: So that I could have the luxury to come here at 4:30 or 5:00 in the afternoon. I could never be able to do this 10 or 15 years ago. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I agree. There is too many people out there that are just too busy paying bills and they just hope that we are in here doing the right thing and they don't have time to pay attention to every little detail. MR. BURDEN: In 1994 I was hoping you were doing the right thing. All I knew is what I had bought and where my future was going.... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Don't forget, a little bit in 1993 and 1994 you were taking the time to call me and yell over taxes. MR. BURDEN: What was that? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Don't forget about the times in '93 and '94 when you took some time out to yell about your taxes. MR. BURDEN: True. And serve on the school board... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That's a lot. Quite a bit. Thanks, Rich. Would anybody else like to address us on this issue? Mr. Finora. JOE FINORA: Joe Finora, town of Mattituck. It seems like we are spinning a lot of wheels here. What benefit is the Town getting out of all of this? I am a dollars and cents guy. One of the gentlemen that spoke before asked how many lots are affected. And I see a few heads nodding up there like you don't know. You realize that we are probably foregoing maybe a half a million . . dollars in tax revenues that we could be collecting, if you permitted some of these people to build on these parcels? I mean, has anyone considered that? Consider the additional tax revenues that it would generate. That coupled with the fact that if you want to be morally correct, you should refund the taxes that you are collecting on property that you are deeming to be worthless. If you couple those two things together, you are probably talking about more than a half a million dollars. And everyone is crying budgets, budgets, budgets. I mean, let's look at that. The other thing is, you mention several times that people are not real estate savvy. I agree. These people in my opinion committed a major crime against themselves and the punishment that they are getting is undue. And I think the Town has to revisit the whole situation and look at each situation on an individual basis. Also, you mentioned the relief provision, the relief valve. It too was not, you know, widely publicized. Just the people that were in the know or knew somebody in the Town or heard from a builder or whatever, they did it. But the other people didn't know. Right in this same room a few years ago, there was a big discussion about the zone change that took place up near the dump. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes. Church Lane. MR. FINORA: Church Lane. And here too, they all reached the conclusion that the people were not notified, that the zone was changed from residential to commercial. These are people, some of them probably can't read. I mean, they can't read the newspaper, they don't get the newspaper. Give them some kind of a notice. This hasn't been done. This is not something new. It happens in a lot of jurisdictions. It happens on the federal level, state level, city level. Where there is differences, where people don't comply for some reason or other; either ignorance of the law or whatever or just non-compliance. But what do they do? They have an amnesty period that is very well advertised, in the newspapers, on the radio, on television. It is very widely advertised and these people have a chance to comply during this amnesty period. Why don't the Town do that? I mean, these are all law-abiding, hard working American citizens. And what you are telling them is, pay your tax and get out of here. That is what it amounts to. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you very much, Joe. Anybody else like to come before the Town Board? JOYCE ORRIGO: My name is Joyce Orrigo. I don't really have anything new to add except what everyone else has said and these are sort of notes I typed up when I left work a few hours ago. I am glad to see that there was some discussion and amendments being proposed to the merger law. I also don't believe it has gone far enough. In my case, I inherited two lots, adjacent lots. One from my father, one from my aunt. When I went to sell them two years ago, I had a contract. When they did the single and separate search, it was found that they were merged, the contract fell through. I didn't know. There was no process of amnesty, no notification. I am still receiving two separate tax bills on these properties. We have been paying, this family has been paying taxes since 1966, I believe. 40 years on two separate lots. And there has been absolutely no notification from the Town. Nobody knows. Real estates listed the two properties separately. They went to contract separately. And these are professional real estate people in your Town. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Are both lots unbuilt? . . MS. ORRlGO: Yes, they are both vacant lots in the Eastern Shores development in Greenport. This is a development of 150 half acre lots. Over 150 half acre lots from 1966, alright? This is a modest development. And now this property is merged and I can't sell it as one acre. Now, I don't know how you determine hardship but that is why my waiver was denied. And the reason you have these problems now is because the property is worth something. This is why all this stuff is happening. And I just think you have a responsibility, the Town has a responsibility. The left hand, the taxing hand needs to be able to notify your zoning hand. And you have a responsibility. The people who are paying taxes here. I have been levied, or my family has been levied for water, fire, library, school taxes on two separate lots. I am still levied on two separate lots, for over 40 years. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Are the levies more or less equal? MS. ORRlGO: To the penny. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: And like I said earlier, had we joined those two lots, your levy would still be equal to the sum total of those two. The taxing distinction is not... MS. ORRlGO: That is fine, you are allowed to... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: When this law was passed I was Chairman of the Board of Assessors, at the time there was a request that the Assessors start merging these parcels. I wouldn't do that for several reasons. First it is not for the Assessor to determine what single and separate is, it is for other jurisdiction to determine. Secondly, it is really, if a homeowner holds the two separate deeds that they are entitled to, I am allowed to take my backyard and convey out you know, one hundred square inch lots. Just the fact is, the Town doesn't have any obligation to recognize those lots and that is what the issue is here. So as an Assessor, it wasn't for me to decide your lot is no longer two lots, if it is now one I am going to put them together. And that is why the Assessors did not do the merger when this law was passed in 1994. On top of that, you wanted to define those as single and separate or at least distinguish them as separate lots so that you could have an application process to pursue through the Building Department and the Zoning Board of Appeals. MS. ORRIGO: Which I did, and was denied. I agree because obviously something has gone wrong in your safety valve there. Because everyone assured me it is just a process you have to go through, make sure you hire a local lawyer and still denied. And denied on what grounds? One more house in Eastern Shores will make a difference? I don't buy it. I really don't. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: You know, I agree with a lot of what you said but the economic hardship here, what they were trying to address was an injured party who was on the lot. In your case, you just simply didn't inherit as much as you thought you might have. That would be, probably in any court, difficult to determine as an economic hardship. In other cases, we have widows who are waiting for that equity to live off of or to pay medical bills. MS. ORRIGO: I understand that but I think as everyone has mentioned here tonight, the whole thing has to be revisited a little bit not just this one little thing. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I agree with that. . . MS. ORRIGO: Thank you. MICHAEL MONGELLO: My name is Michael Mongello and my father gave me, inherited the lot on Albo Drive and Wells Road in Mattituck and now they tell me, I cannot sell it. And for what reason, my father paid and I am paying taxes on that for 35 years. And I can't see why I can't sell it. And I have a heart condition and I need that money to take care of me. And I can't see why youse people won't give me permission to sell it. And I don't know where I am going to wind up. In the street or in the nursing home and I need that money to take care of me. I got a very bad heart. I don't know what you people are going to do but I need to sell that piece of property to support me. And my father and I paid the taxes for the past 40 years. And I just cannot sell it. I understand I cannot sell it. And I paid a separate tax bill and it is conforming and they are finding rigmaroles that I can't sell it. COUNCILMAN ROSS: Have you spoken to someone from the Town, sir? MR. MONGELLO: Have I spoken to someone? No, sir. No, sir. I could die right here and I don't know. Okay? And I want to know if I could sell it or not? Could you give me an answer? COUNCILMAN ROSS: No, but I am sure that if you brought your material in, someone from the Town would sit down... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I think, Joe, you have actually done a lot of research on this, haven't you Mr. Finora? MR. FINORA: I have done some (inaudible) SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: It is difficult to answer your particular question without looking at the deeds or the information. I would be happy to look at it for you. I am not an attorney but I have a reasonable understanding of the lot merger law. MR. MONGELLO: When can I see you? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Joe knows. Call me any day. MR. MONGELLO: Can I have your card? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Sure. I think I have talked to Joe about it 50 times. You just have to remind me. It has been a while. MR. MONGELLO: What? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: You just have to remind me of all the facts. MR. MONGELLO: Oh, okay. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: There was a lot line change on that, too, wasn't there? Conveyance? . . MR. MONGELLO: I don't know. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That was one of the sticky problems. It wasn't really an original lot, it had changed because someone had conveyed out some of that lot. MR. MONGELLO: My father owned it. He took a piece of land from one piece and then he passed. What is it today, I can't understand. It is a big enough lot. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Come and see me. Joe, Mr. Finora, I am sorry. Bring him in, we'll sit down and we will go over the whole thing, okay? MR. MONGELLO: Alright. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Just as a point of clarity, I see my mother here. My mother and my father have a very good estate plan for the kids. They are spending every dollar that they have, so that there will be nothing to fight over. Would anybody else like to come up and address the Town Board? On this particular local law? This hearing was declared closed at 6:23 PM * * * * * * PL;'JJtJ{)~ ~~. Neville Southold Town Clerk Shannon Goldman Deborah Mckeand 212 Grand Street New York, NY 10013 (917) 848-7402 .!: ,'JY - 6 ,/-/0 (J 7 RECEIVeD . APR 9 2007 Southvld Tc.vm Clerk April 2, 2007 RE: SOUTHOLD TOWN LOCAL LAW IN RELATION TO AMMENDTS TO THE MERGER LAW Dear South old Town Board: Unfortunately we were unable to attend the public hearing held March 27 regarding amendments to the merger law. Our letter to you today is a request for your further review our case and to let you know how we have been adversely affected by the merger. My wife and I have been involved in an attempt to build on a parcel of land for nearly 2 years. For a variety of reasons, the process has been halted. In an effort to acknowledge your time, we have kept the following information concise. Of course, we would happily elaborate upon your request. Property: 8605 Soundview Avenue Seller: Charnews Buyer: Shannon Goldman and Deb McKeand Brief history: Charnews listed two (2) parcels of land for sale, declaring both "single and separate". The parcels of land, 8915 Soundview and 8605 Soundview, surveyed at 1.7 acres and .65 acres, respectively. Both parcels had separate buyer interest at the same time. Over the two (2) years, we went great lengths to comply with requests made by the DEC, Health Dept. and Town of South old to alter our site plans at 8605 because we wanted to adhere to the ecology and zoning standards of the North Fork. However, what we did not know until recently was that the two (2) parcels of land deemed "single and separate" by Charnews were not indeed separate; they had merged some years ago. Because the parcel at 8915 Soundview Ave. was over an acre, the building department never checked to see if it was single and separate, and mistakenly . . granted the permit to build. Due to this innocent clerical error by the building department, 8605 is now a nonconforming lot. The property at 8915 has been sold to a new owner; therefore purchasing additional land from 8915 to add to 8605 does not appear to be a possibility. Although we could not comply with the letter of the merger law, we are definitely compliant with the spirit of the law. Because of the wetlands, bordering water and street, the spirit of the law remains intact: there could never be more than two (2) houses on this combined total of land (2.35 acres), and situated in precisely the exact spots. To clarify, if we were able to make the two properties conform we would just move the property line and the houses would be in exactly the same spots. In other words, the area density is not affected, and in essence, 8605 Soundview conforms as a non-conforming lot. In addition, we have incurred significant financial hardships. The process of permitting has required us do a number of redesigned of architectural plans, engineering surveys and test. We continue to spend money on legal fees in an effort to remedy the situation with Mr. Charnews. In summary, we are asking for some relief on a situation created by a simple clerical error. The building department granted a permit for a lot that was not single and separate and in the process turned 8605 Soundview Ave. into a nonconforming piece of land. To this day the town continues to collect two separate tax payments on two separate lots. The area density would be in keeping with town requirements. Please help us to rectify this situation. ReS~~y yours, Sh~non Goldman Deborah Mckeand ~,L ~ . 201 488 8600 'KE~ .~6 P.02 .APR-09-2007 09:51 JAE Y. KIM ESQ. ,,-/-/<). 0 :> 213 Fourteenth Street Palisades Park, NJ 07650 April 7, 2007 RECEIVI:.:D Southold Town Board P,O. Box1179 Southold, NY 11971 'pn .1 .~ ti ., C, 2007 S ". Cd T . " k OU!.,...'I C\O, n..ler Dear Southold Town Board Members: I am IM"iting this letter with regard to the merger ordinance enacted by Southold Town. My husband and I purchased a lot in 1983 with an address of 1160 Bay Haven Lane in Southold and built a house, which we enjoyed with our children during the summers and holidays (the "House Property"), My husband and I planned to move to Southold full time aflerwe retired. Subsequently, in 1990, we purchased a vacant lot adjacent to the House Lot (the "Vacant Lot'). The Vacant Lot is a comer property, and my husband and I purchased the Vacant Lot as an investment or savings account that we planned to sell when we retired and moved to Southold. Each lot was titled in my name and my husband's, and each lot is less than a half acre. Each lot also has deeded beach rights to a private, community beach. Unfortunately, my husband past away in 2005, but my plans conceming the Vacant Lot did not change. Last summer, my neighbor gave me a copy of an article in the Suffolk Times and Ileamed for the first time about the merger ordinance. I retained an attorney who conducted a tille search and advised me that the two lots merged and I could not sell the Vacant Lot without also selling the House Property. I was shocked when I heard the news. My late husband and I paid property taxes on both lots. The tax bills we received never provided any notice that the lots merged or advised that we should take some action to alleviate the harsh consequences of merger. I continue to receive separate tax bills for each property. Except for the Vacant Lot, Bay Haven Lane is completely developed.' It is unfair that I must bear the burden of reducing the housing density in the neighborhood. If an additional house were built on the Vacant Lot, the density of the area would not be significanUy impacted. In addition, the house at 1160 Bay Haven Lane was built in conformance with the zoning ordinances in effect at that time with the appropriate setbacks. I also added a porch in 2005 and provided the Township with the survey for the House Property. Because a house cannot be built on the Vacant Lot, my house is now located near one side of the merged lots. The odd location of the house in relation to the merged lots lowers the market value of the entire property. In addition, the House Property and the Vacant Lot have deeded beach rights. The practical effect of merging the lots provides the combined lots with only one beach right. The merger TOTAL P.02 . APR-Q9-2007 09:51 JAE Y. KIM ESQ. 201 488 8600 p.ol .' . . Southold Town Board April 7, 2007 Page 2. ordinance made the beach right for the Vacant Lot worthless. I will not receive compensation for this forfeited property right even if I sell the merged lots My plans to move to Southold are now uncertain. I don't want to sell my property in Southold, but I cannot afford to continue to pay property taxes on both lots. I strongly urge the Town Board to provide some relief conceming the merger ordinance. 2."-1 . Eva Marelic . . , 213 Fourteenth Street Palisades Park, NJ 07650 April 7, 2007 RECE1V;:O Southold To'M1 Board P.O. Box1179 Southold, NY 11971 ;'F'! 1 1 2007 Soutl.uld TL.,n Clerk Dear Southold Town Board Members: I am writing this letter with regard to the merger ordinance enacted by Southold TO'M1. My husband and I purchased a lot in 1983 with an address of 1160 Bay Haven Lane in Southold and built a house, which we enjoyed with our children during the summers and holidays (the "House Property"). My husband and I planned to move to Southold full time after we retired. Subsequently, in 1990, we purchased a vacant lot adjacent to the House Lot (the .Vacant Lor). The Vacant Lot is a corner property, and my husband and I purchased the Vacant Lot as an investment or savings account that we planned to sell when we retired and moved to Southold. Each lot was titled in my name and my husband's, and each lot is less than a half acre. Each lot also has deeded beach rights to a private, community beach. Unfortunately, my husband past away in 2005, but my plans concerning the Vacant Lot did not change. Last summer, my neighbor gave me a copy of an article in the Suffolk Times and I learned for the first time about the merger ordinance. I retained an attorney who conducted a title search and advised me that the t'Mllots merged and I could not sell the Vacant Lot without also selling the House Property. I was shocked when I heard the news. My late husband and I paid property taxes on both lots. The tax bills we received never provided any notice that the lots merged or advised that we should take some action to alleviate the harsh consequences of merger. I continue to receive separate tax bills for each property. Except for the Vacant Lot, Bay Haven Lane is completely developed. It is unfair that I must bear the burden of reducing the housing density in the neighborhood. If an additional house were built on the Vacant Lot, the density of the area would not be significantly impacted. In addition, the house at 1160 Bay Haven Lane was built in conformance with the zoning ordinances in effect at that time with the appropriate setbacks. I also added a porch in 2005 and provided the TO'M1ship with the survey for the House Property. Because a house cannot be built on the Vacant Lot, my house is now located near one side of the merged lots. The odd location of the house in relation to the merged lots lowers the market value of the entire property. In addition, the House Property and the Vacant Lot have deeded beach rights. The practical effect of merging the lots provides the combined lots with only one beach right. The merger . Southold TO'Ml Board April 7, 2007 Page 2. . . . ordinance made the beach right for the Vacant Lot INOrthless. I will not receive compensation for this forfeited property right even if I sell the merged lots. My plans to move to Southold are now uncertain. I don't want to sell my property in Southold, but I cannot afford to continue to pay property taxes on both lots. I strongly urge the Town Board to provide some relief concerning the merger ordinance. Very truly yours, ivl{l /~wfLC Eva Marelic . . . . R~i'led ..E-J1-tJ7 tZ/' PH: Mero er lA.w Waiver of Merger Memo to: Supervisor & Town Board From: Pat Moore Esq. Adopt Exception: merger occurring by death of co- owner must be adopted but the size of the property is irrelevant. In my neighborhood by Founders Landing cottages on 50 x 100 lots are common. In 1995 when this law was adopted Mr. Wickham was supervisor, Zoning Board member Ruth Oliva was on town board, Planning Board member Joseph Townsend sat on the Town Board and finally Louisa Evans remains on the board. You made promises to the public and this law has been re-written by the Zoning Board. Your failure to correct this is causing terrible hardship to many residents of the community you serve. 2. Place back into the Zoning Code the list of exempt subdivisions (Formerly 100-12) - these lots were grand-fathered until the Town added the waiver of merger law (1997). ( This is the simplest solution.) When the waiver of merger law was adopted it grand-fathered lots created by deed. However, the waiver of merger law hurt all those homeowners who owned adjoining lots in the Planning Board approved older subdivisions. The list of exempt subdivisions was added in 1973 after one acre zoning was adopted and the list continued to be incorporated by reference in the 1983 upzoning. In 1973 and in 1983 properties in these grand-fathered subdivisions would have merged. We took this list out in 1997 with the waiver of merger law because you said it was obsolete- the Zoning Board would provide relief to the property owner who did not protect themselves in 1995.. Not true- this list is needed to protect the few lots that remain in these subdivisions.. 3. Remove the from 100-126 (3) The waiver will avoid economic hardship The Zoning Board has argued in the Courts that this standard is to be the equivalent of a "use variance"- this has been proven impossible to show. Even when the result of the merger is that the lot can not be devloped the ZBA has denied a waiver of merger. A purchaser of a lot who had every permit in place could not close on the property. The lot is sterilized. 4. The Law was intended to apply that "nonconforming lots merge until the lot is big enough to conform to zoning". Except that in practice if you own 3 adjoining Y, acre lots you end up with a lot that is three times the size of neighboring lots. The double lot is conforming but it leaves behind the nonconforming lot. 5. You claimed at the 1995 hearing that this law was intended to give equity to all land owners. You claimed that this would provide an expedited procedu'rt since the ZBA I ) '. . . was granting variances for the undersized lots routinely. The opposite has occurred. 1//2 acre lots in approved subdivisions are automatically denied waiver of merger. You have penalized a few landowners in grandfathered subdivisions. Moore's Woods, Nassau Point, Jockey Creek- one or two lots in 100 -200 homes in these areas, all Yz acre in size, are denied relief. The ZBA re-Iegislated this code- eliminated the escape valve. You have sanctioned this by not correcting this law. Why should this be done: All your open space and density analysis for most recent Subdivision regulations worked on the premise that every tax bill represents existing population and development potential. Planning's analysis assumed that vacant lots could be developed. Grand fathering these lots does not change your density calculations. The taxes for these lots have been paid with the anticipation of development- they have paid over the years for our bonding of open space- land preservation- roads- drainage- garbage collection-schools - they have demanded no services from the community- yet we sterilize their property. The damage to these property owners exceeds the benefit to the community. Remember they have paid over the years without demanding any services. The lot owners have held on to their lots as an investment. Many lots are their retirement or children's inheritance. The sophisticated developers are not affected. Only long-time residents and people with non-local lawyers. But even the local lawyers have been caught unaware that if your client owns three II, acre lots they may have lost their rights to develop one of the lots. '. . . ,. pg 7 PH fB All lots set off sr created by approval of tho PI:mning BsarE! sn or :after May 20, 198<1. 7. Section 100-281 A (7) (Building permits) is hereby d.eleted in its entirety: (7) J\n :applic:ation for a euilaing permit fer constrblstion on a v3c:ant lot '",hich is nGt sn an al'lprol/od subdivision rnap e:hall be accGrnpan ied by 3 certified abstrast sf titls ie:sucEl by a title company which e:hall show single ana separate ownen::hip Elf the entire 1st prior to Aprilb', 1957. ~ Bulk Schedule AA is hereby added to read as follows: Bulk Schedule AA Lot Size Width Demn A. Prior to April 9. 1957 mri mri mri B. Between APril 9. 1957 and 20.000 100 150 December 1 1971 C. Between December 2 1971 40,000 135 175 and June 30. 1983 II. This Local Law shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State. * Underline represents additions. ** Strikethrough represents deletions. Copies of this Local Law are available in the Office of the Town Clerk to any interested persons during business hours. Dated: November 1~, 1995. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk." TOWN ATTORNEY DOWD: A public hearing was held on this ordinance, a very similar version of this ordinance in June. Comments were received from Abigail Wickham, and Bill Gardner, and this ordinance has been revised to address their concerns. This Local Law is intended to address current problems in determining of lots for legally created, and if they can exist today as separate lots. The current law provides that non-conforming lots merge with certain exceptions, but neither Town staff nor local attorneys have clear guidelines as to which lots merge, which leaves property owners in a limbo. The proposed ordinance provides clear guidelines for lot creation, and lot merger. I n particular, it provides that non-conforming lots merge until the lot is big enough to be conforming. There are four significant exceptions to this. No merger occurs if the non-conforming lot is one acre, or if the non-conforming lot has a lot sized variance from the Zoning Board. In the past certain subdivisions were on an exempt list, while other subdivision lots merged. This ordinance takes away that inequity. I n other words, there will no longer be a grandfather list of lots to which this law doesn't apply, but recognizing from some of the comments that were made before, that this could work a hardship on some lot owners. This ordinance has revised to create a one year period in which lots, which are adjacent to /1,,111,( II f\)\l~.er-' . . pg 8 PH non-conforming could be placed in different names, so that they won't merge. So, any of these lots that were formally on the grandfather list have until January of 1997 to put the lots in separate names, if they don't want them to merge. We felt that these changes were significant enough to require an additional public hearing, so that's why we're having this today. COUNCILWOMAN OLIVA: I have two articles of correspondence. The one is from the Director of Planning. It says, Pursuant to the requirements of Section A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the above referenced application which has been submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination as there is no apparent significant county-wide or inter-community impact. A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. Very truly yours, Stephen M. Jones, Director of Planning. I have another letter from the Planning Board to Thomas Wickham from Richard Ward, date November 21, 1995. The Planning Board joins me in urging the Town Board to adopt the proposed legislation in relation to lot creation and merger. The proposed legislation accomplishes something our current code does not. It outlines a clear-cut procedure whereby a lot is determined to be either merged or created. The proposed legislation represents a compromise approach that was worked out by several departments within Town Hall. In some instances it is more lenient than the current code in that it grandfathers or recognizes more lots. In other instances it is more demanding in that it sets forth a uniform review procedure for all affected lots. At present, there is no written procedure within the Code and due to differences in interpretation, varying procedures are followed by different departments when reviewing inquiries of this nature. We find this proposal to be an improvement over the current situation. That is the end of the correspondence. I have an affidavit that it has been posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, and an affidavit that this has been published in The Suffolk Times. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Thank you, Ruth. Would anyone in the audIence like to address the Board on the subject of this public hearing? Mr. Gardner? WILLIAM GARDNER: I'm approaching the Board as an individual, not a member of an organization. If anybody would like to go ahead of me, because there are members of organizations. They have more effect than I will. No? Let me first ask a technical question, which you broached a little on one of your resolutions. I'm interested in knowing what the time period is between the time you put it in the papers, and the time you have the hearing? There must be some official period for that. TOWN CLERK TERRY: It must be at least five days. WILLIAM GARDINER: At least five days? At least this conforms to that. Just. TOWN CLERK TERRY: Yes, it does. / \ \ \ 1;i~) . . pg 9 PH WILLIAM GARDNER: I was interested in your comments on what this did. My name is Bill Gardner, and I live on Nassau Point, Cutchogue. I'm here to make a personal statement on the second proposal on Local Law on Lot Creation and Merger. I do not represent any organization, but I must say some concerned landowners, knowing my interest in this matter, have contacted me, giving me their opinions, and asked me to keep them up to date. I try to do that. The time frame on this proposal is interesting, in that the B&B work sessions, and hearings we had took about six months to go from scenario of right B&B back to relatively no change from the previous legislation. Now, this lot creation and merger proposal is well on the way to an even longer gestation period. In the case of this latest proposal only one sentence has been changed or added from the original proposal in about six months, and frankly, I don't understand many provisions, and map references in the first proposal, but the new sense is beyond my understanding. It says, if the lot Is on the maps described in former section so and so, that that section exempted fifty-three areas from the present legislation. Then a non-conforming lot can be held in single and separate ownership from January 1, 1997 to date. Can anyone tell me what this means to someone who owns a lot of lots, which are less than one acre in the previously exempted areas? I have watched the televised Town Board meetings, and read the local papers, and I've heard, and seen comments by some Board members, that this provision is going to take care of all the problems, but nobody explains how. Th~ deletion of the exemptions on the first proposal have bothered me, and I have contacted various town departments as to what this means. About August 25th I told by an employee of the Planning Board, that on the next proposal the exemptions would be reinstated, and continued on a new legislation. Attorney Gail Wickham, who was also interested in this proposal agrees that she had the same understanding that I have. Now the exemptions be still deleted in the new proposal, and can anyone tell me why this flip-flopping continues, and what it all means to property owners? With fifty-three areas involved, and maybe, as a guess, ten and a half owners in each area with the problem, the proposed change is going to be of deep concern to about six hundred owners, if they hear about it, and understand. As you can see I have many questions, and a lack of understanding of what this legislation is about. I'm glad to hear Mr. Townsend said he got together with various town groups to get on the zoning. It's a good move. I had written to Mr. Wickham on June 29, 1995, and asked him to have a combined Planning Board, Zoning Board, and Assessors Office town forum, where all concerned could talk out of one bible, and hold seminars on the impact of this legislation. He answered my letter on July 20, 1995, four months ago, by saying it was a good idea, and he supports it. I have this letter from you, if anyone wants to review it. I have heard nothing of him since then. In my mind it all comes down to a few basics of honesty and economics. If an individual has purchased two, three or more adjourning lots in Southold, in good faith, gotten a valid deed, title insurance, and paid taxes on each lot for five, ten, twenty, thirty or more years, he should have the right to build on this land, and to sell off unneeded lots as he could individual stocks or bonds, which he also has in his retirement investment portfolio. How can this right be legally taken away? But, this proposal provides that is the lot is not recognized by the town, it shall not received any building permits, or other development entitlements. In other words, a long term owner could suffer the loss of the current value of the lot, plus all the taxes assessed and paid to \ \ \1;~ \q.( . . pg 10 PH the town, in an amount that could total $150,000. Why should he have to pay lawyers' fees to try to establish or compromise on an investment he made for his future? It would appear that the Board thinks all problems have been solved. Maybe so, but I want some evidence that it is not being solved by tricky solutions, that can be overturned in a court of law. For example, I know that some feel that the problem can be solved by having adjourning oversized lots in the name of the husband, and the other lot in the wife's name. This is a gimmick which penalizes, and discriminates against joint ownership, living trust ownership, single man or woman, which some of them just thinks it's not legal. This law opens the door for many law suits against the town, because it discriminates against basic and historic law practices of recording ownership. It is evident to me that the Town Board has a long way to go in clearly understanding, and explaining to the citizens of Southold what all these words really mean. I hope that this Board as presently constituted will not take any precipitative action until all the citizens are given clear and detailed explanations along with numerous examples of possible actions. Don't dump this flawed legislation on the new administration. Thank you. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Thank you, Mr. Gardner. Let me just comment that I have to say, I'm pleased with your reference to speaking from one bible, as you put it. It's a pretty thick bible, our Town Code, and we have made an effort to get the Planning Board, the Zoning Board, Town Board, and all of the different agencies in the Town government concerned about land use, to speak in the same tongue, and from the same point of view. That's exactly what this is all about. You did ask an important question, and that basically is, what is the meaning of the change, that we have inserted here since the last time? I would like to turn to our Town Attorney. If she can just summarize briefly exactly what this change does to the legislation. WILLIAM GARDNER: Can I make some comments after the explanation? SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Sure. TOWN ATTORNEY DOWD: Admittedly this may not make the most sense the way it's written in 1995, but this law should be in effect in 1999, so referring from 1997 to date will make sense. What this law Is supposed to do is that for those lots that are on the grandfather list, which is Section 100-12 of the Code, those lots will be exceptions, will continue to be exceptions to the merger law, if they're held in single and separate ownership after January of '97. That gives you all of this upcoming year to put them in single and separate ownership, if it's the desire of the owners not to have the lots merged. So, that is what this section is intended to do. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Laury, there was a question, I think, that whether or not this step, that we're taking will stand a legal test, or would It be getting the Town into a problem of people who want to contest it? Do you want to comment on the legal strength of the document that we have before us? TOWN ATTORNEY DOWD: Yes. Merger laws (tape change.) SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Mr. Gardner, would you like to respond? ~S \\\v\I' . . pg 11 PH WILLIAM GARDNER: Yes. The thing that bothers me is, what you say transfer it to somebody else, that usually means a husband transferring it to a wife, so it's in two names. To me, that's a gimmick compared to somebody that can't do that, not just an unmarried person, a person that owns a living trust, his wife and he together, and the question of just a single person. That penalizes them. What do you do about that? SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Is it limited to spouses? TOWN ATTORNEY DOWD: It's not limited to spouses. The whole idea behind the merger law to buy into this philosophy, is that what we're talking about here is not every lot. It's only non-conforming lots. That means lots that are too small for the zone that they're in. The goal of the merger ordinance is to try to encourage lots to be the appropriate zone size, and so the idea is that it's not big enough for the zone, to try to encourage it by merging them if possible. So, that's the concept. That's the goal behind it. WILLIAM GARDNER: What if you have nobody to give them to, if you don't want to give up the lot? It's an investment In your retirement portfolio, and if you can't bind them, the Town's going to say you can't build, you can't do anything on that lot. Now, to me, that's just taking it over without paying. I think we're going to have a problem here. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: I'm hardly an expert on this thing, and I hope I don't make a fool of myself, but to the best of my recollection many of these subdivisions that got these grandfather exceptions at the various changes of zone going back to 1970, when we had, you know, a County mandated upzoning to one acre, several subdivisions were exempted from. that, and they were listed in those pages, that were referred to earlier. WILLIAM GARDNER: Nassau Point, for example. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: Nassau Point was one. There's a bunch of them. Other people were not so lucky. Anybody else that wasn't in one of these filed subdivisions were not exempted. I know the property that lawn, for instance, the owner immediately prior to me was surprised that when the property was sold to me, that the lots had been merged. So, many, many people have had their property merged, because of that. The purpose of a upzoning Is to increase the area that people build on. What we're trying to do is to make it so it's not an exercise In legal wizardry to figure out who has a merged lot, and who does not have a merge lot, and to sort of make the whole playing field level. On these filed subdivisions that got the exemption, now those people will have to develop, and take the other tack. It will create some problems, but it's always created problems whenever this has happened. This has always happened. It's happened over and over again. WILLIAM GARDNER: I have two lots, and I can't sell them, are you going to take the value of that lot away from me? COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: It's happened to many, many people. I doubt if a solution can not be found. I feel that a solution can be found. WILLIAM GARDNER: That's what I say, you people make this law, but you don't say how to do it. \ l \ ~Iqs' . . pg 12 PH SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Let me just comment. If there is confusion, or a lack of clarity in this law, and they wish on the part of the landowner to protect his investment in various ways, I would advise the owner of the property to come in, and visit with the Supervisor, in the Supervisor's Office, which is adjacent to the Town Attorney's Office, and I think the Town officials will make every effort to help owners of property to protect .their investment. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: On Section 126 of the proposed law, waiver of merger is hereby adopted to read as follows, and then the Zoning Board of Appeals may waive the merger, and recognize original lot lines upon a public hearing, upon finding that the waiver will avoid economic hardship. So, those instances you're talking about you do have a method of avoiding this. WILLIAM GARDNER: That's going to cost that owner money. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: Every time somebody now wants to have their lot un-merged, he has to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. It will cost many more people much less money once we have this in the works. The reason we did this was to avoid everybody who got surprised by a lot merger, going to the Board of Appeals, and then getting a variance. You many have as many as 500 lots that may be affected by this, but there is going to be more that are affected in the reverse way, that this will correct. WI LLlAM GARDNER: You had exemptions in this bill before, right? SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Yes. WILLIAM GARDNER: Did they have any affect in the past at all1 Did they apply? I have two lots, and there's less than an acre on each, this exempts me from any problems. Now, you're taking that exemption away. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: get an exemption. But, we're putting in place another mechanism to WILLIAM GARDNER: Like what, selling to your wife, or your son? COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: Or a variance. WILLIAM GARDNER: That's a gimmick. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: It's perfectly appropriate. WILLIAM GARDNER: I know, but it's a gimmick. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Joe, did you want to comment on this? COUNCILMAN L1ZEWSKI: I just wanted to say there's another side of this law that has me even more concerned, and that's the creation of lots by deed, and it's way that most of the time people left their children land by deed, and the date is 19. .on this, 1983, but deeding was never really a way to create lots, and I don't know how many lots are really going to be created by this on the other side. This is a lot creation and merger law. It has some flaws on both sides of this, as far as I'm concerned, but they'll decree lots II \1J \,{ . . pg 13 PH by a deed before 1983. I don't know how many there are. I don't know how many numbers there are. This law has more than one side to it, and I'm concerned about how many lots will created, where they are, and was deeding lot size? I know farmers split big pieces of property in half by deed, fifty acres to one son, fifty acres to another. That's something that was done to sort of get away with problems with wills, and people knew what they had, but actually have lots created by deed, I don't think it was ever meant to have that done. So, there's other problems that I see with it besides the merger end of it. WILLIAM GARDNER: I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that this legislation will create that problem? COUNCILMAN L1ZEWSKI: Yes, there are lots out there that were created by deed, and they will now become legal. They won't have to go through any planing process, or through any process at all. They will just be blessed as done. WILLIAM GARDINER: As long as they are more than an acre or more. COUNCILMAN L1ZEWSKI: They have to meet some qualifications, but those things, most people when they have lots done, like the lot that you're talking about, were created through a planning process. They were created through a subdivision process, and they demanded roads, and they had a lot of demands to them, and they were expensive to do. They are all lots out there that will be created now by deed just because they were left to somebody. I don't think it's good, because I know where they are, and I think you're giving something to somebody that probably never went through any procedure before to get them, so you're legalizing a lot of things that shouldn't be made legal. WILLIAM GARDNER: As I say, people have called me up because they noticed my interest in this. I had a telephone conversation with one last night, a single man well up in his sixties, I guess, and he's not married, and has no children. I don't know what he's going to do on this thing. He's concerned about it. He's mentioned suing. I don't know if he will, but he mentioned it. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Why don't you invite him to meet with the appropriate people in the Town here to deal with it. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: Zoning Board of Appeals. It certainly cost a lot less to file for a variance, than it does to sue. Let me make a comment to.. WILLIAM GARDNER: You don't know if you're going to get the variance. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: Well, the whole point of this thing is that all these we were giving variances like hot cakes on this Issue. In other words, if somebody complied, if it was in the character of the neighborhood, if the lot was the same size as all the neighbors, they were granted the lot. So, we were having these lengthy proceedings and hearings on case after case after case. That's why the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board requested that we do something like this, so we can eliminate a lot of the red tape. We are trying to eliminate governmental red tape, and make it II \V \q( . . pg 1~ PH easier for the people, the majority of the people, which have to go through it. Joe brought up one problem. Some of these lots are created by deed. The vast majority of those lots that were created by deed were created in the early seventies and before, when the Planning Board had no subdivision requirements. But, many of those lots are perfectly legal in the sense that they are the right size, and they would qualify for any subdivision. What we're doing is specifying guidelines, so they don't have to go through the variance process, if they have a lot that would normally qualify. What we're trying to do is to reduce the. red tape, not put people through hoops. However there are a few people, that you have mentioned, that were informed were on a exempt list, that the Board of Appeals had to search through ever time something came in that may be adversely affected to the degree that they have to get a variance. The overall result of this is the reduction of red tape, not an increase of red tape. WILLIAM GARDNER: Reduction of red tape for you, but not for the owner. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: I would like to respond to Joe's comment, also. The purpose of the changes here are to help owners of property escape from what could be a Catch 22 situation. The provisions of the lot creation aspects of this law are to provide clear guidelines, so that when lots had been created by deed, and it was a fairly common practice in this town for lots to be created by deed, so once that is done those people who own the property will now have a clear say as to what they can or can't do with it. It doesn't mean that every lot that is created by deed automatically becomes a buildable lot. There are criteria, and in some cases they will, some case they won't according the criteria. So, I don't think, Joe, that this opens up a tremendous number of inappropriate lots for development. WILLIAM GARDNER: Will this affect four or five hundred lots on Nassau Point created by deed back in the 1920s? SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: doubt. . maybe some of them, but I doubt it if most of them would. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: It doesn't matter because they have to conform. WILLIAM GARDNER: I know. That's what I'm saying, and you people are Just saying, there's not going to be many, it's not going to be this, it's not going to be that. Don't you know how many? Aren't you going to notify the people? SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: We are not going to notify every conceivable person, who owns every conceivable lot of which there are probably thousands. In fact, I don't think either they or we know every permutation, and combination of land holding in this town, who fall within this law. Are there other people in this audience, who would like to address the Board on this Lot Creation and Merger Ordinance? THOMAS SAMUELS: Thank you. I think Mr. Gardner has raised some issues, which really bears some examination. I've long been troubled. I've known about this for some time. I think you have to identify the areas that are going to be affected. It wasn't fifteen minutes ago that you passed a resolution requiring the notification of adjacent property owners, people / \ t \~\q) . . pg 15 PH across the road, and everything else. I remember a piece of property I owned in Southampton, that was rezoned I was never even notified about. Apparently to some extent that's happening here. Give it some time. Identify it. The Planning Department should be, and the Assessors Office should be able to identify the properties that are affected. I think it's the fair way to go. I mean, Mr. Gardner has been concerned. Others have been concerned. Others have been concerned. People have mentioned it to me. I'm not opposed to it. I'm not in favor of it. I just don't know where the properties are that are affected. Thank you. COUNCilMAN TOWNSEND: The properties that are affected, that might possibly be affected adversely, are those properties on the exempt list. Those if there's not some sort of arrangement that can't be made, and to the degree that they will be adversely affected would be the fact that they might have to apply for a variance, if they don't conform to some economic hardship. those are the properties that will be affected. All the other areas will only be positively affected, in that they would get something now that they would get by right, that they previously had to get by variance, and that's the entire rest of the town. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: I'd like to respond, also, to the question of where these place are. These lots extend from laurel to Orient throughout the entire town. There is no one little segment of the town where they are important. Secondly, the question of holding on to this for a longer period of time. This is the second public hearing we've had on essentially the same thing. As Mr. Gardner commented we've been dealing with this for some number of months now. This Board, if anything, has the dubious recognition of moving very ponderously, and slowly, on many of these issue. THOMAS SAMUELS: I think probably, and certainly I'd agree with that, but again, identification of zoning issues, and essentially this is a zoning Issue. That's the way I look at it, and the Town Attorney is absolutely correct when she says if you believe philosophically in what this is doing. The question I have is, does the Board agree philosophically on this question of property rights, which Mr. Gardner raised? And if it does, then it will certainly pass this ordinance, but I believe it's flawed in that the questions that Mr. Gardner asked at the last public hearing haven't apparently been answered. I haven't followed it as closely as he has quite frankly. I don't have any properties that are involved. A great many people don't. Unfortunately, a lot of people are going to find out that their property is affected. I know there's a variance procedure. I don't think it's a terrible burden for the l.B.A. to look through the list of exempt properties. I really don't. I don't think it's a terrible burden for the l.B.A. to make decisions. I really don't. I think they're probably one of the adept boards that we have in that they make decisions. I think you should map, or at least get some identification of what properties are affected, and let those people know. Thank you. COUNCilMAN TOWNSEND: The Z.B.A. was one of the this. It was at their recommendations that we did this, and principal part of that. We felt that we did address, and point, we felt that we did address Mr. Gardner's satisfaction. main crafters of they have been a as to your first concern to our / II \~\q) . . pg 16 PH SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Let me just canvas the Board. There's no reason why we couldn't ask the Assessors, or the Zoning Board, or other people to investigate what it would take to contact the people, that we think fall under this. We ask. I have no problem. If there's support for that on the Board we could ask the appropriate offices of the town to assessed, or their views of various parcels that they think fall under this law. COUNCILWOMAN OLIVA: I think they find it very difficult. I think that question was brought up, Tom, and except for the exempt list they really don't know some of these parcels that are out there. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: different. . But, the exempt list is of some fifty-three COUNCILWOMAN OLIVA: Right, and I think of our idea was to send out as many letters as we could to realtors, to property owners associations, anything like that to inform these people that they would have a year in which to change it. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Why don't we as a Board, if we do pass this, take out an advertisement, or have some other way.. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: Why don't we discuss it after the hearing? SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: After this hearing, why don't we discuss other ways of communicating to the public the concerns that Mr. Gardner has expressed. Are there any other comments from the audience? WILLIAM GARDNER: I have one last thing. You provided one method of getting around this thing, and that's what it is, getting around it. Now, you had come up with other solutions, that would be satisfactory. Putting my son's name, or my wife's name, or my daughter's name, that's a gimmick. There ought to be some way of doing it. Maybe I could use two names, William Gardner, William S. Gardner. Would that be satisfactory? SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: There may be other solutions available within this law, that we can talk about. Are there other comments from the audience of people who would like to address the Board on this proposed Local Law? (No response.) If not, I declare the hearing closed. * * * O~'.#'H-/~ ~t;t-f. Terry rJ' Southold Town Clerk { II \~~\q pg 7 P.H. . . 7. Section 100-281 A (7) (Building permits) is hereby deleted in its entirety: (7) J'.n applic3lion for :3 building permit for conc~ruction on a vaC:3nt lot which i5: not on an approved 5:ubdivjc!on FF1ap 5:hall be aCC9FF1pan iod by a cortifioa al3str:act of titls i5:5:uod by a title eempany whisfl chall 5:how single ami separate ownership of the entire lot prioF-te J\pril 9, 1957. 8. Bulk Schedule AA is hereby added to read as follows: Bulk Schedule AA Lot Size Width Depth A. Prior to April 9. 1957 2l!Y 1l.!rl any B. Between Aoril 9. 1957 and 20.000 100 150 December 1. 1971 C. Between December 2. 1971 40.000 135 ill and June 30. 1983 II. This Local Law shall take effect upon it's filing with the Secretary of State. ;. Underline represents additions. ** Strikethrough represents deleliions. Copies of this Local Law are available in the Office of the Town Clerk to any interested persons during busin'i'ss hours. Dated: June 13, 1995. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk." I do have certificates that the law was posted on the Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, and an affidavit of publication in The Suffolk Times. We have just two correspondence. Pursuant tot he . requirements of Section A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the above referenced application which has been submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination as there is no apparent significant county-wide or inter-community impact(s). A decision of local determination should not be construed a'i either an approval, or disapproval. Very truly yours, Stephen M. Jones, Director of Planning. From our own Planning Board we have, Dear Mrs. Terry. The Planning Board has reviewed the proposed legislation pertaining t,o Lot Creation and Merger and finds that it is in support of the legislation as it is written. However, the Planning Board also suggests the following changes that it feels should be made to the proposal before it is adopted. 2. Section 100-25 (Merger) B. In regard to common ownership, the definition could be changed to eliminate the wording in reference to the same percentage of ownership. The Board feels that, from a technical standpoint, it will be an additional, difficult review step to determine the percentage of ownership. Ohe of the primary intents of this draft legislation was to streamline the review to the extent possible without compromising purpose of review. Requiring this level of detail will represent a significant cost of time and' money by the applicants and the Town. Additional changes that should be made to the Town Code if the proposed legislation is adopted. 100-281 (7) Building Permits. This section conflicts I' ltl'?o I') . . pg 8 P,H. with the proposed legislation and should be eliminated. Sincerely, RichiOrd C. Ward, Chair'man. No further communications. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: This is one of the more complicated Local Laws, that the Board has attempted. It was initiated by our Town Attorney in association with several of the different offices of town government. We have the Building Department, the Planning Board, the Zoning Board, the Town Board, all getting together to try to treat the issue of merger and creation of lots, par'ticularly small lots, in a common way, so that we can deal in one manner to the public. I wonder if I could ask the Town Attorney to cut through a lot of the legal language, that's in this Code, but just present briefly what we're trying to do, and why, and the summary of it. TOWN ATTORNEY DOWD: The ,purpose of this legislation is to fill a sort of a black hole in it's existing Town Law, as regards to two aspects of lots. One is, was your lot every validly created, or was it created sort of by an informal process, that means that it will not be recognized? We haven't had clear rules on that, and so for a long time, for example, people were just deeding off lots, and not going through any formal subdivision process. This is going to create some uniform rules, that will treat all these kind of situations fairly, and hopefully, equitable. What we've decided is, that if your lot was created for example by deed before 1983, we will recognize it. It was a common practice befor~ 1983, to do that without going through the formal procedures. After 1983 we feel that everybody was sophis'ticated enough to know that you had to go through the subdivision process. Therefore we are not going to, create recognized lots that were created by deed after 1983. Then, of course, any lot that has been approved by the Town Board, Planning Board, Zoning Board, as a legally created lot we're going to recognize. So, that's one aspect, was your lot ever validly created? The question, that this is intended to address is, if your lot was validly created, but because of zoning it's become a non-conforming lot, which mean!. it's not as big as the zone requires a lot to be. Then this talks about what happens if you happen to own two of these nonconforming lots next to each other. The idea behind this is that non-conforming lots, lots that are smaller than the zoning allows are not really desirable. That we'd like to have everybody up to the zoning. That's why the Town Board felt it was appropriate to put in that *oning. So, the tendency is that if you have non-conforming lots they merge until they become big enough to conform to the zone. .lowever, we recognize that this would create a hardship, so we put in some safeguards, or safety valves, to protect people. One is that, any lot that's bigger than forty thousand square feet, we're saying it's not going to merge. It's big enough, we can live with it. If the non-conforming lot got some kind of lot size variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, we're going to recognize it's not going to merge. Finally, and this ii, kind of obvious, but it's always worth saying even the obvious, if one lot is held in a different name from a second lot, and they're both non-conforming, they don't merge unless they're held in the same ownership. You can't merge it with somebody, you know, who holds a lot in a different name. So, this law is intended to address these kinds of issues in a uniform way, that has not really been the way that it has: been working in the past, and so we think that this way everybody can have some clarity as to what the status of their lot is. Thh, has a couple of <;>ther minor points. I'll just touch on them briefly. As another safety valve'the Zoning Board is able to waive mergers, if the waivlar would result in a significant increase in the density of the ~(~o\~( . . pg 9 P.H. neighborhDDd, and is consistent with the size of Dther lots in the neighbDrhDod. So, there's a safety valve there, if you had never meant these lots Df merge, and it's going to create a terrible hardship, you can go to the ZDning Board, and they can decide, oh yes, I guess it doesn't really merge after all. One Dther safeguard we try to build in was that in terms a IDt creatiDn. As I said, if this lot was created by deed before 1983, we're going to rec:Dgnize (tape change) SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: This is a hearing. We're here to listen to what people in the audience wish to inform the Board about. May I ask each speaker to keep his or his comments within ten minutes. Would anyone else to address the Board? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Good evening. My name is Abigail Wickham. I'd like to, first of all" just recognize the tremendous effort that obviously went into the drafting of this legislation. It's certainly an area of the Code that's crying out :for some reform. I have a few substantive and technical comments, which, I hope will be instructive. I'd like start with the substantive comments. On Section 100-2~A,Lot Creation, I'm troubled by the words, If the lots have not merged, and I'm not sure that this should really be a criteria at this point, particularly as to those lots which now fall within Section 100'-12, which is being; deleted, or which were approved at some point by the Planning Board, al! set forth in Subsection two, three and four of this sec~ion. The non-merger provlsiDn automatically apply only to lots over ~O,OOO square feet, and I!m not suggesting that you approve postage stamp or very small lots, but ,I dD think the law is a little erroneous In that rel!pect, as drafted. Anyone with concerns about size of lots with respect to water quality and sewerage should be advil!ed that actually the Health Department sometimes ha;s more control over these types of density issues, than the Town does in 'many, many respects. That's something that they should keep a very careful eye on. My second point in that same section 100-24B is the language all lots which are not recognized as abDve shall nDt receive any building permits, or other development entitlements. That almost sounds like YDU are nDt permitting a variance application. I know you do have varian,ee application further back, but the Board of Appeals or someDne could read that very narrowly, and I think that language maybe needs to be clarified. My third comment has to do with the elimination of 100-12. I'm relating back to my prior commeint before, but my main point here, and this is one of the majDr pDints I'd lIke tD make, is I think that this will take a lot of people by surprise. This'law has just been advertised. I don't know how many people know about it,! and we need some form of grace period. I don't knDw how many people ar~ here from Nassau Point, but this is really going tD have a majDr impact or:. a IDt Df areas that are currently eXEmpted under 100-12. I'd ask the BoaI'd to consider, while the law does go into effect immE.diately, allowing a three month, Dr some period of grace period, for people to be able to react t9 this law. My next point, and again this is the second important point I want to make, is the bulk schedule AA. I feel very strongly that this is an ~rbltrary schedule which cuts off many lots, which conformed when they we,"/, created, but not others. It draws a line, and I'm not sure that it's a fair line. It's discriminatory, I think, to many lots which were created by deed~ or Dtherwise, in accordance with standards that were permitted at the time. Again, it's not clear that there's a provision for a variance there. I think that needs to be addressed. Those are my substantive comments, at]ld I'd just like to make a couple of technical lP \1f \~; : . . pg 10 P.H. notes, if I may. On Section 100-25, the merger section. The last sentence non-conforming lots shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements. I think that's an excellent idea, because now the whole thing would merge, but I'm not sure what it means, whether you have three lots you can pick two that merge, and one that doesn't. I'm not sure really how that would work in practice. 125-B with deference to the Planning Board comments I thought that that language about the same percentage of ownership was one of the more brilliant parts of this legislation. I really think it's a good idea. I think this is an excellent provision. I think the word held by the same person should be persons, but I would strongly urge the Board in that direction, to keep that language in there. On Section D and E of that section, in section D, proof of merger, you state the Town may require proof of certain things, and then E says no building permit will be issued' until this section has been complied with. There could I::>e some. .certainly in the Building Department about whether they mayor have to deny a building permit under certain circumstances, and on Section C a copy of an qriginal survey of that lot. I don't know what that means, original survey, wlilether you mean a original plan, or do you mean any survey that was made' of that lot. So, again, my main comment is, first of all, that the grace period should be provided in order to comply with lots, that otherwise would, be not exempted under this language, and number two, that the bulk sched\Jle AA be examined. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Thank! you. Would anyone else like to address the Board on this rather complicated 'piece of legislation? BILL GARDINER: My name is Bill Gardiner, and I live in Cutchogue on Nassau Point. Since 1967 when 'I bought my lot, built my present home, I have appeared many times befor~ your Board, the Board of Appeals, and the Board of Trustees, on matter~ which have affected me personally, and others, which did not effect rjte, but which had an important effect on residents of Southold, and Nasisau Point. Recently, I presented to your Board my objections to reducing the requirements for establishing B&B's. I was very pJeased when you recionsidered your proposal, and basically kept the old restrictions, and based on all the bad publicity on these establishments in residential %ohes, you even tightened the requirements. Tonight I'm here to make some comments on your proposed Local Law in Relation to Lot Creation and Me~ger. Now, I think everybody here tonight, and there's not too many here, ! has seen and felt that this thing is a very complicated matter, and I doubt that many people in this town understand it. Without a great education andl knowledge on the present, and what is proposed in this complicated le~islation, I believe the average resident in Southold will have no understa~ding of how this legislation could seriously harm their financial planning anti status. I thank Ms. Wickham on points of excellence. She mentioned Nassa~ Point, and many points that I agree on. This is complicated procedure, iand if you throw it at people they're not going to understand it. They're 'not going to get a chance to comment on it. I n general ilt proposes that adjoi~ing lots held by one owner, and in the case of Nassau Point, encompassing I~ss than one acre will be merged, will not be eligible for a building permit y.,ithout permission of the Zoning Board of Appeals. In speaking to Miss Spiro, who prepared this proposed legislation, she told me that while the pr,sent law in general had carried the same restrictions, that In general, the law has not been clear, and this proposal is to tighten and enforce it; which would result in my opirlion, to ~\~o\q{ .. . . '. pg 11 P.H. the detriment of many. Under the old law, I believe Nassau Point was excused from these requirements. Nassau Point was subdivided before 1920, and the lot map was filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office, and all the individual lots are shown on the County Tax Maps. Owners, and prospective owners have relied on these maps. I have registered my objections to Miss. Spiro, and the probable results of this proposed legislation, and how It could affect present, and future property owners. Her comment was, let the buyer beware. I dare say, that very few residents are aware of this proposal, and have not be warned of the impact. For anyone to beware they have to bE! aware of the problem. I feel strongly that this Board has responsibility to publicize the details of this proposal, so that all present and future owners are made aware of it's affect on them, and given a chance to raise their objections. This proposed legislation should not be another B&B proposal which eliminated any Board review. It should receive the complete light of any of the day, give everyone chance to comment on all unfavorable aspects. I ask the Board to actively make more information available on this complicated Proposal, and not to rush into factions until the effected population has a chance to respond. Thank you. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Board on the matter of this public hearing? (No response.) If not, I declare this hearing closed. * * * L./d~~ ~'f. Terry V' Southold Town Clerk ~\?O\q( . Town of South old - Letter .~: l" Board Meeting of March 27, 2007 RESOLUTION 2007-336 ADOPTED Item # 40 DOC ID: 2753 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2007-336 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON MARCH 27, 2007: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of South old hereby finds that the proposed "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Mere:er Law" is classified as an Unlisted Action pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, 6 NYCRR Section 617, and that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby establishes itself as a lead agency for the uncoordinated review of this action and issues a Negative Declaration for the action in accordance with the recommendation of Mark Terry dated March 27, 2007 and authorizes Supervisor Scott A. Russell to sign the short form EAF in accordance therewith. ~Q-;tL. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Daniel C. Ross, Councilman SECONDER: Louisa P. Evans, Justice AYES: Evans, Wickham, Ross, Edwards, Russell, Krupski Jr. Generated March 30, 2007 Page 63 . PATRICIA A. FINNEGAN . TOWN ATTORNEY patricia.finnegan@town.southold.ny.us LORI HULSE MONTEFUSCO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.montefuBco@town.southold.ny.us . SCOTT A. RUSSELL Supervisor KIERAN M. CORCORAN ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY kieran.corcoran@town.southold.ny.us Town Hall Annex, 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1939 Facsimile (630 765-6639 OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM RECEIVED To: Ms. Lydia Tortora APR - L 2007 From: Lynne Krauza Secretary to the Town Attorney Southold Town Clerk Date: March 28, 2007 Subject: LUAmendments to Merger Law LU Calculation of Lot Coverage of Buildable Land Attached please find the SEQRA Short EAF forms in connection with the referenced matters. Kindly have Scott sign both forms where indicated and return them to me. I will make certain that Betty receives the originals. Thank you for your attention. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Ilk Enclosures . _____ cc: Ms. Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk (w/encls.x..,...--- 617.20 Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only . . PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) 1. APPLICANT/SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME Town of Southold Town Board Local Law Amendments to 9 280-4. Definitions Lot Coverage 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Municipality Town of Southold County Suffolk 4. PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map) Southold Town Hall P.O. Box 1179, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York I 1971 5. PROPOSED ACTION IS: o New o Expansion [{] Modification/alteration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: . Amend Town of Southold Town Code Chapter 9 280-4. Definitions. LOT COVERAGE: Add definition of BUILDABLE LANDS 7. AMOUNTJlI LAND AFFECTED: Ultimately NA acres Initially acres 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? [{] Yes o No If No. describe briefly 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? o Residential o Industrial o Commercial o Agriculture o ParklForesUOpen Space o Other Describe: 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? DYes [{]NO If Yes, list agency(s) name and permiUapprovals: 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? DYes [{]NO If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit/approvals: 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTiON WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? DYes DNa I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor name: Mark Terry Date: 3/27/07 Signature: ~ L -----:? / ~ /' ......-1 If the;=n is in the'Coastal AraA'"' ami you are a state a~ency, complete the C stal Assessment Form before proceeding with t is assessment / OVER PART II - IMPACT ASSESSMENT To om leted b Lead A enc A D~ES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.4? If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF. DYes [Z] No B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. DYes [Z] No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible) C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic pattern, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: No C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly: No C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: No C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly: No C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: No C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-C5? Explain briefly: NO C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly: NO D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA (CEA)? DYes 0 No If Yes, explain briefly: E. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? DYes 0 No If Yes, explain briefly: PART 111- DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (al setting (I.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (I) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. If question D of Part II was checked yes, the determination of significance must evaluate the potential impact of the proposed action on the environmental characteristics oflhe CEA. o [{] Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FUL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WIL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide, on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination Town of Soul hold Town Board 3/27/07 Name of Lead Agency Scott Russell, Supervisor Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Date Supervisor Signature of ResponSible Officer in Lead Agency 617.20 Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only . . PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION ITo be com Dieted bv A lplicant or Proiect Sponsor) 1. APPLICANT/SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME Town of South old Town Board "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merger Law" . 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Municipality Town of Southold Caunty Suffolk 4. PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map) Southold Town Hall P.O. Box 1179, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 5. PROPOSED ACTION IS: D New D Expansion [{] Modification/alteration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: Amend Chapter 280 of the Town Code of the Town of South old ~ 280-10. Merger 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: NA Initially 1\11\ acres Ultimately acres 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? I2J Yes DNa If No, describe briefly 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? D Residential o Industrial o Commercial D Agriculture D Park/ForesUQpen Space I2J Other Describe: 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? DYes [Z] Na If Yes, list agency(s) name and permiUapprovals: 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? DYes [(]NO If Yes, list agency(s) name and permiUapprovals; 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? DYes DNa I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE ApplicanVspansar name: Mark Terry, Principal e.lau.ner Date: 3/27/07 Signature: r- )~ J ~ , / .v If the aCil~s in the ;~stal Are:~ you are a state a~ency, complete the Coa al Assessm nt Form be ore proceeding with t is assessment OVER 1 PART II - IMPACT ASSESSMENT To ,A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRES If yes, coordinate he review process and use the FULL EAF. DYes [{] No B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. DYes [{] No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible) C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic pattern, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: No C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly: No C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: No C4, A community's existing plans or goals 85 officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly: No C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: No C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-C5? Explain briefly: No C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly: No D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA (CEA)? DYes [Z] No If Yes, explain briefly: E. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? DYes 0 No If Yes, explain briefly: PART 111- DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection wilh its (a) selting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (Q magnitude. If necessary, add altachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. If question D of Part II was checked yes, the determination of significance must evaluate the potential impact of the proposed action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA. o o Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FUL EAF andlor prepare a positive declaration. Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WIL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide, on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination Town of Southold Town Board 3/27/07 Name of Lead Agency Date Scott Russell Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Supervisor Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency iUe of Responsible Officer e officer) . . MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND OFFICE WCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTH OLD MEMORANDUM To: Scott Russell, Supervisor Members of the Town Board From: Jerilyn B. Woodbouse, Chairperson Members of the Planning Board Date: March 27, 2007 Re: "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merger Law" The Planning Board has reviewed the above-referenced local law and supports the proposed amendment to the lot merger law, Please advise if you have any question or need additional information. S:\Planning\2006\memos\town board 12.05.06.doc . . OFFICE WCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY MAIliNG ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM COORDINATOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD To: Scott Russell, Supervisor Town of South old Town Board \:~ Principal Planner L WRP Coordinator From: Mark Terry, Date: March 27,2007 Re: A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merl!er Law The proposed above local law has been reviewed to Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town of South old Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (L WRP) Policy Standards. Based upon the information provided on the L WRP Consistency Assessment Form submitted to this department as well as the records available to me, it is my determination that the proposed action is CONSISTENT with the Policy Standards and therefore is CONSISTENT with the LWRP. Pursuant to Chapter 268, the Town Board shall consider this recommendation in preparing its written determination regarding the consistency of the proposed action. Cc: Kieran Corcoran, Assistant Town Attorney ~ ' " j "",,"''''' LV.)! . . MEMORANDUM To: Scott Russell, Supervisor Members of the Town Board From: Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson Members of the Planning Board Date: March 23, 2007 Re: "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merger Law" The Planning Board has reviewed the above-referenced local law and supports the proposed amendment to the lot merger law. Please advise if you have any question or need additional information. S:\Planning\2006Imemos\town board 12.05.06.doc .- . COUNTY OF SUFFOLK T /3 IT/-} (9 Rc-- , jJ fi Y- r;S- 3;07/0 7 STEVE LEVY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING THOMAS ISlES, AICP DIRECTOR OF PLANNING March 14,2007 RECEIVfO Ms. Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk Town of Southold Planning Bd. 53095 Main Road - P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 !It ~ ? 2 2007 Applicant: Town of South old SouII.vie! Tc.~;n Cler. Zoning Action: Amendment to Section 280-10 "Merger"; Section 280-4 "Definitions, Lot Coverage: Buildable Land" Public Hearing Date: 3/27/07 S.C.P.D. File No.: SD-07-02 Dear Ms. Neville: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the above referenced application, which has been submitted, to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination as there is no apparent significant county-wide or inter-community impact(s). A decision ofJocal determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. Very truly yours, APF:cc G:\CCHORNY\ZONING\ZONINGIWORKING\L02005\MAV\BR04.105.APR LOCATION H. LEE DENNISON BLDG. - 4TH FLOOR 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY . MAiliNG ADDRESS P. O. BOX 6100 HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788-0099 . (631) 853-5190 TELECOPIER (631) 853-4044 . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER ....' hll Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 .~. ~thold, New York 11971 ~. ~ "Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown. northfork. net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTH OLD March 8, 2007 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of South old will hold public hearings on March 27, 2007 on the proposed Local Laws entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Mere:er Law" at 4:45 P.M. and "A Local Law in relation to the Calculation of Lot Coverae:e of Buldable Land" at 4:50 P.M.. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. ~2f ,I/'. Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Assessors Southold Town Building Department Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Board of Appeals Date: 3/13/07 (!J.".,J- 111c~1I-r Si ~~ ~. fi6"~~ - Please print name Title: DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK .. . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (fi@!Jl!7YPr?145 Teleph-6ne (631) '16S,.l800 U', southoldtown.northforl\,.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTH OLD March 8, 2007 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of South old will hold public hearings on March 27, 2007 on the proposed Local Laws entitled "1\, Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Men!cr Law" at 4:45 P.M. and "A Local Law in relation to the Calculation of Lot Coveral!.e of Buldable Land" at 4:50 P.M.. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. l'&j-u:tCl.Qe~~' Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Assessors Southold Town Building Department Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Board of Appeals x'A.n. l;\a.Ll6/LY- - Signature, Received By Date: jl~/{J1 ~\Q v1q\\cyU Please print name Title~..~,-, t~ C\~ 1'1/'0.' .. , DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTH OLD TOWN CLERK RECEIVED MAR 1 2 2007 ~outhold Town Clerl ,.., . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown. northf or k. net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 8, 2007 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of South old will hold public hearings on March 27, 2007 on the proposed Local Laws entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Mer!!er Law" at 4:45 P.M. and "A Local Law in relation to the Calculation of Lot Coveraee of Buldable Land" at 4:50 P.M.. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. aj..~2t~{.I~ Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Assessors Southold Town Building Department Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Board of Appeals ~ ~ 1 11 "~.fJ+ Sign lure, Received By ---.OJ e \ \ 5SA.- A. ~ i5 '-\ 6r~ Please print name Date: 3 Jq / D1 Title: ~-:-f ~Y\ C 'erl\ DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK O'-'-"/~D i\.~'.~t..) i :: ~o,.: ,ied . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 sou thoidtown.northfor k. net RECEIVED OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTH OLD March 8, 2007 VA" ': 2007 Scr" . 'J .... I "- ~ l.1 Ir.. .d! Cerk PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of South old will hold public hearings on March 27, 2007 on the proposed Local Laws entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Mer!!er Law" at 4:45 P.M. and "A Local Law in relation to the Calculation of Lot Coveral!e of Buldahle Land" at 4:50 P.M.. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. ~..I~"Q-.JJ... Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Assessors Southold Town Building Department Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Board of Appeals r ,,]1 ~~I..L/!IJ,-, Signature, Received By , II IV D.A.. I2A lJ()ol. PH Please print name Date: .3)0 ! 0 7 Title~C r(f-C/jvlcLk iSJ Lflacct- DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK . . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown. northfork. net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 8, 2007 RECEIV;:;D 2007 SOUl" ,'.! T- ,., I. "....Ii.. V'~.-:? \..;;ern PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of South old will hold public hearings on March 27, 2007 on the proposed Local Laws entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merl!.er Law" at 4:45 P.M. and "A Loeal Law in relation to the Calculation of Lot Coveral!.e of Buldable Land" at 4:50 P.M.. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. ~_L~2;k~JL.' Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Assessors Southold Town Building Department Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Board of Appeals Date: ~/i/&O 7 I Title: DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK , . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER ~'REEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown .northf or k. net RECEIVeD : A~i-J _ 0. i'!t\[\ ;:J OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 8, 2007 1,1/. 8 ? -. 2007 Ili,-.:, '- (I _"__J Soull,vld 1i-,.1I Clerk PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of South old will hold public hearings on March 27, 2007 on the proposed Local Laws entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merl!:er Law" at 4:45 P.M. and "A Local Law in relation to the Calculation of Lot Coveral!:e of Buldable Land" at 4:50 P.M.. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. ~..,(~~..:"'... Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Assessors Southold Town Building Department Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Board of Appeals ~ti!!4 Signature, Re ei By IY/.;"h4d., 7; ~,.;.~ Please print name / Date: 03~~~7 I ' (!/~~. ~,~~~ ~'" Title: DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK - . . ELIZABETH A, NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 11 79 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northf or k. net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 8, 2007 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board ofthe Town of Southold will hold public hearings on March 27, 2007 on the proposed Local Laws entitled "A Local Law in ,'elation to Amendments to the Mcre:er Law" at 4:45 P.M, and "A Local Law in relation to the Calculation of Lot Coverae:e of Buldable Land" at 4:50 P.M.. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. ~lt!~t;k~th. Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Assessors Southold Town Building Department Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Board of Appeals . r7 , ~t Signat , Received By f/Jj.'t./JeJ! & cSOhtf1t~ PleaSe print name Date: -'2) q I C) 1 Title: wvnJ M(I;t1u dCA-/ DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK .- .- A____________ ~ . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 sou tholdtown. northfork. net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTH OLD March 8, 2007 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of South old will hold public hearings on March 27, 2007 on the proposed Local Laws entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Mcrl?:cr Law" at 4:45 P.M. and "A Local Law in relation to the Calculation of Lot Coveral?:c of Buldable Land" at 4:50 P.M.. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. ~~.f~t;k..Jk. Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Assessors Southold Town Building Department Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Board of Appeals '~<Q. Signat~re, Recei ed B; ~ Date: _ /)O<o~ S ~~ Please print n me Title: L.vJI ~_0~__ DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETlJRNED..-TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 SouthoId. NewYork'11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 sou tholdtown. northfor k. net .OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ( March 8, 2007 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of South old will hold public hearings on March 27, 2007 on the proposed Local Laws entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to thc Men!:er Law" at 4:45 P.M. and "A Local Law in relation to the Calculation of Lot Coveraee of Buldable Land" at 4:50 P.M.. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. ar~Qr-.:JJ... Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Assessors Southold Town Building Department Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton SouthoId Town Trustees Southold Town Board of Appeals "ti ll."~ . () ~~lf Sign ture, Received By . ~e \ i:ssA.. A. t1;5 lAev-c Please print name Date: 3/1101 Title: ~ 3 &l:>'Y\ Clerl\ DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK RECi.TvED ~O:I: ( I ..' lei . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net RECElvm OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 8, 2007 MP 1 2 2007 Soul\;(ild Tc,v;n Clerk PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of South old will hold public hearings on March 27, 2007 on the proposed Local Laws entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Mereer Law" at 4:45 P.M. and "A Local Law in relation to the Calculation of Lot Coveraee of Buldable Land" at 4:50 P .M.. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. a;-!I'~ClQr-i'L.. Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk \. Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Assessors Southold Town Building Department Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Board of Appeals ~.uAPn ~"""'l.,^' Signa e, Received By Date: ...3//~/~ 7 f-o UfO]) S-ItlrdJiSh Please print name Title: .Jcu. -ie..A.lO.J ~ I\l-- DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK Ie, . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT Ot'FleER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER RECEIVED . Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 sou tholdtown. north fork. net MAR 1 2 2007 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTH OLD March 8, 2007 MAR - 9 2007 Sour~o!d Town (/erl PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of South old will hold public hearings on March 27, 2007 on the proposed Local Laws entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Men!er Law" at 4:45 P.M. and "A Local Law in relation to the Calculation of Lot Coveral!:e of Buldable Land" at 4:50 P.M.. Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. .nta-L~~~tJ... Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Assessors Southold Town Building Department j~~ -y - A) .', 'C.{ , Signal , Received By ?/)/) Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Southold Town Trustees / Southold Town Board of Appeals ~ /I I' /.}.--7 . If Date: 3/r/tJ7 Title: Please print name DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK . . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTH OLD March 6, 2007 Re: Resolution No.'s 242 & 243 regarding proposed Local Law in relation to "Amendments to Merger Law" of the Code of the Town of South old Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Dear Ms. Woodhouse: The Southold Town Board at their regular meeting held on March 6, 2007 adopted the above resolutions. Certified copies of same are enclosed. Please prepare an official report defining the Planning Board's recommendations with regard to this proposed local law and forward it to me at your earliest convenience. This proposed local law has also been sent to the Suffolk County Planning Department for their review. The date and time for the public hearing is 4:45 PM, Tuesday, March 27, 2007. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. Very truly yours, rn--/~o."9...i4 -;:a~~~ ~eville Southold Town Clerk Enclosures (2) cc: Town Board Town Attorney , . . Town of South old - Letter Board Meeting of February 27, 2007 .-~ .11, RESOLUTION 2007-244 ADOPTED Item # 40 DOC ID: 2671 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2007-244 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON FEBRUARY 27, 2007: WHEREAS, there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of South old, Suffolk County, New York, on the 27th day of February, 2007 a Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Calculation of Lot Covera2e of Buildable Land" now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, on the 27tb day of March, 2007 at 4:50 p.m. at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. The proposed Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to the Calculation of Lot Covera2e of Buildable Land" reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 2007 A Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to the Calculation of Lot Coveral!:e of Buildable Land". BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board ofthe Town of South old as follows: V. Purpose -In order to provide for the health, safety and welfare for the citizens of the Town of Southold, the Town Board finds it expedient to amend the Town Code so that the calculation of permissible lot coverage on an individual parcel shall first exclude lands that have been deemed unbuildable by our local laws from an environmental perspective. VI. Chapter 280 of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: Generated March I, 2007 Page 57 Town of Southold - Lette~ Board leting of February 27, 2007 g 280-4. Definitions. LOT COVERAGE - That percentage of the buildable lands existing on a lot Mea which is covered by the building area. BUILDABLE LANDS - The area of a lot or parcel. not including the sauare footage of tidal and freshwater wetlands. land seaward of the coastal erosion hazard area line. beaches. bluffs. primary dunes. secondary dunes. or underwater lands. The terms "wetlands." beaches." "bluffs." and "underwater lands" shall have the meanings set forth in Chapter 275. Wetlands and Shoreline. of the Town Code. The terms "coastal erosion hazard area line." "primary dunes" and "secondary dunes" shall have the meanings set forth in Chapter Ill. Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. of the Town Code. BUlLD>,\BLE LAJllD The Ret Mea ef a let er pereel after dedtietiBg wetlaBds, StfelllBS, peBEis, slepes ever 15%, I:IftdefWlIter laBEl, easemeBts er ather restfietieBS pl'e'\.eBtiBg lISe ef SIleh bIRd fer eenstmetieB af Buildings at de"'/elepRleflt. VII. SEVERABILITY If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. IV. APPLICABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided bylaw. ~~r"U' Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: William P. Edwards, Councilman SECONDER: Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman AYES: Evans, Wickham, Ross, Edwards, Russell, Krupski Jr. Generated March I, 2007 Page 58 . . Town of Southold - Letter Board Meeting of February 27, 2007 RESOLUTION 2007-249 ADOPTED Item # 45 DOC ID: 2669 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2007-249 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON FEBRUARY 27, 2007: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to forward the proposed Local Law in relation to lot coveraee of buildable area. to the Southold Town Plannin!! Board and the Suffolk County Plannin!! Commission for comments and recommendations. ~Q .'1~. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Daniel C. Ross, Councilman SECONDER: Thomas H. WIckham, Councilman AYES: Evans, Wickham, Ross, Edwards, Russell, Krupski Jr. Generated March 1, 2007 Page 63 , . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box II 79 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown .northfork. net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 6, 2007 Re: Resolution No.'s 242 & 243 regarding proposed Local Law in relation to "Amendments to Merger Law" of the Code of the Town of South old Thomas Isles, Director Suffolk County Department of Planning Post Office Box 6100 Hauppauge, New York 11788-0099 Dear Mr. Isles, The Southold Town Board at their regular meeting held on March 6, 2007 adopted the above resolutions. Certified copies of same are enclosed. Please prepare an official report defining the Planning Department's recommendations with regard to this proposed local law and forward it to me at your earliest convenience. This proposed local law has also been sent to the Southold Town Planning Board for their review. The date and time for the public hearing is 4:45 PM, Tuesday, March 27, 2007. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. Very truly yours, S:il::~~I~ Southold Town Clerk Enclosures (2) cc: Town Board Town Attorney ~ . . Town of Southold - Letter Board Meeting of February 27, 2007 RESOLUTION 2007-242 ADOPTED Item # 38 DOC ID: 2667 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2007-242 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON FEBRUARY 27, 2007: WHEREAS, there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of South old, Suffolk County, New York, on the 27th day of February, 2007, a Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Mer2er Law" now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of South old will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, on the 27th day of March, 2007 at 4:45 p.m. at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. The proposed Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merl!er Law" reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 2007 A Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Mer2er Law". BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board ofthe Town of South old as follows: I. Purpose - The Town Board has received substantial public comment to the effect that the Town of Southold merger law, as currently constituted, unfairly subjects surviving spouses and other joint owners of property to the loss of the single and separate status of their adjoining properties merely by the death of one such joint owner. Insamuch as the Town Board believes this result is unjust and not the intended consequence ofthe merger law, it believes it necessary to provide for a limited exception to the merger of such properties. Generated March I, 2007 Page 53 Town of South old - Letter- Board feting of February 27, 2007 ., II. follows: Chapter 280 of the Town Code of the Town of South old is hereby amended as ~280-10._. A. _. A nonconforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or nonconforming lot which has been held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983. An adjacent lot is one which abuts with the parcel for a common course of 50 feet or more in distance. Nonconforming lots shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements. B. Definitions. "Common ownership" shall mean that the parcel is held by the same person in the same percentage of ownership as an adjoining parcel. C. Exceptions. Lots which are recognized under ~ 280-9 and meet any of the following categories shall be exempt from the _ provision set forth above and shall not be deemed merged by operation of this chapter: (1) The nonconforming lot has a minimum size of 40,000 square feet, or (2) The nonconforming lot obtained a lot size variance from the Zoning Board, or (3) If the lot is not on the maps described in former g 100-12, Editor's Note: Former g 100- 12, Exceptions, was repealed 11-28-1995 by L.L. No. 23-1995, effective January 1, 1996. the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from July I, 1983 to date, or (4) If the lot is on the maps described in former g 100-12, the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from January 1, 1997, to date, (Amended 3-4- 1997 by L.L. No. 4-1997] or. (5) Each lot is currently developed with a one-family dwelling with a minimum 850 square feet which falls within the existing lot lines and which has a certificate of occupancy or would qualify for one, (Added 3-4-1997 by L.L. No. 4-1997J or. ill The lots would be considered merged merelv bv ooeration onaw as a result of the death of a co-owner of one or more of the adioining lots. the lots are greater than 20.000 square feet. and the lots remain in the ownership of the surviving co-owner. III. SEVERABILITY If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. Generated March I, 2007 Page 54 . . Town of Southold - Letter Board Meeting of February 27,2007 IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided bylaw. ~~.i'" Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Thomas H. WIckham, Councilman SECONDER: Daniel C. Ross, Councilman AYES: Evans, Wickham, Ross, Edwards, Russell, Krupski Jr. Generated March I, 2007 Page 55 , . . Town of Southold - Letter Board Meeting of February 27, 2007 RESOLUTION 2007-243 ADOPTED Item # 39 DOC 10: 2670 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2007-243 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON FEBRUARY 27, 2007: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to transmit the proposed Local Law entitled" A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Merl!er Law" to the Southold Town Planninl! Board and the Suffolk Countv Department of Planninl! for their recommendations and reports. ~Q:~' Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Daniel C. Ross, Councilman SECONDER: Albert Krupski Jr., Councilman AYES: Evans, Wickham, Ross, Edwards, Russell, Krupski Jr. Generated March I, 2007 Page 56 r #8261 STATE OF NEW YORK) )SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Candice Schott of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1 weekl'}, '""""""y, oomma,,;", 0" the 8th, day oj Ma"'~. (};~(; .S!~- . Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this 2007 day of lij1~ CJ1Ut~ Lb lJ)~\J CHRISTINA VOllNSKI NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK No.Ol-V06105050 Quoll/led In Suf/olk Co un/v Commission Expires February 28. 2008 q r I I LEGAL NoncE NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT, there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of SOllth- old, Suffolk County, New York, on the 27th day of February, 2007, a Local Law entitled 16A I..oal (.a", in relation to Ame:ndmenf8 to the Me.! Law" now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a pub- lic hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, on the 27th day ofMarcb,2007 at 4=45 p.m. at which time all interested persons wiD be given an opportunity to be heard. The proposed Local Law entitled, "A '.(leal lAW in relation to Amendments to the Memer Law" reads as follows: UlCAI,LAWNO.2007 A Loccl1 Law entitled, "A Local lAW in relation to Amendments to the Meq- ~ BE IT ENACl'ED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as fol- lows: I~ Purpose ~ The Town Board has received substantial public comment to the effect that the Town of Southold merger law, as currently constituted, unfairly subjects surviving spouses and other joint owners of property to the loss of the single and separate status of their' adjoining properties merely by the death of one such joint owner. Inasmuch as the Town Board believes this result is unjust and not the in- tended consequence of the merger law, it believes it necessary to provide for a limited exception to the merger of such properties. Chapter 280 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: ~ 280-10. Merger. A. Merger.A nonconforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or nonconforming lot which has been held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983. An ad- jacent lot is one which abuts with the parcel for a common course of 50 feet or more in distance. Nonconforming lots shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements. B. Definitions. "Common ownership" shall mean that the parcel is held by the same person in the same percentage of ownership as an adjoining parcel. C. Exceptions. Lots which are rec- ognized under ~ 280-9 and meet any of the following categories shall be exempt from the merger provision set forth above and shall not be deemed merged by operation of this chapter: (1)The nonconforming lot has a min- imum size of 40,000 square feet, or (2) The nonconforming lot obtained a lot size variance from the Zoning Board, or (3) If the lot is not on the maps de- scribed in former * 100-12, Editor's Note: Former ~ 100-12, Exceptions, was repealed 11-28-1995 by L.L No. 23- 1995, effective January 1, 1996. the non- conforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from July 1, 1983 date, or (4) If the lot is on the maps described in fonner ~ 100-12, the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from January 1, 1997, to date, r AMENDF.D 341997 BY L.L. No. 4-19971 ""'- (5) Each lot is currently developed with a one-family dwelling with a mini- mum 850 square feet which falls within the existing lot lines and which has a certificate of occupancy or would quali- fy for one, r Added 3-4.1997 by LL No. 4.19971 or. (6) The lots would he considered men.ed merelv bv ooeration of IHW as a result of the deHth of H co-owner of one or more of the adioininl1 lots the lots are I1reater than 20 000 square feet and the lots remain in the ownershio of the survivim> co-owner. m. SEVERABILITY If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitu- tional or invalid. IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect im- mediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by law. Dated: February 8, 2007 BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Elizabeth Neville Town Clerk 8261 -IT 3/8 . Town of Southold - Letter . lL Board Meeting of February 27, 2007 RESOLUTION 2007-243 ADOPTED Item # 39 DOC 10: 2670 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2007-243 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON FEBRUARY 27, 2007: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of South old hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to transmit the proposed Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Merl!:er Law" to the Southold Town Planninl!: Board and the Suffolk County Department of Planninl!: for their recommendations and reports. ~?/ :lA. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Daniel C. Ross, Councilman SECONDER: Albert Krupski Jr., Councilman AYES: Evans, Wickham, Ross, Edwards, Russell, Krupski Jr. Generated March 1, 2007 Page 56 . LEGAL NOTICE . NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT, there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of South old, Suffolk County, New York, on the 27th day of February, 2007, a Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merl!:er Law" now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, on the 27th day of March, 2007 at 4:45 p.m. at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. The proposed Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merl!:er Law" reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 2007 A Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merl!:er Law". BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of South old as follows: I. Purpose - The Town Board has received substantial public comment to the effect that the Town of Southold merger law, as currently constituted, unfairly subjects surviving spouses and other joint owners of property to the loss of the single and separate status of their adjoining properties merely by the death of one such joint owner. Inasmuch as the Town Board believes this result is unjust and not the intended consequence of the merger law, it believes it necessary to provide for a limited exception to the merger of such properties. II. Chapter 280 of the Town Code of the Town of South old is hereby amended as follows: ~ 280-10. M~rgel'. A. M~tg~t. A nonconforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or nonconforming lot which has been held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July I, 1983. An adjacent lot is one which abuts with the parcel for a common course of 50 feet or more in distance. Nonconforming lots shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements. B. Definitions. "Common ownership" shall mean that the parcel is held by the same person in the same percentage of ownership as an adjoining parcel. C. ExcePtions.!s which are recognized under S 280-9!d meet any of the following categories shall be exempt from the ~l' provision set forth above and shall not be deemed merged by operation ofthis chapter: (1) The nonconforming lot has a minimum size of 40,000 square feet, or (2) The nonconforming lot obtained a lot size variance from the Zoning Board, or (3) If the lot is not on the maps described in former S 100-12, Editor's Note: Former S 100-12, Exceptions, was repealed 11-28-1995 by L.L. No. 23-1995, effective January I, 1996. the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from July I, 1983 to date, or (4) If the lot is on the maps described in former S 100-12, the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from January I, 1997, to date, [Amended 3-4-1997 by L.L. No. 4-1997) or7 (5) Each lot is currently developed with a one-family dwelling with a minimum 850 square feet which falls within the existing lot lines and which has a certificate of occupancy or would qualifY for one, [Added 3-4-1997 by L.L. No. 4-1997) or7 @ The lots would be considered merged merelv bv operation of law as a result of the death of a co-owner of one or more of the adioining lots. the lots are greater than 20.000 square feet. and the lots remain in the ownership of the surviving co-owner. III. SEVERABILITY If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by law. Dated: February 8, 2007 BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Elizabeth Neville Town Clerk PLEASE PUBLISH ON MARCH 8,2007. AND FORWARD ONE (I) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO ELIZABETH NEVILLE. TOWN CLERK. TOWN HALL. P.O. BOX 1179. SOUTHOLD. NY 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times Town Board Members TC's Bulletin Board Planning Board ZBA Trustees Town Attorney Building Department Police Department . . . STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE, Town Clerk of the Town of South old, New York being duly sworn, says that on the ~ day of (Y l~ ,2007, she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of South old, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York. PH 3/27/07 4:45 pm ~~ff;O~u}t~ Elizabeth A. ville Southold Town Clerk Swwp before me thisA '1 day of <<I~ ,2007. d( ~Je' ~ (~iL otary Public lYNDA M. BOHN NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New 'IbIIc No. 01 B06020932 Qualified In Suffolk Coumr Term Expires March 8, 20 JJ- Town of Southold - Letter. Board Ating of February 27, 2007 RESOLUTION 2007-242 ADOPTED Item # 38 DOC ID: 2667 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2007-242 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTH OLD TOWN BOARD ON FEBRUARY 27, 2007: WHEREAS, there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of South old, Suffolk County, New York, on the 27th day of February, 2007, a Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merl!:er Law" now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of South old will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, on the 27th day of March, 2007 at 4:45 p.m. at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. The proposed Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merl!:er Law" reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 2007 A Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merl!:er Law". BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: I. Purpose - The Town Board has received substantial public comment to the effect that the Town of Southold merger law, as currently constituted, unfairly subjects surviving spouses and other joint owners of property to the loss of the single and separate status oftheir adjoining properties merely by the death of one such joint owner. Insamuch as the Town Board believes this result is unjust and not the intended consequence ofthe merger law, it believes it necessary to provide for a limited exception to the merger of such properties. Generated March I, 2007 Page 53 Town of Southold - Letter. Board .ting of February 27, 2007 II. follows: Chapter 280 of the Town Code of the Town of South old is hereby amended as ~ 280-10.l\'I~~~~. A. ~~rg~r. A nonconforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or nonconforming lot which has been held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July I, 1983. An adjacent lot is one which abuts with the parcel for a common course of 50 feet or more in distance. Nonconforming lots shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements. B. Definitions. "Common ownership" shall mean that the parcel is held by the same person in the same percentage of ownership as an adjoining parcel. C. Exceptions. Lots which are recognized un.d.er S 280-9 and meet any of the following categories shall be exempt from the m,e,rge,r provision set forth above and shall not be deemed merged by operation of this chapter: (1) The nonconforming lot has a minimum size of 40,000 square feet, or (2) The nonconforming lot obtained a lot size variance from the Zoning Board, or (3) If the lot is not on the maps described in former S 100-12, Editor's Note: Former S 100- 12, Exceptions, was repealed 11-28-1995 by L.L. No. 23-1995, effective January 1, 1996. the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from July I, 1983 to date, or (4) If the lot is on the maps described in former S 100-12, the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from January 1, 1997, to date, [Amended 3-4- 1997 by L.L. No. 4-1997J or, (5) Each lot is currently developed with a one-family dwelling with a minimum 850 square feet which falls within the existing lot lines and which has a certificate of occupancy or would qualifY for one, [Added 3-4-1997 by L.L. No. 4-1997J or, @ The lots would be considered merged merelv bv operation of law as a result of the death of a co-owner of one or more of the adioining lots. the lots are greater than 20.000 square feet. and the lots remain in the ownership of the surviving co-owner. III. SEVERABILITY If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. Generated March 1, 2007 Page 54 Town of South old - Letter- Board I:ting of February 27, 2007 IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided bylaw. ~~_:v.. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman SECONDER: Daniel C. Ross, Councilman AYES: Evans, Wickham, Ross, Edwards, Russell, Krupski Jr. Generated March 1,2007 Page 55