The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTB-12/04/2007ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS Fax (631) 765-6145 MARRIAGE OFFICER Telephone: (631) 765 - 1800 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER southoldtown.northfork.net FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD REGULAR MEETING MINUTES December 4, 2007 7:30 PM A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board was held Tuesday, December 4, 2007 at the Meeting Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, NY. Supervisor Russell opened the meeting at 7:30 PM with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Call to Order 7:30 PM Meeting called to order on December 4, 2007 at Meeting Hall, 53095 Route 25, Southold, NY. Attendee Name Organization Title Status Arrived Albert Krupski Jr. Town of Southold Councilman Present William P. Edwards Town of Southold Councilman Present Daniel C. Ross Town of Southold Councilman Present Thomas H. Wickham Town of Southold Councilman Present Louisa P. Evans Town of Southold Justice Present Scott Russell Town of Southold Supervisor Present Elizabeth A. Neville Town of Southold Town Clerk Present Kieran Corcoran Town of Southold Asst TA Present I. Reports II. Public Notices 1. NYSDEC - Notice of Complete Application Strawberry Fields 2. NYS Liquor Authority Legends, 835 First St., New Suffolk - Liquor License Renewal 3. NYS Liquor Authority Fishermans Rest. December 4, 2007 Page 2 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting III. Communications IV. Discussion 9:00 A.M. Hearing - Unsafe Building 1. 9:30 A.M. Police Regulation/ Federal Immigration Sweeps Chief Cochran 2. WAter for Cutchogue Fire Department 3. Extension of Free Period - Leaf Disposal - Transfer Station Through 12/23/07 Supervisor Russell 4. Update on Homeowners Insurance COMMENTS - Current Meeting: . 5. Helicopter Noise Update Councilman Wickham 6. A Local Law to Reduce Nitrogen Pollution by Reducing Use of Fertilizer In Suffolk County 7. TDR Program 8. Appointment to Fill Vacancy on Tree Committee 9. Executive Session Employment of North Fork Animal Welfare League 10. 12:30 P M - Executive Session Acquisition of Property - Peconic Land Trust 11. 1:00 Pm - Fishers Island Strategic Plan 2007-2017 Val Scopaz, FI Stakeholders, Island Community Board 12. 12: 45 Pm - Executive Session Property Acquisition - Melissa Spiro Pledge of Allegiance 7:30 PM Meeting called to order on December 4, 2007 at Meeting Hall, 53095 Route 25, Southold, NY. December 4, 2007 Page 3 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting Opening Statements Supervisor Scott Russell SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Please rise and join with me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Okay. This is the point in the evening when you can come up and comment on any issue as it appears on the agenda. Would anybody like to address the Town Board on any issue regarding the agenda that we are about to take action on? (No response) Okay, hearing none, let?s move ahead with the agenda. V. Resolutions 2007-908 CATEGORY: Audit DEPARTMENT: Town Clerk Approve Audit 12/4/07 RESOLVED approves the audit dated that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby December 4, 2007. Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-908 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? William P. Edwards Voter ?? Defeated ?????????? Tabled Daniel C. Ross Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Seconder ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Initiator ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter 2007-909 CATEGORY: Set Meeting DEPARTMENT: Town Clerk Next Meeting 12/18/07 4:30 Pm RESOLVED that the next Regular Town Board Meeting of the Southold Town Board be held, Tuesday, December 18, 2007 at the Southold Town Hall, Southold, New York at 4:30 P. M.. Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-909 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? William P. Edwards Voter ?? Defeated ?????????? Tabled Daniel C. Ross Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Seconder ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Initiator ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter December 4, 2007 Page 4 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting 2007-910 CATEGORY: Grants DEPARTMENT: Community Development Downtown Revitalization Grant RESOLVEDagrees to provide the that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby County of Suffolk with an access easement with respect to the following parcel (1000-61-4-4 and 1000-61-4-5) that are part of the Suffolk County Round VII Downtown Revitalization GrantProgram, for the “Improvements to the Southold Town Parking Lot Project ”. Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-910 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Initiator ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? William P. Edwards Seconder ?? Defeated ?????????? Tabled Daniel C. Ross Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Voter ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Voter ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter 2007-911 CATEGORY: Advertise DEPARTMENT: Town Clerk Authorize and Direct the Planning Board to Advertise for the Position of Senior Planner on the American Planning Association’s Job Mart Website and Authorize and Direct the Town Clerk to Advertise In the Times/Review Newpapers Group RESOLVEDauthorizes and directs the Planning Board to advertise that the Town Board for the position of Senior Planner on the American Planning Association’s Job Mart websiteauthorizes and directs the Town Clerk to advertise in the Times/Review and Newspapers Group. Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-911 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? William P. Edwards Initiator ?? Defeated ?? Tabled ???????? Daniel C. Ross Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Voter ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Seconder ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter 2007-912 CATEGORY: Public Service DEPARTMENT: Police Dept December 4, 2007 Page 5 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting Student Interns - Police RESOLVED approves the following that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby students from Eastern Suffolk BOCES to participate as student interns on Tuesday, December 4, 2007, at the Southold Town Police Department: Lauren Bilka Efren Cortes Patrick Homan Steve Mercogliano Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-912 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? William P. Edwards Voter ?? Defeated ?????????? Tabled Daniel C. Ross Initiator ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Voter ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Seconder ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter 2007-913 CATEGORY: Close/Use Town Roads DEPARTMENT: Town Clerk Close Love Lane Holiday Decorating RESOLVEDgrants permission to the that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby Mattituck Cutchogue Cub Scout Pack #39 to use Love Lane to have a holiday celebration on Friday, December 7, 2007 beginning at 5:00 pm. to 7:00 p.m. , providing they provide the Town Clerk’s office with a certificate of insurance naming the town as an additional insured for one million dollars and contacts Capt. Flatley 10 days in advance to discuss traffic control. Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-913 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? William P. Edwards Voter ?? Defeated ?? Tabled ???????? Daniel C. Ross Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Seconder ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Initiator ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter 2007-914 CATEGORY: Public Service DEPARTMENT: Police Dept December 4, 2007 Page 6 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting Job Shadow - Police RESOLVED approves the following that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby student from Mattituck High School to participate in a day of job shadowing on Wednesday, December 5, 2007, at the Southold Town Police Department: Erin VanEtten Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-914 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? William P. Edwards Voter ?? Defeated ?????????? Tabled Daniel C. Ross Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Initiator ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Seconder ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter 2007-915 CATEGORY: Grants DEPARTMENT: Community Development Southold Youth Services Grant RESOLVEDauthorizes and directs that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby Supervisor Scott A. Russell to sign the 2008 Individual Program Application for the 2008 Youth Services Program, in the amount of $10,449. Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-915 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Initiator ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? William P. Edwards Seconder ?? Defeated ?????????? Tabled Daniel C. Ross Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Voter ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Voter ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter 2007-916 CATEGORY: Grants DEPARTMENT: Community Development Stormwater Management Phase II RESOLVEDauthorizes and directs that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby Supervisor Scott Russell to submit a grant application, for funding under the 2007-2008 December 4, 2007 Page 7 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, Environmental Protection Fund, for the Stormwater Management in the Town of Southold, Phase II Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-916 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Seconder ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? William P. Edwards Initiator ?? Defeated ?????????? Tabled Daniel C. Ross Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Voter ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Voter ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter 2007-917 CATEGORY: Litigation DEPARTMENT: Town Attorney Retains Frank A. Isler As Special Counsel In the Matter of Mary S. Zupa V. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold and Paradise Point Association, Inc. RESOLVEDretains Frank A. Isler as that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby Special Counsel in the matter of Mary S. Zupa v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold and Paradise Point Association, Inc. , which action was filed on October 9, 2007. Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-917 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? William P. Edwards Voter ?? Defeated ?? Tabled ???????? Daniel C. Ross Initiator ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Seconder ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Voter ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter 2007-918 CATEGORY: Seqra DEPARTMENT: Town Attorney Cutchogue Fire District SEQRA RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the proposed “Transmission Main Connection for the Proposed Cutchogue Fire District Station House #2” 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 lead agency for the uncoordinated review of this action and issues a Negative Declaration for the action in accordance with the recommendation of Nelson, Pope & Voorhis dated November 26, December 4, 2007 Page 8 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting 2007, and authorizes Supervisor Scott A. Russell to sign the short form EAF in accordance therewith. Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-918 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? William P. Edwards Voter ?? Defeated ?????????? Tabled Daniel C. Ross Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Initiator ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Seconder ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter 2007-919 CATEGORY: Committee Appointment DEPARTMENT: Town Clerk Appoint Jan L. Jansen to the Southold Town Tree Committee, Effective Immediately Through March 31, 2009 RESOLVEDappoints Jan L. Jansen to that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby the Southold Town Tree Committee, effective immediately through March 31, 2009, to fill the vacancy left by the resignation of Ed Dart. Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-919 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? William P. Edwards Voter ?? Defeated ?? Tabled ???????? Daniel C. Ross Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Initiator ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Seconder ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter 2007-920 CATEGORY: Budget Modification DEPARTMENT: Data Processing Data Processing Budget Modification RESOLVEDmodifies the 2007 budget that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby as follows: From: A.1680.4.400.352 Printer Maintenance $ 2000.00 To: December 4, 2007 Page 9 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting A.1680.4.400.553 Police Systems Maintenance $ 2000.00 Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-920 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Initiator ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? William P. Edwards Seconder ?? Defeated ?????????? Tabled Daniel C. Ross Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Voter ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Voter ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter 2007-921 CATEGORY: Authorize to Bid DEPARTMENT: Highway Department Advertise for 4X4 Pickup Highway RESOLVEDauthorizes and directs the that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby Town Clerk to advertise for bids for one (1) 2007 or 2008 4x4 pickup truck with 9’ power angle quick disconnect snowplow, or equal, for use by the Southold Town Highway Department. Funding for this vehicle to come from the Highway Department’s Light Duty Line Item DB.5130.2.300.100. Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-921 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Seconder ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? William P. Edwards Initiator ?? Defeated ?????????? Tabled Daniel C. Ross Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Voter ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Voter ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter 2007-922 CATEGORY: Authorize to Bid DEPARTMENT: Highway Department Cone Head Chipper Bid RESOLVEDauthorizes and directs the that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby Town Clerk to advertise for bids for one (1) DC-50 Cone Head Brush Chipper, or equal, for use by the Southold Town Highway Department. Funding for this vehicle to come from the Highway Department’s Heavy Duty Line Item DB.5130.2.300.200. December 4, 2007 Page 10 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-922 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? William P. Edwards Voter ?? Defeated ?? Tabled ???????? Daniel C. Ross Initiator ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Voter ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Seconder ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter 2007-923 CATEGORY: Budget Modification DEPARTMENT: Highway Department Budget Modification - Highway RESOLVED modifies the 2007 Highway that the Town Board of the Town of Southoldhereby Fund Part Town budget as follows: To: DB.5110.4.100.350 General Repairs Contractual Expense Supplies & Materials Traffic Paint $ 1,233.75 DB.5110.4.100.915 General Repairs Contractual Expense Supplies & Materials Cement $ 224.32 DB.5110.4.400.600 General Repairs Contractual Expense Contracted Services Other Contracted Services $ 197.50 DB.5130.2.300.100 Machinery Equipment & Capital Outlay Motor Vehicles Light Duty Vehicles $32,000.00 DB.5130.2.300.200 Machinery Equipment & Capital Outlay Motor Vehicles Heavy Duty Vehicles $27,500.00 DB.5130.4.100.550 Machinery Contractual Expense Supplies & Materials Tires $ 2,070.62 From: DB.5110.4.100.925 General Repairs Contractual Expense December 4, 2007 Page 11 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting Supplies & Materials Lumber $ 1,655.57 DB.5140.1.100.100 Brush & Weeds/Miscellaneous Personal Services Full-Time Employees $ 61,570.62 Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-923 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? William P. Edwards Voter ?? Defeated ?????????? Tabled Daniel C. Ross Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Seconder ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Initiator ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter 2007-924 CATEGORY: Public Service DEPARTMENT: Town Clerk Amend Resolution No. 2007-810 Adopted October 23, 2007 by Extending the Grace Period to December 23, 2007 As Follows: RESOLVEDamends Resolution No. that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby 2007-810 adopted October 23, 2007 by extending the grace period to December 23, 2007 as follows: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes the acceptance of residential leaves and brush at the Southold Town Compost facility, free of charge, for four (4) six (6)weeks in connection with the Fall Cleanup for the year 2007 starting Saturday, November 10, 2007, through Sunday, December 9, 2007 December 23, 2007; and be it RESOLVED FURTHER that the Town Board hereby extends the waiver of such fees to commercial entities carrying leaves and brush from residential properties (within the Town only) during that period; and be it RESOLVED FURTHER that the Highway Department Fall Cleanup will commence on Monday, November 19, in LAUREL and end at ORIENT POINT; December 4, 2007 Page 12 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting and be it RESOLVED FURTHER that the Fishers Island Fall Cleanup will also commence on Monday, November 19, 2007. Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-924 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? William P. Edwards Voter ?? Defeated ?????????? Tabled Daniel C. Ross Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Initiator ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Seconder ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter 2007-925 CATEGORY: Planning DEPARTMENT: Town Attorney Amend Water Map to Include Cutchogue Fire Dept WHEREAS the Town of Southold adopted an updated map on July 3, 2007, entitled “Southold Water Supply Plan Map” which incorporates the Town’s comprehensive planning initiatives and is designed to provide access to public water to existing residents, and guide the limited infrastructure to areas where development is desired; and WHEREAS the Town Board received a request from the Cutchogue Fire District to amend the map and allow connection to an existing transmission main to service the site of their proposed new fire station house on Cox Lane in Cutchogue; and WHEREAS the Town Board has reviewed the request, and finds that the limited map amendment would not cause an undue increase in residential development, would serve areas consistent with Town policy, would ensure protection of public health to the residents of the Town of Southold, and will provide enhanced fire protection services and an emergency shelter alternative for the community; and it is therefore RESOLVEDamends the “Southold that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby Water Supply Plan Map” to allow a water supply connection to the transmission main that December 4, 2007 Page 13 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting runs along County Rte 48 at Cox Lane in Cutchogue for the purpose of serving the proposed Cutchogue fire station. Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-925 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Seconder ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? William P. Edwards Initiator ?? Defeated ?????????? Tabled Daniel C. Ross Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Voter ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Voter ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter 2007-926 CATEGORY: Seqra DEPARTMENT: Town Attorney TDR Seqra Resolution WHEREAS , the Town Board of the Town of Southold (the "Board") is aware of, has participated in the preparation of, or has prepared a number of land use plans, studies, analyses, etc. over the past approximately 20 years, and WHEREAS , the Board caused to be prepared a study of these plans in 2003, titled the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy (CIS), for which a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) and Findings Statement were prepared, and WHEREAS , the Strategy delineated a. number of recommendations that would provide needed mechanisms to achieve the following goals: - To preserve land including open space, recreation and working landscapes. - To preserve rural, cultural, historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside. - To preserve the Town's natural environment; to prevent further deterioration of resources and to restore degraded resources back to pristine or near pristine quality. - To preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that would support a socio-economically diverse community. December 4, 2007 Page 14 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting - To increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of the Town, State, County and local roadways. WHEREAS , the Board intends to implement the recommendations of the studies and analyzed in the CIS GElS, to advance the goals of the Town, and WHEREAS , the Board established a team of professionals to assist with the design of the proposed Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program, which was recommended in the CIS, and WHEREAS , notwithstanding the far-reaching nature of the proposed action, the Board finds that by virtue of the fact that it is intended to implement one of the recommendations that was contained in the CIS, it is consistent with the Town Comprehensive Plan which includes the zoning code and building zone map, zoning decisions, goals, legislative actions and the record of decisions that forms the Town's direction in terms of achieving its vision, and WHEREAS , the action is not expected to cause significant adverse impacts since it advances the goals of the Town; however, the action is of Town-wide significance, and does involve changes to natural and human resources; is a Type I action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and Title 6 of the New York State Code of Rules and Regulations (6 NYCRR) Part 617, and therefore is more likely to require an environmental impact statement; and, lastly that the action will affect property, resources and the shaping of the Town's future, and WHEREAS, the Board has exclusive authority to effect zoning changes, create and/or modify legislation, establish land use programs and implement the various measures and tools identified in the past land use and social need studies of the Town, and WHEREAS, since the Board holds this exclusive authority, the Town Board is the appropriate December 4, 2007 Page 15 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting entity to assume lead agency status under SEQRA, and WHEREAS, the Board does intend to solicit inter-agency and public input on the proposed action, and will consider its potential impacts under a public forum provided through the intended GElS procedure, and WHEREAS, based on the above facts and the Part I Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) prepared for the Board's consideration in determining significance, the Board finds it prudent to take a "hard look” at the proposed action through the preparation of a Supplement to the GElS that was prepared for the CIS, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby classifies the Town of Southold TDR Program as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR BE IT FURTHER Part 617, and RESOLVED, that, as the Town Board is the only agency that has the authority to enact the proposed action, the Board hereby assumes lead agency status in review of the action and for BE IT FURTHER the purpose of compliance with 6 NYCRR, Part 617, and RESOLVED, that the Board finds that a Supplement to the GElS that was prepared for the CIS is appropriate to delineate and analyze the potential impacts of the proposed action, which may include cumulative and/or generic impacts, and hereby issues the appropriate determination (via BE IT a Positive Declaration) to require such document for the proposed action, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board authorizes the Town Clerk of the Town of Southold to file this Resolution, the Part I EAF, and the Positive Declaration with the following parties: Town of Southold, Supervisor's Office Town of Southold, Town Clerk December 4, 2007 Page 16 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting Town of Southold, Planning Board Town of Southold, Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold, Town Trustees Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority Suffolk County Planning Commission NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Commissioner, Albany NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Regional Office, Stony Brook NYS Dept. of Transportation NYS Dept. of State US Army Corps of Engineers Parties of Interest Officially on Record with the Town Clerk (if applicable) Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-926 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? William P. Edwards Seconder ?? Defeated ?????????? Tabled Daniel C. Ross Initiator ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Voter ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Voter ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter 2007-927 CATEGORY: Legal DEPARTMENT: Town Attorney OKI-DO Ltd Unsafe Building WHEREAS the Director of Code Enforcement inspected the property owned by OKI-DO, Ltd. and located on Shipyard Lane, East Marion, also known as SCTM# 1000-38-7-7.1 and prepared a written report of his findings in the form of a Notice dated October 19, 2007; and WHEREAS the Notice indicates that the structures on the property are unsafe, dangerous and constitute a hazard to safety; and December 4, 2007 Page 17 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting WHEREAS said Notice was sent Certified Mail to the property owner and the attorney for the property owner, and was signed for by the owner and agent as received; and WHEREAS the Notice advised the property owner and agent that the property must be made safe, and if the owner failed to comply, that a hearing would be held before the Southold Town Board on December 4, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.; and WHEREAS the owner failed to make the premises safe to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector prior to said date; and WHEREAS the Southold Town Board held a hearing pursuant to Chapter 100 of the Southold Town Code on December 4, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. and the attorney for the owner appeared. The Southold Town Board heard testimony of Edward Forrester, Director of Code Enforcement, testimony from two witnesses for the owner of the property, heard from counsel for the owner, and viewed photographs of the premises; and therefore be it RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 100 of the Southold Town Code, the determines that the structures located on the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby aforementioned property are unsafe and dangerous to the public ; and it is further RESOLVED that the structures are ordered to be made safe by the maintenance of a six foot perimeter chain link fence surrounding the premises, the sealing of all first floor openings on existing structures, and the demolition and removal of the collapsed portion of one structure, owner to contact the Building Department prior to the commencement of work to secure any required permits; and it is further RESOLVED that the owner is directed to complete said work within forty-five (45) days from the date of this order; and it is further December 4, 2007 Page 18 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting RESOLVED that, in the event the work is not completed in the time period provided, the Town will perform such work on the property to make the premises and structures safe, and assess all costs and expenses incurred by the Town in performing such work against the land on which said buildings are located. Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-927 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? William P. Edwards Voter ?? Defeated ?????????? Tabled Daniel C. Ross Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Seconder ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Initiator ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter 2007-928 CATEGORY: Seqra DEPARTMENT: Town Attorney SEQRA LL/Amendments to 275 RESOLVED“A that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the proposed Local Law in relation to Amendments to Chapter 275” 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 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 November 30, 2007, and authorizes Supervisor Scott A. Russell to sign the short form EAF in accordance therewith. Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-928 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? William P. Edwards Voter ?? Defeated ?????????? Tabled Daniel C. Ross Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Seconder ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Initiator ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter 2007-929 CATEGORY: Seqra DEPARTMENT: Town Attorney SEQRA LL/Shellfish December 4, 2007 Page 19 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting RESOLVED that the Town Board, as lead agency, issues a Negative Declaration for the action, “A Local Law in relation to Shellfish and Other Marine Resources” the adoption of , in accordance with the recommendation of Mark Terry dated August 14, 2007 and December 4, 2007, and authorizes Supervisor Scott A. Russell to sign the short form EAF in accordance therewith. Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-929 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? William P. Edwards Voter ?? Defeated ?????????? Tabled Daniel C. Ross Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Initiator ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Seconder ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter 2007-930 CATEGORY: Seqra DEPARTMENT: Land Preservation Blocker SEQRA WHEREAS , the Town Board of the Town of Southold wishes to purchase fee title to a certain property from The Nature Conservancy, contract vendee of the property owned by Julius Blocker Revocable Trust, and known as the Blocker Property, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 185 (Open Space Preservation) and Chapter 17 (Community Preservation Fund) of the Code of the Town of Southold. Said property is identified as SCTM #1000-87-6-12.1. The total area of the property is 45± acres. The address of the property is 1005 Takaposa Road in Southold. The property is located within the A-C zoning district. The property has approximately 596± feet of road frontage on Main Bayview Road and 50± feet of road frontage on Watersedge Way. The property is currently accessed by Takaposa Road that is located on the southerly side of Main Bayview Road approximately 400 feet west of the intersection of Jacobs Lane and Main Bayview Road in Southold. The property shares an easterly boundary line with a filed subdivision map known as “Bay Haven” and common boundaries with five individual parcels now or formerly owned by Margaret McNamara, Ralph L. & Elaine B. Panella, Theodore Zang, Spiridon & Letta Kouzios and Harford Living Trust. The property also has approximately 3200± feet of shoreline along Corey Creek and approximately 2480± feet of shoreline on Hog Neck Bay. The proposed acquisition is for the Town, in a joint 50%/50% partnership with the County December 4, 2007 Page 20 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting of Suffolk, to acquire fee title to the entire 45± acres known as the Blocker Property for open space protection and passive recreational purposes. The exact area of the purchase is subject to survey. The purchase price for the entire 45± acre property is $8,000,000 (eight million dollars) and the purchase will be funded by the Town’s Community Preservation Fund and the County of Suffolk in a 50%/50% partnership which will include the purchase price and any related acquisition costs associated with the purchase of the property. The Town has made application to, and the Town may become eligible for grant funding from, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold that this action be classified as an Unlisted Action pursuant to the SEQRA Rules and Regulations, 6NYCRR 617.1 et. Seq.; and, be it further RESOLVED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold that the Town of Southold is the only involved agency pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations; and, be it further RESOLVED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold that the Short Environmental Form prepared for this project is accepted and attached hereto; and, be it further RESOLVEDfinds no significant impact that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby on the environment and declares a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations for this action. Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-930 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Initiator ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? ??William P. Edwards Voter Defeated ?????????? Tabled Daniel C. Ross Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Seconder ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Voter ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter 2007-931 CATEGORY: Seqra DEPARTMENT: Land Preservation Marco SEQRA December 4, 2007 Page 21 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold wishes to purchase development rights easements on parts of certain parcels of properties owned by owned by Philip R. Marco (SCTM #1000-98-1-2.1), Patricia P. Marco (SCTM #1000-98-1-27.1), Marco Phil Productions Inc. (SCTM #1000-97-9-10.4) and Patricia P. Marco (SCTM #1000-97-9-12) and hereafter known as the “Marco Properties”. The total area of the properties is 133± acres. The addresses of the properties are, respectively, 1985 Leslie Road and 4170 Indian Neck Lane in Peconic, and 3123 and 3595 Skunk Lane (Bay Avenue) in Cutchogue. The properties are located within the Agricultural-Conservation (A-C) Zoning District. The Marco Properties begin approximately 3,652± feet south of Route 25, along the southerly side of Indian Neck Lane in Peconic. The properties also have road frontage on Leslie Road and Skunk Lane, and shoreline along Little Creek. The proposed acquisition is for the Town to acquire the development rights on a total of 33.9± acres in two separate development rights easements and for the County of Suffolk and/or Town of Southold to acquire the development rights on an additional 56± acres. The total development rights acquisition is for 90± acres in three separate easements. The easements are located on a proposed eight (8) lot Conservation Subdivision pending before the Southold Planning Board. The easement areas are located as follows: Proposed Lot 1 – development rights easement area is 8.1± acres, Proposed Lot 4 - development rights easement area is 25.8± acres, and Proposed Lot 8 – development rights easement area is 56± acres. The purchase price for the ? easement areas of 90 acres is $80,000 (eighty thousand dollars) per buildable acre plus acquisition costs. The 8.1± acre easement and the 25.8± acre easement will be funded by the Town’s Community Preservation Fund. The 56± acre easement will be funded by the County of Suffolk and/or the Town’s Community Preservation Fund; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold that this action be classified as an Unlisted Action pursuant to the SEQRA Rules and Regulations, 6NYCRR 617.1 et. Seq.; be it further RESOLVED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold that the Town of Southold is the only involved agency pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations; be it further RESOLVED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold that the Short Environmental Form prepared for this project is accepted and attached hereto; and, be it further December 4, 2007 Page 22 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting RESOLVEDfinds no significant impact that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby on the environment and declares a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations for this action. Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-931 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Seconder ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? William P. Edwards Initiator ?? Defeated ?????????? Tabled Daniel C. Ross Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Voter ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Voter ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter 25. Statement SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I just want to clarify a little bit. We have four, I believe, public hearings scheduled tonight. Two are for preservation. We had decided to allow those, they are going to be quick. I know most of you are here for Chapter 275, I want to hear everything you have to say but what we were hoping to do was to get the preservation public hearings out of the way first. They are only going to take a few moments. 2007-932 CATEGORY: Enact Local Law DEPARTMENT: Town Attorney Enact LL Shellfish WHEREAS, there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk th “A Local Law in County, New York, on the 7 day of November, 2007 a Local Law entitled relation to Shellfish and Other Marine Resources” and WHEREAS the Town Board of the Town of Southold held a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, now therefor be it RESOLVEDENACTS that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby the proposed “A Local Law in relation to Shellfish and Other Marine Resources” Local Law entitled reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 22 of 2007 “A Local Law in relation to Shellfish and Other Marine A Local Law entitled, Resources” . BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: December 4, 2007 Page 23 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting I. Purpose - It is the purpose and intent of the amendments to this Chapter to provide for the protection, the preservation and the proper use and maintenance of Town waters and lands under Town waters, to minimize damage thereto and to enhance their use for the propagation of shellfish and other beneficial marine organisms and thereby protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare of the Town of Southold. II. Chapter 219 of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: ARTICLE I Catching of Shrimp [Adopted by 6-29-1933] General Provisions §219-1. Taking of shrimp by nonresidents prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person not a resident of the Town of Southold to take shrimp from the waters of Brush's Creek, Willes Creek, Downs Creek, James Creek, West Creek, Richmond's Creek, Corey's Creek, Cedar Beach Creek, Goose Creek, Jockey Creek, Town Creek, Mill Creek, Long Creek, Budd's Pond, Dam Pond, Mattituck Creek, Goldsmith's Creek, Squash Creek, Wickham's Creek and Little Creek, or other creeks or inland waters within the bounds of said Township. §219-2 1. Residence requirements. Persons shall be deemed to be residents of the Town of Southold at any given date, within the meaning of this article Chapter, when they shall have actually and continuously resided within the said Town for a period of at least six (6) months sixty (60) days immediately preceding such date. §219-3 2. Effect. No provision of this article shall be deemed to prevent any person or persons residing within the Town of Southold from angling for fish for other than commercial purposes. §219-4. Penalties for offenses. Any violation of this article shall be subject to a penalty of not less than $5 nor more than $100 and costs. ARTICLE II Taking of Shellfish and Eels [Adopted by 6-23-1966] §219-5 3. Title. This article Chapter shall be known as the "Shellfish and Other Marine Resources Law of the Town of Southold." §219-7 4. Definitions. For the purposes of this article Chapter, the terms used herein are defined as follows: AQUACULTURE/MARICULTURE - The cultivation, planting, containment or harvesting of December 4, 2007 Page 24 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting products that naturally are produced in the marine environment, including fish, shellfish, crustaceans and seaweed, and the installation of cribs, racks and in-water structures for cultivating such products, but excluding the construction of any building, any filling or dredging or the construction of any water regulating structures. BOAT/VESSEL - Any floating object capable of carrying people as a means of transportation in water, including without limitation an airplane capable of landing on water, any floating structure not otherwise considered to be part of a dock structure as defined herein, with or without means of propulsion, which object can be moored independently or can be secured by any means to a piling, dock, bulkhead, groin or other fixed device located above mean high water. Floating docks are excluded from this definition. CHANNEL SYSTEM - The bed of a natural waterway with well-defined banks presenting the evidence of the flow of tidal waters, which is commonly traversed by boat/vessel and is designated by channel markers, including man-made or stabilized waterways designed for the navigation of boats/vessels. For the purpose of this Chapter, boat basins and bathing areas are included within this definition. CHURNING - The removal of shellfish from lands below average low water by utilizing a propwash from a vessel or skid-mounted outboard motor. COMMERCIAL PURPOSES - Any use or purpose other than for food consumption by the persons taking the shellfish or by members of such person's household. Taking, containment or harvesting of shellfish or other marine resources to sell to a third party. CONTAINMENT - The placement and possession of shellfish in a basket, tub, bag, or any other type of container. CULLING - Separating shellfish or other marine resources according to size. EEL - The American eel. FIXED GEAR - Fishing equipment that is set in a stationary position, including without limitation pots, moorings, long line, hand line, weir nets, gillnets and traps. GUEST - A person who temporarily occupies living quarters in a dwelling maintained by a permanent resident. MARINE RESOURCES - Blue claw crabs, horseshoe crabs, eels and mussels. NON-RESIDENT - One who does not reside in the Town of Southold. PATENT LANDS - All uplands and underwater lands owned in fee title by the Town of Southold Board of Trustees by virtue of the Andros Patent. December 4, 2007 Page 25 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting PERMANENT RESIDENT - A person who has maintained a permanent dwelling within the Town of Southold during the period of not less than 60 days immediately preceding the date of his application for a permit hereunder, or the date of taking shellfish if no permit is required. SCAP NET - A hand-operated net attached to a handle with an opening across the mouth of no more than 14 inches. SHELLFISH - Clams, scallops, oysters, blue claw crabs, mussels, periwinkles and , conchs, channeled whelk and knobbed whelk. TAKING - The removal or harvesting of shellfish and other marine resources by any means. TAXPAYER - A person who owns real property as shown on the assessment roll of the Town of Southold. TEMPORARY RESIDENT - A person who has occupied living quarters within the Town of Southold during the period of not less than seven days immediately preceding the date of his application for a permit hereunder. TOWN WATERS - All waters and lands under tidewater in any harbor, bay or creek, title to which and the right of fishing in which is vested in the Town of Southold and/or in the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold. TOWN WATERS - All the waters lying over Patent Lands. ARTICLE II Shellfish §219-8 6. Permit requirements. A. Shellfish may be taken from Town waters for commercial purposes by a permanent resident over the age of 14 years upon first obtaining a commercial shellfish permit therefor from the Town Clerk of the Town of Southold. (1) Persons Aages 12 and 13 can apply for a junior commercial shellfish license which will allow them to catch half the commercial limit. The junior commercial shellfish license and will be at half the cost of a commercial license. The parents or guardian of the applicant for a junior commercial shellfish license must sign for the holder of the junior license, making the parent or guardian responsible for any violation incurred. B. Shellfish may be taken from Town waters by a non- temporary resident upon first obtaining a non- temporary resident shellfish permit therefor from the Town Clerk of the Town of Southold. C. Shellfish may be taken from Town waters for noncommercial purposes by a permanent resident or taxpayer upon first obtaining a permanent resident or December 4, 2007 Page 26 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting taxpayer's permit therefor from the Town Clerk of the Town of Southold. Such a permit shall be required for all persons ages 10 and older. Persons under the age of 10 may take shellfish only when accompanied by a valid permit-holder, and any shellfish taken by such child shall count toward the maximum daily quantity allowed in this Chapter for such permit-holder. D. Shellfish may be taken from Town waters for noncommercial purposes without obtaining a permit therefor by a guest when accompanied by a permanent resident in whose dwelling such guest occupies living quarters, provided that such permanent resident is the holder of a valid shellfish permit. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article Chapter, the quantity of shellfish taken by a guest or guests shall be added to the quantity taken by the permanent resident accompanying the guest or guests, and the total amount thereof shall not exceed, in the aggregate, the maximum daily quantity prescribed in this article Chapter for such permanent resident. E. Except as set forth herein, no person not a permanent resident, a taxpayer, a temporary resident or a guest accompanied by a permanent resident shall take shellfish in any manner at any time from Town waters without a permit issued pursuant to this Chapter. F. The possession of shellfish in excess of the limits, or of less size than that, set forth in this Chapter, found aboard any boat or vessel in the waters of the Town of Southold, shall be deemed presumptive evidence of a violation of this article. G. Shellfish may be taken from Town waters for noncommercial purposes by a permanent resident under the age of 14 years without obtaining a permit therefor. [Added 7-7-1982 by L.L. No. 5-1982] §219-9 7. Permit fee; expiration; display. A. The fee for a commercial shellfish permit shall be set from time to time by resolution of the Town Board, upon recommendation by the Board of Trustees. $20. Effective on and after January 1, 1991, the fee for a commercial shellfish permit shall be $35. Such permit shall expire on December 31 of the year of its issuance. B. The fee for a non- temporary resident shellfish permit shall be set from time to time by resolution of the Town Board, upon recommendation by the Board of Trustees. $10. Such permit shall be issued only for the period of time that such temporary resident occupies living quarters within the Town of Southold. The non-resident permit shall expire on September 15 of the year of its issuance. C. The fee for a non-commercial permanent resident or taxpayer shellfish permit shall be $3. Effective on and after January 1, 1991, the fee for such permit shall December 4, 2007 Page 27 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting be $5. Such permit shall expire on December 31 of the year of issuance. There shall be no fee for a permanent resident who has attained the age of 62 years. D. The holder of a shellfish permit shall carry the permit assigned to him them on his their person while engaged in the permitted activities, and the failure of such holders to exhibit his their permit to an enforcement officer shall be presumptive evidence that no valid permit has been issued to them him. §219-10 8. Scallops. A. The Trustees of the Town of Southold may establish, by resolution, the dates of the commercial and noncommercial scallop season based on the environmental and economic conditions in effect each year. [Amended 9-6-1994 by L.L. No. 19- 1994] Scallop season for residents and non-residents shall be set pursuant to New York State, as adopted by Board of Trustee resolution. B. Subject to the provisions of this section, during the first two weeks of Scallop season, harvesting in Town Waters shall be by hand or with a scalp net only. During the first two weeks of Scallop season, harvesting in Town Waters shall be open to all permit holders, for the noncommercial limits set forth herein. During the noncommercial scallop season, not more than 1/2 bushel of scallops may be taken from Town waters in any one day by hand or with a scalp net. [Amended 7- 7-1982 by L.L. No. 5-1982; 9-6-1994 by L.L. No. 19-1994] C. Except as set forth above, dDuring the commercial scallop season, scallops may be taken from Town waters with a dredge or scrape having an opening at the mouth of not more than 36 inches in width when towed by a boat operated by mechanical power or other means, provided that such dredge or scrape is brought aboard the boat by hand power without the use of a mechanical device.] D. Subject to the provisions of this section, a permanent resident, a taxpayer, a temporary non-resident or a guest, when accompanied by a permanent resident, may take from Town waters not more than 1/2 bushel of scallops for noncommercial purposes in any one day by any one (1) person. Two (2) or more persons occupying the same boat may take, in the aggregate, not more than two (2) bushels of scallops in one (1) day for noncommercial purposes. for other than commercial purposes. [Amended 7-7-1982 by L.L. No. 5-1982] E. Subject to the provisions of this section, not more than five bushels of scallops may be taken from Town waters for commercial purposes in any one day by any one person. Two or more persons occupying the same boat may take, in the aggregate, not more than 10 bushels of scallops in one day for commercial purposes. F. Scallops shall not be taken from Town waters during the period from sunset to December 4, 2007 Page 28 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting sunrise. G. Scallops shall not be taken from Town waters on Sundays except by hand or with a scalp net by uses of dredge or other power device. H. Only scallops measuring more than 2 1/4 inches from the middle of the hinge to the middle of the bill may be taken from Town waters except as provided below. Amended 1-21-1997 by L.L. No. 2-1997] H. I. Scallops measuring less than 2 1/4 inches with an annual growth line having an annual growth line and measuring not less than 2 ¼” from the middle of the hinge to the middle of the bill may be taken from Town waters only by resolution of the Southold Town Board of Trustees. §219-11 9. Clams. A. Hard clams less than one inch in thickness shall not be contained taken from Town waters and shall be subject to the requirements set forth in Section 219- 14A. B. Soft or steamer clams less than two inches in the longest diameter shall not be contained taken from Town waters and shall be subject to the requirements set forth in Section 219-14A. C. Churning by power may not be employed in the taking of soft clams on land below the high-tide line in Town waters. D. A permanent resident, a taxpayer, a temporary non-resident or a guest accompanied by a permanent resident may take contain not more than 100 hard clams and 100 soft clams from Town waters in one day for noncommercial purposes. E. Not more than 2,000 hard clams may be taken from Town waters for commercial purposes in any one day by any one person. Two or more persons occupying the same boat may take, in aggregate, not more than 4,000 hard clams in one day for commercial purposes. §219-12 10. Oysters. A. Oysters shall not be taken from Town waters during the period from May 1 to August 31 in each year, both dates inclusive, and shall be subject to the requirements of Section 219-14A. B. Oysters shall not be taken from Town waters during the period from sunset to sunrise. December 4, 2007 Page 29 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting C. Only oysters measuring more than three inches from the hinge to the bill may be taken from Town waters, and shall be subject to the requirements of Section 219- 14A. D. A permanent resident, a taxpayer, a non-resident or a guest accompanied by a permanent resident may take not more than one-half (1/2) bushel of oysters from Town Waters for noncommercial purposes in any one (1) day by any one (1) person. Two (2) or more persons occupying the same boat may take, in the aggregate, not more than one (1) bushel of oysters from Town Waters in one (1) day for noncommercial purposes. The Trustees of the Town of Southold may establish, by resolution, the limits on the number of oysters which may be harvested for commercial purposes and noncommercial purposes. A permanent resident, a taxpayer, a temporary resident or guest accompanied by a resident may harvest oysters for noncommercial purposes in the quantities set by resolution of the Trustees. [Amended 7-7-1982 by L.L. No. 5-1982; 1-21-1997 by L.L. No. 1- 1997] Editor's Note: Former Subsection E, amended 7-31-1973, which immediately followed this subsection and dealt with the amount of oysters allowed to be taken from Town waters for commercial purposes, was repealed 1- 21-1997 by L.L. No. 1-1997. E. Not more than two thousand (2,000) oysters may be contained or taken from Town Waters for commercial purposes in any one (1) day by any one (1) person. Two (2) or more persons occupying the same boat may take, in aggregate, not more than four thousand (4,000) oysters in one (1) day from Town Waters for commercial purposes. ARTICLE III Other Marine Resources §219-113. Blue claw crabs. A. Blue claw crabs must be harvested according to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation regulations. Blue claw crabs measuring less than five inches from point to point of the upper shell shall not be taken from the waters of the Town of Southold. B. A permanent resident, a taxpayer, a temporary resident or a guest accompanied by a permanent resident may not take more than 1/2 bushel of blue claw crabs from Town waters in any one day for noncommercial purposes. [Amended 7-7-1982 by L.L. No. 5-1982] C. Female blue claw crabs shall not be taken from the waters of the Town of Southold. [Amended 7-14-1987 by L.L. No. 12-1987] D. Crab pots. No individual may set more than one crab pot, and each crab pot and buoy shall have affixed thereto the individual's shellfish permit number. [Added December 4, 2007 Page 30 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting 7-14-1987 by L.L. No. 12-1987] §219-12 4. Mussels. A. A permanent resident, a taxpayer, a temporary non-resident or a guest accompanied by a permanent resident may not take contain more than one bushel of mussels from Town waters in one day for noncommercial purposes. Two (2) or more persons occupying the same boat may contain, in aggregate, not more than two bushels of mussels from Town Waters in one (1) day for noncommercial purposes. B. Not more than 10 bushels of mussels may be taken from Town waters for commercial purposes in one day by any one person. Two or more persons occupying the same boat may take contain, in the aggregate, not more than 20 bushels of mussels in one day for commercial purposes. C. Ribbed mussels shall be contained by handpicking only. Raking for mussels in peat bog areas shall be prohibited. D. The containment of mussels is further regulated by New York State. §219-135. Eels. A. Commercial purposes. No more than 50 eel pots or traps per permitted in Town waters shall be permitted. All pots must be identified with the shellfish permit number. B. A permanent resident, taxpayer and temporary non-resident. No more than five eel pots in Town waters shall be permitted. All pots must be identified with the shellfish permit number. C. The containment of eels is further regulated by New York State. ARTICLE IV Operational §219-146. Culling shellfish and restoration of underwater lands. A. Shellfish shall be culled when taken. All shellfish taken which do not comply with the provisions of this article Chapter shall be immediately returned alive to the water in the immediate vicinity of where they were harvested. B. All lands under Town waters disturbed by the taking of shellfish shall be restored to their condition prior to the taking of such shellfish by the person taking such shellfish. December 4, 2007 Page 31 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting §219-15. Fixed Gear A. Fixed gear shall be placed no closer than the outer edge of any channel system and the gear shall not impede navigation. §219-167. Restricted areas. Shellfish shall not be taken from any Town waters which have been restricted by the Town Board of Trustees, provided that such restricted areas shall have been properly designated by a resolution duly passed by said Board of Trustees and properly staked and notices posted by said Board of Trustees. In addition, shellfish shall not be taken from the following habitat sanctuary zone in Hallock Bay, North of the line formed by the following coordinates (excluding Little Bay): from a westerly point at Lat 41 degrees 8 minutes 17.22 seconds N, Long 72 degrees 16 minutes 40.68 seconds W, for a distance 5,190 feet, S 81 degrees 10 minutes 8 seconds E, to an easterly point at Lat 41 degrees 8 minutes 24 seconds N, Long 72 degrees 15 minutes 33.81 seconds W. Such sanctuary area, depicted on a mapped image, shall be made part of all permits issued pursuant to this Chapter. §219-17. Planting of Shellfish Seed. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, the Board of Trustees may approve an organization plan for planting shellfish seed in Town Waters and upon approval, the Board of Trustees may then authorize the approved organization and other volunteers acting under its supervision to plant shellfish seed in accordance with the approved plan. §219-18. Transplanting of shellfish. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article Chapter, the Town Board of Trustees may authorize the transplanting of shellfish in Town waters of any age or size, subject to its supervision, when it shall find that such shellfish are in danger of destruction as the result of predators, economic factors or other detrimental causes. §219-19. Dredges and scrapes. Except as permitted by § 219-810C of this article Chapter, the use of a dredge, scrape, ell eel dredge, hydraulic means or similar device towed by a boat operated by mechanical power or other means is prohibited in Town waters. Except as permitted by § 219-10C of this article, the use of a dredge, scrape, ell dredge or similar device towed by a boat operated by mechanical power or other means is prohibited in Town waters except by special permission of the Trustees for scientific study projects. §219-20. Vegetation removal prohibited. No person shall remove beach grasses or wetland vegetation of any kind, nor place spoil thereon, in any other area of the Town of Southold without prior written approval by the Board of Town December 4, 2007 Page 32 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting Trustees of the Town of Southold. §219-21. Aquaculture/Maraculture Exemption. The Board of Trustees may grant an exemption or variance, in terms of permitted sizes, number and time periods of harvest, from the provisions of this Chapter for aquaculture/maraculture activities that are properly permitted by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation. §219-221. Penalties for offenses. A. Any person convicted of an offense against any provision of this article shall be deemed to have committed a violation against such article and also shall be liable for any such offense or penalty therefor. A.B. For every each offense against any provision of this article Chapter, the person committing the same shall be subject to a fine not to exceed $500 or imprisonment not exceeding 15 days, or both such fine and imprisonment. B.C. A second conviction for an offense against any of the provisions of this article within a period of one year shall result in immediate revocation of their permit. shall constitute and effect an immediate forfeiture of a permit issued to such person. No new permit shall be issued to such person for at least one year after such forfeiture. D. Any person committing an offense against this article shall be subject to a civil penalty enforceable and collectible by the Town for each such offense. Such penalty shall be collectible by and in the name of the Town. C.E. In addition to the above-provided penalties and punishment, the Town Board may also maintain commence an action or proceeding in the name of the Town in a court of competent jurisdiction to compel compliance with or to restrain by injunction the offense against this article Chapter. §219-23. Coordination and enforcement. The Director of Code Enforcement and/or the Bay Constable are responsible for coordination and enforcement of the provisions of this Chapter, and have the authority to issue violations of the provisions of this Chapter. 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. December 4, 2007 Page 33 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect on January 1, 2008, after filing with the Secretary of State as provided by law. Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-932 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? William P. Edwards Initiator ?? Defeated ?????????? Tabled Daniel C. Ross Seconder ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Voter ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Voter ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter 2007-933 CATEGORY: Enact Local Law DEPARTMENT: Town Attorney Enact LL Chapter 275 WHEREAS there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk th County, New York, on the 9th day of October, 2007 and the 7 day of November, 2007 a Local “A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Chapter 275 (Wetlands & Law entitled Shoreline)” and be it further WHEREAS that the Town Board of the Town of Southold 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 RESOLVEDENACTS that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby the proposed “A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Chapter 275 (Wetlands & Local Law entitled, Shoreline)” reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 23 of 2007 “A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Chapter 275 (Wetlands A Local Law entitled, & Shoreline)” . BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: December 4, 2007 Page 34 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting I. Purpose – In order to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Town of Southold, and to protect the natural protective areas existing within the Town, it is necessary to make certain amendments to Chapter 275. These amendments are intended to support the protection of environmental features within the Trustees’ jurisdiction, strengthen enforcement, simplify the permit process and clarify activities that may be conducted in protected areas. II. Chapter 275 of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: §275-2. Definitions; word usage. ACCESS PATH -- an area, cleared by hand or hand-held equipment, no more than 4 feet wide, left in its natural state and devoid of any manmade structure, to provide a walkway to a body of water. DOCK -- Any permanent or seasonal structure, except a building, located or proposed to be located on lands abutting or comprised of freshwater or tidal wetlands or connected to a bulkhead or the upland and extending over the water's surface, designed to secure vessels and provide access from the shore to a body of water. For the purpose of this chapter, this term shall also include the associated structures necessary to cross wetlands and adjacent natural areas. The term “dock” includes the terms “wharves,” “piers,” “fixed docks,” “floating docks,” or “floats”. or “catwalks.” FUNCTIONAL – Any structure that has essentially retained its purpose and use within the 24 months preceding the operations or activities at issue, as determined by the Board of Trustees. NONDISTURBANCE BUFFER – An A vegetated area, typically 50 feet wide a minimum of 30 feet wide or as designated by the Board of Trustees, immediately landward of the wetland boundary, shoreline structure, or other line designated by the Trustees where no operations, maintenance, placement of signs or other activities can may take place, except that manmade debris may be removed from such area by hand without the permission of the Board of Trustees. RESIDENTIAL DOCK -- Any catwalk, fixed dock and/or floating dock designed or constructed as a continuous unit to provide access to the surface waters from a lot that is zoned for residential use. The term "dock" shall include all associated structures such as ramps and mooring piles. §275-4. Exceptions. A. The provisions of this chapter shall not affect or prohibit nor require a permit for the following: (4) The ordinary and usual operations relative to residential horticulture within Trustees’ jurisdiction provided they are limited to the use of non- invasive native species of vegetation. Re-grading and removal of trees are not considered such ordinary and usual operations.. landward of the December 4, 2007 Page 35 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting wetland boundary. (5) The ordinary and usual maintenance or repair (of the same dimensions) of a presently permitted existing a functional building, dock, pier, wharf, jetty, groin, dike, dam or other water-control device or structure, for which structure a wetland permit has been issued by the Town. (10) Installation of new or replacement windows, roof shingles, doors, dormers and siding on existing structures only. (11) Notwithstanding the above listed exceptions, operations within a designated non-disturbance buffer are prohibited. B. Nothing contained in this section shall alter the jurisdiction of the Southold Town Board of Trustees. These listed exceptions do not provide an exemption from the requirements of other departments or agencies. §275-5. Permit procedures. B. Administrative permit. (2) The following operations will be considered for administrative review, in accordance with the standards set forth in §275-11: (j) The reconstruction of a permitted bulkhead as per §275-11, which is to replace an existing functional bulkhead, subject to the following: [3] Any such activities operations shall require the addition of a nonturf pervious buffer area. not to exceed 20 feet wide as defined in §275-2. (l) Minor restoration or alterations of landscaping. (m) Decks. (n) Minor alterations to existing permitted shoreline structures including stairs, bulkheads and docks. (o) Installation or burial of a residential propane/liquid gas tank 25 feet or greater from wetlands in an existing, established yard area when more appropriate upland placement is not possible. Installation or burial of a propane tank less than 25 feet from wetlands is prohibited. (p) Dredging work necessitated by the accumulation of silt from run- off or other circumstances not the result of activity by or on behalf of the owner of the property. §275-7. Fees. F. Dredging Fee. Every application for a permit for dredging within Town-owned underwater lands shall include a fee as set by the Town Board based on the amount of cubic yard of dredge spoil to be removed. §275-10. Contents of permit. L. A statement that “The permittee is required to conspicuously post the permit and have the supporting Trustees’ stamped plans available for immediate inspection at the worksite at the commencement of work until which time the project is completed.” December 4, 2007 Page 36 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting §275-11. Construction and operation standards. A. General. The following standards are required for all operations within the jurisdiction of the Trustees: (4) Fences. In general, fences are prohibited from beaches and wetland areas. Trustees reserve the right to permit erection of a fence where the applicant has shown that there is a need to protect his/her private property. In these rare cases, only split-rail fences are allowed on beaches and wetlands. Such fences shall be perpendicular to the waterline and not closer than 10 feet to MHW. Only one posted sign per 100 linear feet of fence is allowed. Posted signs shall be no larger than 12 inches by 12 inches square. Any fence, barricade or impediment to pedestrian traffic on the beach or wetland area in violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be removed upon written notice to the owner of the premises upon which such fence, barricade or impediment is located sent by certified or registered mail. Such fence, barricade or impediment shall be removed by the owner within 30 days of the date of the notice. Upon failure to comply with such notice, the Building Inspector, Code Enforcement Officer or Bay Constable may remove or cause the removal of the illegal structure. If any fence, barricade or impediment is determined by the Building Inspector, Code Enforcement Officer or Bay Constable to create a hazard to the health, safety or welfare of the public, such structure may be removed and disposed of by the Town without prior notice to the owner. Upon removal by the Town, all costs and expenses incurred by the Town for the removal of such fence, barricade or impediment shall be the responsibility of the owner. The Town may pursue any and all remedies available at law to recover any unpaid costs associated with removal, including filing a statement with the Town Assessors, identifying the property in connection with which such expenses were incurred and the owner thereof as shown on the latest assessment roll of the Town. The Assessors, in preparation of the next assessment roll, shall assess such amount upon such property. Such amount shall be included in the levy against such property, shall constitute a lien and shall be collected and enforced in the same manner, by the same proceedings, at the same time and under the same penalty as is provided by law for the collection and enforcement of real property taxes in the Town of Southold. (9) Pumping of Town-owned freshwater wetlands for irrigation purposes shall be prohibited. (10) Access paths. A permit for only one path shall be granted per lot for the purposes of shoreline access unless otherwise determined by the Board of Trustees. B. Shoreline structures. The following standards are required for all operations relating to shoreline structures on residential properties. Operations conducted on December 4, 2007 Page 37 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting properties zoned M1 or M2 may be given greater flexibility in these requirements given the water-dependent nature of their use. (1) Bulkheads, retaining walls, revetments and gabions. (f) In order to prevent the release of metals and other contaminants into the wetlands and waters of Southold, the use of lumber pre- treated with any preservative, including but not limited to chromated copper arsenate (also known as "CCA"), creosote, penta products, Alkaline Copper Quat (ACQ), or homemade wood preservatives is prohibited for use in sheathing and decking on structures in the wetlands as well as on any part of a structure in low tidal flow wetland areas as determined by the Trustees. Any use of creosote is prohibited. Preservatives of any type, including but not limited to those listed above cannot be applied to any bulkheads, retaining walls or revetments after installation. Encapsulated pilings or native nonchemically treated (untreated) lumber only should be used in sensitive areas. (l) Lighting: Any and all lights associated with bulkheads, retaining walls, stairs or poles in Trustee jurisdiction must be directed on the subject structure and not out into the adjacent wetland, waterway or property. Lights shall not be on unless the waterfront is in active use. C. In water. The following standards are required for all in-water operations adjacent to residential properties. Operations conducted on properties zoned M1 or M2 may be given greater flexibility in these requirements given the water-dependent nature of their use. (2) Docks. (a) [3] In order to prevent the release of metals and other contaminants into the wetlands and waters of Southold, the use of lumber pre-treated with any preservative, including but not limited to chromated copper arsenate (also known as "CCA"), commercial copper quat (CCQ), creosote, penta products, Alkaline Copper Quat (ACQ), or homemade wood preservatives is prohibited for use in sheathing and decking on structures in the wetlands as well as on any part of a structure in low tidal flow wetland areas as determined by the Trustees. The use of creosote is prohibited. Similarly, the The use of tropical hardwoods is prohibited unless it is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council or similar organization. Materials used for structural components shall be determined at the discretion of the Trustees. (b) Dock locations and lengths. [3] [a] Given the unique and sensitive natural December 4, 2007 Page 38 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting environmental characteristics described in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan and the New York State Department of State Significant Habitat descriptions, No new docks will be permitted, over vegetated wetlands or such that it causes habitat fragmentation of vegetated wetlands in the following areas: Downs Creek, Hallocks Bay, Hashamomuck Creek and Pond, Long Creek (branch of Mattituck Creek, East of Grand Avenue bridge), Pipe’s Cove Creek and West Creek. [3] [d] No floating docks, floats, dock components, duck blinds or boats shall be stored on tidal wetlands, other intertidal areas or freshwater wetlands. (c) Regulations for the placement and configuration of docking facilities. [1] Residential docks. [a] Only one dock, catwalk may be permitted per residential lot. Only one mooring or dock may be or mooring is permitted per residential lot. Upon a showing of special need due to low water level and hazard to property, the Trustees may permit both a mooring and a dock for the same residential property. [b] If any part of a residential dock structure includes a float or floating dock, the float or floating dock portion shall be designed so that, with the exception of the pilings: [i] It is no larger than six feet wide and 20 feet long except on Fishers Island if the need is demonstrated; or of equal square footage as determined by the Trustees; [i] Residential boatlifts, floating or fixed, are prohibited, except in privately owned basins on private property at the discretion of the Board of Trustees. (3) Dredging. (a) Creeks. [1] Only maintenance dredging (as defined in §275-2) only is permitted, unless the applicant owns underwater land or the applicant is requesting permission to dredge in connection with installation of low-sill bulkheads. All maintenance dredging permits shall be valid for a period no greater than 10 years. (c) All dredging applications must demonstrate a specific location for December 4, 2007 Page 39 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting the deposit of dredging material. §275-12 A Standards for Issuance of permit §275-12 B Stop work orders. A. The Bay Constable or Code Enforcement Officer is authorized to issue stop-work orders pursuant to this section. The Bay Constable or Code Enforcement Officer shall issue a stop work order to halt: (1) Any work that is determined by the Bay Constable or Code Enforcement Officer to be contrary to any applicable provision of this Chapter, or: (i) Any work that is being conducted in a dangerous or unsafe manner in the opinion of the Bay Constable or Code Enforcement Officer, without regard to whether such work is or is not work for which a Trustee permit is required, and without regard to whether a Trustee permit has or has not been issued for such work; or (ii) Any work for which a Trustee permit is required which is being performed without the required Trustee permit, or under a Trustee permit that has become invalid, has expired, or has been suspended or revoked. B. Stop work orders shall: (1) Be in writing; (2) Be dated and signed by the Bay Constable or Code Enforcement Officer; (3) State the reason or reasons for issuance; (4) If applicable, state the conditions which must be satisfied before work will be permitted to resume. C. The Bay Constable or Code Enforcement Officer shall cause the stop work order, or a copy thereof, to be served on the owner of the affected property, and if the owner is not the permit holder, on the permit holder, personally or by certified mail to the owner or permit holder and posting at the work site. The Bay Constable or Code Enforcement Officer shall be permitted, but not required, to cause the stop work order, or a copy thereof, to be served on any or all of the following: builder, architect, tenant, contractor, subcontractor, construction superintendent, or their agents, or any other person taking part or assisting in work affected by the stop work order, personally or by certified mail and posting; provided, however, that failure to serve any person listed above shall not affect the efficacy of the stop work order. D. Upon issuance of the stop work order, the owner of the affected property, December 4, 2007 Page 40 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting the permit holder and any other person performing, taking part in or assisting in the work shall immediately cease all work which is the subject of the stop work order. E. The issuance of a stop work order shall not be the exclusive remedy available to address any event described in this section, and the authority to issue a stop work order shall be in addition to, and not in substitution for or limitation of, the right and authority to pursue any other remedy or impose any other penalty under any other applicable local or state law. Any such remedy or penalty may be pursued at any time, whether prior to, at the time of, or after the issuance of a stop work order. §275-16. Compliance requirements; penalties for offenses. B. For each offense against any of the provisions of this chapter or any regulations made pursuant thereto, or failure to comply with a written notice or order of any Director of Code Enforcement or Bay Constable within the time fixed for compliance therewith, the owner, occupant, builder, architect, contractor or their agents or any other person who commits, takes part or assists in the commission of any such offense or who shall fail to comply with a written order or notice of the Director of Code Enforcement or Bay Constable shall be subject to the following fine schedule. Each day on which such violation occurs may shall constitute a separate, additional offense. (2) Failure to comply with the terms of a permit. (a) Any person failing to comply with the terms of a permit shall be subject to a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $1,000. $4,000 For each subsequent offense, the violator shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not less than $1,000 nor more than $2,000 $7,500 or a term of imprisonment of not less than 15 days nor more than six months, or both. (b) Any person failing to comply with posting the permit and/or the requirement for supporting plans to be available for immediate inspection pursuant to §275-10 shall be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000. (3) Failure to heed a cease and desist order stop work order. Any person conducting operations in direct contradiction to the terms of a cease and desist stop work order shall be subject to a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $2000. $4,000. For each subsequent offense, the violator shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not less than $1,000 nor more than $2000 $7,500 or a term of imprisonment of not less than 15 days nor more than six months, or both. (4) Restoration. In lieu or in addition to these punishments, any offender may be punished by being ordered to restore the affected wetland to its condition prior to the offense. Any such order shall specify a reasonable time for the completion of such restoration, which shall be effected under the supervision of the approving authority. The Trustees reserve the right December 4, 2007 Page 41 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting to require specific replanting and restoration methods including specific survivability and success criteria. (5) Failure to comply with a restoration plan. Any person failing to comply with the terms of a mandated restoration plan as detailed in subsection 4 of this section within the proscribed period of time for completion shall be guilty of an offense and subject to a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $4,000. (5)(6) Mitigation. When on-site wetlands restoration and creation may be unfeasible due to technical or other constraints, other mitigative measures, such as off-site wetland restoration or creation, may be required. C. No new permits will be issued to any carter, owner, occupant, builder, architect, contractor or their agents if they are a named as defendants in an outstanding or unresolved wetland violation.violation of Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shoreline or Chapter 111 Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas. 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. APPLICABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by law Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-933 ? ? Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ?? Adopted as Amended ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Defeated ???????? William P. Edwards Seconder ?? Tabled ???????? Daniel C. Ross Initiator ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Voter ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Voter ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter Next: Dec 18, 2007 4:30 PM 2007-934 CATEGORY: Property Acquisition Purchase DEPARTMENT: Land Preservation Blocker Elect to Purchase WHEREAS , the Town Board of the Town of Southold held a public hearing on the question of the purchase of fee title to a certain property from The Nature Conservancy, contract vendee of the property owned by Julius Blocker Revocable Trust, and known as the Blocker Property, on th the 4 day of December, 2007, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 185 (Open Space Preservation) and Chapter 17 (Community Preservation Fund) of the Code of the Town of Southold, at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard; and December 4, 2007 Page 42 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting WHEREAS , said property is identified as SCTM #1000-87-6-12.1. The total area of the property is 45± acres. The address of the property is 1005 Takaposa Road in Southold. The property is located within the A-C zoning district. The property has approximately 596± feet of road frontage on Main Bayview Road and 50± feet of road frontage on Watersedge Way. The property is currently accessed by Takaposa Road that is located on the southerly side of Main Bayview Road approximately 400 feet west of the intersection of Jacobs Lane and Main Bayview Road in Southold. The property shares an easterly boundary line with a filed subdivision map known as “Bay Haven” and common boundaries with five individual parcels now or formerly owned by Margaret McNamara, Ralph L. & Elaine B. Panella, Theodore Zang, Spiridon & Letta Kouzios and Harford Living Trust. The property also has approximately 3200± feet of shoreline along Corey Creek and approximately 2480± feet of shoreline on Hog Neck Bay; and WHEREAS , the proposed acquisition is for the Town, in a joint 50%/50% partnership with the County of Suffolk, to acquire fee title to the entire 45± acres known as the Blocker Property for open space purposes. The exact area of the purchase is subject to survey. The purchase price for the entire 45± acre property is $8,000,000 (eight million dollars) and the purchase will be funded by the Town’s Community Preservation Fund and the County of Suffolk in a 50%/50% partnership which will include the purchase price and any related acquisition costs associated with the purchase of this property. The Town has made application to, and the Town may become eligible for grant funding from, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation; and WHEREAS , the property is listed on the Town’s Community Preservation Project Plan as property that should be preserved for open space. The purpose of this acquisition is for open space protection and passive recreational purposes. Proposed uses of the property may include the establishment of a nature preserve, passive recreational area with trails and limited parking for access purposes, all subject to a Management Plan which will be developed for this property; WHEREAS , the Land Preservation Coordinator has reviewed the acquisition in accordance with Chapter 117 (Transfer of Development Rights) of the Code of the Town of Southold, Section 117-5. Sanitary Flow Credits are not available for transfer from this acquisition as it is a joint purchase with the County of Suffolk and the County regulations do not allow for transfer; and WHEREAS , the purchase of fee title to this property for open space purposes is in conformance with the provision of Chapter 185 (Open Space Preservation) and Chapter 17 (Community Preservation Fund) of the Town Code of the Town of Southold; and WHEREAS , the proposed action has been reviewed pursuant to Chapter 268 (Waterfront Consistency Review) of the Town Code and Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) December 4, 2007 Page 43 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting and the LWRP Coordinator has recommended, and the Town Board has determined, that this action is consistent with the LWRP; and WHEREAS , the Land Preservation Committee has reviewed the application for the acquisition, and recommends that the Town Board acquire fee title to this open space acquisition; and WHEREAS , the Town Board deems it in the best public interest that the Town of Southold purchase fee title to this property; now, therefore, be it RESOLVEDelects to purchase fee title that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby to a certain property from The Nature Conservancy, contract vendee of the property owned by Julius Blocker Revocable Trust, and known as the Blocker Property, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 185 (Open Space Preservation) and Chapter 17 (Community Preservation Fund) of the Code of the Town of Southold. Said property is identified as SCTM #1000-87-6-12.1. The total area of the property is 45± acres. The address of the property is 1005 Takaposa Road in Southold. The property is located within the A-C zoning district. The property has approximately 596± feet of road frontage on Main Bayview Road and 50± feet of road frontage on Watersedge Way. The property is currently accessed by Takaposa Road that is located on the southerly side of Main Bayview Road approximately 400 feet west of the intersection of Jacobs Lane and Main Bayview Road in Southold. The property shares an easterly boundary line with a filed subdivision map known as “Bay Haven” and common boundaries with five individual parcels now or formerly owned by Margaret McNamara, Ralph L. & Elaine B. Panella, Theodore Zang, Spiridon & Letta Kouzios and Harford Living Trust. The property also has approximately 3200± feet of shoreline along Corey Creek and approximately 2480± feet of shoreline on Hog Neck Bay. The proposed acquisition is for the Town, in a joint 50%/50% partnership with the County of Suffolk, to acquire fee title to the entire 45± acres known as the Blocker Property for open space purposes. The exact area of the purchase is subject to survey. The purchase price for the entire 45± acre property is $8,000,000 (eight million dollars) and the purchase will be funded by the Town’s Community Preservation Fund and the County of Suffolk in a 50%/50% partnership which will include the purchase price and any related acquisition costs associated with the purchase of this property. The Town has made application to, and the Town may become eligible for grant funding from, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. The property is listed on the Town’s Community Preservation Project Plan as property that should be preserved for open space. The purpose of this acquisition is for open space protection and passive recreational purposes. Proposed uses of the property may include the establishment of a nature preserve, passive recreational area with trails and limited parking for access purposes, all subject to a Management Plan which will be developed for this property. The Land Preservation Coordinator has reviewed the acquisition in accordance with Chapter 117 (Transfer of Development Rights) of the Code of the Town of Southold, Section 117-5. Sanitary Flow Credits are not available for transfer from this acquisition as it is a joint purchase with the County of Suffolk and the County regulations do December 4, 2007 Page 44 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting not allow for transfer. The purchase of fee title to this property for open space purposes is in conformance with the provision of Chapter 185 (Open Space Preservation) and Chapter 17 (Community Preservation Fund) of the Town Code of the Town of Southold. The proposed action has been reviewed pursuant to Chapter 268 (Waterfront Consistency Review) of the Town Code and Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) and the LWRP Coordinator has recommended, and the Town Board has determined, that this action is consistent with the LWRP. Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-934 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? William P. Edwards Voter ?? Defeated ?????????? Tabled Daniel C. Ross Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Initiator ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Seconder ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter 2007-935 CATEGORY: Property Acquisition Purchase DEPARTMENT: Land Preservation Marco Elect to Purchase WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold held a public hearing on the question of the purchase of development rights easements on certain parcels of properties owned by Philip R. Marco (SCTM #1000-98-1-2.1), Patricia P. Marco (SCTM #1000-98-1-27.1), Marco Phil Productions Inc. (SCTM #1000-97-9-10.4) and Patricia P. Marco (SCTM #1000-97-9-12) and th hereafter known as the “Marco Properties”, on the 4 day of December, 2007, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17 (Community Preservation Fund) and Chapter 70 (Agricultural Lands Preservation) of the Town Code, at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the total area of the properties is 133± acres. The addresses of the properties are, respectively, 1985 Leslie Road and 4170 Indian Neck Lane in Peconic, and 3123 and 3595 Skunk Lane (Bay Avenue) in Cutchogue. The properties are located within the Agricultural- Conservation (A-C) Zoning District. The Marco Properties begin approximately 3,652± feet south of Route 25, along the southerly side of Indian Neck Lane in Peconic. The properties also have road frontage on Leslie Road and Skunk Lane, and shoreline along Little Creek; and December 4, 2007 Page 45 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting WHEREAS, the proposed acquisition is for the Town to acquire the development rights on a total of 33.9± acres in two separate development rights easements and for the County of Suffolk and/or Town of Southold to acquire the development rights on an additional 56± acres. The total development rights acquisition is for 90± acres in three separate easements. The easements are located on a proposed eight (8) lot Conservation Subdivision pending before the Southold Planning Board. The easement areas are located as follows: Proposed Lot 1 – development rights easement area is 8.1± acres, Proposed Lot 4 - development rights easement area is 25.8 ± acres, and Proposed Lot 8 – development rights easement area is 56± acres; and ? WHEREAS, the purchase price for the easement areas of 90 acres is $80,000 (eighty thousand dollars) per buildable acre plus acquisition costs. The 8.1± acre easement and the 25.8± acre easement will be funded by the Town’s Community Preservation Fund. The 56± acre easement will be funded by County of Suffolk and/or the Town’s Community Preservation Fund; and WHEREAS, the properties are listed on the Town’s Community Preservation Project Plan as property that should be preserved for agricultural and open space purposes; and WHEREAS, the purchase of the development rights on these properties is in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 17 (Community Preservation Fund) and Chapter 70 (Agricultural Lands Preservation) of the Town Code, and WHEREAS, the proposed action has been reviewed pursuant to Chapter 268 (Waterfront Consistency Review) of the Town Code and Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) and the LWRP Coordinator has recommended, and the Town Board has determined, that this action is consistent with the LWRP; and WHEREAS, the Land Preservation Committee has reviewed the application for the acquisitions, and recommends that the Town Board acquire the development rights easements; and WHEREAS, the Town Board deems it in the best public interest that the Town of Southold purchase the development rights on these agricultural lands; now, therefore, be it RESOLVEDelects to purchase that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby development rights easements on certain parcels of properties owned by owned by Philip December 4, 2007 Page 46 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting R. Marco (SCTM #1000-98-1-2.1), Patricia P. Marco (SCTM #1000-98-1-27.1), Marco Phil Productions Inc. (SCTM #1000-97-9-10.4) and Patricia P. Marco (SCTM #1000-97-9-12) and hereafter known as the “Marco Properties”, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17 (Community Preservation Fund) and Chapter 70 (Agricultural Lands Preservation) of the Code of the Town of Southold. The total area of the properties is 133± acres. The addresses of the properties are, respectively, 1985 Leslie Road and 4170 Indian Neck Lane in Peconic, and 3123 and 3595 Skunk Lane (Bay Avenue) in Cutchogue. The properties are located within the Agricultural-Conservation (A-C) Zoning District. The Marco Properties begin approximately 3,652± feet south of Route 25, along the southerly side of Indian Neck Lane in Peconic. The properties also have road frontage on Leslie Road and Skunk Lane, and shoreline along Little Creek. The proposed acquisition is for the Town to acquire the development rights on a total of 33.9± acres in two separate development rights easements and for the County of Suffolk and/or Town of Southold to acquire the development rights on an additional 56± acres. The total development rights acquisition is for 90± acres in three separate easements. The easements are located on a proposed eight (8) lot Conservation Subdivision pending before the Southold Planning Board. The easement areas are located as follows: Proposed Lot 1 – development rights easement area is 8.1± acres, Proposed Lot 4 - development rights easement area is 25.8 ± acres, and Proposed Lot 8 – development rights easement area is 56± acres. The purchase price for the ? easement areas of 90 acres is $80,000 (eighty thousand dollars) per buildable acre plus acquisition costs. The 8.1± acre easement and the 25.8± acre easement will be funded by the Town’s Community Preservation Fund. The 56± acre easement will be funded by the County of Suffolk and/or the Town’s Community Preservation Fund. The property is listed on the Town’s Community Preservation Project Plan as property that should be preserved for agricultural and open space purposes and Town funding for this purchase is in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 17 (Community Preservation Fund) and Chapter 70 (Agricultural Lands Preservation) of the Town Code of the Town of Southold. The proposed action has been reviewed pursuant to Chapter 268 (Waterfront Consistency Review) of the Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) and the LWRP Coordinator has recommended, and the Town Board has determined, that this action is consistent with the LWRP. December 4, 2007 Page 47 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting Vote Record - Resolution RES-2007-935 ? Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ? Adopted ? ? ? ? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Adopted as Amended ???????? William P. Edwards Voter ?? Defeated ?? Tabled ???????? Daniel C. Ross Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Initiator ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Seconder ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter VI. Public Hearings Motion To: Motion to recess to Public Hearing COMMENTS - Current Meeting: RESOLVEDbe and hereby is declared that this meeting of the Southold Town Board Recessed in order to hold a public hearing. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Louisa P. Evans, Justice SECONDER: Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman AYES: Krupski Jr., Edwards, Ross, Wickham, Evans, Russell 1. Blocker Set Public Hearing COMMENTS - Current Meeting: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: that pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 185 (Open Space Preservation) and Chapter 17 (Community Preservation Fund) of sets Tuesday, December 4, the Town Code, the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby 2007, at 7:50 p.m., Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York as the time and place for a public hearing for the purchase of property from The Nature Conservancy, contract vendee of the property owned by Julius Blocker Revocable Trust, and known as the Blocker property . Said property is identified as SCTM #1000-87-6-12.1. The total area of the property is 45± acres. The address of the property is 1005 Takaposa Road in Southold. The property is located within the A-C zoning district. The property has approximately 596± of road frontage on Main Bayview Road and 50± of road frontage on Watersedge Way. The property is currently accessed by Takaposa Road that is located on the southerly side of Main Bayview Road approximately 400feet west of the intersection of Jacobs Lane and Main Bayview Road in Southold. The property shares an easterly boundary line with a filed subdivision map known as “Bay Haven” and common boundaries with five individual parcels now or formerly owned by Margaret McNamara, Ralph L. & Elaine B. Panella, Theodore Zang, Spiridon & Letta Kouzios and Harford Living Trust. The property also has approximately 3200± feet of shoreline along Corey Creek and approximately 2480± feet of shoreline on Hog Neck Bay. The proposed acquisition is for the Town of Southold, in a joint 50%/50% partnership with the ? County of Suffolk, to acquire fee title to the entire 45 acres known as the Blocker property for open space purposes. The exact area of the purchase is subject to survey. The purchase price for ? the entire 45 acre parcel is $8,000,000 (eight million dollars) and the purchase will be funded by the Town’s Community Preservation Fund and the County of Suffolk in a 50%/50% partnership which will include the purchase price and any related acquisition costs associated December 4, 2007 Page 48 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting with the purchase of this property. The Town has made application to, and the Town may become eligible for grant funding from, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. The property is listed on the Town’s Community Preservation Project Plan as property that should be preserved for open space. The purpose of this acquisition is for open space protection and passive recreational purposes. Proposed uses of the property may include the establishment of a nature preserve, passive recreational area with trails and limited parking for access purposes, all subject to a Management Plan which will be developed for this property. The Land Preservation Coordinator has review the acquisition in accordance with Chapter 117 (Transfer of Development Rights) of the Code of the Town of Southold, Section 117-5. Sanitary flow credits are not available for transfer from this acquisition as it is a joint purchase with the County of Suffolk and the County regulations do not allow for transfer. FURTHER NOTICE is hereby given that a more detailed description of the above mentioned parcel of land is on file in Land Preservation Department, Southold Town Hall Annex, 54375 Route 25, Southold, New York, and may be examined by any interested person during business hours. I have certification that it has appeared as a legal noticing about this public hearing, both in the local newspaper and on the Town Clerk’s bulletin board outside and here is a memo from the Town Principal Planner, Mark Terry and also LWRP coordinator. ‘Proposal is for a fee title purchase of this property. Proposed acquisition is for the Town in a 50/50 partnership with the County of Suffolk to acquire fee title. Based upon the information provided to the LWRP, that is the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program consistency assessment form submitted to this department, the proposed acquisition is consistent with the policy standards and therefore is consistent with the LWRP.’ And I have no further notices or communications in the file. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody like to address the Town Board? RESULT: CLOSED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman SECONDER: Louisa P. Evans, Justice AYES: Krupski Jr., Edwards, Ross, Wickham, Evans, Russell Melissa Spiro, LP Coord MELISSA SPIRO, LAND PRESERVATION COORDINATOR: Yes. Melissa Spiro, Land Preservation Coordinator. I will be very short since I think most people are not here to hear me. The Blocker property is a very important property to preserve due to its significant amount of mostly undeveloped frontage on both Corey Creek and the Bay. Preservation of this property will forever preserve a significant amount of creek front and bay front from residential impact. As Councilman Wickham mentioned, there is a partnership with Suffolk County and all costs will be shared equally. I would just like to give some details about the owner of the property, since it is a little confusing. The Town and the County were working towards preservation with December 4, 2007 Page 49 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting Julius Blocker, who unfortunately passed away during the summer. The property is in a trust and the attorney for the estate has decided to continue with the preservation but to work directly with the Nature Conservancy instead of directly with either the Town or the County. While the Nature Conservancy is in a position to help facilitate the preservation of the property, they are not really in a position to purchase and to hold the property into the future. The Nature Conservancy will either purchase the property directly from the estate and then re-sell the property to the Town and the County or else they will assign the contract to the Town and County if the timing works out and the Town and County will close with the estate. The Town is using the Community Preservation Funds for this open space purchase and again, as Councilman Wickham mentioned, the purchase is for passive recreational uses and after acquisition, the Town and County together will develop a management plan for the property. The purchase price is in accordance with the appraisals that were done by the Town and the County and both the Land Preservation Committee and I recommend that the Town Board proceed with this important open space purchase. And as our Land Preservation Committee member Ray Huntington is outlining, that is the property right there, for those of you that can’t see it. The description was well described I think and I am not going to repeat it. So that is all I have to say. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody like to address the Town Board on this preservation acquisition? John? John Costello, Greenport JOHN COSTELLO: My name is John Costello. I would like to ask two questions of the Board anyway. How many acres of that property is buildable as per your own zoning now? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: My calculations, I actually had asked that of Albert Krupski, who knows that property personally and has walked it several times and told me that most of that land is upland and in fact, it had been farmland for a lot of years, it is fallow now but that it is good, viable, buildable property; with public water on site. MR. COSTELLO: But it is not most. I don’t believe it is most. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Do you have an acreage calculation? MS. SPIRO: I don’t have an acreage calculation, I don’t have the survey but everything that is dark green on that lot is buildable land. I mean, it is very distinct wetland versus upland. I would say that the majority of the property is upland with the exception of the peninsula that sticks out and the creek front. MR. COSTELLO: What is the elevation of the property? MS. SPIRO: Again, I don’t have the survey in front of me but it is a significant elevation. All of the property to the, I guess, the east is developed. MR. COSTELLO: And I would like to know exactly, you know, how much money you are paying for the development portion of that property per acre. I just think it is an astronomical number. December 4, 2007 Page 50 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: It is $160,000 for the total package. MR. COSTELLO: I know it is. But there is only a certain portion of it that is buildable or possibly developable. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is a fair question. Sure. Hugh Poller, Corey Creek Lane,Southold HUGH POLLA: My name is Hugh Polla, I live on Corey Creek Lane. Something really strikes me here that, in fact, I can feel my skin crawling. Which we are talking about millions and millions of dollars for property, when are we going to get that Corey Creek dredged? That little piece of property that contributes to the recreational facilities and to the life and betterment of some people at least. I mean, there is a big piece of waterfront, there is Corey Creek and all of that and yet that little inlet there is just about passable, for a relatively small boat. If you have kind of a bigger boat, it is kind of a dredge to get through there. So, I would like to just put into perspective and something, we are talking about spending all this money for property; how about access to the backwaters which are supposed to part of the environmental thing for everyone to enjoy. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Unfortunately, that is (inaudible) MR. POLLA: I know it is a separate issue but let’s get the mentality straight, I don’t want to hear that. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Well, it’s… MR. POLLA: I just want you to accept the fact that we are spending millions and millions of dollars to preserve forever, supposedly, okay, open land. How about the people who have boats and who have access to that beautiful water there? Give them access to the Peconic Bay. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: It is an involved question. Most of the Dredge Committee is here and maybe they would be happy to speak to you after the meeting. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Just as a point of clarification, this is money that has been spent, the taxpayers have voted to spend this money. And they voted to spend this money through the CPF approval of that fund and through every bond initiative that we have put forward. UNIDENTIFIED: Inaudible (Comments made from audience) SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I can appreciate the input. We will discuss dredging as soon as we close the public hearing on the preservation issue. You raised a valid point and we will address it as soon as we are out of public hearing. Supervisor Russell Howard Meinke, NFEC HOWARD MEINEKE: My name is Howard Meineke. I have been out here for a long time, in December 4, 2007 Page 51 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting Cutchogue and more recently Mattituck and I am a member of NFEC but I would just say that with all the money we have spent and we are preserving agricultural land and the farming industry and I have gone public a few times that keeping this place rural is not strictly farms and agriculture it is open space and un-built waterfront and other things and I applaud you. I think this is a marvelous step to preserve something else because the overall attraction and the magic of Southold is not just farms, I once participated in a ceremony preserving farms up west and we went to the end of the road and between raised ranches and Hillary Clinton and Governor Pataki spoke and we were surrounded by raised ranches and we preserved a piece of farm. Now that was not rural. This business of doing what you are doing here is what will act to keep us rural and I applaud you again. I think it is the right thing to do. Councilman Wickham COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I would like to just add that this piece is also adjacent to other parts that we have already preserved to make a larger whole. Supervisor Russell SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody else like to address the Town Board? (No response) We will move on to the second hearing. 2. Marco Set Public Hearing RESULT: CLOSED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman SECONDER: Louisa P. Evans, Justice AYES: Krupski Jr., Edwards, Ross, Wickham, Evans, Russell Councilman Wickham NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: that pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 70 (Agricultural Lands Preservation) and Chapter 17 (Community Preservation Fund) sets Tuesday, December 4, of the Town Code, the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby 2007, at 7:55 p.m., Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York as the time and place for a public hearing for the purchase of part of the properties owned by Philip R. Marco (SCTM #1000-98-1-2.1), Patricia P. Marco (SCTM #1000-98-1-27.1), Marco Phil Productions Inc. (SCTM #1000-97-9-10.4) and Patricia P. Marco (SCTM #1000-97-9-12) and hereafter known as the “Marco Properties”. The total area of the properties is 133± acres. The addresses of the properties are, respectively, 1985 Leslie Road and 4170 Indian Neck Lane in Peconic, and 3123 and 3595 Skunk Lane (Bay Avenue) in Cutchogue. The properties are located within the Agricultural-Conservation (A-C) Zoning District. The Marco Properties begin approximately 3,652± feet south of Route 25, along the southerly side of Indian Neck Lane in Peconic. The properties also have road frontage on Leslie Road and Skunk Lane, and shoreline along Little Creek. The proposed acquisition is for the Town to acquire the development rights on a total of 33.9± acres in two separate development rights easements and for the County and/or Town to acquire the development rights on an additional 56± acres. The total development rights acquisition is for December 4, 2007 Page 52 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting 90± acres in three separate easements. The easements are located on a proposed eight (8) lot Conservation Subdivision pending before the Southold Planning Board. The easement areas are located as follows: Proposed Lot 1 - development rights easement area is 8.1± acres, Proposed Lot 4 - development rights easement area is 25.8 ± acres, and Proposed Lot 8 - development rights easement area is 56± acres. ? The purchase price for the easement areas of 90 acres is $80,000 (eighty thousand dollars) per buildable acre plus acquisition costs. The 8.1± acre easement and the 25.8± acre easement will be funded by the Town’s Community Preservation Fund. The 56± acre easement will be funded by Suffolk County and/or the Town’s Community Preservation Fund. The property is listed on the Town’s Community Preservation Project Plan as property that should be preserved for agricultural and open space purposes. FURTHER NOTICE is hereby given that a more detailed description of the above mentioned parcel of land is on file in Land Preservation Department, Southold Town Hall Annex, 54375 Route 25, Southold, New York, and may be examined by any interested person during business hours. A notice about this public hearing has been published in the local newspaper, it has also appeared on the Town Clerk’s bulletin board outside the room there and I believe we have a notice here from the LWRP coordinator, his name is Mark Terry. ‘This proposal is to purchase part of the properties owned by the Marco families, known as the Marco properties. The proposed acquisition is for the Town to acquire the development rights on a total of about 34 acres in two separate easements and the County and/or Town to acquire it on an additional 56 acres. The total development rights acquisition is for 90 acres on three separate easements. They are located on a proposed eight lot conservation subdivision pending before the Southold Planning Board. Easements areas are located as follows (as I read before). Based upon the information provided, the Local Waterfront Revitalization Consistency assessment form submitted to this Department, the proposed action is consistent with the policy standards and therefore is consistent with the LWRP.’ And there are no further notices in the file. Melissa Spiro, LP Coordinator MELISSA SPIRO, LAND PRESERVATION COORDINATOR: Melissa Spiro again. And again, I will try to be real quick. As mentioned, there are four existing tax parcels. Those are shown on the smaller map there, maybe Ray, you could just run your hand around the outline? There are four parcels, they total 133 acres and we are buying the development rights on part of that. There is an existing residential dwelling on the site and several other accessory structures already located on the property. The Marco’s are before the Planning Board for an eight lot conservation subdivision and that is shown on the larger map. Ray, if you would take the smaller one down now. It is real hard to see the subdivision, it’s overlaid on there if anyone is interested in seeing it. I will leave the map outside. The subdivision, to qualify as a conservation subdivision, preserves 75 percent of the buildable area and it reduces the density of the buildable area by 75% also. Three of the eight lots include a Town or County purchase of the development rights and the areas outlined in red are what will be purchased by the Town and County as easements. So everything within the red areas will be preserved. Tonight’s hearing is just for December 4, 2007 Page 53 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting the Town’s purchase of the 90 acre development rights. There is a hearing on the conservation th subdivision on Monday December 10 before the Planning Board. If all goes as planned, the Town will be closing on two of the easements, the smaller one on the top and the bottom right one by the end of this year, 2007; and the county and or the Town will be purchasing the remaining easements, the one he is circling there, in 2008. there is a significant block of preserved farmland on the other side of Leslie’s Road, which actually you can see on the other map, you can’t really see on this one. But it goes all up, all of that farmland right there is preserved. On the smaller one, so really this is an extension of all the land that is preserved on the north side of Leslie’s and this is an extension in a southerly direction. The Committee feels that there is a potential for creating and maintaining a scenic view shed from the Leslie Road frontage which apparently used to be there and isn’t there now and scenic restrictions have been required for the area with frontage on Leslie Road. We have been working with the landowner on that and they have agreed to the scenic restrictions that we put on there. the Committee has supported this acquisition, it involves a significant amount of preservation; 90 acres. It is quite a large preservation project for the Town. The land is all good agricultural soils which were farmed in the past and there is an existing vineyard and the land has been kept in the farmable state and there is really great potential farmland for the future. And again, both the Committee and I recommend that the Town Board proceed with this significant agricultural purchase. Thank you. Supervisor Russell SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Would anybody like to address the Town Board on this acquisition? Ann Burger ANN BURGER: Hi, my name is Ann Burger and I live actually on Little Creek there. I have one question. The woodland which fronts Little Creek, that is going to be developed? MS. SPIRO: Yes, there is a conservation subdivision (inaudible) MS. BURGER: So in other words, all of the land that is not adjacent to the waterfront which is we are all trying to save the waterfront here, I mean, we are having an issue trying to dredge our creek also and you’re environmentally trying to save it but here, this is actually a hypocritical subdivision where as you are going to develop the waterfront here and keep the other… MS. SPIRO: We are not actually doing the development. The landowner is doing the development, it is a conservation subdivision that is before the Planning office. They have offered these 90 acres to the Land Preservation Committee and the Town for preservation. They haven’t offered the waterfront to the Town. MS. BURGER: Well, it is just a point of view that people should be, being the subdivision. Because it is a lot of money also to, I am not against purchasing it, I am just showing the reality of what is going on here. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody else like to address the Town Board on this? (No response) Can I get a motion to close this hearing? December 4, 2007 Page 54 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting 3. Transfer Station PH 12/4 7:40 PM History: 12/04/07 Town Board ADJOURNED Next: 01/02/08 COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: The Town Code, under Chapter 233 on Solid Waste requires that any permit for a transfer station to handle solid waste, any request, application for a, to operate such a transfer station has to receive a special permit from the Southold Town Board. That permit can only be issued following a public hearing. Tonight is that public hearing. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN set Tuesday, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold has December 4, 2007, at 7:40 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York as the time and place to hold a public hearing on the application of Peconic Recycling and Transfer for operation of a Transfer Station , pursuant to Chapter 233, Solid Waste of the Code of the Town of Southold. I have a very thick file with lots of plans and forms and applications and all of that. I think we could leave it to the applicant to explain all the details about all of that. I can say that we have a notice that has appeared as a legal that has noticed this meeting tonight, this public hearing in the local newspaper and also there is an affidavit that it has also appeared on the Town Clerk’s bulletin board outside the room here. There are several notices that have been brought to the attention of the Town Board for this public hearing and I will read them briefly. This is from Tom Skabry, who is the president of the CSEA, the union representing employees of the Town of Southold. ‘Dear Town Board members, The CSEA recently learned of the public hearing on th this proposed Peconic Transfer Station to be held December 4. Based on the information we have at this time, we have some concerns about the existence and need of such a facility and the impact on the community. We, the CSEA, are expecting certain documents requested of the Town in compliance of the Freedom of Information Act regarding this station. In an effort to allow us to properly address our concerns before the Town, we request the Town Board to either reschedule or extend the public hearing to be held at it’s meeting and extend it to December th 18.’ I have another letter here from James and Marilyn Goodwin and I will read this briefly. ‘Enclosed please find a letter we have written to Supervisor Russell and the Southold Town Board along with a copy of a petition. Supervisor Russell will also receive this letter before the th hearing (it is in regard to the hearing on December 4) Kindly have this letter read at the public hearing, as we are not able to attend. To Scott Russell and the Southold Town Board, We are the adjoining home and property owners of the applicants property for the proposed transfer station (and I might add, this is on Depot Lane just north of Route 48, between Route 48 and Oregon Road on the east side of Depot Lane) we are the adjoining home and property owners of the applicants property for the proposed transfer station. Unfortunately, we are unable to attend the hearing this evening and would like this letter read during the public hearing and have it put on the record. Our home is a multi-generational residence that was built even before there was an official Town landfill. The eight acres next to our home has also been in the family for many years. When I took residence in the family homestead, which is where I grew up, we were surrounded by open space and active farming. The zoning was changed after I had moved back into the home without our knowledge. We have a number of concerns, as do other property owners in the surrounding area that would be affected. We have attached a copy of the petition that has previously been submitted in September of 06. The majority of the signatures are December 4, 2007 Page 55 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting residents of the area that are either life-long or long term residents, they are serious and valid concerns that would no doubt have a negative impact on the area. Our concerns are as follows: hours and days of operation. Presently we are awakened at 6:00 AM, sometimes earlier, by a loud bang and the entire house shakes as a container is being dropped on the ground directly behind our house. The indisputably significant increase of truck traffic that would occur, odor that would be released from garbage in the trucks, the building noise, loose debris, ground water contamination, rodent control and our declining property values. Other questions that need to be addressed as well are; who would oversee and enforce this facility? Would the garbage come exclusively from the Town of Southold or also be coming in from other towns? How will it impact or potentially impact the revenues of our already existing transfer station now operated by the Town and being paid for by the Town’s taxpayers? Is this permit transferable, should the present owners want to sell their business? During our numerous discussions with various Town departments, it was brought to our attention that this was not an allowed use anywhere in the Town without a special permit from the Southold Town Board. The permits that have been issued do not handle the sorting and transferring of ‘raw garbage’. In conclusion, please take the time now to step back to investigate, research, discuss and address the concerns and questions. For every person responsible in making this decision, think of this as your home and property, a home that existed long before any rezoning and development. With this thought in mind, what do you think the right decision should be? To look at everything for not only the here and now but what effect this would have on the Town as a whole, if this permit were to be issued, it would have a permanent, negative impact daily not only our quality of life and health but on the whole surrounding residential areas as well.’ And there follows a petition and the petition heading that people signed reads as follows: ‘We, the undersigned, are aware of an application for a salvage and transfer station proposed for a location in the Industrial park on Depot Lane, Cutchogue which needs Southold Town Board approval. We are land owners and or residents of property in the area of the proposed facility. This usage would have a negative impact on our daily quality of life and health, by means of odor, litter, rodent infestation, noise, pollution, groundwater contamination and a noticeable increase of large truck traffic and lastly, our property values would be adversely affected. We are respectfully requesting that this application for salvage and transfer station be denied. Thank you.’ And there follows about 85 signatures and addresses of people mostly living in the area of Oregon Road and Depot Lane and some of Route 48 and around there. What else do we have here? I believe, here is a letter, I believe those are all, the only substantive letters that are in the file other than a number of correspondence and plans that are associated with the actual application. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody like to address the Town Board on this public hearing? COMMENTS - Current Meeting: COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: The Town Code, under Chapter 233 on Solid Waste requires that any permit for a transfer station to handle solid waste, any request, application for a, to operate such a transfer station has to receive a special permit from the Southold Town Board. That permit can only be issued following a public hearing. Tonight is that public hearing. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN set Tuesday, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold has December 4, 2007, at 7:40 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, December 4, 2007 Page 56 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting New York as the time and place to hold a public hearing on the application of Peconic Recycling and Transfer for operation of a Transfer Station , pursuant to Chapter 233, Solid Waste of the Code of the Town of Southold. I have a very thick file with lots of plans and forms and applications and all of that. I think we could leave it to the applicant to explain all the details about all of that. I can say that we have a notice that has appeared as a legal that has noticed this meeting tonight, this public hearing in the local newspaper and also there is an affidavit that it has also appeared on the Town Clerk’s bulletin board outside the room here. There are several notices that have been brought to the attention of the Town Board for this public hearing and I will read them briefly. This is from Tom Skabry, who is the president of the CSEA, the union representing employees of the Town of Southold. ‘Dear Town Board members, The CSEA recently learned of the public hearing on th this proposed Peconic Transfer Station to be held December 4. Based on the information we have at this time, we have some concerns about the existence and need of such a facility and the impact on the community. We, the CSEA, are expecting certain documents requested of the Town in compliance of the Freedom of Information Act regarding this station. In an effort to allow us to properly address our concerns before the Town, we request the Town Board to either reschedule or extend the public hearing to be held at it’s meeting and extend it to December th 18.’ I have another letter here from James and Marilyn Goodwin and I will read this briefly. ‘Enclosed please find a letter we have written to Supervisor Russell and the Southold Town Board along with a copy of a petition. Supervisor Russell will also receive this letter before the th hearing (it is in regard to the hearing on December 4) Kindly have this letter read at the public hearing, as we are not able to attend. To Scott Russell and the Southold Town Board, We are the adjoining home and property owners of the applicants property for the proposed transfer station (and I might add, this is on Depot Lane just north of Route 48, between Route 48 and Oregon Road on the east side of Depot Lane) we are the adjoining home and property owners of the applicants property for the proposed transfer station. Unfortunately, we are unable to attend the hearing this evening and would like this letter read during the public hearing and have it put on the record. Our home is a multi-generational residence that was built even before there was an official Town landfill. The eight acres next to our home has also been in the family for many years. When I took residence in the family homestead, which is where I grew up, we were surrounded by open space and active farming. The zoning was changed after I had moved back into the home without our knowledge. We have a number of concerns, as do other property owners in the surrounding area that would be affected. We have attached a copy of the petition that has previously been submitted in September of 06. The majority of the signatures are residents of the area that are either life-long or long term residents, they are serious and valid concerns that would no doubt have a negative impact on the area. Our concerns are as follows: hours and days of operation. Presently we are awakened at 6:00 AM, sometimes earlier, by a loud bang and the entire house shakes as a container is being dropped on the ground directly behind our house. The indisputably significant increase of truck traffic that would occur, odor that would be released from garbage in the trucks, the building noise, loose debris, ground water contamination, rodent control and our declining property values. Other questions that need to be addressed as well are; who would oversee and enforce this facility? Would the garbage come exclusively from the Town of Southold or also be coming in from other towns? How will it impact or potentially impact the revenues of our already existing transfer station now operated by December 4, 2007 Page 57 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting the Town and being paid for by the Town’s taxpayers? Is this permit transferable, should the present owners want to sell their business? During our numerous discussions with various Town departments, it was brought to our attention that this was not an allowed use anywhere in the Town without a special permit from the Southold Town Board. The permits that have been issued do not handle the sorting and transferring of ‘raw garbage’. In conclusion, please take the time now to step back to investigate, research, discuss and address the concerns and questions. For every person responsible in making this decision, think of this as your home and property, a home that existed long before any rezoning and development. With this thought in mind, what do you think the right decision should be? To look at everything for not only the here and now but what effect this would have on the Town as a whole, if this permit were to be issued, it would have a permanent, negative impact daily not only our quality of life and health but on the whole surrounding residential areas as well.’ And there follows a petition and the petition heading that people signed reads as follows: ‘We, the undersigned, are aware of an application for a salvage and transfer station proposed for a location in the Industrial park on Depot Lane, Cutchogue which needs Southold Town Board approval. We are land owners and or residents of property in the area of the proposed facility. This usage would have a negative impact on our daily quality of life and health, by means of odor, litter, rodent infestation, noise, pollution, groundwater contamination and a noticeable increase of large truck traffic and lastly, our property values would be adversely affected. We are respectfully requesting that this application for salvage and transfer station be denied. Thank you.’ And there follows about 85 signatures and addresses of people mostly living in the area of Oregon Road and Depot Lane and some of Route 48 and around there. What else do we have here? I believe, here is a letter, I believe those are all, the only substantive letters that are in the file other than a number of correspondence and plans that are associated with the actual application. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody like to address the Town Board on this public hearing? RESULT: ADJOURNED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 1/2/2008 4:30 PM MOVER: Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman SECONDER: Louisa P. Evans, Justice AYES: Krupski Jr., Edwards, Ross, Wickham, Evans, Russell Gail Wickham, Esq. GAIL WICKHAM: Good evening, I am Gail Wickham of Mattituck. I am the attorney for the DiVello’s, who are the applicants in this hearing. They are out in the hall without a seat, I would like to ask them to just please come on in and maybe stand up front because I may need to refer to them for questions during the meeting tonight. I will try to be as brief as possible because I know you have another agenda item coming up shortly. However, there has been much misinformation and misplaced concern about this facility circulated in the community and I suppose though that that concern and suspicion is not unexpected because garbage is nasty. It is, however, a fact of life that exists in this Town and it has to be dealt with. What we are fortunate to tell you tonight is that this facility that would handle transfer of municipal solid waste and construction and demolition debris, it will be a new state of the art facility, environmentally sound, free of sight pollution and under the regulation of a very strict set of requirements promulgated by the DEC. Those of you who are in farming or an environmental law know that the DEC is a very strict taskmaster, it is not a slap on the wrist if you violate them. So there is December 4, 2007 Page 58 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting very, very serious oversight on this industry. It is entirely an indoor operation, there will be no waste material outside. As the Board is familiar with the process, the trucks will come in loaded from their pickup spots, back into the building, do all of the loading and unloading entirely within the building. The noise and odors thereby will be contained and the whole operation is under an extensive SEQRA review being evaluated by your engineers, Nelson, Pope and Vorhees to make sure that all of the issues, including those addressed by Mr. Goodwin’s letter, are properly contained within this facility. The building itself is of a design that has already received approval from the Architectural Review Board, it will be heavily screened and fenced. It has been through ZBA, Zoning Board of Appeals review as far as fencing and screening and also the Planning Board has addressed those concerns. The truck traffic will be in accordance with usual industrial levels. This is an industrial park, you will have truck traffic in and out. However, we have had conversations with Mr. Vorhees about the actual volume of truck traffic. We are giving the Planning Board projections on tonnages and trips per day, peak hour trips, all of that information so that you can see it and we have also submitted to you a route plan in accordance with your legislative requirements. The object of this facility is to actually reduce the truck traffic on the local roads because now they are picking up in their container trucks or their packer trucks traveling all the way the length of the town, out of town to transfer facilities up the Island, turning around, coming back, picking up and they are going back and forth on all of these local roads continuously. The object of this facility is to enable them to consolidate those loads, by bringing the smaller trucks into this facility, separating the recyclables out, another environmental benefit and then leaving, having the material leave on a much larger truck so that you have fewer routes that are on the highways at all times. We also have the ability to coordinate with the landfill next door with a potential road connection based on the spur road within the development. So this is really going to be less intrusive than any of the than any of the uses currently going on within the Town and certainly less intrusive than many of the uses that are currently going on in this subdivision and those on the other side of the block, over on Cox Lane. Now, regarding Mr. Goodwin’s letter, we sat down with Mr. Goodwin, I sat down with Mr. Goodwin months ago. He asked that the facility be removed from lot 8 up by his house south to lot 6. The DiVello’s agreed, even though they every plan in place for the northern lot. They have spent thousands and thousands of dollars. Mr. Goodwin specifically asked us to move it to lot 6, we did that in conjunction with extensive discussions with the Town, which you are aware of and he said he could live with it. Now he is coming back and complaining more and it has just gotten to the point where we have done everything that we can to address his concerns through the ZBA, through the Planning process, through your legislation and we really think that we have presented to you a very good and viable facility. We have been hearing for many, many years that we need in this Town to provide a place where a business can provide good jobs, a place where our young people can stay and live and work. This is an operation like that. There aren’t many in Town. You have places like Braun’s or Kolb’s or various small businesses but this is the type of facility that the Town needs. All three of the DiVello sons are operators and active participants in this business. Their younger family members are also involved in the business. They want to be able to stay here, they want to be able to bring up their families, they are providing jobs for their families, for their drivers and for their other employees that are good jobs and that pay benefits. And we thank you for the many hours previously that you have spent on this consideration and we understand that at this point the SEQRA process is continuing and that you will defer the hearing until that concludes. If there are any questions, I December 4, 2007 Page 59 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting would be glad to answer them. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Any Board member? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I should say that one additional communication that I overlooked in the file that I really should read briefly and that is a notice from the Southold Town Planning Board. This is dated back in 06. ‘The Planning Board held a work session July 31, 2006 to review the site plan dated February 14, 2005 and revised July 2006 prepared by Graham Associates, for compliance with Town Code salvaging centers and offers the following comments. The site plan is for new construction of a building that includes 32,000 square feet of warehouse space and 2,200 square feet of office space for a recycling center. This is on a 154,000 square foot parcel in the LIO zone about 1,000 feet north of Corporate Road and Commerce Drive in Cutchogue. 1. The Planning Board received a complete site plan application in June 2006. On July 21, 2006 the Suffolk County Department of Planning responded by letter to the site plan referral with the comments below. 1. They determined that this matter is for local determination as there appears to be no significant countywide or inter- community impacts. And the Planning Board accepts this, pursuant to our municipal law. 2. They indicated that the subject property is not in a designated special protection area and 3. They indicated that care should be taken to have all storm water run-off kept on site, treated and returned to the groundwater table. All discharge to groundwater table should be pursuant to New York State DEC and Health Department standards prior to final Planning Board approval. The Planning Board started SEQRA as an unlisted coordinated action at the August 2006 public meeting. The Planning Board will require that the Town Engineer re-review the site plan for stormwater run-off, should require the applicant to apply for a SPEDES permit and to the Suffolk County Health Department for review and approval. 5. The application will require the following reviews and/or approvals before the Planning Board can grant final approval: the Southold Town Building Inspector certification, Southold Town Engineer’s and Highway, Cutchogue Fire District, Suffolk County Water Authority, Suffolk County Department of Health Services, LWRP and Architectural Review Committees. And as we have heard, many of them are already in hand. In August 2006, the Planning Board reviewed the letter from the Town Engineer dated July 2006 and the Planning Board accepted the comments, see attached letter. Planning staff will send a copy to the applicant for revisions. 7. Planning Board is concerned about the mass of the proposed building on the view shed from Depot Lane and Oregon Road. We will be reviewing the effects of the view shed and will require landscaping to be upgraded to provide a natural buffer. And finally, Planning Board is in favor of the Town Board issuing the salvage center permit based on the proposed site plan, which provides adequate on site parking, includes an enclosed facility and is proposed to be located in an appropriate area in our Town. Please advise if there are any questions.’ And that was signed by Jerilyn Woodhouse, the chair of the Planning Board. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody like to address this? Charles Danielczyk CHARLES DANILCZYK: My name is Charles Danilczyk and I live here in Cedar Beach, Southold. About 20 years or so. I worked for IBM Corporation, over 34 years. Retired here and made it my hobby to do additional research on many different topics. You name it and I have December 4, 2007 Page 60 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting researched it. One of the areas I am speaking about relates to this, is that there is a new process of recycling garbage and it has been around quite a while, it had been unsuccessful because in their trials they had worked on a single temperature and now they recycle garbage at 500 and 900 degrees. The result of that type of recycling is that you have fuel oil. Water and this, and you are recycling plastics and all sorts of garbage, refuse from turkeys etc. For example, there is a major company recycling all of their waste out of the turkeys, in a monster plant for turkey processing and it is turning it into fuel oil, useable fuel oil. For example, if such a thing were here in Town, the Town would not have to buy fuel. Greenport could be using the fuel to run their power station. If you want some more research on it, you can look it up. There are two major articles in Discover magazine. The initial one started out about 10 years ago and there was another one recently in the last two or three years. There was another article about the manufacturer having a hard time here in the United States, where the Towns were looking for it for nothing and just recently, due to his great success, all the European countries are getting on the bandwagon. And the firm, if I remember correctly, is located here on Long Island and has been pretty much ignored and or if they made any statements to anyone to do their work, recycling immediately the, he couldn’t get enough money paid back to him for processing and running the plant. And right now, everyone now is changing their tune, it is certainly based on the cost of fuel. So you can research it like I did. Vito Rocky DiVello VITO DiVELLO: Good evening, my name is Vito ‘Rocky’ DiVello, I am Fran and John oldest son. I would just like to say that we have been in business for many, many years in this Town and we take pride in our name and in our business and we do the very best we can. And we will carry that over to any project that we try to do. I would like to say that, I don’t want to get repetitious but we, initially when we started this project, we spoke to Mr. Goodwin, he seemed all in favor of it and we have done everything he asked us to do. We do not store any refuse on the site at all, only empty containers. I invite anybody in this room to come down and take a look for themselves, if that would cure any curiosities or anything. I just want to say that we are very proud of my family, we work very hard to do what we do and get where we are. And I am very proud of my college educated son here and he would be happy to answer any questions to anybody. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: He is throwing you to the wolves a little early, isn’t he? Would anybody else like to address the Town Board on this issue? By all means. Bill Bramble BILL BRAMBLE: Hi, my name is Bill Bramble. Sorry, I just got over a flu, but my concerns are not necessarily with your transfer station, it is basically about this area as a whole. The other night, I think it was three weeks ago, I was coming home and I saw what had to be maybe seven or eight fire trucks off of Depot Lane. The compost heap had gone into flames and this th happened in the winter and it is you know, 10 grade physics. It is going to heat up and it is going to have methane and boom, that is what happened. Now, with, when we were first sold the expansion of the transfer station, you guys said that by being able to process organic waste that we would have compost, you would get a fee from everyone bringing the refuse in. The townspeople could take that compost free of charge and whatever was in excess could be sold. Now the thing, and that was great and you also, you put it in the pit, you surrounded it with December 4, 2007 Page 61 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting greenery so it was aesthetically pleasing to the outside area which was fantastic. Great job. The crazy thing, the weird thing is that there is a privately owned transfer facility right next door. It is four inches away. No attention was paid to the same concerns that you had. It wasn’t put in the pit, it is right out in the open, there is no one watching it, it went up in flames and also the thing I think is odd from a business perspective is why would you allow your competition, if you are going to sell this refuse, why would you have someone be able to on three or four acres, I don’t know how much space they are taking up, have the same type of facility that competes against the Town? It just doesn’t make any good business sense. So, but my point is, even though this is America, one of the problems that we have now is with inefficiency and waste. We see it all around us. We see it in corporate America, heavy on the management side they are not producing anything, you know what is happening there. every other person is driving an SUV, we are sucking up tons of gas, bad emissions, they don’t really hold that much in terms of cargo; we see it there. McMansions are being built all over the country. Same thing. So my problem is basically just with inefficiency and waste. So I think that, you know, with a little bit more planning if you had a smaller footprint, took up a little less space and used that space more efficiently, you wouldn’t have these problems and honestly, it wouldn’t be an adversarial situation where we have us against them kind of thing. It would be, you know, it would be a win-win situation on both sides. It just means that we have to start thinking not like, you know, th the middle of the 20 century and start thinking in a more contemporary manner. So my concern is not with you guys directly, it is how we handle all those areas adjacent to the transfer station. Because right now it is inefficient, there is a lot of waste and it is a hazard, as we saw a few weeks ago with the fire. MS. WICKHAM: If I could maybe briefly respond. I understand your concerns, I just want to point out because the Board does now this, that this is not in any way, shape or form a compost facility. We are concerned about those operations as well. This particular facility, unlike the one you referred to, has undergone and will continue to undergo extensive scrutiny and it will not be in any way, shape or form remotely like that lack of planning. But that is up to the Board to elaborate. MR. BRAMBLE: Well, the question is, you guys as private owners, you are living right next door to a hazard, a fire hazard, so.. MS. WICKHAM: That is something we will have to do. MR. BRAMBLE: So, I mean, I will address that as well. I mean it is basically the whole area has to be (inaudible) because expanding for the sake of expanding and putting more stuff in, it is an old model, it is not working, we need to use you know, smaller space and just be more efficient with the space. We really need to rethink about having a second processing plant for organic material right next to the Town transfer station. That is just bad business and it is, why should it be there? It doesn’t make any sense. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Would anybody else like to address the Town Board? John DiVello JOHN DiVELLO: I would like to address the Town Board. My name is John DiVello as well, I just want to make everyone clear on what this facility does. It is recycling and reclamation December 4, 2007 Page 62 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting center. Very simple. They are not making any more natural resources. They are not making, growing any more trees or rain forests and everything in waste can be reused. I mean, just look at the paper bin here, that is municipal solid waste. T he whole thing is mostly paper which can be recycled. There is no need to landfill it. We just want to take everything out of the waste stream. That pretty much sums it all up. I just want to make sure everyone knows. That is our business, that is what we want to do. And we have every intention of working with the Town, just like we have always done. And I am sure there will be a lot of good things that will come of us being next door, for both of us. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Could you outline to the Town the volume of material that you are applying for? MS. WICKHAM: Would you like me to go through that? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: We are still waiting for Nelson, Pope and Vorhees. MR. DiVELLO: Either way. MS. WICKHAM: We have submitted to the Planning Board for your environmental consultant, the projected, the capped tonnages that this facility would accommodate. We have suggested that the, while the actual tonnage that is now being conducted or will initially be conducted is far less than the cap, the fact that the Town has indicated that they want a cap, we want to establish that in a way that will allow for whatever growth potential there may be over the next 20-30 years. We are applying to the DEC, as I mentioned and they will also have the same review and capping procedures. We have proposed to the environmental SEQRA process, a maximum tonnage of MSW and this is an average, of 300 tons per day MSW, 400 tons per day C & D. Again, let me emphasize that is far and above what they expect to do at the outset but they have to build a very big building and they want to make sure that they have room for expansion down the road as the garbage demands of this town change. We have translated, in excruciating detail, those tonnages into truck trips per day and also into peak time truck trips per hour. And all of those figures have been very recently given to the Town so that you will have time to review them during your SEQRA process, prior to making your final decision. If the facility is at absolute peak capacity and if the facility has maximum summertime usage, the most that we are projecting is, I think, let me just refer to my notes because I don’t want to misquote you. There has been an awful lot of paper here. I can’t even begin to tell you. I believe it is 4 ½ trucks per hour. But I am going to have to, I will give you that information verbally. Just so people understand, it is not a facility that is going to have trucks in and out, boom, boom, boom. They are going to be coming in on demand. As the truck, as the route is collected. For instance, they only collect commercial C & D, I believe two days a week at this point. They collect, I am sorry, commercial MSW, two days a week. They collect C & D on demand through construction jobs. But there is a complete analysis that we will be giving to you and have given to the Planning Board that you can look at in more detail. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Are there any understandings or restrictions as to what Towns or areas the material is coming from? December 4, 2007 Page 63 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting MS. WICKHAM: That is a function of the geography of our Town. First of all, it will encompass the entire north fork, we expect that it could include Shelter Island. Right now they don’t have the contract for Shelter Island but they could. They do do some pickup in the eastern end of Riverhead. But it is generally a north fork business. If, for instance, there were jobs that they contracted for up west, you have an efficiency issue of whether you actually send your truck all the way back to Cutchogue, given the fuel costs, and then have to bring and separate and then send all the way back up west again. There is an economy that doesn’t work at that point, then, to bring it in from another locale. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I don’t know if that answered Tom’s question. Especially with the state, I don’t know if the Town’s permit would limit that. Can the state limit where garbage came in from? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: No. MS. WICKHAM: No, the state does not. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: We can’t structure it in a manner that only allows them to bring in municipal waste from the locality itself. It is really a function of size. How big do we allow it to be and that will determine how much they can handle. MS. WICKHAM: And I also want to add, it is a highly competitive industry. There is bidding on any of these jobs, so when you are looking at a locale that is soliciting bids. You are looking at very big companies up west that they just can’t even compete with. MR. DiVELLO: It just doesn’t pay. It never pays to come west full. You know, that is… SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Well, everybody here that is here to speak on 275 is still here, so let’s keep this going until they all leave. MS. WICKHAM: How long do you want? I have got six inches of files I can read into the record. COUNCILMAN ROSS: Can you comment on the plans for the existing facility in Mattituck? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. As we have told the Town from the outset, the intention is to relocate the garbage business, the truck traffic, the truck facility that is now located in the heart of the Mattituck hamlet, to this facility. One reason the building is so big in Cutchogue is because they want to be able to house their garbage trucks indoors at night. They are largely diesel trucks. These are the experts. If I am wrong, they will correct me. Starting a truck that is cold, that has been outside all night is difficult. It increases your maintenance and your depreciation, so they do want to house their trucks indoors in the Cutchogue facility. Those trucks that are currently housed in Mattituck will not be left there. They will not operate in and out of there. The only facility that will remain there temporarily is the shop. They don’t have a shop yet at the Cutchogue facility. But that obviously would be an economy that they would want to December 4, 2007 Page 64 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting incorporate as soon as they can and eventually they would like to be able to eliminate their business altogether from Mattituck and use that for another purpose. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Just to clarify, we are not in a position tonight to act on this. We are waiting for SEQRA completion but I would recommend anybody that does have a question about it to go visit the Planning Board. There is a sketch plan in place up there. you can get an idea of what is being proposed. You know, in the current context of building size, it is not even that large of a building anymore but certainly I would encourage anybody to look at the Planning Board that has questions they want answered. MR. DiVELLO: Mr. Russell, our engineer is here. He can answer questions also, if anyone has technical questions. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Anybody else? We are going to hold this open….Ray? RAY HUNTINGTON: As long as we have the engineer here, could we answer what reclamation processes are going to be used at this site? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Just when you folks thought it couldn’t get any more exciting. Gail Wickham Eugene Keppi EUGENE KEMPE: Eugene Kempe, Kempe Engineering. The basic reclamation procedures that we will be using at the facility will be hand, at least initially, will be hand reclamation. You know, the material will be placed on the tipping floor after it is unloaded, spread with a loader and then people will go in and physically hand remove whatever recyclables that we have markets for or we can dispose of on an avoided cost basis. They will be stockpiled separately for future loading into trucks for disposal at those facilities. If the, as the facility I guess matures and the markets become available, there are other options such as putting in a picking line where it is a more automated process to pull the recyclables out of the material. MS. WICKHAM: I might want to clarify that the bulk of that will be C & D, which is concrete, paper, wood, metal. It is not raw garbage. It is the construction demolition debris which in the other facilities that exist in this town is currently being done outdoors, with the dust and the noise and the run-off that is associated with that. That is the beauty of this facility, it is indoors. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Any thing else? (No response) COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: We will hold this open for at least two weeks. 4. This hearing needs to be closed before the new meeting is opened History: 08/14/07 Town Board ADJOURNED Next: 12/04/07 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: there has been presented to the th Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 17 day of July, 2007 December 4, 2007 Page 65 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting “A Local Law in relation to Shellfish and Other Marine Resources” a Local Law entitled AND NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Law at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, th 14day of August, 2007, at 4:40 p.m. Southold, New York, on the at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. “A Local Law in relation to Shellfish and Other Marine The proposed Local Law entitled, Resources” reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 2007 “A Local Law in relation to Shellfish and Other Marine A Local Law entitled, Resources” . BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: I. Purpose - It is the purpose and intent of the amendments to this Chapter to provide for the protection, the preservation and the proper use and maintenance of Town waters and lands under Town waters, to minimize damage thereto and to enhance their use for the propagation of shellfish and other beneficial marine organisms and thereby protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare of the Town of Southold. II. Chapter 219 of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: ARTICLE I Catching of Shrimp [Adopted by 6-29-1933] General Provisions §219-1. Taking of shrimp by nonresidents prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person not a resident of the Town of Southold to take shrimp from the waters of Brush's Creek, Willes Creek, Downs Creek, James Creek, West Creek, Richmond's Creek, Corey's Creek, Cedar Beach Creek, Goose Creek, Jockey Creek, Town Creek, Mill Creek, Long Creek, Budd's Pond, Dam Pond, Mattituck Creek, Goldsmith's Creek, Squash Creek, Wickham's Creek and Little Creek, or other creeks or inland waters within the bounds of said Township. §219-2 1. Residence requirements. Persons shall be deemed to be residents of the Town of Southold at any given date, within the meaning of this article Chapter, when they shall have actually and continuously resided within the said Town for a period of at least six (6) months sixty (60) days immediately preceding such date. §219-3 2. Effect. No provision of this article shall be deemed to prevent any person or persons residing within the Town of Southold from angling for fish for other than commercial purposes. December 4, 2007 Page 66 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting §219-4. Penalties for offenses. Any violation of this article shall be subject to a penalty of not less than $5 nor more than $100 and costs. ARTICLE II Taking of Shellfish and Eels [Adopted by 6-23-1966] §219-5 3. Title. This article Chapter shall be known as the "Shellfish and Other Marine Resources Law of the Town of Southold." §219-7 4. Definitions. For the purposes of this article Chapter, the terms used herein are defined as follows: AQUACULTURE/MARICULTURE - The cultivation, planting, containment or harvesting of products that naturally are produced in the marine environment, including fish, shellfish, crustaceans and seaweed, and the installation of cribs, racks and in-water structures for cultivating such products, but excluding the construction of any building, any filling or dredging or the construction of any water regulating structures. BOAT/VESSEL - Any floating object capable of carrying people as a means of transportation in water, including without limitation an airplane capable of landing on water, any floating structure not otherwise considered to be part of a dock structure as defined herein, with or without means of propulsion, which object can be moored independently or can be secured by any means to a piling, dock, bulkhead, groin or other fixed device located above mean high water. Floating docks are excluded from this definition. CHANNEL SYSTEM - The bed of a natural waterway with well-defined banks presenting the evidence of the flow of tidal waters, which is commonly traversed by boat/vessel and is designated by channel markers, including man-made or stabilized waterways designed for the navigation of boats/vessels. For the purpose of this Chapter, boat basins and bathing areas are included within this definition. CHURNING - The removal of shellfish from lands below average low water by utilizing a propwash from a skip-mounted outboard motor. COMMERCIAL PURPOSES - Any use or purpose other than for food consumption by the persons taking the shellfish or by members of such person's household. Taking, containment or harvesting of shellfish or other marine resources to sell to a third party. CONTAINMENT - The placement and possession of shellfish in a basket, tub, bag, or any other type of container. CULLING - Separating shellfish or other marine resources according to size. December 4, 2007 Page 67 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting EEL - The American eel. FIXED GEAR - Fishing equipment that is set in a stationary position, including without limitation pots, moorings, long line, hand line, weir nets, gillnets and traps. GUEST - A person who temporarily occupies living quarters in a dwelling maintained by a permanent resident. MARINE RESOURCES - Blue claw crabs, horseshoe crabs, eels and mussels. NON-RESIDENT - One who does not reside in the Town of Southold. PATENT LANDS - All uplands and underwater lands owned in fee title by the Town of Southold Board of Trustees by virtue of the Andros Patent. PERMANENT RESIDENT - A person who has maintained a permanent dwelling within the Town of Southold during the period of not less than 60 days immediately preceding the date of his application for a permit hereunder, or the date of taking shellfish if no permit is required. SCAP NET - A hand-operated net attached to a handle with an opening across the mouth of no more than 14 inches. SHELLFISH - Clams, scallops, oysters, blue claw crabs, mussels, periwinkles and , conchs, channeled whelk and knobbed whelk. TAKING - The removal or harvesting of shellfish and other marine resources by any means. TAXPAYER - A person who owns real property as shown on the assessment roll of the Town of Southold. TEMPORARY RESIDENT - A person who has occupied living quarters within the Town of Southold during the period of not less than seven days immediately preceding the date of his application for a permit hereunder. TOWN WATERS - All waters and lands under tidewater in any harbor, bay or creek, title to which and the right of fishing in which is vested in the Town of Southold and/or in the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold. TOWN WATERS - All the waters lying over Patent Lands. ARTICLE II Shellfish §219-8 6. Permit requirements. A. Shellfish may be taken from Town waters for commercial purposes by a permanent resident over the age of 14 years upon first obtaining a commercial December 4, 2007 Page 68 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting shellfish permit therefor from the Town Clerk of the Town of Southold. (1) Persons Aages 12 and 13 can apply for a junior commercial shellfish license which will allow them to catch half the commercial limit. The junior commercial shellfish license and will be at half the cost of a commercial license. The parents or guardian of the applicant for a junior commercial shellfish license must sign for the holder of the junior license, making the parent or guardian responsible for any violation incurred. B. Shellfish may be taken from Town waters by a non- temporary resident upon first obtaining a non- temporary resident shellfish permit therefor from the Town Clerk of the Town of Southold. C. Shellfish may be taken from Town waters for noncommercial purposes by a permanent resident or taxpayer upon first obtaining a permanent resident or taxpayer's permit therefor from the Town Clerk of the Town of Southold. D. Shellfish may be taken from Town waters for noncommercial purposes without obtaining a permit therefor by a guest when accompanied by a permanent resident in whose dwelling such guest occupies living quarters, provided that such permanent resident is the holder of a valid shellfish permit. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article Chapter, the quantity of shellfish taken by a guest or guests shall be added to the quantity taken by the permanent resident accompanying the guest or guests, and the total amount thereof shall not exceed, in the aggregate, the maximum daily quantity prescribed in this article Chapter for such permanent resident. E. No person not a permanent resident, a taxpayer, a temporary resident or a guest accompanied by a permanent resident shall take shellfish in any manner at any time from Town waters without a permit issued pursuant to this Chapter. F. The possession of shellfish in excess of the limits, or of less size than that, set forth in this Chapter, found aboard any boat or vessel in the waters of the Town of Southold, shall be deemed presumptive evidence of a violation of this article. G. Shellfish may be taken from Town waters for noncommercial purposes by a permanent resident under the age of 14 years without obtaining a permit therefor. [Added 7-7-1982 by L.L. No. 5-1982] §219-9 7. Permit fee; expiration; display. A. The fee for a commercial shellfish permit shall be set from time to time by resolution of the Town Board, upon recommendation by the Board of Trustees. $20. Effective on and after January 1, 1991, the fee for a commercial shellfish permit shall be $35. Such permit shall expire on December 31 of the year of its issuance. B. The fee for a non- temporary resident shellfish permit shall be set from time to time by resolution of the Town Board, upon recommendation by the Board of Trustees. $10. Such permit shall be issued only for the period of time that such temporary resident occupies living quarters within the Town of Southold. The non-resident permit shall expire on September 15 of the year of its issuance. December 4, 2007 Page 69 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting C. The fee for a non-commercial permanent resident or taxpayer shellfish permit shall be $3. Effective on and after January 1, 1991, the fee for such permit shall be $5. Such permit shall expire on December 31 of the year of issuance. There shall be no fee for a permanent resident who has attained the age of 62 years. D. The holder of a shellfish permit shall carry the permit assigned to him on his person while engaged in the permitted activities, and the failure of such holders to exhibit his their permit to an enforcement officer shall be presumptive evidence that no valid permit has been issued to them him. §219-10 8. Scallops. A. The Trustees of the Town of Southold may establish, by resolution, the dates of the commercial and noncommercial scallop season based on the environmental and economic conditions in effect each year. [Amended 9-6-1994 by L.L. No. 19- 1994] Scallop season for residents and non-residents shall be set pursuant to New York State, as adopted by Board of Trustee resolution. B. Subject to the provisions of this section, during the first two weeks of Scallop season, harvesting in Town Waters shall be by hand or with a scalp net only. During the first two weeks of Scallop season, harvesting in Town Waters shall be open to all permit holders, for the noncommercial limits set forth herein. During the noncommercial scallop season, not more than 1/2 bushel of scallops may be taken from Town waters in any one day by hand or with a scalp net. [Amended 7- 7-1982 by L.L. No. 5-1982; 9-6-1994 by L.L. No. 19-1994] C. Except as set forth above, dDuring the commercial scallop season, scallops may be taken from Town waters with a dredge or scrape having an opening at the mouth of not more than 36 inches in width when towed by a boat operated by mechanical power or other means, provided that such dredge or scrape is brought aboard the boat by hand power without the use of a mechanical device.] D. Subject to the provisions of this section, a permanent resident, a taxpayer, a temporary non-resident or a guest, when accompanied by a permanent resident, may take from Town waters not more than 1/2 bushel of scallops for noncommercial purposes in any one day by any one (1) person. Two (2) or more persons occupying the same boat may take, in the aggregate, not more than one (1) bushel of scallops in one (1) day for noncommercial purposes. for other than commercial purposes. [Amended 7-7-1982 by L.L. No. 5-1982] E. Subject to the provisions of this section, not more than five bushels of scallops may be taken from Town waters for commercial purposes in any one day by any one person. Two or more persons occupying the same boat may take, in the aggregate, not more than 10 bushels of scallops in one day for commercial purposes. F. Scallops shall not be taken from Town waters during the period from sunset to sunrise. G. Scallops shall not be taken from Town waters on Sundays except by hand or with a scalp net by uses of dredge or other power device. December 4, 2007 Page 70 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting H. Only scallops measuring more than 2 1/4 inches from the middle of the hinge to the middle of the bill may be taken from Town waters except as provided below. Amended 1-21-1997 by L.L. No. 2-1997] H. I. Scallops measuring less than 2 1/4 inches with an annual growth line having an annual growth line and measuring not less than 2 ¼” from the middle of the hinge to the middle of the bill may be taken from Town waters only by resolution of the Southold Town Board of Trustees. §219-11 9. Clams. A. Hard clams less than one inch in thickness shall not be contained taken from Town waters and shall be subject to the requirements set forth in Section 219- 14A. B. Soft or steamer clams less than two inches in the longest diameter shall not be contained taken from Town waters and shall be subject to the requirements set forth in Section 219-14A. C. Churning by power may not be employed in the taking of soft clams on land below the high-tide line in Town waters. D. A permanent resident, a taxpayer, a temporary non-resident or a guest accompanied by a permanent resident may take contain not more than 100 hard clams and 100 soft clams from Town waters in one day for noncommercial purposes. E. Not more than 2,000 hard clams may be taken from Town waters for commercial purposes in any one day by any one person. Two or more persons occupying the same boat may take, in aggregate, not more than 4,000 hard clams in one day for commercial purposes. §219-12 10. Oysters. A. Oysters shall not be taken from Town waters during the period from May 1 to August 31 in each year, both dates inclusive, and shall be subject to the requirements of Section 219-14A. B. Oysters shall not be taken from Town waters during the period from sunset to sunrise. C. Only oysters measuring more than three inches from the hinge to the bill may be taken from Town waters, and shall be subject to the requirements of Section 219- 14A. D. A permanent resident, a taxpayer, a non-resident or a guest accompanied by a permanent resident may take not more than one-half (1/2) bushel of oysters from Town Waters for noncommercial purposes in any one (1) day by any one (1) person. Two (2) or more persons occupying the same boat may take, in the aggregate, not more than one (1) bushel of oysters from Town Waters in one (1) day for noncommercial purposes. The Trustees of the Town of Southold may establish, by resolution, the limits on the number of oysters which may be harvested for commercial purposes and noncommercial purposes. A permanent December 4, 2007 Page 71 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting resident, a taxpayer, a temporary resident or guest accompanied by a resident may harvest oysters for noncommercial purposes in the quantities set by resolution of the Trustees. [Amended 7-7-1982 by L.L. No. 5-1982; 1-21-1997 by L.L. No. 1- 1997] Editor's Note: Former Subsection E, amended 7-31-1973, which immediately followed this subsection and dealt with the amount of oysters allowed to be taken from Town waters for commercial purposes, was repealed 1- 21-1997 by L.L. No. 1-1997. E. Not more than two thousand (2,000) oysters may be contained or taken from Town Waters for commercial purposes in any one (1) day by any one (1) person. Two (2) or more persons occupying the same boat may take, in aggregate, not more than four thousand (4,000) oysters in one (1) day from Town Waters for commercial purposes. ARTICLE III Other Marine Resources §219-113. Blue claw crabs. A. Blue claw crabs must be harvested according to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation regulations. Blue claw crabs measuring less than five inches from point to point of the upper shell shall not be taken from the waters of the Town of Southold. B. A permanent resident, a taxpayer, a temporary resident or a guest accompanied by a permanent resident may not take more than 1/2 bushel of blue claw crabs from Town waters in any one day for noncommercial purposes. [Amended 7-7-1982 by L.L. No. 5-1982] C. Female blue claw crabs shall not be taken from the waters of the Town of Southold. [Amended 7-14-1987 by L.L. No. 12-1987] D. Crab pots. No individual may set more than one crab pot, and each crab pot and buoy shall have affixed thereto the individual's shellfish permit number. [Added 7-14-1987 by L.L. No. 12-1987] §219-12 4. Mussels. A. A permanent resident, a taxpayer, a temporary non-resident or a guest accompanied by a permanent resident may not take contain more than one bushel of mussels from Town waters in one day for noncommercial purposes. Two (2) or more persons occupying the same boat may contain, in aggregate, not more than two bushels of mussels from Town Waters in one (1) day for noncommercial purposes. B. Not more than 10 bushels of mussels may be taken from Town waters for commercial purposes in one day by any one person. Two or more persons occupying the same boat may take contain, in the aggregate, not more than 20 bushels of mussels in one day for commercial purposes. C. Ribbed mussels shall be contained by handpicking only. Raking for mussels in peat bog areas shall be prohibited. D. The containment of mussels is further regulated by New York State. December 4, 2007 Page 72 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting §219-135. Eels. A. Commercial purposes. No more than 50 eel pots or traps per permitted in Town waters shall be permitted. All pots must be identified with the shellfish permit number. B. A permanent resident, taxpayer and temporary non-resident. No more than five eel pots in Town waters shall be permitted. All pots must be identified with the shellfish permit number. C. The containment of eels is further regulated by New York State. ARTICLE IV Operational §219-146. Culling shellfish and restoration of underwater lands. A. Shellfish shall be culled when taken. All shellfish taken which do not comply with the provisions of this article Chapter shall be immediately returned alive to the water in the immediate vicinity of where they were harvested. B. All lands under Town waters disturbed by the taking of shellfish shall be restored to their condition prior to the taking of such shellfish by the person taking such shellfish. §219-15. Fixed Gear A. Fixed gear shall be placed no closer than the outer edge of any channel system and the gear shall not impede navigation. §219-167. Restricted areas. Shellfish shall not be taken from any Town waters which have been restricted by the Town Board of Trustees, provided that such restricted areas shall have been properly designated by a resolution duly passed by said Board of Trustees and properly staked and notices posted by said Board of Trustees. §219-17. Planting of Shellfish Seed. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, the Board of Trustees may approve an organization’s plan for planting shellfish seed in Town Waters and upon approval, the Board of Trustees may then authorize the approved organization and other volunteers acting under its supervision to plant shellfish seed in accordance with the approved plan. §219-18. Transplanting of shellfish. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article Chapter, the Town Board of Trustees may authorize the transplanting of shellfish in Town waters of any age or size, subject to its supervision, when it shall find that such shellfish are in danger of destruction as the result of December 4, 2007 Page 73 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting predators, economic factors or other detrimental causes. §219-19. Dredges and scrapes. Except as permitted by § 219-810C of this article Chapter, the use of a dredge, scrape, ell eel dredge, hydraulic means or similar device towed by a boat operated by mechanical power or other means is prohibited in Town waters. Except as permitted by § 219-10C of this article, the use of a dredge, scrape, ell dredge or similar device towed by a boat operated by mechanical power or other means is prohibited in Town waters except by special permission of the Trustees for scientific study projects. §219-20. Vegetation removal prohibited. No person shall remove beach grasses or wetland vegetation of any kind, nor place spoil thereon, in any other area of the Town of Southold without prior written approval by the Board of Town Trustees of the Town of Southold. §219-21. Aquaculture/Maraculture Exemption. The Board of Trustees may grant an exemption or variance, in terms of permitted sizes, number and time periods of harvest, from the provisions of this Chapter for aquaculture/maraculture activities that are properly permitted by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation. §219-221. Penalties for offenses. A. Any person convicted of an offense against any provision of this article shall be deemed to have committed a violation against such article and also shall be liable for any such offense or penalty therefor. A.B. For every each offense against any provision of this article Chapter, the person committing the same shall be subject to a fine not to exceed $500 or imprisonment not exceeding 15 days, or both such fine and imprisonment. B.C. A second conviction for an offense against any of the provisions of this article within a period of one year shall result in immediate revocation of their permit. shall constitute and effect an immediate forfeiture of a permit issued to such person. No new permit shall be issued to such person for at least one year after such forfeiture. D. Any person committing an offense against this article shall be subject to a civil penalty enforceable and collectible by the Town for each such offense. Such penalty shall be collectible by and in the name of the Town. C.E. In addition to the above-provided penalties and punishment, the Town Board may also maintain commence an action or proceeding in the name of the Town in a court of competent jurisdiction to compel compliance with or to restrain by injunction the offense against this article Chapter. December 4, 2007 Page 74 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting §219-23. Coordination and enforcement. The Director of Code Enforcement and/or the Bay Constable are responsible for coordination and enforcement of the provisions of this Chapter, and have the authority to issue violations of the provisions of this Chapter. 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. Those are the sections that are basically in this law and many of them were already there and many of them are just amended and changed for the purposes of this law. I have here a letter from the Suffolk County Planning Commission, “Pursuant to section A1414-23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, this application is not within the jurisdiction of the Suffolk County Planning Commission.” I have, this has appeared as a legal on the Town Clerk’s bulletin board outside and it has also appeared as a legal in the local newspaper. What other communications do I have? The key communication that is actually in the file here is from the Town’s LWRP coordinator and it is rather lengthy, it is the most serious and involved recommendation I have come across in all of the legislation that we have passed and I see the coordinator is in our audience today and I wonder if he would like to summarize this to us and to the people with us today. Mark Terry, who is the Town’s LWRP coordinator. MARK TERRY, SOUTHOLD TOWN COORDINATOR, LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZTION PROGRAM: Hi, Mark Terry. I have reviewed the law and the law is consistent provided that the Board of Trustees and the Town Board support our further policy, 6 and 11, which protects eelgrass habitat in our creeks. Basically in Chapter 275, there is a provision that allows the Trustees to establish spawner sanctuaries. Spawner sanctuaries are defined as ‘bottom designated by the Trustees for the purpose of protecting and enhancing shellfish populations for a specific period of time’. The LWRP recommendation and summary is to establish such spawner sanctuaries for known eelgrass beds and prohibit any action that would disrupt the root or eventually result in the death of eelgrass plants in these areas. I have been in contact with Cornell Cooperative Extension to identify these areas. I do not have the maps that I can produce to you tonight however, I request that you hold this open until we get that information and I can provide that both to the Trustees and to the Town Board. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I have got a question for you, Mark. In this legislations section December 4, 2007 Page 75 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting 219-16, it is under restricted areas ‘shellfish may not be taken from any Town waters which have been restricted by the Town Board of Trustees, provided that such restricted areas shall be properly designated by resolution duly passed by said Board of Trustees and notice is posted by said Board of Trustees’ could that be used as a, and if we put in definitions for this code ‘shellfish sanctuary’ would that be effective in protecting these areas? The shellfish areas? MR. TERRY: Yes, it could. It could be used as a sort of connection between the spawner sanctuary’s. I do recommend that the spawner sanctuary definition be included in the shellfish code but I do suspect that as the efforts of the scientists at Cornell at restoring eelgrass beds are successful, the spawner sanctuary or eelgrass beds will increase in size and therefore, it is very hard to put in the shellfish code exact limits and I think that is a wise way to do it, on a basis where you can actually have different areas set up annually by the Board of Trustees working with the Cornell Cooperative Extension. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you. TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: Can I also say, the areas should be listed in the code as opposed to a resolution, because if somebody were to be charged with a violation, the area that they are performing the activity isn’t listed in the code so it is hard to give a ticket and then they would challenge a ticket. So, once we have the areas identified, they should be specifically listed. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Once we get the recommendations from Cornell about the locations of the eelgrass beds, will we need then a resolution from the Trustees, each to be in the legislation? TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: The areas should be included here. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Right but we need that from the Trustees in order to include, a resolution from the Trustees to include that in the legislation. JUSTICE EVANS: Right but that also means we have to change our legislation every year to… SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Adopt code changes, re-identifying the protects areas. After a resolution comes up from the Trustees. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Albert? The Trustees need to agree to it but it should be added to this legislation that comes to the Town Board. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Well, in a sense it is, under restricted areas but would it stay under that? Would it just list those restricted areas under that? TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: I would recommend that you list the areas in this code under that section, as opposed to referring to a resolution of the Trustees. December 4, 2007 Page 76 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Okay. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you, Mark. MR. TERRY: Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anyone else like to come up and address us on the issue of the shellfish code? Any of the Trustees? JILL DOHERTY: Hi, Jill Doherty, Southold Trustees. We worked on this quite a while and we worked on it with many groups of people. We held public meetings, got a lot of input. We worked with the Shellfish Advisory Committee, worked with law enforcement, with the Town Attorney’s and we feel that we did a good job updating this. Like Al mentioned earlier, it hasn’t been updated since like the 30’s so a lot of stuff needed changes. It is a lot of minor changes and nothing major, just bringing everything up to date to the times. And the Trustees don’t have a problem with what Mark is suggesting, we just need to talk about it as a group to work out the details. How we are going to mark the areas, what areas are going to be. We also have worked with Cornell, with Chris Pickerell in doing all this, so we have talked to him about eelgrass beds and I think now we, Cornell only has one area and that is in Hallock’s Bay. But they, as Mark said, they are updating that and you know, they are re-doing. So once we get the updates and we can figure out the areas, we will, you know, put them in. So if there are any questions, we are here. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you, Jill. Would anybody else like to come up and address the Town Board? (No response) Motion to close? TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: We are going to hold the hearing open and when you get the information, you can incorporate it into the hearing. So we can hold it open. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. JUSTICE EVANS: And we don’t have to have another public notification because it is not major. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: So we are going to look to hold this hearing open. Okay. RESULT: CLOSED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Albert Krupski Jr., Councilman SECONDER: William P. Edwards, Councilman AYES: Krupski Jr., Edwards, Ross, Wickham, Evans, Russell 5. Set PH for Amend 275 12/4/07 7:35 Pm COMMENTS - Current Meeting: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 9th day of October, “A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Chapter 275 2007 a Local Law entitled (Wetlands & Shoreline)” AND December 4, 2007 Page 77 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, th 4 day of December 2007 at 7:35 p.m Southold, New York, on the . at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. “A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Chapter 275 The proposed Local Law entitled, (Wetlands & Shoreline)” reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 2007 “A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Chapter 275 (Wetlands A Local Law entitled, & Shoreline)” . BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: I. Purpose - In order to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Town of Southold, and to protect the natural protective areas existing within the Town, it is necessary to make certain amendments to Chapter 275. These amendments are intended to support the protection of environmental features within the Trustees’ jurisdiction, strengthen enforcement, simplify the permit process and clarify activities that may be conducted in protected areas. II. Chapter 275 of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: §275-2. Definitions; word usage. ACCESS PATH -- an area, cleared by hand or hand-held equipment, no more than 4 feet wide, left in its natural state and devoid of any manmade structure, to provide a walkway to a body of water. DOCK -- Any permanent or seasonal structure, except a building, located or proposed to be located on lands abutting or comprised of freshwater or tidal wetlands or connected to a bulkhead or the upland and extending over the water's surface, designed to secure vessels and provide access from the shore to a body of water. For the purpose of this chapter, this term shall also include the associated structures necessary to cross wetlands and adjacent natural areas. The term “dock” includes the terms “wharves,” “piers,” “fixed docks,” “floating docks,” or “floats”. or “catwalks.” FUNCTIONAL - Any structure that, in its current state, primarily retains its purpose and use as determined by the Board of Trustees. NONDISTURBANCE BUFFER - An A vegetated area, typically 50 feet wide a minimum of 30 feet wide as designated by the Board of Trustees, immediately landward of the wetland boundary, shoreline structure, or other line designated by the Trustees where no operations, maintenance, placement of signs or other activities can may take place, except that manmade debris may be removed from December 4, 2007 Page 78 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting such area by hand without the permission of the Board of Trustees. RESIDENTIAL DOCK -- Any catwalk, fixed dock and/or floating dock designed or constructed as a continuous unit to provide access to the surface waters from a lot that is zoned for residential use. The term "dock" shall include all associated structures such as ramps and mooring piles. §275-4. Exceptions. A. The provisions of this chapter shall not affect or prohibit nor require a permit for the following: (4) The ordinary and usual operations relative to residential horticulture within Trustees’ jurisdiction limited to the use of non-invasive native species of vegetation. Re-grading and removal of trees outside any designated buffer area are not included in this exception. landward of the wetland boundary. (5) The ordinary and usual maintenance or repair (of the same dimensions) of a presently permitted by this chapter, existing and functioning building, dock, pier, wharf, jetty, groin, dike, dam or other water-control device or structure. (10) Installation of new or replacement windows, roof shingles, doors, dormers and siding on existing structures only. (11) Notwithstanding the above listed exceptions, activity within a designated non-disturbance buffer is prohibited. B. Nothing contained in this section shall alter the jurisdiction of the Southold Town Board of Trustees. These listed exceptions do not provide an exemption from the requirements of other departments or agencies. §275-5. Permit procedures. B. Administrative permit. (2) The following operations will be considered for administrative review: (j) The reconstruction of a permitted bulkhead as per §275-11, which is to replace an existing functional bulkhead, subject to the following: [3] Any such activities shall require the addition of a nonturf pervious buffer area. not to exceed 20 feet wide as defined in §275-2. (l) Minor restoration or alterations of landscaping. (m) Decks. (n) Minor alterations to existing permitted shoreline structures including stairs, bulkheads and docks. (o) Installation or burial of a residential propane/liquid gas tank 25 feet from wetlands in an existing, established yard area when more appropriate upland placement is not possible. Installation, burial or removal of a propane tank less than 25 feet from wetlands is generally prohibited. December 4, 2007 Page 79 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting (p) Dredging work caused by the accumulation of silt from run-off or other circumstances not the result of activity by or on behalf of the owner of the property and in event at the discretion of the Board of Trustees. §275-7. Fees. F. Dredging Fee. Every application for a permit for dredging within Town-owned underwater lands shall include a fee as set by the Town Board based on the amount of cubic yard of dredge spoil to be removed. §275-10. Contents of permit. L. A statement that “The permittee is required to conspicuously post the permit and have the supporting plans available for immediate inspection at the worksite at the commencement of work until which time the project is completed.” §275-11. Construction and operation standards. A. General. The following standards are required for all operations within the jurisdiction of the Trustees: (4) Fences. In general, fences are prohibited from beaches and wetland areas. Any fence, barricade or impediment to pedestrian traffic on the beach or wetland area in violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be removed upon written notice to the owner of the premises upon which such fence, barricade or impediment is located sent by certified or registered mail. Such fence, barricade or impediment shall be removed by the owner within 30 days of the date of the notice. Upon failure to comply with such notice, the Building Inspector, Code Enforcement Officer or Bay Constable may remove or cause the removal of the illegal structure. If any fence, barricade or impediment is determined by the Building Inspector, Code Enforcement Officer or Bay Constable to create a hazard to the health, safety or welfare of the public, such structure may be removed and disposed of by the Town without prior notice to the owner. Upon removal by the Town, all costs and expenses incurred by the Town for the removal of such fence, barricade or impediment shall be the responsibility of the owner. The Town may pursue any and all remedies available at law to recover any unpaid costs associated with removal, including filing a statement with the Town Assessors, identifying the property in connection with which such expenses were incurred and the owner \ thereof as shown on the latest assessment roll of the Town. The Assessors, in preparation of the next assessment roll, shall assess such amount upon such property. Such amount shall be included in the levy against such property, shall constitute a lien and shall be collected and enforced in the same manner, by the same proceedings, at the same time and under the same penalty as is provided by law for the collection and enforcement of real property taxes in the Town of Southold. A fence may be permitted if the applicant has demonstrated a special need. Upon such a finding by the Trustees the fence must be split-rail, December 4, 2007 Page 80 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting perpendicular to the waterline and not closer than 10 feet to MHW. Only one posted sign per 100 linear feet of fence is allowed, no larger than 12 inches by 12 inches square. (9) Pumping of Town-owned freshwater wetlands for irrigation purposes shall be prohibited. (10) Access paths. A permit for only one path shall be granted per lot for the purposes of shoreline access unless otherwise determined by the Board of Trustees. B. Shoreline structures. The following standards are required for all operations relating to shoreline structures on residential properties. Operations conducted on properties zoned M1 or M2 may be given greater flexibility in these requirements given the water-dependent nature of their use. (1) Bulkheads, retaining walls, revetments and gabions. (f) In order to prevent the release of metals and other contaminants into the wetlands and waters of Southold, the use of lumber pre- treated with any preservative, including but not limited to chromated copper arsenate (also known as "CCA"), creosote, penta products, Alkaline Copper Quat (ACQ), or homemade wood preservatives is prohibited for use in sheathing and decking on structures in the wetlands as well as on any part of a structure in low tidal flow wetland areas as determined by the Trustees. Any use of creosote is prohibited. Preservatives of any type, including but not limited to those listed above cannot be applied to any bulkheads, retaining walls or revetments after installation. Encapsulated pilings or native nonchemically treated (untreated) lumber only should be used in sensitive areas. (l) Lighting: Any and all lights associated with bulkheads, retaining walls, stairs or poles in Trustee jurisdiction must be directed on the subject structure and not out into the adjacent wetland, waterway or property. Lights shall not be on unless the waterfront is in active use. C. In water. The following standards are required for all in-water operations adjacent to residential properties. Operations conducted on properties zoned M1 or M2 may be given greater flexibility in these requirements given the water-dependent nature of their use. (2) Docks. (a) [3] In order to prevent the release of metals and other contaminants into the wetlands and waters of Southold, the use of lumber pre-treated with any preservative, including but not limited to chromated copper arsenate (also known as "CCA"), commercial copper quat (CCQ), creosote, penta products, Alkaline Copper Quat (ACQ), or homemade wood preservatives is prohibited for use in sheathing and December 4, 2007 Page 81 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting decking on structures in the wetlands as well as on any part of a structure in low tidal flow wetland areas as determined by the Trustees. The use of creosote is prohibited. Similarly, the The use of tropical hardwoods is prohibited unless it is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council or similar organization. Materials used for structural components shall be determined at the discretion of the Trustees. (b) Dock locations and lengths. [3] [a] Given the unique and sensitive natural environmental characteristics described in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan and the New York State Department of State Significant Habitat descriptions, No new docks will be permitted, over vegetated wetlands or such that it causes habitat fragmentation of vegetated wetlands in the following areas: Downs Creek, Hallocks Bay, Hashamomuck Creek and Pond, Long Creek (branch of Mattituck Creek, East of Grand Avenue bridge), Pipe’s Cove Creek and West Creek. [3] [d] No floating docks, floats, dock components, duck blinds or boats shall be stored on tidal wetlands, other intertidal areas or freshwater wetlands, except that floats 20 feet in length or smaller and boats 16 feet in length or smaller may be stored above mean high tide, on blocks at a minimum of 12” above grade, during the period beginning November 1 through May 1. (c) Regulations for the placement and configuration of docking facilities. [1] Residential docks. [a] Only one dock, catwalk may be permitted per residential lot. Only one mooring or dock may be mooring is permitted per residential lot. Upon a showing of special need due to low water level and hazard to property, the Trustees may permit both a mooring and a dock for the same residential property. [b] If any part of a residential dock structure includes a float or floating dock, the float or floating dock portion shall be designed so that, with the exception of the pilings: [i] It is no larger than six feet wide and 20 feet December 4, 2007 Page 82 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting long except on Fishers Island if the need is demonstrated; or of equal square footage as determined by the Trustees; (3) Dredging. (a) Creeks. [1] Only maintenance dredging (as defined in §275-2) only is permitted, unless the applicant owns underwater land or the applicant is requesting permission to dredge in connection with installation of low-sill bulkheads. All maintenance dredging permits shall be valid for a period no greater than 10 years. (c) All dredging applications must demonstrate a specific location for the deposit of dredging material. §275-12 A Standards for Issuance of permit §275-12 B Stop work orders. A. The Bay Constable or Code Enforcement Officer is authorized to issue stop-work orders pursuant to this section. The Bay Constable or Code Enforcement Officer shall issue a stop-work order to halt: (1) Any work that is determined by the Bay Constable or Code Enforcement Officer to be contrary to any applicable provision of this Chapter, or: (1) Any work that is being conducted in a dangerous or unsafe manner in the opinion of the Bay Constable or Code Enforcement Officer, without regard to whether such work is or is not work for which a trustee permit is required, and without regard to whether a trustee permit has or has not been issued for such work; or (2) Any work for which a trustee permit is required which is being performed without the required trustee permit, or under a trustee permit that has become invalid, has expired, or has been suspended or revoked. B. Stop-work orders shall: (1) Be in writing; (2) Be dated and signed by the Bay Constable or Code Enforcement Officer; (3) State the reason or reasons for issuance; (4) If applicable, state the conditions which must be satisfied before work will be permitted to resume. C. The Bay Constable or Code Enforcement Officer shall cause the stop- work order, or a copy thereof, to be served on the owner of the affected December 4, 2007 Page 83 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting property, and if the owner is not the permit holder, on the permit holder, personally or by certified mail to the owner or permit holder and posting at the work site. The Bay Constable or Code Enforcement Officer shall be permitted, but not required, to cause the stop-work order, or a copy thereof, to be served on any or all of the following: builder, architect, tenant, contractor, subcontractor, construction superintendent, or their agents, or any other person taking part or assisting in work affected by the stop-work order, personally or be certified mail and posting; provided, however, that failure to serve any person listed above shall not affect the efficacy of the stop-work order. D. Upon issuance of the stop-work order, the owner of the affected property, the permit holder and any other person performing, taking part in or assisting in the work shall immediately cease all work which is the subject of the stop-work order. E. The issuance of a stop-work order shall not be the exclusive remedy available to address any event described in this section, and the authority to issue a stop-work order shall be in addition to, and not in substitution for or limitation of, the right and authority to pursue any other remedy or impose any other penalty under any other applicable local or state law. Any such remedy or penalty may be pursued at any time, whether prior to, at the time of, or after the issuance of a stop-work order. §275-16. Compliance requirements; penalties for offenses. B. For each offense against any of the provisions of this chapter or any regulations made pursuant thereto, or failure to comply with a written notice or order of any Director of Code Enforcement or Bay Constable within the time fixed for compliance therewith, the owner, occupant, builder, architect, contractor or their agents or any other person who commits, takes part or assists in the commission of any such offense or who shall fail to comply with a written order or notice of the Director of Code Enforcement or Bay Constable shall be subject to the following fine schedule. Each day on which such violation occurs shall constitute a separate, additional offense. (2) Failure to comply with the terms of a permit. (a) Any person failing to comply with the terms of a permit shall be subject to a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $1,000. $4,000 For each subsequent offense, the violator shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not less than $1,000 nor more than $2,000 $7,500 or a term of imprisonment of not less than 15 days nor more than six months, or both. (b) Any person failing to comply with posting the permit and/or the requirement for supporting plans to be available for immediate inspection pursuant to §275-10 shall be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000. December 4, 2007 Page 84 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting (3) Failure to heed a cease and desist order stop work order. Any person conducting operations in direct contradiction to the terms of a stop-work order shall be subject to a fine of not less than $1000 and not more than $2000. $4000. For each subsequent offense, the violator shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not less than $1000 nor more than $2000 $7500 or a term of imprisonment of not less than 15 days nor more than six months, or both. (4) Restoration. In lieu or in addition to these punishments, any offender may be punished by being ordered to restore the affected wetland to its condition prior to the offense. Any such order shall specify a reasonable time for the completion of such restoration, which shall be effected under the supervision of the approving authority. The Trustees reserve the right to require specific replanting and restoration methods including specific survivability and success criteria. (5) Failure to comply with a restoration plan. Any person failing to comply with the terms of a mandated restoration plan as detailed in subsection 4 of this section within the proscribed period of time for completion shall be guilty of an offense and subject to a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $4,000. (5)(6) Mitigation. When on-site wetlands restoration and creation may be unfeasible due to technical or other constraints, other mitigative measures, such as off-site wetland restoration or creation, may be required. C. The Trustees may revoke a permit when a violation of this Chapter or Chapter 111 is found on the same property. No new permits will be issued to any carter, owner, occupant, builder, architect, contractor or their agents if they are a named as defendants in an outstanding or unresolved wetland violation.violation of Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shoreline or Chapter 111 Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas. 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. APPLICABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by law. Most of this material already is in Chapter 275, this is an effort to strengthen, to make it move straightforward and to clarify what this calls for and more specific to apply to the wide range of activities on the shoreline and on, in that whole area. This has appeared, this public hearing has appeared, a notice for it, as a legal notice outside on the bulletin board, it has also appeared as a legal in the local newspaper. We have several memorandums, one of them is from Mark Terry, the Principal Planner and also the LWRP coordinator. ‘The proposed local law has been reviewed to Chapter 268, based upon the information provided on the consistency assessment December 4, 2007 Page 85 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting form submitted to the Department as well as records available to me, it is my determination that the proposed action is consistent with the standards and therefore is consistent with LWRP provided that the following best management practices and process recommendations are incorporated to further the policy standards written below.’ And there follows several pages here about specific practices he is recommending be applied when bulkheads are being applied for and built and when docks are being applied for and built and when dredging is being conducted. And there is quite a number of pages here about that and I won’t go into it any further but it is technical, best management practices on those particular issues which are included in Chapter 275. Let’s see what else we have. Well, here is a letter from a certain Mrs. Bontje of Northport, New York. Please forward to the Town Board as they have no direct contact e-mail that I could find. ‘My wife and I object to the proposed changes in the Town’s Trustees regulations. They already have too much power over private lands, do not give them more. They are choking off our retirement in Southold by reducing our buildable area step by step. We cannot put a 30 foot buffer, mandatory, on our property and still get a decent sized home. To paraphrase our recent letter to the Trustees, “As a practical matter, a reduction in coverage will provide an area too small to provide for a modern’s home footprint particularly for retirement. My wife and I wish to retire on our waterfront property in Southold. A reconstructed home must have a garage, kitchen with mudroom, storage, utility room, one bedroom, living room, dining room, kitchen all on the first floor. All steps, doorways and like requirements must be accessible to wheelchair bound individuals on the first floor. We have an 11,000 square foot lot from 1954. There is no way such facilities can fit within a 3,000 square foot reduced footprint on the lot. If you go to a mandatory 30 foot buffer, you have taken our retirement home from us and our benefit to the Town. There is no need for this change. Long Island is sandy. Dry wells and other infiltration features can readily control storm run-off through impervious surfaces on a lot with development coverage. Further, roof drainage is clean over time. What exactly are you attempting to mitigate or prevent? The technology of modern infiltration devices more than provide such a mitigation. To close, do not take our collective property and specific our retirement from us or me and do not do so for reasons that can be mitigated. A reduction in allowed coverage due to a mandatory 30 foot buffer will be taking our or my property without just compensation. I implore you not to do so. The waterfront residential community is an economic engine in the Town. We have disposable income, you drive us away by over regulation the Town’s economy will also suffer.” Here is a letter from the Nature Conservancy, dated November 30, 2007. Wow, I don’t, this is like five pages long, it is written by a Marian Lindberg, Conservation, Finance and Policy. I will just try to summarize it briefly. “Honorable Members of the Town Board, In connection with your review of Chapter 275 and in the interest of avoiding piecemeal consideration of changes, please consider the attached additional amendments drafted by our staff along with an excellent summary of the research supporting the importance of wetland non-disturbance buffers prepared by the office of Long Island Sound programs of the State of Connecticut. As stated in our letter of October 22, we applaud the Town for taking the initiative to improve the protection of wetlands and understand that the Trustees have already suggested changes to the existing law. We fully support the Trustees proposal to increase penalties for non-compliance. We also support their effort to promote native vegetation by exempting the use of non-invasive native species from regulation. However, the Town Board should take this opportunity also to consider the LWRP coordinating council recommendations that were offered in August. We have taken the liberty of trying to December 4, 2007 Page 86 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting convert a number of those recommendations into code language, along with some of our own suggestions based on research data and effective wetland management experiences. We fully recognize the developing code language is and should be a public process with input from all concerned. Our aim is to help the Town commence that dialogue by undertaking the tedious task of turning good ideas into specific regulatory do’s and don’ts. As the LWRP reports, points out, Southold is moving into a year-round residential community from an agricultural and second home community. This means that more pressure to expand existing dwellings and more impact on natural resources are inevitable. To safeguard water quality, fisheries, storm protection, all other eco-system services offered by wetlands; we believe the Town needs those additional tools to widen the non-disturbance buffers and direct development away from wetlands. The attached amendments are designed to strengthen these Trustees efforts to protect their in the following ways: Increase Trustees jurisdiction to 200 feet and there follows several sentences about that; Increase the minimum setbacks, with greater setbacks in critical environmental areas and subject all structures, including decks, to the setback requirements and distinguish between pervious and impervious services for setback purposes. 3. Revise the administered permit system to apply where the existing and proposed development meets the minimum setbacks not just in the limited circumstances described in current Chapter 275. 4. Require applicants proposing to deviate from setback requirements to demonstrate no practical alternative and as a condition of receiving release, require mitigation in the manner set forth in the law. For example, by widening an existing non-disturbance buffer, creating one where none exists, relocating structures etc. 5. Require permits issued by Trustees in granting deviation of setbacks as specified the type of mitigation proposed. 6. Require all paperwork related to applications for Trustee permits to be completed 30 days before the public hearing to provide for meaningful public review and comment. 7. Require administrative permits for certain types of operations currently exempted, such as access to and from sites to conduct environmental testing or cutting of phragmites. 8. Provide for flagging of wetlands by the Town as done in East Hampton, Southampton and Brookhaven. 9. Separate the Town’s regulation of coastal erosion structures and docks from its regulation of development on land. Many town’s have a separate dock and shore hardening code. We believe Southold should follow that model. The aim of Chapter 275 should be to achieve the largest practical buffers around wetland. That is a different objective from determining when the shoreline itself can be modified through construction of a dock, bulkhead or revetment. As stated in our previous letter, we believe amendments along the lines of those proposed above will bring more precision and uniformity to Chapter 275. One issue not dealt with in our amendments nor in existing 275, is the application of setbacks and other wetland provisions to commercial properties. As currently written, Chapter 275 applies only to residential properties. But commercial properties should not be exempt from the wetlands code; as it considers implementation of LWRP, the Town Board should determine how best to ensure that commercial properties are designed etc. To reiterate, we offer these proposals in the spirit of dialogue etc. etc.” That is the Nature Conservancy. I have seen other things here, this is something from the Chair of the Planning Board, Proposed local law on Chapter 275. “As requested, the Planning Board reviewed the proposed amendments to Chapter 275, we agree that the changes accomplish the stated purposes of strengthening enforcement, simplifying the permit process and verification. The Planning Board supports the proposed local law in relation to Amendments to Chapter 275.” This is from Paul Stoutenburgh, a resident of Cutchogue, dated December 2, 2007. “Dear Supervisor Russell and Town Board, Let me relay a bit of history so December 4, 2007 Page 87 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting the pending legislation before you can be better understood. In the early days of the Trustees, they were unaware of the value of the wetlands. There was a time when the development of our bays and creeks took priority over conservation or preservation. It was a time of give away of our most valuable resources. The word environment was not part of the standard vocabulary. Gradually, through time, the importance and concern for our wetlands grew and the public along with the NFEC tried in vain to stop the filling of our wetlands with dredged soil. One of the chief reasons that nothing was done to stop this policy was there no rules or regs governing what could or could not be done to our wetlands. Realizing the need for a legal document of some sort, the NFEC requested the Town correct the situation by drawing up a wetlands ordinance. Once again, must reiterate, this was a period of contempt for anything that included the word ‘environment or preservation’ after much haggling and a number of public hearings, a weak wetlands ordinance was drawn up and passed by the Town Board. Today we have a much more enlightened Board and Board of Trustees. Most realize the importance of these most valuable wetlands. Both Boards realize most of the legislation in Southold Town is built on is in continual change. When situations change, new information becomes available, code should incorporate or delete accordingly and this is exactly what the revisions of Chapter 275 do and why I am asking you to vote yes. Times change, codes need to be changed to keep up with the times. In the future, there will need to be more done to the wetlands code but this resolution should be passed now to correct positions etc. Thank you for taking the time.” Let’s see, this is rd from John Kramer of Southold, dated, received on the 3. “Town Board has rescheduled this hearing on the proposed changes to 275 and that is a good thing. The public needs the opportunity to ask questions about these changes and to voice their concerns. The changes appear to be very onerous and will greatly impact the value, use and cost to keep waterfront homes. The problem is that most of those affected by the changes are not in Town. I hope the discussion of the important changes will be postponed until such time as the owners have time to consider the impact and are able to respond. My problems with the changes are as follows: 1. I agree with the need for flexibility in deciding Trustee matters and black letter law can only lead to onerous and expensive requirements for us to fulfill. But certainly we should be able to better define much of what is in these changes to provide the homeowner with a clearer understanding of what the requirements are. Example: Functional. The way I read it, I cannot determine if my structure is functional. And functional seems to tie in to the concept of grandfathering and the wording ‘permitted by this Chapter’, leading me to believe that if my 1949 house is heavily damaged therefore not functional after the loss, and not permitted by this chapter because this chapter is 2004, I no longer have the right to rebuild. That sounds like taking without compensation. 2. The changes concerning CCA and treated lumber take out specific tidal flow rates that I think should come from the NYS DEC March 2000 document titled ‘Assessment of the risk to Aquatic Life’ in that document the best management practice for the use of treated wood are outlined. Why don’t we utilize this DEC document to specify the construction standards? 3. I would also ask about the fines, prison terms and punishments. I agree you need teeth in the law to protect us from an owner out to do harm to the environment but I really believe the vast majority of your time is spent with homeowners like the ones that I know who are well-intentioned but may be uninformed. It seems that to not have a warning notice as a first step to the severe punishments, that is too harsh. Many are confused, as I am, by the regulations and when they apply. Give me a warning that says you can’t do that without a permit. 4. lastly, I believe the waterfront folks deserve and expect laws that derive from a consensus that is fair December 4, 2007 Page 88 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting and balanced. Much of this is not. For instance, the burden I see being placed on the homeowner. We know the water quality of our bays today is healthier today than it was 10 years ago. Everyone is on board and things are getting better with more awareness. But the government, with this law, puts the homeowner in the position of guilty until proven innocent. That is contrary to all other aspects of law, people who have property cannot h ave it taken away unless the government proves its existence is unsafe, harmful or antisocial in some way. In the Trustees jurisdiction, it seems I am in the position that I must somehow prove the negative that my house, dock etc does not do something harmful, which if not impossible is very costly. Rather, the government should be able to cite the science that proves the positive. For example, that my house in its location before the fire was a hazard to public safety, poisoning the bay etc., and therefore should not be permitted. Governments failure to be able to prove that should allow my house to stand. How can the burden of proof be shifted to the homeowner in a system that we could call fair, equitable, just and reasonable and balanced? Thank you for your consideration, John Kramer.” This is from the NFEC, dated November 27. ‘Subject, comments. Dear Town Board members, The issue before us is the adequacy of Chapter 275. it is inadequate and must be comprehensively fixed. The Board of Trustees has proposed some changes “to protect the natural protective areas existing within the Town. These amendments are intended to support the protection of environmental features within the Trustees jurisdiction, strengthen enforcement, simplify the permit process and clarify activities that may be conducted in protective areas” That is what the legislative purpose states. The NFEC supports these amendments. They are beneficial but they only address a fraction of the problem. We urge you to make a more comprehensive change than just the changes in this draft. There is more you need to recognize and more you need to do. Chapter 275 has some astounding weaknesses that has been pointed out by the NFEC. We have been joined by the Nature Conservancy and by the Town’s own LWRP coordinating council. The Town Board needs to fix these weaknesses. The Trustees operate under rules established by the Town Board. Yes, the Trustees hark back to the ideas established by the Andros Patent, but the Trustees, as owners of common land in trust were actually established by the New York State Legislature in 1893 to manage and dispose of those lands. Only Chapter 275 passes to the Board of Town Trustees the Town Board responsibility to regulate private wetlands and shoreline and shoreline, and it does not do a good job of making that responsibility clear. As a first step, the Town Board needs to fix the code and establish the operational authority and responsibility of Town Trustees in the context of existing state law. Once that is done, the Town Board needs to fix the operating parts of the code and empower the Trustees with effective rules. And there follows five or six specific proposals for doing so. 1. Extend the jurisdiction to 150 feet upland of the wetlands. 2. Increase the stated setback distances. 3. Establish a vertical setback distance to ground water under cesspools in the AE flood zone. 4. Authorize the Trustees to adjust the rules by only up to 50% of the requirement stated in the code and provide criteria for such variance and make the balance black letter law relieved only by impossibility. 5. Establish a local appeals board. In all, our report of one year ago details 12 weaknesses and their corrections. The Nature Conservancy calls for action, the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan calls for action, we call for action. We urge you to promptly address the flaws we continue to call to your attention and to make an efficient comprehensive change. NFEC wants the Southold Trustees to be properly enabled. Sincerely, Ray Huntington for the Land Use Committee of the NFEC.” I did read this one. That is the Planning Board recommendation and I think that is enough and I think the public should have its December 4, 2007 Page 89 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting opportunity to be heard. RESULT: CLOSED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: William P. Edwards, Councilman SECONDER: Albert Krupski Jr., Councilman AYES: Krupski Jr., Edwards, Ross, Wickham, Evans, Russell Councilman Krupski COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Scott, just before we start, I just wanted to kind of put this into perspective a little bit. It did start with the Andros Patent. This actually isn’t the original, I won’t read it either, don’t worry. The New York State legislature, in the 1790’s confirmed the colonial patent, which gives Southold Town so much of its authority and benefit. The laws of 1893 that was mentioned in one of the letters set aside a separate Board of Trustees, a separate elected Board from the Town Board and it empowered them to manage, lease or convey or otherwise dispose of all or any part of such common lands, waters, lands under water or rights of other interest therein subject to the lands underwater, to the public right of navigation, to the riparian rights of adjoining upland owners as the Town of Southold acquired and now holds by virtue of any colonial patent or charter. For this purpose, said Board may execute all such conveyances, leases, permits, agreements or other writings necessary or proper in carrying into effect the provisions of this act. In, and as referenced in Paul Stoutenburgh’s letter, in 1971 the Town adopted its own wetland code, chapter 97 and when I was a Trustee, the standards for issuing a permit were pretty general. You could only issue a permit if the Board determined that such operations would not substantially adversely affect the wetlands of the Town. And there are a few others but you can see how general that statement is. What does that mean ‘not substantially impact the wetlands’? Over the course of the last 20 years, the Board of Trustees has tried to define what is important in the wetlands and what is important for protecting the wetlands of the Town and we set about a lot of different policies concerning buffers, non turf buffers, fences, excavation, drainage; there was just a number of different things. These policies in 2004 were put into code of the Southold Town Board and because they were basically tried and true policies, we got a lot of input from the public when we made those changes and when we put all of those policies into code. This, what we are going to talk about tonight here are amendments to chapter 275 and we would like to confine our statements to the proposed changes and not to go off on other parts of the code or any other code because it is going to way too late for that. So if we could talk about those changes and this is part of the process of changing the Town Code and moving the Town forward on what is important and the public input. So we welcome the input but please confine it to the changes that are proposed. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: And I just want to remind everybody that we have a lot of people that I am sure want to speak, just please remember to state your name and the hamlet you are from for the Town Clerk’s records. Who would like to go first? Jim King JAMES KING, TOWN TRUSTEE: Good evening, I am Jim King, Town Trustee. The other Board members are here behind me if you have any questions. We feel that these are all positive changes that we are making to the code and this is a continuing process. This is the second set of revisions now that we are looking at and it is going to be a continuing process of updating and trying to make this code useable and much improved. I am going to keep it short because I know December 4, 2007 Page 90 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting there are a lot of people that want to talk. Rob Herman ROB HERMAN: Good evening. For the record, my name is Rob Herman, I am employed by EN Consultants, Incorporated in Southampton. I have been attending Trustee meeting for about 14 years once a month, so that is over 150 meetings, so I have lived with this code for a long time. I actually had some pretty boring technical suggestions to make as Al was asking for but it struck me from looking at the number of people in this room and listening to some of those letters, that this is a pretty interesting time for this Board and for the Trustees because I don’t think that all of this outpouring of public reaction to this is because the Trustees want to adjust how they handle the code and fences. I think what the Town is dealing with now and I have watched this happen in other Town’s on the east end is sort of a watershed moment in its regulatory history in terms of how it is addressing its wetlands regulations. And this is not just about 275, this is, I think really all of this is mostly about the LWRP, which this is not a hearing on. But the LWRP obviously from those comments and those five pages that Mr. Wickham mentioned, it is hard to actually have this public hearing without knowing what all of those comments are. But, so what I would like to do is just try to focus on a few things and I may say a lot of what a lot of other people are here to say so, I am going to try to be as pithy as I can and maybe actually save you some time by saving some other people from having to speak. I do want to go over just quickly some of the changes that are being proposed tonight as Councilman Krupski suggested. I also want to mention a couple of things that I have found, I mean the NFEC and the Nature Conservancy, all of these are sort of these broad comments. I mean, I think there is a big push out there that you know, Southampton has done this, East Hampton has done that and so should you. There is also a big push by the Department of State to say this is what we do in New York State and so should you but I think this is all these people are here to tell you, this should be a lot of about what Southold thinks it should do. So I want to mention a couple of things that I see as recurring problems over and over and over again in my appearance before the Trustee’s and a lot of that is an interaction between how 275 relates to 280 and how it relates to 268, so it is kind of hard, Al, to just completely confine it to 275 because there are contradictions between each of those sections of code that are driving the individual homeowners crazy, it is driving me crazy, I think it is driving the Trustees crazy. So I want to speak about a couple of those and then I do want to share just one little anecdote about the interaction between the LWRP and the Trustees and it is not what you think it is going to be. I think there has been a lot missed by the politicking and the personalities of you know, does Jim King like the LWRP? And is there conflict between the staff and the Trustees? I think in all of that, a lot of people in this Town are actually missing what the LWRP is doing to the Town of Southold and if I share something that everybody already know, I apologize but I do this for a living and I was just awakened a few weeks ago in a conversation with the Department of State and I want make sure that as you contemplate these code changes, you understand really what these changes you are contemplating making really may mean in light of the LWRP, especially in light of the fact that Mark Terry has a five page list of suggestions about how you may change it. I want to go very quickly through maybe five or six points just through the proposed changes. UNIDENTIFIED: (FROM AUDIENCE) May I ask what the LWRP stands for? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan. That was a plan December 4, 2007 Page 91 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting that was offered up and adopted by this Board prior to my becoming Supervisor. I think somewhere around 2000, 1999. It was authored by our former Planner, Valerie Scopaz. It is a broad document that is largely a planning initiative townwide that puts a lot of focus on waterfront. Not just protection, it is natural resource management. It is all of those things. It is a large document. You can actually come into my office and review it any time you would like. UNIDENTIFIED: Inaudible comments from audience member. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: By New York State. MR. HERMAN: Definitely not by the developers. Under 275-2, the definition of a non- disturbance buffer, the prior language said typically 50 feet wide, it now says a minimum of 30 feet wide. I would actually suggest that it gives the Trustees more strength to not put any number on this. The Trustees use both non-disturbance and non-turf buffers to protect wetlands typically. Non-disturbance buffers are associated with the development of vacant land and you want to take large tracts of land that aren’t presently cleared and make sure that they don’t get cleared. But the Trustees also use these non-turf buffers which means you can access it, you can use it. It doesn’t have to be densely planted but what if the Trustees felt the particular site needed a 10 or 15 foot non-disturbance buffer, that would be less than this 30 feet but more protective than what they would ordinarily impose, so I don’t think you should really put a minimum or necessarily a maximum on that. Allow the Trustees to use that as a tool or protection. Under the 275-5, the permit procedures under administrative permit, B2N, I think there has to be more specific language. I am going to guess somebody like John Costello is going to speak about that, so I will leave that alone. Under 275-10, I would suggest that you insert the language ‘a statement that the permittee is required to conspicuously post the permit and have the supporting Trustees stamped approved plans available. The Trustees now and a very smart thing are stamping approved to specific plans. Those should be the plans that are on site, that is just going to help the Town with its enforcement. Under dock locations and lengths, this is, I have got to go backwards here to figure out what section this is, 275-11, C2B, under 3 D it mentions that floats 20 feet in length or smaller or boats may be stored above mean high tide. You could have vegetated high marsh above high tide and storing floats or boats in that area is illegal under state law; so the Town needs to be careful about providing some sort of allowance here for storing a float or a boat in a vegetated high marsh area. You don’t want to mislead your taxpayers into thinking they can do something that is going to get them a $10,000 violation from the state. That is really it, I mean, to me again, I worked with this code all the time and these proposed changes themselves, at least in my mind, are fairly innocuous. One of the changes I think has to be fixed is under the definitions in ‘bluff’. This relates to chapter 280, section 116 as will my next comment, so I am just going to give the Town Board members that section of 280. I think one of the most substantial changes the last time this wetlands code was revised was to insert the crest of bluff as a source of the Trustees jurisdiction, whereas the Trustees had jurisdiction only 100 feet from an actual wetlands. The insertion of this definition gave the Trustees jurisdiction landward up to 100 feet of a crest of bluff. Al, you can correct me if I am wrong because you were on the Board at the time but I think the genesis of that was on these bluffs on Long Island Sound, you were seeing firms like ours were able to get a variety of non- jurisdiction letters from the Trustees and the DEC for development on the bluffs on Long Island December 4, 2007 Page 92 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting Sound and what would happen is a homeowner would come in or a spec developer would come in and completely wipe out the property and it would cause massive erosion over the top of the bluff down the face of the bluff on to the beach. That would induce bulkhead applications coming in. In other words, problems that were out of the Trustees jurisdiction were suddenly becoming in the Trustees jurisdiction. What has happened though, is if you look in 280 the language and I hope I didn’t give away all my copies, the language states under 281-16A there is a coinciding zoning restriction that you have to keep structures 100 feet from the top of a bluff as well but it qualifies that its lots adjacent to Long Island Sound, Fishers Island Sound and Block Island Sound and there is no such qualifier in 275. So what has happened on some applications I have handled is you could have two properties next to each other on Peconic Bay for example, that don’t really exist on a geologic bluff and the one property is flat and the property next to it has a little bit of a hill on it, so the Trustees jurisdiction for the one property is 100 feet from the wetlands boundary but the Trustees jurisdiction on the property with the hill is 100 feet back from the top of the hill even though it is not really a bluff. So what you need to figure out is, is it really the Town’s intention and is it the Trustees desire to grab all this additional jurisdictional area because there is a rise on somebody’s property and if so, I think you have to change it in a more direct way than with this definition of bluff. If that isn’t really the Trustees desire, if it isn’t really the Town’s intention then you should provide a similar qualifier under the definitions here as exists in 280, so that people know should I fill a little slope up my property because if so, I am going to give the Trustees another 100 feet of jurisdiction. I don’t think you want that situation. The other portion of 281-16 which is and I have talked to Al and Bill Edwards about this in the past and I don’t know if it is my pet peeve or what but under 281-16B, you have got this 75 foot bulkhead setback that is in the zoning code and what it says if you are adjacent to a freshwater or tidal body and you have a bulkhead, your structure has to be 75 feet landward of the bulkhead and this is really an antiquated section of the zoning code that was put in place before the time that the Town had this modern wetlands code and all these specific setbacks. And so the first problem with it is if you are just a taxpayer coming in and looking to let’s say, build a swimming pool and they say well, how far does my swimming pool have to be from the wetlands boundary, if you look under the wetlands code it is 50 feet. If you don’t have a bulkhead on your zoning code, that is fine, as long as it meets the rear yard setback but if you have a bulkhead, it is 75 feet. So you could go through all this time and expense with the Trustees, get their permit and then you go to the Building Department and you are given a letter of denial and told that you have to go to the Zoning Board. And this happens to a lot of people. I get a lot of business this way and it is very strange. The problem with it fundamentally is that it discriminates between homeowners and discriminates in the wrong direction, I might add, depending on whether they have a bulkhead. If you have a property that is essentially, let’s say Al Krupski owns a real pristine wetlands property but it is a small lot, the house is near the water and he wants to put in a pool and the best he can do is 74 feet away. Now, Scott Russell owns a property next door, now he has despoiled his property 40 years ago, it is cleared, there is lawn, there is a bulkhead, there is no vegetated marsh, it is not a real environmentally sensitive site. They live next to each other, they both have to go to the Trustees, they both get a permit for a swimming pool 74 feet from the wetlands. What is Al’s next step? He goes to the Building Department, he gets a permit and he builds a pool. What is Scott’s next step? He goes to the Building Department and he gets a letter of denial. He is told he has to file for a zoning variance. Now he has to go through the whole process again with the Zoning Board. And this is not really December 4, 2007 Page 93 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting a zoning regulation. It was at the time but it is not anymore and what if the Zoning Board says no? Scott, you can’t build your pool. You have now discriminated for no reason other than the fact that Scott has a bulkhead. It makes absolutely no sense, it is a discriminatory section of the code and I have discussed it even with people in the Building Department who acknowledge that it doesn’t really make any sense. The other problem it causes: it essentially undermines the Trustees authority. The Zoning Board is a board that is appointed and they are all very good at what they do. I am in front of them not nearly as often as I am in front of the Trustees but they are a very good board but they are not the Town’s environmental board. The Trustees are. So why are you taking that authority or allow that authority to be continued to be taken from the Trustees and hand it over to the Zoning Board and what is essentially a repetitive process for the homeowners. Even if you can’t fix this in 280 for whatever reason, perhaps as Southampton does where there is contradictions sometimes in wetlands preservation between what the Planning Board does or what the environment division does through the conservation board, you could have some sort of statement where when the Trustees in their discretion and under the code and LWRP and everything else, grant the permit for a structure that is less than 75 feet from a bulkhead, they don’t have to go to the Zoning Board. You shouldn’t have to do the same thing twice and possibly end up with two different results under the same exact situation. Now, this is the end of my presentation and it is the segue to the undermining of the Trustees authority and Al is looking at me because he knows what is coming. With this LWRP, if this is something that is going to stay and this is something the Town wants to keep, I think you have got a problem procedurally; first of all, you are asking a couple of people in the Town staff to do too much. They do a good job at what they do but they have to do too much and they don’t appear at the meetings, they don’t have any real interaction with the applicants. I know some people probably fill out their LWRP applications and write three or four words on each thing. I write pretty lengthy applications and when I appear before the Trustees I feel like no one has read them and if they read them, their comments are not responsive to what I have written, they are just sort of generic statements that follow the LWRP. I don’t want to get into a detailed discussion about the LWRP because that is not why you are here. I have to share this anecdote with you. I have a client in New Suffolk who has a little jetty on their beach or what is properly called a groin. It is a terminal groin, a small field of groins that is historically stabilized this one section of beach front and it was in need of repair as were a lot of structures before the nor’easter in April and when that nor’easter came through, it blew out all the sheathing on this structure. The people came to me, they said we have to get permits for this thing, we have to get it in a hurry. I submitted what was really called an urgent review application to the DEC. They went out pretty promptly, they looked at the site, you are making a low profile structure, changing the treated timber to vinyl, restoring the berm with sand, planting it all with sort of the right thing, the same things that the Trustees and DEC always require and DEC issued the permit. Went before the Trustees, the Trustees went out, they looked at it. LWRP coordinator looked at it. The LWRP coordinator created a report. It said under the Town’s LWRP it is exempt. The Trustees issued the permit. Then I get this letter from the Department of State, who for those of you who don’t know is the state agency that effectively sold the Town the LWRP program a number of years ago. The Town gets grant money for it, a lot of cooperation between the two and I know from talking to the Trustees at the time and Brownell Johnston, who is an attorney, who was counseling the Trustees at the time, that I know one of the big selling points was that the Trustees and the Town was really going to strengthen its home rule, in other words, what all of December 4, 2007 Page 94 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting you think is right for Southold and what your elected officials and your appointed officials think is right for Southold is what is going to happen. There was this belief, too, that whatever the Town did under this LWRP, the New York State DEC a different state agency, would have to go along with it. Now, I told Al and Brownell and the others that that was a bag of goods from the start but at least if it at least be consistent with any rational persons logic that the Department of State would follow whatever the Town was going to do, right? I mean, that makes sense. So I got this letter from the Department of State on this project that describes their intent to object to, which is a euphemism ‘we are going to deny it’, this project. And basically the letter said that even though, how did they phrase it? That even though it was exempt under the locally adopted LWRP, it was still subject to their review and so I am thinking in my mind that it is subject to their review under the New York State Coastal Management program, right? it is one of the things I have complained about for two years. I have already got to fill out this consistency assessment form for 40 policies and give it to the state, now I have got to fill out another 20 and give it to the town. So, I kind of sent this letter back that I thought was like kind of correcting the analyst’s thinking and kind of telling them really what was going on in Southold. In response to that, I got a rather agitated call from her Supervisor and he told me that he was going to educate me, so to speak, about what was what with the LWRP. Now, I have heard this from this particular gentleman before but this time he really did. I tried to explain to him on the phone, I said, you know, we got the Trustees permit, it is exempt under the Town’s LWRP, you know, I did all the….he stopped me and this is a quote, he said ‘you have to stop referring to it as the Town’s LWRP. It is as much ours as it is theirs’ and I kind of sat there for a second and I didn’t understand this, most people in the room won’t even know what I am talking about but on this consistency assessment form, what the Town has adopted as its LWRP effectively supplants the state’s Coastal Management Program in the Town of Southold. So if I am in Southampton or Riverhead, I am filling out all these policies under the state’s program but in Southold, I am not. I am doing it under your program. Here is the hitch. It doesn’t matter if under 268 your LWRP law, the project is exempt. In fact, it doesn’t matter if Mark Terry says it is consistent and the Trustees say it is consistent because the Department of State can still review it under the Town’s adopted LWRP and deny it. Which is really incredible if you think about it because these people have paid us money, they have paid the Trustees application fee, the Trustees get a salary, Mark Terry gets a salary. They have all put their time into the process. We have posted the property, we have sent out certified mailings to the neighbors, we have had a public hearing, the Trustees have been to the site and it is all meaningless. Absolutely, 100 percent waste of all of your time and money. You know why? Because my client can’t do the project, because Department of State said so under your plan. There is something really fundamentally wrong with that. And it is a shame because most of the goals of the LWRP are actually pretty good ones. I mean, you’re really trying to get the Town of Southold to move into this more environmentally protective stage but you know what? In Southampton, I don’t even want to mention the setbacks in this room because everyone will start gasping but they do it very effectively with their own wetlands law. There is no LWRP. You can successfully implement the same preservationist goals of the LWRP under your own laws and under your own code and I think the problem is, you all thought that your home rule was going to somehow increase under this LWRP program. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Not all of it did. December 4, 2007 Page 95 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: What we thought was, that we would have consistency and when we adopted it, we assumed and believed that other agencies, not only the Department of State but the DEC and the county would more or less go along with it. If there is a problem with the Department of State, we need to get on top of that and we need to deal with them and do whatever we can to adopt the agreement that we had at the outset. Once we adopt this, they are supposed to agree to it and follow it. MR. HERMAN: Yeah. Well, the interesting thing was and again, see, I apologize if everyone knew all this but I didn’t realize this. I mean, I didn’t realize that this was still, in effect, an increased power that the Department of State would have over what you do because in the same conversation, the gentleman I was speaking to said it doesn’t matter if it is exempt, it doesn’t matter if one of the agencies deems it consistent because he, and then made a comment about how the Trustees, in his opinion, were deeming projects consistent that weren’t. So I was going to start seeing a lot more of these that were deemed consistent at the Town level and not by Department of State. So the underlying point here is that as you are making these changes to 275 and I think you are hearing calls in those other letters to make much more broad based changes and you may want to do that, I mean it seems like everybody in town is sort of waking up and saying this isn’t the old 97 anymore, this is a new era, there is more to protect and we need to have a comprehensive code and you do but you know, to sound like Tom Samuels of Rambo, it should be your code, not the Department of State’s, not Southampton’s, not East Hampton’s not the Nature Conservancy’s; it should be Southold’s code. And you can build, you know, and brace yourself everyone, a very protectionist but fair and understandable code yourselves. But it has to be consistent between your wetlands code, the zoning code and the LWRP policies. I mean, that pool example, it is 50 foot setback under 275, it is a 75 foot setback under 280 if you have a bulkhead and it is a 100 foot setback under the LWRP. You almost have to hire me to understand that. And once you understand that, what do you do? Which part of Southold’s code do you follow? So I think it is, my final remark would be, I think what the Town is doing, the direction it is going in, I mean, this is what I do for a living, I have seen it is a lot of other places and it is a historic time for this Town but you are going to have a lot of pull and back and forth between the preservationists and the developers and unfortunately I always sort of end up in the middle and when both sides hate me, I know I have done a pretty good job. But you have to really make sure that you are doing this yourselves because if all this time that you are spending can just be trumped by one staff person at the Department of State, what are you doing? Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thanks. I just want to tell you that the irony here is that we had actually, there is a whole host of recommendations through the LWRP committee. We started on this about a year and a half ago, so let’s pull out the ones that there will be no disagreement on which is the documents we looked at tonight. My understanding was that most of this was policy at the Trustee level anyway. We are sort of codifying what was is already practiced on their part. I understand the public’s reticence with the larger LWRP goals and those are issues we are going to have to get into as we move forward. On that specific issue, if I am not mistaken, the LWRP really wasn’t going to be an issue there because the Department of State reviewed it because it was a groin in a state regulated water body, so they were reviewing the DEC permit anyway. I called the state, Department of State, they said we are going to review that whether you have an December 4, 2007 Page 96 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting LWRP or not. So we didn’t get the local control we thought we were going to get, like I said I don’t know what the discussion was, the LWRP was passed before I got here but we obviously didn’t get local control from that. But I don’t think we surrendered any either, I think people can’t underestimate how much authority the Department of State is exerting on this, particularly with the (inaudible) so, there is a lot of… MR. HERMAN: Well, I can actually respond to that specifically in this case, Scott, the way this works is that the Department of the Army has existing federal permits called nationwide permits and the Department of State has to sign off on those every year, what they deem consistent. If the Town did not have a locally adopted LWRP, I would have already gotten the Corps nationwide permit because the Army Corps, as rightfully they should, allows a homeowner to reconstruct a pre-existing and functional shoreline erosion control structure that has been evulsively destroyed in a storm, whereas and it is something that I actually read in this Southold Voice pamphlet that I know has stirred up a lot of this, when I was talking to the guy at Department of State, I was saying almost every other groin in this field has been reconstructed, what is the difference here? He said well because this one is basically gone and I said, yeah, but it was destroyed evulsively during one storm event, the same as somebody’s house might get destroyed in a fire. I said, are you going to tell me that you are basically going to use that storm to your advantage, at this homeowners expense? He said, that is absolutely correct. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I am not surprised. MR. HERMAN: So that is the mentality that you are dealing with and I will give them credit, they are not hiding it. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Huntington, I saw your hand up first and then we will go to you right after. Ray Huntington RAY HUNTINGTON: Ray Huntington, Cutchogue. Speaking for the North Fork Environmental Council. I know we are not talking about the LWRP but let me just mention one thing and that is that you can go to the Town Clerk and for $1.10 get a compact disc with the entire thing on it. I do recommend that because it is essentially a communication document, so that, go look at it for yourself. That is all I wanted to say before I addressed my comments to the hearing matter. Our letter, the letter the NFEC was read by Mr. Wickham, thank you. And I will just briefly paraphrase it, though. We believe that the clarifying changes contained in the Local Law before us tonight are generally beneficial but the changes are insufficient to correct the weaknesses that we pointed out a year ago. A more comprehensive change is needed. Current code does not adequately specify responsibility and authority for the Trustees with respect to wetlands and shoreline. Nor does it recognize the context of existing state law with respect to powers and appeals. This law does not address this, this local law tonight does not address this weakness. Further, the operational requirement such as jurisdiction, setbacks and terms need clarification so that the Trustees do not feel compelled to compromise the wetlands. Our letter asserts that the changes in the draft local law do not go far enough. That is the essential message from our letter. To illustrate, a troubling aspect of the draft local law that we are looking at tonight is at 275-2 in the definitions, where we say that the current non-disturbance buffer December 4, 2007 Page 97 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting requirement ‘typically 50 feet’ is changed to 30 feet minimum. That change uses, goes from typically to minimum, changes the number as well. The new wording of 30 feet minimum perhaps suggests that the Trustees are trying to move in the direction we are advocating of not being able to mitigate down to very low numbers. Or completely waive the requirement. But other requirements in the same document are already stated as minimums and yet apparently the Trustees feel compelled to issue permits with requirements less than minimum under 275-3D2, the waiver clause. So we don’t know how the Board of Town Trustees will interpret the term minimum or how the whole Town will interpret the minimum. Webster defines minimum as the least quantity assignable, admissible or possible. The least. Perhaps we should ask for a definition of minimum in the code. Maybe even offer one such as all the relief that requirements that can be granted under any circumstances. But minimum evidently isn’t, according to Webster, as we use the code. The Trustees believe they cannot require the impossible. That drives a lot of this and maybe they can’t and still survive a test of reasonableness that permeates the law. The Trustees have issued permits at much less than the minimum. The use of these words is illogical. The point is that the words in the code should put the Trustees on solid ground when they try to perfect our wetlands. This will take a more comprehensive change than we have here tonight. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Sir? Frank Pelligreno FRANK PELLIGRINO: My name is Frank Pellegrino, I live in Minnehaha Boulevard in Southold. Just to get it down to an individual homeowners question. I have two questions. I have a very old house, it was built in 1955 by someone who wasn’t a builder. It has been there relatively unchanged for years. It is not a big lot. Quite honestly, from the high water mark, 100 feet puts my house out in the street. If the Town comes in, well my question is this. Where does the wetlands begin? Because am I to understand that somebody could come to my house, and I am not looking to build a pool or do anything, that somebody can come to my property and say that you have to put in a 30 foot buffer from where, because I would have to take down some of my house to do this. So what I have is a fairly small spot, plot and I think probably this is more typical. It is not a McMansion. Believe me it is a very modest house and all the houses in our community are modest. But there was a sea wall built, I guess when the developer, I think actually one of your ancestors owned all that property and sold it off and then the wetlands go beyond that, the low water mark. Where does the wetlands begin? Where does the buffer begin? COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: You have a bulkhead now? MR. PELLIGRINO: Not a bulkhead. There was a concrete sea wall that is actually now over the years and this is over the 60 years, the wetlands is actually north of the sea wall. The sea wall is kind of in the middle of the backyard now. I guess over the years the runoff maybe just encroached on the creek. In some places in the community, the sea wall is where the creek begins but not on my particular property. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I can’t speak for the current Board of Trustees but I would assume that the way they operate would be the same. Basically the buffer, the non-disturbance buffer refers to a piece of property that hasn’t been built on or touched, in pretty much its natural state. December 4, 2007 Page 98 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting So if had a piece of property that was undeveloped and you wanted to put a house on it or a pool or a garage, whatever else, with a driveway and cesspool and all of that, you would be required based on the size of the lot, based on the environmental condition of the wetlands, the quality of the wetlands and based on the way the rest of the area has been developed, to leave a certain area on your property undisturbed and not touch anything there. You would be allowed to have a four foot wide access path through it, to access the water. Now, you are in an existing… MR. PELLEGRINO: Totally developed, existing… COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: It doesn’t. This wouldn’t change anything with you, with your piece of property. You wouldn’t be required to do anything. MR. PELLEGRINO: Alright. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Now on a, there is two different kinds of buffers. See and this is where the local code is better than the LWRP because we get more definition. There is two different kinds of buffers, the one I just described is an undisturbed buffer where you can’t touch anything. The other one is if you had an existing bulkhead or in this case, sea wall, and you had to have it completely removed and rebuilt because of age, deterioration, storm event or whatever, the Trustees would require you to put in a non-turf buffer behind it, upland, to filter out the rainwater and upland runoff. The amount of buffer upland is going to be determined again, by the slope of your property, how much property there is, by the adjacent properties and their development. So you are going to get anywhere from 8 feet to 30 feet depending on, every situation is different. That is why the Board of Trustees does need a lot of discretion. The non- turf buffer, part of it could be a wood decking, part of could be sand or gravel, some of it could be plantings but it could be non-turf. MR. PELLEGRINO: But it would apply to an existing structure… COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Only if you are going to…. MR. PELLEGRINO: (inaudible) if the sea wall needed to be repaired. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: When it is repaired, that area that is already disturbed, because it all going to have to be dug up to be repaired, that area typically and correct me if I am wrong Jim, that area would typically be required to be put in with a non-turf buffer. MR. PELLEGRINO: Okay. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: But if you put it, you could maintain it after that. You don’t have to let it grow up after that. MR. PELLEGRINO: Thank you. And really, the question of jurisdiction doesn’t matter because somebody is going to have jurisdiction. If it is not the Trustees, it is going to be the Building Department. December 4, 2007 Page 99 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Well, if it is that… MR. PELLEGRINO: From my standpoint, I think it might be more typical for some people, it is not the jurisdictional issue, it is actually what is going to happen to their property and somebody is going to come in and start making them do things that just, like I say, I would essentially lose the back of my house. My second question and I only have the two, if my house were to burn down, now I have a house that is just about under the 20 percent use of the property, if it were to burn down, would I be able to rebuild it under these regulations? I would? COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Yes. MR. PELLEGRINO: Thank you. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: There wouldn’t be any change in that. MR. PELLEGRINO: Okay. Same footprint? Or is it square footage on the house? COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Maybe Jim wants to address that but typically it would be, the Building Department might have different rules but the Trustees generally want to see the same type of setback but you wouldn’t have to necessarily build the same house, you could build a different house with the same setback. MR. PELLEGRINO: But I mean, right now it is non-compliant. It was built… COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: If the Town made everyone’s house, like yours, uninhabitable, then we would have to house you all down here and that wouldn’t work out too well. MR. PELLEGRINO: Inaudible. Then you are pretty much saying you are in danger of not being able to use your house and property. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: This illustrates one of the more frustrating aspects for me. First, I don’t really have a problem saying yes to people. They are fine with that. I don’t even have a problem saying no to people if it is black and white in the code. The problem is when you have to say I don’t know because everybody wants, and I met with a realtor’s group recently and they want those specific answers and they are entitled to those specific answers and I don’t know what to tell them and unfortunately it is not a perfect science. There has to be a margin of discretion that the Trustees have to emphasize and then we have communications issues here at Town Hall between ZBA, Trustees, Building Department. All of that stuff has to be perfected. One of the problems with this is that if you look at the LWRP, it talks about what we want you to do. Well, we didn’t focus on that, we focused on what we don’t want you to do. And if I vote for this tonight it is with the caveat or understanding that the next LWRP mission will be to put out the information on what we are looking for people to do, so they don’t have to keep shooting in the dark and hoping it is the right thing. That is where the problem is. MR. PELLIGRINO: Thank you very much. December 4, 2007 Page 100 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Mr. Meinke did have his hand up first. Then I will go to Pat and then I will go to you, sir. Okay? Howard Mienecke HOWARD MEINKE: My name is Howard Meinke and I currently live in Mattituck and I am a member of the North Fork Environmental Council. I started weekending and summering on Broadwaters creek, Nassau Point, waterfront. My dad built a little place there in 1936 and I weekended there and summered there and lived there since 1990 and I left there just last year. So talking about Broadwaters creek, it was not a dredged creek until maybe in the 60’s and the water was very clear, we had blue crabs; I remember they would just come running up and run around your feet. We had toad fish and we had blowfish and we had eels squirting around there. There was a great quantity of weakfish out in the bay, scallops used to jump around in the spring on the, come out of the water. It was a very fertile place and it has been told to me that where the water comes into that creek, there is freshwater running in underground and it makes a creek like that lower in salinity than the outside water, which is an extra good environment for the nursery of small seafood and the stuff that makes the ocean work. Now after it was dredged in the 60’s, a hell of a lot of sand came out of there and they didn’t throw it all to the grass as they did with Deep Hole creek, they at least took it up and put it on the causeway and the road and the causeway that, there was the parking lot used to be the main road there and the current main road was all built from the fill that came out of Broadwaters creek. Now, then we got lower low tides, higher high tides. My assumption is it got much more salty and we very quickly, visibly you could see it happening; lost the eels, lost the blowfish, lost the oysters, lost the scallops, lost a lot of the action. Simultaneously, when I go in the creek now, we have developed a fair amount of this green cellophane sea weed which we didn’t used to have and the water is not near as clear. I can also say that in 1936, there were just a few small houses around the creek, there were great areas of nothing. Then it slowly built, there were a lot of summer houses built close to the creek with cesspools, maybe above high water, maybe not. And you make your own conclusions. But the creek certainly went downhill. Now I have felt very bad about that. Now all the people here are custodians of our waterfront and it seems to me that whatever we can do to preserve the waterfront and preserve the fertility of the water, the cleanliness of the water, is something that is to everybody’s advantage. Now we are talking here about the Trustees. Their job is to preserve your value and your value is also one of the primary values of Southold town. It appears to me that we are all on the same side in this argument. All I have heard so far here is a lot of justified, I suppose, hollering and screaming about procedure. Now procedure is not an environmental problem. Let’s not louse up the environmental activity that we are trying to do with a lot of time spent on procedure. I would like to think we are smart enough to fix procedure but I admit procedure is pretty ugly. I mean, we all pay taxes and we’d love to fix that procedure and nobody has ever done it, so whether we can fix this, I don’t really know but we should not waste our time here just bitching about the procedure because really what is in the LWRP and what is in the Nature Conservancy list, what is in the NFEC list, what is in the Trustee changes are good for the environment and good for all you people that live on this environment, live on the waterfront. So I think we have got to home in on where the problem is and we have to obey what modern science tells us, modern science says that setbacks are important if we are going to preserve the creeks, the creeks seed the oceans with little organisms that make fish, the ocean’s food supply, the fact that it is going to hell in a handbasket is causing a certain amount of world December 4, 2007 Page 101 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting hunger. We are part of a bigger picture and it isn’t just selfish, where does my dock go? It is the whole big picture. So it seems to me that we should look at the environmental issues here. I think the Board is well aware that there are procedural issues and that clearly has to be solved but I would think blending the various numbers, code, could be put together. Blending in with the state could be put together but putting that together doesn’t do a damn thing if we don’t keep up with science with our environmental regulations. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. okay, Pat. Pat Moore, Esq. PATRICIA MOORE: I, like Rob Herman, have spent the last 20 years, I am a little older than he is, my Wednesday once a month with the Trustee’s, just like with the Planning Board. So you get to know the procedure and no offence but you are asking everybody that owns property on the water to follow the procedure. They are the stewards of the waterfront. They are the ones that have the most interest in making sure that the waterfront is as healthy as it possibly can be because it affects the value of their property directly. So I think it is a very important point and unfortunately, procedure is very relevant because when it comes to going for permits, making sure that it is all done right, if you don’t do it right, then you have a very extensive violation procedure that ends up costing applicants a great deal of money. So I think that it is well worth our time to spend a little of the effort to fix the code, make it the best possible. I commend the Trustees for trying to make the language clearer, to try to address the problems that have been ongoing. I give them even better credit than the Town Board at times, in correcting town code. Because they have really tried very aggressively to clean up 275, whereas I have come to the Board and asked for regulatory changes that have, nothing has happened. So with respect to 275, the non-disturbance buffer is an issue that I would ask you to look at, as Rob Herman pointed out, not having a setback limit is really the most appropriate thing because the 30 foot minimum takes out the discretion and you do have properties that are various sizes. Thirty feet could be absolutely reasonable and not a burden on a two acre property but on an 1/8 of an acre, a ¼ acre that has a house on it, 30 feet is essentially their entire rear yard. So it is a very relevant point and having, keeping it from a specific number I think gives the ability to be much more fact specific and site specific. Also, the definition speaks in terms of 30 foot non-disturbance, if they also throw in the word shoreline structure, so when, Al, you were discussing with the gentleman about the bulkhead or the shoreline structure, I would agree that in fact usually you apply a non- turf buffer to it but it has been included in the definition of a non-disturbance buffer. I don’t think that is an applicable section, so I don’t know whether it was just the language just didn’t carefully identify how it is to be defined but when it also includes the language of a shoreline structure, I think it is misapplied. It doesn’t belong there. So I would ask you to look at that very carefully. There, I wanted to, I pulled out, I was doing research on a file and I just happened to run across a letter that in 1985 was sent by Henry Smith, president of the Trustees, with the creek surveyors at the time, that in 1985 they went around town and notified property owners where their docks or their shoreline structures were in poor condition, they advised them, they said we recognize, your structure is presently unused and deteriorated, however, if you rebuild the structure in the future, the grandfathered application will be proof that you are simply maintaining your structure. So it was notifying individuals that if you had an existing structure prior to 85 and you made an application for a grandfathered permit that it was going to be recognized. That has been a recurring problem with 275 because 275 uses the language December 4, 2007 Page 102 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting ‘permitted structure’ where the Trustees interpret permitted as permitted under 275 whereas I think most people that have been here longer than 1985 may recall that there was a letter sent out that they got a permit for their existing structure therefore it is permitted. So I think that there is some confusion and I have dealt with it with clients that have repaired their existing docks and got violated because the dock didn’t have a permit. Well, it was preexisting. It either had a grandfathered or it was preexisting to that date and it was quite a surprise. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Just to clarify that, back in the mid 80’s, just before I got on the Board, there was a movement then to try to grandfather all the existing structures and that if you had an existing, functional dock… MS. MOORE: Mmmhmm. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: You would be given a grandfather permit, to try to kind of get a handle on everything that was built at that time. In 1991, the Town Board then adopted the coastal erosion which basically doubled the jurisdiction of the Trustees; giving the Board jurisdiction on the bay and the sound and all of those other structures then of course, had been built prior to requiring permits. So you had now a whole host of other structures that there was no, now there is no more grandfather provision. Because we wanted to kind of get through that in the mid 80’s. And on the creeks, largely, the Town did get through all of that; to grandfather all the permits. But now on the bay and the sound you have all these other existing structures. That is one part. They never got grandfathered, the other part …. MS. MOORE: The ones on the sound, you are saying. Well, these went out to the bay. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: That was in the mid 80’s though. I mean, it was early, 1991 where their jurisdiction was expanded. So in the mid 80’s, that wouldn’t have covered the bay and the sound at all. MS. MOORE: Well, it was specific to the bay. To the dock in the bay. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: It was only for creeks though. MS. MOORE: Oh. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: And then… MS. MOORE: Oh, you are saying the bay, not creeks. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Right. MS. MOORE: That this was applicable to the creeks. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Exactly. December 4, 2007 Page 103 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting MS. MOORE: Then you expanded to the bays… COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Exactly. MS. MOORE: And then you expanded on the sound and now you have expanded from the top of the bank 100 feet on the sound. So the jurisdiction is expanding exponentially. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: And so all those structures, they didn’t have to have permits previously and now that the jurisdiction has expanded now they are un-permited. MS. MOORE: So you are asking everybody that has an existing structure, to come in and get a permit? COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: No. MS. MOORE: Yes. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: No. When you conduct some activity, at that point… MS. MOORE: Well, if you are repairing it, yes. Well… COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: At that point. MS. MOORE: I think if that is the position that you are taking, so be it. That is the position you take. But the problem is that the code, when it says permitted structure or permitted under 275, I think maybe it would be helpful if you had a definition that specified what you are talking about because just what you explained right now, whether I agree with it or not, it is really up to the Board whether or not you do require somebody that who has got an existing structure, Costello is out there making a repair to a structure and it doesn’t have an existing permit, it means that before we can make the repair now, you have to come in and get a permit… COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Right. MS. MOORE: Because it doesn’t have a 275 permit. I think that is an enormous… COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: No. No, no. But does it have a wetland permit? MS. MOORE: Well, that is the question. If the code says… COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Well, if it has a wetlands permit, then it has a permit. MS. MOORE: Well, that is the problem. There is some confusion as to what is a permitted structure. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Maybe it is confusion the way it is written. December 4, 2007 Page 104 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting MS. MOORE: Yes. Well, if it is confusing where it is written, it is confusing to me to advise a client and certainly most people that I talk to, they are confused. So given all of that, maybe you can incorporate some definitional language as to what is intended as a permitted structure. Because you don’t really say it, you just use the term ‘permitted structure’. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Then it should say, ‘with a Town wetland permit’. MS. MOORE: Previously issued. You know, are we talking about any time in the time period that you are talking about? Or are you talking only after 19… COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: No. 2004. MS. MOORE: 2004. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: No. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Are we talking about ‘permited’ or permittable? MS. MOORE: Exactly. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That was one of the two issues I discussed with VOICE the other night. MS. MOORE: Right. Right. That was issue one but even more specifically, I have heard different interpretations as to whether we are talking about a Trustee issued wetland permit under the previous 275 or 97 and 275. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: No. No difference. MS. MOORE: I don’t think that is the way it has been explained. So I don’t know if we are misunderstanding it or not, I think we all need, certainly I need clarification. At what point is a structure a permitted structure or not? COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: When it has a permit. MS. MOORE: Okay. Any permit at any time. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: It is almost like rock, paper, scissors here. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: You can have a permit from 1985, that is a permit. MS. MOORE: I would, that is how I have always interpreted but I have heard differently. So that is why I want to be sure. If that is the intent, that is great. So and that permit, apparently is good forever. If that permit is good then…oh, yeah. He is one of my clients that unfortunately December 4, 2007 Page 105 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting he got a violation because he repaired a dock that the Trustees missed when they went out in 1985 and there was documentary history, you know, there were photographs that it had been there since 65. So those are the kind of issues that we deal with on a regular basis. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I remember. MS. MOORE: No. This is after you. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I know. MS. MOORE: Okay. When you are dealing with 275-5-O, you talk about tank removal and it says you ‘removing a tank within 25 feet of the wetland is prohibited’. That doesn’t make sense to me, there is, I think what you should be doing is having people remove it and relocate it. You are, whether or not, I guess I am, where it is permitted to be placed but if you are removing, it is prohibited to remove. That didn’t make sense to me. That is the way it is written. With respect to access path, I have actually had this situation come up numerous times. There, if you have a piece of property, whether it is, the same is applicable with a one dock per lot and a one access per lot requirement. That is fine 90% of the time. Except when you have a waterfront piece of property that had a homeowners association or a deeded right of someone else that is a, a deed restriction on their title that requires them to have an access or give an access to someone else. This actually occurred on a piece of property I was reviewing on the sound where the homeowner on the sound had a set of stairs but the homeowners association, there were about five homeowners associations that had the right to build another set of stairs along the right of way, a 10 foot right of way, down to the beach. Well, the issue came up because you are only permitted one set of stairs per piece of property. That is fine except for the fact that you have, lots and lots of subdivisions and lots and lots of properties that have been developed out here that had provided for access to land, land front owners not the waterfront owners and it puts a restriction on the waterfront owner that is impossible. If you, as a waterfront property owner have your access or your dock or whatever right on the center of your property because that is usually where it goes, if the homeowners association has access for a dock or an access path along the 10 most easterly area of your property, that is going to be a problem. And it nearly ended up in litigation between homeowners association and the waterfront property owner because of that problem. So that was an issue with the one dock per property rule that was adopted in 275. Now you are kind of compounding it by saying, oh, and now one access per property. I think that that creates a problem where you don’t, where there is a legal requirement on the property. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Why would you need, if someone built a set of stairs on your property, why wouldn’t you use that same set of stairs? MS. MOORE: Because that was, in this instance, those set of stairs were built in the center before that rule became into effect. So before 275, those set of stairs were in the center of the property. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Preexisting? December 4, 2007 Page 106 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting MS. MOORE: Preexisting. That property owner doesn’t want the whole homeowners association traverse the property, go down the center stairs. That is not, nobody has a right to cross the property other than in the area of the right of way. So, I think you have to put, when you make those kind of rules, you have to provide for exceptions where there is deed restrictions or some other obligation that that property has. So if you don’t create that exception, then it just creates a reason to say no and then it ends up in litigation. Finally, my last point, 275-16 with respect to compliance and penalties. There is, you have added a revocation of the permit provision which says that it is revoked where the Trustees, when a violation is found. Not when a violation has been determined by a court to be a violation but when the Trustees have found a violation. So there is no due process, there is no procedure, you are just, your permit that you have, that you spent good money to get now is revoked based on this language given the Trustees power to revoke the permit that they have. That is going to create all kinds of problems, for one, there is a vested right in a permit, you can’t just revoke a permit without a hearing, without due process. The fact that, the language as it is written just says if the Trustees find that a violation has occurred, they have the right to revoke the permit. So I think that that is going to, certainly that, I have legal concerns about that but as fair as fairness concerns as well. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: What section is that? MS. MOORE: That is your, 275-16 section 6. It says, ‘revocation of a permit when a violation of this chapter is found’ COUNCILMAN ROSS: It doesn’t say who it is found by, though. MS. MOORE: It is found. It is found by the Trustees. How is it found? You tell me. COUNCILMAN ROSS: They can’t find it, right? The Trustees couldn’t find the violation… MS. MOORE: They do but the way it is written… COUNCILMAN ROSS: I would read that as a court of law. MS. MOORE: That is not the way it is written. I would agree with you, I think that the only way that they could be fined, is that the court of law makes that determination. I have…are you pointing at the next person? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I am just lining them up because I have a guy chomping at the bit over here. I am sorry, Pat. MS. MOORE: No, that is alright. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. There is a gentleman here that ones to speak, then the gentleman back, then you and I also have Mark Terry that wants to address the Town Board, I saw his hand up. Then we will go right over here. December 4, 2007 Page 107 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting Dan Christianson DAN CHRISTIANSON: I am Dan Christianson from Mattituck. I thought I might have a little more time than I did. I have got some handouts that (inaudible). Much of what I was prepared to talk about has already been discussed, so I will just hit some quick points and turn the job over to somebody else. First of all, the LWRP talks about protecting living organisms as part of the discussion of environment. I would like to submit that the human residents of Southold are living organisms whose environment requires protection. Just a statement. Also, there has been a lot of discussion about the reason behind some of these regulations. They generally revolve, quite understandably, around developers. Some of the property owners that I have talked to feel that in effect, there has been a wide net cast in order to catch a small number of large fish. And a lot of the small fish are being entangled in the net. Probably unintentionally. Some of the discussions you have heard are, what happens to this little guy, that little guy? The regulation was designed to look at a developer. There already has been discussion about actionable requirements. Terms like, ‘as designated’, ‘as determined by’, ‘at the discretion of’, are quite understandable but it is hard to get a spec to a contractor saying the structural components are as determined by the Trustees. People on both sides of whatever aisle have asked for more detail. From my own position, I say the same thing. Omissions and commissions. We don’t want to talk about non-amendment things but it is difficult to talk about the amendment if you don’t talk a little bit about what it doesn’t do. And again, both sides have talked to that. One thing I would like to bring up as an example, there has been some discussion I think about the positive nature of 275-4 A, 10, which says you can put in a dormer, you can put in new roofing, you can put in siding without any problems about functioning, about pre-existing, about permitting. But if you go to the same 275-485, you can’t repair those things, you have just directed without all the considerations. That is bordering on the insane and probably just an error. But it is an example of where you get tangled up. Definitions: been beaten already. Residential dock probably needs to be defined as a water dependent structure. I mean, it is not there to reach the Sahara desert. Functional functioning, I understand why it is there. but it is hard sometimes as you have heard already, for people to understand and I have also heard, you have got to trust the Trustees. The Trustees have got to trust the landowners too. If my dock is heaved up by the ice, is that still a functioning structure? I am not asking for an answer now but consider it rhetorical. One thing that I think probably either needs a definition desperately or a different word, is where in many cases it talks about activities. Any activities, all activities. There is no definition for activities. In earlier, 268, the LWRP section 5, there are definitions and discussions of operations. I think, in most cases, where the word activity is presently used, it would be quite proper to talk about operations. Somebody discussed where 100 or 150 foot line impacts his house. Some of our houses, that includes the bedroom. I don’t think you want a permit activities between consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom. And yet, if you read it literally, that is what you are asking for. Permitted, and I am going to go to my notes on this one. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Dan, I am going to look for that bright orange sign in your window tonight when I drive by your house. MR. CHRISTIANSON: But you understand… COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: What are the Trustees thinking of? December 4, 2007 Page 108 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting MR. CHRISTIANSON: An Aristotle like argument. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is a fair point. MR. CHRISTIANSON: Permitted, defined. I have in that hand out a list of is permitted and I heard an answer, allowed by past practice or by covenant; the house that we live in was originally built in accordance with a covenant between the Gildersleeve boys and the people that bought the property. That is when they owned the general store on Love Lane. 1949. Is it permitted because it is in accordance with the covenant or allowed by regulations, town regulations enforced at the time of construction. Our house is (inaudible) like topsy. Not a McMansion but a little piece here and little piece there. is it covered by an Southold permits? Is it covered by 275? Is it covered only by 275 as currently amended? Which means every time you amend it, everybody is out of compliance. Or permitted use. LWRP. One family’s detached dwelling, per single and separate lot of record in existence as of the date of adoption of the local law. That isn’t what I have heard but it is a nice, clear definition. If it existed when, somewhat like your dock furthering. There has been talk about grandfathering. Other than history, which is interesting, I don’t think most of us agree with what we mean by grandfathering. I would ask you to think about code applicability. I have done a fair amount of power plant work over the years, factory work. ASMED 31-1 has been revised and revised and revised. When a factory is built to be 31-1, 20 years ago, which is where I lived and it is revised, you don’t tear the factory down and build a new one in accordance with the new code. In fact, you don’t repair the hardware in accordance with the new version. Of course, it may not be compatible with the geometry or the existing piping and pressure vessels. So think about what you mean by code of applicability. Finally, well, almost finally. One comment on dredging. And this is not so much talking about dredging as such but about the tangle we sometimes weave. The, 275 when amended, read maintenance dredging as defined by only is permitted. The word only was shifted to the front of the paragraph. Unfortunately, maintenance dredging is defined as dredging where there is documented proof dredging has been done in the past. So what this says, regardless of where only goes, is you can’t dredge unless it has already been dredged. Unfortunately, the LWRP states, in implementation page 59, dredging and (inaudible) plans, this project would float from the shoreline inventory and erosion monitoring projects. The data from other projects will help develop a regular program of maintenance dredging and guide the deposition of spoils, etc. etc. Maintenance dredging there means dredging to maintain the environment. Not, I can document there has been dredging before. 275-11, C 3 A 2 states dredging may permitted when it can be demonstrated that the actions of man have resulted in impairment in water quality or habitat. But we have already said that dredging isn’t allowed unless it is maintenance dredging. Can’t get there from here. Also 275, 11 C 3 B, freshwater, says dredging of freshwater ponds may be permitted when it can be demonstrated that such action will restore the water body to its historic condition, improve water quality or habitat value. But not if it hasn’t been done before. It is a problem. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Well, I don’t think it is meant to be contradictory, I think it is meant to be more specific. December 4, 2007 Page 109 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting MR. CHRISTIANSON: But when you read it from the perspective of, it is not clear. You have the advantage and I envy you of a long history of understanding. That is what we talk about functional requirements. You know what the requirement is. The poor guy that wants to, and I will leave with this, I promise. Last page, is a trial dummy case study. I don’t ask you to fill it out or do anything with it but having gone to an MBA years ago, those Harvard case studies sometimes were interesting. As much it’s with respect to the assumptions you make as with any answers. Let me read it for you and then I will shut up and sit down. 342 by 6 case study, a couple in their mid-70’s (by the way , it is not me and my wife, we are both younger than that) are living full time in a home on one of Southold’s creeks. They purchased the property in anticipation of retirement at age 65 and have resided their since retirement on a relatively modest fixed income. Their property as purchased included a conventional float ramp, fixed dock that was functional at the time of purchase and has been maintained with some relatively minor maintenance activities in a functional status since. They may already have violated. You don’t even know whether it is permitted or not. Or anything else. Okay? Assumption. It is Thursday afternoon in the spring of 2008, the husband has walked from the home to the dock to check things out in anticipation of a visit for the weekend of their children and grandchildren. He finds that a 3 foot 2x6, which is part of the fixed dock decking, has deteriorated to the point of being a safety hazard. It needs to be replaced in kind. Upon reporting the condition to his wife, he is informed that the kids will not be allowed on the dock until the plank is fixed. Some of you may respond to your wives in other fashions, however come. Other than paying taxes, they have had no dealings with Town Hall other than buying dump stickers for their car. The husband has heard from a friend that upon asking for permission to repair the friend’s dock, the friend had been handed a 22 page package of forms to complete and submit. The husband is capable of carrying out the replacement of the 3 foot 2x6 in about one hour elapsed time. He has available 1. an 8 foot long untreated 2x6 2. a circular saw capable of cutting of a 3 foot piece of 2x6 3. a crowbar 4. a clawhammer 5. a battery powered 3/8ths drill with appropriate bits 6. a supply of suitable deck screws. Given the above and assuming that local law 275 has been amended as you feel appropriate, please specify, A. what action should the resident take? B. how long with the total permitting and repair process take, total elapsed time? 3. what will the total out of pocket costs be, including appropriate permit expeditor, lawyer, survey, engineering and “other” costs? List major expense elements. In light of our mandate to preserve our wetlands “for the use of our children and grandchildren” how do you justify any delay beyond one hour elapsed time in returning the water dependent dock facility to a full functioning status in time for the upcoming weekend visit? E. In light of financial practicality, how do you justify any non zero out of pocket costs? F. If you were not a town official, what might your action be under the given circumstances? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I don’t suppose putting it off until getting a permit… MR. CHRISTIANSON: You understand why I phrased it the way I did? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I do. Look, that was the big frustration that I got from the members of VOICE, was that there is such an ambiguity to something that is functional. Do they mean functional right now or as of after the next nor’easter? December 4, 2007 Page 110 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting MR. CHRISTIANSON: And what is permitted, what is existing, what is…again, and some of what you heard, I am speaking for myself not for Southold VOICE and some of what I reflect here is an amalgamation of what I have heard from a number of people. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Good point. MR. CHRISTIANSON: And I thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you very much. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I am going to let this gentleman go and then I really want, Mark I know you wanted to say something, so can you get on deck because you are up next. Wenk Rolfey WAYNE GROTHEY: Hello, my name is Wayne Grothey, I work for the Nature Conservancy on Long Island. With me tonight is Marian Lindberg, who wrote the letter that Mr. Wickham read earlier. Most of my comments Councilman Wickham actually spoke about that I was going to present tonight. What I would like to say is that our comments from the Nature Conservancy were based solely on science with a little dash of reality thrown in, okay? We are not, I want to make, clarify a couple of things about chapter 275 that Councilman Wickham commented on. One is that we thought that the dock code should be separated from the wetlands code. They are two very different actions in a way. Secondly, docks, moorings, dredging; they take place on public land whereas, you know, residential building takes place on private land. It is a very different activity. Third, the power that the Trustees have to regulate docks, moorings, dredging, bulkheads, that is derived from the Andros patent as far as I know. The power for them to regulate wetlands seems to be coming from this Board. I think that would be another reason to separate the laws out. As you know, we presented to you a modified version of chapter 275, you know, it is 20 pages long, I don’t know if you had any time to look at it and also a document from the Long Island Sound program that talks about tidal wetland buffers and what I would like to do is just comment on actually two things tonight. One is the buffer width. We have had some folks tonight say that you don’t need to have a standard in the code, I am talking not only as a Nature Conservancy person but as a person who worked for six years on a conservation board, looking at permits, denying and approving wetland permits, I have seen determined many times in Southampton. Part of the reason and he did say earlier that Southampton regulates their wetlands very efficiently, one of the reasons they regulate those wetlands efficiently is because their code is very strong, not to have a buffer, you know, a number for the size of the buffer, makes it so that on every single application, the Trustees would have to justify that buffer width whereas if that buffer width of 50 foot is justified in the code, they could ask for a 50 foot buffer on properties that are large enough to accommodate it and then reality would set in on some properties where you couldn’t have a 50 foot buffer. You talk about 15 or 20, then that is what would happen on those properties. It is much, much easier to justify a variance on a property that is too small to accommodate the buffer that is in the code than it is to ask for a buffer on a property when there is no criteria whatsoever in the code and I think that you should really look at that. The second thing I just want to talk about quickly is the limit of jurisdiction. Right now, December 4, 2007 Page 111 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting your jurisdiction is 100 feet from the tidal wetlands. If you look at most of the science, there is impacts from as far away as 650 feet onto wetlands that some of the studies, if you look at the one document I gave you on page I think 6 and 7, there is some information on that. I know that in the past you have been somewhat hesitant to increase your jurisdiction because it might bring in more properties under the regulatory realm of the Trustees and really increase their workload, so what we did at the Conservancy is that we did an assessment of three areas in the Town of Southold of what properties would fall under a 200 foot jurisdiction…. UNIDENTIFIED: We can leave this with you. What you see in purple are the lots that, lots that would not come into your jurisdiction if it were 100 feet but would come in if it were 200 feet and you see that it is really not that many in purple. So that you are talking about lots that already regulated and you would have the opportunity to look at operations or activities on more (inaudible) and the point of this is, we know that you really don’t get too far afield from what is directly in front of you now but our (inaudible) we can leave them with you. The point is just to show you that it doesn’t really increase the number of lots very much and a lot of these wouldn’t even come in because if there is a road separating them from the wetlands (inaudible) and there are three areas here (inaudible). MR. GROTHEY: I would like to add that some of those properties that are identified on these maps are farmland. And farmland is also exempt in your wetlands code. And in the version that we, of the wetlands code that we gave you, properties that are separated by a road from a wetland, they are also exempt, most municipalities do that. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I don’t think we are going to consider that tonight but we would consider it, you know, we would like to look at the maps. The thing is, it is not so much the additional properties that would be affected by the code if you doubled the distance, it would be all the increased activities, we don’t want to get into what activities but all the increased activities it would affect on the additional 100 feet of property. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I just, you know, to be honest to all of you but you had asked, started the hearing by saying let’s stick to what is on the table and I appreciate all this and this is going to be good discussion as we move forward but I was really hoping, we have a lot of people that want to speak and I was hoping to be a little bit narrower to what is being proposed for adoption tonight. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I think everyone is getting warmed up here, Scott. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I know. UNIDENTIFIED: All I would say is, if you have this much comment on what you thought would be the easy part of the proposed changes, perhaps you should have gone for more the first time. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I am starting to miss the landfill building discussions. December 4, 2007 Page 112 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting UNIDENTIFIED: Well, we look forward to more dialogue on some of the other issues. Should we leave these with you? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes, please. Thank you very much. Okay, Mark Terry and then we are going to go to the Peconic baykeeper. Mark Terry MARK TERRY, LWRP COORDINATOR: My name is Mark Terry, I am the LWRP coordinator for the Town of Southold. I just want to thank Pat Moore for sticking to the agenda on the amendments and I just want to do some clarifications, discuss some clarifications about the LWRP because I think the people who not necessarily support it but the people who don’t understand it, haven’t read it or haven’t read chapter 268. I am a little perplexed how the LWRP has been sensationalized into its own governing body. It is a set of recommendations to discretionary boards. The boards make the decisions. The LWRP cannot deny or cannot approve a thing. The discretionary board, such as the Planning Board, the Town Board and the Board of Trustees makes the final decisions. I just want to clarify that. I agree that 275 and 280 are inconsistent in practice. I think it needs changes, I think it may need swift changes because the setbacks conflict, it costs applicants money and I think that should be on the agenda for a future code amendment. I also want to explain the fundamental basis of the LWRP is that it affects all the citizen’s rights. It affects the waterfront rights and the non waterfront owner’s rights. It upholds environmental health and public access to the highest regard. And I think that it deserves a little bit more of a closer look and that it is a very young program and there are kinks in it and I experience kinks as well as the agents. Lastly, on the comments that were proposed tonight, they were comments on clarity, on the benefit of the applicant’s behalf because when you have an administrative permit process, you have to set up conditions. Otherwise the administrative permit processes are as disconnected from the conditions buried into the rest of the chapter. That has not happened. I urge the Board to go ahead and consider that in the adoption of these amendments. And you know, just in closing, when a bad project happens in this town such as a liquefied and natural gas facility, or something that we can’t even forecast; a use that we don’t even know that is going to come to your marine waters, the LWRP is the only thing you are going to have to fight it. That is it. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Kevin McAllister. Kevin McCallister KEVIN McALLISTER: Thank you for hanging in. My name is Kevin McAllister, I am your Peconic baykeeper. I want to start by at least offering some qualifications, you know Rob spoke about his experience before the Board. You know, I have over 20 years of professional experience in resource management and to some extent, certainly involved in crafting these resource protection codes. I also want to speak in larger terms relative terms to the estuary and I think of eco-system terms and I guess I will strongly disagree with the notion of bringing it down to a microcosm with home rule. I think that is flawed thinking, I think we need to embrace expertise that is out there certainly on a state level, federal level. I mean, if the expertise exists, we should embrace it and bring it right down to our local level. What Southold does does mean something to Riverhead and Southampton and vice versa. You know, we share the same bathtub and I think it is imperative that I think we are all working to the greatest extent possible to December 4, 2007 Page 113 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting protect this resource and aspiring to the best available science and again, striving to implement coastal zone policies that are meaningful and well-founded. Relative to buffers and I heard Wayne talk about that, I would also support defining hard, fast lines on the buffers themselves but allowing for the option or the opportunity for appeal when you have again, substandard lots and the inability to construct. I mean, these buffers are critically important and I also feel, and this may be a bit critical but I must say this, you know the discretion unfortunately because of the push and pull with the applicants can lead to some bad decisions. And you know, I was disappointed in the Trustees action a few years ago relative to Brushes Creek, where a setbacks were not hard and fast and adhered to and actually based on the site plan if it in fact was built as presented, we lost wetlands, there was a roadway through wetlands incredibly close to wetlands when in fact, the opportunity to shift that roadway for a subdivision to the opposite side of the property would have protected that stream corridor; that didn’t happen because it was based on discretion. So again, essential to establishing those setbacks and again, with the opportunity for appeal. Relative to what is functional, in hearing some of the speakers, I certainly appreciate obviously a icy dock and you know the ability to rebuild. I mean, we have to be practical and realistic about what makes sense and you know, that has got to be built into this code but I will say when I was hearing also some discussion on a groin field that was lost in the nor’easter, you know, of April and the state imposing their discretion not to allow this to be rebuilt. We have to be willing to rectify past mistakes. Because again, going back to my earlier points about having a greater level of understanding over time, you know, there is recognition that our bulkheads can be problematic. There is recognition these groin fields can impact shorelines. Actually you know, causing erosion downstream etc. Provision for CCA and I applaud the Trustees for bringing this forward and again, this is science that has come forward and it is time that we keep the materials out of the water column. Certainly the studies that I have seen certainly demonstrate dead zones in the (inaudible) on the near shore from these walls that again have chemical treatment and preservatives. Again, with barricades, another important thing in certainly hearing the Trustees over the years relative to again properties that front waterways. Again, you know, there are waterways and our beaches, those are riparian zones. Those are publicly owned resources and the ability or the restriction on access due to a shore perpendicular fence, we have to take a hard line against that. We have to certainly enforce that and ensure again the ability to come down through a public access and to walk left or right along the shoreline and enjoy that aesthetic resource, spiritual resource, whatever it means to our lives but the ability to walk on that beach and not be restricted because of a you know, the feeling that again it is a publicly defined properties. The last item on procedure and this goes to the, I guess, (inaudible) and I must applaud Mark for I think a really diligent work in trying to develop this code and mesh it in with obviously the Trustees jurisdiction and their enormous responsibility but you know, I would ask you to try to the extent possible to really bridge the function of the Trustees with the Planning Board to again, have that expertise and that additional oversight and analysis, environmental analysis on these applications as they come forward. And as I said prior, you know, certainly when it comes to inability to perhaps obtain a permit relative to restrictive buffers, you know, maintaining the opportunity to appeal and have some further discussion and consideration for again, a property would otherwise not support a structure. The last thing I will say, you know, in directing this to the Board but certainly speaking to the audience, you know, this is our resource, this is our resource, this is our bay. These stream corridors, the buffer zones, these wetlands, you know, they mean so much to the overall health of our system and you know, December 4, 2007 Page 114 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting I would argue and I heard Howard speak earlier that you know, we have seen a precipitous decline in these resources over the last 25 years and you know, the common denominator is people pressure. And I think to some extent, a waterfront property owner is not trying to do the wrong thing but you know, some level of education to enlighten them you know, relative to turf areas and enhancing buffer zones and ensuring a natural shoreline versus moving forward on a bulkhead because they don’t know any better. And we have to really push the envelope on public education to ensure that the coastal management policies, as they advance, are being supported by the community as opposed to opposed because of lack of understanding. This is our resource and we have to really pull together to ensure its protection for future generations. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Who is next? Mr. Hardy? And then you next. Doug Hardy DOUG HARDY: Since you are getting glassy eyed now, I am Doug Hardy from Southold. I will try to restrict my statement, I did prepare a statement and I will hand it to you but I would like to focus just on one of the issues. There is an 800 pound gorilla sitting on the chapter 275 and this gorilla is interfering probably directly or indirectly with every aspect of the code. There is very little you can do about it and this gorilla is the rising sea level. The sea level which in the th 20 century rose very slowly, approximately six inches in 100 years, since 1993 it has accelerated. And peer review data for the New York metropolitan area projects that in 2050 or 43 years as my addition is correct, it will be, rise 9 to 15 inches. This is very significant, it is bad news for the riparian property owners and it is something that you can’t ignore in the code and it is not mentioned in the code and I would suggest that in section 275-3A in findings that you make a mention that something like, that a sea level rise may modify sections of this code. It should note that the Town retains authority to execute this code in the best interest of all the public. It has some legal significance because as the rising sea level impacts the shores and impacts the property owners, you are bound to have conflicts between the public trust doctrine and riparian rights and this will perhaps reduce then legal issues particularly regarding the takings clause. A second factor I would like to focus on is bulkheads, retaining walls and other hardening structures. And this again, is going to cause conflicts as the seas gradually rise, there is no way to stop it and the property owners are gradually going to lose their property and they must recognize this, so a legal issue then would result as the high tide finally reaches the bulkhead and then begins to climb up the face of the bulkhead. You have then where the mean high tide now is beyond the far shore. And so the conflict arises is the riparian owner now is on public trust land or does the public trust doctrine interpolate the mean high tide beyond the bulkhead? And this is an issue that you are facing now, there are bulkheads now that where the mean low water are perpendicular. Yet the Trustees cannot legally divest themselves from title and the private property owner may claim a taking if the Trustees lay claim to his or her title. It will be a burden on the taxpayer and private property owner to legally fight this on a case by case basis. I would suggest then, that you could avoid this conflict if a paragraph is inserted which would state that bulkheads and other hard structures which become permanently flooded by a rising sea level in such a manner that public passage between mean high tide is prevented. That the riparian owner shall be required to give and maintain a public passing way on the upland not less than five feet in width, to enable persons to pass and re-pass around the bulkhead. One other affect of rising sea level where the bulkhead is landward of a tidal wetland, it will cause the December 4, 2007 Page 115 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting elimination of these wetlands because the presence of such bulkheads will prevent the natural erosion of the shoreline upon which the wetlands depend in order to migrate landward as the sea erodes and submerges the seaward march face. So the Town will be confronted with difficult ecological and investment decisions over which tidal wetlands merit salvage and which be allowed to disappear. These decisions require technical expertise of where and if bulkheads will be allowed without violating the good of all the public, under the public trust doctrine. These decisions for long-range planning would best be generated in a Town department of natural resources. So I will just give you what I had prepared. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: No, I appreciate everything you said. You do realize you are talking to a Board that took 20 years to build an animal shelter, so I am not sure that we are going to contend with global warming tonight but we will certainly get to it. Go ahead, please. Jennifer Skilbred JENNIFER SKILBRED: My name is Jennifer Skilbred and I am an environmental advocate with Group for the East End. Just in case you may not know, Group for the East End is a professionally staffed, non-profit environmental advocacy and education organization and while we are new to Southold Town, we have been working on east end conservation and community planning issues for over 35 years, with one of our major focuses being protection of the Peconic estuary. We promoted the nationally significant designation for the Peconic estuary, helped set up the Peconic estuary program, advocated for continual funding of the program and its management plan and numerous other efforts aimed at water quality protection. And any decisions on your wetland code will ultimately affect not only Peconic estuary but also Long Island Sound. As you may know, the health of our tidal wetlands is essential to the east end way of life. They support our fisheries and provide vital wildlife habitat. They form the base of our estuarine food chain and are some of the most productive eco-systems on our planet. Tidal wetlands help protect us from storms and floods, they improve water quality, stabilize shorelines from erosion and provide recreational and aesthetic opportunities. And sizable buffers are critical to protecting these wetlands. Through our organizations many years of experience with land use policies and natural resource protection we have learned that a solid, defensible code is a town’s greatest ally in protecting its resources and based on your town adopted LWRP and the LWRP coordinating council’s recommendations and some of the other comments that we heard tonight, it seems that a comprehensive review and update of wetlands code might be the best plan for protecting this vital community asset and for strengthening the Trustees efforts to protect Southold’s wetlands. Therefore, we respectfully request that you defer decisions on the proposed Trustee amendments until a comprehensive review of the wetlands code can be done, including the amendment proposals based on the LWRP coordinating council’s recommendations. We feel it would be best to look at all these possible changes together, to ensure a comprehensive review and comprehensive public input. So, thanks for your consideration. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Joanne? Joanna Lane JOANNA LANE: My name is Joanna Lane, I am from Cutchogue. I have been sent two letters here that I would just like to read into the record, so I am just speaking here for other people, if December 4, 2007 Page 116 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting that is okay with the Board? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Sure. MS. LANE: I would just like to say personally before that that we are all in agreement about one thing here and that is we need more time to review on all sides, since people are saying the same thing and that is interesting because the first letter I have to read to you is from Paul and Phyllis Torpey from Greenport and they are apologizing that they can’t be at the meeting tonight. They said, “We are in accordance with all the issues raised in Southold VOICES call to action document already submitted into record of the public hearing on local law 275 and in addition we offer the following additional comments for your consideration. There are sections of 275 that strike a tone of petulance and combativeness which works against the spirit of mutual cooperation and trust that is essential for success and voluntary compliance which is at the heart of negotiated consensus rule making with all the stakeholders, including the Town Board, Town Trustees and tax paying owners and users. Section 275-16 is one flagrant example of this. Granted, fines are in order for persistent, willful non-compliance but the entire 275 document is so complex, has been patched so many times, is annoyingly ambiguous in places, and is difficult to even understand and interpret at times. And there are requirements within local law 275 that are judged by many of the property owners to be unfair and unnecessary. Given this state of affairs and until some of these things are either fixed or better explained, it seems to us that the knuckle-rapping should not be stepped up. In truth, it angers people, makes them dig in and it makes a mockery of the desired outcome of mutual cooperation and voluntary compliance. Along these lines, it is not clear to many of us what the thinking was in elevating fines and penalties by as much as 300 percent. Has compliance with 275 been so devastatingly bad that this is deemed necessary? If that is the case, we have a much bigger problem on our hands and even more work needs to be done to fix a flawed piece of legislation. We do believe the Trustees and Town Board have an obligation to take the taxpayers/stakeholders into their confidence and discuss with them, all of us, the reasons and rationale behind these draconian increases which, failing this, will lead to increasing discontent, if not hostility between the parties. Finally the other side of the coin is not at all pleasant to even mention. That is, are we creating the perception of using environmental protection mandates as a means of raising additional revenue for the Town? We think the Town Board/Trustees should establish a local law 275 reconciliation task force comprised of town officials and the other stakeholders to take a fresh, thorough and balanced look at the whole document and come up with an updated, clearer draft that reflects something closer to a reasoned consensus between all the parties. Respectfully, Paul and Phyllis Torpey” I would support that personally as well. It is not my statement but I do support that. The other one is from Gary Mangus, who is from Conklin Point. This one was actually faxed to you but he said he didn’t get a clear copy through, so I don’t want to burden your time if you already have a copy? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: It does not sound familiar to me. MS. LANE: Okay. Would you like me to read it, then? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes, please. December 4, 2007 Page 117 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting MS. LANE: Okay. “I live at 1295 Island View Lane in Greenport and I am writing in regard to the proposed changes to local law 275. my residence is on a creek and within 30 feet of wetlands. I am very concerned with protecting our wetlands and our natural environment. I began applications for work on my residence four years ago. The application is still in DEC and the approvals received from DEP have now long expired. The environmental control aspects of my proposal have evolved due to the slow approval process and the number of different agencies from which approvals are required; I will have to re-apply for essentially the same work previously approved. With the proposed local law changes, my proposed work would most likely not be possible. And this laborious and expensive process would be required to even maintain my current property. Our residence at just over 700 square feet is too small for our needs in order for my wife and me to live in Greenport full time. This proposed local law change could restrict us from living here. I am a NYS licensed architect practicing out of Brooklyn, NY primarily in the New York City area. Our Greenport residence was built in 1947 and includes virtually no run-off controls and an old septic system deeper than it should be given the ground water table. My proposal to rebuild on the same footprint and away from the wetlands includes an extensive green roof for the entire house footprint. This would control more than 85 percent of vertical rainfall through plant respiration and evaporation and for the remaining 15 percent that is released to be detained and released slowly for irrigation. A perimeter collection system is proposed to collect horizontal wind driven rain and divert it to dry wells for slow release. Both runoff volume and temperature changes to run-off back to the wetlands are controlled. A new conforming septic system is proposed. The foundation is changed from a perimeter foundation to pile type, making the land below the house available for absorption. The green roof will control for ambient outdoor air temperature increases as well. With this range of control measures there is actually more absorption and run-off control than if the land were not built on. What was my response from the DEC? They told me they are not concerned with abatement, and do not care about mediation measures or run-off control, they just do not want any more development. The permit process for current residents in or near wetlands is already excessively costly, lengthy and restrictive. Measures, which would make a difference, are not even considered while excessively restrictive regulations that provide little actual benefit are being put into law. The changes currently being proposed will make it excessively difficult for me to even maintain my property let alone make it more environmentally friendly. We need to foster a more symbiotic relationship with our wetlands and our environment in general. We need to learn to live appropriately in our environment. Legislation needs to be more flexible and change friendly. We are currently unnecessarily restricting or severely discouraging change. We need to encourage not discourage, environmentally friendly changes if we want to make a difference in saving our wetlands. Sincerely, Gary Mangus.” SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. MS. LANE: Thank you. That is all I have to say. I would like to just give a copy of this to whoever… SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Sure. Of course. Would anybody else like to address the Board on this issue? Let me just see, Ray, if anyone else wants to go before we go around again. You December 4, 2007 Page 118 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting know, irony or ironies, my assistant asked me to remind everyone that we have extended the free rd leaves and brush to the landfill until December 23, that was before I knew the meeting was th going to go until December 24. Go ahead, Ray. Ray Huntington MR. HUNTINGTON: There are a number of LWRP issues that can get into the fixture. There are 17 other chapters of the town code that are impacted. The point that I would like to come to in closing, is what do we urge now? and that is to put this issue on the front burner, engage our legal resources in a way that we can figure out some of the more complex issues and get on with our comprehensive change to 275 as fast as we can during this coming year. I think the one thing that we need to do is to focus on 275 as opposed to some of the other chapters that are also impacted. Good night. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Anybody else? Hugh Pollack HUGH POLLA: Hi. Hugh Polla from Corey Creek. I would like to just make a comment about, I wasn’t aware that the state was involved in controlling local laws around here. I would like to, you know, I kind of think that should be kicked. What does the state know? What does somebody in Albany know about the conditions down here on the east end of Long Island? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I am guessing you never met Chuck Hamilton. MR. POLLA: Excuse me? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I am guessing he never met Chuck Hamilton. He is the DEC guy that rides around with the gun. It’s a long story, I will explain it later. MR. POLLA: I have a gun, too. Well, let’s meet him. Maybe we’ll have an OK corral, so. Alright, the point is this. As evidence of the state’s effectiveness, I think that anyone that goes and takes the road up on the way to East Marion, there is a little place there put up by the state, it is supposed to be a boat ramp. And this boat ramp goes onto Long Island sound. The only trouble is, the geniuses that designed this and spent the money to build it, didn’t realize that the tidal action puts up a great sand bar over the run way or the ramp that goes to the sound, so it presents it unusable unless you go there with a plow truck; plow the ramp clear and then you might be able to get a boat into the sound. So there again, I don’t know who decided on this but this is the kind of action that can take place by some guy up in Albany who is looking down at a map and doesn’t know the local situation. That is all. Oh, one other thing I might say. If there are objectionable waterfront structures by waterfront property owners and so on and so forth, might it not be creative perhaps to think about a way you create incentives to have farmers sell their development rights so that it will benefit everybody? Maybe if you want to get rid of a bulkhead or you want to do something that is more environmentally friendly, might you not consider developing some kind of an idea of giving that homeowner some kind of an incentive for making his waterfront property a little bit more environmentally sensitive, environmentally friendly, rather than taking a big hammer and going over there and saying, oh, we are going to fine you and we are going to hit you over the head. Some people don’t like that and they might December 4, 2007 Page 119 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting use the hammer and throw it back at you. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Peggy? Peg Dickerson PEGGY DICKERSON: Peggy Dickerson, Southold Town Trustee. I will be brief but I just want to reiterate what has started to be said by Al and what Jim was saying. I work with the past Board in 2004 and in 2004 we did a major, major rewrite of the code that my dad had originally worked on and I don’t think we had this audience at the time when that law was passed. Soon after that, two years after that, we made our first amendment. Then our commitment, when we did those rewrites in 2004 was, this was a living document and it would continually be improved and I think one of the biggest misconceptions tonight is that this is the finale and that this is the final and it is not. And it is not the intention of the Board to be the final revisions. The intent of our Board was to benefit the applicants, to make the process easier. It was to make our office more efficient and to also make our legal department more efficient. That was our intent. The legal language is difficult. Just ask our Board, who works hours and hours and hours on it, so it is kind of ironic that we are all here saying, all of us, here in this room, we are all saying we are here for the environment and how important it is and yet we have such conflict. So I urge the Board, these are minor changes. Our Board is committed to continuing those changes. We spent the last two years creating a list of ongoing recommendations and ongoing and we have already started our next list. So in no way do we see this as final, there is much work to do but these will make our office and help us to work more efficiently. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you, Peggy. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: John Costello? John Costello JOHN COSTELLO: Well, I certainly agree with what some of what Peggy said. First of all, this is a living document and it has to keep alive. You have to keep it alive and you have got to keep changing it. When there are mistakes in it, clean them up, modify them and get them straightened out. First of all, I believe that there is a lot of arbitrariness in this document. There is a lot of discretionary decisions and Al was right when he said they went through in 2004 and they codified many of these things and corrected a good portion of their codes, which was only policies. They got in trouble all the time, running with policies. Don’t run with policies. Codify the right things in the code and eliminate the wrong things. They have several things in this document. One of the things the document does and it seems to be working quite well, is educating people. Educating people on the values of wetlands, setbacks, everything else. One of the things you have as a Board of Trustees, five of them, that can listen to you and you can appeal to. State your reasons for doing something. I have no use for the LWRP because I have been involved with several of them. I was involved with Sag Harbor’s originally. They are trying to figure out how to get out of it. Let me tell you, I was in Greenport’s and modified it because half of the Greenport businesses were illegal. You can’t have a restaurant on the water. You also have deep water in the Greenport area. Tides will come up to the water, in big harbors December 4, 2007 Page 120 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting you need marinas. People have boating, I mean, it is a fact of life. Half of their recommendations for the Trustees are people coming in looking for docks. There is more people. That is certainly an environmental problem. Particularly when they all want to be on the water, if they can afford it. When the economy is good, they want a dock, they don’t even have a boat. Because it ups the value of their property. It is a money issue. You have got to protect the environment and the Trustees certainly, five members, are the group to do it. Not the LWRP and the men in the New York Department of State. That was a mistake. But that was a mistake and I think what you have got to do is take some of the power away from them and hand it back to the Trustees. I think this part of the code, these modifications in the code, I think the enforcement is excessive. Discretionary, the violation can occur and if it is decided by the Trustees, it could be a violation every day. That can’t possibly be and the fines are quite excessive. Try to educate the people, try to give them as much knowledge on how to protect the environment and they are getting there because you can see the proof of people here. I don’t believe there was one person that was adversarial. They want to use their properties. They want to maintain their properties and I think they should. But I also think they have got things in here, the functionality, what is functionality? I mean, I hope this board doesn’t start hiring the people necessary to enforce everything in this modification. You will need an engineer, you will need an environmental consultant, you will need police, you will need a lawyer. More people, if everything in this is enforced. You are going to need people. You need more experts. Much more experts. One of the problems I have with this is tropical hardwoods. You don’t want to use tropical hardwoods unless they are certified? You can’t get certified tropical hardwoods because there is only a minimal staffing. There is only a small, small group of people that will certify them. Do you know where the tropical hardwoods start? Key West, Florida. Most of the growing world. I know that I was trying to get all the rights to all the trees in the arctic’s. There aren’t any. The tropics are where things grow. In Southampton Town, they make you use tropical hardwoods. They do not want treated materials. Southampton Town doesn’t have an LWRP and let me tell you, they are the most stringent around. And they are excessively good. And the Trustees will come visit the site, they will talk to you and they will explain where they are going to go and they are not going to go. Simple. Simple decisions. They are doing it for environmental reasons. And they are going to try to educate you, whether you want to be educated or not. And it is fine and I think the Southold Town Trustees are as good as they are. Give them the opportunity. Thank you. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you. Nick Tran PETER SCHRAMM: Peter Schramm, Southold. On the buffers, I have a very small piece of property, I was just thinking maybe instead of a no number of feet, maybe a certain percentage of the property should, you shouldn’t be allowed to exceed a certain percentage. When you exceed a certain percentage, unless you get a tax break or something I mean, you know at some point where. … COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Part of the, I think part of what I am going to suggest that that part, a number be removed from the non-disturbance buffer and it be left to the discretion of the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees, as Mr. Costello said, visit ever site. Every Trustee visits almost every site and they have to judge on the environmental conditions of the surrounding area December 4, 2007 Page 121 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting and on that site, what buffer is appropriate. And you can’t do it from a book and you can’t do it in Albany. You have to go to the site and do it. MR. SCHRAMM: Well, they came to my property because I had a dock issue which basically as far as I can tell from this evening, it was grandfathered in but it cost me $3,000 to have it grandfathered in with the lawyer and the architectural, marine architect and but anyway, that aside, my buffer is going to be, if they want, is going to be about 20 percent of my property and it is going to be within 20 feet of my bedroom window. Which sounds a little excessive to me. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Well, that is something you have to work out with the Trustees. And we can’t affect the price of the lawyers, that is something you have to work out, too. MR. SCHRAMM: No, I am not asking you to. You know, what is done is done. But you know, I see people saying maybe the buffer should be zero, I am maybe the buffer should be a percent, you are telling me I should talk to the Trustees. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: They are the ones who have the jurisdiction and they are the ones who visit the site. MR. SCHRAMM: You know, and I understand your point. The property was in my wife’s family since the 50’s but the property has been maintained with a sea wall and mowed and since the 60’s. So according to the marine architect, what has been being mowed for the last 50 years, they consider wetlands. So now they want to let that come within 20 feet of my house. Which, I don’t know, if that is what they are demanding, I have to give it a shot but I think it is going to be pretty ugly. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: We can’t judge it without being there. And this isn’t the time really to get into that. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is a more specific issue to a specific application, I am not sure that, but you know, I have to tell you, it gets a little confusing because one minute we move to do this and people say you are giving the Trustees too much jurisdiction and then five minutes later, they are saying you know, give the Trustees the jurisdiction they will do the right thing. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Give them 200 feet. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah. I don’t know where, and some people were saying that in the same sentence. So it is getting very difficult to MR. SCHRAMM: Basically I am confused because one moment it sounds like what you told the gentleman from Laughing Waters, he wouldn’t be affected by the buffers and all, well, the house that my wife and I now have, that was the family’s, has been there since the 50’s. The early 60’s. It is the way it has been for the last 50 years, when they grandfathered in in, what you said the 80’s, apparently they missed it because the dock has been there since the 60’s, so I have been here all night and it sounds like if I came back before the Trustees again, I would still be December 4, 2007 Page 122 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting paying. Because I don’t think there has been any answers achieved. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Well, so nothing has changed then? MR. SCHRAMM: Nothing, I, COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: These are minor code revisions. This isn’t going to change the way the, basically reflecting the way they are currently doing business now. So this isn’t really going to change much. MR. SCHRAMM: Well something needs to change if I have a dock that was there in the 60’s, I was grandfathered and it cost me $3,000. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: But we can’t affect… SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I would agree with you, I would agree with him but it does highlight exactly what is going on here. MR. SCHRAMM: It highlights the problem. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Well, it shows you what is being proposed tonight is just codifying what is already policy. This isn’t the watershed document that is going to come out of the LWRP, all those grand proposals. This is a lot of what the Trustees, and this is how they explained it to me, this is codifying things that they have already been doing in practice. These were supposed to be minor, non-invasive, as Rob Herman said, innocuous changes. But I have a feeling, this is very application specific and we can’t answer questions, you know, since particularly the Trustees have the jurisdiction. MR. SCHRAMM: You know, I don’t really have a problem with what they did, I understand what they did. The first night I was all atwitter and a little upset. I understand what they want. Certainly going to try to achieve what they want but I haven’t heard anything here tonight that makes me feel like if I have it to do over again next week, things would be done differently. And from what I gather from what you said earlier, my case was mishandled. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I doubt it. MR. SCHRAMM: I don’t. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I mean, I, and like I said I can’t… MR. SCHRAMM: A dock from the 60’s? COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I can’t judge it without… MR. SCHRAMM: You grandfathered in the 80’s. It shows on the aerial survey’s in the 70’s. December 4, 2007 Page 123 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: This is not the… SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah. You know, we are getting very specific to a specific application. MR. SCHRAMM: I understand. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. Would anybody else like to address the Town Board? Christine? Christina Rivera CHRISTINE RIVERA: Good evening. My name is Christina Rivera from Mattituck. I just have a couple of references to ask about. 275-14, it talks about transferability of a permit shall not be assigned without prior approval or review of the Trustees and the fee of $50 shall be paid. Is that going to be automatic? I mean, if you have a permit in place and you may not have even completed or started the project and perhaps you sell the home, do they have the right to revoke that permit or not allow you to transfer it? Or what is the process in order to transfer it? COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: That is a change. MS. RIVERA: Well, it says the permit issued shall not be transferred or assigned without prior approval or review of the Trustees. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: That has always been the case. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah, it has always been. MS. RIVERA: Yeah, my question is that, when you get a CO for the house, when you get a variance, when you get a building permit and you sell the house, that is transferable. It goes with the house. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Right. But you have to go through the Trustees in order to transfer it because the Trustees will review every permit, whether it was granted last month or 20 years ago. The Trustees review the permit and then they can transfer it, without a public hearing. It is a, by resolution at a meeting. MS. RIVERA: Would it be automatic? I don’t know. I am asking you if it is automatic? COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: It is not automatic. Sometimes the Board will make changes to the permit. Appropriate environmental changes maybe they want to see some drywells or gutters if it is new construction or something like that. Maybe want to see something moved, maybe they want to see something slightly different. I have never seen any major changes in a permit transfer. MS. RIVERA: So if.. December 4, 2007 Page 124 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Very minor. Possibly usually not. MS. RIVERA: Perhaps if you haven’t even begun the project and you sell the house, there is a possibility that that building plan or structure may not get approved even if you have a permit in place. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Doubtful. Doubtful. I have never seen it, I have never seen it and Peggy is agreeing with me. Never seen it not transferred. MS. RIVERA: Okay. Because as I said, CO’s always transfer and building permits and variances always transfer with the property and I was just curious about this. And my other question is, is that when you go for a building permit and you are clearly in 100 feet, you are beyond 100 feet of wetlands for example, the Building Department sends you to the Trustees to get a non-jurisdiction letter. So you have to go to the Trustees and pay the permit fees etc. to get a non-jurisdiction letter which doesn’t really make any sense, that you have to go to the permit process to get a non-jurisdiction letter when you are clearly out of the jurisdiction when you go to the Building Department. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: It is not really a permit, though. It is just a letter. MS. RIVERA: Yeah. but you have to make the application fees and go through the process and still get a letter of non-jurisdiction, when you are clearly not in their jurisdiction to begin with when you go to the Building Department. But if you are anywhere near the water or the wetlands, even though you are out of their jurisdiction, they still make you go to the Trustees and get the letter. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: And what is the fee? What is the fee? MS. RIVERA: I don’t know what the fee is, it has been a while since I had one. Maybe one of the Trustees can answer that. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: It can’t be a full, maybe they can clarify that. MS. RIVERA: Whatever it is, it doesn’t make any sense. MR. KING: I missed the question. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: A fee, is there a fee attached to you writing a letter of non- jurisdiction? MR. KING: None whatsoever. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: None whatsoever. NJ, right? MS. RIVERA: But you have to go through the process of getting a non-jurisdiction letter, when December 4, 2007 Page 125 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting you are not in their jurisdiction. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: But it doesn’t require a permit process, it requires usually, maybe a site inspection. JILL DOHERTY: Can I just clarify the non-jurisdiction? COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Please. MS. DOHERTY: We had, for example today, when I was in the office Lauren asked me; the Building Department said oh, no, they reviewed something and said you need a non-jurisdiction letter from the Trustees. So it came over to the Trustees, it is 105 feet away, our jurisdiction is 100 feet, it is 105 feet away from where that person thinks the wetland line is, so what we have to do is we have to go out and determine where the wetland line is. They might think it is the high water mark, where it is not, it is up above the high marsh, so now that becomes 75 feet away, not 105. So it is in our jurisdiction. So our Board is the one that determines the jurisdiction. And in some cases, it is not a non-jurisdiction like the Building Department said. So the Building Department should be sending you to us, so we can decide whether it is in our jurisdiction or not. And we have to go out and look at the property. Because a surveyor can write tie line, can write something and that, and then measure from that but that is not where we measure from. MS. RIVERA: For example, on the sound, where do you measure from? The high tide mark. MS. DOHERTY: Not necessarily. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Again, since there is nothing specific in here, to clarify those specific questions… COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: You can call the Trustee office tomorrow and get clarification on that. MS. RIVERA: Okay. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody like to address the Town Board on this specific legislation? John Betsch JOHN BETSCH: As the last person here, just a minor point , John Betsch, Southold. One of the words that are in this new code, the changes, says as determined by the Trustees. I think everybody has to remember that there are five Trustees, there are five different distinct personalities and five different distinct point of view. Many times, I believe, when they do site visits, it is either one or two people; when they go to a site. It is not always all five. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Almost every time, at least four, if I am not mistaken. I thought all five of you go to just about everything. December 4, 2007 Page 126 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting MR. BETSCH: Okay, that is my mistake. Because I was going to say… SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: No, no. MR. KING: About the only times that not all of us go is when it is something really very simple. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. MR. KING: Sometimes we will send one Trustee out, he may think, well, I would have the rest of the Board’s opinion and then we all go look at it. So, one or two go to very simple ones, we all go to anything that is any kind of… MR. BETSCH: That was my only point. The fact that depending on potentially who it is, who you get may derive you know, what the decision is. That was all. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. Thank you, John. Would anybody else like to address the Town Board on this specific legislation? Unknown Lady UNIDENTIFIED: (Inaudible comments made from audience) from Peconic Bay in Laurel. I actually live next door to a gentleman who lost his bulkhead in the nor’easter in April because it took him 18 months for him to get a permit to repair it. Because first it was this organization and a (inaudible). Yesterday, two Town Trustees came to look at his bulkhead and there were two of them. Eighteen months of aggravation with the Town, untold expense and only two people come. I think it is a well taken point that it depends on which two you get. MR. KING: I think you are mistaken because no Trustees were out yesterday making inspections. I was here in Town Hall and there were and there were two people from DEC that were in Southold making inspections. Karen Gralick and the other gentleman… UNIDENTIFIED: I don’t know who they were. MR. KING: I would say that you probably have mistaken DEC personnel for Trustees because no Trustees were out yesterday. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. I would like to get a motion to close the hearing. Board Members 6. Statement COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: We will vote on it tonight. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: We are prepared to vote on it. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: We have closed the hearing. I would prefer not to vote on it either, I think there are two or three issues that we need to clarify as a Board. December 4, 2007 Page 127 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Well then, why don?t we? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: But we closed the hearing. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: That?s all right. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: But at the same time, there are two of us that have been involved in many, many of these meetings, I can?t speak for Dan but? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: We have another meeting. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: We do have another meeting. True. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Dan, any thoughts on just closing and holding the vote or voting? COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I would like to vote with some minor changes. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: If we are going to vote tonight, I am voting against it. We have two weeks that we can have some meetings. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: They raised fair points on definitions of pre-existing and functionality. Let?s nail those down and just pass it. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: You are not going to quantify functionality? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: At least say as of what date. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: ?ever. No. A date is no good. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Well, suppose it is functional today and a nor?easter in April knocks it out? You go look at it and say, well it is not functional; I can?t give you a permit? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I think we need a meeting to sort out all of this. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah, I do, too. A meeting with the Trustees. The Town Board is deliberating. Would the Trustees be interested in having a meeting with us to sort out some of the language and some of the language and some of the issues that were raised tonight? We had closed the hearing. We are discussing as a Board whether we should table the vote so that we can try to nail down some of these issues that were raised or whether we should just go ahead and vote. I think the Board is fairly split on it. My preference is to wait. To get some of these issues resolved. I think that is Tom?s preference as well. I don?t know what pre-existing or functionality means yet and I don?t have a problem saying no to people but I need to know what I am saying no to. I don?t know how you feel, I think we? December 4, 2007 Page 128 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting MR. KING: My preference would be to move ahead. Because it is minor things that we can change and I don?t think it? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: But what it two weeks? Give it a chance to.. JUSTICE EVANS: For example, Al just said during this, you know, that I would want to take out that minimum 30 foot, out of the language and then pass it and I am not sure whether that is good or bad. I think there needs to be a discussion whether that language gets taken out or stays in. There were comments made pro and con tonight and I think before we? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes, I would like to get some input. JUSTICE EVANS: ?with the Trustees on what is better. Is it better to have something there, that then, you can always do less but at least then not every applicant is coming in saying I want 10 feet. There is no number in there, so give me 10 feet or is it better, just totally your discretion and you are going to have to battle with people that want small buffers? COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: It is discretionary now. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Look, the reality is the Board is going to decide one way or the other; the Trustees are going to get together with us within the next two weeks if we hold the vote. DAVE BERGEN, TOWN TRUSTEE: Thank you. The only request I would have of that is to have the meeting at a time when all the Trustees can attend. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Understood. Understood. Because of your work schedule. MR. BERGEN: I thought I heard in the discussion going on that it really, I really hoped that it would happen in the next two weeks because we are going to lose two Board members and we wouldn?t want to start from scratch. So I hope that that promise of two weeks be adhered to? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: There is no promise. But there is an indication of interest on our part to try to deal with this in two weeks time. But we are not? JUSTICE EVANS: And we have a meeting on the 18th? MR. BERGEN: I am sorry if I offended you by saying promise. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: No, it is not a promise but I am, at least will engage with the Trustees; we will try to find a time where everybody can meet, we will try to deal with these questions. We have heard a whole lot of commentary tonight and to just arbitrarily roll over that commentary and just simply pass what is in front of us, I am not prepared to do it. December 4, 2007 Page 129 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Bill and Dan promised. Okay? I think the Board, can I get a sense from the Board? We are going to hold this for two weeks, we are going to meet with the Trustees as quickly as possible within the next five days to nail down some of the language and some of the issues that were raised tonight. INAUDIBLE COMMENTS SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: But wording is everything in good code language. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Are you going to be there, Louisa? Are you going to be there? JUSTICE EVANS: I will be there the 18th. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: No, before that. For the meeting that you want to have. JUSTICE EVANS: We will meet the 18th and we can pass it that night. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Look, the decision has been made. I think that is the vote of the Board, so we are going to move forward on this. We have the Shellfish code, does anyone want to speak on that? Yes, he has got to go through it. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Mr. Supervisor, may I suggest we open the hearing and adjourn it? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: The shellfish code? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Yes. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Why? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: And not take testimony tonight. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Why? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: There is not much in there. JILL DOHERTY, TOWN TRUSTEE: We did the shellfish code a few months ago. This is, the Trustees have had this done for quite a while. LWRP gave you a report last minute, that is why it was tabled the last time. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Let?s do something tonight. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes, let?s pass it, you are right. I am ready to hear it, I am ready to go through it and pass it. December 4, 2007 Page 130 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting 7. Set PH for Shellfish LL COMMENTS - Current Meeting: COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I move first that we close the August 14, 2007 public hearing prior to open up tonight’s hearing on the shellfish code. (This resolution was duly passed.) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of th “A Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 7 day of November, 2007 a Local Law entitled Local Law in relation to Shellfish and Other Marine Resources” AND NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, on 4th day of December, 2007 at 7:45 p.m. the at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. “A Local Law in relation to Shellfish and Other Marine The proposed Local Law entitled Resources” reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 2007 “A Local Law in relation to Shellfish and Other Marine A Local Law entitled, Resources” . BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: I. Purpose - It is the purpose and intent of the amendments to this Chapter to provide for the protection, the preservation and the proper use and maintenance of Town waters and lands under Town waters, to minimize damage thereto and to enhance their use for the propagation of shellfish and other beneficial marine organisms and thereby protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare of the Town of Southold. II. Chapter 219 of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: ARTICLE I Catching of Shrimp [Adopted by 6-29-1933] General Provisions §219-1. Taking of shrimp by nonresidents prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person not a resident of the Town of Southold to take shrimp from the waters of Brush's Creek, Willes Creek, Downs Creek, James Creek, West Creek, Richmond's Creek, Corey's Creek, Cedar Beach Creek, Goose Creek, Jockey Creek, Town Creek, Mill Creek, Long Creek, Budd's Pond, Dam Pond, Mattituck Creek, Goldsmith's Creek, Squash Creek, Wickham's Creek and Little Creek, or other creeks or inland waters within the bounds of said Township. §219-2 1. Residence requirements. Persons shall be deemed to be residents of the Town of Southold at any given date, within the meaning of this article Chapter, when they shall have actually and continuously resided within the said Town for a period of at least six (6) months sixty (60) days immediately preceding such December 4, 2007 Page 131 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting date. §219-3 2. Effect. No provision of this article shall be deemed to prevent any person or persons residing within the Town of Southold from angling for fish for other than commercial purposes. §219-4. Penalties for offenses. Any violation of this article shall be subject to a penalty of not less than $5 nor more than $100 and costs. ARTICLE II Taking of Shellfish and Eels [Adopted by 6-23-1966] §219-5 3. Title. This article Chapter shall be known as the "Shellfish and Other Marine Resources Law of the Town of Southold." §219-7 4. Definitions. For the purposes of this article Chapter, the terms used herein are defined as follows: AQUACULTURE/MARICULTURE - The cultivation, planting, containment or harvesting of products that naturally are produced in the marine environment, including fish, shellfish, crustaceans and seaweed, and the installation of cribs, racks and in-water structures for cultivating such products, but excluding the construction of any building, any filling or dredging or the construction of any water regulating structures. BOAT/VESSEL - Any floating object capable of carrying people as a means of transportation in water, including without limitation an airplane capable of landing on water, any floating structure not otherwise considered to be part of a dock structure as defined herein, with or without means of propulsion, which object can be moored independently or can be secured by any means to a piling, dock, bulkhead, groin or other fixed device located above mean high water. Floating docks are excluded from this definition. CHANNEL SYSTEM - The bed of a natural waterway with well-defined banks presenting the evidence of the flow of tidal waters, which is commonly traversed by boat/vessel and is designated by channel markers, including man-made or stabilized waterways designed for the navigation of boats/vessels. For the purpose of this Chapter, boat basins and bathing areas are included within this definition. CHURNING - The removal of shellfish from lands below average low water by utilizing a propwash from a skip-mounted outboard motor. COMMERCIAL PURPOSES - Any use or purpose other than for food consumption by the persons taking the shellfish or by members of such person's household. Taking, containment or harvesting of shellfish or other marine resources to sell to a third party. December 4, 2007 Page 132 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting CONTAINMENT - The placement and possession of shellfish in a basket, tub, bag, or any other type of container. CULLING - Separating shellfish or other marine resources according to size. EEL - The American eel. FIXED GEAR - Fishing equipment that is set in a stationary position, including without limitation pots, moorings, long line, hand line, weir nets, gillnets and traps. GUEST - A person who temporarily occupies living quarters in a dwelling maintained by a permanent resident. MARINE RESOURCES - Blue claw crabs, horseshoe crabs, eels and mussels. NON-RESIDENT - One who does not reside in the Town of Southold. PATENT LANDS - All uplands and underwater lands owned in fee title by the Town of Southold Board of Trustees by virtue of the Andros Patent. PERMANENT RESIDENT - A person who has maintained a permanent dwelling within the Town of Southold during the period of not less than 60 days immediately preceding the date of his application for a permit hereunder, or the date of taking shellfish if no permit is required. SCAP NET - A hand-operated net attached to a handle with an opening across the mouth of no more than 14 inches. SHELLFISH - Clams, scallops, oysters, blue claw crabs, mussels, periwinkles and , conchs, channeled whelk and knobbed whelk. TAKING - The removal or harvesting of shellfish and other marine resources by any means. TAXPAYER - A person who owns real property as shown on the assessment roll of the Town of Southold. TEMPORARY RESIDENT - A person who has occupied living quarters within the Town of Southold during the period of not less than seven days immediately preceding the date of his application for a permit hereunder. TOWN WATERS - All waters and lands under tidewater in any harbor, bay or creek, title to which and the right of fishing in which is vested in the Town of Southold and/or in the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold. TOWN WATERS - All the waters lying over Patent Lands. December 4, 2007 Page 133 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting ARTICLE II Shellfish §219-8 6. Permit requirements. A. Shellfish may be taken from Town waters for commercial purposes by a permanent resident over the age of 14 years upon first obtaining a commercial shellfish permit therefor from the Town Clerk of the Town of Southold. (1) Persons Aages 12 and 13 can apply for a junior commercial shellfish license which will allow them to catch half the commercial limit. The junior commercial shellfish license and will be at half the cost of a commercial license. The parents or guardian of the applicant for a junior commercial shellfish license must sign for the holder of the junior license, making the parent or guardian responsible for any violation incurred. B. Shellfish may be taken from Town waters by a non- temporary resident upon first obtaining a non- temporary resident shellfish permit therefor from the Town Clerk of the Town of Southold. C. Shellfish may be taken from Town waters for noncommercial purposes by a permanent resident or taxpayer upon first obtaining a permanent resident or taxpayer's permit therefor from the Town Clerk of the Town of Southold. Such a permit shall be required for all persons ages 10 and older. Persons under the age of 10 may take shellfish only when accompanied by a valid permit-holder, and any shellfish taken by such child shall count toward the maximum daily quantity allowed in this Chapter for such permit-holder. D. Shellfish may be taken from Town waters for noncommercial purposes without obtaining a permit therefor by a guest when accompanied by a permanent resident in whose dwelling such guest occupies living quarters, provided that such permanent resident is the holder of a valid shellfish permit. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article Chapter, the quantity of shellfish taken by a guest or guests shall be added to the quantity taken by the permanent resident accompanying the guest or guests, and the total amount thereof shall not exceed, in the aggregate, the maximum daily quantity prescribed in this article Chapter for such permanent resident. E. No person not a permanent resident, a taxpayer, a temporary resident or a guest accompanied by a permanent resident shall take shellfish in any manner at any time from Town waters without a permit issued pursuant to this Chapter. F. The possession of shellfish in excess of the limits, or of less size than that, set forth in this Chapter, found aboard any boat or vessel in the waters of the Town of Southold, shall be deemed presumptive evidence of a violation of this article. December 4, 2007 Page 134 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting G. Shellfish may be taken from Town waters for noncommercial purposes by a permanent resident under the age of 14 years without obtaining a permit therefor. [Added 7-7-1982 by L.L. No. 5-1982] §219-9 7. Permit fee; expiration; display. A. The fee for a commercial shellfish permit shall be set from time to time by resolution of the Town Board, upon recommendation by the Board of Trustees. $20. Effective on and after January 1, 1991, the fee for a commercial shellfish permit shall be $35. Such permit shall expire on December 31 of the year of its issuance. B. The fee for a non- temporary resident shellfish permit shall be set from time to time by resolution of the Town Board, upon recommendation by the Board of Trustees. $10. Such permit shall be issued only for the period of time that such temporary resident occupies living quarters within the Town of Southold. The non-resident permit shall expire on September 15 of the year of its issuance. C. The fee for a non-commercial permanent resident or taxpayer shellfish permit shall be $3. Effective on and after January 1, 1991, the fee for such permit shall be $5. Such permit shall expire on December 31 of the year of issuance. There shall be no fee for a permanent resident who has attained the age of 62 years. D. The holder of a shellfish permit shall carry the permit assigned to him them on his their person while engaged in the permitted activities, and the failure of such holders to exhibit his their permit to an enforcement officer shall be presumptive evidence that no valid permit has been issued to them him. §219-10 8. Scallops. A. The Trustees of the Town of Southold may establish, by resolution, the dates of the commercial and noncommercial scallop season based on the environmental and economic conditions in effect each year. [Amended 9-6-1994 by L.L. No. 19- 1994] Scallop season for residents and non-residents shall be set pursuant to New York State, as adopted by Board of Trustee resolution. B. Subject to the provisions of this section, during the first two weeks of Scallop season, harvesting in Town Waters shall be by hand or with a scalp net only. During the first two weeks of Scallop season, harvesting in Town Waters shall be open to all permit holders, for the noncommercial limits set forth herein. During the noncommercial scallop season, not more than 1/2 bushel of scallops may be taken from Town waters in any one day by hand or with a scalp net. [Amended 7- 7-1982 by L.L. No. 5-1982; 9-6-1994 by L.L. No. 19-1994] C. Except as set forth above, dDuring the commercial scallop season, scallops may December 4, 2007 Page 135 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting be taken from Town waters with a dredge or scrape having an opening at the mouth of not more than 36 inches in width when towed by a boat operated by mechanical power or other means, provided that such dredge or scrape is brought aboard the boat by hand power without the use of a mechanical device.] D. Subject to the provisions of this section, a permanent resident, a taxpayer, a temporary non-resident or a guest, when accompanied by a permanent resident, may take from Town waters not more than 1/2 bushel of scallops for noncommercial purposes in any one day by any one (1) person. Two (2) or more persons occupying the same boat may take, in the aggregate, not more than two (2) bushels of scallops in one (1) day for noncommercial purposes. for other than commercial purposes. [Amended 7-7-1982 by L.L. No. 5-1982] E. Subject to the provisions of this section, not more than five bushels of scallops may be taken from Town waters for commercial purposes in any one day by any one person. Two or more persons occupying the same boat may take, in the aggregate, not more than 10 bushels of scallops in one day for commercial purposes. F. Scallops shall not be taken from Town waters during the period from sunset to sunrise. G. Scallops shall not be taken from Town waters on Sundays except by hand or with a scalp net by uses of dredge or other power device. H. Only scallops measuring more than 2 1/4 inches from the middle of the hinge to the middle of the bill may be taken from Town waters except as provided below. Amended 1-21-1997 by L.L. No. 2-1997] H. I. Scallops measuring less than 2 1/4 inches with an annual growth line having an annual growth line and measuring not less than 2 ¼” from the middle of the hinge to the middle of the bill may be taken from Town waters only by resolution of the Southold Town Board of Trustees. §219-11 9. Clams. A. Hard clams less than one inch in thickness shall not be contained taken from Town waters and shall be subject to the requirements set forth in Section 219- 14A. B. Soft or steamer clams less than two inches in the longest diameter shall not be contained taken from Town waters and shall be subject to the requirements set forth in Section 219-14A. C. Churning by power may not be employed in the taking of soft clams on land December 4, 2007 Page 136 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting below the high-tide line in Town waters. D. A permanent resident, a taxpayer, a temporary non-resident or a guest accompanied by a permanent resident may take contain not more than 100 hard clams and 100 soft clams from Town waters in one day for noncommercial purposes. E. Not more than 2,000 hard clams may be taken from Town waters for commercial purposes in any one day by any one person. Two or more persons occupying the same boat may take, in aggregate, not more than 4,000 hard clams in one day for commercial purposes. §219-12 10. Oysters. A. Oysters shall not be taken from Town waters during the period from May 1 to August 31 in each year, both dates inclusive, and shall be subject to the requirements of Section 219-14A. B. Oysters shall not be taken from Town waters during the period from sunset to sunrise. C. Only oysters measuring more than three inches from the hinge to the bill may be taken from Town waters, and shall be subject to the requirements of Section 219- 14A. D. A permanent resident, a taxpayer, a non-resident or a guest accompanied by a permanent resident may take not more than one-half (1/2) bushel of oysters from Town Waters for noncommercial purposes in any one (1) day by any one (1) person. Two (2) or more persons occupying the same boat may take, in the aggregate, not more than one (1) bushel of oysters from Town Waters in one (1) day for noncommercial purposes. The Trustees of the Town of Southold may establish, by resolution, the limits on the number of oysters which may be harvested for commercial purposes and noncommercial purposes. A permanent resident, a taxpayer, a temporary resident or guest accompanied by a resident may harvest oysters for noncommercial purposes in the quantities set by resolution of the Trustees. [Amended 7-7-1982 by L.L. No. 5-1982; 1-21-1997 by L.L. No. 1- 1997] Editor's Note: Former Subsection E, amended 7-31-1973, which immediately followed this subsection and dealt with the amount of oysters allowed to be taken from Town waters for commercial purposes, was repealed 1- 21-1997 by L.L. No. 1-1997. E. Not more than two thousand (2,000) oysters may be contained or taken from Town Waters for commercial purposes in any one (1) day by any one (1) person. Two (2) or more persons occupying the same boat may take, in aggregate, not more than four thousand (4,000) oysters in one (1) day from Town Waters for December 4, 2007 Page 137 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting commercial purposes. ARTICLE III Other Marine Resources §219-113. Blue claw crabs. A. Blue claw crabs must be harvested according to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation regulations. Blue claw crabs measuring less than five inches from point to point of the upper shell shall not be taken from the waters of the Town of Southold. B. A permanent resident, a taxpayer, a temporary resident or a guest accompanied by a permanent resident may not take more than 1/2 bushel of blue claw crabs from Town waters in any one day for noncommercial purposes. [Amended 7-7-1982 by L.L. No. 5-1982] C. Female blue claw crabs shall not be taken from the waters of the Town of Southold. [Amended 7-14-1987 by L.L. No. 12-1987] D. Crab pots. No individual may set more than one crab pot, and each crab pot and buoy shall have affixed thereto the individual's shellfish permit number. [Added 7-14-1987 by L.L. No. 12-1987] §219-12 4. Mussels. A. A permanent resident, a taxpayer, a temporary non-resident or a guest accompanied by a permanent resident may not take contain more than one bushel of mussels from Town waters in one day for noncommercial purposes. Two (2) or more persons occupying the same boat may contain, in aggregate, not more than two bushels of mussels from Town Waters in one (1) day for noncommercial purposes. B. Not more than 10 bushels of mussels may be taken from Town waters for commercial purposes in one day by any one person. Two or more persons occupying the same boat may take contain, in the aggregate, not more than 20 bushels of mussels in one day for commercial purposes. C. Ribbed mussels shall be contained by handpicking only. Raking for mussels in peat bog areas shall be prohibited. D. The containment of mussels is further regulated by New York State. §219-135. Eels. A. Commercial purposes. No more than 50 eel pots or traps per permitted in Town waters shall be permitted. All pots must be identified with the shellfish permit December 4, 2007 Page 138 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting number. B. A permanent resident, taxpayer and temporary non-resident. No more than five eel pots in Town waters shall be permitted. All pots must be identified with the shellfish permit number. C. The containment of eels is further regulated by New York State. ARTICLE IV Operational §219-146. Culling shellfish and restoration of underwater lands. A. Shellfish shall be culled when taken. All shellfish taken which do not comply with the provisions of this article Chapter shall be immediately returned alive to the water in the immediate vicinity of where they were harvested. B. All lands under Town waters disturbed by the taking of shellfish shall be restored to their condition prior to the taking of such shellfish by the person taking such shellfish. §219-15. Fixed Gear A. Fixed gear shall be placed no closer than the outer edge of any channel system and the gear shall not impede navigation. §219-167. Restricted areas. Shellfish shall not be taken from any Town waters which have been restricted by the Town Board of Trustees, provided that such restricted areas shall have been properly designated by a resolution duly passed by said Board of Trustees and properly staked and notices posted by said Board of Trustees. In addition, shellfish shall not be taken from the following habitat sanctuary zone in Hallock Bay, North of the line formed by the following coordinates (excluding Little Bay): from a westerly point at Lat 41 degrees 8 minutes 17.22 seconds N, Long 72 degrees 16 minutes 40.68 seconds W, for a distance 5,190 feet, S 81 degrees 10 minutes 8 seconds E, to an easterly point at Lat 41 degrees 8 minutes 24 seconds N, Long 72 degrees 15 minutes 33.81 seconds W. Such sanctuary area, depicted on a mapped image, shall be made part of all permits issued pursuant to this Chapter. §219-17. Planting of Shellfish Seed. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, the Board of Trustees may approve an organization plan for planting shellfish seed in Town Waters and upon approval, the Board of Trustees may then authorize the approved organization and other volunteers acting under its supervision to plant shellfish seed in accordance with the approved plan. December 4, 2007 Page 139 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting §219-18. Transplanting of shellfish. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article Chapter, the Town Board of Trustees may authorize the transplanting of shellfish in Town waters of any age or size, subject to its supervision, when it shall find that such shellfish are in danger of destruction as the result of predators, economic factors or other detrimental causes. §219-19. Dredges and scrapes. Except as permitted by § 219-810C of this article Chapter, the use of a dredge, scrape, ell eel dredge, hydraulic means or similar device towed by a boat operated by mechanical power or other means is prohibited in Town waters. Except as permitted by § 219-10C of this article, the use of a dredge, scrape, ell dredge or similar device towed by a boat operated by mechanical power or other means is prohibited in Town waters except by special permission of the Trustees for scientific study projects. §219-20. Vegetation removal prohibited. No person shall remove beach grasses or wetland vegetation of any kind, nor place spoil thereon, in any other area of the Town of Southold without prior written approval by the Board of Town Trustees of the Town of Southold. §219-21. Aquaculture/Maraculture Exemption. The Board of Trustees may grant an exemption or variance, in terms of permitted sizes, number and time periods of harvest, from the provisions of this Chapter for aquaculture/maraculture activities that are properly permitted by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation. §219-221. Penalties for offenses. A. Any person convicted of an offense against any provision of this article shall be deemed to have committed a violation against such article and also shall be liable for any such offense or penalty therefor. A.B. For every each offense against any provision of this article Chapter, the person committing the same shall be subject to a fine not to exceed $500 or imprisonment not exceeding 15 days, or both such fine and imprisonment. B.C. A second conviction for an offense against any of the provisions of this article within a period of one year shall result in immediate revocation of their permit. shall constitute and effect an immediate forfeiture of a permit issued to such person. No new permit shall be issued to such person for at least one year after such forfeiture. December 4, 2007 Page 140 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting D. Any person committing an offense against this article shall be subject to a civil penalty enforceable and collectible by the Town for each such offense. Such penalty shall be collectible by and in the name of the Town. C.E. In addition to the above-provided penalties and punishment, the Town Board may also maintain commence an action or proceeding in the name of the Town in a court of competent jurisdiction to compel compliance with or to restrain by injunction the offense against this article Chapter. §219-23. Coordination and enforcement. The Director of Code Enforcement and/or the Bay Constable are responsible for coordination and enforcement of the provisions of this Chapter, and have the authority to issue violations of the provisions of this Chapter. 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 on January 1, 2008, after filing with the Secretary of State as provided by law. RESULT: CLOSED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: William P. Edwards, Councilman SECONDER: Louisa P. Evans, Justice AYES: Krupski Jr., Edwards, Ross, Wickham, Evans, Russell Jim King ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: I can tell you, if you like, the differences between this and what was heard in August, if that will help. You had a full hearing on the changes in August, since then the major salient changes is that there is a shellfish sanctuary area that is plotted out by coordinates in Hallocks Bay and that is an area where no shellfish are to be taken and then there was a less significant change in that we addressed an issue of the age of children who may take shellfish, I think it was determined that kids 10 and over should have a permit. People 10 and over should have a permit, so kids 10 and 11 can get a non-commercial permit. But, and kids younger than that can take shellfish but they have to be accompanied by somebody who has a permit and they count towards that permit holders daily total. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: How many clams can a 10 year old take? ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Well, I think the concern was that somebody would bring all their kids with them and then say, they get two bushels, they get two bushels, they get two bushels… December 4, 2007 Page 141 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Fair enough. Fair enough. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: So that was addressed, otherwise, the changes are all the same that were heard in August. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Good. I would like to have the fastest roll call vote in the history of Southold Town government…oh, sorry. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: It was duly noted in the newspaper and the Town Clerk’s bulletin board. JIM KING: Jim King, Southold Town Trustee. This is another code that we are going to continue looking at to make changes to because there is a lot of aquaculture interest and I think we are going to have to start looking at that a little more seriously on what we are doing there. But on one of these changes, it was back from the 30’s. There is a lot of old stuff in there and we are kind of trying to bring it up to date. DAVE BERGEN: Dave Bergen, Southold Town Trustee. We took away some things that we don’t even have any jurisdiction over; shrimp and migratory… MR. KING: We will be continuing to review it. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay, thank you, Jim. Anybody else like to address the Town Board on the shellfish code? (No response) Let’s close the hearing. Closing Remarks Linda Goldsmith SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody from the public like to come before the Town Board and address us on any issue? LINDA GOLDSMITH: My name is Linda Goldsmith, I am from East Marion. I have some concerns about the Oki-do hearing and what happened. I would like to e-mail them to Supervisor Russell tomorrow, if he will share them with the rest of the Board. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I will get it to them as quickly as you get it to me. MS. GOLDSMITH: Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Would anybody else like to address the Town Board? (No response) Let's close the meeting. VII. Motion To: Adjourn Town Board Meeting COMMENTS - Current Meeting: RESOLVED that this meeting of the Southold Town Board be and hereby is declared adjourned at 11:39 December 4, 2007 Page 142 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting P.M. * * * * * Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman SECONDER: Louisa P. Evans, Justice AYES: Krupski Jr., Edwards, Ross, Wickham, Evans, Russell