HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB-01/20/2009 ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
TOWN CLERK PO Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS Fax (631) 765-6145
MARRIAGE OFFICER Telephone: (631) 765 - 1800
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER southoldtown.northfork.net
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
January 20, 2009
7:30 PM
A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board was held Tuesday, January 20, 2009 at the
Meeting Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, NY. Supervisor Russell opened the meeting at 7:30
PM with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Call to Order
7:30 PM Meeting called to order on January 20, 2009 at Meeting Hall, 53095 Route 25,
Southold, NY.
Attendee Name Organization Title Status Arrived
William Ruland Town of Southold Councilman Present
Vincent Orlando Town of Southold Councilman Present
Albert Krupski Jr. Town of Southold Councilman Present
Thomas H. Wickham Town of Southold Councilman Present
Louisa P. Evans Town of Southold Justice Present
Scott Russell Town of Southold Supervisor Absent
Elizabeth A. Neville Town of Southold Town Clerk Present
Kieran Corcoran Town of Southold Assistant Town Attorney Present
I. Reports
1. Land Tracking
Fourth Quarter of 2008
2. Human Resources Center
2008 Year End Summary & 2009 Program Overview.
3. Trustees Monthly Report
December 2008
January 20, 2009 Page 2
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
4. Trustees Yearly Report
2008
5. Youth Bureau Report
2008 Accomplishments
6. Program for the Disabled
December 2008 Events
7. Judge Evans
December 2008
8. Judge Bruer
December 2008
9. Judge Price
December 2008
II. Public Notices
1. Permit Application to Army Corp. of Engineers
Shiela Kennedy, to construct a pier, pilings and ramp. Hay Harbor, Fishers Island NY
2. Application for Aquaculture Project to NYS DEC
Applicant - Jospeh Monahan for 5 acre parcel of state underwater land in Long Island Sound
3. Application for Liquor License to NYS Liquor Authority
Blue Top, LLC, 4805 Depot Lane, Cutchogue
4. Renewal with NYS Liquor Authority
Laurel Links, Main Rd., Laurel
Manor Hill Vineyards, 14035 Middle Road, Cutchogue
5. Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County
Two meetings to be held back to back on January 22, 2009 at 1pm as follow-up to the Shellfish
Best Management Practices; meeting to be held at 423 Griffing Ave., Riverhead.
January 20, 2009 Page 3
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
III. Communications
IV. Discussion
1. 11:30 Am - Chief Cochran and PSD II Weingart
Continuation of PSD Discussion
2. Executive Session
Litigation - 2 CSEA Grievance Settlements
3. Executive Session
Litigation - Cross Sound Ferry
4. Proposal for Engineering Services - Peconic School
5. 10:00 A.M. - Jim King, Mark Terry
LWRP
6. 10:30 A.M. - Lori Hulse, Damon Rallis
- General Code Enforcement Discussion - policies and practices moving forward
- Changing Title for Damon Rallis
- Set Appointment for Future Discussion
7. 11:00 A.M. - Jamie Richter
Animal Shelter
- Key money, continued
- Construction update
- Miscellaneous
8. 11:15 A.M. - Heather Lanza
- Residential Site Plan Design
- Wireless Facilities Code
9. Promotions/Pay Raises
- ZBA Request
10. Set Date for Interviews
- ZBA
- Planning
January 20, 2009 Page 4
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
- Board of Ethics
11. Grievance Day/Calendar
12. Division of Natural Resources
13. Light Poles
per Councilman Krupski
Public Hearings
Bombara CEA Hearing 1/20/09 9:00 Am
History:
01/20/09 Town Board ADJOURNED Next: 02/03/09
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to our 9:00 public hearing.
The Supervisor couldn’t be here today, he is home with the flu. He asked me to fill in for him.
So before we start with the public hearing, let’s open up with the Pledge.
COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: This morning we have a hearing, it is an appeal, a coastal erosion
permit for the town Trustees. I have got all the paperwork here, it was noticed in the Suffolk
Times newspaper, the legal notice properly recognized. I am looking for comments here in the
file. There is a letter to the DEC, fees were paid. Okay, thank you.
IT IS HEREBY RESOLVEDsets January 20,
that the Town Board of the Town of Southold
2009 at 9:00 a.m.
in the Town Meeting Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, as
public hearing on the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review
the time and place for a
Appeal of Robert G. Bombara,
relating to a proposed new single-family dwelling, garage and
1725 North Sea Drive, Southold, SCTM #1000-54-4-
swimming pool proposed to be located at
19.
This is, and all the other paperwork is in order as far as the appeal goes. There is letter in the file
th
dated November 12 from Peter Danowski, this is the application, filed November 12 for the
appeal in the file and we are provided with pictures, we are provided with a Trustee, if I could
find it in here, I am sure it is in here. The record of the Trustees, who are represented here today.
The criteria for variance, under coastal erosion, 111-20 in the code, variances and appeals. And
it is variances from standards and restrictions. ‘Strict application of the standards and the
restrictions of this chapter may cause practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. When this can
be shown, such standards and restrictions may be varied and modified, provided that the
following criteria are met: (and there is A through E) A. No reasonable, prudent alternative site
is available. B. All responsible means and measures to mitigate adverse impacts on natural
systems and their functions and values have been incorporated into the activities design at the
property owners expense. C. The development will be reasonably safe from flood and erosion
damage. D. The variance that is requested is the minimum necessary to overcome the practical
difficulty or hardship, which is the basis for the requested variance. E. Where public funds are
January 20, 2009 Page 5
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
utilized, the public benefits must clearly outweigh the long-term adverse effects.’ And this is the
th
letter from the Board of Trustees, dated October 15. ‘Dear Mr. Danowski, The Board of
Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on Wednesday, October 15,
2008 regarding the above matter: Whereas Peter S. Danowski, Esquire on behalf of Robert G.
Bombara, applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of Chapter
111, Coastal Erosion Hazard Area under the town code of the Town of Southold, the application
is dated July 6, 2007, and whereas said application was referred to the Southold Town
Conservation Advisory Council and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program coordinator for
their findings and recommendations and whereas the Southold Town Conservation Advisory
Council provided a written comment to the Southold Town Board of Trustees which stated: ‘due
to the location of the coastal erosion hazard line being landward of all proposed activities, a full
review of the application cannot be conducted at this time.’ Whereas the LWRP coordinator
recommended that the proposed applications be found inconsistent with the LWRP and
specifically inconsistent with the following coastal policies: policy 4 1, minimize loss of human
life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards. Policy 4 2, protect and restore natural,
protective features. Policy 6, protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of
Southold eco-system. Policy 6.3, protect and restore tidal and fresh water wetlands. And
whereas a site visit to the property was conducted on October 17, 2007 and in attendance at the
site visit among others, a representative of the Southold Town Board of Trustees, LWRP
coordinator Mark Terry and New York State Department of Conservation Environment specialist
Robert McDonna; which confirms that the proposed actions were entirely located seaward of the
coastal erosion hazard line, within a primary dune and a primary dune is a natural protective
feature as defined in Chapter 111-6 and governed by section 111-13 and whereas public hearings
were held by Town Trustees with respect to said applications on August 22, 2007 and October
15, 2008 at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard and whereas
the Board of Trustees of the Town have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in
question and the surrounding area regarding the location of the proposed development and
whereas the Board has considered all of the testimony and documentation submitted concerning
this application and whereas the proposed structures, as applied for, are located on the natural
protective feature of the primary dune as per the definitions of Chapter 111 Coastal Erosion
Hazard Area of the town code and governed by section 111-13, which prohibits all activities in
such an area unless specifically provided for in chapter 111, and whereas the Board has
determined that the structures as applied for, will have a detrimental affect upon the health,
safety and general welfare of the people of the Town, now therefore be it resolved for the
foregoing reasons and because of the proposed actions, are entirely located within the coastal
erosion hazard area and the primary dune, a natural protective feature, and because the proposed
actions are not permitted in such areas pursuant to Chapter 111 of the Town Code, that the Board
of Trustees deem the proposed project to be impermissible under Chapter 111 and inconsistent
with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program pursuant to Chapter 268-5 of the Southold
Town Code, based on the scope and location of the proposed structures, an overall impact of the
proposed project of the tidal wetlands and the furtherance of the policies sited by the LWRP
coordinator, be it further resolved that the foregoing reasons, the Board of Trustees denies the
coastal erosion permit application of Robert Bombara to construct a single family dwelling,
detached garage, pool, associated water supply and sewage disposal facilities and as depicted on
the surveys prepared by Howard Young dated February 9, 2007 labeled alternative 1, alternate 2
January 20, 2009 Page 6
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
and alternate 3, this determination should not be considered a determination for any other
department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project. Yours truly, Jill Doherty, Board of Trustees.’ And so if there is any other, okay, so at
this point we can open the hearing. This is something that I urge the, I urge the Town Board
members to take a look at the site. I have walked the site a couple of times, I am fairly familiar
with it, so if anyone would like to make comments, please start.
PETE DANOWSKI: Good morning, my name is Pete Danowski. I am the attorney for Bob
Bombara. I always to put a face on an application. Bob sits in the second row here. He has
traveled out. I have some comments, some of which are strictly legal. I think I have to make
them, this Board and individual members might not be aware of the detail of the application
process that has been heard to date. Certainly the Board of Trustees is very aware of the detail
since we have been there several times. But I do have to say some things that I think are
important and I think they are important for anyone who owns a piece of property in this
Township or any other. Because what has happened to date is we have been denied the right to
build on our property. Now, having said that, I should take you back through a history here and
suggest to you that in fairness a building permit should be issued and a coastal zone erosion
should have and should issue and this Board can take a step towards the issuance of a building
permit by granting the appeal here. The appeal is not just from the denial. We have appeals for
interpretations, we have appeals for waivers and we have appeals for variances. Each of those
words mean something and they are important here. I make mention of it and I will make
mention of it in more detail in a few moments. To begin with, Bob Bombara, I kiddingly asked
him, you know he is an attorney, he bought this property and I found out as I began representing
him that he was absolutely unaware of the coastal erosion zone statute. He said to me, look, I am
not a wealthy man but after 8 years of litigation on a particular case, I made enough money on
that one case to go around the east end of Long Island and say to my wife, where would you like
to build your dream house? And they came to the Town of Southold where they have been many
times during the summers and as do many people, looked forward to retirement and building
their dream home. Now, I said to Bob, is that all you did? You just came out and spent money
and bought a lot? He said, no, not quite that simple about. I actually went out here and looked at
the location and I looked to my left and I looked to my right on the public street and I saw
beautiful homes being built and they were being built right on lots similar to mine and in fact,
they were being reconstructed. There were houses there, permits had issued from the Trustees
and in at least an occasion, an appeal was taken and was granted. But by looking physically at
the site, he was encouraged by what he saw, there were beautiful homes going up, they have
been completed, they are there today. They are similar in size to what he has proposed, so it is
not out of character to the neighborhood, to suggest that he should be granted something similar.
But he didn’t just only look at the property and say let’s go buy it, he also said to me, he walked
into the Building Department and showed them what he intended to do and the person there said
you have no problem. And so, he then closed on the property. He paid $1.1 million for the piece
of property. That proof was provided to the Board of Trustees. I say he is not a wealthy guy and
here is $1.1 million, that is not chicken feed, but he said basically it was the result of this one
case. His wife teaches school, they are looking to retire and be here. He hired Young and
Young to obtain a title survey before he closed and that provided the proof he needed as to the
amount of land he had. He then became involved in the process of applying for a coastal zone
January 20, 2009 Page 7
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
erosion permit. As this Board….
COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I am sorry, what year was…
MR. DANOWSKI: 2006.
COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: That is when he purchased?
MR. DANOWSKI: That is correct.
COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. DANOWKSI: It was on July 21, 2006 that he purchased the property. And I took some
th
notes because I ran through the file last night and the box is there. October 26, we filed an
application. The initial application and I say initial because we have three alternate plans after
the initial application, the initial application, as did the others, distanced any construction more
than 100 feet from the salt water wetland, the Long Island Sound. That is important because in
the first application that was filed with the Board of Trustees, I suggested that the area and the
descriptive term that we were talking about under that unique ordinance was a beach area. The
Board of Trustees agreed. The Board of Trustees ultimately denied the application. I believe,
incorrectly they feel that in fact they were without power to grant the application or any
application because they feel that the coastal zone erosion hazard line as set by the state limits
what they can do and that they must deny and we would come back before this Board. I know
Mr. Krupski shakes his head, I knew where he was prior to sitting on this Board and certainly I
am aware of prior applications. What I did do, however, in preparing myself for that initial
hearing was I asked the Trustees and obtained from staff, copies of earlier applications along that
same public highway. And applications were filed for permits and applications were granted.
On almost all of those occasions, the distance was no greater than 100 feet for any construction.
In certain instances, it was less than 75 feet. On occasions, tidal wetland permits issued, on other
occasions it was found it wasn’t necessary to go to the DEC because it was outside their
jurisdiction. Each set of circumstances was a little bit different. But it was very important to
build the record and supply information to the Trustees and ultimately to this Board to clearly
establish that permits had been granted without variance, without waivers, without interpretation
both for tidal wetlands permits and for the coastal erosion permits. Now, we all understand and
the same information was brought to the Trustees attention, that when the state first created this
statute, it was there to protect the owners of the land. It was initially called a shore owners
protection act. It was formed in 1981 and the theory was that where there was proof absolutely
established that there was erosion on average that was significant over a 40 year period, that
somehow the state would consider this to be an important area for protection for the homeowner.
It did not mean that you could not build there, it did not mean that you had a ability in the Town
to deny you a permit, it had all to do about where to locate the home on your property. What I
proved in the Trustee’s hearings and which you have now before you as a record and I don’t
have to detail it all again, through independent experts there has been no erosion that meets the
statutory definition that the state has. I didn’t just go to one expert, I didn’t just go to two. I had
a total of four experts, one of whom interestingly enough Mark Byrne, produced a report for the
January 20, 2009 Page 8
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
Town of Southold. He actually produced a report that took the beach front area from the west all
the way to Horton’s point. And clearly he has established in the record, his report relying in part
on his physical inspection of the property but also on that earlier report and subsequent reports,
there has not been erosion in this area. There actually has been accretion. That is important and
it is not a novel idea and I know Mr. Krupski is aware of this, because when I say applications
were granted by the Trustees over a period of time, I will just mention the names and I made
them part of the record and some applications were small, some were large but they were
granted. Okay, Rosicki, Litner, Vonzuben, Paskoff, Sonnenborn, Pearlstein and Betsch.
Probably the Betsch file is the best example of a presentation of legal arguments and in
consideration by the Trustees at the time. If you look at the record there, which again has been
made part of the appeal process here, the attorney representing Mr. Betsch clearly established
there has been accretion on the property, not erosion, and that a permit should issue and in fact,
the Town Board ultimately granted relief. I read some of Mr. McDonogh’s correspondence back
and forth. I think at one time he suggested that the residential building had a footprint of 3,000
square feet when if fact, on retort the Town said it was 1,800 square foot on the footprint and 600
square feet on the garage. But I say it because the character of the neighborhood, the application
process, the history of the Trustee’s reviewing permits and granting them has to be made a part
of this record and the character of the neighborhood is important. As far as the technicalities
here that I have to get into, the initial decision by the Board denied us with leave to reapply.
Without prejudice were the words that were used. So we had an initial denial on a first plan that
although the distance is 100 feet back and was described as a beach area, we did appeal that
decision. That appeal was held in abeyance pending the consideration of the three alternate
plans. That appeal, the record there, should be made a part of this appeal as far as the record is
concerned. So you can see the full history here of initial application, a denial and ultimately an
appeal file, held in abeyance as we went back to the Trustees with three alternate plans. What
we did with the alternate plans was try to listen to any comments that were made concerning the
location of the proposed house. We had to recognize what the Suffolk County Health
Department would require us with regard to the location of sanitary systems. We had to worry
about the Town’s zoning setback requirements, but clearly we moved the house location three
alternate ways as far back as we could move them. We shrunk the size of the house, we
distanced our location. In the furthest location from the salt water wetland, the Long Island
Sound, the distance is 157 feet. Not 75, not 100 but 157. What is also interesting, though, is
when we got that denied the first time, the Trustee’s in their decision, understood that the proof
that was there by looking at the property was that this was a beach area. A beach area, when you
look at the definition that the Trustee’s must apply states that beach area by definition ends 100
feet from a change of physiographic form. That location is placed on our initial survey and the
initial application stood to be, the building would be constructed outside that area. So the
Town’s own code limited the beach application to 100 feet and that is what we did. We never
intended to build 100 feet from the Sound seaward. We were always behind that line. So in my
own mind, a tidal wetlands permit should have issued and a coastal zone erosion permit should
have issued. I don’t agree with the Trustee’s position that they are without power on the facts of
this case and that this appeal had to be heard. I believe, based upon the facts, they could have
issued the permit. But I understand why they say it. I understand clearly why they say it. They
feel that because magically the State has drawn a line, that they can’t grant any relief. Mr.
Bombara wasn’t happy that it took 13 months to deny the relief the second time around but that
January 20, 2009 Page 9
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
issue is over for now, we have filed our appeal with regard to the second application. I have
asked Doug Adams of Young and Young, to try and take the plans, all four of them, the original
plan and the three alternates and put them on a board, I also heard that Board members might
have wanted to visit the site, so I made myself and Young and Young available, but in addition I
had dropped off at the Supervisor’s office for distribution to the Board members, colored
representations of each of the three alternate plans and so that you could go out and see them in
the field, I had the flags marked to correspond to those plans; so you could distinguish the three.
Because it is confusing to go out and see different stakings for different locations of homes on
the site. So, we did in fact do that. I would like to have you recognize the reports that were
submitted that clearly describe the area as a beach area and the drifting of little beach ridges as
evidence and proof there hasn’t been any erosion on the site. I don’t know because you have it
already in your record whether you need this handed as part of this hearing but I would like to
think that you don’t but I have additional copies if anyone needs to see it. Clearly Mr. Byrnes
credentials, (inaudible) credentials, Dr. Ron Abrams credentials are outstanding. They have an
experience that goes beyond the average expert and I would ask you to give them full credence
in what they have done. In the simplest of terms, what do we have here? We have a man
wanting to build a house. It has taken him a couple of years to get to this point, he would like to
build it. He will take anyone of the locations he has depicted. He will listen to reasonableness.
He took and removed the garage from the separate location, located it within the house envelope.
He took and agreed to build the house on poles. I have looked at the details of other permits they
have issued through their architects and on occasion certainly there was discussions on those
matters about break away panels, which we are more than happy to deal with. We can comply
with FEMA, we can comply with the state DEC rules. So we have to figure out where the
location of the house must go and that is the purpose for this appeal. To grant a waiver of
variance. If no variance were to be granted, I would expect this to be a formal condemnation.
How we go from here is up to you. When you vote and how you vote is important to me for one
further reason. This is an administrative appeal from which the denial would obviously lead to
litigation but more importantly, this sort of unique situation, I ask that at the Board of Trustees
level that they hold in abeyance the tidal wetlands permit decision. Certainly if they granted the
permit, I would have no issues with granting the permit. There is not an administrative appeal
that I know of and I have discussed this with counsel from the denial of the wetlands permit.
That means I will have to litigate the tidal wetlands issue and I will, unless we can resolve this
promptly. If we can do this really fast and even when everyone wants to agree, many times it is
impossible. I will have to file that lawsuit. I want you to understand that, so that when you hear
that hey, Danowski has filed a lawsuit for Bombara, I only did that to protect my client’s rights.
I am still amenable to any discussions to try to work through this process. With that said, I would
just reserve the time to respond to any other comments made by the public or by any of you.
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: I have a couple of questions.
MR. DANOWSKI: Sure.
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Quick questions. You spent a lot of time
talking about the beach area and I know that was the original determination of the Trustee’s, that
this was located within the beach area. But I just wanted to be clear that the appeal you are
January 20, 2009 Page 10
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
taking is from the Trustee’s determination that it is in a primary dune area, correct?
MR. DANOWSKI: I think that what I am saying is I have appealed both decisions. So I agree
with the, let me rephrase it and see if you agree, that I am appealing from the decision which
among other things is the second decision, which on that decision describes it as a dune area.
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Okay, so let’s even further clear up if we
can.
MR. DANOWSKI: Sure.
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Which is tricky to do, obviously. Here.
MR. DANOWSKI: I understand.
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: The latest decision of the Trustee’s, from
October, with the consultation with DEC and I know you may disagree and your experts may
disagree, determined that the area in which you proposed to build is a primary dune area. Right?
Are we in agreement on that?
MR. DANOWSKI: I think that is true.
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Okay. Now, the way that this statute works,
first you look at where the coastal erosion line is, okay and like it or not, that line is I think in the
street or somewhere in the street making your clients property entirely seaward of that line,
right?
MR. DANOWSKI: That is correct.
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: In this instance. And that is true of many
properties along this road and that is what creates a very sticky situation in this neighborhood in
terms of developing this neighborhood, okay? Once we know that, the way the statute works is
you look at what is the natural protective feature, okay, and I know that there may be
disagreement over this but the Trustee’s have most recently determined that’s a primary dune
area. Okay? And so then you look at the primary dune section of this law and it says what can
one do in a primary dune area and the, one of the reasons we are here is something that is not
allowed in a primary dune area is a construction from scratch of a new home on a vacant lot. It
does allow for what is termed a non-major addition, which I think is a 25 percent increase in
footprint to an existing home some other minor development. I am interested in some of the
other appeals you have made reference to and I want to know whether any of those other appeals
had to do with the construction of the home from scratch as opposed to addition to an existing
home?
MR. DANOWSKI: I think that we have probably discussed this before and the answer to that is
not that I know of. And I think the issue we take is there is not a prohibition on a permit issuing
January 20, 2009 Page 11
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
regardless of how you describe what you might want to term a natural protected feature. That is
why we are here today. We might dispute whether the Trustee’s themselves had the power to
grant you the relief or whether you had to take the appeal in order to grant the relief. But this
Board is not prohibited from….
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: I don’t dispute that. I think my reading of
the statute is if we take what the Trustee’s have done most recently as correct and obviously you
reserve your right to dispute that, we have gotten here, at least on that branch of the appeal or
variance is because they have said it is a primary dune area, completely behind the coastal
erosion line, so we are not allowed to permit, under that statute, putting chapter 275 aside, the
construction of a new home from scratch. Now, there is a variance and appeal available to you
which is why you are here and this Board has to evaluate the factors that Councilman Krupski
read at the beginning of this hearing, to determine whether they can grant such relief. This
Board is empowered to grant such relief if you can show the factors that you need to show.
MR. DANOWSKI: I think those factors have already been put in the record. I really don’t want
to delay things, I know you have other things to do and I know there are members of the public
that may want to speak. But I don’t think you necessarily want me to repeat everything….
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: No, no, no, no.
MR. DANOWSKI: But those factors, when I filed the appeal and the experts reports, justify the
granting of the relief. That is all I am saying.
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: I am not trying to advocate either way here,
just this is a law that is a little arcane and it is not one that we deal with everyday. So I just
wanted to set forth what I thought some of the key factors were.
COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: That is exactly what my comments were going to be. That the
history of the appeal on coastal erosion is not a tremendous, long one. There is not a great record
for appeal for this law which was adopted by the Town in 1991. The history of the permits
granted in this area is really no different than the history of the permits granted in all the coastal
erosion area. There was a, it was a difficult law to administer because of the way it was written
and that is why it is a sort of a difficult appeals process, too, so…
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Was there ever a house on this property?
MR. DANOWSKI: No. You would have to go back to before my memory to know whether the
lots might have not been subdivided and there might have been a house that belonged to many of
the lots but certainly not on this specific location.
COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TOWN CLERK NEVILLE: Excuse me, Mr. Danowski. Were there any documents that you
wish to make part of the record?
January 20, 2009 Page 12
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
MR. DANOWSKI: As long as Kieran and I agree that the record that has been produced before
the Board of Trustees is available and part of the record for this hearing, I am not going to bring
them all out and throw them around again. If someone, however, on the Board wants to see any
one of those documents and they are not available, I would be more than happy to hand them out.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you, Mr. Danowski. Would anyone else like to speak on
this hearing? For or against, to speak at this hearing?
DOUG HARDY: Well, I will start it off I guess. I am Doug Hardy, Southold. For the last 300
or 400 years that and the 100 years or so that the Trustee’s have managed the shoreline, the rate
of sea level rise has been about 1 to 2 millimeters per year. And that comes out to be about 3
inches per 50 years. Barely perceptible to the life span of a human and so that the management
of the shoreline has been treated during this time as a static or there was no rise or fall at sea
level. In the early 1990’s, scientists began to notice a change. And the rate of sea level rise was
accelerating. The best estimate as of late 2008, the forecast is that by 2050, the sea level here in
New York will be between somewhat of 15 to 19 inches higher than today. That means then
from a rate of sea level rise of 3 inches per 50 years, it will now be something like over a foot in
50 years. About a five times increase in sea level rise. Yet the management of our shoreline
isn’t taking this into accord. What this will mean will be that particularly during storms, the
platform of the sea will be higher each year and so that storm surges during nor’easters or
hurricane class III will extend the flooding area further inland. It will also move the primary
dune further in, as the wind creates a new profile on each event. This is an acceleration rate that
management hasn’t experienced before and this was only since the last decade that this has been
noticed. And so, unless you prefer to disbelieve the best scientific forecast, this coastal hazard
zone is going to be rapidly extended inland. The importance of this is shown by this (inaudible)
is the state of New York is currently holding a series of public meetings for state, local and
federal officials and there will be a meeting sponsored by the state on sea level rise task force, I
th
think at Brookhaven National lab on January 29. And I really think that the Town should send
a representative to that meeting to gauge the seriousness of this. The entire coast line of the
United States has never experienced this accelerated sea level rise. It is going to cause enormous
problems with the safety, the environment and it is going to challenge the resources of Southold
Town in the next few decades. Thank you.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak for or against on
this hearing? Mr. Wills?
FRANK WILLS: Good morning. My name is Frank Wills. I live in Mattituck. I represent
myself and also the North Fork Environmental Council. Over time, I believe, I sincerely believe
that we have gotten to know more about what goes on in nature. I went through this myself. I
bought a property on the bluff, about a quarter of a mile to the west of the Mattituck inlet in
1962. I had lived in Center Moriches before and in the 50’s experienced the hurricane that came
through, Edna. So the first question I asked or found out was what is the erosion rate up here?
And I was told that the previous 70 years, the history was one to two foot a year. So I said, I will
take the worse case, take two foot a year, the survey had shown the beach was 191 foot across,
January 20, 2009 Page 13
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
divided by two, 95, so I said, well, I am not going to worry. So I put my house 35 foot from the
edge of the bluff. People would say, how could you do this? Well, there were no rules and
regulations. We just didn’t know at that time what the problems would cost. Now it is 100 foot
back from the bluff, 100 foot back the (inaudible). I also do not believe that a survey that has
gone maybe one week or two weeks or a month will show what the average erosion rate is on
any beach. The other experience I had was and I found out too late about littoral drift. On the
north shore it goes from west to east. In the late 60’s a company called Levon built a jetty in
Northville in order to build an industrial harbor, for which they got an approval in Riverhead. A
few years after that was built, walking on the beach, all of a sudden we found a rock sticking out.
We said, where did that come from? Well, we found out. We were told the erosion through the
littoral drift was removing 40 foot of beach a year from our area, to the point were in 1977 there
was 30 foot left. At which point the storm, I don’t know if you remember Long Island Sound
almost froze over, took the last three foot. Not wishing to wake up one morning with a wet
behind, my neighbor and myself and some other people had their houses moved back 200 feet.
The littoral drift and erosion, if you put anything in its way on the upstream side it will build up,
drop all the sand it is carrying and then for some strange reason, gets hungry and picks it up on
the other side. When I came here in ’62, the difference in Mattituck Inlet jetty was 700 foot. It
is now over 1,000 foot. So unless to the west, to the east of Bombara property, there was a jetty
or groin sticking out, I will say it bluntly, I don’t believe the erosion rates that their so-called
experts, pronounced. So we have learned more about what nature is doing and the consequences
and the fact that in the 40’s and the 50’s houses were allowed to be built on the beach, doesn’t
mean that we should allow this anymore. The fact that Mr. Danowski mentioned some houses
were there and enlarged but they were there and they were built before the facts were known and
that is what I think should apply now. Thank you.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you, Mr. Wills. Would anyone else like to speak now?
ANNE MURRAY: Good morning, I am Anne Murray, East Marion. I echo Frank’s sentiments
on this. Just because homes are there does not mean we should repeat the mistake in the future,
now that we know more and I would like to bring up one other point as well. In a previous
hearing before the Trustee’s, Mr. Danowski mentioned that not only was his client unaware of
the coastal zone erosion statute but he did not, and I repeat, did not do the due diligence that
should have been done on this property before the purchase. And I believe that is in the
Trustee’s records that anyone can look up and I think that we in this town should not grant a
variance because, I mean, I share some sympathy with the applicant having spent so much
money on this property but I don’t think the Town should have to pay for it and I think you
should take that into consideration. Thank you.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you.
RAY HUNTINGTON: Ray Huntington, Cutchogue. This is a large area of beachfront, I would
call it original but beachfront is never original, I guess. It is just the way it is. It keeps changing.
The visual observation shows it to be unstable. There are no upland full flora present. It is a
beachfront. There are some principals at stake here. First of all, that not all parcels that have
Suffolk County tax maps are buildable. That is why we have a building permit process. There is
January 20, 2009 Page 14
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
a judgment that is built into our town code, our social agreement in the Town of Southold about
how we go about things. So it is not axiomatic that if you own a lot, you can build a house on it.
The government should not, our government particularly should not be precluded from learning.
From better understanding the circumstances and applying scientific information as we grow in
that knowledge. Going simply by precedence is not the right thing to do. We should use our
intellect as a government as well. In this case, hardship, not self-inflicted, has not been shown.
The due diligence was not performed. Then on a personal basis, I object to having to pay
insurance premiums for people who build houses in the wrong places. Westhampton is a classic
example, but we all live on shoreline here. We are only a few miles, no one in the Town is but a
few miles from the shore. So we know how the shore affects our lives. So it is not a good idea
here to rely on precedent and the fact that Mr. Jones, next door, was given a permit years ago
when we didn’t know better. I urge you to not change the recommendations of the
administrating agencies.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you, Ray. Is there anyone else? Yes.
JENNIFER SKILBRED: Hello, my name is Jennifer Skilbred and I am an environmental
advocate with Group for the East End and for anyone that doesn’t know, Group for the East End
is a non-profit environmental advocacy and educational organization and we have been working
to protect natural resources for over 35 years. So I just wanted to reiterate some of the comments
that were made today. First of all, a primary dune is a dynamic system and as the town code
states, it is a natural protective feature. It protects inland areas and community members from
possible impacts from storms. There is a reason we have the coastal erosion hazard area, and as
you all know it is to protect these natural protective features from inappropriate development
such as this. We agree with the Trustee’s prior decision. They made the right call in denying
this application. It is just an inappropriate place for this sort of development. It is a fragile and
important area that should be protected. It is also important to remember that even though at
times a single or residential project may not seem like that big a deal, the impact of the, the
incremental negative impacts of so many smaller projects can really add up to a major negative
impact on the community. So, thank you for listening to our comments today.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
PATRICIA POPPE: Patricia Poppe, I live in the Kenney’s, McCabe’s beach area. And I do
speak for a number of the residents that are there. I would like to reiterate that yes, indeed, we
know more than we did in the past. A perfect example would be the Hudson River. We dumped
everything into it and then we realized we can’t do that anymore. And I think that is what we
have here. On the properties that were altered in some way along North Sea Drive, I know for
instance, that at least one of them, the Sonnenborn residence, was done specifically to avoid a
problem with erosion and a fear that they would have a problem with the reduction of the
beachfront. We have had some alterations of existing properties from Leeton Drive along North
Sea Drive, that whole area. The group that I am representing today, which is an informal group,
some of us do belong to an association but informally there is a group that is very much opposed
to unnecessary development of any more of the land in that area because of the importance of
that particular environmental piece. Whether it is the Great Pond area which we have been
January 20, 2009 Page 15
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
speaking against development of that area as well as any of the parcels along the beachfront, I
feel very badly for the owner of the piece of property that once again, more research wasn’t done
but on the behalf of this informal group of residents, it is workday and they are not all here but
we would like to very much oppose the granting of any variance to do any new construction in
that area along that beachfront. We have to remember that they are not making any more land.
Thank you.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this?
Yes, sir.
ED BOOTH: My name is Ed Booth, I live in Southold. We, eight of us, own the adjacent
properties, this is the Bombara case, right?
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Yes.
MR. BOOTH: I thought so. Anyway, I would just like to point out that if the Bombara’s go
ahead and build, this is in a way good news and bad news, the good news is for them, they will
have a nice spot. The bad news is for the Town because you are going to lose that 300 feet.
Three 100 foot lots. Now the funny thing about it is, that although we have opposed, my friends
and I have opposed this construction before, we do it at our own detriment. Why is that?
Because you see, if the Bombara’s succeed in putting up their home, well, we are a bunch of old
people, I don’t think the average age is much below 65 or 70 and the kids are coming along and
they will want to sell our 200 feet. The Bombara’s own 100 feet. So if you go ahead prevent the
construction of that home, our property will be valueless. Good news for the Town, I think,
because we will never sell it then. Why would anybody sell a piece of valueless property? I just
wanted to call that to your attention. Thank you.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak up?
MR. DANOWSKI: Kind of just waiting for the last comment from the public. And Aram
Terchunian just walked in and he is one of the experts that prepared the report, I don’t
necessarily want him to be long winded, I haven’t even spoken to him. Looking down at him
now and saying if he has anything further as far as highlighting the comment, I would like him to
do that but not in a long fashion. And as he does that, when he is finished, we will hand up his
report that is already part of the record.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you.
ARAM TERCHUNIAN: Thank you, my name is Aram Terchunian, I am a coastal geologist
with First Coastal Corporation in Westhampton Beach New York. I have reviewed the Bombara
site and listened to the comments here today and I can rise in front of this Board and recommend
approval of this project. There is a couple of comments that I heard and I would just like to
highlight, first of all, as your attorney pointed out, this action is probably in front of you because
you are the only Board that has the variance authority in the township to grant this type of
approval. So any previous action by any Board, in this case the Trustees, in fact did not have the
January 20, 2009 Page 16
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
authority to approve this project and so they had no choice but to deny it and come here. A
gentleman spoke to you earlier about sea level rise, I can recall back when I had dark hair in
graduate school, we were studying sea level rise as well and the number of papers written about
predicting sea level rise over the next 50 years, well, this was about 25 years ago, and all of those
predictions have proved false. In fact, sea level rise is consistent over the last 100 years as based
on tide gauges from New York City harbor and throughout this region and it is approximately 1
foot per century. I don’t want the Board to walk away with the misconception that there is
documented evidence of sea level rise in this area. It does not exist scientifically and that should
not weigh on your decision. The standards that are outlined in your coastal erosion code, the
four standards are really quite straightforward and direct, and I believe that this site meets those
standards and therefore is worthy of a permit. I would like to also go to the aspect of dunes
themselves and the best way to preserve and enhance dunes. And we have been in the dune
building business for many, many years and this site is remarkably different from many other
sites in the township and that in fact goes to your decision as well. This is not a bluff area. As
we know, Southold is dominated by bluffs but it has a lot of areas that are in between bluffs and
that is what this is. This is in between areas, actually a deposition area. Geologically this area is
receiving sand from the eroding bluffs. So another gentleman that spoke to you earlier this
morning about rapid bluff retreat. Well, that is not the case here, it is a completely different type
of system. It is not an erosional system, it is actually a deposition system. This area is
dominated by what we call beach ridges and as you drive along the road, you can see a whole
series of them. These have been deposited over decades and centuries actually. So this is a, as a
result of its geologic character, is a highly stable area, as opposed to bluffs which are inherently
unstable. In addition to that, in your code itself in the description of dune areas under section 37-
16, it talks about the keys to, to dunes providing protection is the volume of sand that is in the
dune. And this is very, very important. To the extent that this Board and any decision it makes,
conserves that volume of sand and in fact enhances the volume of sand that is in the dune, then
you are in fact, protecting that dune and preserving the protective values that the code obligates
you to do. And what does that mean? There is a volume of sand in that area, on this parcel and
to the extent that that volume of sand remains stable or to the extent that that volume of sand is
increased, it provides that protective level, that flood and erosion protection which is absolutely
vital to everyone, as you have heard everyone talk about. So there is a very clear standard in the
conservation of the volume of sand that provides ongoing and enhanced protection. Not just for
this parcel but for the parcels around it and for the land behind it. Just in conclusion, I would just
like to say that my analysis, I have been to this site I would say I in the last 20 years, I must have
been here 50 times, done a lot of work along the shoreline and in my opinion, my professional
judgment, the granting of this variance will not destabilize this dune system, will not have an
adverse impact either on the dune or on the general environment. Thank you.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Any attorney that wants to
talk? Anymore experts that want to talk?
MR. DANOWSKI: I am ending this and I will just hand up Mr. Terchunian’s report in case
someone today didn’t have the report available.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you.
January 20, 2009 Page 17
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
JOHN BETSCH: My name is John Betsch. I just wanted to take exception to something that
was said, just for the record. Mr. Danowski said that there were, read off a series of permits and
applications that were passed, that were approved and passed in the past, Rosicki, Vonzuben,
Pearlstein, Sonnenborn, Pearlstein and myself. I just want to note that every single one of those
applications were either alterations or reconstructions of existing pieces, structures. Some of
which were built over 50 years ago. My house was 50 years old plus when we applied for, and
there is a difference and I just want to make sure that that is not used as a rationale to prove this.
That is all.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you, John.
MR. DANOWSKI: I promise, last time. I will hand up the other experts reports just for
information purposes. I would also indicate that during the pendency of this application, when
the Trustees were considering this matter for the second time, the adjacent property owner was
granted a permit, we supported that application and that particular person supports us, so I just
want to know that the exact adjacent parcel was granted a permit albeit an addition for an
existing structure.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. Does anyone else have a comment or question on
this application? (No response) Do any Board members have a question for…?
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I have a question for the attorney. Where in the legislation do
we differentiate between an entirely new structure versus this 25 percent?
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: The portion of the legislation that details
what is permitted in a primary dune area, it is a short list. A very short list and one of the things
that is permitted is a, this is a summary, a non-major addition to an existing structure. That is
expressly permitted, okay? And then at the end of that short list it says all, anything that is not
listed herein is not permitted. So, the inference is you can do an addition, you can do a 25%
addition without coming to this Board for a variance because people have sought greater than
25% and gotten variances from that…
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: And that is in a dune situation?
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: In a primary dune area, correct.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: That is not related to the coastal erosion…
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Yes, it is. You start out by saying, this law
doesn’t apply unless you are behind the coastal erosion line. Okay?
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Behind means….
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Seaward. Once you…
January 20, 2009 Page 18
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Or within any natural protective feature. A beach, a dune, a bluff
is a series….
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Once you are (inaudible) you have to
determine whether you are in a particular natural protective feature or not. If you are not, then
you are just in the normal permitting process under this part of the code, if you are, then they are
more severely restricted, like in a primary dune area. I would suggest that at this point, if not all
the members have been out to visit the site, that we adjourn the hearing so that everybody can
take the maps, go out and look at them, then we should come back, set another date and in case
you have further questions of the applicant or want to take anymore testimony or respond to
anything you see in any of the erosion reports, you can do that. I am not suggesting it go on ad
infinitum but I think that is appropriate.
COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I would suggest that we, as a Board, we could, the site is very
close, we could visit the site today after the work session and armed with article 4, variances and
appeals and also armed with the colored surveys provided by the applicant, to do a site
inspection together.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Move we adjourn the hearing?
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Second. With setting a date on a future time?
COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Is two weeks reasonable, Kieran?
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Yes.
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Absolutely. Certainly to reconvene and ask
further questions.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: What date is that then, Betty?
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: February 3.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: We will adjourn this meeting to February 3.
COMMENTS - Current Meeting:
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to our 9:00 public hearing.
The Supervisor couldn’t be here today, he is home with the flu. He asked me to fill in for him.
So before we start with the public hearing, let’s open up with the Pledge.
COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: This morning we have a hearing, it is an appeal, a coastal erosion
permit for the town Trustees. I have got all the paperwork here, it was noticed in the Suffolk
Times newspaper, the legal notice properly recognized. I am looking for comments here in the
file. There is a letter to the DEC, fees were paid. Okay, thank you.
January 20, 2009 Page 19
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
IT IS HEREBY RESOLVEDsets January 20,
that the Town Board of the Town of Southold
2009 at 9:00 a.m.
in the Town Meeting Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, as
public hearing on the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review
the time and place for a
Appeal of Robert G. Bombara,
relating to a proposed new single-family dwelling, garage and
1725 North Sea Drive, Southold, SCTM #1000-54-4-
swimming pool proposed to be located at
19.
This is, and all the other paperwork is in order as far as the appeal goes. There is letter in the file
th
dated November 12 from Peter Danowski, this is the application, filed November 12 for the
appeal in the file and we are provided with pictures, we are provided with a Trustee, if I could
find it in here, I am sure it is in here. The record of the Trustees, who are represented here today.
The criteria for variance, under coastal erosion, 111-20 in the code, variances and appeals. And
it is variances from standards and restrictions. ‘Strict application of the standards and the
restrictions of this chapter may cause practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. When this can
be shown, such standards and restrictions may be varied and modified, provided that the
following criteria are met: (and there is A through E) A. No reasonable, prudent alternative site
is available. B. All responsible means and measures to mitigate adverse impacts on natural
systems and their functions and values have been incorporated into the activities design at the
property owners expense. C. The development will be reasonably safe from flood and erosion
damage. D. The variance that is requested is the minimum necessary to overcome the practical
difficulty or hardship, which is the basis for the requested variance. E. Where public funds are
utilized, the public benefits must clearly outweigh the long-term adverse effects.’ And this is the
th
letter from the Board of Trustees, dated October 15. ‘Dear Mr. Danowski, The Board of
Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on Wednesday, October 15,
2008 regarding the above matter: Whereas Peter S. Danowski, Esquire on behalf of Robert G.
Bombara, applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of Chapter
111, Coastal Erosion Hazard Area under the town code of the Town of Southold, the application
is dated July 6, 2007, and whereas said application was referred to the Southold Town
Conservation Advisory Council and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program coordinator for
their findings and recommendations and whereas the Southold Town Conservation Advisory
Council provided a written comment to the Southold Town Board of Trustees which stated: ‘due
to the location of the coastal erosion hazard line being landward of all proposed activities, a full
review of the application cannot be conducted at this time.’ Whereas the LWRP coordinator
recommended that the proposed applications be found inconsistent with the LWRP and
specifically inconsistent with the following coastal policies: policy 4 1, minimize loss of human
life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards. Policy 4 2, protect and restore natural,
protective features. Policy 6, protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of
Southold eco-system. Policy 6.3, protect and restore tidal and fresh water wetlands. And
whereas a site visit to the property was conducted on October 17, 2007 and in attendance at the
site visit among others, a representative of the Southold Town Board of Trustees, LWRP
coordinator Mark Terry and New York State Department of Conservation Environment specialist
Robert McDonna; which confirms that the proposed actions were entirely located seaward of the
coastal erosion hazard line, within a primary dune and a primary dune is a natural protective
feature as defined in Chapter 111-6 and governed by section 111-13 and whereas public hearings
were held by Town Trustees with respect to said applications on August 22, 2007 and October
January 20, 2009 Page 20
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
15, 2008 at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard and whereas
the Board of Trustees of the Town have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in
question and the surrounding area regarding the location of the proposed development and
whereas the Board has considered all of the testimony and documentation submitted concerning
this application and whereas the proposed structures, as applied for, are located on the natural
protective feature of the primary dune as per the definitions of Chapter 111 Coastal Erosion
Hazard Area of the town code and governed by section 111-13, which prohibits all activities in
such an area unless specifically provided for in chapter 111, and whereas the Board has
determined that the structures as applied for, will have a detrimental affect upon the health,
safety and general welfare of the people of the Town, now therefore be it resolved for the
foregoing reasons and because of the proposed actions, are entirely located within the coastal
erosion hazard area and the primary dune, a natural protective feature, and because the proposed
actions are not permitted in such areas pursuant to Chapter 111 of the Town Code, that the Board
of Trustees deem the proposed project to be impermissible under Chapter 111 and inconsistent
with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program pursuant to Chapter 268-5 of the Southold
Town Code, based on the scope and location of the proposed structures, an overall impact of the
proposed project of the tidal wetlands and the furtherance of the policies sited by the LWRP
coordinator, be it further resolved that the foregoing reasons, the Board of Trustees denies the
coastal erosion permit application of Robert Bombara to construct a single family dwelling,
detached garage, pool, associated water supply and sewage disposal facilities and as depicted on
the surveys prepared by Howard Young dated February 9, 2007 labeled alternative 1, alternate 2
and alternate 3, this determination should not be considered a determination for any other
department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project. Yours truly, Jill Doherty, Board of Trustees.’ And so if there is any other, okay, so at
this point we can open the hearing. This is something that I urge the, I urge the Town Board
members to take a look at the site. I have walked the site a couple of times, I am fairly familiar
with it, so if anyone would like to make comments, please start.
PETE DANOWSKI: Good morning, my name is Pete Danowski. I am the attorney for Bob
Bombara. I always to put a face on an application. Bob sits in the second row here. He has
traveled out. I have some comments, some of which are strictly legal. I think I have to make
them, this Board and individual members might not be aware of the detail of the application
process that has been heard to date. Certainly the Board of Trustees is very aware of the detail
since we have been there several times. But I do have to say some things that I think are
important and I think they are important for anyone who owns a piece of property in this
Township or any other. Because what has happened to date is we have been denied the right to
build on our property. Now, having said that, I should take you back through a history here and
suggest to you that in fairness a building permit should be issued and a coastal zone erosion
should have and should issue and this Board can take a step towards the issuance of a building
permit by granting the appeal here. The appeal is not just from the denial. We have appeals for
interpretations, we have appeals for waivers and we have appeals for variances. Each of those
words mean something and they are important here. I make mention of it and I will make
mention of it in more detail in a few moments. To begin with, Bob Bombara, I kiddingly asked
him, you know he is an attorney, he bought this property and I found out as I began representing
him that he was absolutely unaware of the coastal erosion zone statute. He said to me, look, I am
January 20, 2009 Page 21
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
not a wealthy man but after 8 years of litigation on a particular case, I made enough money on
that one case to go around the east end of Long Island and say to my wife, where would you like
to build your dream house? And they came to the Town of Southold where they have been many
times during the summers and as do many people, looked forward to retirement and building
their dream home. Now, I said to Bob, is that all you did? You just came out and spent money
and bought a lot? He said, no, not quite that simple about. I actually went out here and looked at
the location and I looked to my left and I looked to my right on the public street and I saw
beautiful homes being built and they were being built right on lots similar to mine and in fact,
they were being reconstructed. There were houses there, permits had issued from the Trustees
and in at least an occasion, an appeal was taken and was granted. But by looking physically at
the site, he was encouraged by what he saw, there were beautiful homes going up, they have
been completed, they are there today. They are similar in size to what he has proposed, so it is
not out of character to the neighborhood, to suggest that he should be granted something similar.
But he didn’t just only look at the property and say let’s go buy it, he also said to me, he walked
into the Building Department and showed them what he intended to do and the person there said
you have no problem. And so, he then closed on the property. He paid $1.1 million for the piece
of property. That proof was provided to the Board of Trustees. I say he is not a wealthy guy and
here is $1.1 million, that is not chicken feed, but he said basically it was the result of this one
case. His wife teaches school, they are looking to retire and be here. He hired Young and
Young to obtain a title survey before he closed and that provided the proof he needed as to the
amount of land he had. He then became involved in the process of applying for a coastal zone
erosion permit. As this Board….
COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I am sorry, what year was…
MR. DANOWSKI: 2006.
COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: That is when he purchased?
MR. DANOWSKI: That is correct.
COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. DANOWKSI: It was on July 21, 2006 that he purchased the property. And I took some
th
notes because I ran through the file last night and the box is there. October 26, we filed an
application. The initial application and I say initial because we have three alternate plans after
the initial application, the initial application, as did the others, distanced any construction more
than 100 feet from the salt water wetland, the Long Island Sound. That is important because in
the first application that was filed with the Board of Trustees, I suggested that the area and the
descriptive term that we were talking about under that unique ordinance was a beach area. The
Board of Trustees agreed. The Board of Trustees ultimately denied the application. I believe,
incorrectly they feel that in fact they were without power to grant the application or any
application because they feel that the coastal zone erosion hazard line as set by the state limits
what they can do and that they must deny and we would come back before this Board. I know
Mr. Krupski shakes his head, I knew where he was prior to sitting on this Board and certainly I
January 20, 2009 Page 22
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
am aware of prior applications. What I did do, however, in preparing myself for that initial
hearing was I asked the Trustees and obtained from staff, copies of earlier applications along that
same public highway. And applications were filed for permits and applications were granted.
On almost all of those occasions, the distance was no greater than 100 feet for any construction.
In certain instances, it was less than 75 feet. On occasions, tidal wetland permits issued, on other
occasions it was found it wasn’t necessary to go to the DEC because it was outside their
jurisdiction. Each set of circumstances was a little bit different. But it was very important to
build the record and supply information to the Trustees and ultimately to this Board to clearly
establish that permits had been granted without variance, without waivers, without interpretation
both for tidal wetlands permits and for the coastal erosion permits. Now, we all understand and
the same information was brought to the Trustees attention, that when the state first created this
statute, it was there to protect the owners of the land. It was initially called a shore owners
protection act. It was formed in 1981 and the theory was that where there was proof absolutely
established that there was erosion on average that was significant over a 40 year period, that
somehow the state would consider this to be an important area for protection for the homeowner.
It did not mean that you could not build there, it did not mean that you had a ability in the Town
to deny you a permit, it had all to do about where to locate the home on your property. What I
proved in the Trustee’s hearings and which you have now before you as a record and I don’t
have to detail it all again, through independent experts there has been no erosion that meets the
statutory definition that the state has. I didn’t just go to one expert, I didn’t just go to two. I had
a total of four experts, one of whom interestingly enough Mark Byrne, produced a report for the
Town of Southold. He actually produced a report that took the beach front area from the west all
the way to Horton’s point. And clearly he has established in the record, his report relying in part
on his physical inspection of the property but also on that earlier report and subsequent reports,
there has not been erosion in this area. There actually has been accretion. That is important and
it is not a novel idea and I know Mr. Krupski is aware of this, because when I say applications
were granted by the Trustees over a period of time, I will just mention the names and I made
them part of the record and some applications were small, some were large but they were
granted. Okay, Rosicki, Litner, Vonzuben, Paskoff, Sonnenborn, Pearlstein and Betsch.
Probably the Betsch file is the best example of a presentation of legal arguments and in
consideration by the Trustees at the time. If you look at the record there, which again has been
made part of the appeal process here, the attorney representing Mr. Betsch clearly established
there has been accretion on the property, not erosion, and that a permit should issue and in fact,
the Town Board ultimately granted relief. I read some of Mr. McDonogh’s correspondence back
and forth. I think at one time he suggested that the residential building had a footprint of 3,000
square feet when if fact, on retort the Town said it was 1,800 square foot on the footprint and 600
square feet on the garage. But I say it because the character of the neighborhood, the application
process, the history of the Trustee’s reviewing permits and granting them has to be made a part
of this record and the character of the neighborhood is important. As far as the technicalities
here that I have to get into, the initial decision by the Board denied us with leave to reapply.
Without prejudice were the words that were used. So we had an initial denial on a first plan that
although the distance is 100 feet back and was described as a beach area, we did appeal that
decision. That appeal was held in abeyance pending the consideration of the three alternate
plans. That appeal, the record there, should be made a part of this appeal as far as the record is
concerned. So you can see the full history here of initial application, a denial and ultimately an
January 20, 2009 Page 23
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
appeal file, held in abeyance as we went back to the Trustees with three alternate plans. What
we did with the alternate plans was try to listen to any comments that were made concerning the
location of the proposed house. We had to recognize what the Suffolk County Health
Department would require us with regard to the location of sanitary systems. We had to worry
about the Town’s zoning setback requirements, but clearly we moved the house location three
alternate ways as far back as we could move them. We shrunk the size of the house, we
distanced our location. In the furthest location from the salt water wetland, the Long Island
Sound, the distance is 157 feet. Not 75, not 100 but 157. What is also interesting, though, is
when we got that denied the first time, the Trustee’s in their decision, understood that the proof
that was there by looking at the property was that this was a beach area. A beach area, when you
look at the definition that the Trustee’s must apply states that beach area by definition ends 100
feet from a change of physiographic form. That location is placed on our initial survey and the
initial application stood to be, the building would be constructed outside that area. So the
Town’s own code limited the beach application to 100 feet and that is what we did. We never
intended to build 100 feet from the Sound seaward. We were always behind that line. So in my
own mind, a tidal wetlands permit should have issued and a coastal zone erosion permit should
have issued. I don’t agree with the Trustee’s position that they are without power on the facts of
this case and that this appeal had to be heard. I believe, based upon the facts, they could have
issued the permit. But I understand why they say it. I understand clearly why they say it. They
feel that because magically the State has drawn a line, that they can’t grant any relief. Mr.
Bombara wasn’t happy that it took 13 months to deny the relief the second time around but that
issue is over for now, we have filed our appeal with regard to the second application. I have
asked Doug Adams of Young and Young, to try and take the plans, all four of them, the original
plan and the three alternates and put them on a board, I also heard that Board members might
have wanted to visit the site, so I made myself and Young and Young available, but in addition I
had dropped off at the Supervisor’s office for distribution to the Board members, colored
representations of each of the three alternate plans and so that you could go out and see them in
the field, I had the flags marked to correspond to those plans; so you could distinguish the three.
Because it is confusing to go out and see different stakings for different locations of homes on
the site. So, we did in fact do that. I would like to have you recognize the reports that were
submitted that clearly describe the area as a beach area and the drifting of little beach ridges as
evidence and proof there hasn’t been any erosion on the site. I don’t know because you have it
already in your record whether you need this handed as part of this hearing but I would like to
think that you don’t but I have additional copies if anyone needs to see it. Clearly Mr. Byrnes
credentials, (inaudible) credentials, Dr. Ron Abrams credentials are outstanding. They have an
experience that goes beyond the average expert and I would ask you to give them full credence
in what they have done. In the simplest of terms, what do we have here? We have a man
wanting to build a house. It has taken him a couple of years to get to this point, he would like to
build it. He will take anyone of the locations he has depicted. He will listen to reasonableness.
He took and removed the garage from the separate location, located it within the house envelope.
He took and agreed to build the house on poles. I have looked at the details of other permits they
have issued through their architects and on occasion certainly there was discussions on those
matters about break away panels, which we are more than happy to deal with. We can comply
with FEMA, we can comply with the state DEC rules. So we have to figure out where the
location of the house must go and that is the purpose for this appeal. To grant a waiver of
January 20, 2009 Page 24
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
variance. If no variance were to be granted, I would expect this to be a formal condemnation.
How we go from here is up to you. When you vote and how you vote is important to me for one
further reason. This is an administrative appeal from which the denial would obviously lead to
litigation but more importantly, this sort of unique situation, I ask that at the Board of Trustees
level that they hold in abeyance the tidal wetlands permit decision. Certainly if they granted the
permit, I would have no issues with granting the permit. There is not an administrative appeal
that I know of and I have discussed this with counsel from the denial of the wetlands permit.
That means I will have to litigate the tidal wetlands issue and I will, unless we can resolve this
promptly. If we can do this really fast and even when everyone wants to agree, many times it is
impossible. I will have to file that lawsuit. I want you to understand that, so that when you hear
that hey, Danowski has filed a lawsuit for Bombara, I only did that to protect my client’s rights.
I am still amenable to any discussions to try to work through this process. With that said, I would
just reserve the time to respond to any other comments made by the public or by any of you.
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: I have a couple of questions.
MR. DANOWSKI: Sure.
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Quick questions. You spent a lot of time
talking about the beach area and I know that was the original determination of the Trustee’s, that
this was located within the beach area. But I just wanted to be clear that the appeal you are
taking is from the Trustee’s determination that it is in a primary dune area, correct?
MR. DANOWSKI: I think that what I am saying is I have appealed both decisions. So I agree
with the, let me rephrase it and see if you agree, that I am appealing from the decision which
among other things is the second decision, which on that decision describes it as a dune area.
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Okay, so let’s even further clear up if we
can.
MR. DANOWSKI: Sure.
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Which is tricky to do, obviously. Here.
MR. DANOWSKI: I understand.
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: The latest decision of the Trustee’s, from
October, with the consultation with DEC and I know you may disagree and your experts may
disagree, determined that the area in which you proposed to build is a primary dune area. Right?
Are we in agreement on that?
MR. DANOWSKI: I think that is true.
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Okay. Now, the way that this statute works,
first you look at where the coastal erosion line is, okay and like it or not, that line is I think in the
January 20, 2009 Page 25
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
street or somewhere in the street making your clients property entirely seaward of that line,
right?
MR. DANOWSKI: That is correct.
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: In this instance. And that is true of many
properties along this road and that is what creates a very sticky situation in this neighborhood in
terms of developing this neighborhood, okay? Once we know that, the way the statute works is
you look at what is the natural protective feature, okay, and I know that there may be
disagreement over this but the Trustee’s have most recently determined that’s a primary dune
area. Okay? And so then you look at the primary dune section of this law and it says what can
one do in a primary dune area and the, one of the reasons we are here is something that is not
allowed in a primary dune area is a construction from scratch of a new home on a vacant lot. It
does allow for what is termed a non-major addition, which I think is a 25 percent increase in
footprint to an existing home some other minor development. I am interested in some of the
other appeals you have made reference to and I want to know whether any of those other appeals
had to do with the construction of the home from scratch as opposed to addition to an existing
home?
MR. DANOWSKI: I think that we have probably discussed this before and the answer to that is
not that I know of. And I think the issue we take is there is not a prohibition on a permit issuing
regardless of how you describe what you might want to term a natural protected feature. That is
why we are here today. We might dispute whether the Trustee’s themselves had the power to
grant you the relief or whether you had to take the appeal in order to grant the relief. But this
Board is not prohibited from….
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: I don’t dispute that. I think my reading of
the statute is if we take what the Trustee’s have done most recently as correct and obviously you
reserve your right to dispute that, we have gotten here, at least on that branch of the appeal or
variance is because they have said it is a primary dune area, completely behind the coastal
erosion line, so we are not allowed to permit, under that statute, putting chapter 275 aside, the
construction of a new home from scratch. Now, there is a variance and appeal available to you
which is why you are here and this Board has to evaluate the factors that Councilman Krupski
read at the beginning of this hearing, to determine whether they can grant such relief. This
Board is empowered to grant such relief if you can show the factors that you need to show.
MR. DANOWSKI: I think those factors have already been put in the record. I really don’t want
to delay things, I know you have other things to do and I know there are members of the public
that may want to speak. But I don’t think you necessarily want me to repeat everything….
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: No, no, no, no.
MR. DANOWSKI: But those factors, when I filed the appeal and the experts reports, justify the
granting of the relief. That is all I am saying.
January 20, 2009 Page 26
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: I am not trying to advocate either way here,
just this is a law that is a little arcane and it is not one that we deal with everyday. So I just
wanted to set forth what I thought some of the key factors were.
COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: That is exactly what my comments were going to be. That the
history of the appeal on coastal erosion is not a tremendous, long one. There is not a great record
for appeal for this law which was adopted by the Town in 1991. The history of the permits
granted in this area is really no different than the history of the permits granted in all the coastal
erosion area. There was a, it was a difficult law to administer because of the way it was written
and that is why it is a sort of a difficult appeals process, too, so…
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Was there ever a house on this property?
MR. DANOWSKI: No. You would have to go back to before my memory to know whether the
lots might have not been subdivided and there might have been a house that belonged to many of
the lots but certainly not on this specific location.
COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TOWN CLERK NEVILLE: Excuse me, Mr. Danowski. Were there any documents that you
wish to make part of the record?
MR. DANOWSKI: As long as Kieran and I agree that the record that has been produced before
the Board of Trustees is available and part of the record for this hearing, I am not going to bring
them all out and throw them around again. If someone, however, on the Board wants to see any
one of those documents and they are not available, I would be more than happy to hand them out.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you, Mr. Danowski. Would anyone else like to speak on
this hearing? For or against, to speak at this hearing?
DOUG HARDY: Well, I will start it off I guess. I am Doug Hardy, Southold. For the last 300
or 400 years that and the 100 years or so that the Trustee’s have managed the shoreline, the rate
of sea level rise has been about 1 to 2 millimeters per year. And that comes out to be about 3
inches per 50 years. Barely perceptible to the life span of a human and so that the management
of the shoreline has been treated during this time as a static or there was no rise or fall at sea
level. In the early 1990’s, scientists began to notice a change. And the rate of sea level rise was
accelerating. The best estimate as of late 2008, the forecast is that by 2050, the sea level here in
New York will be between somewhat of 15 to 19 inches higher than today. That means then
from a rate of sea level rise of 3 inches per 50 years, it will now be something like over a foot in
50 years. About a five times increase in sea level rise. Yet the management of our shoreline
isn’t taking this into accord. What this will mean will be that particularly during storms, the
platform of the sea will be higher each year and so that storm surges during nor’easters or
hurricane class III will extend the flooding area further inland. It will also move the primary
dune further in, as the wind creates a new profile on each event. This is an acceleration rate that
management hasn’t experienced before and this was only since the last decade that this has been
January 20, 2009 Page 27
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
noticed. And so, unless you prefer to disbelieve the best scientific forecast, this coastal hazard
zone is going to be rapidly extended inland. The importance of this is shown by this (inaudible)
is the state of New York is currently holding a series of public meetings for state, local and
federal officials and there will be a meeting sponsored by the state on sea level rise task force, I
th
think at Brookhaven National lab on January 29. And I really think that the Town should send
a representative to that meeting to gauge the seriousness of this. The entire coast line of the
United States has never experienced this accelerated sea level rise. It is going to cause enormous
problems with the safety, the environment and it is going to challenge the resources of Southold
Town in the next few decades. Thank you.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak for or against on
this hearing? Mr. Wills?
FRANK WILLS: Good morning. My name is Frank Wills. I live in Mattituck. I represent
myself and also the North Fork Environmental Council. Over time, I believe, I sincerely believe
that we have gotten to know more about what goes on in nature. I went through this myself. I
bought a property on the bluff, about a quarter of a mile to the west of the Mattituck inlet in
1962. I had lived in Center Moriches before and in the 50’s experienced the hurricane that came
through, Edna. So the first question I asked or found out was what is the erosion rate up here?
And I was told that the previous 70 years, the history was one to two foot a year. So I said, I will
take the worse case, take two foot a year, the survey had shown the beach was 191 foot across,
divided by two, 95, so I said, well, I am not going to worry. So I put my house 35 foot from the
edge of the bluff. People would say, how could you do this? Well, there were no rules and
regulations. We just didn’t know at that time what the problems would cost. Now it is 100 foot
back from the bluff, 100 foot back the (inaudible). I also do not believe that a survey that has
gone maybe one week or two weeks or a month will show what the average erosion rate is on
any beach. The other experience I had was and I found out too late about littoral drift. On the
north shore it goes from west to east. In the late 60’s a company called Levon built a jetty in
Northville in order to build an industrial harbor, for which they got an approval in Riverhead. A
few years after that was built, walking on the beach, all of a sudden we found a rock sticking out.
We said, where did that come from? Well, we found out. We were told the erosion through the
littoral drift was removing 40 foot of beach a year from our area, to the point were in 1977 there
was 30 foot left. At which point the storm, I don’t know if you remember Long Island Sound
almost froze over, took the last three foot. Not wishing to wake up one morning with a wet
behind, my neighbor and myself and some other people had their houses moved back 200 feet.
The littoral drift and erosion, if you put anything in its way on the upstream side it will build up,
drop all the sand it is carrying and then for some strange reason, gets hungry and picks it up on
the other side. When I came here in ’62, the difference in Mattituck Inlet jetty was 700 foot. It
is now over 1,000 foot. So unless to the west, to the east of Bombara property, there was a jetty
or groin sticking out, I will say it bluntly, I don’t believe the erosion rates that their so-called
experts, pronounced. So we have learned more about what nature is doing and the consequences
and the fact that in the 40’s and the 50’s houses were allowed to be built on the beach, doesn’t
mean that we should allow this anymore. The fact that Mr. Danowski mentioned some houses
were there and enlarged but they were there and they were built before the facts were known and
that is what I think should apply now. Thank you.
January 20, 2009 Page 28
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you, Mr. Wills. Would anyone else like to speak now?
ANNE MURRAY: Good morning, I am Anne Murray, East Marion. I echo Frank’s sentiments
on this. Just because homes are there does not mean we should repeat the mistake in the future,
now that we know more and I would like to bring up one other point as well. In a previous
hearing before the Trustee’s, Mr. Danowski mentioned that not only was his client unaware of
the coastal zone erosion statute but he did not, and I repeat, did not do the due diligence that
should have been done on this property before the purchase. And I believe that is in the
Trustee’s records that anyone can look up and I think that we in this town should not grant a
variance because, I mean, I share some sympathy with the applicant having spent so much
money on this property but I don’t think the Town should have to pay for it and I think you
should take that into consideration. Thank you.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you.
RAY HUNTINGTON: Ray Huntington, Cutchogue. This is a large area of beachfront, I would
call it original but beachfront is never original, I guess. It is just the way it is. It keeps changing.
The visual observation shows it to be unstable. There are no upland full flora present. It is a
beachfront. There are some principals at stake here. First of all, that not all parcels that have
Suffolk County tax maps are buildable. That is why we have a building permit process. There is
a judgment that is built into our town code, our social agreement in the Town of Southold about
how we go about things. So it is not axiomatic that if you own a lot, you can build a house on it.
The government should not, our government particularly should not be precluded from learning.
From better understanding the circumstances and applying scientific information as we grow in
that knowledge. Going simply by precedence is not the right thing to do. We should use our
intellect as a government as well. In this case, hardship, not self-inflicted, has not been shown.
The due diligence was not performed. Then on a personal basis, I object to having to pay
insurance premiums for people who build houses in the wrong places. Westhampton is a classic
example, but we all live on shoreline here. We are only a few miles, no one in the Town is but a
few miles from the shore. So we know how the shore affects our lives. So it is not a good idea
here to rely on precedent and the fact that Mr. Jones, next door, was given a permit years ago
when we didn’t know better. I urge you to not change the recommendations of the
administrating agencies.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you, Ray. Is there anyone else? Yes.
JENNIFER SKILBRED: Hello, my name is Jennifer Skilbred and I am an environmental
advocate with Group for the East End and for anyone that doesn’t know, Group for the East End
is a non-profit environmental advocacy and educational organization and we have been working
to protect natural resources for over 35 years. So I just wanted to reiterate some of the comments
that were made today. First of all, a primary dune is a dynamic system and as the town code
states, it is a natural protective feature. It protects inland areas and community members from
possible impacts from storms. There is a reason we have the coastal erosion hazard area, and as
you all know it is to protect these natural protective features from inappropriate development
January 20, 2009 Page 29
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
such as this. We agree with the Trustee’s prior decision. They made the right call in denying
this application. It is just an inappropriate place for this sort of development. It is a fragile and
important area that should be protected. It is also important to remember that even though at
times a single or residential project may not seem like that big a deal, the impact of the, the
incremental negative impacts of so many smaller projects can really add up to a major negative
impact on the community. So, thank you for listening to our comments today.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
PATRICIA POPPE: Patricia Poppe, I live in the Kenney’s, McCabe’s beach area. And I do
speak for a number of the residents that are there. I would like to reiterate that yes, indeed, we
know more than we did in the past. A perfect example would be the Hudson River. We dumped
everything into it and then we realized we can’t do that anymore. And I think that is what we
have here. On the properties that were altered in some way along North Sea Drive, I know for
instance, that at least one of them, the Sonnenborn residence, was done specifically to avoid a
problem with erosion and a fear that they would have a problem with the reduction of the
beachfront. We have had some alterations of existing properties from Leeton Drive along North
Sea Drive, that whole area. The group that I am representing today, which is an informal group,
some of us do belong to an association but informally there is a group that is very much opposed
to unnecessary development of any more of the land in that area because of the importance of
that particular environmental piece. Whether it is the Great Pond area which we have been
speaking against development of that area as well as any of the parcels along the beachfront, I
feel very badly for the owner of the piece of property that once again, more research wasn’t done
but on the behalf of this informal group of residents, it is workday and they are not all here but
we would like to very much oppose the granting of any variance to do any new construction in
that area along that beachfront. We have to remember that they are not making any more land.
Thank you.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this?
Yes, sir.
ED BOOTH: My name is Ed Booth, I live in Southold. We, eight of us, own the adjacent
properties, this is the Bombara case, right?
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Yes.
MR. BOOTH: I thought so. Anyway, I would just like to point out that if the Bombara’s go
ahead and build, this is in a way good news and bad news, the good news is for them, they will
have a nice spot. The bad news is for the Town because you are going to lose that 300 feet.
Three 100 foot lots. Now the funny thing about it is, that although we have opposed, my friends
and I have opposed this construction before, we do it at our own detriment. Why is that?
Because you see, if the Bombara’s succeed in putting up their home, well, we are a bunch of old
people, I don’t think the average age is much below 65 or 70 and the kids are coming along and
they will want to sell our 200 feet. The Bombara’s own 100 feet. So if you go ahead prevent the
construction of that home, our property will be valueless. Good news for the Town, I think,
January 20, 2009 Page 30
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
because we will never sell it then. Why would anybody sell a piece of valueless property? I just
wanted to call that to your attention. Thank you.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak up?
MR. DANOWSKI: Kind of just waiting for the last comment from the public. And Aram
Terchunian just walked in and he is one of the experts that prepared the report, I don’t
necessarily want him to be long winded, I haven’t even spoken to him. Looking down at him
now and saying if he has anything further as far as highlighting the comment, I would like him to
do that but not in a long fashion. And as he does that, when he is finished, we will hand up his
report that is already part of the record.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you.
ARAM TERCHUNIAN: Thank you, my name is Aram Terchunian, I am a coastal geologist
with First Coastal Corporation in Westhampton Beach New York. I have reviewed the Bombara
site and listened to the comments here today and I can rise in front of this Board and recommend
approval of this project. There is a couple of comments that I heard and I would just like to
highlight, first of all, as your attorney pointed out, this action is probably in front of you because
you are the only Board that has the variance authority in the township to grant this type of
approval. So any previous action by any Board, in this case the Trustees, in fact did not have the
authority to approve this project and so they had no choice but to deny it and come here. A
gentleman spoke to you earlier about sea level rise, I can recall back when I had dark hair in
graduate school, we were studying sea level rise as well and the number of papers written about
predicting sea level rise over the next 50 years, well, this was about 25 years ago, and all of those
predictions have proved false. In fact, sea level rise is consistent over the last 100 years as based
on tide gauges from New York City harbor and throughout this region and it is approximately 1
foot per century. I don’t want the Board to walk away with the misconception that there is
documented evidence of sea level rise in this area. It does not exist scientifically and that should
not weigh on your decision. The standards that are outlined in your coastal erosion code, the
four standards are really quite straightforward and direct, and I believe that this site meets those
standards and therefore is worthy of a permit. I would like to also go to the aspect of dunes
themselves and the best way to preserve and enhance dunes. And we have been in the dune
building business for many, many years and this site is remarkably different from many other
sites in the township and that in fact goes to your decision as well. This is not a bluff area. As
we know, Southold is dominated by bluffs but it has a lot of areas that are in between bluffs and
that is what this is. This is in between areas, actually a deposition area. Geologically this area is
receiving sand from the eroding bluffs. So another gentleman that spoke to you earlier this
morning about rapid bluff retreat. Well, that is not the case here, it is a completely different type
of system. It is not an erosional system, it is actually a deposition system. This area is
dominated by what we call beach ridges and as you drive along the road, you can see a whole
series of them. These have been deposited over decades and centuries actually. So this is a, as a
result of its geologic character, is a highly stable area, as opposed to bluffs which are inherently
unstable. In addition to that, in your code itself in the description of dune areas under section 37-
16, it talks about the keys to, to dunes providing protection is the volume of sand that is in the
January 20, 2009 Page 31
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
dune. And this is very, very important. To the extent that this Board and any decision it makes,
conserves that volume of sand and in fact enhances the volume of sand that is in the dune, then
you are in fact, protecting that dune and preserving the protective values that the code obligates
you to do. And what does that mean? There is a volume of sand in that area, on this parcel and
to the extent that that volume of sand remains stable or to the extent that that volume of sand is
increased, it provides that protective level, that flood and erosion protection which is absolutely
vital to everyone, as you have heard everyone talk about. So there is a very clear standard in the
conservation of the volume of sand that provides ongoing and enhanced protection. Not just for
this parcel but for the parcels around it and for the land behind it. Just in conclusion, I would just
like to say that my analysis, I have been to this site I would say I in the last 20 years, I must have
been here 50 times, done a lot of work along the shoreline and in my opinion, my professional
judgment, the granting of this variance will not destabilize this dune system, will not have an
adverse impact either on the dune or on the general environment. Thank you.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Any attorney that wants to
talk? Anymore experts that want to talk?
MR. DANOWSKI: I am ending this and I will just hand up Mr. Terchunian’s report in case
someone today didn’t have the report available.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you.
JOHN BETSCH: My name is John Betsch. I just wanted to take exception to something that
was said, just for the record. Mr. Danowski said that there were, read off a series of permits and
applications that were passed, that were approved and passed in the past, Rosicki, Vonzuben,
Pearlstein, Sonnenborn, Pearlstein and myself. I just want to note that every single one of those
applications were either alterations or reconstructions of existing pieces, structures. Some of
which were built over 50 years ago. My house was 50 years old plus when we applied for, and
there is a difference and I just want to make sure that that is not used as a rationale to prove this.
That is all.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you, John.
MR. DANOWSKI: I promise, last time. I will hand up the other experts reports just for
information purposes. I would also indicate that during the pendency of this application, when
the Trustees were considering this matter for the second time, the adjacent property owner was
granted a permit, we supported that application and that particular person supports us, so I just
want to know that the exact adjacent parcel was granted a permit albeit an addition for an
existing structure.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. Does anyone else have a comment or question on
this application? (No response) Do any Board members have a question for…?
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I have a question for the attorney. Where in the legislation do
we differentiate between an entirely new structure versus this 25 percent?
January 20, 2009 Page 32
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: The portion of the legislation that details
what is permitted in a primary dune area, it is a short list. A very short list and one of the things
that is permitted is a, this is a summary, a non-major addition to an existing structure. That is
expressly permitted, okay? And then at the end of that short list it says all, anything that is not
listed herein is not permitted. So, the inference is you can do an addition, you can do a 25%
addition without coming to this Board for a variance because people have sought greater than
25% and gotten variances from that…
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: And that is in a dune situation?
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: In a primary dune area, correct.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: That is not related to the coastal erosion…
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Yes, it is. You start out by saying, this law
doesn’t apply unless you are behind the coastal erosion line. Okay?
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Behind means….
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Seaward. Once you…
COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Or within any natural protective feature. A beach, a dune, a bluff
is a series….
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Once you are (inaudible) you have to
determine whether you are in a particular natural protective feature or not. If you are not, then
you are just in the normal permitting process under this part of the code, if you are, then they are
more severely restricted, like in a primary dune area. I would suggest that at this point, if not all
the members have been out to visit the site, that we adjourn the hearing so that everybody can
take the maps, go out and look at them, then we should come back, set another date and in case
you have further questions of the applicant or want to take anymore testimony or respond to
anything you see in any of the erosion reports, you can do that. I am not suggesting it go on ad
infinitum but I think that is appropriate.
COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I would suggest that we, as a Board, we could, the site is very
close, we could visit the site today after the work session and armed with article 4, variances and
appeals and also armed with the colored surveys provided by the applicant, to do a site
inspection together.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Move we adjourn the hearing?
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Second. With setting a date on a future time?
COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Is two weeks reasonable, Kieran?
January 20, 2009 Page 33
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Yes.
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Absolutely. Certainly to reconvene and ask
further questions.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: What date is that then, Betty?
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: February 3.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: We will adjourn this meeting to February 3.
RESULT: ADJOURNED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 2/3/2009 4:30 PM
MOVER:
Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman
SECONDER:
Vincent Orlando, Councilman
AYES:
Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans
ABSENT:
Scott Russell
Pledge to the Flag
Opening Statements
Councilman Vincent Orlando
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the public hearing on
January 20, 2009. Before we begin, will you please stand for the Pledge. Once again, thank you
everyone for coming tonight. Scott Russell has the flu, so he gave me a call and asked me to run
the meeting for him tonight. So is there anyone here that would like to make any comments or
questions on any resolutions on the agenda that is printed out there tonight? (No response)
V. Resolutions
2009-91
CATEGORY:
Audit
DEPARTMENT:
Town Clerk
Approve Audit 1/20/09
RESOLVED approves the audit dated
that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby
January 20, 2009.
January 20, 2009 Page 34
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-91
?
Adopted
Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent
??
Adopted as Amended
? ? ? ?
William Ruland Voter
??
Defeated
????????
Vincent Orlando Voter
??
Tabled
????????
Albert Krupski Jr. Voter
??
Withdrawn
????????
Thomas H. Wickham Seconder
??
Supervisor's Appt
????????
Louisa P. Evans Initiator
??
Tax Receiver's Appt
????????
Scott Russell Voter
??
Rescinded
2009-92
CATEGORY:
Set Meeting
DEPARTMENT:
Town Clerk
Set Next Meeting
RESOLVED
that the next Regular Town Board Meeting of the Southold Town Board be held,
Tuesday, February 3, 2009 at the Southold Town Hall, Southold, New York at 4:30 P. M..
? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-92
?
Adopted
Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent
??
Adopted as Amended
? ? ? ?
William Ruland Voter
??
Defeated
????????
Vincent Orlando Voter
??
Tabled
????????
Albert Krupski Jr. Voter
??
Withdrawn
????????
Thomas H. Wickham Seconder
??
Supervisor's Appt
????????
Louisa P. Evans Initiator
??
Tax Receiver's Appt
????????
Scott Russell Voter
??
Rescinded
Motion To:
Motion to set work session 1/23/08 1:00PM
COMMENTS - Current Meeting:
RESOLVEDsets 1:00 PM, Friday,
that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby
October 23, 2009
at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York in the
Special Meeting of the Town Board for the
Conference Room, as the time and place for a
purpose of reviewing the resumes received for the Planning Board and Zoning Board of
Appeals.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER:
Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman
SECONDER:
Louisa P. Evans, Justice
AYES:
Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans
ABSENT:
Scott Russell
2009-93
Tabled 1/6/2009 4:30 PM
CATEGORY:
Enact Local Law
January 20, 2009 Page 35
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
DEPARTMENT:
Town Clerk
Enact LL 2009 Open Space in HB & HD
WHEREAS
there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk
rd
A Local Law In
County, New York, on the 23 day of September, 2008 a Local Law entitled “
Relation to Open Space in subdivisions in the Hamlet Density Zoning District
”and
WHEREAS
the Town Board of the Town of Southold held a public hearing on the aforesaid
Local Law at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, now
therefor be it
RESOLVEDENACTS
that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby the proposed local
A Local Law In Relation to Open Space in subdivisions in the Hamlet Density
law entitled, “
Zoning District
” which reads as follows:
LOCAL LAW NO. __3__ 2009
A Local Law In Relation to Open Space in subdivisions in the Hamlet Density Zoning District
BE IT ENACTED BY the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows:
Section 1
. Legislative Intent
The purpose of this Local Law is to require an open space set-aside in subdivisions in the Hamlet
Density Zoning district, identical to that imposed on residential site plans in the same district.
Section 2.
Chapter 240 of the Southold Town Code is amended as follows:
ARTICLE XI Cluster Development
§ 240-42. Authority and purpose.
D. The Planning Board, at its discretion, may mandate cluster development in the HD, AHD,
RR, RO, LB, HB and B Zoning Districts for residential uses as permitted by this Code.
H. Design requirements for cluster development subdivisions. In addition to the other
requirements of this chapter, the following shall apply: (1) In the R-400, R-200, R-
120, R-80 and R-40 and A-C Zoning Districts, a cluster development design must set
aside a minimum of 60% of the buildable lands as open space lands. (2) In the HD
January 20, 2009 Page 36
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
Zoning District, a cluster subdivision development must set aside a minimum
percentage of buildable lands as shown in the “Open Space set-aside” column in the
Schedule for Open Space, Buffers and Setbacks for Residential Site Plans at the end
of Chapter 280. (3) Utility and open space easements may be included in the
calculation of the minimum required open space. (4) Roads, streets, rights-of-way
may not be included in the calculation of the minimum required open space.
Section 3
. APPLICATION
This local law shall apply to ALL [new and pending] applications for residential site plans in
the Town of Southold.
Section 4
. 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 effect the validity of this law
as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid.
Section 5.
EFFECTIVE DATE
This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State.
? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-93
?
Adopted
Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent
??
Adopted as Amended
? ? ? ?
William Ruland Initiator
??
Defeated
????????
Vincent Orlando Voter
??
Tabled
????????
Albert Krupski Jr. Seconder
??
Withdrawn
????????
Thomas H. Wickham Voter
??
Supervisor's Appt
????????
Louisa P. Evans Voter
??
Tax Receiver's Appt
????????
Scott Russell Voter
??
Rescinded
2009-94
Tabled 1/6/2009 4:30 PM
CATEGORY:
Enact Local Law
DEPARTMENT:
Town Clerk
Enact LL Design Standards Res Site Plan
WHEREAS,
there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk
A Local Law In
County, New York, on the 16th day of December, 2008 a Local Law entitled “
Relation to Design Standards and Regulations for Residential Site Plans in the Town of
Southold”
and
January 20, 2009 Page 37
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
WHEREAS
the Town Board of the Town of Southold held a public hearing on the aforesaid
Local Law at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard, Now
therefor be it
RESOLVEDENACTS
that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby the proposed local
A Local Law In Relation to Design Standards and Regulations for Residential
law entitled, “
Site Plans in the Town of Southold
” reads as follows:
LOCAL LAW NO. _2_ 2009
“A Local Law in relation to Design Standards and Regulations for
A Local Law entitled,
Residential Site Plans in the Town of Southold”
.
BE IT ENACTED
by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows:
Section 1
. Legislative Intent
The Town of Southold’s Comprehensive Plan, comprised of a series of planning
initiatives undertaken over the past 20 years, establishes a group of fundamental goals that
together provide the underpinnings of Southold’s future vision. These goals are:
1. To preserve land, including farmland, open space and recreational landscapes.
2. To preserve the rural, cultural and historic character of the hamlets surrounding
the countryside.
3. To preserve the Town’s remaining natural environment; to prevent further
deterioration of the Town’s natural resources and to restore the Town’s degraded
natural resources back to their previous quality.
4. To preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that
supports a socio-economically diverse community.
5. To increase transportation efficiency and to create alternatives to automobile
travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of roads in the Town.
The Town Board of the Town of Southold recognizes that the local community can
absorb a finite amount of development in order to achieve the goals set forth above. The
development that occurs will result in irreversible changes to the land and the community. The
Town of Southold is engaged in a process for comprehensive planning for the hamlets located in
the Town, and in 2005 adopted the Town of Southold “Hamlet Study”. The Hamlet Study
represents a unique exercise in Southold’s long tradition of community planning as it was
prepared by stakeholders from each hamlet representing a cross-section of the community. The
primary goal of the Hamlet Study was to balance and accommodate an appropriate degree of
growth in each hamlet. Since the adoption, the hamlet stakeholder process has been re-convened
and the stakeholders are active in working with the Planning Board and staff to plan for the
future of the hamlets.
Presently, there are two applications for residential site plans before the Planning Board.
These projects, if approved in their present form, would yield a significant change in the
character of the hamlets in which they are proposed. The proposed project in Cutchogue contains
the second-largest number of residential units proposed in a single development in the Town of
Southold in recent memory. The impact of this development on the existing community and
January 20, 2009 Page 38
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
character of the hamlet is likely to be profound. The proposed project in Southold, while not as
large in number of units, is large in scale and size of buildings.
The Planning Department, faced with these applications, advised the Town Board that the
current residential site plan regulations are inadequate to deal with the proposed developments.
The current residential site plan regulations lack residential design standards and cluster
requirements. The Town Board, Planning Board, Planning staff, and Code Committee reviewed
the high density residential zoning, including Hamlet Density (HD) and Hamlet Business (HB),
and proposed amendments. A public hearing was held on the proposed Code amendments on
September 23, 2008. Thereafter, the Town Board, Planning staff and Code Committee met on
several occasions to review the public comments and further discuss appropriate amendments to
the town code. These proposed amendments are designed to assure that residential development
in the residential zones is consistent with the plans for the hamlet, is compatible in scale with the
hamlet, and will comprehensively meet the long-range goals of the Town. These amendments
intend to assure a diversity of housing stock, promote moderate-cost dwellings, meet the needs of
the existing population, and protect groundwater, open space and community character. The
business zones that allow residential development have been removed from the proposal at this
time, as the Planning Board, Town Board, and Code Committee have agreed that it is appropriate
to examine the business zones and their uses comprehensively in the near future.
Section 2
. CODE AMENDMENTS
Chapter 280 of the Code of the Town of Southold
§ 280-137. Standards for residential site plans.
The purpose of these residential site plan standards are to provide for a diversity of housing
stock, promote moderate-cost dwellings, meet the needs of the existing population and
protect groundwater, open space and community character.
A. The Planning Board's review of the application and plans with respect to residential
site plans shall include their compliance with the following:
(1) The requirement that the applicant attend a presubmission conference, at
which time the applicant, the Planning Board and planning staff shall discuss
the salient design features of the application. At such conference, the applicant
shall be provided with a copy of the then-existing design manual as adopted
by the Planning Board.
(2) The applicable provisions of this chapter.
(3) Where applicable, Town Law § 274-a and General Municipal Law § 239-m.
(4) Construction standards and specifications of the Town highway specifications,
Chapter 161 of the Code of the Town of Southold. For the purposes of
residential site plans, one dwelling unit is the equivalent of one residential lot.
(5) The requirements of the existing resources and site analysis plan(s) (ERSAP)
and the allowable density of dwelling units as calculated using the yield plan
criteria for standard subdivisions set forth in §§ 240-10A and B(2) of the Code
of the Town of Southold, Subdivision of Land.
(6) The provisions of Article XI, Cluster Development, of Chapter 240 of the
Code of the Town of Southold, Subdivision of Land, as may shall be applied
by the Planning Board in its discretion to residential site plans in residential
districts, and may be applied by the Planning Board to residential site plans in
January 20, 2009 Page 39
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
business districts., where it determines that such cluster development shall
benefit the Town and the natural and scenic qualities of open lands. In doing
so, the Planning Board shall establish conditions on the ownership, use and
maintenance of such open lands as it deems necessary to assure the
preservation of the natural and scenic qualities of such open lands and shall
not permit the use of such lands for the fulfillment of the park and recreation
requirement. The procedures set forth in Article XI, of Chapter 240,
Subdivision of Land, shall govern except as modified herein. To the extent
that this provision may be construed to be in conflict with Town Law § 278
regarding clustered development, Town Law § 274-a regarding site plan
review, or Town Law § 267, 267-a, 267-b or 267-c regarding the authority of
the Zoning Board of Appeals, this provision supersedes and amends such
sections insofar as they place any limitation on the Planning Board's
application of such clustered development to residential site plans or the
requirement of the fulfillment of the park and recreation requirement.
(a) Design requirements where cluster development is required:
1. Open space
i. Where required, cluster development design shall set aside a
percentage of buildable land as open space in accordance with the
schedule for Open Space, Buffers and Setbacks for Residential Site
Attachment 6
Plans at the end of this chapter, in .
ii. Open space shall be vegetated, with no more than 15% of the land
area to be irrigated.
iii. Open space shall remain open and free of any buildings or
structures, except those structures related to the use of the open
space, including but not limited to split rail fences, signs and
boundary markers.
iv. The location, use and design of the open space areas will be
determined by the Planning Board using the ERSAP, as set forth
above, and as set forth and regulated in §240-10C and §240-44.
2. Minimum setback
i. The setback from the property line to all structures shall be in
accordance with the schedule for Open Space, Buffers and
Setbacks for Residential Site Plans at the end of this chapter.
3. Minimum buffer
i. The buffer area shall be in accordance with the schedule for Open
Space, Buffers and Setbacks for Residential Site Plans at the end of
this chapter
(7) [Reserved.]
(8) Design considerations:
(a) The location, arrangement, setbacks, size, design, and general site
compatibility of buildings, structures, landscaping, lighting, and
signs, in keeping with the character of the community;
(b) The adequacy, safety and convenience of vehicular traffic access and
January 20, 2009 Page 40
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
circulation, including driveways, rights-of-way, curb cuts,
intersections, pavement surfaces, traffic controls, and designated
areas for access to public transportation;
(c) The adequacy, safety and convenience of pedestrian and bicycle
traffic and circulation, including sidewalks, walkways, and
pedestrian/vehicle conflict points;
(d) The sufficiency, convenience and appearance of off-street parking
and loading areas, including visitor, employee and overflow parking,
parking and storage for trailers, boats, and recreational vehicles, and
the provision of alleyways;
(e) The provision of and adequacy of emergency lanes, exits, tap streets,
other safety zones, and the provision of fire hydrants to promote the
public safety; and
(f) The proximity of recreational facilities and open space.
(g) Garages should be set back from the front façade of the building.
Two-car garages should either have a separate door for each bay, or
have the appearance of an individual door for each bay.
B. SEQRA review. The Planning Board shall comply with the provisions of the New
York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Article 8 of the
Environmental Conservation Law, 6 NYCRR Part 617. [Added 8-2-2005 by L.L. No.
12-2005]
C. Within 10 days after completion of the SEQRA review accepting the application, the
Planning Board shall forward the application to the Architectural Review Committee
for review. The Architectural Review Committee shall review the application at their
next regularly scheduled meeting, and make a written recommendation to the
Planning Board on the site plan within 10 business days of that meeting receipt of the
referral. If the Committee fails to make a recommendation within this time period, the
project shall proceed to the Planning Board for consideration without Committee
review. [Added 8-2-2005 by L.L. No. 12-2005]
D. Preliminary hearing requirement. Prior to and in addition to the public hearing
required by § 280-131H, the Planning Board shall hold a separate preliminary hearing
on the application with notice provided pursuant to Chapter 55, Notice of Public
Hearings. [Amended 8-2-2005 by L.L. No. 12-2005]
E. Affordable housing requirement. Every new residential site plan involving the
creation of five or more dwelling units shall comply with the requirements of § 240-
10B(2)(c) of the Code of the Town of Southold, Subdivision of Land, pertaining to
the provision of affordable housing, except in the Hamlet Density zoning district the
number of units to be set aside as moderate-income family dwelling units (MIFDU) is
reduced from twenty percent to ten percent. The requirements applicable to lots
within a subdivision in that subsection shall apply equally to dwelling units in
affected residential site plans.
F. Park and recreation requirement. The provisions of § 240-53 of the Code of the Town
of Southold, Subdivision of Land, pertaining to the reservation of parkland in
subdivisions, shall apply equally to residential site plans approved under this chapter,
except the fee per lot therein shall herein be applicable to each dwelling unit.
January 20, 2009 Page 41
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
[Amended 8-2-2005 by L.L. No. 12-2005]
G. Performance bond requirement. The provisions of Article IX, Bonds and Other
Security, and Article X, Required Public Improvements; Inspections; Fees, of Chapter
240, Subdivision of Land, of the Code of the Town of Southold, shall apply equally to
residential site plans approved under this chapter. Pursuant to Municipal Home Rule
Law § 10, § 280-137B, C and D herein supersedes and amends New York State Town
Law § 274-a regarding site plan review to the extent that the Planning Board is
empowered to impose affordable housing, park and recreation and performance bond
requirements in the residential site plan review process. [Amended 8-2-2005 by L.L.
No. 12-2005]
H. Phased development. The Planning Board shall permit the phased development of
residential properties that meet all other applicable standards, but shall condition the
approval of the development of any permitted phase upon the maintenance of the
undeveloped phases in their undeveloped condition, and shall prohibit all clearing and
site preparation on such undeveloped phases until such time as development is
permitted. [Amended 8-2-2005 by L.L. No. 12-2005]
I. Planning Board authority to vary requirements for setbacks, building length,
separation and courts, and open space. [Amended 8-2-2005 by L.L. No. 12-2005]
(1) The Planning Board shall have the authority to reduce or amend yard setback
requirements for individual buildings in favor of a perimeter setback for entire
groups of buildings, to require that setbacks from interior streets be varied,
and to reduce or amend the requirements of §§ 280-107 and 280-108, and to
reduce or amend requirements for open space. In making these decisions, the
Planning Board shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant, as
weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community. In making such determination, the Planning
Board shall also consider:
(a) Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of
the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created
by the granting of the amendment;
(b) Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some
method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than the sought
variance;
(c) Whether the variance is substantial;
(d) Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact
on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or
district; and
(e) Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which shall be
relevant to the decision but shall not necessarily preclude the
proposed amendment or variance.
(2) This provision supersedes and amends New York State Town Law §§ 267,
267-a, 267-b and 267-c insofar as these sections give such authority to the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Section 3
. Chapter 280 is further amended as follows:
280-4 Definitions
January 20, 2009 Page 42
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
BUFFER-- A natural or landscaped vegetated area along the boundaries of a subdivision, lot or
parcel, designed to provide natural visual screening through the growth of dense vegetation, and
ideally including evergreens.
A new Attachment 6 is added to Chapter 280.
280 Attachment 6
Town of Southold
Schedule for Open Space, Buffers and Setbacks for Cluster Development Residential Site Plans
Size of Minimum open Minimum Minimum buffer
2
property space set-aside setback (in (in feet)
1
(acres) (as a percent of feet)
total land area of
project)
<15 20 30 20
15-39 30 35 25
>39 50 75 50
1
Perimeter setback from property line to all structures including driveways, patios &
decks (includes the buffer area). Setback must be vegetated. Where open space is
between the property line and the buildings, the buildings must be setback from the open
space a minimum of 10’ as measured from the edge of structure to the nearest edge of
open space. The portion of the setback not encompassing the buffer area is excluded from
the open space calculation.
2
The buffer is located within the minimum setback. The buffer begins at the property line
and extends in towards the interior of the parcel. The area of the buffer shall be included
in open space calculations. At the discretion of the Planning Board, buffers can either be
“non-disturbance” meaning the buffer area is left in its natural state and vegetation is not
cut or removed, or a buffer can be planted and landscaped according to a plan approved
by the Planning Board.
Section 4
. APPLICATION
This local law shall apply to ALL [new and pending] applications for residential site
plans in the Town of Southold.
Section 5
. 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.
Section 6.
EFFECTIVE DATE
This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State.
January 20, 2009 Page 43
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-94
?
Adopted
Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent
??
Adopted as Amended
? ? ? ?
William Ruland Voter
??
Defeated
????????
Vincent Orlando Voter
??
Tabled
????????
Albert Krupski Jr. Initiator
??
Withdrawn
????????
Thomas H. Wickham Seconder
??
Supervisor's Appt
????????
Louisa P. Evans Voter
??
Tax Receiver's Appt
????????
Scott Russell Voter
??
Rescinded
2009-95
Tabled 1/6/2009 4:30 PM
CATEGORY:
Enact Local Law
DEPARTMENT:
Town Clerk
Enact LL to Limit Size in Res
WHEREAS
there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk
th
A Local Law In
County, New York, on the 16 day of December, 2008 a Local Law entitled “
Relation to Zoning Amendments to limit the size of dwelling units in Residential Site Plans
in the Hamlet Density District in the Town of Southold
”and
WHEREAS
the Town Board of the Town of Southold held a public hearing on the aforesaid
Local Law at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, NOW
therefor be it
RESOLVEDENACTS
that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby the proposed local
A Local Law In Relation to Zoning Amendments to limit the size of dwelling
law entitled, “
units in Residential Site Plans in the Hamlet Density District in the Town of Southold
”
reads as follows:
LOCAL LAW NO. ___1____ 2009
“A Local Law in relation to Zoning Amendments to limit the size of dwelling
A Local Law entitled,
units in Residential Site Plans in the Hamlet Density District in the Town of Southold”
.
BE IT ENACTED
by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows:
January 20, 2009 Page 44
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
Section 1.
Enactment
I. Legislative Intent
The Town of Southold’s Comprehensive Plan, comprised of a series of planning
initiatives undertaken over the past 20 years, establishes a group of fundamental goals that
together provide the underpinnings of Southold’s future vision. These goals are:
1. To preserve land, including farmland, open space and recreational landscapes.
2. To preserve the rural, cultural and historic character of the hamlets surrounding
the countryside.
3. To preserve the Town’s remaining natural environment; to prevent further
deterioration of the Town’s natural resources and to restore the Town’s degraded natural
resources back to their previous quality.
4. To preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that
supports a socio-economically diverse community.
5. To increase transportation efficiency and to create alternatives to automobile
travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of roads in the Town.
The Town Board of the Town of Southold recognizes that the local community can
absorb a finite amount of development in order to achieve the goals set forth above. The
development that occurs will result in irreversible changes to the land and the community. The
Town of Southold is engaged in a process for comprehensive planning for the hamlets located in
the Town, and in 2005 adopted the Town of Southold “Hamlet Study”. The Hamlet Study
represents a unique exercise in Southold’s long tradition of community planning as it was
prepared by stakeholders from each hamlet representing a cross-section of the community. The
primary goal of the Hamlet Study was to balance and accommodate an appropriate degree of
growth in each hamlet. Since the adoption, the hamlet stakeholder process has been re-convened
and the stakeholders are active in working with the Planning Board and staff to plan for the
future of the hamlets.
Presently, there are two applications for residential site plans before the Planning Board.
These projects, if approved in their present form, would yield a significant change in the
character of the hamlets in which they are proposed. The proposed project in Cutchogue contains
January 20, 2009 Page 45
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
the second-largest number of residential units proposed in a single development in the Town of
Southold in recent memory. The impact of this development on the existing community and
character of the hamlet is likely to be profound. The proposed project in Southold, while not as
large in number of units, is large in scale and size of buildings.
The Planning Department, faced with these applications, advised the Town Board that the
current residential site plan regulations are inadequate to deal with the proposed developments.
The current residential site plan regulations lack residential design standards and cluster
requirements. The Town Board, Planning Board, Planning staff, and Code Committee reviewed
the high density residential zoning, including Hamlet Density (HD) and Hamlet Business (HB),
and proposed amendments. A public hearing was held on the proposed Code amendments on
September 23, 2008. Thereafter, the Town Board, Planning staff and Code Committee met on
several occasions to review the public comments and further discuss appropriate amendments to
the town code. These proposed amendments are designed to assure that residential development
in the residential zones is consistent with the plans for the hamlet, is compatible in scale with the
hamlet, and will comprehensively meet the long-range goals of the Town. These amendments
intend to assure a diversity of housing stock, promote moderate-cost dwellings, meet the needs of
the existing population, and protect groundwater, open space and community character. The
business zones that allow residential development have been removed from the proposal at this
time, as the Planning Board, Town Board, and Code Committee have agreed that it is appropriate
to examine the business zones and their uses comprehensively in the near future. This proposed
law places restrictions on the size of dwelling units in the HD zoning district. This district is the
densest residential zoning district in the Town, and such restriction will serve to achieve the
aforementioned goals.
Section 2
. CODE AMENDMENTS
Chapter 280 of the Code of the Town of Southold is amended as follows:
§280-137 A
Maximum amount of building area and size of buildings in the Hamlet
(7).
Density Zoning District
i. The maximum amount of total building area on a parcel shall be
limited to the yield as determined by a yield plan multiplied by
1,200 s.f. (Yield shall be determined pursuant to §240-10B). The
January 20, 2009 Page 46
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
resulting total building area may then be divided into structures.
ii. At least 50% of the total number of units proposed must not be
larger than 1,200 s.f. livable floor area. The remaining building
area may be distributed among units of varying sizes, provided the
total number of dwelling units built does not exceed the yield as
determined by the yield plan. Each unit built may have up to 400
s.f. incidental floor area in addition to the livable floor area.
iii. Total building area for the purpose of this section is the cumulative
amount of livable floor area, as defined below, of all dwellings.
Total building area does not include clubhouse or similar amenities
structures.
iv. Livable floor area per unit for the purpose of this section is the
total area of all floors, including all spaces within the exterior walls
of a dwelling unit, with no deduction for hallways, stairs, closets,
thickness of interior walls, or other interior features. Livable floor
Incidental floor
area per unit shall exclude incidental floor area.
area shall include, but not be limited to garages, unenclosed
porches and decks, and shall not include unfinished basement
area and unfinished attic area.
Section 3
. APPLICATION
This local law shall apply to ALL [new and pending] applications for residential site
plans in the Town of Southold.
Section 4
. 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.
Section 5.
EFFECTIVE DATE
This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State.
? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-95
?
Adopted
Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent
??
Adopted as Amended
? ? ? ?
William Ruland Voter
??
Defeated
????????
Vincent Orlando Initiator
??
Tabled
????????
Albert Krupski Jr. Voter
??
Withdrawn
????????
Thomas H. Wickham Seconder
??
Supervisor's Appt
????????
Louisa P. Evans Voter
??
Tax Receiver's Appt
????????
Scott Russell Voter
??
Rescinded
January 20, 2009 Page 47
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
2009-96
CATEGORY:
Retirement/Resignation
DEPARTMENT:
Accounting
FI Retiree Sick Time Buy Out
WHEREAS,
the Fishers Island Ferry District conforms that provision of the collective
bargaining agreement between the Town of Southold and the CSEA which provides for payment
of accumulated unused sick leave upon retirement for the first 40 days in full and payment at the
rate of one for three for every additional day over 40, up to total payment of 120 days, and
WHEREAS,
the Board of Commissioners of the Fishers Island Ferry District adopted a
resolution at their January 6, 2009 to pay Paul Foley, who retired from Fishers Island Ferry
District effective 12/31/08, for his accumulated unused sick leave, and
WHEREAS,
the Town Board of the Town of Southold is required to approve payment for
accumulated unused sick leave for employees of the Fishers Island Ferry District, now therefore
be it
RESOLVED
that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes payment to Paul
Foley, who retired from Fishers Island Ferry District effective 12/31/08, for his accumulated
unused sick leave totaling $10,082.61 less mandatory payroll withholdings.
? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-96
?
Adopted
Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent
??
Adopted as Amended
? ? ? ?
William Ruland Seconder
??
Defeated
????????
Vincent Orlando Voter
??
Tabled
????????
Albert Krupski Jr. Voter
??
Withdrawn
????????
Thomas H. Wickham Voter
??
Supervisor's Appt
????????
Louisa P. Evans Initiator
??
Tax Receiver's Appt
????????
Scott Russell Voter
??
Rescinded
2009-97
CATEGORY:
Attend Seminar
DEPARTMENT:
Building Department
January 20, 2009 Page 48
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
Training
RESOLVED grants permission to
that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby
Building Permits Examiner Patricia Conklin, Building Inspector Gary Fish, Fire Inspector
Robert Fisher and Chief Building Inspector Michael Verity to attend a training conference
in Lake Placid, New York, from March 2-5, 2009. The above conference will provide the
required amount of in-service credits for the year.
All expenses for registration, travel to be a
legal charge to the 2009 Building Department budget (meetings and seminars).
? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-97
?
Adopted
Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent
??
Adopted as Amended
? ? ? ?
William Ruland Voter
??
Defeated
????????
Vincent Orlando Voter
??
Tabled
????????
Albert Krupski Jr. Seconder
??
Withdrawn
????????
Thomas H. Wickham Initiator
??
Supervisor's Appt
????????
Louisa P. Evans Voter
??
Tax Receiver's Appt
????????
Scott Russell Voter
??
Rescinded
2009-98
CATEGORY:
Advertise
DEPARTMENT:
Police Dept
Advertise for Seasonal Police Officers for the 2010 Season
RESOLVEDauthorizes and directs the
that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby
Town Clerk to advertise for two (2) weeks for Seasonal Police Officers for the 2010
summer season.
Attendance at the Suffolk County Police Academy for training to commence in
the fall of 2009. Applications must be received by Monday, March 2, 2009.
? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-98
?
Adopted
Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent
??
Adopted as Amended
? ? ? ?
William Ruland Initiator
??
Defeated
????????
Vincent Orlando Voter
??
Tabled
????????
Albert Krupski Jr. Seconder
??
Withdrawn
????????
Thomas H. Wickham Voter
??
Supervisor's Appt
????????
Louisa P. Evans Voter
??
Tax Receiver's Appt
????????
Scott Russell Voter
??
Rescinded
2009-99
January 20, 2009 Page 49
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
CATEGORY:
Contracts, Lease & Agreements
DEPARTMENT:
Town Attorney
Authorizes and Directs Supervisor Scott A. Russell to Execute the Proposal Between the Town of
Southold and Diversified Technology Consultants Dated January 6, 2009, for Engineering Services
RESOLVEDauthorizes and directs
that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby
Supervisor Scott A. Russell to execute the Proposal between the Town of Southold and
Diversified Technology Consultants dated January 6, 2009, for engineering services
relating
to maintenance of the wastewater facilities and compliance with NYS DEC requirements for the
Fishers Island Sewer District, subject to the approval of the Town Attorney.
? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-99
?
Adopted
Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent
??
Adopted as Amended
? ? ? ?
William Ruland Voter
??
Defeated
????????
Vincent Orlando Seconder
??
Tabled
????????
Albert Krupski Jr. Initiator
??
Withdrawn
????????
Thomas H. Wickham Voter
??
Supervisor's Appt
????????
Louisa P. Evans Voter
??
Tax Receiver's Appt
????????
Scott Russell Voter
??
Rescinded
2009-100
CATEGORY:
Bid Acceptance
DEPARTMENT:
Town Attorney
Amend Resolution 2008-1077
RESOLVEDamends Resolution #2008-
that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby
1072 adopted December 16, 2008 to read as follows:
RESOLVEDaccepts the bid of Burt’s
that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby
Reliable, at a fixed differential price of $0.135 per gallon above the Northville Rack Price,
for supplying the Town of Southold Highway Department with ultra low sulfur diesel fuel
for the 2009 calendar year
, all in accordance with the Town Attorney.
January 20, 2009 Page 50
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-100
?
Adopted
Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent
??
Adopted as Amended
? ? ? ?
William Ruland Seconder
??
Defeated
????????
Vincent Orlando Initiator
??
Tabled
????????
Albert Krupski Jr. Voter
??
Withdrawn
????????
Thomas H. Wickham Voter
??
Supervisor's Appt
????????
Louisa P. Evans Voter
??
Tax Receiver's Appt
????????
Scott Russell Voter
??
Rescinded
2009-101
CATEGORY:
Bid Acceptance
DEPARTMENT:
Solid Waste Management District
Accept Bid on Biodegradable Leaf Bags
RESOLVED accepts the bid of
that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby
Pabco Industries, LLC to supply the town with Biodegradable Paper Leaf Bags
at the quantity prices received in Pabco’s bid of November 20, 2008, all in accordance with the
Town Attorney.
? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-101
?
Adopted
Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent
??
Adopted as Amended
? ? ? ?
William Ruland Voter
??
Defeated
????????
Vincent Orlando Voter
??
Tabled
????????
Albert Krupski Jr. Initiator
??
Withdrawn
????????
Thomas H. Wickham Seconder
??
Supervisor's Appt
????????
Louisa P. Evans Initiator
??
Tax Receiver's Appt
????????
Scott Russell Voter
??
Rescinded
2009-102
CATEGORY:
Bid Acceptance
DEPARTMENT:
Solid Waste Management District
Accept Bid on Scrap Tire Removal
RESOLVED accepts the OPTION # 1
that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby
bid of Pegasus Worldwide, LLC to remove Scrap Tires collected at the Southold Town
Transfer Station in accordance with all applicable state and federal regulations
in the amount of $ 1,400 per 100 cu. Yd. trailer load, plus applicable surcharges for oversized
tires, all in accordance with the Town Attorney.
January 20, 2009 Page 51
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-102
?
Adopted
Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent
??
Adopted as Amended
? ? ? ?
William Ruland Voter
??
Defeated
????????
Vincent Orlando Seconder
??
Tabled
????????
Albert Krupski Jr. Voter
??
Withdrawn
????????
Thomas H. Wickham Initiator
??
Supervisor's Appt
????????
Louisa P. Evans Seconder
??
Tax Receiver's Appt
????????
Scott Russell Voter
??
Rescinded
2009-103
CATEGORY:
Contracts, Lease & Agreements
DEPARTMENT:
Town Attorney
Amend Resolution #2008-898
RESOLVEDamends Resolution #2008-
that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby
898 adopted September 23, 2008 to read as follows:
WHEREAS
, pursuant to Section 215 of the Southold Town Code, the Town Board, acting for
and on behalf of the Fishers Island Sewer District, is authorized and empowered to regulate the
disposal of wastewater and proper operations and maintenance of the public sewers, the sewage
treatment facility, and other sewage works within the Fishers Island Sewer District (FISD); and
WHEREAS costs associated with a review of a new hook-up for the Fishers Island Sewer
typicallyexcept in
District for professional engineering services are approximately $1,500.00,
certain complex circumstances, where the review costs may far exceed that amount
; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVEDestablishes a fee of
that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby
$1,500.00 for review of each new sewer hook-up, effective September 1, 2008
; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED that in the event the costs of review are expected to exceed
$1,500.00, the applicant for hook-up shall be required to bear such additional costs and
advance any expected review costs to the Town, effective January 1, 2009.
January 20, 2009 Page 52
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-103
?
Adopted
Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent
??
Adopted as Amended
? ? ? ?
William Ruland Initiator
??
Defeated
????????
Vincent Orlando Voter
??
Tabled
????????
Albert Krupski Jr. Seconder
??
Withdrawn
????????
Thomas H. Wickham Voter
??
Supervisor's Appt
????????
Louisa P. Evans Voter
??
Tax Receiver's Appt
????????
Scott Russell Voter
??
Rescinded
2009-104
CATEGORY:
Landfill Misc.
DEPARTMENT:
Solid Waste Management District
New Landfill Material Code
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby designates
It is
"Unadulterated Wood"
as defined by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation in 6 NYCRR Part 360-1.2(b)(175) as a waste material distinct from mixed
construction and demolition debris (C&D) and authorizes its acceptance for disposal at the
Cutchogue Transfer Station at a price of $30/ton, provided such material is delivered in amounts
RESOLVED
of not less than 10 cubic yards per disposal. And it is further that the Solid Waste
Coordinator is hereby authorized to designate an appropriate name and computer code to
describe such material accepted at the Transfer Station for reporting purposes.
? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-104
?
Adopted
Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent
??
Adopted as Amended
? ? ? ?
William Ruland Voter
??
Defeated
????????
Vincent Orlando Voter
??
Tabled
????????
Albert Krupski Jr. Initiator
??
Withdrawn
????????
Thomas H. Wickham Seconder
??
Supervisor's Appt
????????
Louisa P. Evans Voter
??
Tax Receiver's Appt
????????
Scott Russell Voter
??
Rescinded
Statement
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Did you want to expand on that or?
COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: No.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: I know what you meant.
COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Yeah, I didn't realize there was a minimum.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: And this is the debris they can take and actually chip up.
COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: The grind up, right. As opposed to shipping it. Right.
2009-105
January 20, 2009 Page 53
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
CATEGORY:
Attend Seminar
DEPARTMENT:
Building Department
Training
RESOLVED grants permission to
that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby
Building Permits Coordinator Vicki Toth to attend a Basic Training Seminar in North
Patchogue, on January 27-29, 2009.
All expenses for registration, travel to be a legal charge to
the 2009 Building Department budget (meetings and seminars).
? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-105
?
Adopted
Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent
??
Adopted as Amended
? ? ? ?
William Ruland Voter
??
Defeated
????????
Vincent Orlando Initiator
??
Tabled
????????
Albert Krupski Jr. Voter
??
Withdrawn
????????
Thomas H. Wickham Voter
??
Supervisor's Appt
????????
Louisa P. Evans Seconder
??
Tax Receiver's Appt
????????
Scott Russell Voter
??
Rescinded
2009-106
CATEGORY:
Organizational
DEPARTMENT:
Town Clerk
Appoint Philip Beltz as Deputy Supervisor of the Town of Southold for the Term of January 1, 2009
through December 31, 2009
RESOLVED
the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby amends resolution No. 2009-1 as
follows:
SUPERVISOR’S APPOINTMENT
Philip Beltz
Supervisor Scott A. Russell hereby appoints as Deputy Supervisor of the Town of
Southold for the term of January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009.
? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-106
?
Adopted
Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent
??
Adopted as Amended
? ? ? ?
William Ruland Initiator
??
Defeated
????????
Vincent Orlando Voter
??
Tabled
??????????
Withdrawn Albert Krupski Jr. Seconder
??
Supervisor's Appt ????????
Thomas H. Wickham Voter
??
Tax Receiver's Appt
????????
Louisa P. Evans Voter
??
Rescinded
????????
Scott Russell Voter
Next: Feb 3, 2009 4:30 PM
January 20, 2009 Page 54
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
2009-107
CATEGORY:
Contracts, Lease & Agreements
DEPARTMENT:
Town Attorney
Authorizes and Directs Supervisor Scott A. Russell to Execute the First Amendment to Lease and
Memorandum of Lease Between the Town of Southold and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, Successor
in Interest to Cellular Telephone Company
RESOLVEDauthorizes and directs
that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby
Supervisor Scott A. Russell to execute the First Amendment to Lease and Memorandum of
Lease between the Town of Southold and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, successor in
interest to Cellular Telephone Company
, in connection with the renewal of the Lease
regarding the Peconic Lane cell tower site for a term of 60 months, commencing on April 1,
2011, subject to the approval of the Town Attorney.
? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-107
?
Adopted
Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent
??
Adopted as Amended
? ? ? ?
William Ruland Voter
??
Defeated
????????
Vincent Orlando Voter
??
Tabled
????????
??Albert Krupski Jr. Voter
Withdrawn
??
Supervisor's Appt ????????
Thomas H. Wickham Seconder
??
Tax Receiver's Appt
????????
Louisa P. Evans Initiator
??
Rescinded
????????
Scott Russell Voter
Next: Feb 3, 2009 4:30 PM
2009-108
CATEGORY:
Bid Acceptance
DEPARTMENT:
Public Works
Peconic School Engineering Services
RESOLVED accepts the proposal of L.
that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby
K. McLean Associates, P.C. and James, LaSala & Associates to provide Professional
Architectural and Engineering services for the preparation of design documents and bid
specifications as outline in their proposal dated December 16, 2008 for the design of HVAC,
plumbing, electrical, lighting and fire sprinkler systems, including design drawings suitable
for all permit applications, bid and construction documents, for renovations to the Peconic
School, in the amount of $26,398
, all in accordance with the approval of the Town Attorney.
January 20, 2009 Page 55
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-108
?
Adopted
Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent
??
Adopted as Amended
? ? ? ?
William Ruland Seconder
??
Defeated
????????
Vincent Orlando Voter
??
Tabled
????????
Albert Krupski Jr. Voter
??
Withdrawn
????????
Thomas H. Wickham Initiator
??
Supervisor's Appt
????????
Louisa P. Evans Voter
??
Tax Receiver's Appt
????????
Scott Russell Voter
??
Rescinded
2009-109
CATEGORY:
Bid Acceptance
DEPARTMENT:
Public Works
Accept Bid for 97 Dodge Van
RESOLVEDthe bid of Donald
that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby accepts
Grim in the amount of $26.00 for a used 1997 Dodge Van in “as in condition.
? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-109
?
Adopted
Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent
??
Adopted as Amended
? ? ? ?
William Ruland Initiator
??
Defeated
????????
Vincent Orlando Voter
??
Tabled
????????
Albert Krupski Jr. Voter
??
Withdrawn
????????
Thomas H. Wickham Voter
??
Supervisor's Appt
????????
Louisa P. Evans Seconder
??
Tax Receiver's Appt
????????
Scott Russell Voter
??
Rescinded
2009-110
CATEGORY:
Budget Modification
DEPARTMENT:
Town Attorney
Town Attorney Budget Modification
RESOLVEDmodifies the General Fund
that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby
Whole Town 2008 budget as follows
for the purpose of covering an unfunded salary increase,
additional hours worked, and paying outstanding legal invoices:
TO:
A.1420.1.200.100 Town Attorney, Part-Time Regular Earnings $10,500.00
A.1420.4.500.100 Town Attorney, Legal Counsel $ 8,627.80
A.1420.4.600.300 Town Attorney, Travel Reimbursement $ 31.17
A.1420.4.600.600 Town Attorney, Dues & Subscriptions $ 194.22
January 20, 2009 Page 56
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
FROM:
A.1420.1.100.200 Town Attorney, Overtime Earnings $ 1,000.00
A.1420.4.200.100 Town Attorney, Cellular Telephone $ 251.00
A.1420.4.600.100 Town Attorney, Litigation Expenses $ 1,842.00
A.1420.4.600.200 Town Attorney, Meetings & Seminars $ 1,877.00
A.1990.4.100.100 Unallocated Contingencies $14,383.19
? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-110
?
Adopted
Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent
??
Adopted as Amended
? ? ? ?
William Ruland Voter
??
Defeated
????????
Vincent Orlando Voter
??
Tabled
????????
Albert Krupski Jr. Initiator
??
Withdrawn
????????
Thomas H. Wickham Voter
??
Supervisor's Appt
????????
Louisa P. Evans Seconder
??
Tax Receiver's Appt
????????
Scott Russell Voter
??
Rescinded
2009-111
CATEGORY:
Budget Modification
DEPARTMENT:
Town Attorney
Town Attorney Budget Modification
RESOLVEDmodifies the General Fund
that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby
Part Town 2008 budget as follows
for the purpose of covering sick, vacation and overtime
earnings paid out at the retirement of Edward Forrester:
TO:
B.1420.1.100.300 Town Attorney, Vacation Earnings $ 4,841.17
B.1420.1.100.400 Town Attorney, Sick Earnings $10,758.16
FROM:
B.1420.1.100.100 Town Attorney, Regular Earnings $6,873.00
B.1420.1.100.200 Town Attorney, Overtime Earnings $ 692.00
B.1420.4.600.200 Town Attorney, Meetings & Seminars $1,000.00
B.1420.4.600.600 Town Attorney, Dues & Subscriptions $ 12.00
B.1420.4.200.100 Town Attorney, Cellular Telephone $ 155.00
B.1420.4.100.100 Town Attorney, Office Supplies $ 120.00
B.1420.4.500.200 Town Attorney, Legal Counsel $6,747.33
January 20, 2009 Page 57
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-111
?
Adopted
Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent
??
Adopted as Amended
? ? ? ?
William Ruland Voter
??
Defeated
????????
Vincent Orlando Initiator
??
Tabled
????????
Albert Krupski Jr. Seconder
??
Withdrawn
????????
Thomas H. Wickham Voter
??
Supervisor's Appt
????????
Louisa P. Evans Voter
??
Tax Receiver's Appt
????????
Scott Russell Voter
??
Rescinded
2009-112
CATEGORY:
Authorize Payment
DEPARTMENT:
Engineering
SCWA Key Money Payment
RESOLVEDauthorizes the payment of
that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby
$24,000.00 “key money” fees to the Suffolk County Water Authority in relationship to
water installation at the new Southold Town Animal Shelter, all in accordance with the
Town Attorney.
? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-112
?
Adopted
Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent
??
Adopted as Amended
? ? ? ?
William Ruland Voter
??
Defeated
????????
Vincent Orlando Voter
??
Tabled
????????
Albert Krupski Jr. Voter
??
Withdrawn
????????
Thomas H. Wickham Seconder
??
Supervisor's Appt
????????
Louisa P. Evans Initiator
??
Tax Receiver's Appt
????????
Scott Russell Voter
??
Rescinded
2009-113
CATEGORY:
Local Law Public Hearing
DEPARTMENT:
Town Clerk
Set February 3, 2009 at 4:35 PM to Hold a Public Hearing on the Proposed Local Law Entitled “A
Local Law in Relation to Wireless Communications Facilities“
WHEREAS
, there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk
th
“A Local Law in
County, New York, on the 20 day of January, 2009, a Local Law entitled
Relation to Wireless Communications Facilities“
and now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED
that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the
on
aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York,
January 20, 2009 Page 58
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
February 3, 2009 at 4:35 p.m.
at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity
to be heard.
“A Local Law in Relation to Wireless Communications
The proposed Local Law entitled,
Facilities“
reads as follows:
LOCAL LAW NO. OF 2009
“A Local Law in Relation to Wireless Communications Facilities“
A Local Law entitled, .
BE IT ENACTED
by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows:
Article XVII entitled “Wireless Communications Facilities” is hereby repealed in its entirety and
replaced as follows:
§280-67. Purpose
A. It is the express purpose of this article to minimize the visual and environmental impacts of
wireless communication facilities while protecting the health, safety and welfare of
Southold’scitizens and allowing wireless service providers to meet their technological and
service objectives. This article allows wireless communication facilities, to be reviewed and
approved in keeping with the Town's existing zoning and historic development patterns,
including the size and spacing of structures. The goals of the following sections are to
accomplish the following:
a. Site wireless facilities in these preferred locations:
i. Within or on existing buildings and structures where the antennas are invisible
(or nearly so) from public and residential vantage points;
ii. Industrial areas;
b. Take into account the aesthetic aspects of the Town, including open vistas, scenic
byways and historic districts, when designing and siting wireless communication
facilities.
§280-68. Scope.
January 20, 2009 Page 59
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
The regulations of this article shall govern and control the erection, enlargement, expansion,
alteration, operation, maintenance, relocation and removal of all wireless communication
facilities. The regulations of this article relate to the location and design of these facilities and
shall be in addition to the provisions of the Southold Building and Zoning Codes and any other
federal, state or local laws or Federal Communication Commission (FCC), Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) or other regulations pertaining to such facilities. Nothing herein shall be
construed to, apply to, prohibit, regulate or otherwise affect the erection, maintenance or
utilization of antennas or support structures by those licensed by the Federal Communications
Commission pursuant to Chapter 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97, to operate
amateur radio stations.
§280-69. Definitions
As used in this article, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below:
ANTENNA
Any transmitting or receiving device, including whip (omnidirectional antenna),
panel (directional antenna), disc (parabolic antenna) or similar device, mounted in or on a tower,
monopole, building or structure and used in communications that radiate or capture
electromagnetic waves, digital signals, analog signal, radio frequencies (excluding radar signals),
wireless telecommunications signals or other communications signals.
ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE
Any structure that is designed and constructed primarily
for the purpose of supporting one or more antennas for wireless telephone, television, radio and
similar communication purposes, including self-supporting lattice towers, guyed towers and
monopoles. The term includes radio and television transmission towers, microwave towers,
common-carrier towers, cellular telephone towers, camouflaged tower structures, and the like.
The term includes the structure and any support thereto. The term does not include wireless
facilities located in or on existing buildings or structures that previously existed or are being
constructed for a primary purpose other than a wireless facility e.g. water tower, electric utility
pole, or church steeple.
BASE EQUIPMENT
Ground-mounted equipment integral to the operation of an antenna
system. Base equipment typically includes, but is not limited to, communications equipment
cabinet/shelter, backup power supplies, generators, electric and telecommunications backboards,
wiring, grounding loops, equipment enclosures, security fencing and lighting.
CO-LOCATION
The use of a single mount on the ground by more than one provider (vertical
co-location) and/or several mounts on an existing tower, building or structure by more than one
carrier for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for
communications purposes.
January 20, 2009 Page 60
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
EQUIPMENT SHELTER
An enclosed structure at the base of the mount within which is
housed the base equipment for a wireless communications facility.
FALL ZONE
The area on the ground within a prescribed radius from the base of a wireless
communications facility. The fall zone is the area within which there might be a potential hazard
from falling debris or collapsing material, including the antenna support structure.
GUYED ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE
An antenna support structure that is
supported, in whole or in part, by guy wire and ground anchors.
HEIGHT
When referring to a tower or other antenna support structure, the distance measured
from the average preexisting grade level within a radius of 300’ to the highest point on the tower
or structure, including antennas, lightening protection devices or any other apparatus attached to
the top of the tower or antenna support structure.
LATTICE ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE
An antenna support structure that has open-
framed supports on three or four sides and is constructed without guy wires and ground anchors.
MODIFICATION
The addition, removal, or change of any of the physical and visually
discernable components or aspects of a wireless facility, such as antennas, cabling, radios,
equipment shelters, landscaping, fencing, utility feeds, changing the color or materials of any
visually discernable components, vehicular access, parking and/or an upgrade or replacement of
the equipment for better or more modern equipment. Adding a new wireless carrier or service
provider (co-location) to a wireless communications tower or site is a modification. A
modification shall not include ordinary maintenance, as defined herein. Modifications shall be
classified as major or minor.
MAJOR MODIFICATION
A. — Improvements to existing wireless
telecommunications facility or antenna support structure that result in a substantial
change to the facility or structure. Major modifications include, but are not limited to,
(1) Extending the height of the antenna support structure by more than 5 feet
above its current height;
(2) Replacement of the structure;
(3) Expansion of the base equipment or compound area beyond ten percent of
the current floor area.
(4) Addition of antennas to an existing carrier’s antenna array
(5) Co-location
January 20, 2009 Page 61
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
MINOR MODIFICATION -
B. Improvements to existing wireless telecommunications
facility or antenna support structure, that result in a material change to the facility or
structure but of a level, quality or intensity that is less than a substantial change. Such
minor modifications include, but are not limited to, replacement of antennas and
accessory equipment on a like-for-like basis within an existing wireless
telecommunications facility and relocating the antennas of approved wireless
telecommunications facilities to different height levels on an existing antenna support
structure upon which they are currently located.
MONOPOLE
A freestanding antenna support structure consisting of a single pole, without guy
wires or ground anchors.
MOUNT
The structure or surface upon which antennas are mounted and/or the location of the
antenna, e.g.:
A. ROOF-MOUNTED — Mounted on the roof of a building.
B. SIDE-MOUNTED — Mounted on the side of a building.
C. STRUCTURE-MOUNTED — Mounted on a structure other than a building.
D. FLUSH-MOUNTED – Mounted very close on a building or structure so that the profile
of the antenna(s) is not readily apparent.
E. INTERIOR-MOUNTED – Mounted within a building or other structure so that the
antennas are not visible from the outside.
F. GROUND-MOUNTED — Mounted on the ground.
ORDINARY MAINTENANCE -
Work done to an existing wireless telecommunications
facility and antenna support structure for the purpose of maintaining them in good operating
condition. Ordinary maintenance includes inspections and testing to maintain functionality,
aesthetic and structural integrity, and involves the normal repair of a wireless facility without
adding, removing, or changing anything and therefore does not include minor and major
modifications.
RADIO FREQUENCY (RF) PROFESSIONAL
A person who specializes in the study of radio
frequency engineering and has expertise in radio communication facilities.
RADIO FREQUENCY (RF) EMISSIONS or RADIATION
The electromagnetic field of
radiation emitted by wireless antennas.
January 20, 2009 Page 62
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
RADIO FREQUENCY (RF) SIGNAL
The actual beam or radio waves sent and received by a
wireless facility. A signal is the deliberate product of a wireless antenna. The RF radiation is the
by-product.
WIRELESS CARRIER -
A company that provides wireless telecommunications services.
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY -
Antenna or antenna support structure and
base equipment, either individually or together, including permanent or temporary moveable
facilities (i.e. wireless facilities mounted on vehicles, boats or other mobile structures) used for
the provision of any wireless service.
WIRELESS SERVICES -
Commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and
common carrier wireless exchange services, including, but not limited to, voice, data, images or
other information, cellular telephone service, personal communications service (PCS), and
paging service.
280-70. Applicability, permitted uses
§
A. No wireless communication facility shall be used, erected or altered in the Town of Southold
except in accordance with the provisions of this article and any other applicable sections of
the Town Code.
B. All wireless communication facilities, and modifications to such facilities (as defined in
§280-69) shall require a building permit, except in cases of ordinary maintenance, as defined
in §280-69.
C. Building Permit Required:
A wireless communication facility is a permitted use requiring only a building permit,
without the requirement of site plan approval if it conforms to the following:
(1) Minor modifications (defined in 280-69); or
(2) Design standards for permitted use in §280-72, as applicable to specifications in (3)
below; and
(3) Location and design:
i. New wireless facility that is interior-mounted in an existing building or
existing structure in the LI, LIO, B, HB, MI, or MII zoning districts; or
ii. Major modification, including co-location, on an existing antenna support
structure or other wireless facility holding all valid permits and causing
essentially no visible change to the exterior.
January 20, 2009 Page 63
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
D. Site Plan Approval Required:
A wireless communication facility is a permitted use requiring a building permit and site plan
approval if it conforms to the following:
(1) Design Standards for Permitted use as applicable to specifications in (2) below.
(2) Location and design:
i. New wireless facility that is roof or side-mounted to an existing building or
existing structure in the LI, LIO, B, HB, MI, or MII zoning districts; or
ii. Major modification, including co-location, to an existing wireless facility
holding all valid permits in the LI, LIO, B, HB, MI, or MII zoning districts
and causing a visible change to the exterior.
E. All other wireless communication facilities, major modifications, and co-locations require a
building permit, site plan approval, and a special exception approval by the Planning Board.
280-71. General requirements for all wireless communication facilities
§
A. No new antenna support structures may be constructed without a carrier licensed by the
FCC as co-applicant. An FCC-licensed provider of wireless communications services
must be the applicant or the co-applicant for any proposed new wireless communication
facility, co-location or modification.
B. Guyed or lattice antenna support structures are prohibited
C. Antenna support structures shall not be located in the following areas:
(1) Wetlands, tidal and freshwater;
(2) Land above high groundwater (within ten feet of the surface).
(3) Within 500’ of residences;
(4) Lands purchased with Community Preservation Funds;
(5) Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas;
(6) Designated parkland.
D. Antenna support structures may not exceed 80 feet in height.
E. Antenna support structures may not be located within 500’ of residences
F. The fall zone of an antenna support structure must not include areas where people
congregate, and must be clear of all structures except the base equipment shelter.
G. Antenna support structures shall not constitute an obstruction or hazard to air navigation.
January 20, 2009 Page 64
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
H. Antenna support structures are allowed in the following zoning districts: LI, LIO, MI,
MII, B, and HB, with the following restrictions:
(1) Minimum lot size
i. LI, LIO, B & HB – in accordance with the bulk schedule for each zone
ii. MI & MII – five acres
I. Antenna support structures are not allowed in AC, R-40, R-80, R-120, R-200, R-400, LB,
RO, RR, HD, or AHD zoning districts, except under the following conditions (these are
in addition to any other applicable conditions):
(1) Minimum area surrounding the proposed location: five contiguous acres of
vacant land restricted from future residential development by deed ; and
(2) Maximum height: 45’; and
(3) The structure is a monopole with interior-mounted antennas, or a suitable
unobtrusive camouflage structure; and
(4) Structure is screened from view from surrounding properties by dense
vegetation and trees, either planted or existing, and meeting the site design
appearance criteria for residential zones in Section 280-77
(5) Noise from base equipment, including any backup generator, measures less
than 45dB at an outside location 10 feet from the equipment shelter; and
(6) Minimum distance of all wireless equipment to adjacent residential property
lines or street shall be no less than 500 feet.
J. Radio emissions must fall within the Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits
established by the FCC.
(1) A power density analysis of the radio emissions for the proposed wireless
communication facility must be provided by the applicant. The power density
analysis shall be prepared and signed by a qualified professional specializing
in radio communication facilities.
(2) The results from the analysis must clearly show that the power density levels
of the electromagnetic energy generated from the proposed facility at the
nearest point(s) of public access and the point(s) of greatest power density (if
other than the nearest point of public access) are within the Maximum
January 20, 2009 Page 65
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits established by the FCC which are in effect
at the time of the application.
(3) The power density analysis must be based on the most recent edition of FCC
Office Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, must cite the specific
formulas and assumptions used and must show all calculations and must
include simple sketches showing the spatial relationships between the facility
and the points of interest. If the wireless communication facility would be co-
located with an existing facility, or is designed for future expansion or co-
location, the cumulative effects of all emitters now on, or likely to be on, the
facility in the future must also be analyzed.
(4) The power density analysis shall be based on the assumption that all antennas
mounted on the proposed facility are simultaneously transmitting radio energy
at a power level equal to the maximum transmitter power rating specified by
the manufacturer.
(5) The conclusions of the power density analysis must be corroborated by an
independent radio frequency engineer retained by the Town to provide such
determinations.
280-72. Design standards for permitted uses
§ (these are in addition to the General
Requirements listed above)
a. Fall-zones. An antenna support structure must include an area surrounding it that
is free of other structures and uses, except the base equipment, with a radius equal
to a distance of two times the height of the structure. A smaller fall-zone may be
allowed if supported by a report submitted by a qualified structural engineer, and
corroborated by an independent consultant hired by the Town, that demonstrates
that a smaller fall zone is safe.
b. Major modifications causing essentially no visible change in the appearance of
the exterior means that the antennas are interior-mounted in the existing structure
and are not visible from the outside after installation. The base equipment area is
expanded by no more than 10% of its existing floor area, and is entirely screened
from view from any public or residential vantage points, including all roads,
yards, and commercial buildings the public enters. Exceptionally well-designed
flush-mounted antennas may also fall into this category if they present no visible
profile protruding from the surface to which they are mounted, and are
camouflaged to blend in with the background surface to which they are mounted.
January 20, 2009 Page 66
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
c. Interior-mounted facilities in existing buildings shall be constructed so that the
outward appearance of the building or structure before and after the installation is
complete is identical or nearly identical. The addition of a significant architectural
feature on to an existing building that is visible from outside for the purpose of
accommodating interior-mounted antennas shall require a special exception.
d. Roof-mounted facilities shall conform to the following requirements:
i. Visual impact minimized to the greatest extent possible;
ii. Height limited to no more than 10 feet above the highest point of the
building
e. Side-mounted facilities shall be flush-mounted and painted or otherwise
camouflaged to blend with the façade or background materials of the structure.
f. Co-locations shall not extend the height of the structure more than ten feet over
the original approved structure. To prevent the incremental extension of height
over time, any subsequent application with a proposed extension beyond the first
ten feet shall require special exception review and approval.
g. Base equipment
i. Located within an existing shelter or building, not to be expanded beyond
an additional ten percent of floor area; or
ii. Located in an underground vault, with any above-ground components
screened from view with evergreen planting; or
iii. Entirely concealed from view with dense evergreen planting so that all
equipment, shelters, fences, gates and other associated structures are not
visible from any vantage point. Plantings shall be of sufficient size to
achieve this screening effect immediately upon planting.
iv. Noise from base equipment, including any backup generator, measures
less than 45dB at the nearest property lines of all adjacent residences.
§280-73. Special exception approval.
A. Authority. For the purposes of this section, the Planning Board shall be empowered to
issue a special exception approval for wireless communication facilities, subject to the
provisions of this chapter. This supercedes Article XXV in that the Planning Board is the
reviewing board in place of the Zoning Board of Appeals for wireless communication
facilities that require Special Exception approval. The remainder of Article XXV remains
January 20, 2009 Page 67
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
in effect and shall apply to the Planning Board’s consideration of a special exception
approval for wireless communication facilities, together with the additional standards and
requirements in this section.
B. Standards. In addition to the standards in Article XXV of this Code, no special exception
approval shall be granted unless the Planning Board specifically finds and determines the
following:
(1) The applicant is a public utility duly authorized to provide service in the Town of
Southold. The proposed carrier shall be identified as the applicant or co-applicant.
(2) Construction of the proposed facility or modification of the existing facility is a
public necessity, in that it is required to meet current or expected demands of the
telecommunications provider and to render adequate service to the public.
(3) The applicant has made substantial effort to co-locate with existing wireless facilities,
or, failing that, has made substantial effort to locate on municipally-owned land or
structures, or within or on existing buildings or structures.
(4) The facility conforms with applicable regulations of the FCC, FAA and other
authorities having jurisdiction.
(5) There are compelling reasons which make it more feasible to construct the proposed
facilities rather than alternatives.
C. Matters to be considered. In addition to the matters to be considered in Article XXV of
this Code, the Planning Board shall give consideration to the following in issuing a
special approval for wireless communication facilities:
(1) The proposed structure must be demonstrated to be the lowest height above the
ground feasible to achieve the service needs of the carrier(s). The rationale behind
the explanation by the applicant must be corroborated by an independent
consultant hired by the Town.
(2) The wireless communication facility has been situated to minimize its proximity
and visibility to residential structures, residential district boundaries and
landmarks designated by Town, federal or state agencies.
(3) The wireless communication facility is designed and situated to be compatible
with the nature of uses on adjacent and nearby property.
(4) The wireless communication facility has been designed to use the surrounding
topography to minimize its visual impacts.
January 20, 2009 Page 68
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
(5) The wireless communication facility has been designed to use the surrounding
tree, building or foliage coverage to minimize its visual impacts.
(6) The wireless communication facility maximizes design characteristics to reduce
or eliminate visual impacts and obtrusiveness.
(7) Other adequate conditions have been placed on the wireless communication
facility which will minimize any adverse impacts of the facility on adjoining
properties.
D. Conditions. The Planning Board shall consider the following in establishing conditions
on the issuance of the special exception approval:
(1) In reviewing special exception approval applications required by this section the
Planning Board shall consider the Town's policy as stated in this article.
(2) In approving a special exception the Planning Board may waive or reduce the
criteria in this article, to the extent specified below, if the Planning Board
concludes that the goals and stated purposes of this law are better served, and that
doing so will have no detrimental effect on adjacent properties or on the public
health, safety and welfare, and thereby:
(a) Minimize proximity of the tower to residential structures or historic
landmarks listed by federal, state or Town agencies.
(b) Modify the planting of surrounding tree coverage and foliage to account
for existing vegetation and land contours, but only to the extent that the
existing vegetation achieves the purpose of concealing the structure.
(c) Modify the design of the tower, with particular reference to design
characteristics that reduce or eliminate visual obtrusiveness.
(3) At the request of the Building Inspectors, which shall be no more frequently than
annually, the provider shall have each wireless communication facility inspected
at its own expense, and a copy of the inspection report shall be promptly
transmitted to the Building Inspector. Radio emission inspections shall be
performed by a qualified person specializing in radio frequency engineering with
expertise in radio communication facilities. The radio emission report shall
describe the power density levels of the electromagnetic energy generated from
the facility, including the cumulative effects of collocated antennas. In the event
that the radio emission inspection indicates that the electromagnetic energy
generated from the facility is above the allowable limits stated within the
applicable FCC or ANSI standards or other applicable state or federal guidelines
January 20, 2009 Page 69
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
in effect, the applicant shall cease all use of the facility until such time as it proves
to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector that the power density levels of the
electromagnetic energy to be generated are below the applicable standards.
Additionally, at the request of the building inspector, which shall be no more
frequently than every three years, the provider shall provide a structural
inspection report prepared by a structural engineer.
(4) Any special exception approval granted under this article shall have a term of five
years, commencing from the grant of the special exception, which may be
extended for an additional five-year term upon application to the Planning Board.
On a renewal application, the applicant shall demonstrate that the wireless
communication facility is in compliance with all applicable laws, rules and
regulations and with all of the conditions of the special exception approval and
site plan, that the facility is necessary to provide adequate service, and that there
is no reasonable alternative available to the owner which will provide adequate
service without the continuing use of the facility. Subsequent special exception
renewals shall be subject to review by the Planning Board and subject to such
standards that shall be included in the Town Code at that point in time.
§280-74. Application requirements
A. Fees. The following fees are in place of those required in other sections of the code.
a. Building Permit Application Fees
i. Minor modification $250
ii. Major modification $500
iii. New facility $750
b. Site Plan Application Fees
i. Major modification. $1000
ii. New facility $2000
c. Special Exception Application Fee $1000
d. Review by independent consultants. In all cases where the Town determines that a
review of an application by a qualified expert is warranted, the applicant shall
bear the reasonable cost associated with such review, which cost will be assessed
as an additional application fee. This payment shall be made to the Town prior to
the review commencing and the decision being rendered on the application. The
consultants will work under the direction of the Town Planning Director. Copies
of the consultants’ qualifications, findings and reports will be provided to the
applicant and an opportunity given to the applicant to respond to the content of
the consultants’ report prior to any decisions being made.
January 20, 2009 Page 70
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
B. Building Permit Application
The following application requirements are in addition to those required in §144-8 C.
(1) Written analysis demonstrating the project complies with the Maximum
Permissible Exposure regulations in accordance with § 280-71 J. (1)-(5).
(2) Written documentation as to the facility’s structural compliance with local, State
and Federal Codes.
(3) Copies of all applicable FCC licenses, notices of proposed construction or
alteration, federal environmental impact statements and other documents
verifying compliance with federal, state and local regulations.
(4) Report from Planning Department on compliance with the General Requirements,
Design Standards for Permitted Use, and any technical consultant reports that may
have been required. No building permit for a wireless facility may be granted
prior to this report being submitted.
C. Site Plan Application
The following application requirements are in addition to those required in §280-133.
a. Seven copies of items A.1-3 listed above for the Building Permit Application
b. Aeronautical study or appropriate consultant’s report demonstrating that the
proposed facility will not constitute an obstruction or hazard to air navigation.
c. Visual Impact Analysis – renderings or computer graphics illustrating the
appearance of the completed facility from all residential and public vantage
points.
d. Adjacent land uses, structures and zoning within 500 feet.
e. The location in latitude and longitude, type and height of the wireless
communication facility.
f. A list of other carriers already located on the facility with the number and type of
antennas for each, and the capacity of each carrier at that location, including the
proposed.
g. Digital information about the facility (AutoCAD, Shapefile) that can be imported
into a geographic information system depicting the search ring of each carrier
already located on the facility, including the proposed.
January 20, 2009 Page 71
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
h. A photo of the facility, if already existing.
i. Location of landmarks listed by federal, state or Town agencies within 300 feet.
j. Distances between the proposed facility and the following:
i. the nearest residential structure,
ii. the nearest property line with a residential use,
iii. all other structures.
iv. Roads, rights of way, driveways
k. Fall-zone radius and distance
l. Proposed means of access
m. Elevation drawings with dimensions clearly indicated, including diameter of the
structure at its widest and narrowest, and the tallest point including antennas or
lightening protection.
n. Other information deemed by the Planning Board to be necessary to assess
compliance with this law.
D. Special Exception Application
To make the determination on an application for special exception, the Planning Board
shall require the following in addition to the requirements of Article XXV:
(1) Each application shall include
a. One copies of the building permit application
b. Once copy of the site plan application
c. Each application shall include a written site location alternative analysis
describing the location of other sites considered, the availability of those sites, the
extent to which other sites do or do not meet the provider's service or engineering
needs and the reason why the subject site was chosen.
d. Other information deemed by the Planning Board to be necessary to assess
compliance with this law.
(2) The applicant shall document to the satisfaction of the Planning Board that a
good-faith effort has been made to locate or co-locate on existing towers or other
January 20, 2009 Page 72
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
available and appropriate buildings and structures, that it is not feasible to co-
locate on an existing facility and that the proposed location is necessary to
provide adequate service to the public. The documentation shall include a
notarized statement by the applicant as to whether construction of the wireless
communication facility will accommodate co-location of additional antennas for
future users
(3) Each application shall include a plan which shall reference all existing wireless
communication facility locations in the Town of Southold, any such facilities in
the abutting towns which provide service to areas within the Town of Southold,
any changes proposed within the following twelve-month period, including the
applicant's plans for new locations and the discontinuance or relocation of
existing wireless facilities. Alternatively, at the beginning of the year the
applicant may submit an annual wireless communication facility plan containing
the aforementioned information for the calendar year.
(4) The Planning Board and Planning Department may retain technical consultants as
they deem necessary to provide assistance in the review of the needs and site
location alternatives analyses and other matters that the Board deems necessary.
The applicant shall bear the reasonable cost associated with such consultation,
which cost shall be assessed as an additional application fee. The consultants will
work under the direction of the Town Planning Director. Copies of the
consultants’ qualifications, findings and reports shall be made available to the
applicant upon acceptance of the final draft of the report by the Planning Board.
(5) A copy of the deed or lease agreement establishing applicant's right to use the
parcel on which the wireless communication facility is to be located.
(6) A power density analysis of the radio emissions for the proposed wireless
communication facility. The power density analysis shall be prepared and signed
by a qualified professional specializing in radio communication facilities. The
results from the analysis must clearly show that the power density levels of the
electromagnetic energy generated from the proposed facility at the nearest
point(s) of public access and the point(s) of greatest power density (if other than
the nearest point of public access) are within the Maximum Permissible Exposure
(MPE) limits established by the FCC which are in effect at the time of the
application. The power density analysis must be based on the most recent edition
of FCC Office Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, must cite the
specific formulas and assumptions used and must show all calculations and must
include simple sketches showing the spatial relationships between the facility and
the points of interest. If the wireless communication facility would be co-located
January 20, 2009 Page 73
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
with an existing facility, or is designed for future expansion or co-location, the
cumulative effects of all emitters now on, or likely to be on, the facility in the
future must also be analyzed. The power density analysis shall be based on the
assumption that all antennas mounted on the proposed facility are simultaneously
transmitting radio energy at a power level equal to the maximum transmitter
power rating specified by the manufacturer.
(7) Propagation maps shall be submitted for existing coverage from existing
surrounding and/or approved sites, coverage from all alternative sites considered
and coverage from the proposed site. Propagation maps shall include a minimum
of three signal strength depictions (-75dBm, -85dBm and -95dBm) and any other
signal strength levels deemed appropriate by the Applicant based on the
Applicant’s documented coverage and reliability needs.
(8) A “gap map” prepared and signed by a qualified radio frequency engineer and
overlaid on an “existing coverage” background propagation map demonstrating
the area(s) within which the applicant’s existing service is not adequate. In
addition, a search ring shall depicted indicating where the wireless
communication facility needs to be located in order to provide adequate signal
strength and/or capacity to the target gap area. The applicant must explain and
document its standards and criteria for adequate signal strength, capacity and
reliability and must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Board why
these standards and criteria are applicable to the Town of Southold.
(9) The applicant must also explain to the Planning Board why it selected the
proposed site, discuss the availability or lack thereof of a suitable structure within
the search ring for collocation, and the extent to which the applicant has explored
locating the proposed tower in a more intensive use district. Correspondence with
other telecommunication providers concerning collocation is part of this
requirement. The applicant shall also provide evidence supporting the existence of
inadequate service. This may include the propagation maps cited above, drive test
maps, traffic studies, customer complaint logs and similar data. The applicant
must also demonstrate to the Board that the proposed facility satisfies the
demonstrated service deficiency to an equal or greater degree than any of the
reasonably available alternatives.
§280-75. Historic buildings and districts.
No wireless communication facility is allowed on any designated landmark property or district
listed by federal, state or Town agencies, except as specified below, and subject to §170
Landmark Preservation:
January 20, 2009 Page 74
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
A. Any wireless communication facility located on or within an historic structure listed by
federal, state or Town agencies shall not alter the character-defining features, distinctive
construction methods or original materials of the building.
B. Any alteration made to an historic structure to accommodate a wireless communication
facility shall be fully reversible.
C. Wireless communication facilities within an historic district listed by federal, state or
Town agencies shall be concealed within or behind existing architectural features, so that
they are not visible.
§280-76. Site design standards.
The following design standards shall apply to all wireless communication facilities installed or
constructed pursuant to the terms of this chapter:
A. Camouflage on buildings. Wireless antennas, if mounted on a building façade, shall be
flush mounted and painted or otherwise treated to blend with the façade. When a
wireless communication facility extends above the roof height of a building on which it is
mounted, every effort shall be made to conceal the facility within or behind existing
architectural features to limit its visibility from public and residential vantage points, yet
permit the facility to perform its designated function. Facilities mounted on a roof shall
be stepped back from the front facade in order to limit their impact on the building's
silhouette. If antennas are part of the stepped back facility, the applicant shall submit an
access control plan that precludes inadvertent access to the front faces of the antennas by
building workers and the general public. The wireless communication facilities shall
blend in with the existing building's architecture and shall be painted or shielded with
material which is consistent with the design features and materials of the building.
B. Setbacks. Towers and equipment facilities shall adhere to the setbacks for principal uses
in the Bulk Schedule applicable to the zone in which the structure(s) are located, unless
otherwise indicated elsewhere in this chapter.
C. Signs. Signs shall not be permitted on facilities except for signs displaying contact
information and safety instructions, which are required. Safety signs shall be in
accordance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards for radio
frequency radiation warning signs. Contact signs shall identify all service providers
located on the facility and shall include normal and emergency contact information for
each. Such signs shall not exceed five square feet in surface area.
D. Base equipment shelter. Equipment accessory to the wireless communication facility may
be located within an existing building or in an underground vault. For newly constructed
wireless facilities, a base equipment shelter is limited to 500 square feet in floor area. If
January 20, 2009 Page 75
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
the newly constructed wireless facility is designed for co-location, the facility may be up
to 1,000 square feet. The base equipment shelter shall be constructed with a finish similar
to that of adjacent structures on the property and integrated into the architectural style.
The shelter and associated fencing must be entirely screened from view by evergreen
plantings. The new plantings must be of sufficient size to accomplish the screening
within six months. Any newly constructed base equipment shelter shall be located in
accordance with the minimum height and yard requirements of the zoning district
applicable to the site, and up to two adjacent off-street parking spaces may be provided
for service vehicles.
E. Site lighting. The lighting permitted shall be the minimum required to protect the public
welfare. Facilities sited on existing developed sites shall be incorporated into the lighting
plans of those sites. Outside lighting shall use fully-shielded fixtures so that the light
source is not visible from beyond the property line, and no light is reflected or shone
towards the sky, except in the case of structures required to follow FAA guidelines for
safety lighting.
F. Access. Access to wireless facilities shall be from already established site access points
whenever possible.
G. Dish antennas. Dish antennas shall be colored, camouflaged or screened to the extent that
they are as unobtrusive as possible, and in no case shall the diameter of a dish antenna
exceed six feet.
H. Electric line setback. Except for wireless facilities specifically designed for mounting on
electric transmission towers, or within the footprint of such towers, no wireless
communication facility shall be located nearer to any overhead electric transmission line
carrying more than 220 volts than a distance equal to the facility's height above the roof
or other permanent structure to which it is attached.
I. Co-location. Wireless communication facilities shall be designed to provide for co-
location by multiple providers or designed so that they can be retrofitted to accommodate
multiple providers, wherever possible.
§280-77. Appearance and visual impacts on character of community
A. Scenic landscapes and vistas. All antenna support structures which are not concealed
inside of buildings or screened by existing trees or buildings, must be surrounded by a
planted buffer of dense tree growth. An antenna support structure that is located within a
scenic vista or scenic landscape or within 300’ of a scenic road, as designated by the
Town, shall not be taller than ten feet above the height of trees within a 300’ radius of the
proposed location, or 35’ maximum in the absence of trees.
January 20, 2009 Page 76
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
B. Base landscaping. A screen of evergreen trees shall be planted outside the fence of the
telecommunication tower base area to provide a visual screen or buffer for adjoining
private properties and the public right-of-way or other vantage points accessible to the
public. The screen shall consist of a double row of evergreen shrubs and trees that are of
sufficient density and height to immediately screen the base equipment from view.
Required front yard setback areas shall be landscaped and include shrubs and trees.
Survivability of the landscaping shall be guaranteed and maintained by the applicant for
the life of the installation.
C. Color. Antenna support structures in the form of monopoles or other towers shall either
be blue/gray in color, or be colored appropriate to the context of the structure’s location
so that the tower is as unobtrusive as possible, unless otherwise required by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). If a wireless communication facility is installed on a
structure other than a tower, the antenna and supporting electrical and mechanical
equipment must be of a neutral color that is identical to or closely compatible with the
colors of the supporting structure so as to make the antenna and related equipment as
visually unobtrusive as possible.
D. Wireless facilities sited within new structures meant to mimic some other structure or
natural feature must be designed at a scale compatible with the community, be
unobtrusive, and characteristic of the area.
E. Camouflage by vegetation for residential screening. Where the site proposed for a
freestanding tower structure is located within a residential zone or has one or more
property lines abutting or on the opposite side of a street from a residential zone or use
permitted in a residential zone, no antenna support structures may be constructed unless
adequately screened from view of those residential zones by existing buildings or large
trees, including evergreens. The structure may protrude no more than 10’ above screening
buildings and/or trees.
In the absence of existing large trees or buildings to provide camouflage, the height of the
proposed structure may be no more than 35’, and the base equipment must be buried in
an underground vault. Two rows of evergreen trees must be planted encircling the
structure, one row at a distance from the structure of 50% of the height of the structure,
and the other at 90% of the height of the structure. Transplanted trees shall have a
minimum caliper of three inches, spaced thirty-feet on center. The trees must have an
expected height at maturity of 10’ less than the height of the structure to be screened.
Smaller evergreen shrubs must be used to fill in the gaps in between for screening during
the time the trees are filling in and maturing. A written guarantee from the wireless
facility’s owner shall be required to ensure that the plantings survive and are maintained
throughout the existence of the installation.
January 20, 2009 Page 77
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
F. Alternate screening. The location of a cellular wireless communication facility on an
existing water tower, silo or equivalent vertical structure, including an existing cellular,
radio or television tower, is permitted without the need to meet the conditions in
Subsections A, B, C and D above, provided that the height of the existing structure is not
increased as a result of the attachment of the cellular structure. A decorative disguising
structure such as a clock tower may also be approved as an alternative to the conditions in
Subsections A, B, C and D at the discretion of the Planning Board. If the height of the
existing structure is to be increased by the attachment of the new structure, all of the
conditions herein shall apply as to a new freestanding structure.
G. Commercial and industrial siting. Towers to be sited on developed commercial or
industrial properties shall be located to the rear of other principal buildings and shall not
encroach on planting buffers, parking areas or otherwise impair the operation of
previously approved systems such as stormwater drainage basins. Existing buildings and
structures should be used in the siting of freestanding towers to contribute to the visual
screening of the tower. .
H. Commercial districts. Towers to be sited on undeveloped properties in the commercial
districts shall apply the standards of the condition in § 280-72C herein to all property
lines, including the streetline, except that a driveway shall be permitted to gain access to
the facility for maintenance personnel and equipment.
I. Federal Aviation Regulations. All towers shall comply with applicable airport hazard
and/or obstruction regulations. Any facility that would be classified as an obstruction or
hazard under current federal aviation regulations or would otherwise interfere with the
operation of radio navigation aids, communications and/or airport operations is
prohibited.
J.
§280-78. Removal.
A. Any wireless communication facility that is not operated for a continuous period of 12
months shall be deemed abandoned. At that time the owner of the wireless
communication facility shall remove same within 90 days of such deemed abandonment.
In the case of a wireless communication facility on preexisting structures, this provision
shall apply to the wireless communication facility only. If the wireless communication
facility is not removed within the said 90 days, the Building Inspectors may, with the
approval of the Town Board, give the owner notice that unless the removal is
accomplished in 30 days, the Town will cause the removal at the owner's expense. The
grant of a site plan approval under this article shall include requiring the applicant to post
January 20, 2009 Page 78
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
a decommissioning bond and irrevocable permission to the Town to accomplish removal
of the wireless communication facility under this article.
§280-79. Nonconforming uses.
Preexisting telecommunication towers shall be allowed to continue their usage as they presently
exist. New construction, other than maintenance on a preexisting tower, shall comply with the
requirements of this article.
§280-80. [Reserved].
§280-81. Severability.
The various parts, sections and clauses of this article are hereby declared to be severable. 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.
§280-82. Effective Date.
This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State.
? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-113
?
Adopted
Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent
??
Adopted as Amended
? ? ? ?
William Ruland Voter
??
Defeated
????????
Vincent Orlando Voter
??
Tabled
????????
Albert Krupski Jr. Voter
??
Withdrawn
????????
Thomas H. Wickham Initiator
??
Supervisor's Appt
????????
Louisa P. Evans Seconder
??
Tax Receiver's Appt
????????
Scott Russell Voter
??
Rescinded
Closing Statements
Councilman Vincent Orlando
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: That is the end of our public meeting so we will open the floor to
anyone else with questions or comments.
Peter Terranova, Peconic
PETER TERRANOVA: Good evening. Peter Terranova, Peconic. I would like to comment on
the recently completed dredging of Goldsmiths inlet. I believe the project went very well and I
wish to compliment Jim McMahon and Jamie Richter, the direction and supervision they
provided for the construction crew was exemplary. The project was completed in about 4 ½ days
January 20, 2009 Page 79
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
and I think they had budgeted 6 days, so there should be some money left over from the $40,000
that was originally budgeted for this project. I am not sure what the….
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: It was a five day project and I think it came into five with the
mobe and de-mobe. I think it is right about there.
MR. TERRANOVA: Okay. Well, I don’t know. Maybe they rounded it off from 4 ½ to 5 but
nonetheless, it was a well done project. I believe the goals of the project were reached in
maintaining the inlet opening, while there was no diminishing of the recreational aspects of the
inlet that folks will enjoy this spring and summer. So on behalf of Peconic Sound Shores
Association, I just wish to say job well-done.
COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. Anyone else? Benja?
Benja Schwartz, Cutchogue
BENJA SCHWARTZ: Good evening. Benja Schwartz, Cutchogue. Unfortunately, the
president of the Group for Cutchogue was not feeling well today and could not be here herself
but on behalf of the Group and all of the groups supporters, I would like to thank the Town
Board, congratulate the Town Board on the three new zoning laws that were adopted this
evening. Also, the Planning Department, the Town Board couldn’t do anything without Planning
Board and the Town Attorney’s office. We would like to express our appreciation for the work
that they did to make this possible. It was almost a year ago today, on February 1, 2008 the
Group for Cutchogue had a meeting at Cutchogue East school with well over 100 people and I
would like to thank them. They came there asking is there something that we can do? Can we
do something? They didn’t like the proposal for the Heritage at Cutchogue. Just to remind
everybody in case they don’t remember, the property which this laws, one of the properties that
this law applies to is the area behind the post office at the north end of Griffing Street, it is about
a 46, approximately 46 acre property. The entire down town area of Cutchogue is approximately
38 acres. So it is quite a sizable piece of property and developed at a quarter acre density, could
easily dwarf the whole Cutchogue center, hamlet center. Well, you have answered the question
for us, finally, definitively, can we do something and you have done something and it is going to
make a big difference. The developer will now have to go back to the drawing board and
probably will come back with another proposal. I wish that we could say that we are done and
the Town Board was done but I think you realize like I do that that is not the case. The Town
Board is going to play an ongoing role in determining whether the development is served by
public water and helping to resolve impacts of sewage and traffic and to continue to protect the
hamlet of Cutchogue and the Town of Southold. So I look forward to working with you in the
future on this and I would just like to I would just like to take this opportunity to congratulate
you on a step well taken. Thank you.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to approach the
Board? Pete Harris, you must have something to say?
Councilman Thomas Wickham
January 20, 2009 Page 80
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Vincent, I would like to make a comment. For many years we
have sat up here at the dais and we have heard comments and criticism’s about our inability to
have a nice animal shelter. Today we understand, that animals will be moved into the new
animal shelter before this Town Board sits for another meeting. it will be a soft landing, I am not
aware that there is going to be a grand opening, that there is anything elaborate about it but the
building is essentially finished and we have been given to understand that by the end of this
month, animals will be moved into that new building. It is really a tribute to the former Board
that made a commitment to doing this, there have been a number of hiccups along the way but
this Board has also been consistent finally in moving the project along till its completion. It has
been expensive, but it is in place and I think it will serve the Town well together with our
contractor that has agreed to, is looking forward to caring for animals in a much better facility.
That is why I am pleased to be able to offer that to the public.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: As long as the Water Authority turns that valve and gives us
water.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: As long as we pay for it.
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Would anyone else like to speak?
Councilman William Ruland
COUNCILMAN RULAND: Vincent, may I ?
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Please.
COUNCILMAN RULAND: Going back to Mr. Schwartz’s comment, I think and I will speak
for myself, I won’t speak for the other members but certainly our discussions with Ms. Lanza
and Planning about the code process was focused on all the parcels in the town that are zoned
that particular district not just a parcel. And the conditions set forth in the new code apply to all
the parcels that are zoned within the Town and I think that it should be said that we have not
singled one out while a lot of attention has been drawn to one and we have even been drawn into
conversations about just one, it really is about the whole town. Just as moving forward with a
comprehensive plan review would be of the whole town and not just a segment of the Town.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Thank you, Bill. That is a good point.
Councilman Orlando
COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Is there anyone else from the Board or the audience that wants to
speak? (No response)
VI. Motion To:
Adjourn Town Board Meeting
COMMENTS - Current Meeting:
RESOLVED
that this meeting of the Southold Town Board be and hereby is declared adjourned at 7:58
PM.
* * * * *
January 20, 2009 Page 81
Minutes
Southold Town Board Meeting
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER:
Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman
SECONDER:
Louisa P. Evans, Justice
AYES:
Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans
ABSENT:
Scott Russell