Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLL 2008 #14DAVID A. PATERSON STATE OF NEW YORK DEPAItTMENT OF STATE ONE COMMERCE IPLAZA 99 W.a~HINGTON AVENUE ALBAN~Y, NY 1223.1-0001 LORRAINE A. CORT~-s-VAZQ UEZ November 5, 2008 Lynda M Rudder Deputy Town Clerk Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold NY 11971 RECEIVED NOV 1 2 2008 Southol~t Town Clerk RE: Town of Southold, Local Law No. 14, 2008, filed on November 4, 2008 Dear Sir/Madam: The above referenced material was received and filed by this office as'indicated. Additional local law filing forms can be obtained from our website, www. d os. state, ny. u s/co rp/m isc. html. Sincerely, Linda Lasch Principal Clerk State Records and Law Bureau (518) 474-2755 WWW.DO$.STATE.NY.tJ~ · E-MAIL: IE#FO~DOS.STATE.NY.US SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD PUBLIC HEARING September 9, 2008 7:35 PM Present: Supervisor Scott Russell Justice Louisa Evans Councilman Thomas Wickham Councilman Albert Krupski Councilman William Ruland Councilman Vincent Orlando This public hearing was called to order at 8:11 PM COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suflblk County, New York, on the 12th day of August, 2008, a Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law" and NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, on the 9th day of September, 2008 at 7:35 p.m. at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. The proposed Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law" reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 2008 A Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law". BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: Purpose - The purpose of this amendment is to provide an additional path by which owners of lots deemed "merged" may apply to waive those mergers under certain circumstances. II. Chapter 280 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: § 280-11. Waiver of merger. Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing September 9, 2008 2 If a lot has merged pursuant to the provisions of Section 280-10, the Zoning Board of Appeals may waive the merger and recognize original lot lines upon public hearing and finding that: (1) (2) The lot proposed to be recognized has not been transferred to an unrelated person or entity since the time the merger was effected; and TSc Upon balancing whether: (a) The proposed waiver would recognize a lot that is as large, or greater in size than a maiority of the improved lots within a 1000 foot distance from any lot line of the lot proposed to be recognized; (b) The lot proposed to be recognized is vacant and has historically been treated an maintained as a separate and independent residential lot since the date of its original creation; and (c) The proposed waiver and recognition will create an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.. 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. I am sure that this means that the proposed waiver and recognition will not create an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I hope. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: The rest of it is just text that goes along with that. So that is the additional text that has been proposed for this public hearing tonight. This public heating has been noticed in the local newspaper as a classified. It has appeared on the Town Clerk's bulletin board outside and it has been forwarded to the Planning Board for their comment. The Planning Board has Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing September 9, 2008 3 commented in a memo dated yesterday, 'The Planning Board has reviewed the proposed local law regarding amendments to the waiver provisions and it supports the proposal, it has also been sent to the County of Suffolk for its comments. The County of Suffolk has responded 'Pursuant to the requirements of the Suffolk County Administrative code, this application is considered to be a matter of local determination as there is no apparent significant county wide or inter-community impact.' We have a memo dated yesterday from Mark Terry, the principal planner, regarding the LWRP content and the relevant sentence is 'The proposed action is consistent with the policy standards and therefore is consistent with the LWRP.' There is a short environmental assessment form that has been filled out and signed and that completes the notes in the file. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody like to address the Town Board on this matter? Mr. Lewis? DR. ROBERT LEWIS: Good evening. My name is Robert Lewis, my wife who owns our property with me is here and we would appreciate if I could make the first point and she could follow in continuity because in our family she has the last word. Our home is at 570 West Cove Road on Nassau Point. We purchased out' land in 1971, it consisted of a main parcel that consisted of a fraction over an acre and a vacant lot of .59 acres. It was designated vacant residential lot. A few months ago, while estate planning, our local attorney told us that our separate vacant building lot had probably been merged and we therefore could not put the lots into our separate estates in order to reduce the future tax burden on our children. Needless to say, we were shocked that our constitutionally guaranteed right to our property, which we understood was guaranteed along with our life and liberty, could be taken from us without due process by the Town of Southold. We are defining due process as a legal proceeding which is done fairly, I found that on Google. I am not a lawyer and I am sure there are all kinds of definitions for due process but that seemed like a pretty good one to me, to us. The Town did not notify us, the two parcels remained unchanged on our tax bills all these years and we have with us a notice which we found in the Town records from the Southold Town regarding the merger law. It appeared in 1995 in a document called the Traveler Watchman, I may be getting some of the details wrong but I think they are substantially correct. We did not subscribe to the Traveler Watchman and it is dated misleadingly and incorrectly, "If you own more than one undersized lot, consult your attoruey or the Southold Town." Had we, by some stroke of luck, seen this notice, we still would have been mislead, because we do not own more than one under sized lot. And in fairness to everyone, I think the legislation is so complicated that mistakes are apparently made, depending on which clause you look at. I have a copy of this if anyone is interested in actually seeing that 1 am not making the story up. We welcome the amendment being discussed tonight as an attempt by the Town to address what we feel, what feels to us to be a violation of our trust. Number two, we are hopeful that paragraph 280-11 of the local law 2008, which Mr. Wickham read, will provide us relief in the hardship imposed by the merger law because we believe our lots meet with the condilions for waiver of merger. But we are very concerned about how the specific language describing the lot size under paragraph 280-11 capital A to small a, how that language differs from the language in the original waiver of merger law. The new amendment says "The proposed waiver would recognize a lot that is a large or greater in size than the majority of the improved lots within 1,000 foot distance from any lot line of the lot proposed." I believe Mr. Wickham just read that to you. the original law states that "the waiver would recognize a lot that is consistent with lots in that neighborhood." We find, my wife and I, that the 1,000 foot condition is somewhat arbitrary and that the amendment does not seem to take into account that the waterfront Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 4 September 9, 2008 building lots, at the time they were created, had to be, were 100 foot wide on the water. Anybody with more waterfront footage and therefore more acreage got that offering by buying an extra lot or dividing a lot with their neighbor. Which is why we, for instance, have over an acre on our larger parcel. The point, for instance, a 300 or 400 lbot circumference around us would be much more, a truer measure of how we fit into our neighborhood which involves a lot of pieces of land on the water. The point that I am trying to make is that this law could be passed, ! think you said this evening, and the Zoning Board might still disqualify us for the waiver of merger because our lot, established sometime around 1900 might be several hundreths of an acre smaller than the average of a number of interior lots on our peninsula which are in no way comparable to the waterfront property which we are on. So we are very concerned about that and why the language is specific this way and SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Can I address, really quick? 1 had actually proposed many of the drafts of the law. The problem was with the current law, it says that if it is consistent with the community, they should have the lot. The Zoning Board of Appeals has been saying no, to be honest, to everything. They haven't considered the character and content of the community, so that when you have a community of half acre lots and then you have this one separate lot that was merged by no fault of the owner, they would look at it and they would say no to that. And I thought that was not the intention of the law because that half acre lot is completely consistent with the character of that community and they ought to weigh that more heavily than they have been. I tried to make it more empirical, so that they had to waive it based on those criteria. I actually did talk to Pat the other day and Pat, I am sorry, Pat Moore the attorney, who had said well, the problem with that is you don't want to lose sight of the community itself and the 1,000 feet is a little too empirical and a little bit too, perhaps, strident. I agree with that. My only intent was to get the Zoning Board of Appeals to start looking at the community again, because I don't feel like they've been looking at the community for a few years now. They've been virtually saying no to almost everything and that was not the intent of the law. The idea was to have them look at your lot, recognize it's the same size, virtually, just about every lot down in that community, I know where your live, because I grew up right around the block from you and say there is no practical reason to want to keep this lot from be recognized as a building lot. Pat, i know you wanted to raise your hand. You could probably do this and address it much more artfully then I have, so. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Why don't we let him finish? DR. LEWIS: ... my specific point. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I'm sorry, l'm sorry, I'm sorry, doctor, I'm sorry. DR. LEWIS: You had specific point that when we went yesterday or two days ago and looked at the interior lots, a lot of them are .65 and we are .59 and if the Zoning Board is doing a mathematical formula... COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I don't know ifit's~ there are two parts to this, these changes. The first part is to protect the town against, really, developers that come in and buy two lots that have been merged and then try to get a really good attorney to try to really cash on a wronged situation. So that's to protect the Town. The second part is 2A, B, and C. It's a balancing test. The ZBA is going Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing September 9, 2008 to look at all those components and I don't think it's a mathematical test, I think it's more of a balancing test to see whether your lot is going to meet the character of the neighborhood. As opposed to trying to just do a mathematical formula on a calculator and saying yes or no. DR. LEWIS: Ok, that's what I was concerned about and Barbara just wanted to ... COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: We had a lot of, we had a long discussion. Town Board has worked really personally, long and hard on this. DR. LEWIS: Mr. Wickham? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I would like to heat' what people in the audience have to say about this. Not so much what we are saying. I'd like to use the hearing, to hear ~vhat you and Mrs. Lewis had to say. BARBARA LEWIS: I would like to speak up in support of Law 2008, we understand that the purpose of the merger law Article 320-12, was to reasonably control and prevent the unnecessary loss of those currently open lands and within the town containing large continuous areas of prime agricultural soil. Our lot, created about a hundred years ago, has always been zoned residential and is in a community that has been largely developed. We have been told that the original law was intended to stop high density development by parties, as you said Mr. Krupski, who assume they could unmerge large properties after they bought them. We are here to give voice to the unfairness and inappropriateness of the application for the above law to people like us. We are the same owner for thirty-seven years on this property. The party before had the land for fifty years and we have kept it rustic, no lawns, no pesticides, no tennis courts, no swimming pools, no sprinkler system. We converted the garage thirty-five years ago into a play room and still live in the 40 x 40 foot summer home. As a matter of fact, Mr. McGannon, who is now 103 years old, he is the original owner's son, visited us last summer and was happy to see how few changes had been made. We fought and helped defeat our neighbors proposed dock because of the negative environmental impact. In fact we believe the ratio of structure to land mass on our property is very close to what is described in the 1883 booklet, Peconic Heart, which details how, you call it Nassau Point, was back then. We have still most of the original plantings. Oars is a true bird sanctuary. We grow blueberries and don't use pesticides. In conclusion, selling our vacant lot has always been a thil safe option, which we hope never have to exercise because we and our children love our property and would do anything to hold onto it. But it is also very close to our existing home. This property like for which we paid in 1971, and in the event of illness and in the face of constantly rising taxes as we age, having the possibility of selling the lot would prevent our having to give up the entire property. As everyone knows in our area, if the matter were to occur, having to give up the property, our house would be tom down, and a huge mansion would be put on this prime piece of real estate, we have 256 feet of water front with a 50 foot bluff. The highest point in our cove. In otl~:er words, in our case the merger law could likely have an outcome quite the opposite of ils stated purpose. We know we can't turn back the clock. Cutchogue is more and more losing its agricultural and rustic charm. But if there is a chance to delay this process, the Town should take advantage of it by working with people like us. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you very much. I am going to go to Pat Moore first. Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 6 September 9, 2008 PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Thank you. I have to say thank you, thank you, thank you for finally putting this back on the burner. I know it's a difficult issue because I know that your intention is good to prevent the speculation that you all are concerned with, but I have to tell you in all the years that I was practicing and applying the old merger law, I don't think I had one speculator come before that board at the time and ask to undo something that was clearly a parcel that had been merged intentionally or merged in such a way that it did not conform to the rest of the community. So, I think that your concerns, I appreciate your concerns but on the other hand I think that the language that you have incorporated into this, I think hurts more people and does not address the issues that I've been, that I've had my clients come and appear betbre you and explain the circumstances where this gentleman points out that in his estate planning, he just recently learned this, well, that's pretty much how everybody has learned that their parcels had merged. By estate planning or someone passes away, they've actually inherited the piece of property and they go and try to develop it and find out that all the plans that their parents had went out the window. What I would like to point out, I think you mentioned. Well, let me back up. I think that the simple solution here is just to take out the economic hardship language out of the old merger law. It is as simple as that because we have a very good Zoning Board. We've always had a very good Zoning Board and there were times when they denied waivers and they approved waiver mergers. They saw right through applications that really didn't have merit. So for the most part I can say that I agreed with them 90% of the time whether I was an applicant's attorney or I was x~atching from the sidelines. We have skillful people mqd I give you credit for always appointing people that are well intentioned and bright. That is a very good Board. We don't need all this language. The balancing test is the language of the waiver of merger. That is what they should be doing. It onl3 occurred 5 years ago that somebody got real cute and took out what was the philosophy behind economic hardship. It was purely, economic hardship, at the time of the adoption, if yoa go back to the adoption of the law, was to prevent the speculators. What happened is that 5 years ago, we lost our institutional memory, and we suddenly warped it into something that it wasn't and from that point forward, all waiver mergers were denied. Not because the board was not being reasonable, looking at the neighborhood. It was that the law, now based on the courts rule, used the economic hardship language, is a use variance criteria. So, they the courts, look at the language that historically in the variance language, the Town Law, has defined as an economic hardship. So that is truly, you are trying very hard, and I commend you for your effort, but my concern is when i take the examples that I have in my file cabinet, waiting for this waiver merger law to get fixed, I apply it and I look at it and say, well, they are now creating a whole new set of problems. You can very simply adopt tonight the removal of the waiver of economic hardship, and it would open up the door again for everybody who is sitting here, relief that they had not that long ago. The courts have told you what the problem is. Now all you need to do is just address that problem. If you find that after using the modified language, that it's still not working, then maybe step 2 needs to take place. I commend you again. A year ago you cleaned up the problem with the spousal automatic merger because of death, but I pulled out one from my files today, to compare the language and I looked and 1 said well, that happened one owner before, and it wasn't recognized, and all of this and now ~ hax, e a family that was hurt because when this occurred there was no recognition that a waiver, excuse me that a merger had occurred. The situation the gentleman, I'm sorry I don't know your name, but he raised an excellent point, which is, and I tried previously in my memos to the board, numerous times I nave said the problem is that when the law was adopted, very experienced zoning pmchtioners out here, before my time, because it was adopted be/bre my time, saw the law and the advertisement and when he read it, I went ah ha, that's where Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 7 September 9, 2008 they got the idea from. They took, there was a 1 acre parcel that was conforming. The person, the family owned a ½ acre parcel next door. The fact was that all the practitioners, because of the language as it was advertised, because they didn't own two non-conforming parcels, disregarded it. It wasn't a problem because there was already a conforming parcel. The non-conforming, did not make the conforming parcel bigger. That wasn't the intent of the law. But here we are again ,institutional memory. We go five, ten years down the line and all of a sudden, that advertisement, or the notice, which I never saw belbre and when he read it, I went that explains it, because I looked back a waiver merger example that some very experienced practitioners, said how can they have not seen this, because I'm looking at the way it's interpreted today. Not the way it was advertised at the time. So, very simply just take out that economic hardship and we can move forward. I will point out, you asked me to explain the provision in the law l~cre, if you do choose to push this one, the thousand foot, I have, I took Mrs. Meryl, that the lovely lady that grew up in the Soviet block and came to you and said essentially what you said, which is this is un-American. I came from the Soviet country, and you've taken my property, this un-American, in her lovely little lady in white. She told me she was coming over here, and I said Fm not confing over there. You'll have to deal with her. I took a thousand feet from her parcel, and she's in probably one of the most developed areas in town, and I will show you whaI impact that has. Now I understand what you meant by it but I don't think it comes out in the language. So you can see that when you measure a thousand feet, it takes you way outside the .... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah, but in her case thru would be beneficial because you are only counting that farmland to the east, I'm sorry to the west, as one lot. We've discussed that thoroughly and let me just, but it wasn't perhaps the most ar[ful way but you need to understand this wasn't designed to give the ZBA more criteria. This was designed to be a waiver of the merger itself to avoid the whole process, if you have something that is consistent with everything else, it's a waiver of the merger. But I would think in this particular case she is in excellent shape. MS. MOORE: She is. Well, that's a very good example but even in an example like that where the lots are very small, you can see that the thousand feet is a tremendous area. Now, that's one example but you have other areas where the subdivisions, adjacent subdivisions, may be three times the size.. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Sure. MS. MOORE: and now you've thrown all the numbers, the averages, because what happens is the Zoning Board, one application up through the tenth application they ask you to come in with statistics. We start getting into the minutia of whether or not, what is the average lot size? You know you go into the real numbers crunching. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Sure and that's fair. What we tried to do, the original proposal was for 500 feet. What we tried to do is say let's define what we mean by community, the area and it was probably too empirical, again not most artful, but it was well intentioned to say well, look this is an area where you have a built out community, and you have a lot that is the same size as everything else. What is the environmental benefit of negating that lot'? MS. MOORE: Absolutely. I agree with you wi',olehearteclly. Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 8 September 9, 2008 SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I could tell you, in their particular case, that these are people that have done everything right for 30 some odd years. MS. MOORE: Exactly. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: And Pat. can we characterize your views as saying before you pass this thing tonight, take a look at the original waiver of merger and just delete the portion on hardship? Is that basically what I hear you saying? MS. MOORE: Well what I'm saying is, you don't have to delay this action any further. This law, the notice, had deleted that portion. You can choose not to adopt the rest of it or hold off and just adopt the portion that takes care of it most immediately. I do not want to see any further delays. It has been a 5 year process. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: But let me point out though, that you haven't removed the Zoning Board of Appeals from many of the processes. This law', if passed, would do that. Now maybe we need to re-visit the 1,000 foot issue and define corntnunity better. MS. MOORE: That's not the way I read it. I see it as... TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: it still goes through the Zoning Board. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: It still goes through the Zoning Board of Appeals. TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: No, No ifs not exempt. MS. MOORE: No. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: The reason for the economic hardship, was because of the ZBA decision and the court supported them in that. ! am not, if} we can try it that way. MS. MOORE: No, No, No. Let's back up. Economic hardship, for about 10 years, when we were, when I applied, I think I did my first waiver merger la~, as the law first got adopted. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I understand. MS. MOORE: The economic hardship was not interpreted, neither by the town, the Zoning Board, by the legislative authority that adopted it, that was not the definition, that was not the intent of that language. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Right, I understand that. MS. MOORE: It only became, when, I don't know who, the Zoning Board as a group, with legal guidance... Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 9 September 9, 2008 SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Right. MS. MOORE: ...said we want to say no, this is the way you say it, by economic hardship and now the courts say, well yeah economic hardship is the way. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: So bnt if there intent is to say no with out better guidance, then they're still going to say no and then your going to be in an Article 78. I don't want to create work for the attorneys. I want to do something that's fair for the landowners. MS. MOORE: I, 1, 1, 1 wish that this would make things easier. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. MS. MOORE: I'm not sure that this language is really making the job easier. I think that in fact in many cases it's going to preclude applications because of the first issue which is whether or not it is the same related entity. I must have had 5 or 6, throughout the course of applications, where it was not noticed until the second owner and that poor person, that individual had bought a lot thinking that that lot could be develop. Everybody belicved it could be developed and all of a sudden it comes that, that two owners ago, or when the subdivision was approved it was held for too long by the original developer in the 70's. It was held for more than the period of time, and all of a sudden you, you, you .... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That's exactly what who don't want to un-merge though. Caveat emptor, well, you are a knowledgable buyer, you need to do your homework when you're buying a vacant lot. This law is designed to offer relief to people who are effected specifically by this law not by people who came later. MS. MOORE: But you're assuming that .... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That's what title searches are tbr. MS. MOORE: Now it is but you're assuming a perfect world, okay? There are situations, where it is not known. There are errors that are made. There are, the waiver merger, again your belief goes through the subdivision process. So l'm not so sure that you want to exclude everybody, including entities estates. The next in line. You know yogi have people that have inherited properties, that's just, I don't believe that's right. They inherited properties that their parents specifically believed... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: They are excluded. They am part of the group we are trying to offer relief to. This is related parties. MS. MOORE: That's what I wasn't clear whether this entity, or unrelated, because it speaks in terms of transfer to an unrelated person or entity. I don't know of an estate, when it goes to the children of the heirs or the family of the heirs, whether that is an entity or a related entity. I think it should be open. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is an issue ibr the Zoning Board of Appeals to sort out. Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 10 September 9, 2008 MS. MOORE: But it sounds like you are trying to give the Zoning Board the flexibility to say yes but you've precluded them right ir'rom number 1. You can't walk in the door if you are not the right entity. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Right COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: A related, a related entity. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That was the intent. If I just bought 2 pieces of property a few years ago, and I'll give you an example. I bought a house with a vacant piece of property. I bought a house and a vacant lot but I bought that years alter that iaw was passed. I went into the equation knowing that that was a merged lot. I don't think that I should be looking toward the Zoning Board, I mean I made an application, but I don't think I should be entitled to some automatic exemption from this law because I was a knowledgeable buyer. I did my homework. I knew what the title was on the house and on that vacant lot. We talking about people like Dr. Lewis and his wife, who have been sitting there/hr years doing everything right, and just didn't know that this law was passed. That's who we are trying to offer the relicf to. I agreed with some of the artfulness that we can re- visit but I'm not sure we want to start mandating un-merger of everything. That wasn't the intent. It was to go after the injured properties or to help the injured parties. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Okay. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Pat, I have to say, 'while on the Zoning Board for 4 years, seeing you and seeing Gail, the only two applicants I saw there were death by merger, which we fixed, and the other one was estate planning, as the Doctor's doing right now. I didn't see builders trying to come in. But the one common denominator they all had, they all... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Iqey, you have to mention Deborah Doty, we are trying be an equal opportunity... COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Oh. DEBORAH DOTY: Actually in transfer's MS. MOORE: Yeah, there are other examples where the transfer COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Scott, let's let the people speak, let them... COUNCILMAN RULAND: But the one co,ninon denominator is they always got the separate tax bills from the county and that was their, they felt they were still separate. People during the 80's and 90's were building careers and raising families, didn't see the paper like the doctor. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Let me ask you something. Would the Town Board consider tabling this, or adjourning this, keeping it open so that we could fix some of these glitches? Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 11 September 9, 2008 COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: No.. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I think... MS. DOTY: I would like to address the board. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I mean after we listen to everybody. Okay. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: As a procedural thing, I would like to be able to hear everybody who wants to speak tonight and I think we should just be in a listening mode. Then at the end, we'll decide what we want to do. I like your suggestion of giving some more thought to it and not necessarily voting on it tonight. But meanwhile I would just like to hear, one after another, what people have to say. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: But it's good to give clarification to people... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That's right. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: ...who, that's the intent of the law. That's the intent of the changes. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Go in the direction of helping not hurting. MS. MOORE: No, I want the feed back because many of the questions, if they are my questions, there are other people in the audience that have the same or similar questions. So... MS. DOTY: IfI may, I just want to... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Deborah Doty, Cutchogue. MS. MOORE: Yeah MS. DOTY: Deborah Doty, attorney iu Cutchogue. Mr. Orlando I actually dispute what you just said because I represented a client who bought a vacant lot, in Orient~ and they bought it from the children of the original owners. The original owners, and this goes to transfer as well, the original owners owned the adjacent lot, which was developed. In 1996, a local attorney named Gary Olsen, wrote to the Building Department and gave them the information, gave them the deeds. The head of the Building Department wrote a letter to Gary Olsen saying, if you do deeds and get them recorded before the end of the year, to these parcels and get them in separate names, they will not merge. So Gary went ahead and did that. Ok, so it was done before the end of 1996. Three years later, the house parcel was sold. I think it was in 2003, the vacant land was sold to some individuals. Now, their attorney was from up west but he got a copy of the Building Department's letter. Building Department stationery saying if you do this you're okay. So he said okay. So they bought the parcel. Now I would find it very reasonable to rely on letterhead issued by the Building Department. The building permit application was put in. Denied. It had merged with the adjacent parcel that had previously been sold to somebody else. Now these people, with vacant land, wanted to build a house on it and I had to make an application for a waiver of merger and there was some question as to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 12 September 9, 2008 whether or not it was actually going to be granted. And then the question was, who was going to pay my clients, what was then the outrageous sum of $166~000.00 for the vacant land that they bought, that they couldn't do anything with. Welk the board granted the waiver. So... MS. MOORE: And I had one that was very similar to that, too. MS. DOTY: That actually goes to two points... COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: See and I gave you the waiver. MS. DOTY: Yeah, well I asked you if you were going to pay them the $166,0007 COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Persuaded then. MS. DOTY: That persuaded you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: But it's an unfortunate problem but that's how the process, those mitigating factors should be. MS. DOTY: And that goes to the two points~ that... MS. MOORE: Right MS. DOTY: .... goes to the subsequent transfer after the merger had occurred... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Right, okay. MS. DOTY: ...as well as the merger issue. MS. MOORE: But let the applicants go forward. If the Zoning Board sees through it and has a problem with it, they will deny it. In your case and the one very similar in my case, they realized everybody here was innocent. Innocent purchasers. There was reliance on governmental permits, governmental vacant land, C.O.'s. There, at this point those documents are some what meaningless because you go back to the single and separate that you rely on. But in the days when those vacant land C.O.'s where being issued, nobody debated single and separate. So, my caution is please, don't take such hard and fast rule to get in the door, allow the people to get in the door. Let the cimumstances be explained and if the Zoning Board feels that it's reasonable, let them decide. So far they have done a pretty good job. So .... COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: But Deborah, I clon't remember that application in details but I bet you they both got separate tax bills from the County. Didn't they? MS. DOTY: Yeah. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: That's the false security that people get, that the County can't be wrong, l get two separate tax bills, the3' are two separate pieces. Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing l 3 September 9, 2008 SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I'm sorry, but l don't think this particular proposal precludes them from coming in the front door and maybe we just need to simply strike the economic hardship issue. But they can still come in the front door. What this does is spell out under which the ZBA has a perfunctory obligation to waive. You still have those discretionary heatings. What this says is if these criteria are met, it has to be waived. So, I want to, again I know I'm already saying we should table it. MS. MOORE: I sure I particularly agree with that because. Pat, is that... TOWN ATTORNEY FlNNEGAN: No. The first criteria. You need the first criteria to get in the door. MS. MOORE: Right which is the one that .... TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: The other three are a balancing test. MS. MOORE: Right. TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: ...for the Zoning Board to decide. Whether they decide... COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: But you get to argue you case, whether you make... MS. MOORE: No. The first criteria... COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Who judges that? MS. MOORE: The Zoning Board will not accept an application for a waiver of merger... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: For any waive;'? MS. MOORE: Any waiver of merger. SIdPERVISOR RUSSELL: Because, welk that was not my intent either. MS. MOORE: Because of number one. MS. DOTY: It would get denied in the Building Department. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay, that certainly wasn't my intent either. My intent was to say look, we hear your cases but you've got circumstances here that you have to weigh more heavily, such as these vacant lots that have been. So I think, 1 don~t know how the board feels but I would be willing to table it and work on a better taw. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Let's hear everyone else. Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 14 September 9, 2008 SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes. I certainly want to hear everybody else. MS. DOTY: If I may continue. I first want to compliment the Lewis' tbr being here. I think they gave the Town Board the flavor of what your citizens go through in these situations. I have had numerous clients come in and you just sit there and say I know you get two separate tax bills but. I know you get two separate tax bills, but. And it's vet3' difficult to explain to them how, in their mind, the town has stolen their property from them. UNIDENTIFIED: You must kill the messenger. MS. DOTY: I'm still here. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Good thing that was an ahnost MS. DOTY: You know and to sit there and try to say, well this is what the town thinks. Just, it doesn't work. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I agree. MS. DOTY: I took this proposed law and I actually looked at two different areas, which are very densely populated, and attempted to calculate a 1,000 fbot radius. One of the problems was, where on the lot line do you go, because the lot line moves. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Any lot line. Yeah. MS. DOTY: But on Nassau Point, in one particular instance, I went into the middle of Nassau Point and it was 128 lots that you had to look al. In Fleets Neck, it was 130. I went up to Duck Pond which you know is, it's got (inaudible) and so on and so forth. It was 33 lots. That's a lot. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. MS. DOTY: It's a lot to deal with. When I was speaking with the Lewis' about it, they said, well how do we find out? Do we calculate it from the tax map? What do we do? I said well, you go to the Assessor's office and pull out the books. 130 lots, that's a lot of time and a lot of energy. And who in the town is going to check up, number one, and who wants to pay an attorney that kind of money? I don't know. 1 would suggest, you know attorneys, we have to disagree. I'm not really sure that removing the economic hardship is necessarily appropriate. 1 think perhaps guidance as to what that means is appropriate. I have tbuud, and I haven't done one recently because I tell clients it's not worth it, that the Board has been applying severe or extreme or extraordinary economic hardship. We just had one involving Medicaid, Medicaid application. Do you think that's going a little far? And I would suggest that there is some reason in there, some balancing, some consideration for what people like the Lewis" arc going through. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I agree. MS. DOTY: Thank you. Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 15 September 9, 2008 SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody else like to come up and address the Town Board on this issue? LINDA GOLDSMITH: Hello, I'm Linda Goldsmith from East Marion. I just have a couple of questions maybe you could help me with. The word merge is in quotations. Could you explain to me what you mean by merged lot if it's in quotations. Does that mean a lot that has two separate tax bills but has some how gotten merged? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Welt merged by, yes, by statue. You can have two separate parcels, in other words it doesn't mean physical merger it means merger by ownership or by past ownership. MS. GOLDSMITH: But that would be two. that would be two lots that have separate tax bills? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Could be, ye,~. MS. GOLDSMITH: Okay, the reason why I am asking is there are, and I know of a couple of examples, um in town where there are some people who had built a house, I know one in Orient, a big farm lot, I think 1.9 acres or something and had left a big clump of it out on one side, saying oh look, you know now I'll have a lot later on for someone. And of course now because it's not 2.25 acres, when the zoning when the house was built was a .25 acre zoning. She was told if you have 2.25 acres you might be able to separate two acres and leave your house on a quarter acre, but you can't do that. So this does not address something like that? Is that correct? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: No. MS. GOLDSMITH: Ok. My second question is does this address, um, any of the lots that are and always have been not merged but one acre lot, not one acre, one house lots that someone has built a second house on? Will this allow them to come into the ZBA? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: No. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: No. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: No. MS. GOLDSMITH: ...and say oh well ~ou know um i have a second house here but it must be a merged lot and can I please get a C.O. on ~hat'? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: No. MS. GOLDSMITH: Okay, thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: This is about lots that have been recognized, at least at some point in the code life of Southold Town. Mr. Finora? I'm sorry ma'am, I meant to go to you but you are right after Mr. Finora. Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 16 September 9, 2008 JOSEPH FINORA: Joseph Finora, Mattituck. I just have a question, a couple of questions. First of all assuming, I don't have any too much of a problem with part I but part 2. What do you exactly mean by upon balancing? Does that mean that these three conditions must be met? COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I think it gives the ZBA the discretion to say they don't all have to be met. They all have to be considered. MR. FINORA: Okay. My other question is that with B the lot proposed to be recognized as vacant and has historically been treated as maintained as separate and independent residential lot. How far back will it go, you know, tbr a historical .... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That would be for the Zoning Board of Appeals to determine for themselves. Typically it would go back to the creation of a lot and look at the character and the use of that lot since its inception. Certainly since they can go back, I mean the Assessors inventory probably goes back to the late 50's before that you're probably going to be stumped. So, that would be at the discretion of the ZBA. MR. F1NORA: Okay. Assuming, if you assume that you met all the criteria here, do you still have to file an application with the Zoning Board of Appeals or is this a perfunctory... COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Yes. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes. TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: Yes. MR. FINORA: It would still have to be filed? Good. Thank You. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: To answer your one question, which was pretty hypothetically, if you have two lots next to each other, and you hypothetically took all the debris from it and you put grass and mowed it as if it was one big lot, il would be looked at as you only maintained it as one lot and you didn't keep it separate as a wooded lot. Something hypothetically like that. MR. FINORA: What I had in mind was two separate parcels, that they receive separate tax bills on and... COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Well that's one of ihe big issues I had while on the Zoning Board. Everyone stills gets two County tax bills, they don't recognize that they have been merged. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: The Town tax bills COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: The Town tax bills. They get two separate ones. MR. FINORA: Alright. Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 17 September 9, 2008 SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Again I would recoinmend if, ma'am? I'm sorry. Do you want to go? JOYCE SIRICO: I don't want to interrupt your train of thought. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: No, go ahead. JOYCE SIRICO: I'm Joyce Sirico. I'm a taxpayer here but I can't vote obviously because my primary residence is up the island a bit. ! am gratdhl also to see the Town deal with this issue. If you are familiar with my situation. I inherited two separate lots in Eastern Shores in Greenport from my father, one, from an aunt a year later and they were next to each other. I have been maintaining them separately as two investment lots for, you knox,, t;ae family has been paying the taxes for over forty years and when I went to sell them, I tbund that they had been merged as one and we've been through this before. I was denied a waiver of merger, I think in '05. What the problem I have with the language here is that there are these qualifying terms. The Board of Appeals may waive the merger. This is the same thing that happened betbre. Before it said they may waive it. It didn't say it had to meet all these qualifications. Which they asked us, in my case, they wanted all them met. Then again later on, upon balancing, whether. These are very, very subjective. And this is, I understand you guys want to instruct, I guess, tLe ZBA to, to do this reasonably but you don't have control over the decisions they make aad what they're going to be looking at. Do they take field trips and actually look at the character of the development? COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Yes. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes, yes they do. MS. SIRICO: They actually do? COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: They're supposed to go take a look at all the sites. MS. SIRICO: Alright. In my case, 1 mean these 100, over 160 half acre lots that were created in 1966 or 1963. 150 houses on those half acre lots, in that development. The lots I happen to own are down in the southwest corner of it. So if you're going to draw a circle, 1,000, I mean there's preserved land, there's Town land, I believe, and there"s undeveloped. What is an improved lot? Has a house on it? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Yes. MS. SIRICO: Okay. What if you're next to preserved land? And the majority of.... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Let me, again just explain, my original draft fbr this had a checklist and the ZBA shall waive or the lot is waived if, and you meet these three or four criteria. We looked at that, a farm lot, if it is the majority, and again my original proposal had 500 feet, a farm lot is one lot. So you look at the majority of the lots. Even if they are all to the east of you, you are still the overwhelming majority of improved lots are supporting your application. Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 18 September 9, 2008 MS. SIRICO: Isn't that also up to... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Well, my original proposal said they shall be waived if this, this and this is met. This is something of an amalgam of Town Board that says, well, we don't want to remove the discretion completely t¥om ZBA and they sort of moved along those lines and that is the give and take you have in legislating. But I would like at least, in certain circumstances, to create a law that just says these are waived. I can't speak te you specifically, I don't know the circumstances... MS. SIRICO: First of all, I am not sure, I haven't even gotten an answer from the Town ifI am even legally allowed to reapply because I think originally in the language you were allowed to do it once and if you were denied, you were never allowed to do it again. I think that was somewhere. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: But you would be allowed, if we changed the law. MS. SIRICO: If you changed the law. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Under the current code, you can apply tbr a waiver once. If you are turned down, you can always come back tbr a variance. It is a more expensive process and the likelihood of success isn't any greater but .... MS. SIRICO: Right. Alright, so if the law is changed, well then I would definitely recommend it be changed, so that I could reapply. But I don't know what is going to make the ZBA always judge reasonably. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Right. That is a good point. MS. SIRICO: I mean, how do you, unless you are going to give them meet A, B and C or meet three out of four, how are you going to be sure 'Lhey are doing it? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Well, the... MS. SIRICO: One of the things, it was so clear in my case that it was definitely staying in the character of the development. It was so obviously clear. And they threw that right out. And they said if you build another, an extra house in that development, you are affecting the environment. You know, and again, I know people keep bringing it up but here it is, I am still paying two separate tax bills. Still. Two library levies, two fire district levies. Two everything. And I am just going to throw this out, a year ago when I spoke Mr. Rt, ssell, you said in your case 1 just don't think you inherited what you thought you inherited. And I drove the whole way home stewing about that and I just want to answer it now that I have a chance .... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Sure. MS. SIRICO: I know exactly what I inherited. Two separate lots. And I kept them as two separate lots. For my family, for my children. For a future house, whatever. And you know, and again, the Town took them in a way. Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 19 September 9, 2008 SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah. I agree with you. That is why I proposed easing the law. And my comment might have seemed curt but it was an honest effort to say... MS. SIRICO: And I understand and I appreciated that .... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: We have a law that actually that was passed in the early 90's, that merged lots based on ownership back to the 80's. So you couldn't have even done anything to address the law as it was being passed because it was almost like it was de facto, well, we are going to merge them as of June 10, 1983 which was when we passed two acre zoning, which really wasn't pertinent to lots but point well taken. MS. SIRICO: Well, I think Mrs. Moore has brought up in the past too, that this was not made to punish residential property owners, it was more or less to keep speculators from you know, doing... COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: We are trying to give relief for homeo,vners here. MS. S1RICO: yeah. But it isn't doing that, I rnear~ it wasn't. I mean, I hope this will change things a little bit. But I am still a little wary at some of the language. The qualifying statements like may and upon balancing whether. They are very vague. Okay? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Jim? JIM DINIZIO: James DiNizio, Jr. I have been a member of the ZBA for the past 25 years and I can tell you if you don't subscribe to the Suflblk Times, many people have applied to us, evidently don't and I ask that question all the time. ~ll~is law, this merger law has been the bane of my existence since I have been on the Zoning Board. It has, it makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever, actually until I heard tonight because it seems to me like there is an underlying idea emanating from this Board that they are trying to protect the l'own fi'om developers and I understand that there developers and sometimes people develop land, that is how we all got here, most of us are sitting on homes that were developed. I suspect that there are lots that are out there that are still owned by people who develop them many, many years ago; got agreements from the town that said that this is the size lot that they can build on, however no one has ever showed me that example but I just, I am assuming that that is what is pushing this law. These two fine people right here should have no more trouble unmerging them lots than going into the building inspector and showing him their deed. And I am assuming that your lot are in the same name. and if they are in the same name, they have been in the same name for the past forty years and they don't have cesspools on them, they don't have swimming pools, they don't have tennis courts oil those lots, this should be as simple as, okay, here is your building permit. Your lots are umnerged. I'his shouldn't be, comparing them to the rest of the lots. These lots were approved at some point in time by somebody in this town. They were recognized. Somehow they got a deed and I, you know, I listened to Ms. Moore every time she comes up, she has very cogent, they make almost perfect sense to me, her reasoning and it seems to me that tbr whatever reason they don't get approved. Now I agree with the economic hardship, I can tell you, l rode hard on that economic hardship. Because quite honestly, that is a bugaboo. You, this is thrown in there and it is so subjecti~'e, so subjective, I mean, we have people telling us that economic hardship is I can't sell the lot. 1 have people, we have people that are affected by this law Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 20 September 9, 2008 who need to sell the lot because the husband had cancer. If that is not economic hardship, I don't know what is. Yet, somehow the Board co~ildn't be convinced. Even the law as you have it written here honestly, to me, if you took out C, could be handled by the building inspector. I mean, certainly any person can prove that the lot hasn't been transferred. Okay, where is the balancing act to that one? Now if you are saying upon balancing A, B and C, you gave specific criteria in A, that must be greater or equal to. Okay, for any lot that is smaller, you can't grant a variance on that. You have already specifically said what we are supposed to do in this law. Now if they meet that one but they don't meet another one, fine. But specifically, that lot, 25 feet, square f~et smaller, it is not getting approved. The first lot is recognized as vacant and has historically been treated and maintained as a single and separate independent, hey, anybody can testify to that. Any person can say no, look, I don't have cesspools om I don't have tcm'~Lg courts~ ~ doa't have, okay, then they should just go and get their building permit or if they have a lot, they can sell it, do what they want. C, to me, makes no sense at all. The proposed waiver recognized will, or well, it is will not create and that is the way it is in our law, an adverse impact on the ph)'sical al environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Okay, well listen, I have listened to people tell me what their neighborhood is. I have heard people say, well, if they cut down the trees on that io',, we ale going to lose our parks. Okay? I mean, people are human and so are Zoning Board members. And they can be swayed by those kinds of things. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: 1 have no pl~ce to dump my leaves. MR. DINIZIO: Some people care aborn t~ees more than others. Bat in any case, I appreciate, Scott, that this pretty much mirrors what I g~x,,c 5'aa l'olks about a year ago. Okay. It pretty much does. And you know, I don't want to. I knoxv of at least one person is going to benefit from this. Okay. One person, I know of one that came t)etore us, that we turned down, that would meet this criteria. Okay? l would not want that person to wait another day, okay, not to get their lot. However, and it is a big however, you have got to do better than this. You can't leave out so many people who expected to have these lots as their refirement, as their children's inheritance. They purchased those lots for those reasons and they were taken away from them simply because they are married. Think about that. And it seems to me and I ara hearing t?mn up there, more like, not tough but they have to do their homework. Well, no. honestly, they don't have to do their homework. I don't read the Suftblk Times, I just skim througl~ it. Ncvcr lead the lcgai notices. I got this because I am a member of the Zoning Board and I get ~-mails that have this stuff in here. 1 got it this morning. The hearing that l believe, the code committee meeting that you had on this, I tried to attend. That door was closed. This is where, and I am, I nave got to applaud you for that tbr wanting to listen to the people because you have to listen to the people. I tm~c listened to them for the past 20 years about this. And if we can't get it right, right no,v, it is never going to happen. People have died waiting for this law to be changed and I can tell yon Deborah Doty, a perfect example, she will disagree with me but two people died in a car accident and because one person died five or it was within the day, 20 minutes? Forty rninutes apart, the wrong way. I~ the5 ~'onld have aied the other way, they would have had two lots but because they die& those lo~s were merged. We turned them down. Now, there were extenuating circumstances on that but ttfis is haw crazy this law is. I am just hoping that, you mentioned nothing in here about the decisions that have been ~nade already. People have read the law, people have complied with tl~c iaw; didn't ask for waivers, didn't, didn't bother because they read the law. Do those people get co come back now? How do we let those people know? Maybe they sold that lot already. Maybe they sold the entire house and lot together at a lesser price. Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 21 September 9, 2008 You know, I understand, time moves on but this law quite honestly, in my opinion, took it away from them in a not so democratic way. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I understand that, Jim. This is to try and revise that law and make it fairer and if it is not perfect, we need to talk about how to make it a better law. A better revision. MR. DINIZIO: I don't think we need a perfect law but 1 think you need a lot more than what you are giving them and you know, if anything if you are going to pass it tonight, if you can strike C, I think you will at least, you are on the right road. Certainly you have got the economic hardship out of there, this C basically leaves it, the door open for a bunch of people from the neighborhood to come in and complain about the fact that they are going to lose a lot that has trees on it. Quite honestly. And I don't think that we need to go down that road on a lot that a person had a deed to, that person is, you know, basically a buildable, a building lot. 1 mean, I am saying that if you can put a house on it with it there not be a variance, that is a building lot. So, you know, I would like for you to pass it tonight but I would like you to strike C and then I will come anytime you would like but you have got to become a little more consistent with your meeting. 1 would like to see at least do a better job tbr people like this. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah. Well that is understood. But I have to tell you just to come in on one thing and I know, Tom, you don't want me to talk but I have to. If you said at the hearing tonight that people better do their homework, that hasn't emanated **'rom this Board. I made point before to say this is to undo the people that you just talked about, the people that have had their lots and intended to build their lot, intended to have a lot for years, not someone who bought an injured lot and they knew it was injured. That might sound a little crass but you that's, you are the one that recommended that we put that criteria in there to say that you are the same party or that you are related to that same party. It was actually your recommendation as to why we included that in this original draft. We were trying to meet that. MR. D1NIZIO: I agree with you there, and 1 don't think that's, that's really not my point, my point is that people still have made decisions based on the law as it exists today. And a lot of those people got hurt. And I think that, you know, sure. the taster you can do it, the better but from, Ms Moore comes in with I can think of five applications where they weren't people who were not savvy about it, they were people, it really wasn't even a question of legality, it just happened. You need to give the Zoning Board or somebody more leeway and the Zoning Board certainly needs to look at it individually. They can't take the whole (inaudible) thing, like we are saving an entire town because we are going to keep one lot undeveloped there in a development that was approved. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah, I agree with that. MR. DINIZIO: And that was what the othcr lady was talking about. I mean, you know, Moore's Lane, Moore's Lane North, come on, the town approved those lots. And now we are taking them away? Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you, Jim. Dr. Lewis? Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public t4earing September 9, 2008 22 DR. LEWIS: I thought I heard Mr. Dinizio just say that provision A, I thought I heard him agree with my concern, he is on the Zoning Board, he said if it says the majority has to be as large or greater in size and you come out .59 and the average is .63, you get denied. I think that was what he just said. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah. Well .... DR. LEWIS: So the reassurance that the)' ~ 'e m',t going to get mathematical. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is a point, and I think in the beginning we recognized that as a well- intentioned but probably poorly worded par~ of tine law. And again, I would ask everybody to afford us the opportunity to table it and get back 'to work with some of the attorneys and come up with something better. I hate to delay ir for people who hav. e been merged for these many years but I would rather do that than pass something that is not going to achieve the affects we wanted. Anybody want to speak on the lot waiver merger law? GAlL WICKHAM: Hi, Gail Wickham. This will be short. I think concern is a good one, it was one I had and perhaps it could be cared by just .mgg,%dng that the waiver would recognize a lot that is comparable in size to the majority of the neighborhood lots. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That's, thai '~s a maci~, that is a much betler. Okay. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: We did pretty w,eli, actually, out orA, B and C; various people didn't like either one of them. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Sir? UNIDENTIFIED: Inaudible. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Oh, can we, we will address it when we get through with the public hearing, then we will go to that. JUSTICE EVANS: I make a motion we ok,sc ti'~e, hearing. This public hearing was closed at 9:15 PM Soulhold Town Clerk r~x~M USAirbill ~...'~,;~ 8619 6235 7471 S.nd,?sELIZABETH NEVILLE 1067-702~-8 Phone(~l )7~--1800 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Company 53095 ROUTE 25 Address SOUTHOLD NY 11971-4642 Cily State ZiP 2 Your Internal Billing Reference 3 ~ Recipient'sName L i~1~1~t'~ I ~"~'h Phone( Address _ -- We cen~ deliver to E0 hexes or E0 ZIP codes Add,,...~'~'--'"'¢'''~,'"~ ~ LO,."' (~ A~ ~ NY z,,, ! 03~8~?~ 4b Express ~eight Service ] InclL~es F~E~ ~mall PII~ BOX Tube 6 Special Handling ~m$1e~e.~e" [] Recipient [] TnirdParty [] CredYLCard [] Cash/Check · ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New.York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.north fork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 3, 2008 Federal Express [.inda l,asch New York State Department of State State Records and l,aw Bureau 41 State Street Albany, NY 12231 RE: Local Law Number 14 of 2008 Town of Southold~ Suffolk County Dear Ms. l,asch: In accordance with provisions of Section 27 of the Municipal Home Rule Law, I am enclosing herewith certified copies of Local Law Number 14 of 2008 of the Town of Southold, suitable for filing in your office. I would appreciate if you would send me a receipt indicating the filing of the enclosures in your office. Thank you. Enck)sures Very truly yours, Lynda M Rudder Southold Deputy Town Clerk cc: low'n Attorney Local Law Filing NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT O1: SI.VIE 41 STATE SIREET (Use this form to file a local law with the Secretary of State.) Text of law should be given as amended. Do not include matter being eliminated and do not use italics or underlining to indicate new matter. [] County [] City [] ]'own of [] Village of the year 2008. SOUTHOLD Local I,aw No. 14 AI. BANY, NY 12231 A Local l,aw entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger La~". , Be it enacted the Town Board of the: SOUTHOLD [] County rn City [] Town of [] Village Purpose - The purpose of this amendment is to provide an additional path by which owners of lots deemed "merged" may apply to waive those mergers under certain circumstances. 11. Chapter 280 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: § 280-11. Waiver of merger. A. lfa lot has merged pursuant to the provisions of Section 280-10, the Zoning Board of Appeals may waive the merger and recognize original lot lines upon public hearing and finding that: (1) The lot proposed to be recognized has not been transferred to an unrelated person or entity since the time the merger was effected; and (2) Upon balancing whether: (a) The proposed waiver would recognize a lot that is comparable in size to a majority of the improved lots in the neighborhood; (b) The lot proposed to be recognized is vacant and has historically been treated an maintained as a separate and independent residential lot since the date of its original creation; and (c) The proposed waiver and recognition will not create an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. (If additional space is needed, attach pages the same size as this sheet, and number each.) 1)OS-239(Rc~ 05/05) Ill. 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 efl'ect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by law. (Complete the certification in the paragraph that applies to the filing of this local law and strike out that which is not applicable.) I. (Final adoption by local legislative body only.) I hereby certify that tile local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. 14 of 20 08 ol'thc (~om~)Orfi+~(Town) (\'~Ixg:) of SOUTHOLD was duly passed by the TOWN BOARD on October 21 ., 20 08 , in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. 2. (Passage by local legislative body with approval, no disapproval or re-passage after disapproval by the Elective Chief Executive Officer*.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. of 20__. of the (County)(City)(Town)(Village) of was duly passed by the on 20 , aad was (approved)(not approved)(re-passed after disapproval) by the and was deemed duly adopted on 20 ...... in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. 3. (Final adoption by referendum.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. of 20 of the (County)(City)(Town)(Village) of was duly passed by thc on 20 , and was (approved)(not approved)(repassed after disapproval) by the on 20 . Such local law was snbnaittcd to the people by reason ora (mandatory)(permissive) referendum, and received the affirmative vote ora majority of' tile qualified electors voting thereon at the (general)(special)(annual) election held on 20 .... in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. 4. (Subject to permissive referendum and final adoption because no valid petition was filed requesting referendum.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. of 20 of the (County)(City)(Town)(Village) of was duly passed by the on 20 , and was (approved)(not approved) (repassed aftcr disapproval) by the on 20 Such local law was subject to permissive referendum and no valid petition requesting such referendum was filed as of 20 .... ill accordance with the applicable provisions of law. * Elective Chief Executive Officer means or Includes the chief executive officer ora county elected on a county- wide basis or, If there be none, the chairperson of the county legislative body, the mayor ora city or village, or the supervisor of a town where such officer is vested with the power to approve or veto local laws or ordinances. 3 5. (City local law concerning Charter revision proposed by petition.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. ot'20 of the City of having been submitted to referendum pursuant to the provisions of section (36)(37) of the Municipal Home Rule Law, and having received the affirmative vote ora majority of the qualified electors of such city voting thereon at the (special)(general) election held on 20 .... became operative. 6. (County local law concerning adoption of Charter.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No of 20 ol'the County of State of New York, having been submitted to the electors at the General Election of November 20 , pursuant to subdivisions 5 and 7 of section 33 of the Municipal Home Rule Law, and having received the affirmative vote of a majority of the qualified electors of the cities of said county as a unit and a majority of the qualified electors of the towns of said county considered as a unit voting at said general electiom became operative. (Il'any other authorized form of final adoption has been followed, please provide an appropriate certification.) O1 further certify that 1 have compared the preceding local law with the original on file in this office and that the same is a correct transcript there from and of the whole of such original local law, and was finally adopted in the manner indicated in paragraph I , above. (Seal) Clerk of the~unty legislativ~ body. City. Town or Village Clerk or officer designated by local legislative body Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk Date: October 29, 2008 (Certification to be executed by County Attorney, Corporation Counsel, Town Attorney, Village Attorney or other authorized attorney of locality.) STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the fbregoing local ~aw contains the correct text and that all proper proceedings have been had or taken for the enactment of the local lawla~nexed hereto. ~ l~atricia A. Finnegan~ wTq.~._~torney Kieran Corcoran~ Esq. Assistant Town Attorney Title Town of Date: SOUTHOLD October 29, 2008 Southold Town Board - Letter Board Meeting o¥ October 21, 2008 RESOLUTION 2008-950 ADOPTED Item # DOC ID: 4323 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2008-950 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON OCTOBER 21, 2008: WHEREAS, there was presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 12~h day of August, 2008 a Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law" now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold held a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, on the 9th day of September, 2008 at 7:35 p.m. at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard. The proposed Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law" reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. Iq 2008 A Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law". BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: Purpose - The purpose of this amendment is to provide an additional path by which owners of lots deemed "merged" may apply to waive those mergers under certain circumstances. I1. Chapter 280 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: § 280-11. Waiver of merger. IFa lot has merged pursuant to the provisions of Sect'on 280-10, the Zoning Board o Appeals may waive the merger and recognize original lot lines upon public hearing and Generated October 22, 2008 I)agc 12 Southold Town Board - Letter Board Meeting of October 21, 2008 finding that: The lot proposed to be recognized has not been transferred to an unrelated person tit,/ i the ti the me ge ffect d; d Tn .... : ....... ;n ........,+ :, oren snce me r rwase e an ~. ......................... (2) Upon balancing whether: (a) The proposed waiver would recognize a lot that is comparable in size to a majority of the improved lots in the neighborhood; (b) The lot proposed to be recognized is vacant and has historically been treated an maintained as a separate and independent residential lot since the date of its original creation; and (c) The proposed waiver and recognition will not create an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. (4) I!1. SEVERAB1LITY 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. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: William Ruland, Councilman SECONDER: Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman AYES: Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell Generaled October 22, 2008 Page 13 PATRICIA A. FINNEGAN TOWN ATTORNEY patricia.finnegan~vtown.southold.ny.us KIERAN M. CORCORAN ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY kieran.corcoran(wtown.southold.ny.us LORI M. HULSE ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.hulse~d town.southold.ny.us SCOTT A. RUSSELL Supervisor Town Hall Annex, 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1939 Facsimile (631) 765-6639 OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM To: From: Ms. Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk Lynne Krauza Secretary to the Town Attorney Date: October 31, 2008 Subject: Ll_/Amendments to Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law SEQRA For your records, I am enclosing the original, fully executed Short Environmental Assessment Form in connection with the referenced matter. have retained a copy of this document in our file. Also attached is a copy of the resolution authorizing Scott to sign this document. We If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your attention. Ilk Enclosures cc: Members of the Town Board (w/encls.) Patricia A. Finnegan, Esq., Town Attorney (w/encls.) "'.- ORIGINAL Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by A~)plicant or Project Sponsor) 1. APPLICANT/SPONSOR [2. PROJECT NAME Town of Southold { A Local Law Amend. the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Municipality TownofSouthold County Suftblk 4. PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map) Town-wide 5. PROPOSED ACTION IS: [] New [] Expansion [] Modification/aReration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law 7. AMOUNTOF LANDAFFECTED: Initially ~'~P' acres Ultimately NA acres 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? ~.J Yes [] No If No, describe briefly 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? [] Residential [] Industrial [] Commercial [] Agriculture [] Park/Forest/Open Space [] Other Describe: NA 10. DOES ACTION iNVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? LJ Yes ~J No If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit/approvals: 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTtON HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? [J Yes [] No If Yes, list agency(s) name and pan'nit/approvals: 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? [] Yes [] No I CERTIFY THAT THE IN~RMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsorname: $~R. us~pervi~ .~a~ Date: 9/8/08 Signature: If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 PART II - IMPACT ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Lead Agency) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.4? If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF. ['--]Yes ~'lNo B. W1LL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible) C1. Existing air quality, surfaco or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic pattern, solid waste production or disposal, potentiat for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: None C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly: None C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: None C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly; None C5. Growth. subsequent development, or related activities likely to be inducod by the proposed aotion? Explain briefly: None 06. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified in O1-057 Explain briefly: None C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain brieity: None D. WILL THE PROJECT RAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA (CEA)? [] Yes ~r~ No If Yes, explain briefly: E, IS THERE, OR S THERE L KELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACTS? [] Yes [] No If Yes, explain briefly: PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all rerevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. If question D of Part II was checked yes, the determination of significance must evaluate the potential impact of the proposed action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA. ] Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULl EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. [] Checkthis box ifyou have determined, based on the information andanalysisaboveandanysupportingdocumentation,thatthe proposed action WILl NOT result in any significant adveme environmental impacts AND provide, on attachments as necossary, the reasons supporting this determination Southold Town Board Name of Lead Agency Scott Russell ~ Print or 3; Name of Res ble Officer in Lead Agency ~..~Sigfiature of ReSponsible Officor in Lead Agency 9/8/08 Date Supervisor Title of Responsible Officer RESOLUTION 2008-870 ADOPTED DOC ID: 4230 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2008-870 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOW3N BOARD ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2008: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the proposed local law entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law" is classified as an Unlisted Action pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, 6 NYCRR Section 617, and that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby establishes itself as lead agency for the uncoordinated review of this action and issues a Negative Declaration for the action in accordance with the recommendations of Mark Terry dated September 8, 2008, and authorizes Supervisor Scott A. Russell to sign the short form EAF in accordance therewith; and be it further RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby determines such actions to be consistent with the Town of Southold LWRP. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk Southold Town Board - Letter Board Meeting of September 9, 2008 RESOLUTION 2008-870 ADOPTED Item # DOC ID: 4230 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2008-870 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2008: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the proposed local law entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law" is classified as an Unlisted Action pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, 6 NYCRR Section 617, and that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby establishes itself as lead agency for the uncoordinated review of this action and issues a Negative Declaration the action in accordance with the recommendations of Mark Terry dated September 8, 2008, and authorizes Supervisor Scott A. Russell to sign the short form EAF in accordance therewith; and be it further RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby determines such actions to be consistent with the Town of Southold LWRP. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: William Ruland, Councilman SECONDER: Louisa P. Evans, Justice AYES: Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell Generated September 12, 2008 Page 45 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STEVE LEVY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE September 8, 2008 THOMAS ISLES, AICP DIRECTOR OF PLANNING Ms. Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk Town of Southold Planning Bd. 53095 Main Road - P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Applicant: Zoning Action: Public Hearing Date: SCPC File No.: SEP 1 2008 Town of Southold Amendment: Sections 280-11 "Waiver of Merger" 9/9/08 SD-08-07 Dear Ms. Neville: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the above referenced application, which has been submitted, to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination as there is no apparent significant county-wide or inter-community impact(s). A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. Very truly yours, Thomas Isles, AICP Chief Planner APF:cc LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS H. LEE DENNISON BLDG. - 4TH FLOOR P.O. BOX 6100 (631) 853-5191 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788-0099 TELECOPIER (631) 853-4044 ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 19, 2008 RECEIVED SEP 1 ~ 2008 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold PUBLIC HEARINGS on the proposed Local Laws listed below on September 9, 2009: 7:35pm: "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law" 7:40pm: "A Local Law in relation to adding Bed-and-Breakfast Uses in to Marine District" 7:50pm: "A Local Law in relation to Regulations Governing Farm Stands" and also PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold has Enacted the following Local Laws listed below on August 12, 2008: Local Law #9: Amendments to lnclusionary Zoning requirements in the Code of the Town of Southold Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Email: Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Assessors S~[~e, Received B~/~ , ~ Please print name ° / Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Board of Appeals Date: Title: DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK ELIZABETH A. NEV~J.E TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 19, 2008 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.nor th fork.net RECEIVED AUG 2 2 2008 Sou.*hold Town Clark PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold PUBLIC HEARINGS on the proposed Local Laws listed below on September 9, 2009: 7:35pm: "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law" 7:40pm: "A Local Law in relation to adding Bed-and-Breakfast Uses in to Marine District" 7:50pm: "A Local Law in relation to Regulations Governing Farm Stands" and also PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold has Enacted the following Local Laws listed below on August 12, 2008: Local Law #9: Amendments to lnclusionary Zoning requirements in the Code of the Town of Southold Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Village of Oreenport Town of Riverhead Email: Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Assessors Southold Town Building Department e print na.m~)_)- Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Board of Appeals DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK or sou I-IO, , August 19, 2008 $outhold To,vn Ue/~ PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold PUBLIC HEARINGS on the proposed Local Laws listed below on September 9, 2009: 7:35pm: "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law" 7:40pm: "A Local Law in relation to adding Bed-and-Breakfast Uses in to Marine District" 7:50pm: "A Local Law in relation to Regulations Governing Farm Stands" and also PI.EASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold has Enacted the following Local Laws listed below on August 12, 2008: Local Law//9: Amendments to lnclusionary Zoning requirements in the Code of the Town of Southold Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. Attachments cc: Suftblk County Department of Plarming Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Email: Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Assessors /f~ (~outhold To~qn, Building Department ,.-~ign~ure, Receiv~ y~ 3C Pl'ehse pfiht name- Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Board of Appeals Date: Title:4 DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 19, 2008 Town Hail, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 7(55-6145 Telephone (631) 7t55-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net RECEIVED 2O08 Soutbold Town Cleric PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold PUBLIC ItEARIN(;S on the proposed Local Laws listed below on September 9, 2009: Dm: "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law" 7:40pm: "A Local Law in relation to adding Bed-and-Breakfast Uses in to Marine District" 7:50pm: "A Local Law in relation to Regulations Governing Farm Stands" and also PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold has Enacted the following Local Laws listed below on August 12, 2008: Local Law #9: Amendments to lnclusionary Zoning requirements in the Code of the Town of Southold Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Email: Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Assessors (._./)~t~thold Town Build~g Department S~,n.atu, re,,~.eceiv~.d_B~ Please print name Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Board of Appeals Date: DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 19, 2008 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold PUBLIC HEARINGS on the proposed Local Laws listed below on September 9, 2009: 7:35pm: "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law" 7:40pm: "A Local Law in relation to adding Bed-and-Breakfast Uses in to Marine District" 7:50pm: "A Local Law in relation to Regulations Governing Farm Stands" and also PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold has Enacted the following Local Laws listed below on August 12, 2008: Local Law #9: Amendments to Inclusionary Zoning requirements in the Code of the Town of Southold Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Email: Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Assessors Southold Town Building Department Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Board of Appeals Signature, R{~cei~)ed~By Please print na~ne ~0~ Date: Title: '~,-, R£CEIV~D AUG 2 5 2008 DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTI~ OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 19, 2008 PLEASE 'FAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold PUBLIC ' ~ · HEARINGS on the proposed Local Laws listed below on September 9, 2009: 7:35pm: "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law" 7:40pm: "A Local Law in relation to adding Bed-and-Breakfast Uses in to Marine District" 7:50pm: "A Local Law in relation to Regulations Governing Farm Stands" and also PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold has Enacted the following Local Laws listed below on August 12, 2008: Local Law #9: Amendments to Inclusionary Zoning requirements in the Code of the Town of Southold Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you. Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Email: Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Assessors Southold Town Building Department _ Sig~qature, Receiv&d Please print name Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Long Island State Park Commission Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Board of Appeals Date: Title: '~o~-~ DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK RECEIVED ALI 21 2008 $oulhold Town Clerk Page I of l Cooper, Linda From: Cooper, Linda Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 1:11 PM To: Bunch, Connie; Cantrell, Elizabeth; Cappabianca, Lucille; Cooper, Linda; Jones, Martha; Kowalski, Linda; Lanza, Heather; Randolph, Linda; Standish, Lauren; Verity, Mike; Webster, Kevin Subject: Notices of PH for 9/9/08 Attachments: Notice to Adjacent of PH.dot; LEGAL NOTICE #2 8-21-08.doc; B & B in MI, Mil 9-9-08.doc; CPF Mgmt & Stewardship Plan 9-9-08.doc; Farm Stands 9-9-08.doc; Inclusionary Zoning enact resolution.doc As I had advised you, I am sending these notices via email, Please confirm receipt of this email. Thank you Lim/a ooper Deputy Town Clerk Town of Southold 631-765-1800 ltfe meg not be I he party we hoped fon b ut as long as we're here, we might.~ as well dance 8/20/2008 Page I of l Cooper, Linda From: Bunch, Connie Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 1:36 PM To: Cooper, Linda Subject: RE: Notices of PH for 9/9/08 Got it From: Cooper, Linda Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 1:11 PM To: Bunch, Connie; Cantrell, Elizabeth; Cappabianca, Lucille; Cooper, Linda; Jones, Martha; Kowalski, Linda; Lanza, Heather; Randolph, Linda; Standish, Lauren; Verity, Mike; Webster, Kevin Subject: Notices of PH for 9/9/08 As I had advised you, I am sending these notices via email. Please confirm receipt of this email. Thank you Lindn J. ooper Deputy Town Clerk Town of Southold 631-765-1800 Life may not be the parO, we hoped foi; but as long as we're here, we mights as well dance! 8/20/2008 Page 1 of I Cooper, Linda From: Jones, Martha Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 1:17 PM To: Cooper, Linda Subject: RE: Notices of PH for 9/9/08 I got you babe, ..... Original Message ..... From: Cooper, Linda Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 1:11 PM To: Bunch, Connie; Cantrell, Elizabeth; Cappabianca, Lucille; Cooper, Linda; Jones, Martha; Kowalski, Linda; Lanza, Heather; Randolph, Linda; Standish, Lauren; Verity, Mike; Webster, Kevin Subject: Notices of PH for 9/9/08 As I had advised you, I am sending these notices via email, Please confirm receipt of this email. Thank you L/ndn ooper Deputy Town Clerk Town of Southold 631-765-1800 Ltfe ma) not be the parly we hoped for, but as long as we're here, we mights as well dance ~ 8/20/2008 Page I of I Cooper, Linda From: Cantrell, Elizabeth Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 1:13 PM To: Cooper, Linda Subject: RE: Notices of PH for 9/9/08 Received Thank you Linda E Cantrell From: Cooper, Linda Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 1:11 PH To-' Bunch, Connie; Cantrell, Elizabeth; Cappabianca, Lucille; Cooper, Linda; Jones, Hartha; Kowalski, Linda; Lanza, Heather; Randolph, Linda; Standish, Lauren; Verity, Hike; Webster, Kevin Subject: Notices of PH for 9/9/08 As I had advised you, I am sending these notices via email. Please confirm receipt of this email. Thank you Li c/a ooper Deputy Town Clerk Town of Southold 631-765-1800 Die may not be the party we hoped for, but as long as we?e here, we m~ghts as well dance/ 8/20/2008 Page 1 of l Cooper, Linda From: Kowalski, Linda Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 1:19 PM To: Cooper, Linda Subject: RE: Notices of PH for 9/9/08 I have checked off confirmation of the read receipts for today and yesterday's emails with local law attachments sent (thought the other read receipts would have been ok as in the past, but it's ok if you wanted an additional receipt confirmation), "receipt confirmed" Thanks, ZBA Town of Southold Office Location: 54375 Main Road (NFB 1st Floor) Mailing Address: 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 (631) 765-1809 (ext. 5011 at voice recording) lax (631) 765-9064 8/20/2008 Page 1 of l Cooper, Linda From: Lanza, Heather Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 1:20 PM To: Cooper, Linda Cc: Randolph, Linda Subject: RE: Notices of PH for 9/9/08 Received and forwarded to the Planning Board From: Cooper, Linda ~ent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 1:11 PM To: Bunch, Connie; Cantrell, Elizabeth; Cappabianca, Lucille; Cooper, Linda; Jones, Hartha; Kowalski, Linda; Lanza, Heather; Randolph, Linda; Standish, Lauren; Verity, Hike; Webster, Kevin Subject: Notices of PH for 9/9/08 As I had advised you, I am sending these notices via email. Please confirm receipt of this email. Thank you Li da Cooper Deputy Town Clerk Town of Southold 631-765-1800 Ltfe m~v not be the parO' we hoped for but as long as we're here, we mtghts as well dance/ 8/20/2008 Page I of I Cooper, Linda From: Cappabianca, Lucille Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 2:31 PM To: Cooper, Linda Subject: RE: Notices of PH for 9/9/08 Receipt confirmed! ..... Original Message ..... From: Cooper, Linda Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 l:[1 PM To: Bunch, Connie; Cantrell, Elizabeth; Cappabianca, Lucille; Cooper, Linda; Jones, Martha; Kowalski, Linda; Lanza, Heather; Randolph, Linda; Standish, Lauren; Verity, Hike; Webster, Kevin Subject: Notices of PH for 9/9/08 As I had advised you, I am sending these notices via email. Please confirm receipt of this email. Thank you Linda ,Z. ¢ooper Deputy Town Clerk Town of Southold 631-765-1800 Ltfe mo~ nat be the parO~ we hoped fo~ but as long as we're here. we m~ghts as well dance 8/20/2008 Page I ell Cooper, Linda From: Webster, Kevin Sent: Thursday, August 21,2008 9:11 AM To: Cooper, Linda Subject: RE: Notices of PH for 9/9/08 I did receive this emaiL Kevin From: Cooper, Linda Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 1:11 PM To: Bunch, Connie; Cantrell, Elizabeth; Cappabianca, Lucille; Cooper, Linda; .]ones, Martha; Kowalski, Linda; Lanza, Heather; Randolph, Linda; Standish, Lauren; Verity, Hike; Webster, Kevin Subject: Notices of PH for 9/9/08 As I had advised you, I am sending these notices via email. Please confirm receipt of this email. Thank you Linda ooper Deputy Town Clerk Town of Southold 631-765-1800 Life ma) not be the parO~ we hoped fo~ but as long as 'a,e 're here, we mtghtx aT well dance ! 8/21/2008 #8970 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Karen Kine of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1 week(s), successively, commencing on the 21st day of Au.qust, 2008. Principal Clerk §worn to before me this '~} dayof ~"~Q'~ 2008 LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARLNG NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN. there has been presented to the Town Law" reads as follows: ..... ~* LOCAL LAW NO. 2008 A Local Law entitled. "A Local Law ~ in relation to Amendments to the Waiver i Provisions of the Mer~er Law". . BE IT ENACTED ~y the Town Board ' of the Town of Southold as follows: I. Purpose - The purpose of this · amendment is to provide an additional path by which owners of lots deemed "merged" may apply to waive those mergers under certain circumstances. 11. Chapter 280 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amend ed as follows: § 280-11. Waiver of merger. A. If a lot has merged pursuant to the nrovisions of Section 280-10. the Zoning Board of Appeals may waive the merger and recognize original lot hnes upon public hearing and finding that: (1) The lot orot~osed to be reco~aized has not been transferred to an unre- lated ~erson or entity since the time the NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK No. 01-V06105050 Qualified in Suffolk County My commllllon Expires February 28, 2012 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 MEMORANDUM To~ From: Date: Re: Scott Russell, Town Supervisor Members of the Town Board Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Planning Board Chairperson September 8, 2008 Resolution No. 2008-782 - Proposed Local Law in relation to "Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law" in the Town of Southold The Planning Board has reviewed the proposed local law regarding amendments to the waiver provisions of the merger law and supports the proposal. 89/88/2888 11:84 631-853-4844 S C PLANING DEPT PAGE 83 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STEVE LEVY SUFFOLK COUN1Y EXECUTIVE September g, 2008 THOM,a.~ ISLES, AICP DIRECTOR OF PLANNING Ms. Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk Town of Southold Planning Bd. 53095 Main Road - P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Applicant: Zoning Action: Public Hearing Date: SCPC File No.: Town of Sou~hold Amendment: Sections 280-11 "Waiver of Merger" 9/9/08 SD.-08-07 Dear Ms, Neville: Pursuant to thc requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the above referenced application, which has been submitted, to thc Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination as there is no apparent sigrfftieaut county-wide or inter-coroml~nity impact(a). A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. Very truly yours, Thomas Isles, AICP Chief Planner APF:cc LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS H, LEE DENNISON BLDG, - 4TH FLOOR · P, O, BOX 6100 · (631) 853-~191 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788-0099 TELECOPIER (631) 853-4044 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY ~-- .' PL-/ 7-' 33'- /v~ MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM COORDINATOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD To: Town of Southold Town Board Patricia Finnegan, Town Attorney From: Mark Terry, Principal Planner ~hx3 LWRP Coordinator Date: September 8, 2008 Re: "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger La~v" The proposed local law has been reviewed to Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town of Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Policy Standards. Based upon the information provided on the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form submitted to this department as well as the records available to me, it is my recommendation that the proposed action is CONSISTENT with the Policy Standards and therefore is CONSISTENT with the LWRP. Pursuant to Chapter 268, the Town Board shall consider this recommendation in preparing its written determination regarding the consistency of the proposed action. Cc: Kieran Corcoran, Assistant Town Attorney 617.20 Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by A~plicant or Project Sponsor) 1. APPLICANT/SPONSOR 12. PROJECT NAME Town of Southold ~ A Local Law Amend. the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Municipality Town o£Southold County Suffolk 4. PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map) Town-wide 5. PROPOSEDACTION iS: [] New [] Expansion [] Modification/alteration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law 7. AMOUNTOF LANDAFFECTED: Initially ~'~ acres Ultimately NA acres 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? ~] Yes U No If No, describe briefly 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? [] Residential [] Industrial [] Commercial [] Agriculture [] Park/Forest/Open Space [] Other Describe: NA 10. DOES ACT ON NVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? [] Yes [] No If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit/approvals: 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? L_J Yes [] No if Yes, list agency(s) name and permit/approvals: 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? [--]Yes r~No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor name: Scott Russell, Supervisor Date: 9/8/08 Signature: If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 PART II - IMPACT ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Lead Agency) *. ~ A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD rN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.4? If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF. E~Yes r~']No B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. ~'] Yes ~'lNo C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible) C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic pattern, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Expiain briefly: None C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly: None C3. VegetaUon or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: None C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain bdefiy: None C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related ac v es key to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: None C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-C57 Explain briefly: None C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of ether quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly: None D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA (CEA)? [] Yes ~ ~ No If Yes, explain briefly: E. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? [] Yes [] No If Yes, explain briefly: PART Ill - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. If question D of Part II was checked yes, the determination of significance must evaluate the potential impact of the proposed action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA. ] you one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULl Check this box if have identified EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. [] Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation,that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide, on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination Southold Town Board Name of Lead Agency Scott Russell Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency 9/8/08 Date Supervisor Title of Responsible Officer ~ Sing tu r~rom r~onsible officer) ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 14, 2008 Re: Rcso. No. 782 regarding proposed Local Laws in relation to "Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law" in the Town of Southold Andy Freleng Suffolk County Department of Planning PO Box 6100 Hauppauge, New York 11788-0099 Dear Mr. Freleng: The Southold Town Board at their regular meeting held on August 12, 2008 adopted the above resolution. A certified copy of same is enclosed. Please prepare an official report defining the Planning Depamnent's recommendations with regard to this proposed local law and forward them to me at your earliest convenience. This proposed local law has also been sent to the Southold Town Planning Department for their review. The date and time for the public heating is 4:35 PM, Tuesday, September 9, 2008. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. Very truly yours, Southold Town Clerk Enclosures (2) cc: Town Board Town Attorney ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 14, 2008 Re: Reso. No. 782 regarding proposed Local Laws in relation to "Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law" in the Town of Southold Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 22972 The Southold Town Board at their regular meeting held on August 12, 2008 adopted the above resolution. A certified copy of same is enclosed. Please prepare an official report defining the Planning Department's recommendations with regard to this proposed local law and forward them to me at your earliest convenience. This proposed local law has also been sent to the Suffolk County Planning Department for their review. The date and time for the public hearing is 4:35 PM, Tuesday, September 9, 2008. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. Very truly yours, Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk Enclosures (2) cc: Town Board Town Attorney Page I of 1 Cooper, Linda From: JOAN ANN riaweber@timesreview,com] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 2:23 PM To: Cooper, Linda Subject: Re: Confirmation of Legal Notice - PH Amend Merger Law RECEIVED FOR PUBLICATION ON THE 21ST JOAN ANN ..... Original Message ..... From: Cooper, Linda To: JOAN ANN - Legals Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 10:32 AM Subject: Confirmation of Legal Notice - PH Amend Merger Law Hi Joan Ann, I had sent over 5 legal notice on Friday. I received confirmation for 4 of them. I never received confirmation that your received the legal notice for the Amendment to Merger Law. Would you please let me know if you did indeed receive it. Otherwise I will email it to you again Thank you. L/no'a Cooper Deputy Town Clerk Town of Southold 631-765-1800 Life may not be the part~ we fioped fo~ b ut as long as we're here, we mights as well dance! 8/18/2008 Page 1 of I Cooper, Linda From: Cooper, Linda Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 11:12 AM To: JOAN ANN - Legals Cc: Neville, Elizabeth Subject: Legal Notice PH 9-9-08 7:35 Amend Merger Law Attachments: Amend waiver of merger law 9-9-08.doc Please confirm receipt of this Legal Notice. Thank you. 8/15/2008 Southold Town Board - Letter Board Meeting of August 12, 2008 RESOLUTION 2008-786 ADOPTED Item # DOC ID: 4169 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2008-786 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON AUGUST 12, 2008: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to send the following proposed Local Laws to the Suffolk County Planning Department and the Southold Town Planning Board for their recommendations and review: A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law A Local Law in relation to adding Bed-and-Breakfast Uses to Marine Districts A Local Law in relation to Regulations Governing Farm Stand Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Vincent Orlando, Councilman SECONDER-' Albert Krupski .lr., Councilman AYES: Ruland, Orlando, Krupski ]r., Wickham, Evans, Russell Generated August 18, 2008 Page 55 Southold Town Board - Letter Board Meeting of August 12, 2008 RESOLUTION 2008-782 ADOPTED Item # DOC ID: 4165 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOVqING RESOLUTION NO. 2008-782 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON AUGUST 12, 2008: WHEREAS, there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suftblk County, New York, on the 12th day of August, 2007 a Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law" now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, on the 9th day of September, 2008 at 7:35 p.m. at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. The proposed Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law" reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 2008 A Local Law entitled, 3'A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law". BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: Purpose - The purpose of this amendment is to provide an additional path by which owners of lots deemed "merged" may apply to waive those mergers under certain circumstances. I1. Chapter 280 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: § 280-11. Waiver of merger. Generated August 18, 2008 Page 41 Southold To~vn Board - Letter Board Meeting of August 12, 2008 If a lot has merged pursuant to the provisions of Section 280-10, the Zoning Board of Appeals may waive the merger and recognize original lot lines upon public hearing and finding that: The lot proposed to be recognized has not been transferred to an unrelated person or entity since the time the merger was effected, and ......................... (2) Upon balancing whether: (a) The proposed waiver would recognize a lot that is as large, or greater in size than a majority of the improved lots within a 1000 foot distance from any lot line of the lot proposed to be recognized; (b) The lot proposed to be recognized is vacant and has historically been treated an maintained as a separate and independent residential lot since the date of its original creation; and The proposed waiver and recognition will create an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 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. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Albert Krupski Jr., Councilman SECONDER: Vincent Orlando, Councilman Generated August 18, 2008 Page 42 Southold Town Board - Letter Board Meeting of August 12, 2008 AYES: Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell Generated August 18, 2008 Page 43 LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, there has been presented to the Town Board of the To~vn of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 12th day of August, 2008, a Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law" and NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, on the 9th day of September, 2008 at 7:35 p.m. at which time alt interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. The proposed Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law" reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 2008 A Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law". BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: I. Purpose - The purpose of this amendment is to provide an additional path by which owners of lots deemed "merged" may apply to waive those mergers under certain circumstances. Il. Chapter 280 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: § 280-11. Waiver of merger. If a lot has merged pursuant to the provisions of Section 280-10, the Zoning Board of Appeals may waive the merger and recognize original lot lines upon public hearing and finding that: (2) The lot proposed to be recognized has not been transferred to an unrelated person or entity since the time the merger was effected; and ~ Upon balancing whether: The proposed waiver would recognize a lot that is as large, or greater in size than a majority of the improved lots within a 1000 foot distance from any lot line of the lot proposed to be recognized; (b) The lot proposed to be recognized is vacant and has historically been treated an maintained as a separate and independent residential lot since the date of its original creation; and (c) The proposed waiver and recognition will create an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. III. SEVERABILITY lfany 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 inw IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provi~ by law. Dated: August 12, 2008 BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THETOWNOFSOUTHOLD Eliz~ethNeville TownClerk PLEASE PUBLISH ON AUGUST 21~ 2008, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO ELIZABETH NEVILLE, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, P.O. BOX 1179, SOUTHOLD, NY t 1971. Copies to the following: The Suftblk Times Town Board Members TC's Bulletin Board Assessors' Office Town Attorney Building Dept STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, New York being duly sworn, says that on the ?o°'~' day oft~ , 2008, she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy,'in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place n the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York. Re: Amendments to Waiver of Provisions of Merger Law PH 9/9/08 7:35 PM SworrLbefore me this /o° r~day of ~. vqt~a~, 2008. Iqotary P~blic LINDA J COOPER NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York NO. 01CO4822563, Suffolk County Term Expires December 31, dE~izabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk