HomeMy WebLinkAboutTDR-FSGEIS 4-3-09 FINAL SUPPL~ENTAL/ ' '
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR THE
TOWN OF $OUTHOLD TRANSFER OF
RIGHTS PROGRAM
ASA SUPPLEMENT TO THE GENERIC ENVIRONMENTA[
SOUTHOLD
FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TRANSFER OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
as a
SUPPLEMENT
to the
GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
for the
SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
Town of Southold
Suffolk County, New York
Town Board of the Town of Southold (SEQRA Lead Agency)
Supervisor, Hon. Scott A. Russell
Councilman William P. Ruland Councilman Thomas H.Wickham
Councilman Vincent M. Orlando Councilman Albert J. IG-upski, Jr.
Justice Louisa P. Evans
Nelson, Pol)e & Voorhis, LLC
572 Walt Whitman Road
Melville, New York 11747
Contact: Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP
(631) 427-5665
Prepared by:
Town TDR Program Team
Patricia A. Finnegan, Esq., Town Attorney
John Sepenoski, Technical Coordinator
Mark Terry, Town Principal Planner
Melissa Spiro, Town Land Preservation Coordinator
Leslie Weisman, Member, Town ZBA & Chair, Southold
Hamlet Stakeholder Committee
April 3, 2009
Page i
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVERSHEET
Page
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of this Document
1.2 Organization of this Document
1-1
1-2
1-2
2.0
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2.1 Comment 1
2.2 Comment 2
2.3 Comment 3
2.4 Comment 4
2.5 Comment 5
2.6 Comment 6
2.7 Comment 7
2.8 Comment 8
2.9 Comment 9
2.10 Comment 10
2.11 Comment 11
2.12 Comment 12
2.13 Comment 13
2.14 Comment 14
2.15 Comment 15
2.16 Comment 16
2.17 Comment 17
2.18 Comment 18
2.19 Comment 19
2.20 Comment 20
2.21 Comment 21
2.22 Comment 22
2.23 Comment 23
2.24 Comment 24
2.25 Comment 25
2.26 Comment 26
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-5
2-6
2-6
2-8
2-10
2-10
2-11
2-12
2-13
2-13
2-14
2-14
2-15
2-15
2-16
2-17
2-18
2-18
2-19
2-20
2-20
APPENDICES:
A
B
C
D
Acceptance of DSGEIS, Town Board, April 22, 2008
Written Comments
Transcript of Public Hearing, Town Board, May 27, 2008
HALO Zone Parcels Near NYSDEC-Regulated Freshwater Wetlands
Page ii
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
This document is a Final Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement
("FSGEIS") for a proposed amendment to the Southold Town Code, to implement a voluntary
Transfer of Development Rights ("TDR") program. This proposal is hereafter referred to as the
"proposed action".
This document is submitted in compliance with the rules and regulations for implementation of
the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"). In general, an
environmental impact statement ("EIS") is required under SEQRA in order to provide a lead
agency (in this case, the Southold Town Board) and other involved agencies with the information
and analysis necessary to make informed decisions on a proposed action or project where one or
more significant impacts are anticipated.
The GEIS that this document supplements was prepared for and accepted by the Southold Town
Board in 2003; it analyzed the potential impacts of a set of proposed amendments to the Southold
Town Code and various Town regulations, procedures, policies, and planning and management
initiatives then being considered by the Town Board. This prior proposal was known as the
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy ("CIS"). Because the prior proposal was not
based on a site-specific application, it was determined that a more general type of EIS was
warranted under SEQRA; such an EIS is known as a "Generic" EIS. One of the amendments
recommended in the CIS was a voluntary Transfer of Development Rights (,'TDR") program,
which would permit and facilitate private transactions that would shift development from
agricultural lands in the Town to defined areas within the (hamlet locus, or "HALO" zones). The
proposed action was formulated in response to this recommendation.
The proposed TDR program would not increase net density in the Town, as each "Sending Area"
credit would equal one "Receiving Area" credit. A variety of unit types would be considered in
hamlet areas, which would actually be expected to decrease density, since fewer large homes
would be built in rural areas and logically, any unit types received in the hamlets would include
smaller and/or multiple-family units. In addition, the proposed action would include an upper
limit on the number of units that can be received in the HALO zones, in order to maintain a
careful balance of existing community character and comply with density limitations of the
Suffolk County Department of Health Services ("SCDHS").
This proposed action considers implementation of an important planning and program tool
described and recommended in the numerous planning studies undertaken within the Town over
the past 20 years. These studies, plans and recommendations were reviewed in terms of current
needs and Town goals, in order to achieve the Town's vision as articulated in those plans. That
review, known as the Southold CIS, found that many of the newer planning documents reiterated
recommendations of prior Town plans and studies, resulting in much consistency between
studies and the goals of the Town over the years. It should be emphasized that the proposed
action involves primarily legislative changes, with no specific physical changes proposed.
Page 1-1
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
This FSGEIS is a part of the GEIS record; the prior DSGEIS is incorporated by reference such
that the combination of the prior CIS GEIS, the DSGEIS for the proposed action, and this
document constitutes the complete GEIS.
The DSGEIS was submitted to the lead agency (the Southold Town Board, the agency having
discretionary jurisdiction over the proposed action) was accepted by that agency as complete for
public review and comment on April 22, 2008 (see Appendix A). This document addresses the
written comments on the DSGEIS received by the lead agency from other governmental agencies
(see Appendix B), and the oral comments provided during the May 27, 2008 public hearing (see
Appendix C for transcript). No additional written comments were provided to the lead agency.
1.1 Purpose of this Document
Once the DSGEIS is accepted, the Lead Agency issues a Notice of Completion (which is
published by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC') in
the Environmental Notice Bulletin). From this point, the DSGEIS is available for public
inspection at the offices of the lead agency and local libraries, and public comments are accepted
for a minimum of 30 days from the date of acceptance of the DSGEIS, or 10 days after the close
of the public hearing, whichever occurs later. The lead agency chooses whether to hold a public
hearing based upon the potential for significant impacts, public interest, etc. This is followed by
preparation of an FSGEIS. The FSGEIS addresses issues and comments provided by the public,
and interested and involved agencies on the information presented in the DSGEIS and public
hearing, if held. After acceptance of the FSGEIS by the lead agency and an additional 10-day
period, the lead agency will issue a statement of findings on the proposed project and decisions
can be rendered by the lead and involved agencies.
1.2 Organization of this Document
Each substantive comment contained in Appendices B and C has been numbered sequentially,
followed by the subsection where the response can be found. There were a total of 26 individual
comments; Appendix B contains comments 1 through 10, and Appendix C contains comments
11 through 26. Each subsection of Section 2.0 presents one of the comments, along with the
applicant's response. The comment numbers are also listed in each subsection, so that the reader
may refer back to the comment in its original form.
Each response provides the information necessary for the lead agency (the Southold Town
Board) and other involved agencies to make informed decisions on the specific impacts of the
project. This document fulfills the obligation of the lead agency in completing an FSGEIS based
on SEQRA procedures and requirements presented in Title 6 of the New York Code of Rules and
Regulations, Part 617.9(b)(8).
Page 1-2
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
SECTION 2.0
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2.1 Comment 1
"There are a number of New York State regu[ated fi'eshwater wet[ands located within and/or
direct~; adjacent to the proposed HALO receiving areas. Increasing the development densiO; of
lots that contain or are adjacent to regulated fi'eshwater wetlands moy lead to proposed projects
that do not meet the standards for permit issuance pursuant to the Freshwater Wetlands Act.
This Department is interested in preventing properO) owners' fi'om purchasing TDR credits to
increase the development densiO) of lots which contain wetlands only to learn afterwards that
their proposed project is not compatible with New York State re&relations. We recommend that
the Town require applicants within the receiving area with property on or near regulated
fi'eshwater wetland to obtain a permit or letter of non-jurisdiction fi'om the NYSDEC prior to
being granted approval by the Town to use TDR credits to increase development densiO) on their
properO~' "
Response: The Town of Southold has abundant freshwater and tidal wetlands resources, and the
Town recognizes the need to protect these resources for the economic and enviroamental benefit
of the Town and its residents. The proposed TDR program will not adversely impact these
resources for the following reasons:
The HALO receiving areas consist primarily of areas near hamlet centers that already have
development and are considered to be appropriate to accommodate controlled density transfer
subject to review as follows:
Locations where a proposed development using TDR would occur would be subject to review
by the Town Planning Board, the Town Board or the Town Zoning Board of Appeals
("ZBA").
The Southold Town Board of Trustees regulate development proximate to wetlands. Further,
wetlands are subtracted from buildable area for yield determination purposes under Town
review. Any land use applications involving such activity would be reviewed by the
Trustees.
~ NYSDEC wetland minimum lot area requirements contained in the development restrictions
of 6NYCRR Part 661.6 (a)(5) and regulated under Article 25, would be considered in the
Town and State review process, as would any setback and coverage requirements. For the
most part, tidal wetlands would only be located at the perimeter of certain hamlets that are
near Peconic Bay or creeks associated with the Bay. The NYSDEC areas of jurisdiction may
include areas with 300 feet of tidal wetlands; under Article 25 and Part 661, NYSDEC
jurisdiction ends at the landward crest ofa bluf±; areas above the 10 foot elevation contour, or
at a functional bulkhead or substantial road that existed and still remains functional since
August 20, 1977.
Freshwater wetlands regulated under NYSDEC Article 24 would likewise be protected
through agency review in consideration of required setbacks. A jurisdiction area of 100 feet
from NYSDEC mapped wetlands is recognized.
Appendix D of this FSGEIS contains maps of the hamlets that may have parcels near wetlands
mapped in the Towns Geographic Information System. Some wetlands occur in HALO areas of
Greenport. Very limited mapped wetlands occur near the southern perimeter of East Marion and
Page 2-1
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
Peconic. The majority of parcels in the HALO's are not near freshwater or tidal wetlands, and
the hamlets of Cutchogue and Orient do not contain any wetlands in proximity to the HALO
zones. Appendix D is useful in screening parcels to determine potential constraints so that
receiving parcels can be properly planned in consideration of wetland resources. Site specific
information and permits from NYSDEC and the Town Trustees should be pursued as needed
based on individual site conditions.
The comment is acknowledged, and it is the Town Board's intent, through the Town Planning
Board office, to recommend that those applicants within the receiving areas that own property on
or near regulated freshwater wetlands submit a permit application or seek a letter of non-
jurisdiction from the NYSDEC at the time of submission of a land use application to the Town.
2.2 Comment 2
"1. The early discussions of TDR were firm in assuring us that the plan was densiO; neutral; that
means that RDUx O'esidential housing Units) moved fi'om agricultural land to hamlet with no net
increase in numbers.
It seems now, reading the report that a net densiO; increase should be expected. The value of one
right to build on a 2 acre plot is naturally worth a lot more than one right to build a smaller
house on ~ acre in the hamlet. Thus, TDR does bring with it an increase in the number of
residences, taxes', traflfc congestion and loss of ~wal atmosphere. ~ote: at the hearing the one
to one ratio was definitely supported as the ONLY option by the Supervisor, the board and Mr.
l~oorhisO ,
Response: The TDR program does not increase density, it involves a "shift" of density from
sending areas associated with rural farm and agricultural lands, to receiving areas located in
hamlet areas where existing infrastructures can accommodate appropriately controlled
development. This is clearly stated in the TDR Planning Report to the Town Board, the DSGEIS
and was stated again at the public hearing on the DSGEIS. One development right from a
sending parcel may be transferred to a receiving parcel and used as one (1) residential
development unit. Units have been identified to include various types (i.e. residential accessory
dwelling, single family dwelling, apartment, townhouse, etc,) depending on the type of project
proposed for the receiving site.
The TDR shifts the density from an inappropriate agricultural site to an existing hamlet area,
where there is existing infrastructure to accommodate controlled density increases on appropriate
parcels. In the absence of TDR or other programs to protect farmland, a parcel's yield could be
constructed on rural agricultural lands thus resulting in sprawl development on less-appropriate
sites with associated need for infrastructure extension, burden on service providers and loss of
rural atmosphere~ Providing a means to shift development rights to HALO areas results in the
same development right, constructed in an area where there are existing services, recreational
facilities, shopping opportunities, walkability and access to public transportation. This would
achieve less impact on rural qualities, given the existing hamlet center development pattern.
Page 2-2
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
As a result, the TDR is considered to be appropriate, will not increase density, and will result in
development in more appropriate locations with more supporting services and infrastructure to
reduce the impact of that shift in density. Town residents are assured that the TDR program is
density-neutral and will not result in increased density.
2.3 Comment 3
"2. There is discussion in the TDR planning document that points out that the increase in
residential development in the Hamlet/Halo through TDR will necessitate an increase in
commercial development and infi~astructure in the Hamlet. This is logical.
Consequentb~, we should allow TDR to be used to augment commercial uses while we allow it to
grow the residential side of the Hamlet/Halo. Thus we could get a less than a 1 to 1 tran.sfer and
achieve a net reduction in densiO; with some tran.sfer credits. Since the ability to transJ~r
ultimately hinges on the ability oJ' the receiving land to accept sewage based on rulings by the
SCHD, we will very likely have commercial uses suggestedJbr properties that can receive TDR
credits. TDR Jbr commercial use should be apart oJ'the program. '
Response: This comment is acknowledged; the TDR Planning Report to the Town Board, as
well as the DSGEIS (Alternatives section), address the potential for use of TDRs to increase
commercial use. While the program supports this concept, the difficulty is that many of the
commercial uses in hamlet centers are on small lots and do not have the ability to receive
additional density due to the increase in sanitary flow and potential non-conformance with
Article 6 or the Suffolk County Sanitary Code ("SCSC'). The TDR Planning Report and the
DSGEIS Alternative section provide a framework for equalizing a residential development right
with various sizes/intensities of commercial use, primarily by relating the sanitary flow of a
single-family unit [300 gallons per day per acre ("gpd/acre')] with the equivalent flow for a
certain size commercial use.
As indicated in the comment, this concept has substantial merit since it would reduce the
residential growth of the Town by using residential TDRs for commercial growth. This has the
benefit of increasing tax revenue and decreasing population and demand for services, particularly
with respect to schools. In addition, there is a need to provide opportunities for landing transfer
credits in receiving areas, and the TDR Planning Report recognizes that while Southold is unique
and there is an expected demand for credits, a more successful program would provide increased
receiving zone opportunities. One way to do this is to consider use of TDRs for commercial use.
The original program was intended to be simple and amenable to straightforward
implementation. As a result, the Town Board may wish to start with a residential TDR program
at first, and add commercial transfer opportunities in the future. Since the DSGEIS did not
identify any significant adverse impacts with the commercial credit transfer, the flexibility to
integrate a commercial TDR transfer program could be provided at the Town Board's discretion.
Page 2-3
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
2.4 Comment 4
"3. It is suggested in the report that the tran.sfers of densiO) would be aided by the addition of
strategicallyplaced sewage treatment systems. This is a bad idea. The fi)rces of growth will use
this potential fi)r added densiO) to ram in more commercial and residential development.
Sewage plants would give ammunition to the proponents of the 'big box' stores that we do not
want. We will have trouble enough 'keeping it rural' without this added fitctor. "
Response: Zoning is the mechanism that should control land use, not the availability of sanitary
waste treatment. Many of the smart growth principals that municipalities seek to implement are
not implemented due to land use density limitations associated with sanitary flow constraints.
As noted above, a commercial TDR program would be well-served by providing the opportunity
to increase appropriate commercial development facilitated by available sanitary waste
treatment. Further, regardless of the TDR program, revitalization of downtown areas, potential
for increases in "wet" uses such as additional restaurant seating, and office and medical office
use all would be more feasible if wastewater treatment were available. Wastewater treatment
also assists in protecting groundwater quality, and could be used to treat wastewater in pre-
existing developed areas that exceed current density limitations imposed for groundwater
protection.
The potential for increased commercial and residential development should be controlled
through proper zoning, and if wastewater treatment is considered, it should be to facilitate
appropriate land use. Any siting of new sewage treatment plants ("STPs') should be based on
either a municipal feasibility study to determine the benefits and potential impacts of such an
initiative, or a privately-proposed facility that would also be subject to scrutiny through the land
use review process and SEQRA.
The Town has already implemented measures to control the size of commercial stores and
buildings. So-called "big box" stores are not desired, and as a result, limitations on building size,
floor area ratio ("FAR") coverage, dimensional requirements and use district regulations, are
established in Chapter 280-45A(7), 280-45B(10) and 280-45-A(2) of the Town Code for the B
and HB districts. These existing tools ensure that the appropriate character and type of
development is achieved. The TDR Planning Report and the DSGEIS overall find benefit to use
of STPs for planned municipal revitalization and individual projects, and more specific impacts
associated with such initiatives would be subject to further review once an action is defined. For
the purpose of the Town of Southold TDR Program, it is recommended that STPs remain a
consideration due to their ability to reduce groundwater impacts and facilitate appropriate land
use including landing of TDRs, which would provide a benefit by shifting density from rural
areas of the Town to existing hamlet centers.
Page 2-4
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
2.5 Comment 5
"4. AHD will not require TDR, so there is an additional amount of growth that is not counted.
Hence more Hamlet density that is uncounted."
Response: The Affordable Housing District ("AHD") is a Town zoning district that provides
affordable housing. Existing AHD zoning in the Town is for the most part occupied by existing
developments. If the Town Board feels that a location has merit for AHD zoning to achieve the
goals of the Town Comprehensive Plan by providing increased opportunities for affordable
housing, this district can be used.
Requiring TDR for affordable housing is counter-intuitive, since the zoning is intended to
decrease the cost of housing, and purchase of credits would increase the cost of housing. The
notion that there is some additional growth that is not counted in the context of the TDR Program
is inaccurate since the program acknowledges that the Town is addressing affordable housing
through other programs. The Town continues to advance affordable housing through projects in
the AHD zone, accessory apartments, and other housing projects in association with affordable
housing advocacy groups operating in the Town.
2.6 Comment 6
"5. The report states that the movement of growth fi~om the 2 acre zoning (and large houses) to
the hamlet/hah) (and smaller houses) will result in a lesser tax impact because of fewer children.
I wonder of there is back up fi)r this assertion. I can envision smaller houses with younger
occupants putting just as ma[v kids in school as the larger 2 acre houses. Many citizens stood
up at the meeting and supported the idea that this density transJkr would raise school
enrollment and taxes."
Response: The TDR Planning Study indicates that, in cases where smaller units are constructed
in receiving zones than the larger single-family dwellings that would be expected on the sending
parcels (if built), it is expected that fewer school children would be generated and consequently,
a more positive tax benefit scenario would result. Units in hamlet areas may be desirable to
young professionals, smaller families, single occupants, seniors wishing to downsize, and other
types of families that would have fewer children. Conversely, larger homes outside of hamlets
would be desired by families who seek single-family residences with yards and amenities
common to such developments.
Standard planning and demographic references support the finding that smaller units with fewer
bedrooms have fewer children based on actual data of occupied communities( It is noted that
some units constructed on receiving parcels will be single-family residences, specifically, those
~ Work conducted by the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University, NJ is most notably involved with
this research and demographic findings. Other local groups including the Long Island Housing Parmership and
Western Suffolk BOCES also support these findings through empirical data local to Long Island.
Page 2-5
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
units involving slight increases in residential subdivision density as provided for in the program.
Therefore, it is difficult to quantify the full benefit of the shift and change in type of housing.
Nevertheless, density and impacts will certainly not increase as compared to current conditions,
and the likely result is some lesser impacts as outlined above.
2.7 Comment 7
"6. Conservation subdivisions currently achieve 75 or 80~ preservation and 75 or 60~ densiO;
reduction. There is a net reduction in densiO;, but still a few houses on the Ag. land. If the TDR
program allows partial sale of the densiO; on a parcel and supports building on the remainder, it
results in what looks like a conservation subdivision but we do not lower density. I[' the TDR
rules allow this scenario we will not see another conservation subdivision. The detail in the
TDR regulations is critical. The effect on current land use legislation is ve~T important.
Could we applF the TDR idea onlF to land that is alreadF in the conservation subdivision
process? This would let the Ag. land owner receive cash [or his last lots~ and there[ore remove
all the houses fi'om his land. Thus fitrther preserving [~trm land while reducing total density."
Response: TDR is envisioned as an additional option to landowners to complement the PDR
program. The funding for PDR may not always be available at current levels, and it is doubtful
that there is sufficient funding to acquire all of the development rights that exist in areas that are
inappropriate for development. As a result, TDR is an additional tool to assist in compensating
landowners for density that is shifted from a sending parcel to a receiving site. PDR will
continue, and as a result, overall density will continue to decrease as a result of PDR. TDR will
be added as a tool to compensate landowners and shift development to appropriate locations, and
will not have the larger cost associated with purchase of development rights. The concept of
allowing an owner of agricultural land to transfer the remaining development rights not
purchased, could be possible if it conforms to the criteria established in the TDR Planning
Report. Conservation Subdivision is an additional tool that is used where the economics are
favorable to landowners wishing to pursue this option. The overall program of retention of
farmland, open space and rural qualities of the Town, is based on flexibility and choice involving
a combination of land use tools which currently include PDR, fee title acquisition and
Conservation Subdivision. This document supports the addition of TDR to the tool box of
options to promote retention of farmland and appropriate land use in the Town.
2.8 Comment 8
"There is a window of opportuniO) now during the mortgage crisis and the building slowdown to
determine how much growth in Southold is appropriate and to move legislation to set a firm
goal. A few years ago NFEC presented a plan that used the 80 percent preservation/6O percent
densi(v reduction formula (a part of the conservation subdivision idea) as a target fi)r all of
Southold. From figures in the DGEIS of 2002 this meant that a huild out of 15,500 residences
would be reduced to 12,434 when Southold was all settled. The last town census figures
Page 2-6
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
showed 21,500 Jitll time residents, which equates to approximately 9,000 dwellings. This
means that Southold, even with the 80/60 "brakes appliedJbrmula' will go at best, fi'om 9,000
fitll time dwellings now to 12,434 at build out. We see this growth (28%), as more than
enough!
Southo[d Town seriously needs this sort of stated objective. The current attitude of 'we are doing
fine now and if the numbers' change we will act' is fatally flawed. An up to date comprehensive
master plan that unequivocally states a build out goal that reflects the citizens des'ire to preserve
rural Southold will allow something real to be done.
A sudden awakening to overdevelopment without the backup of a master plan will be all pain
and no gain.
To properly think about the potential of TDR we need more infi)rmation. Southold needs an up to
date analysis, possibly the status of preservation and development as of December 2007. The
residential build out number if all existing houses and possible buildable lots are counted is
required. OJ'course this also requires up to date calculation oJ'the 'real build outpotential' oJ'
the Hamlet~Halo zones."
Response: The comment requests that the Town consider an updated Comprehensive Plan to
address build-out goals for the Town. This is something that the Town Board may consider, but
is separate and apart from the proposed TDR Program. The TDR Program is not intended to be a
density control measure. The Town has prior comprehensive plans, numerous planning studies,
the 2003 CIS (which was intended to implement prior planning studies) and ongoing initiatives
that address population, rural character and build out of the Town. The TDR Planning Report
emerged from hamlet studies and public outreach conducted by the Town. The concept was
supported by grassroots stakeholder initiatives due to the general consensus to preserve land
outside of the hamlet areas. TDR was recognized as one tool to support ongoing programs that
achieve this consensus-based goal. The earlier Town CIS also recognized TDR as a tool and
recommended this technique, also aclmowledging that TDR has been a recommendation of many
prior reports. It is recognized that the TDR program involves a shift of density from rural and
agricultural areas to more appropriate locations that have supporting infrastructure. As a result,
TDR will result in retention of rural character and preservation of agricultural land, but not
necessarily a density decrease. This is a topic for other Town studies and initiatives. The PDR
program and use of Conservation Subdivisions will continue, as will outright acquisition of
critical parcels. The Town, County and State have a solid track record of successful open space
acquisition and purchase of development rights, and it is expected that this will continue.
The build-out potential of the HALOs will be determined by zoning, and will be subject to
monitoring of growth in the HALOs. The TDR Program will shift some density to the hamlets
within controlled parameters, with a consequent reduction in density in the sending areas. In
addition, all TDRs are proposed to occur within the same school district as the site from which
the credit is derived, further ensuring that there is no net change in density within a given school
district. As a result, the TDR Program itself does not require an updated build-out analysis, as
Page 2-7
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
this has been performed previously and the TDR Program is not a factor in changing these other
Town initiatives.
It is further noted that only a very limited increase in receiving zone potential units is
contemplated. The table in the TDR Planning Report (Table 4-3) and included in the DSGEIS
outlines a total number of potential receiving units, and a proposed growth factor or limit of 30
percent of the total possible density, which would be monitored as the program proceeds. The
concepts in the TDR Planning Report and the stated limitation will further ensure that any
density that is shifted is shifted in a way that disperses the local increase in development within
the hamlet, and will not overburden the hamlet as a result of the limitations.
The Town has also been engaged in the tracking of land use activity within target areas of the
Town, specifically the R-40, R-80 and AC zones. Tracldng of development through subdivision
and building permits, PDR, acquisition and Conservation Subdivision, has been conducted since
April of 2004, and quarterly reports of tracldng activities are issued by the Town. Accessory
apartment approvals, ZBA approvals and Special Permits are also tracked. Tracking is used to
ensure that the Town is meeting land use goals intended to be achieved through a variety of
programs.
2.9 Comment 9
"Question? The DGEIS of 2002 stated population numbers' at that time and population at build
out (when all [and is used in accordance with zoning in p[ace at that time). These numbers'
convert W housing units at the rate of 2.4 person per unit in accordance with Suffo[k County
Planning Department calculations.
2002 population 21,500
Build out population 37,338
or 8,958 residences
or 15, 578 residences
The DGEIS also states that potential residential units (RDUx) fi~om all zones other than AC, R 80
and R 40 would be only 388. The TDR report cites the receiving zone fi)r TDR as allowing 663.
This seems to be a ve~T large increase in RDU count. Where will it stop? SHOULDN'T WE
KNOW WHAT THE GROWTH TARGET IS?
I hope the 30 percent cut off'suggested in the TDR report can be permanent. If the result of this
amount of growth is recognized as a loss of 'the rural, feel, country ambiance, and the magic of
Southold; and the hum of traffic and the rise of taxes gets noticeable we need to act quickly."
Response: The statement above seems to imply that the TDR Program would result in an
increase in density at full build-out of the Town; this is inaccurate. The 388-unit figure noted
above is based on other than AC, R-80 and R-40 zones. The 663-unit figure is a hypothetical
number based only on the potential maximum receiving units in the HALO areas if sub-dividable
lots were divided at 20,000 square feet ("SF') per lot and 40,000 SF for Orient in compliance
with Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (due to inavailability of public water supply).
This number represents the maximum potential development based on sanitary flow, and is
Page 2-8
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
further reduced by the growth limitation of 30 percent. No new units are created, and any
density that lands in a HALO would originate as a TDR from a sending parcel.
In addition, many zoning districts in Southold's HALOs permit either residential or commercial
development. The modeling of the theoretical maximum number of units is based on all
residential use. Therefore, parcels that are developed with uses other than residential will further
reduce the maximum residential density in the hamlets. This supports a conclusion that the
maximum residential density figures are conservative.
The TDR Planning Report does not change any zoning in the Town as related to density or
ultimate build-out. The number of units originating from sending zones is the same as what
existed in 2003, minus any PDRs that have occurred since that time. The 663-unit figure is the
potential maximum.
The TDR program is not expected to cause any change in rural feel or country ambiance of the
Town for the following reasons:
· the HALOs are already established and have the supporting infrastructure to potentially decrease
vehicular traffic;
· the types of density increases are diverse and would not represent any single type of growth but
would be dispersed as various unit types within the HALOs;
· no new density is created, all units originate as a development right from an area that would be
preserved once the development right is transferred;
· open space will still be retained within the HALOs as outlined in the TDR Program;
· PDR, Conservation Subdivisions and outright acquisition of land will continue based on
availability of funds, thereby reducing density through other ongoing programs; and
· potential growth in the HALOs is limited by a 30 percent growth factor, which would be
monitored.
The 30 percent growth management factor is intended "breathing room", in order to monitor the
TDR Program as it evolves. The Town will track and monitor the redemption of credits and the
character and quality of the HALOs as the program is implemented. In this way, information
will be provided on which to base future management decisions. It would be prudent to allow
the flexibility to permit changes in the growth factor if warranted based on the tracldng of the
program, its use and the result. Considerations will involve community character, life quality,
design and need for design standards, and visual/aesthetic character of the HALOs.
In conclusion, the growth management factor provides a limiting factor to be evaluated through
program tracldng as well as monitoring of community character. Maximum development
potential in terms of unit counts are conservative as some HALO development will include
commercial uses. Tracking will occur immediately through Town data tracldng efforts and
personnel and planning staff will continuously monitor HALO development for community
character issues, so that the program can be adjusted accordingly over time.
Page 2-9
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
2.10 Comment 10
"There is also a question; will the agricultural land owners continue aEv fi)rm of conservation
subdivision after TDR sales start? There could be a reaction by those who miss out on TDR
(there is an oversuppl39 and they might go fi)r the profit of fidl development."
Response: The use of Conservation Subdivisions will continue once the TDR Program is
established. The sale of a development right under the PDR program would be expected to
provide a market indicator for purchase of development rights for the TDR Program. The Town
and Suffolk County will still aggressively pursue PDR, and the levels of government and non-
profit entities that currently help to structure Conservation Subdivisions, PDR and acquisition of
land will continue. The TDR Program would offer an additional option that does not involve the
greater expenditure of public funds as compared with PDR and acquisition, allowing the
remaining funds in these programs to be leveraged for further purchases and resulting benefits to
Town residents.
As a result, the scenario outlined above would not occur (i.e. "... a reaction by those who mis's
out on TDR (there is' an oversupp~;) and they might go fi)r the profit of fidl development." This
is evident since there would be more options for landowners in sending areas to not seek full
development once TDR is added as a potential method of compensation to not construct on land
in agricultural areas.
2.11 Comment 11
"I do get concerned when by the numbers' in this' study that the sending area represents a total
area of almost 3,000 acres' or almost 1,600potential TDR's out there or excuse me, development
rights of which the receiving areas as it designated and I have these numbers' orally that were
given to me about one week ago, receiving units that can be put into the HALOs' and hamlet
centers' is 662. Mr. Meinke made reference to 663, my addition gave me the smaller number by a
unit, I am concerned when we can land in this program 42% of the development rights that are
out in the agricultural fields into our HALOs' and hamlet centers' as the first stop in this' program.
I have always felt that a TDR program could be invaluable to farmland and open .space
preservation in this' Town. I would like to see a first target of perhaps landing up to 10% of the
total available development rights into the hamlet centers'. I mean, current(v as the plan stands,
the village of Southold and HALO can receive up to 160 more residential building units.
Mattituck 138. Peconic and w&v I don't understand this', 142 and then lesser amounts to East
Marion, 73; New Suffolk 57 more units; Cutchogme 47; Orient 24 and Greenport 21 to get to this'
magic number of 662. I once had a boss who was president ()fa major bank in New York Cio;
and his' modus of operating was if we are going to make mistakes, let's make mis'takes slowly and
right now, I see a plan here that says we can put up to 42% ()fall development rights out on the
ag lands, right into our village centers' and HALOs' and you know, we can always adjust this' in
the fimtre. I would rather see a number like, if there are 1, 600 potential, the report says 1,571
potential TDRs. Let's' say, let's' start 150 and see how it work¥ and we can always up it if it
Page 2-10
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
works. You know, this is going to be sort of a cat chasing its tail. If you want to land a building
site in a village center and you have got to start out and pay an additional $160, 000 or $200,000
to land that development right and then go build a structure and is that structure going to give a
return to the builder that makes it worthwhile fi)r him to increase that densiO) presumably on a
properO) that he owns in the village, to begin with. Let ahme what an outside developer might
dr). So; currently I perceive this really not as a preservation plan at 662 development rights out
of l, 571 being allowed to land in our HALOs' and hamlet centers', I see this as a development
plan not a preservation plan."
Response: This comment is more of a statement than a question. In addition, prior responses
provide information that addresses this comment (see response to Comment 9; Section 2.9).
It is not accurate to label the TDR Program as either a development plan or a preservation plan.
It is an additional tool to bring compensation to landowners in sending areas as an incentive to
not pursue development of those parcels, in exchange for the value of a TDR for each
development right that would otherwise be permitted by zoning. Rather than having government
fund this purchase, it is funded by private market factors that would allow the development right
to be constructed in a more appropriate area of the Town. As noted in prior responses, there are
diverse opportunities to distribute TDRs within the HALOs, and there are recommended limits to
avoid potential for over-intensification of use in the HALOs. Also, as previously noted, the
program allows available public funds to be leveraged to ensure that the PDR and fee title
acquisition programs continue.
2.12 Comment 12
"And also, another concern of mine, when I was looking at the map originally I saw the HALO
area in East Marion was originally just north of the road. Now there is a large parcel south of
the road. The communiO) has expressed, they don't want the development of a HALO district
and I feel like, even though we are saying that, the Town is going right ahead and look at that,
the HALO district is growing. So, I know in there you said that you will take what the
communiO) has to say in mind but I don't how much power we are going to have when there is
just buying and selling going on. I don't know. "
Response: Since the recommended TDR program is intended to be based on school district
boundaries, East Marion was combined with Orient under the Oysterponds Union Free School
District ("UFSD'). As a result, in the program outlined in the TDR Planning Report,
development rights originating in Orient could be placed in East Marion.
The June 2007 TDR Planning Report identified 112 TDRs originating within the Oysterponds
UFSD, and at that time, all of the development rights originated in Orient. As far as potential
receiving sites, the total of 98 units identified in the TDR Planning Report has been recalculated
to determine the number for each hamlet, with 73 potential units in East Marion and 24 potential
units in Orient (it is noted that this totals 97 units, not 98 as outlined in the TDR Planning
Report). The primary reason for the difference is the receiving potential of East Marion due to
Page 2-11
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
available public water as compared with Orient, which does not have available public water.
Based on the growth management factor this would permit 22 units in East Marion and the
resulting receiving zone potential for Orient would be 7 units.
It should also be noted that the program identifies Agricultural District parcels, and parcels with
individual commitments as sending areas. This means that sending areas are "fluid" and may
change as parcels are either entered into or removed from the Agricultural District program. As
of December, 2008, an 8 acre parcel in East Marion was entered into the Tax Assessor's records
as an Agricultural District parcel, which would qualify this location as a sending site.
Given the number of potential TDRs (112 rights), it is evident that more efforts should be made
toward PDR, Conservation Subdivision and fee title acquisition in Orient to achieve the Town's
agricultural land retention and open space goals for this area. This would further reduce the
potential sending site credits, and would reduce the need for receiving sites to accommodate
these TDRs.
The HALO locations were established as a separate initiative by the Town. As part of this
program, the Town could revisit the boundaries of the East Marion HALO, potentially reducing
its size and thereby reducing the number of receiving sites. The program is most equitable by
retaining the overall Oysterponds school district area which includes East Marion and Orient, for
the purpose of sending and receiving areas. However, the reduction of the East Marion HALO
should be considered to further refine the receiving zone. In addition, PDR, Conservation
Subdivision and fee title acquisition efforts should continue. The overall residents and
landowners of the Oysterponds school district area would gain the benefits of retained
agricultural open space land through the combination of these efforts.
2.13 Comment 13
"I want to .speak of the impact on East Marion in regard¥ to this. I would like, well, each hamlet
is' unique in itselJ7 it is, you know, Cutchogue has a hamlet center and developed land and toady
and Mattituck does too. East Marion doesn't. We can't bear aKv extra traflfc. We have a fero)
that gives us a problem and as I was going through this TDR paperwork here, I saw on one page
116, it says who benefits fi'om this'program? It says ascending area landlord% the investors, the
developers, landowners, etc'. etc'. Local businesses benefit. It doesn't say aKvthing about the
community desires of the communion. The community definitely will benefit somewhat fi'om
businesses and so fi)rth but the desires, like you said, is not there, we don't want, in East Marion,
we dr) not want a hamlet center. We don't want aKv development. East Marion has been there
fi)r 350 years and it has been the same fi)r 350 years'. Throughout this paperwork, you know it
mentioned single family homes, two family homes, multiple family homes, etc'. etc'. ~/hich is'
fi'ightening to us out in East Marion. Yourpotential adverse impacts, it says here, would result
in clearing and grading in HALO areas fi)r development resulting fi'om densiO) shift. We don't
want it. Eveo)thing here is' what East Marion doesn't want. We presented you with a petition
stating that. Showing that out of 440 households, 328 households did not want it and I could
have given you 440 households' except it was too exhaustingfi)r me. But I could have got about
Page 2-12
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
98~ of the households. And East Marion is unique and I wish when you make judgments on this
TDR that you consider that. Consider each hamlet as a unique entiO). It can't be one blanket
coverage. I know that is difficult to dc), I am sure it is difficult to dc) in planning but this is what I
want and this is what most of the per)pie East Marion want. We want to be treated differently
because we are different."
Response: This comment is acknowledged and is addressed in response to Comment 12,
Section 2.12 above.
2.14 Comment 14
"The other one is tran.sfer of development rights in the school districts. It says should generally
be in the general school system. And I was wondering, I didn't bother looking in a dictiona~T
what generally meant but it is an unusual term. Are we going to get around it or are we going to
merge school districts?"
Response: The recommended program involves respecting school district boundaries such that
sending zone TDRs would have to be located in a receiving area in the same school district.
2.15 Comment 15
"The other one is, it mentions all sorts of housing, single, double, multiple occupanc;v but there
is almost no mention of affordable housing. And my impression was that originally the only
tran,sfer of development rights were for affordable housing and now apparently that isn't
mentioned an)place."
Response: This comment is addressed in response to Comment 5, Section 2.5. A key concept
is identified in that response and is repeated herein: "Requiring TDR for affordable housing is
counter-intuitive, since the zoning is intended to decrease the cost of housing, and purchase of
credits would increase the cost of housing." The Town is pursuing affordable housing through
other programs and initiatives described below.
The Affordable Housing District (AHD) is a zoning district specifically provided for affordable
housing. A number of successful AHD communities exist in the Town. A recent example is the
Cottages at Mattituck (south of Railroad Avenue, west of Factory Avenue, Mattituck, which
provided 22 units of affordable housing in 2-bedroom single story residences.
The Town has undertaken major efforts to provide affordable and diverse housing opportunities,
as reflected in the accessory apartment law, a mandate for permanent, moderate income and
affordable housing, and continued moderate density housing opportunities in a multitude of
zoning districts other than R-40 (40,000 square foot lot size for yield) and larger lot zones.
The Town has established an inclusionary zoning law amendment [Chapter 240-10B(2)(c)] that
requires twenty (20) percent of homes to be set aside as Moderate-Income Family Dwelling
Units (MIFDUs) affordable as part of all subdivisions creating five (5) or more lots. The
Page 2-13
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
provisions may be waived, but only if a donation is made to the Town of Southold Housing
Fund, or the units are constructed at another location in the Town, or the applicant provides
development rights equal to the required number of MIFDUs to the Housing Fund or other
appropriate housing trust/authority capable of providing the housing.
Finally, since early 2005, the Town Board has had a limited TDR ordinance (Chapter 117), to
use as an additional tool in achieving affordable housing goals in tandem with land preservation
efforts. This law uses allows the Town to retain sanitary flow credits from land acquisition, for
the purpose of creating affordable housing. All of the above programs are currently in effect to
promote affordable housing. The TDR program is separate and apart from these programs, but
recognizes the Town's commitment to providing affordable housing through these other
methods.
2.16 Comment 16
"But tonight your objective is to receive comments on the supplemental impact statement dealing
with the transfer of development rights in Southold. This prefatolT to accepting a document
which is an environmental impact statement in support of fitture legislation which is not yet
written."
Response: The recommended TDR Program is outlined in detail in the TDR Planning Report to
the Town Board. This report is part of the DSGEIS, and fully describes the recommended
program. Any TDR legislation that is created will be completely consistent with those
recommendations, or will be modified to be consistent with further findings based on this
FSGEIS and the Statement of Findings prepared for the GEIS process. Once the Statement of
Findings is adopted, the Town Attorney's office will draft the final legislation and will ensure
that it is consistent with the TDR Planning Report, the Statement of Findings, and any mitigation
or changes in the program identified that are needed to address environmental concerns
stemming from the GEIS process.
2.17 Comment 17
"One of the basic principles' that we have discussed many, maEv times through the ?ars is the
idea of making changes by tran.sfer resulting in neutral densiO;. This principle is not well
expressed in the document, in fact it actually goes out of its way to talk about incentives that
would overbalance towards more densiO;: Sc) that is an important point that I think is missing
fi~om the impact statement. That the idea was to not create more density by tran.sfer. "
Response: This comment is acknowledged and is responded to in response to Comment 2,
Section 2.2. A key part of that response that directly addresses this comment is repeated herein:
"The TDR program does not increase density, it involves a "shift" of density from sending areas
associated with rural farm and agricultural lands, to receiving areas located in hamlet areas
where existing infrastructures can accommodate appropriately controlled development. One
Page 2-14
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
development right from a sending parcel may be transferred to a receiving parcel and used as one
(1) residential development unit. Units have been identified to include various types (i.e.
residential accessory dwelling, single-family dwelling, apartment, townhouse, etc0 depending on
the type of project proposed for the receiving site."
2.18 Comment 18
"There is anotherpiece that is not actually missing but it is mentioned only as an alternative and
that is the commercial component. The commercial component is a very important part of this
picture because it could be the element that makes this a succes.$fid program. We talked befi;re
just a moment ago about incentives' to get people to tran.sfer development fi'om farmland into the
hamlet centers', that tran.sfer, that incentive of course is hard to come by. Why would you want to
do that necessarily? Well, one way of course is to change the exchange rate and get two fi;r one,
three for one, whatever and the Town Board can do that. That is something we don't' want to
go. And the commercial component however, let's' say that a restaurant wanted to have outdoor
dining or something like that which is currently prohibited by the code I think, then perhaps if
you saved a couple aeres of farmland, that could be take into consideration. So it is a very
powe~tl element here in the commercial aspect that is missing fi'om the document now. You are
moving towards perhaps legislation that would enact something. With this part missing, I think
we have got the heart out of the program. "
Response: This comment is acknowledged and is responded to in response to Comment 3,
Section 2.3. A key part of that response that directly addresses this comment is repeated herein:
"As indicated in the comment, this concept has substantial merit since it would reduce the
residential growth of the Town by using residential TDRs for commercial growth. This has the
benefit of increasing tax revenue and decreasing population and demand for services, particularly
with respect to schools. In addition, there is a need to provide opportunities for landing transfer
credits in receiving areas, and the TDR Planning Report recognizes that while Southold is unique
and there is an expected demand for credits, a more successful program would provide increased
receiving zone opportunities. One way to do this is to consider use of TDRs for commercial use.
The original program was intended to be simple and amenable to straightforward
implementation. As a result, the Town Board may wish to start with a residential TDR program
at first, and add commercial transfer opportunities in the furore. Since the DSGEIS did not
identify any significant adverse impacts with the commercial credit transfer, the flexibility to
offer a commercial TDR transfer program should be provided at the Town Board's discretion."
2.19 Comment 19
"I am going to use some round numbers' to describe what could happen here. From the sending
areas, 1,600 let's' call them residential development units, can be tran.sferred to the receiving
areas. In the receiving areas we can receive 660 units. This means that you have more coming
in than will fit. However, the Town Board can make them fit by changing the exchange rate.
Page 2-15
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
Fe~T dangerous business. Right now, by using the numbers' in the document, it looks like 42% of
that which could be transferred theoretically would only fit in the receiving zone, so not all of it
could go in. However, we have got more to put in. The how ma[v actually land depends upon
the legislation, on what is actually set up. In other words, this document sets up some models,
studies the is'sue, shows' what could or couldn't happen but the real key is going to be the change
to the code itself not yet written. Without the code the eff~cac;v of this program really can't be
measured. Can't even be judged. You have to know what the code is going to say. Sc) this is a
cart and a horse problem. You need the environmental impact statement to dc) the legislation but
you can't understand the impact if you don't have the legislation. Somehow we have to get the
horse and the cart together here yet."
Response: As indicated in response to Comment 16, Section 2.16: "Any TDR legislation that
is created will be completely consistent with those recommendations, or will be modified to be
consistent with further findings based on this FSGEIS and the Statement of Findings prepared for
the GEIS process. Once the Statement of Findings is adopted, the Town Attorney's office will
draft the final legislation and will ensure that it is consistent with the TDR Planning Report, the
Statement of Findings, and any mitigation or changes in the program identified that are needed to
address enviroamental concerns stemming from the GEIS process."
With respect to the "exchange rate" the Town Board is committed to a density-neutral program
that will not increase density of a unit that is transferred from a sending zone to a receiving area;
see response to Comments 2 (Section 2.2) and 17 (SectiOn 2.17).
With respect to the observation that there are more development rights originating from sending
areas than can be accommodated in receiving areas, this is acknowledged and exemplifies the
need for continued efforts for PDR, Conservation Subdivision and fee title acquisition. The TDR
Program provides an additional means to protect/preserve farmland by having the private market
compensate landowners through the purchase of a TDR; this will reduce the amount of public
funds and will allow PDR, Conservation Subdivision and fee title acquisition to continue.
2.20 Comment 20
"My basic concern, though, given all that is' the marginal cost of the program may be quite a
problem. That is, how much land will we actually preserve fi)r eve~T say, $100,000 worth of cost
of operating the program. This' program is' complex, it is' going to be costly to adminis'ter and
because of these complexities it is' going to be of dubious impact. We are not going to see a lot of
volume here. Sc) it is' a big question in my mind of whether we are being wis'e in .spending our tax
dollars preserving land this' particular way. We won't know the answer to that until we actually
see the legis'lation that you may propose. Thank you. "
Response: As noted in response to Comments 16 (Section 2.16) and 19 (Section 2.19), the
legislation that is created will be consistent with the TDR Planning Report and any modifications
considered to be appropriate to reduce impacts of the program as identified through the SEQRA
process and incorporated into the Statement of Findings.
Page 2-16
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
The program is relatively simple in terms of implementation, and it is not expected that
substantial additional expenditures will be necessary to implement it. The program would be
implemented through the existing personnel and departments of the Town. The Town Attorney's
office will draft the legislation consistent with the TDR Planning Report and the SEQRA
process. The Town Clerk will record TDRs assigned to landowners, extinguished on the sending
parcel and redeemed as part of a development projects on a receiving parcel. The Planning staff
will help facilitate the program through their role in review of projects. The various Boards that
will help with implementation of the program through their land use reviews will discharge their
duties in accordance with their enabling legislation. No new personnel are expected to be
necessary, as the program implementation components are distributed across existing Town
departments and Boards and will be relatively simple to implement.
2.21 Comment 21
"Well, under your who benefits fi~om this program, this to me is the whole thing in a nutshell.
Landowners, investors' and deve[opers benefit from an additional mechanism to faci[itate
compatible and planned development projects that provide return on investment. That has
nothing to do with the communion. That has eve~Tthing to do with per)pie fi~om the outside
coming in and purchasing land W deve[op it W make money. And the other thing I wou[d [ike
c[arification on is HALO communities benefit fi~om investment in their hamlet areas resu[ting in
redevelopment, whatever redevelop means, and compatible land use which strengthens the
hamlet and achieves other land preservation goals. I would like somebody W please explain
that."
Response: In response to the question, "Who benefits from this program?" in the TDR Planning
Report, the following full response is provided:
The residents and visitors c?f the Town c?f Southold benefit from continuing land preservation of rural
areas and retention of the bucolic character associated with the Town. Sending area lanclowners
benefit from an additional option to gain monetary value for their land, and their continued ability to
utilize the underlying value of the land absent the development rights. Lanclowners, clevelopers and
investors benefit from an additional mechanism to facilitate compatible and planned development
projects that provide return on investment. HALO communities benefit from investment in their
hamlet areas resulting in redevelopment and compatible land use which strengthens the hamlets and
achieves other land preservation goals. Local businesses benefit from an increased local
consumer/customer base.
First and foremost, the "residents" of the Town of Southold are noted as benefiting from the
program. The reference to the benefit to HALO communities is self-explanatory and is re-stated
in the comment above. The commentator may not agree with the statements, but no further
explanation is needed, as the paragraph is thorough in explaining the benefits of the program.
Page 2-17
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
It is the opinion of the consultant and team that authored the TDR Planning Report that there is
an overall net benefit to the Town and its residents, by providing an alternative means to reduce
development in inappropriate agricultural areas of the Town, and shift that development in a
carefully-considered, controlled and compatible way, toward existing hamlet centers that have
infrastructure and are more appropriate for small incremental increases in land use than the rural
areas of the Town.
2.22 Comment 22
"Okay, my other question is we are talking about within school district lines' and things' like that.
You need to remember that if densiO; increases in East Marion the school district grows' in
Greenport because we send eve~Tbo~, we send 90 students up there now. So if the densiO;
increases in East Marion, Greenport school district increases students and we pay tuition to
Greenport so it would be ve~T costly fi)r the taxpayers in Greenport when you increase that. The
other thing is is that we are talking again about big houses', doesn't mean they have the least
children. Well, I have lived in East Marion a long time and when my children were in school
probab(v 18 years' ago, there weren't big houses. There was tons of farmland. There were 136
children in Oysterponds school. Today with all the big gigantic houses and eve~Tthing, is 101."
Response: The comment with respect to East Marion as a receiving zone is addressed in
response to Comment 12 (Section 2.12) above.
The comment with respect to house size and school-aged children is addressed in response to
Comment 6 (Section 2.6) above. As indicated in that response, it is expected that the size of
some units which are built in HALO areas may be less than a single-family home, and that if this
occurs, it is likely that the unit will have a smaller household population based on standard
references. The comment with respect to house sizes and the number of children in the
Oysterponds school 18 years ago is interesting, and may be due to local influences or trends
unique to East Marion. While interesting, the comment is not directly relevant to the proposed
TDR Program.
2.23 Comment 23
"One, on the sending areas, how are, is it determined which properties will be allowed to sell the
development rights and how does that compare with the current evahtation program in
connection with our purchase of development rights programs?"
Response: A landowner wishing to sell development rights may contact the Town for a
certificate recognizing the number of credits applied to a given parcel of land. The owner may
then market those credits. The Town will assist in putting credit owners together with potential
purchasers through the land use review process. Any landowner in a sending zone would be
eligible to sell development rights. This compares with and is complementary to the PDR
Page 2-18
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
program. Under PDR, a landowner wishing to sell development rights contacts the Town or
Suffolk County expressing this interest.
Section 4.5, Program Mechanics Summary; of the TDR Planning Report to the Town Board
provides additional information that is in direct response to this comment. Under the subsection,
Examination of Grant Tasks, there are two question-answer points of information that address
this comment.
6. What will be the Town's role in implementing and monitoring the program?
It is expected that the Town will implement the program by complying with SEQRA and creating
legislation in the form of a TDR local law which would be adopted by the Town Board in
conformance with the requirements established under New York State Town Law. Once enacted, it is
expected that the Town will implement the program through issuance of credit certificates to sending
area landowners, and will facilitate the redemption of TDR credits through the land use review
process for landowners and developers of projects within the receiving areas. The Town will record
redeemed TDR's in a manner that ensures that parcels from which credits are transferred are
recognized as having no residual development rights. The Town will monitor the program and make
adjustments as necessary to facilitate its success in conformance with applicable laws. The Town
Planning Board, Town Board, potentially the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Town Clerk would all
be involved in various aspects of program implementation. The Town may in the future pursue a
credit registry or credit bank; however, this is not essential to the initial program.
7. How do I participate if I own land within a Sending Area?
A sending area landowner would contact the Town, make application on forms to be provided, obtain
a TDR credit certificate, and seek a private purchaser for the credits.
2.24 Comment 24
"Second question is on the receiving areas. You said several times that each receiving parcel
would require a zone change and so that is going to make it awfid hard fi)r people who want to
b~92 one of these properties to go through a complete change of zone. Is that the way this
program is intended to work? To have to dc) a rezoning eve~T time a development credit is
received?"
Response: The interpretation indicated in this comment is inaccurate. The various types of land
use that would enable redemption of TDRs, and the land use decisions that would need to occur,
are outlined in the TDR Planning Report. The following land use types were identified as being
appropriate for redemption of credits:
· Single-Family Homes
· Two-Family Homes
· Multiple Family Dwellings
· Detached Accessory Dwelling Units, and
· Mixed use or flexible zoning developments trader potential future Planned Development District
Page 2-19
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
Only the methods of Multiple Family Dwellings and potential furore Planned Development
Districts would involve zone changes. As indicated in the TDR Planning Report, Single-Family
and Two-Family Homes would be reviewed and approved by the Town Planning Board, and
Detached Accessory Dwelling Units would be reviewed and approved by the Town ZBA. As a
result, a change of zone is not needed for all types of receiving site approvals.
2.25 Comment 25
"It seems to me that we are mentioning affordable housing, unaffordable housing, fimr and five
bedroom housing etc'. The problem is housing. No matter what cost the housing is' here and the
easiest solution to housing in my estimation, your estimation and your previous Board's'
recommendations that your chaired, is re&misting accesso~T apartments. I don't' know why that
is'n 't being, that is' an immediate fix. An immediate fix. "
Response: This comment is partially addressed in response to Comment 5 (Section 2.5) and 15
(Section 2.5). It is noted that units transferred from sending areas that are built as two-family,
multiple-family, residential accessory dwellings, or residences that are part of planned
development districts would be smaller in size than homes built in the sending areas, and as a
result would have lower sales prices and would therefore assist with creating more affordable
housing opportunities in the Town. With respect to accessory apartments, the Town created the
accessory apartment provisions in the Town Zoning law, and as a result, accessory apartments
are addressed through that legislation under a separate initiative.
2.26 Comment 26
"Previously farmers would sell their land, sell their development rights and that was it, it wash 't
like, well, okay what am I going to get fi)r it? They would just sell their development rights, the
land would be preserved fi)r the fitture and right now something has started where well, they can
get probably more money in the meantime it is' going to be creating higher densiO; somewhere
else. To me it is' an observation that just says it is kind of sad in my res'peet. I don't know what
incentive a farmer would have to just sell the development rights fi)r the land to be preserved
unless they were truly altruistic and you know, unfi)rtunately they want to make a buck too, so I
wouldn't blame them fi)r getting more money with the TDR. But it is just an observation."
Response: This comment is more of a statement; however, it is important to note that the TDR
Program is intended to supplement other programs including the continued PDR program. TDR
shifts density from areas that are inappropriate for residential growth toward hamlet centers that
have infrastructure in-place and are more appropriate for controlled, appropriate development.
Page 2-20
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
PDR will continue and will help to establish a market value for sale of development rights
through the appraisal process. This would apply to continued PDR purchases and would be a
benchmark for TDR. TDRs would be purchased through private markets unless the Town
implements the alternative of creating a bank to purchase and either hold, sell or extinguish those
credits (much like the PDR program). The same incentive would apply, whether a farm owner
sells development rights to the Town through PDR, or sells development rights privately through
TDR.
Continued PDR, Conservation Subdivision and fee title purchase would retain farmland and
open space and would further reduce density in the Town, though PDR and acquisition require
expenditure of public funds. TDR retains open agricultural land and does not require
expenditure of public funds, and therefore will help to supplement the continuing purchase
programs while achieving other important goals of the Town.
Page 2-21
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
APPENDICES
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
APPENDIX A
ACCEPTANCE OFDSGEIS
Town Board
April 22, 2008
RESOLUTION 2008-415
ADOPTED
DOC iD: 3820
Tills IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE, FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2008-415 WAS
ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOXVN BOARD ON
APRIL 22, 2008:
WHEREAS, the '£ow-n Board of the Town o1' Soutbold (the "Board") has assumed Icad ancncv
status for review of the proposed Transfer of Developmeot Kights program and for the purpose
of compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Action (SEQRA) for the action, as
codified in 6 NYCRR Part 617, and
WHEREAS, the Board found that a Generic Envirmzmental Impact Statement (GF. IS) would be
necessary, and issued the appropriate determhmtion (via a Pos/five Declaration) to require such
document lbr thc proposed action, and
WHEREAS, the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) has been prepared,
the Board has reviewed the document and determined that it is adequate for public review rind
coramcnt_
NOW THEILEFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby accepts the Draft
Generic Environmental Impact Statement after due deliberation and review of the prepared
documentation, For the purpose of public and interested agency review and input, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town Board hereby directs the Town Clerk to file a
Notice of Complete Draft EIS and Notice of Public Hearing in accordance with the Notice and
Filing Requirements of SEQRA and circulate the Draft. EIS to public, interested agencies and
parties of interest (noted below), in accordance x~4th 6 NYCR.P. Part 617.12, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Toxvn Board hereby.s_ets a Public Information Session
for review of the DGI'2IS document on [~la,( 6, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. at the Sauthold Town Hall,
53095 Main Road, Southold; and
Resolution 2008-415
Board Meeting of April 22, 2008
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town Bo~d will .hold a public hearing on the Draft
GElS at a special Town Board Meeting on Ma5, 27, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Tow.
~Hall, 53095 Main Road. Southold. to receive public comment on the DGEI8. At least 10 days
will be provided for written comment after the close of the public hearing, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the 'l'own of Southold hereby directs
the Town Clerk to file Notice of the Public Hearing in at least one (1) local newspaper, at least
fifteen (15) days prior to the Public Hearing.
Tow~ of Southold Superv/sor's Office
Town Clerk of the Town of Southold
Town of SouthoId Planning Boa. rd
Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold Town Trustees
Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services
Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works
Suffolk County Water Authority
Soffolk County Planning Cormnission
NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Commissioner, Alb~y
NYS Dept. of Environmental Conse~,ation, Regional Office at Stony Brook
NYS Dept. of'l'ransportation
NYS Dept. of State
US Army Corps of Engineers
Inc. Village of Greanport
Totem of Riverhead
Town of Southampton
Town of Shelter Island
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
I-LESU'LT: ADOPTED [UNANIb/I'O US1
MOVER: Albert Kmpski ,Ir., Councilman
SECONDER: Thomas H. Wicldaam, Councilman
A~r ES: Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wiclcham, Evans, R lsse 1
Updated: 4/22/2008 1 I: 12 AM by Lynda Rudder Page 2
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
APPENDIX B
WRITTEN COMMENTS
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Environmenfml Permits, Region One
SUN¥~-SIony Broolq 50 Circl~Road, Stan¥ Brook, NY 11790 -3409
Phone: (631) 4~-0403 · FAX: (63'[)444-0360
Website: www.dec.sf~te.ny:us
Alexander B. Grannls
fun~ 4, 2008
~CE!VED
Ms. Lynda M- Bohn
Deputy Town Clerk
Town of Southold, T~wn Hail
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 1 ] 971
- 6 2008
~ulhold Tdw~ Uork
RE: Town of Southald Draft Generic Enviromuenta[ Impact Statement for the
Town of Southold Transfer of Development Rights Program
Dear Ms. Bohn:
The DC~Partment of Environmental Conservatinn has reviewed ~ referenced d ocument~ and
we have the folloxving concerto There are a number of New York State regulated freshwater
wetlands located within and/or directly adj scent to the propqsed HALO receiving areas. Increasing
the development densit~ of lot~ that contain or are adjacent to regulated freshwater wetlands may
lead to pzoposed projects that ~1o not meet the standards for p~nuit issuance pgrsuant to the
Freshwater Wetlands Act. This Department {s interested in preventing property owners from
purchasing TDR credits to increase the development density of lots which cantons wetlands only
to learn afterwards that theb: propel, cd project is not compatible with New York State regulations.
We recorm-nend that the Tow~reqube applicantz w/t~n the receiving area with property on or near
regulated freshwater wetlands to obtain a p~mit or letter ofnon-j ufisdicfion front the NYSDEC pti or
to b~ng granted approval by the Town to u~c TDR credits to increase development density on their
property.
Thank you for the oppommity to'~rovide comments on th~s doeume~. IfI can be of any
further as~s~uc¢, please call me at 631 ~44.-0403.
Sincerely,, -
li[evin Jermings, NYSDEC
JLll, I - 9 2008
Comment 1
Sec. 2.1
SUBJECT: Comments and opir~ons concerning the current TDR. disc~gi0n and the'
proposal submitted by Nelson, Pope and Voorhis ' .... . ..................
1. The early discussions of TDR were firm in assuring us that the plan was density
neutral; that means that RDUs (residential housing units) moved fi-om agricultural land t
hamlet with no net increase in numbers.
It seems now, reading the report that a net density increase should be expected. The vol'
of one right to build on a 2 acre plot is naturally worth a lot more than one fight to build
smaller house on ½ acre in the hamlet. Thus, TDR does bring with it an increase in the
number of residences, taxes, traffic congestion and loss of rural atmosphere. (Note: at
the hearing the one to one ratio was definitely supported as the ONLY option by the
Supervisor~ the board and Mr. Voorhis.)
Comment 2
Section 2.2
2. There is discussion in the TDR planning docmnent that points out that the increase in
residential development in the Hamlet/Halo through TDR will necessitate an increase in
commercial development and infrastructure in the Hamlet, This is logical.
Consequently, we should allow TDR to be used to augment commercial uses while We
allow it to grow the residential side of the Hamlet/Halo. Thus we could get a less tha,a a 1
to 1 transfer and achieve a net reduction in density with some transfer credits. Since the
ability to transfer ultimately hinges on the ability of the receiving land to accept
sewage based on rulings by the SCttD, we will very lflrely have commercial uses
suggested for properties that can receive TDR credits. TDR for commercial use
should be a part of the program.
Corrm~ent 3
Section 2.3
3. It is suggested in the report that the transfers of density would be a/ded by the addition
of strategically placed sewage treatment systems. This is a bad idea. The forces of'growth
will use this potenfia/for added density to ram in more commemial and residential
development. Sewage plants would give ammunition to the proponents of the "big
box" stores that we do not want. We will have trouble enough "keeping it rural"
without this added factor,
Comment 4
Section 2.4
4. AI-ID will not require TDR, so there is an additional amount of growth that is not I Comment 5
counted. Hence more Hamlet density that is uncounted. ] Section 2.5
5. The report states that the movement of growth from the 2 acre zoning (and large
1
houses) to the hamlet/halo (and smaller houses) will result in a lesser tax impact because /c°mment 6
Of fewer ckildren. I wonder of there is hack up for this assertion. I can envision smaller¢ Section 2.6
· houses with youngerxmeupants Pu~g just as-many-kids in school as the-larger 2 acre
houses. Many citizens stood u~5'ai:ihe meeting and supported the idea that this
density tTan?fcr wopld Yaise S~hb~! enrollment and taxes.
6. Conservation subdiv/sious currenfly achieve 75 or 80 % preservation and 75 or 60 %
density reduction. There is a net reduction in density, but still a few houses on the Ag.
land. If the TDR program allows partial sale of the density on.a parcel and supports
building on the remainder, it results in what looks like a conservation subdivision but
we do not lower density:... If the TDR rules allow this seenarlo we will not see another
conservation subdivision The detail in the TDR regulations is critical. The effect on
current land use legislation is very important.
Could we apply the TDRidea only to land that is already in the eonservatim~
subdivision process? This would let tlie Ag. laud owner receive cash for his last lots,
and therefore remove all the houses from his land. Thus further preserving farm
land while redueine total density.
7. Arranging for the town to serve as a TDR bank may be worth while. The down side is
the requirement for interim financing by the town. However, if the TDILs reside with the
town we maintain control of which rights sell first and what projects are developed first.
It seems liked a very strong and important control mechanism.
There is a window of opportunity now during the mortgage crisis and the building
slowdown to determine how much growth in Southold is appropriate and to move
legislation to set a firm goal. A few years ago NFEC presented a plan that used the 80
percent preservation/60 percent density reduction formula (a part of the conservation
subdivision idea) as a target for all of Southold. From figures in the DGEIS of 2002
this meant that a build out of 15,500 residences would be reduced to 12,434 when
Southold was all settled. The last town census figures showed 21,500 full time
residents, which equates tO approximately' 9,000 dwellings. This means that
Southold, even with the 80 / 60 "brakes applied formula" wffi go at best, from 9,000
full time dwellings now to 12,434 at build out. We see this growth (28%), as more
~han enough!
Southold Town seriously needs this sort of stated objective. The cmxent attitude of''we
are doing fine now and if the numbers change we will act" is fatally flawed. An up to
date comprehensive master plan that unequivocally states a build out goal that reflect~ the
citizens desire to preserve rural Southold will allow something real to be done.
A sudden awakening to Overdevelopment without the backup of a master plan will be all
pain and no gain.
To properly ~hlnk about the potential of TDR we need more information. Southold needs
an up to date analysis, possibly the status of preservation and development as of
Comment 7
Section 2.7
Comment 8
Section 2.8
December 2007. The residential build-out number ifmll-ex]s[ing houses and-possible
buildable lots are counted is required. Of course this also requires up to date
calculation of the "real build out potential" of the ltamleff l:Ialo zones.
With this the Town Board plus the citizens can judge at what growth point Southold loses
the rural, quality of life that maims it special. On the other hand, if as time passes we
agree that we are wrong it is easy to authorize more growth. If we blunder on with no
plan and see that growth is strangling Southold, hand wringing will be our only answer.
The Town Board will have failed.
Question? The DGEIS of 2002 stated population numbers at that time and population at
build out (when all land is used in accordance with zoning in place at that t/me). These
numbers convert to housing urtim at the rate of 2.4 persons per unit in accordance with
Suffolk County Planning Department calculations.
2002 population 21,500 or 8,958 residences
Build out population 37, 338 or 15,578 residences
The DGEIS also states that potential residential units (RI)Us) from all zones other than
AC, R 80 and R 40 would be only 388. The TDR report cites the receiving zone for TDR
as allowing 663. Tiffs seems to be a very large increase in RDU count. Where will it
stop? SHOULDN'T WE KNOW WHAT TH]~ GROWTH TARGET IS?
I hope the 30 percent cut offsuggested in the TDR report can be permanent. If the result
of this mount of growth is recognized as a loss of"the rural, fee], country ambiance, and
the magic of Southold; and the hum of traffic and the rise of taxes gets noticeable we
need to act quicldy.
There is also a question; will the agricultural land owners continue any _form of
conservation subdivision after TDR sal~s start? There could be a reaction by those who
miss out on TDR (there is an oversupply) and they rrfight go for the profit of fall
development.
Sincerely,
Comment 9
Section 2.9
Comment I 0
Section 2.10
Howard Meinke
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
APPENDIX C
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING
Town Board
May 27, 2008
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING
May 27, 2008
7:30 PM
NOTICE IS E[IEREBY GIVEN That the To~vn Board will hold a public hearing on
the Draft GEIS for the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) at a special Town
Board Meeting on May 27~ 2008 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town llall~ 53095
Main Road~ Southold, to receive public comment on the DGEIS. At least 10 days will
be provided for written comment after the close of the public hearing.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: What I would like to do is I would like to get the meeting
underway. Would everybody please rise and Pledge Allegiance to the Flag? Okay,
tonight's public hearing with reference to a Transfer of Development rights or TDR
program for Southold Town is the cnlmination ora couple of years of work and study by
groups within Southold Town government and with the help of a consultant who 1 would
like to introduce now, to come up and give everybody a brief summary of the work and
where we are at. So, without further ado, Chick Voorhis.
CHARLES VOORHIS: Thank you, Scott. Good evening. My name is Charles Voorhis
with the firm of Nelson, Pope and Voorhis and I am here tonight as consultant to the
Town of Southold assisting with the Transfer of Development rights program that is
currently under consideration. The purpose of the meeting tonight is to receive input
from the public on the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the TDR
program that the Town Board is currently considering. The Town Board received a draft
TDR report last year back in 2007 and in review of that proposed action, the Town Board
assumed lead agency, classified the project as a Type 1 action and found that the project
could have one or more potential adverse environmental impacts. As a result, a positive
declaration was issued and that required the preparation of the Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement. So we are here tonight to receive input on the Draft
GEIS. That document was accepted by the Town Board on April 22, 2008 and the Board
did hold a public information meeting on the TDR program on May 6, 2008, just a few
weeks ago and at that night information was distributed that included a summary of the
document, information about the process and you know, was available for clarification
purposes. So tonight, I just want to stress that no decision has been made and no decision
will be made tonight. We are here to receive comments on that document that that
information meeting was held on and has been in circulation. The DGEIS and the notice
of the public hearing were circulated to involved agencies and parties of interest and the
document itself was made available on the Town's website, at the Town offices and the
two local libraries. All requirements of SEQRA part 617 of the ECL and the rules and
regulations have been complied with, with respect to tbis process. The DGEIS will be
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 2
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
the subject of a comment period for at least 30 days as is required by law, which will end
10 days after the close of the public hearing. Comments made in writing carry an equal
weight with comments made at the hearing, so as a result you are eocouraged to provide
written comments in addition to or in lieu of any comments made at this hearing. And I
am speaking really for the benefit of the public, the Board is aware of this process but just
to provide a summary of the process that will carry forward. After the close of the
comment period which we anticipate will occur 10 days after the close of the public
heating, 1 will assist the Board and the team that prepared the Environmental Impact
statement in prepm'ing responses to all of the comments that are on record. So this
includes all of the written and all comments. The Town Board will ensure that that
document is complete and will accept that as a Final Genetic Environmental Impact
Statement at the appropriate time. Once the final GEIS is accepted, that will also be
available on the Town's website, in the local libraries and at Town Hall. And that will be
made available and circulated for at least 10 days after the acceptance of that document.
Once that is complete, the SEQRA process is basically done from the standpoint of
public input but this Board will make an appropriate statement of findings on the EiS
process that weighs and balances the social, economic and environmental issues with
respect to the overall action. So as you can see, the process involved a number of
opportunities for public input. This evening we are requesting comments on the contents
of the EIS which has been circulated. Just a few very quick ground rules and then we will
proceed to the open comments. If you wish to speak, raise your hand. Scott will
recognize you and once recognized, come forward, provide your name and address for
the record, tell the Board your specific comments on the document and speak clearly, as
your comments will be made part of the record. We will not exchange in dialogue or
endeavor to answer questions tonight, this is strictly to receive public input. And i will
stress again, all substantive comments will be addressed in the final EIS and you may
submit written comments for a period of 10 days after this evening to complete the
process. So, Mr. Supervisor, I guess if you would like to conduct the meeting and
recognize speakers, 1 will be here to listen, take notes and collaborate with the team to
help with the final EIS after we receive all the comments.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay, thank you. With that being said. Mr. Meinke?
HOWARD MEINKE: Hi, my name is Howard Meinke, 7075 Peconic Bay Boulevard in
Mattituck. I am speaking for myself and North Fork Environmental Council. The early Comment 2
discussions of TDR were pretty firm in saying it was going to be density neutral, so one Section 2.2
house would go fi'om here and one house would land here. There would be no net
increase in numbers. From reading the document, it seems that a net density increase
should be expected because the value of one right to build on two acres is probably worth
more that one right to build on a smaller house on a half acre in the hamlet, thus TDR
will bring an increase in the number of residents, taxes, traffic, congestion and a loss of
rural atmosphere. So the one to one that has been talked about doesn't seem to be real, it
seems as though it is going to get to be higher than that. There is discussion in the TDR [ Comment 3
plan and document that points out that the increase in residential develop in the hamlet [ Section ¢ 3
HALO through the TDR will necessitate an increase in commercial development and\I!
infi'astructure in the hamlet. This sounds logical. Consequently, we think that you~r
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 3
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
should allow TDR's to be used to augment commercial uses while we allow it to growjt~
the residential side of the hamlet and HALO zones. Thus we can get less than one to ondl~
transfer and achieve a net reduction of density if they use commercial TDR's. I think it is ~
a mistake. We think it is a mistake not to do that. It is suggested in the report that
transfers of density would be aided by the addition of strategically placed sewage
treatment systems. We think that this is a bad idea. The forces of growth will use this
potential for added density to ram in more commercial and residential development. We
will have trouble keeping it rural without this added factor. Affordable housing will be
built and it will not require TDR, so there will be additional growth in the hamlets that is
(inaudible) through the slow increase in affordable housing and we just bring that up that
that is more growth that is not being counted in these documents here. The report states
that the movement of growth from two acre housing and large houses to the hamlet
HALO and smaller houses will result in a lesser tax impact because of fewer children. I
wonder if there is backup for this assertion. We can envision smaller houses with
younger occupants putting just as many kids in school as the larger two acre houses. We
are not sure that is a totally correct statement unless we see the backup. There is a
window of opportunity now during the mortgage crisis and the building slowdown to
determine how much growth in Southold is appropriate and to move legislation to set a
firm goal. A few years ago, NFEC presented a plan that used the 80 % preservation, 60
% density reduction idea as part of the conservation subdivision idea as a target for all of
Southold. From figures in the DGEIS of 2002, this meant that build out of 15,500
residences would be reduced to 12,434, when Southold was settled and, if you think
about the population numbers and the residence numbers, that makes sense to us.
Southold Town seriously needs this sort of stated objective. The current attitude of we
are doing fine now and if the numbers change, we will act, is fatally flawed. An up-to-
date comprehensive master plan that unequivocally states a build out goal that reflects
that citizens desire to preserve rural Southold will allow something real to be done. The
sudden awakening to over development without the backup of a master plan will be all
pain and no gain. To properly think about the potential of TDR, we need more
information. Southold needs an up-to-date analysis, possibly the status of preservation
and development as of December of 2007. The residential build out number, if all
existing houses and possible buildable tots are counted, is required. Of course, this also
requires an up-to-date calculation of the real build out potential of the hamlet and HALO
zones. With this, the Town Board plus the citizens can judge at what growth point
Southold loses the rural quality of life that makes it special. On the other hand, if as time
passes we agree that we are wrong, it is easy to authorize more growth. If we blunder on
with no plan and see that growth is strangling Southold, hand wringing will be our only
answer. The Town Board will have failed. The DGEtS also states that potential ~ Comment9
residential units from all zones other than,AC, R-80, R-40 would be 388. The TDR [ Section 2.9
reports sites the receiving zone for TDR s as allowing 663. This seems to be an I
additional use in RDU's and we want to know where it will stop? Shouldn't we know I
what the growth target is? Thank you.
Comment 4
Section 2.4
Comment 5
Section 2.5
Comment 6
Section 2.6
Comment 8
Section 2.8
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you.
Southold Town Board Public Hearing
Draft GElS for Transfer of Development Rights
4
MR. VOORHIS: Scott, I think that such an important point...yeah, I just wanted to
clearly state that the proposal that is before you and the recommendation of the TDR
planning board is based on a one-to-one, density neutral transfer program. It is basically
to shift one unit from ascending site and have that be received as one unit at a receiving
site. There is an alternative in the ElS that does look at the potential for some type of
additional incentive but that was discounted as not being appropriate for the purpose of
you lc. now, the plan that we are recommending to the Town Board. So we will complete
the process, we did also look at commercial receiving areas and transferring credits for
the purpose of commercial intensity and that is an alternative as well. So, I just wanted to
be clear on this. If Howard has any questions, he is welcome to call me and do you have
a copy ofyour written comments? Because the one part that I didn't follow (inaudible)
MR. MEINKE: Well, I am, this is (inaudible) but I was going to tomorrow send or e-
mail in to the whole Board this document.
MR. VOORHIS: Great.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. My understanding is it is a density neutral
proposal. The calculation outside the HALO would be based on zoning. It is two acre
zoning, you needed to buy two acres to secure one building right, the calculation inside
the HALO for Suffolk County Department of Health purposes allows the Town to look at
half acre, one acre zoning. It is not a gift of zoning. It is to reach those development
potentials. You would need to secure the rights elsewhere. But my whole understanding
from the, I can't speak for the whole Board but I know that I myself and Councilman
Krupski firmly said this had to be a density neutral proposal. We are not in the business
of creating housing. Relocating it is something that seriously has to be considered
~vhether we are going to go that approach or not. But certainly not creating more housing
than the current zoning allows for. Would anybody else like to come up and address the
Board?
ROBIN IMANDT: I just want to clarify something. Robin Imandt, East Marion. So are
you saying one single occupancy building would be traded for one other single
occupancy building?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: The development to build, the potential to build would be
taken out of the sending area and relocated to the defined hamlet area. If you are in the
hamlet and you have two acres of property, even if it is zoned at two acres of zoning,
under the current zoning, you are allowed one building lot. If you are to go out and
secure two acres of two acre zoning outside of that hamlet center, you could transfer that
one building right back; In other words, you need two acres to make one house. Secure
t~vo acres, buy one building right and then you can relocate on that property. At the end
of the day, you still are only trading off the potential to build one here and relocating it to
here. It is density neutral.
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 5
Draft GElS for Transfer of Development Rights
MS. IMANDT: But if you change the size of the lot, the lot size let's say. You are going
from one single occupancy two acre and over here now you are going to have quarter
acre.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Right.
MS. tMANDT: So you could have 8 units.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is right. The density would be increased but it would be
increased through the extinguishing of building potential elsewhere.
MS. IMANDT: Oh. Okay.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED: Inaudible.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Scot~, I would just like you to clarify, you refer to
yourself and Councilman Kmpski. I think you ought to speak for the whole Board.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes. I am quite certain, you have to remember this started
with the previous Board, I am quite certain the whole Board was set on a density neutral
proposal from the beginning. I can't speak for the two councihnen who are new to the
Board and Councilman Wickham certainly, is by all means able to speak for himself, but
I can tell you when this started originally it ~vas, the whole premise from the beginning,
density neutral. The idea wasn't to create new density. It was to relocate existing,
potential density.
BENJA SCHWARTZ: Hi, Supervisor Russell, members of the Town Board. Getting to
that. My name is Benja Sch~vartz. Remember me? For a long time you could never
remember my name Tom. But I think that was a long time ago. Maybe there is some
kind of a density neutral equation built into this proposal but that all depends on what
you, you know, what your frame of reference is. If you are considering this transfer of
development rights as an alternative to the purchase of development rights programs,
which have been so well received by the people of the Town of Southold, this is clearly
not density neutral, it is instead of extinguishing development rights by their purchase
and extinguishment, you are transferring them, into other places. I would just like a few
preliminary things. I sent an e-mail on May 20, Tuesday May 20. Was that a week ago
today? Asking for access through the website for the Town of Southold Generic
Environmental Impact Statement. The document which we are considering today is
designated a supplemental generic environmental impact statement. Well, there is a
mistake on the home page of your website where it is abbreviated DGE1S. The DGEIS
was some other document that, it is in here, you can find the index of it on the website
but when you click on the links, they go nowhere. So it should have been a very simple,
very quick fix. But I sent that last week and asked to be notified when the links were
repaired and checking it this evening, they are still not repaired. So in order to really
Southold To~vn Board Public Hearing
Draft GElS for Transfer of Development Rights
6
consider this proposal and this supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, 1 think we
have to go at least as far back to the generic environmental impact statement which this is
a supplement to. I would suggest we need to go farther than that, to our infamous master
plan or comprehensive plan. Call it what you will. There are certain qualities, which
planning, especially master plan or comprehensive planning should have. It should be
complete, it should be consistent and it should be accessible. With all due respect, how
are ~ve going to plan to change the zoning and to continue to, if we don't know what our
base is? What we are starting with. I think we established at the last Town Board
meeting that the Town Board is not familiar with the current master plan to the extent that
one does exist...
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I don't think we established that.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I have been to several of the library's to try to find the documents
that are supposedly a part of that plan. Although we don't know which documents are
part of that plan. There is no place where you can go and say this is part ora plan or this
isn't. It is a kind ora myth. Some people have suggested that ~ve take some time out and
create a, at least an index, a frame of reference to that. It wouldn't take very long and if
we don't do it, we are going to be stuck for a long time with whatever we end up with as
a result of partisan politics and planning for private profit and this is what we are dealing
with in the heart of Cutchogue. 46 acre property, which last time we brought you a
petition with over 1,000 signatures Supervisor Russell and you said, oh, well, that
property is zoned for four units per acre and it is only going to be developed at two and a
half units, the current proposal is only for two and a half units per acre. Well, I did some
quick math yesterday and it comes out to like 3.65 almost 4 units per acre that the current
development with 140 units. The original proposal was for higher than the density for
which that property is zoned for. But in addition to the residential units there, there are
also proposing currently a large, private club to benefit the people who purchase the
condominiums, who will also get the lower tax breaks.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: With all due respect, this is about a TDR hearing tonight. 1
can appreciate all these things that you talk about because we listen to them ail the time.
But I would hope that we can just narrow the discussion tonight to TDR program.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Sorry but I misplaced one page of my notes but ....
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But in my review of the tape from the meeting a week ago, the
public information session on the TDR program, the Town's consultant spoke about,
excuse me ....
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Can you address the Board, please?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, but could you please keep...
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 7
Draft GElS for Transfer of Development Rights
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes, can the audience please be respectful of everybody's
right to speak?
MR. SCHWARTZ: There is one person here who is making a scene. He has been doing
it regularly. Your consultant for the Town spoke of and in the report, in the receiving
areas, it says that a variety of zoning districts in the hamlets that could potentially act as
receiving areas include hamlet density zones. But there are no hamlet density zones in
the hamlets. Hamlet density zones are the places that we are thinking about putting
hamlet density outside of the hamlets.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: You lost me on that.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, the hamlet density...
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: The HALO's you mean? Okay, hamlet versus HALO.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right. The HD zoning was the idea that maybe we should have
some high density outside of the hamlets and those zones still exist although the hamlet
studies groups essentially proceeded as if there were no such thing. They ignored them.
One of those zones is the property in the heart of Cutchogue.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Right.
MR. SCHWARTZ: There was a discussion, comments by the consultant at the public
information meeting last week that perhaps the Town might like to do some rezoning to
create some new hamlet density zones. Some places that could receive the credits from
the areas where the development is going to be transferred from. With all due respect, I
think it is very, very relevant in this process that the To~vn not consider legislating new
zoning because essentially what you are doing is rezoning here and you know, you have
got a bunch of alternatives. You have got a lot of words in this report. But the number
one alternative to this program would be for the Town to accomplish the objectives of
reducing the density in areas where we don~t want higb density by down zoning, it ~vas
called five acre zoning. That was rejected but that essentially is what we are trying to do,
is down zone to, excuse me, to up zone to reduce the density. It is confusing. We are
trying to up zone the sending areas and down zone the receiving areas. And one way that
this could be accomplished would be if the town would simply say you can have less
density, less building. The Town doesn't need to allow people to buy the rights and sell
the rights. The Town could do a planning study and just say, this is the amount of density
you can do in these areas and this is the amount of density you can do in these areas.
Everything else here is somewhat more or less of a smoke screen around that essential
alternative. That alternative is not included in this, in this environmental impact
statement here. Very simple. Do it by zoning, you know, I just, I am sorry, 1 need to go
back to the biggest problem that I see currently in the master plan, was this spot down
zoning and i will be brief here and I wilt try to give you an executive summary. Spot
down zoning of one particular farn~, 46 acres, that was rezoned at the request of the
owner, by a negative declaration of the Town Board, meaning that there could not
possibly be any environmental impact of changing the zoning from one unit per two acres
Southold Town Board Public Hearing
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
.8
to four units per acre or eight times the zoning, and at that time the Town Board found
we don't need to do an environmental impact statement because there won't be any
negative environmental impacts. Well, the Planning Board didn't agree with that the
following year. They said there had to be an environmental impact statement. The
developer refused to do one, the Planning Board denied their application and sued the
Town...
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I understand all this and this is a history we listen to every
two ~veeks but we really want to get a TDR hearing underway.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Alright. But this is, this is, that is now. Why hasn't that zoning
been looked at?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Good question.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, the owner of that property, Richard Cron, he was on the, in the
Cutchogue-New Suffolk Chamber of Commeme.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: We discussed this atthe last work session. We had...
MR. SCHWARTZ: Did we talk about the...
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah. That was raised by Nancy, I believe, at the last Town
Board meeting that he had served as a hamlet ....
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, I ~vould like to discuss it.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: And I appreciate that. We have a meeting next Tuesday to
discuss it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: 1 am not repeating what Nancy said.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: But we want to get on with the TDR hearing tonight and I
will listen to everything that you have to say at that forum which would be the Town
Board, the general discussion part of the Town Board meeting. But I really want to keep
the discussion narrowed to a TDR discussion this evening.
MR. SCHWARTZ: And my point is that this would be, if you are going to have four
units per acre outside of the HALO zone, outside of the hamlet center in the he~t of the
fanning heritage, in the area where there are two and a half times descending credits for
any other area in this proposal, in the Cutchogue hamlet; if you are going to have the
density thero, then at the very least have the density transferred from some other part of
the thing and don't just rely on 25 year old zoning that was influenced by a man who was
on the master plan workshop committee, Richard Cron and Nancy didn't mention that, so
I am not repeating that.
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 9
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I think she did at the last meeting.
MR. SCHWARTZ: She didn't mention that he was on the master plan workshop
committee.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes, she did. Either way, I do appreciate that and everything
you said is valid...
MR. SCHWARTZ: She didn't talk about the other original partner, Bill Carroll, who
was, his sister ~vas married to Henry Raynor's or his...
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Ben. ia? For purposes of this hearing...
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: We understand that your comment is that hey, let that
Heritage project be an area to receive density through a transfer program rather than an as
of right four units to the acre. That is the take home message for the public hearing
tonight.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: And that is a very fair point.
MR. SCHWARTZ: And in terms of TDR's, I would like to make a point that calling
them development rights is not helping anyone to understand what is going on here.
They are actually development potential and indeed, when I looked up transfer of
development rights and potential, I found that every planner who had done a study of this
described it not as the transfer of development rights but as the transfer of development
potential. So I think if~ve look at it that way, I would love to see the Town move forward
with a transfer of development potential but not until we have a comprehensive plan
which covers the whole to~vn and I am notjust talking about the Heritage. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Good point, Benja. I appreciate that. Mr. Baiz.
CHRIS BAIZ: Good evening, Supervisor Russell, members of the Town Board. My
name is Chris Baiz, I am a resident of Southold. I have not had a chance to really review
all of the data. I do have a diskette that l just acquired earlier today, however, I do want
to make several comments about a TDR program. I think a TDR program that benefits
the outstanding feature of what ~ve are trying to do in the Town of Southold in terms of
open space and farmland preservation is an excellent additional tool. I do get concerned
when by the numbers in this study that the sending area represents a total area of almost
3,000 acres or almost 1,600 potential TDR's out there or excuse me, development rights
of ~vhich the receiving areas as it designated and I have these numbers orally that were
given to me about one week ago, receiving units that can be put into the HALO's and
hamlet centers is 662. Mr. Meinke made reference to 663, my addition gave me the
smaller number by a unit, i am concerned when we can lm~d in this program 42% ofth~
development rights that are out in the agricultural fields into our HALO's and hamlet
Comment 11
Seclion 2.11
Southold Town Board Public Hearing
Draft GElS for Transfer of Development Rights
10
centers as the first stop in this program. I have always felt that a TDR program could be/
invaluable to farmland and open space preservation in this Town. I would like to see a
first target of perhaps landing up to 10% of the total available development rights into the
hamlet centers. I mean, currently as the plan stands, the village of Southold and HALO
can receive up to 160 more residential building units. Mattituck 138. Peconic and why !
don't understand this, 142 and then lesser amounts to East Marion, 73; New Suffolk 57
more units; Cutchogue 47; Orient 24 and Greenport 21 to get to this magic number of
662. I once had a boss who was president of a major bank in New York City and his
modus of operating was if we are going to make mistakes, let's make mistakes slowly
and right now, I see a plan here that says we can put up to 42% of all development rights
out on the ag lands, right into our village centers and HALO's and you know, we can
always adjust this in the future. I would rather see a number tike, if there are 1,600
potential, the report says 1,571 potential TDR's. Let's say, let's start 150 and see how it
works and ~ve can always up it if it works. You know, this is going to be sort of a cat
chasing its tail. lfyou want to land a building site in a village center and you have got to
start out and pay an additional $160,000 or $200,000 to land that development right and
then go build a structure and is that structure going to give a return to the builder that
makes it worthwhile for him to increase that density presumably on a property that he
owns in the village, to begin with. Let alone what an outside developer might do. So,
currently I perceive this really not as a preservation plan at 662 development rights out of
1,571 being allowed to land in our HALO's and hamlet centers, I see this as a
development plan not a preservation plan.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Chris, do I understand that you are concerned that there
are really too many landing sites?
MR. BAIZ: Yes, sir. Right off the top.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I would like to ask the team to describe briefly the caps
or limits that we have placed in this document so that we don't overload the hamlet
centers. Now maybe those caps are too high but I am not sure if the public understands
how we came up with how the document came up with 600 and some sites and the
metbodology and the caps that ~ve put on that, to address the issue that you raised. So
could we ask the team to just outline briefly the methodology? And i don't mean to get
in a debate about it, I just...
MR. BAIZ: I think at 42%, it is seriously overloaded as a preservation tool.
MR. VOORHIS: Yeah, i think, we were trying to follow the numbers and I think Mr.
Baiz is referencing the total potential receiving sites within the HALO's when in fact our
recommendation in the TDR planning report is to take 30% of that total. So the, in fact
what we are recommending is the receiving zones would receive in the neighborhood of
200 credits townwide. So I think it is a little bit closer to what you are identifying as a
possible scenario.
MR. BAIZ: So you are saying about 15%?
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 11
Draft GElS for Transfer of Development Rights
MR. VOORHiS: A little bit more than that.
MR. BAIZ: Yeah. Okay. 18%.
MR. VOORHIS: But I think, just to be clear, there was a calculation that allowed us to
achieve conformance with Suffolk County Health Department article 6,pending their
review and input and we actually reduced it based on the stakeholder meetings that went
out to each of the hamlets and there was a lot of talk and input to the members of the
Town that went to those committee meetings about the need to preserve open space,
about the need for recreation, about, you know, even though you are in a hamlet, we
don't want to intensify so that you lose the character of the hamlet and that is the reason
that that limit was placed on the total potential, so we kind of backed into that number...
MR. BAIZ: Right.
MR. VOORHiS: And it is almost exactly what you are referring to. The
recommendation is to monitor it over time, determine the success of the program and
then you know, in a couple of years evaluate to determine if it is working, if there is a
market and if the absorption of those credits is reasonable within the hamlets. Is that, i
should be addressing the Board.
MR. BAIZ: So, as long as the recommendation says let's go to 30% of the 42% and call
that the cap for now, so that we can't just blo~v right through the cap and keep going, l
mean, I for one as a resident of this area, someone said to me earlier today, well, i am
resigned to the fact that this is going to be a 30,000 person community and I am not
resigned to that fact. Okay? And I think the brave new world that we are entering right
no~v is perhaps not even going to allow that development to occur here, simply because
of energy costs. We are captive to a region that has not dealt with its energy costs very
easily yet and it is just, it is going to be monumentally difficult to sustain a 30,000 person
population and generate an economy here that is going to support $4 or $6 gallon of
gasoline or $5 a gallon heating oil let alone, I had some Dutch friends visiting three
weeks ago and they paid 3 euros a liter for gasoline back in Holland right now. That
translates to $17 a gallon and they are living with it. Are we going to be living with that,
too? And 1 think that that will have a major, major impact on these kinds of things.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Chris, canljust say?
MR. BAIZ: Sure.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I think you characterized it correctly by saying that we
are talking about 30% of that 42%.
MR. BAIZ: Okay.
Southold Town Board Public Hearing
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
12
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Secondly, I go back to the point the Supervisor made
earlier on, it is a one for one transfer. We are not developing new potential here. We, the
book, proposes a transfer of density. We are not generating new density.
MR. BAIZ: Oh, I totally understand that. But what you are saying in all of this is that of
the 1,571 development rights that either could be preserved through the farmland
preservation program, either at the town level, the county level, state or federal level, we
are going to allow up to 42% of that to be built out but built out in our HALO's ....
COUNCILMAN WlCKHAM: A third of that.
MR. BAIZ: Well, okay.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: 30% of 42%.
MR. BAiZ: So long as we are definitely capped at that 30 of 42 and then we revisit it.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Could I just explain on behalf of the stakeholder committee?
There is a far greater amount of available credits than there is areas to land it. One of
their first proposals was to say, you know what? Let's put a cap in each of the hamlets.
The Town Board, in a new Town Board in a new day, can always revisit that cap and say
do we need to elevate the cap, do we need to keep the cap in place?
MR. BAIZ: Okay.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That safeguard, that governor, of that program was in fact the
cap for each of the hamlets. And it is by no means meant to replace the traditional effort
which is to extinguish and there is certainly plenty of discussion to have on TDR's but
the, I don't think anybody is presupposing this replaces our traditional role, which is to
extinguish credits by purchasing development rights through the very successfifl
programs.
MR. BA1Z: Let me understand your point then, are you saying for instance, in the case
of the village of Southold and its HALO, where the plan said up to 160 TDR's could be
landed, in fact not more than 30 % of that will be landed at this time?
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Yes. Correct.
MR. BAIZ: Okay.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: There are two calculations. How much can you
physiologically relocate, based Suffolk County Department of Health...
MR. BAIZ: Yeah.
Southold To~vn Board Public Hearing 13
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: And how much does the zoning allow for and then how
much are we going to allow for through this program. That is where that cap came from.
MR. BAIZ: Okay.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: The calculation is merely a calculation so that we lcno~v what
~ve could do under Suffolk County Department of Health which is really the guiding
influence here to all of this.
MR. BAIZ: Okay. Very good.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: And a new Board would have to take an affirmative, formal
action to raise those caps. Local law presumably.
MR. BAiZ: Okay. Very good. I think it would be a useful tool, then.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you.
MR. BAIZ: At this stage.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes?
LESLIE WEISMAN: Leslie Weisman, chairperson of the Southold Hamlet Stakeholder
Committee, I am a member of the TDR workgroup. I just want to add one small historic
explanation. When we were sitting 2 ½ years ago at a Planning and Zoning Committee
meeting and the discussion took place about doing a feasibility study to see whether or
not, we lmew certainly there was more than enough agricultural and open space worthy
of preservation, but was there enough room within the hamlet HALO areas to do
something that made it even feasible to consider a townwide program, I agreed to work
with John Sep and Mark Terry, who was then acting director of the Planning Department
on the creation of a model for the feasibility study on the follo~ving conditions: that no
overdevelopment that was inappropriate in scale or density that would in any way
compromise the historic character and scale of our respective hamlets, each of which are
different and each of which have to be considered separately in an equitable, not an
equal, but an equitable formula so that it is a win-win situation; ~vould we proceed? It
was on that basis that that goal ~vas explicitly stated in the original feasibility study that
this TDR proposal built upon. So from the very get go, everyone involved was on the
same page. The hamlets were never to become the "dumping grounds" of preservation
and inappropriate overdevelopment. And we believe that through this cap we have been
able to create, based upon looking at full potential build out and then back stepping to say
ho~v can we continue to have open space within the HALO's and hamlets and appropriate
development that doesn't create excessive traffic but that does permit preservation with
out using taxpayers dollars. Preservation that in fact comes from market money, market
made money and private development so it is an additional toot but again, not when it is
not at the sacrifice of the quality of life of those of us who love our hamlets. All of us
who live here. So the model from the very beginning incorporated that and if you really
Southold Town Board Public Hearing
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
14
read carefully this larger scale proposal, you will see that those caps are in place, that
there is an agreement. The larger proposal by law must incorporate alternative
suggestion. It doesn't mean that they will be adopted, it means that it is a required step
that has to be incorporated and so perhaps there may be little confusion about you know,
what exactly the proposal is but the proposal was never intended to create inappropriate
overdevelopment in the hamlets.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Linda?
LINDA: We ~vere talking about trading one for one density and I did ....
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Linda Goldsmith.
L1NDA GOLDSMITH: Oh, I am sorry. Linda Goldsmith, East Marion. If I own 50
acres in an R-80 zone, that means that I would have 25 credits, no?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Not likely, with the new subdivision calculations. You
would have to calculate the building yield.
MS. GOLDSMITH: Okay. That was my question. Will that building yield be
calculated?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: My presumption is it would have to be because otherwise you
are trading in intangibles that might not exist.
MS. GOLDSMITH: Because I could not build 25 houses there? On my 50 acres of an
R~80. I would have to put a certain amount of...
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah, the set-offs for drainage, for roads, you would have to
cluster. It is not likely you would get all 25 building lots. You would get close but not
quite because of the way the current zoning requires 40% of your land to be involved and
60% for open space.
MS. GOLDSMITH: Correct.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: But my presumption is, and I will ask Chick and the rest of
the group here if the calculations could it be based on the actual ability to build and not
just on the theoretical zoning. That is a big issue.
MS. GOLDSMITH: That is my issue.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is a fair point.
MS. GOLDSMITH: And the other comment I wanted to make was I was not a
stakeholder but I was, I listened very closely when our stakeholders had meetings and at
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 15
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
least in East Marion the TDR was never mentioned. Was this something stakeholders
were working on, or grappling with or thinking about or anything?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: When i first came into office, after the initial report was
handed to the previous Town Board, t had asked about the word TDR, in fact I invited all
of the stakeholders back but for two of them, everybody said, oh, the issue of TDR
specifically never came up. It came up in different facets, it came up you know, in
everything but the specific words 'transfer of development rights'. The concepts were
there, the discussion was there but I am not sure it was as assertive, the word, as it should
have been. But again, it was revisited when we went through the process again.
MS. GOLDSMITH: And lastly, especially if you look at East Marion where the HALO
or where the HALO zone is, it actually extends south of Bay Avenue you lmow, into that
area and there are just lots. i mean, there is no big clump of property south of Bay
Avenue. There is a tot over here, there is a lot over here. Most of them are not even an
acre but I think that most of them, I think that one or two of them are R-40's. So that
would mean if someone went and bought development rights that one piece of property
say on Bay Avenue that is one acre, that could have one house right now, could possibly
have two?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That would be a presumption, yeah. Absolutely. A
legitimate presumption.
MS. GOLDSMITH: Okay. That is my concern as far as you can take a nice, you know,
houses along there are pretty much on '/-, acres, I mean mine is probably on less but you
know on half acres but you can actually put, you see t his one piece of property and you
can actually put two more houses on it. And the other thing I wanted say was, I think
there was some discussion at the meeting last ~veek regarding, they were saying big
homes have more children in the schools and all of that or something to that effect and
that this would, I am not sure how that went but I was, that pretty much is a fallacy
because I look at some of these estates with huge, big homes. There are 30 houses, 35
lots in there and I think there are maybe 6 children in the school. So, thank you.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I will tell you from a guy who lives in a 900 square foot
house and has two children, one of who eats enough to feed 40 children, I can agree that
the size of the unit is not indicative of the population of the unit. Can i just get a
clarification, my concern for East Marion. East Marion and I am going to ask you it is a
technical issue, East Marion doesn't have, I am sorry, Orient doesn't have public water so
its ability to absorb density in the hamlet center would be limited at probably presumably
one acre? One acre. It seems we did this on a school district by school district. Is it
possible that someone could secure building rights in Orient and transfer them to East
Marion, since it is part of the same school district? But a very different hamlet? Because
that would be a concern because you have public ~vater which would make you
vulnerable to half acre zoning, whereas Orient would not be.
UNIDENTIFIED: But all of East Marion does not have public water. We have wells.
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 16
Draft GElS for Transfer of Development Rights
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Oh, I kno~v. I am just talking about, I am just talking about
what would be an unfortunate consequence would be to buy a farm in Orient and then
relocate density to East Marion. That is sometbing I think the Town Board really needs
to look at. That would be problematic.
MS. GOLDSMITH: That is my other question and I am sorry, I know it is not a question
and answer. If someone bought development in Cutchogue, could they transfer them to
East Marion?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: No, school district by school district.
MS. GOLDSMITH: Okay.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: But again, if you look at those zones, if you buy in Mattituck
you theoretically could move to Cutchogue. If you bought in Cutchogue you could move
to Mattituck.
MS. GOLDSMITH: And Laurel as well.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: In East Marion it becomes a little unfair for East Marion
because you don't have the public water, I am sorry, you have the public water which
allows for these half...
MS. GOLDSMITH: Not all of, not all of East Marion.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I l~ow but if you look at that HALO, you could be
absorbing half acre zoning that is just not possible in Orient. So that is something the
Town Board should need to work out.
MS. GOLDSMITH: Well, how is that going to happen?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is something, we have to march forward. I would
propose density neutral and hamlet neutral. So that the density in East Marion could only
be transfelred in East Marion. That sort of thing.
MS. GOLDSMITH: Well, that's, that's (inaudible)
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: So if you are going to absorb in hamlet center, you at least
know it was saved right in that immediate vicinity, rather than across the causeway.
MS. GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes.
BARBARA PFANZ: Barbara Pfanz, Main Road, East Marion. A number of things aside
fi'om Orient only being an ascending area and East Marion being a receiving area, that is
Southold Town Board Public Hearing
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
17
one thing I was going to say. Another concern of mine is enforcement. I don't know if
you are still going to keep the same amount of alleged enforcement that you have on now
with all of this potential development going on. As we know, certainly in East Marion
people do what they want to do and people, the Town, looks the other way and there is a
whole bunch of illegal stuff going on there. 1 certainly hope if you are going to do this
you are going to do it responsibly and really plan for having up to code, legal housing
brought to the area, if you are going to do that. And also, another concern of mine, when
I was looking at the map originally I saw the HALO area in East Marion was originally
just north of the road. Now there is a large parcel south of the road. The community has
expressed, they don't want the development of a HALO district and I feel like, even
though we are saying that, the Town is going right ahead and look at that, the HALO
district is growing. So, I know in there you said that you will take what the community
has to say in mind but 1 don't how much power we are going to have when there is just
buying and selling going on. I don't know.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is a good point. Let me just point out that there is no
private function here in that people get to go out and buy what they ~vant and relocate it
and do ~vhat they want. Every site that would become, that would absorb a development
credit, has to come to this Town Board for a public hearing and a change of zone. You
cannot simply take a one acre piece of property, turn it to two half acre pieces of property
on your own by going out and securing development rights elsewhere. You need to come
in for a change of zone. Secondly, 1 have given the public, particularly in East Marion a
great deal of influence here. The Kokkoris piece, I believe that is the name of the piece?
Kortsolakis. That was a proposal that ~vas created by a previous HALO stakeholder's
group. I reconvened those groups, put the public in and you know what? The public in
East Marion spoke and said we don't want it. And the whole thing died. That was a
direct result of giving the public the opportunity to weigh in on itself. And also on the
enforcement issue, we are not looking the other way. We used to but now we are trying
to do something about it. It is like trying to turn around the Queen Mary, it is far more
frustrating than we thought and we are going, hopefully in the near future, discuss a
rental permit law that will help me resolve some of those complicated issues in East
Marion.
COUNCILMAN WlCKHAM: Can we focus on the hearing?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: We are trying. John?
JOHN COPERTINO: I am glad you mentioned input that you received from, I am sorry,
John Copertino,'Willow Drive, East Marion. I want to speak of the impact on East
Marion in regards to this. I would like, well, each hamlet is unique in itself., it is, you
know, Cutchogue has a hamlet center and developed land and roads and Mattituck does
too. East Marion doesn't. We can't bear any extra traffic. We have a ferry that gives us
a problem and as I was going through these TDR paperwork here, I saw one on page 116,
it says who benefits from this program? It says ascending area landlords, the investors,
the developers, landowners etc. etc. Local businesses benefit. It doesn't say anything
about the community desires of the community. The community definitely will benefit*
Comment 12
Section 2.12
Comment 13
Section 2.13
Southold To~vn Board Public Hearing
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
18
somewhat from businesses and so forth but the desires, like you said, is not there, we/
don't want, in East Marion, we do not want a hamlet center. We don't want any
development. East Marion has been there for 350 years and it has been the same for 350
years. Throughout this paperwork, you know it mentioned single fmnily homes, two
family homes, multiple family homes, etc. etc. Which is frightening to us out in East
Marion. Your potential adveme impacts, it says here, would result in clearing and
grading in HALO areas for development resulting from density shift. We don't want it.
Everything here is what East Marion doesn't want. We presented you with a petition
stating that. Showing that out of 440 households, 328 households did not want it and I
could have given you 440 households except it was too exhausting for me. But I could
have got about 98% of the households. And East Marion is unique and I wish when you
make judgments on this TDR that you consider that. Consider each hamlet as a unique
entity. It can't be one blanket coverage. I know that is difficult to do, I am sure it is
difficult to do in planning but this is what I want and this is what most of the people in
East Marion want. We want to be treated differently because we are different. Let's see.
Oh, the gentleman mentioned about four and five bedroom houses being developed.
Thirty percent of the houses in East Marion have been built since 2000 and most of them
are four and five bedroom houses. Impact on the schools is not even present there
because the people that built those houses are wealthy, second home owners or retirees.
They have no young children going to school to speak of. I would say 90% of them are
not putting children in the school. You can see that by the same number of children in
the grammar school. So people don't come out here anymore, especially to East Marion.
There is no jobs out there to support a four and five bedroom house. But if you start
putting in multi-family houses then you are going to have an impact on the school, which
is exactly opposite of what it says in this paperwork. It says it would reduce the impact
on the schools. Well, that is ridiculous. It would increase, when you get multi-family
houses. Cheaper houses. You are going to get younger people coming in and the impacts
on the school is going to be greater. So there is a couple of contradictions in here. I think
I have covered most of it and the most important thing is the desire of the community.
Your stakeholders mentioned to you or voted no further commercial development in East
Marion. That is what they wanted. They came, they were assigned by you and that is
when they came up and they told the Planning Board that. We came up with a petition
with signatures on it. We don't want a hamlet center. Please consider that when you are
making your judgments on these TDR's. Each hamlet is unique and it should be treated
that ~vay. It can't be a blanket, you know a blanket edict. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you, John. I couldn't agree with you more and it was
a challenge. You are trying to create something that might work in Cutchogue or
Mattituck but might not ~vork in East Marion. 1 think they did as thorough and as
thoughtful a job as possible but sure, there are going to be issues that we need to be
cognizant of as we march forward. Mr. Wills? And I will go to you right after that.
FRANK WILLS: Good evening, Frank Wills, Mattituck. I have a few comments to
make on the TDR. Basically I am in favor of them. But the write up is surprising and it
only mentions the HALO zone. it never says anything about the hamlet center and the
stakeholders, we were told to develop the hamlet center and the HALO around it but
Southold Town Board Public Hearing
Draf~ GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
19
almost nowheres in the whole report now maybe they were combined, maybe the
numbers were combined. But they are not t here. The other one is transfer of
development rights in the school districts, it says should generally be in the general
school system. And I was wondering, I didn't bother looking in a dictionary what
generally meant but it is an unusual term. Are we going to get around it or are we going
to merge school districts?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is a good question. I know what the intent of this
Board is but you don't know what the intent of a future Board might be. You know,
faces change every day. So, you are right.
COUNCILMAN WICK/dAM: Actually, there is a legal definition to that.
TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: The law is that you can't unreasonably transfer
between school districts.
MR. WILLS: Unreasonably.
TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: That is the state law, so theoretically you ~vould be
allowed if it was reasonable.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: There is the clarity you were looking for, huh?
TOWN ATTORNEY F1NNEGAN: But in our law we can put in there that it won't be
allowed.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That won't be allowed generally.
TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: Yeah, we can put in there that it will not be allowed.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That was a good point, Frank.
MR. WILLS: The other one is, it mentions all sorts of housing, single, donble, multiple
occupancy but there is almost no mention of affordable housing. And my impression was
that originally the only transfer of development rights were for affordable housing and
no~v apparently that isn't mentioned anyplace.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: They are a very separate program. We already have a
transfer of density for affordable housing, sanitary flow credit program that was created
by the previous Board. When we extinguish development rights as a Town body, in
some cases we can take that sanitary flow credit and apply that to a bank which a
developer can buy to build affordable housing. The problem with marrying affordable
housing to this specific TDR program is that it is economically unfeasible to create
affordable honsing and keep a TDR program that is going to be economically viable. No
one can buy the right to build density and then still produce affordable housing from that
equation. That is ~vhy it is a separate program.
Comment 14
Section 2.14
Comment 15
Section 2.15
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 20
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
MR. WILLS: Thank you. That is it. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Wills. Mr. Huntington.
RAY HUNTINGTON: Ray Huntington, Cutchogue. Good evening. Some really
elaborate work has been done on the idea of transfer of development rights here. And it
is an idea that has been kicking around for at least 10 years that I know of on the north
fork. But tonight your objective is to receive comments on the supplemental impact
statement dealing with the transfer of development rights in Southold. This prefatory to
accepting a document which is an environmental impact statement in support of future
legislation which is not yet written. I just want to make that as a clarifying statement, I
know you understand that already. But there are some confusions that we can clean up as
we go along. One of those is the idea of HALO. Last time I tried a halo on, which was a
long time ago, it had a hole in the middle and the terminology in the impact statement
implies that it is only the donut that is where you land the transfer and I do believe the
intention is it is the donut plus the center, plus the whole.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is exactly right. It is not a donut but a pancake.
MR. HUNTINGTON: Okay. One of the basic principles that we have discussed many,
many times through the years is the idea of making changes by transfer resulting in
neutral density. This principle is not well expressed in the document, in fact it actually
goes out of its way to talk about incentives that would overbalance to,yards more density.
So that is an important point that I think is missing from the impact statement. That the
idea was to not create more density by transfer. There is another piece that is not actually
missing but it is mentioned only as an alternative and that is the commercial component.
The commercial component is a very important part of this picture because it could be the
element that makes this a successful program. We talked before just a moment ago about
incentives to get people to transfer development from farmland into the hamlet centers,
that transfer, that incentive of course is hard to come by. Why would you want to do that
necessarily? Well, one way of course is to change the exchange rate and get two for one,
three for one, ~vhatever and the Town Board can do that. That is something we don't
want to go. And the commercial component however, let's say that a restaurant wanted
to have outdoor dining or something like that which is currently prohibited by the code I
think, then perhaps if you saved a couple acres of farmland, that could be taken into
consideration. So it is a very powerful element here in the commercial aspect that is
missing from the document now. You are moving towards perhaps legislation that would
enact something. With this part missing, I think we have got the heart out of the
program. Excuse me. I am going to use some round numbers to describe ~vhat could
happen here. From the sending areas, 1,600 let's call them residential development units,
can be transferred to the receiving areas. In the receiving areas we can receive 660 units.
This means that you have more coming in than will fit. However, the To~vn Board can
make them fit by changing the exchange rate. Very dangerous business. Right now, by
using the numbers in the document, it looks like 42% of that which could be transferre~
theoretically would only fit in the receiving zone, so not all of it could go in. However?
Comment 16
Section 2.16
Comment 17
Section 2.17
Comment 18
Section 2.18
Comment 19
Section 2.19
Southold Town Board Public Hearing
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
21
~ve have got more to put in. The how many actually land depends upon the legislation~/
on what is actually set up. in other words, this document sets up some models, studies
the issue, shows what could or couldn't happen but the real key is going to be the change
to the code itself, not yet written. Without the code the efficacy of this program really
can't be measured. Can't even be judged. You have to kno~v what the code is going to
say. so, this is a cart and a horse problem. You need the environmental impact statement
to do the legislation but you can't understand the impact if you don't have the legislation.
Somehow we have to get the horse and the cart together here yet. My basic concern,
though, given all that is the marginal cost of the program may be quite a problem. That
is, how much land will we actually preserve for every say, $100,000 worth of cost of
operating the program. This program is complex, it is going to be costly to administer
and because of these complexities it is going to be of dubious impact. We are not going
to see a lot of volume here. So it is a big question in my mind of whether we are being
wise in spending our tax dollars preserving land this particular way. We won't know the
answer to that until we actually see the legislation that you may propose. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: i think you are right. Actually, you raise the issue of the
commercial component. The reality is that under this current TDR proposal, they have
used a farm district as a designated feature. In other words, this is active farmland. Well,
under current rules you can't transfer sanitary flow away from active farmland unless you
want to sterilize the farmland. There is no incentive for business to buy TDR's if they are
not going to get the attendant sanitary flow. There isjust, and what you proposed I think
is almost frightful to suggest that a small business owner needs to go hat in hand in to the
Town and buy up development rights every time they want to expand and invest in
themselves. Thera is also the other extreme to that where you let somebody with deep
pockets buy their way into all sorts of new zoning, so that is problematic bom all
approaches. But realistically, I don't think the commercial component can be there until
you get a Department of Health on board.
MR. VOORHIS: Just another clarification. And I think Pat may want to jump in on this
as well. But this document will create a record based on that this Board will have to issue
a statement of findings.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Right.
MR. VOORHIS: The way you structure the findings is the way the law will have to be
written. Basically we can't deviate from what is studied and what comes out in the
findings. The intent at this time is that it is density neutral, there is no bait and switch
here. I mean, ~ve really can't do that.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Right. Right.
MR. VOORHIS: So I think we do, we have enough information to write the code, we
have the recommendations and a basis for the overall legislation and program. That will
be the next step. But basically the code would be written to conform to statement of
findings which ~vill be consistent with the planning report and your further deliberations.
Comment 20
Section 2.20
Southold Town Board Public Hearing
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
22
So, again, I just, I think there was again a misunderstanding. I could look at the
document but I kno~v that it says number one, that it is voluntary, number two that it is
density neutral and our intent right from the beginning was to keep it simple. So there are
a lot of words in here, there is a lot to read but I know the summaries, we stress that. I
think it was meetings with this Board in preparation for the public informational meeting
where you said make sure that everybody knows. And we added language to make sure
that everybody knew that those were the three key elements that we were looking at when
we began this. So the receiving area at 660 units, again, that is the maximum. That did
not reflect the cap. One column to the right of that is a lesser number, it is the
recommendation of this program. Just, it is a little bit redundant but a very important
point.
TOWN ATTORNEY F1NNEGAN: Can I just also add, when the code is written, there
~vill be public hearings at that time, too, on the code. This isn't the final public hearing.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: This is to accept the SEQRA document.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: And I would like to also add that the consideration of a
commercial component is included in the report as an alternative.
UNIDENTIFIED: (inaudible)
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I hope you people don't leave. I haven't read the statement
from Albert Krupski yet and I promised him I would. No, I can wait. Albert wanted to
be here, he couldn't make it. So my apologies to Albert if he watches this later.
UNIDENTIFIED: Just so you understand, we are not actually leaving, we are in session
in the other room.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I understand that. And 1 will talk loud so you can hear me in
there.
UNIDENTIFIED: Can I ask Mr. Voorhis one question?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah. Can I get a clarification for the question from John
Copertino and then 1 will go to you, Mr. Meinke? You can ask me and I will...
MR. COPERT1NO: He kept saying density neutral?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Right.
MR. COPERTINO: I don't understand that statement because if you are adding to the
density of the hamlet center, then it isn't density neutral, is it?
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Let's ask Chick to define density neutral.
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 23.
Draft GElS for Transfer of Development Rights
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. Yeah, John Copertino.
MR. VOORH1S: The program is based on one sending area credit is equal to one
receiving area credit, period. We do recognize that there will be an increase in growth in
the HALO areas as is described in this report and we tried to disperse it in many different
ways that those units could be received so that it did not change community character
along with all the things that Leslie spoke about before in temps of the hamlet
development model, the stakeholder input and so forth. But one sending unit is equal to
one receiving unit. It is a shift in density from the areas that we want to preserve to the
areas that can sustain reasonable growth with better infrastructure and all the safeguards
that are in place.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Just let me go, Mr. Meinke?
MR. MEINKE: Just very quickly, I just wondered that I do know that Riverhead does
have a commercial component to their TDR program and when I was actively snooping
in Riverhead development projects and so on, I saw TDR's being used for commemial
things that had to do ~vith some of the big box stores, so I, you make it sound like it is
excruciatingly difficult to get there, they are getting there and I wondered (inaudible)
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: For two reasons, first of all, they have a sanitary system.
They have septic, they are not encumbered based on Department of Health rulings
because they have septic systems. They have public sewers. That is a huge bonus if you
are going to take control of your own zoning and in particularly Riverhead's case, allow
for the type of development that they do. We don't have that anywhere in Southold
Town but for the Village and we don't control their zoning. Secondly, their investment
market is very different. They have Wal-Mart, they have superstores that are willing to
invest substantial amounts of money to locate there. We don't have it and we don't want
it in Southold. A small business owner would find it very difficult in the current TDR
program because he doesn't get any sanitary component to that. In other words, to just,
to put 30 new seats out oatside isn't enough for him. He needs to be able to go to the
Department of Health and know that they are going to approve that plan. (Inaudible)
might give him all the zoning concessions you want but if the Department of Health
doesn't sign offon it, there is no meat to it for him. There is no benefit to him. It just
becomes intangible. That is the component that is missing because again, under this
current proposal, the decision was to use farm district property. Those are active farming
properties and you can't transfer sanitary off of those. You could were you to expand
this program and talk about private nature preserves, you know, vacant, virgin land. Not
nature preserve but, yeah, and then you can get into that sanitary flow translation. You
can't under the current proposal because it is using active famqland and the county will
not allow you to transfer sanitary off of that.
MR. MEINKE: So Riverhead can take it from active farmland but where they put it has
sewers so that...
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah, they have public sewers.
Southold Town Board Public Hearing
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
24
MR. MEINKE: Okay. That probably answers that question. The other thing that I
wanted to say refers to Mr. Copertino that 1 think that the residents of all Southold feel
that it is very special just as the East Marion people do and that is why I stress we do
need a comprehensive plan. I ~vould like to see a meeting of the minds bet~veen you on
the dais and the people out here on what, when you tell us what the current development
population number of housing units is now and what it will be when all this planning is
applied, do we have an intestinal feeling that we are going to like Southold when that
happens or do we not? And then if you had a master plan, my understanding of a master
plan is that you could enact a development plan that says this number of RDU's is the
answer because our residential component, our industrial component the attractiveness to
outside money for tourism and etc. depends on the keep it rural part of Southold and the
ambiance of Southold and it needs that number. I believe that would work if you had a
master plan. You could always change it and increase your development potential if you
had a master plan. If you don't have a master plan and you want to hold down
development, you are screwed and you all know that.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Well, i agree. I think that we need to update the
comprehensive master plan. I just think that some people are using that right now
because they think it is going to bring everything to a grinding halt in their communities
and I think that is faulty thinking. I think there is a better legal approach that we are
taking. I know I am going to have a comment in a minute. Robin?
MS. IMANDT: This concept of neutral, what is it called?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Density neutral.
MS. 1MANDT: Density neutral is a Karl Rove special. I mean, you are saying you have
one and you are going to have four over here. So that is not neutral to me. You have one
credit here and then you are going to, as Mr. Baiz said, rezone this other receiving area
and make that four. That is not neutral. That is quadruple in my...
MR. VOORHIS: They would have to buy four to put four in that spot...
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Let me explain...
MS. IMANDT: That is not what you said before.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Let me explain what they mean. This is the school district,
this is the hamlet center.
MS. IMANDT: Mmmhmm.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Say the current potential right now for the entire school
district is 100 credits. By creating a TDR program, it simply allows you to locate some
of those credits within this district, it doesn't add to the hundred credits. That is a frozen
number. It simply lets you take rather than the two acre zoning here, it lets you buy and
Southold Town Board Public Hearing
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
25
relocate some of those 100 credits into this downtown, into this hamlet center. But the
net equation is 100 credits is still the same. Whether you are going to focus four of them
here or four of them on eight acres out here, you still at the end of the day you still have
100 credits. You are just allowing for zoning flexibility to locate tighter clusters in those
hamlet centers. That 100 is still the same number though.
MS. IMANDT: So basically you are glomming then into one area?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah. Glomming isn't a technical term but it is a good term.
MS. iMANDT: So in East Marion, there is no reason for this glomming effect. I mean,
we have a general store, we have a post office, we have a fire house, we have no industry
other than Angel's general store. What would be the reason to push that into that area
except to develop the area?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: In East Marion, again, it is the hamlet without a center. And
it is very unique and problematic from this point of view. In, say, a Cutchogue or a
Mattituck where you have a lot of active farmland and you want to save that farmland, it
is number one on everybody's priority list. Do you save that active farmland by
relocating that density into an area that can absorb it, like a Factory Avenue or an Old
Sound Avenue. I am not suggesting to the cameras that that is what ~ve are doing, I am
just saying where you can focus that incentive in that development. Again, East Marion
is sort of the hamlet without a center so I know it is problematic when you look at it
there. My concern for East Marion is, what are you going to absorb from Orient, which
is completely separate and distinct. Because you have public ~vater. So that is a concern
that I would like to resolve before we move forward on it.
MS. IMANDT: Well, why do ~ve need to absorb anything from Orient?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Well, I would suggest that if you had a program where all
you had to absorb was, what, if you are saving farmland in East Marion to put the density
elsewhere in East Marion you are getting the benefit of saving that farmland. But if you
are going to save farmland in Orient and move it to East Marion, that would be
problematic.
MS. IMANDT: Well, under your ~vho benefits from this program, this to me is the whole
thing in a nutshell. Landowners, investors and developers benefit from an additional
mechanism to facilitate compatible and planned development projects that provide return
on investment. That has nothing to do with the community. That has everything to do
with people from the outside coming in and purchasing land to develop it to make money.
And the other thing I would like clarification on is HALO communities benefit from
investment in their hamlet areas resulting in redevelopment, whatever redevelop means,
and compatible land use which strengthens the hamlet and achieves other land
preservation goals, i would like somebody to please explain that.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Sure. Somebody? Mark?
Comment 21
Section 2.21
· Southold Town Board Public Hearing 26
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
MS. IMANDT: What is redevelopment?
UNIDENTIFIED (MARK): What page of the report are we referring to?
MS. IMANDT: I am looking at the summary, number seven, benefits from this program.
UNIDENTIFIED: Okay, these are general concepts that we believe that through this
program, those aspects, those seven points will benefit.
MS. IMANDT: What is redevelopment? Let's just start with that.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I will give you a good example without going to the experts.
If I have property in Mattituck, let's say the old KG Brown property, that might be better
suited for a residential use facility. Right now it is an industrial park that is vacant. It is
buildings, it is old. If someone could secure development rights to relocate a senior
community there, invest in that existing infrastructure and invest in what is basically an
eyesore. That would be redevelopment of a site that is already developed. You don't
have those examples in East Marion. The only real site you have that has been left
derelict is the fish plant and nobody wants to invest in that, they just want it gone. So...
MS. IMANDT: Are there any hamlets that will be exempt from this program?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Again, the program, it is not an automatic. You can create a
TDR all you want. You don't just run around and build, you have to come to the Town
Board for a change of zone in every single case. Whether it is a two acre lot in East
Marion or a 40 acre lot in Mattituck. You still have to come for a public hearing and a
change of zone to get there. Nobody is given the right to develop their property any
greater than they are currently allowed to. Whether they are in a HALO or not. Whether
the TDR program is adopted or not. They still have to come in for a specific okay every
time it is done and a change of zone.
MS. 1MANDT: Okay. Just one last comment and then, when the stakeholders presented
the results of what people in the communities wanted, ~ve said we didn't want anything to
change in East Marion, as did many of the other I think almost all the hamlets said that, in
the newspaper, it said the Town supports that. So what happened? Because this is not
supporting that concept. This is completely different.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: You are looking at this issue just as if East Marion is the
only part of the process here. We have several hamlets.
MS. IMANDT: No, but all the hamlets said they didn't want things to change. They
might want a traffic light or they might want a bus stop or they might want I don't
remember the various things but nobody says, yes, we want development please.
Southotd Town Board Public Hearing
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
27
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: No, no. I think what they said was that we want smarter
development with design standards, we want investments in the downtown. In Mattituck,
they want investment in the derelict buildings. They just don't want this pell mell rush to
superstores, like the CVSs'. And that is the things, those are the challenges we need to
address for each of these hamlet centers. I don't think anybody met as a stakeholders
group and said we don't want it to change at all. East Marion did and certainly Orient
had a good argument to be made for that but other stakeholders, in Southold they were
very progressive, you know, looking for pedestrian crossings, and pedestrian trails and
new design standards. So I don't think it ~vas a document, let's freeze everything in time.
MS. IMANDT: You supported that. You the Town Board supported that and yet...
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: i would like to address the comment that I heard. I
participated in all of the early meetings of the stakeholders, including East Marion and at
least in the early stages, i am not sure about the more recent ones but at least at the early
stages, every one of the stakeholders groups that I participated in was willing to see
greater density in the hamlet center provided it was planned and not excessive and
provided that it resulted in preservation somewhere outside. They didn't want to see
growth and development in the hamlet center if there were no benefit elsewhere in the
community but they did understand and they supported the concept. We didn't call it
TDR's at that time but everyone of the stakeholder groups that I participated and
essentially that was all of them, said yes, we are open to some modest growth within our
hamlet areas provided it is in good scale and not overdone and provided that it results in
some preservation outside. That is what this book is basically about and it is on a one to
one ratio. In other words, any growth in the hamlet is offset by an equivalent or equal
amount of reduction in growth in potential outside.
MS. IMANDT: I believe that the stakeholders meetings that you are talking about were
the appointed stakeholders.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Mmmhmm.
MS. tMANDT: Not the final group of stakeholders that exist to this day. They said, in
East Marion and I am not saying East Marion is the most important thing in the world
and who cares about anybody else but that is where I live so that is what I am talking
about. East Marion did not want any kind of growth or hamlet center or HALO zone or
any of that stuff and that is what came out of the stakeholders meetings and that is what
the Town Board, in the newspaper ! wish I had the article, supported that.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Right. And let me give you two things. First of all, you are
being presumptuous to presume I support this. You said that if you support this, you are
not supporting our initiative. That is not true. I am not sure that I even support this.
Secondly, where 1 would be and I said the challenge particularly in East Marion, I said
that in the Suffolk Times were to keep things the way they are. Now to support the larger
proposal here which I haven't made up my mind yet to support that is not going to do in
East Marion. What would do in East Marion would be for me to somewhere down the
Southold To~vn Board Public Hearing .
Draft GElS for Transfer of Development Rights
28
road, turn around and when someone comes in to receive density on Kortsolakis and i
would vote for it. That is where say I didn't keep my word in helping you try to keep
things the way they are. But the general TDR program, which is a town wide program
that might make sense in certain narrow circumstances isn't throwing in the towel on the
wishes of East Marion. The specific zoning would have to take place down the road. I
wouldn't, I know the tempo, I have met with all of you, I know what the issues are in
East Marion and I don't see suitable locations for accepting TDR's. Again, I am not even
sure I support this notion but these specific actions down the road would decide whether
this Town Board supports the right of East Marion to stay the way it is or it doesn't. Not
this general TDR plan.
MS. IMANDT: Did I just hear you say though, that you do not support, that East Marion
would not be the correct place for these TDR's?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I would have to look at, under this current plan, I don't think
East Marion should be stuck with the prospect of receiving density from Orient and on
those other more nuanced issues we can talk as we go. But East Marion is a challenge
there, there is no question about it and this might work in some cases, it might not in
others. You know, I have all these bullet points to raise issues tonight and I am sort of
raising them early but yeah, there are some concerns that have to be weighed in here but
it certainly doesn't apply in every case. This is not a perfect plan.
MS. IMANDT: Right. Thanks.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Mark?
MARl( TERRY: Mark Terry, Planning Board. I am part of the TDR team. I just want to
qualify some of the practical applications of how the TDR can be used and I think that is
what we had in mind when we addressed the smaller hamlet or any hamlet for that
matter. And this sort of came out of the hamlet stakeholders groups where they wanted
flexibility and maybe the ability to turn a carriage house or one of their garages maybe
into a second dwelling and so when we look at the study, you will see that the ~vay you
can land some of the TDR units is through what ~ve call a detached accessory dwelling
unit and that could be essentially a second residential structure on the same lot, ~vhich is
prohibited by law now. So that is one of the flexibilities written into the program and I
think that would be terrific for East Marion as far as infill on certain structures that
already exist. We are not looking at whole end to end lot line buildout for East Marion, I
can say that we are very, very aware of the sense of community, we are aware of the
quality of live, even for the entire, all the hamlets. So I think that you really have got to
get down to the details and not fear the program but recognize it that it could be a way to
keep some of your sons and daughters here. Instead of buying a half acre or one acre lot
at $360,000 you may buy one credit at $160,000 fi-om a farmer. So you kno~v, there are
some real benefits from this program for those communities that you just can't forecast or
see the density integrated now. That is it.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Linda?
Southold To~vn Board Public Hearing 29
Draft GEtS for Transfer of Development Rights
MS. GOLDSMITH: it is my assumption that this program is not for lots with existing
houses, is that correct?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: It could be. It could be. Again, it depends on how you want
to nuance this plan but 1 will give you an example. And I lmow many houses in East
Marion that have converted garages over the years, they are just not simply sanctioned.
Building permits, etc because it is not allowed under the current code. They could
theoretically come in and try to get it sanctioned by securing a TDR. That might be one
xvay to dissolve the building rights on Kortsolakis, which there is a big demand to
preserve right now.
MS. GOLDSMITH: So ifl own a home, as I do now, I could buy the development rights
from someone and come in and ask ifl could put an accessory home on that property?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: It depends on the size of your property, i think the allowance
is to half acre density? So if you have an acre, yes, theoretically you could do that.
MS. GOLDSMITH: Okay, so if you had ~¼ of an acre you could not, probably.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Wouldn't be allowed under Department of Health.
MS. GOLDSMITH: Okay, my other question is we are talking about within school
district lines and things like that. You need to remember that if density increases in East
Marion the school district grows in Greenport because we send everybody, we send 90
students up there now. So if the density increases in East Marion, Greenport school
district increases students and we pay tuition to Greenport so it would be very costly for
the taxpayers in Greenport when you increase that. The other thing is is that we are
talking again about big houses, doesn't mean they have the least children. Well, I have
lived in East Marion a long time and when my children were in school probably t 8 years
ago, there weren't big houses. There was tons of farmland. There was 136 children in
Oysterponds school. Today with all the big gigantic houses and everything, is 101.
Comment 22
Section 2.22
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. I think what I need to do is ask this Board and Chick
you in particular, please specify with greater clarity the issue of density neutral. I think
there is a misunderstanding that density or populations are going to shift, lfyou have the
right to build 100 houses in East Marion right now and this is adopted, you still at the end
of the day only are allowed to build I00. it doesn't change that. It wouldn't change that
population shift. So I think we need to do a lot better clarity on that. Benja?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Good evening again. Benja Schwartz. Two questions that are
puzzling me. One, on the sending areas, how are, is it determined which properties will [ Comment 23
be allowed to sell the development rights and how does that compare with the currentI Section2.23
evaluation program in connection with our purchase Of development rights programs?
(inaudible) Let me just ask this and then 1 will sit down. Second question is on the [ Comment24
receiving areas. You said several times that each receiving parcel would require a zonel .
' ' . Sectmn 2.24
change and so that ts going to make tt awful hard for people who want to buy one ~tg
Somhold Town Board Public Hearing 30
Draft GElS for Transfer of Development Rights
these properties to go through a complete change of zone. Is that the way this program is
intended
to work? To have to do a rezoning every time a development credit is received?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is a good question.
COUNCILMAN WlCKHAM: Why don't we let them answer?
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah, I will let them. Let me just address the first issue. The
sending zone is almost identical to our preferred list of buying for PDR's, purchase of
development rights because it is active farmland and one of the goals of this town has
been to acquire the development rights to active farmland and keep it active. By
selecting properties from the ag district which is used as a template for the sending area,
that is the land that is currently being actively farmed. Chick?
MR. VOORHIS: I will give Benja a copy of the summary as well because I think it is all
pretty ~vell specified in there. The first question had to do with sending areas, how is it
determined who sells development rights. Basically a landowner that is designated as a
parcel, a sending parcel, can apply to, in this case we are recommending the Town Clerk,
to get an interpretation or credit certificate that is a tradable commodity. It is a privately
based, market driven program, so someone that ~vishes to use that development right on a
receiving pamel would approach that landowner through a registry and purchase the
credit and then use it as part of the development project. The second question had to do
with do all the receiving parcels require a change of zone. Our report and the
recommendation in the report does not suggest that every receiving parcel would require
a change of zone. We actually divided it between the Planning Board, the Zoning Board
of Appeals and the Town Board to incrementally disperse density within the receiving
areas. The Town Board's role would be in one of the comments that came up earlier, if
you were to consider a parcel appropriate for say HD zoning, you could consider that as
long as it occurs with the redemption of credits or the extinguished amount credits that
would be shifted to the parcel. The Zoning Board of Appeals is recommended to be the
appropriate Board and again, this is just our recommendation for something like a
detached accessory residential unit, which was also discussed before. That seems to be
an appropriate small incremental increase where somebody could purchase a
development right and create an on-site additional residence where you couldn't do that
now. And the Planning Board is basically in our recommendations would be able to
marginally increase the density ora residential subdivision by slightly decreasing the lots.
And the factor is roughly a 20% increase in density for any given subdivision. As long as
it is in the HALO and it meets the criteria, our recommendation is the Planning Board
would be able to do that. So we think that it distributes the development rights
throughout the hamlets.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Then 1 have a question. The ZBA currently, if you give them
the authority, would have the right to create an accessory structure on an existing lot. It
is not a subdividable lot though. It is the house and the secondary structure, you can go
out and buy a TDR and create a house in that. It is still one property, it is not
subdividable. I understand that. But how can the Planning Board have the authority to
Southold Town Board Public Hearing
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
31
grant greater density than current zoning allows since at the end of the day, it is the Town
Board that speaks to the issues of zoning and density not the Planning Board. They just
administrate what we pass as law. So I don't know that I would be comfortable with a
plan that would give any of the reviewing panels the right to increase density. That at the
end of the day needs to be t he hard decisions that get made here. So that...
TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: The plan would be to put that though into the zoning
code.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay.
TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: lfyou took a detached dwelling unit, you would say
put that into your zoning code in this zone if it was in the HALO.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah, but the ZBA makes sense because there is already
prescription for that. It just simply allows it as a separate structure not attached to the
dwelling unit. But if you are going to allow someone to take one acre and just go to the
Planning Board and create two half acre lots on that...
MR. VOORHIS: No.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is change of zone. That ~vould require the Town Board.
MR. VOORHIS: As I said, it is roughly a, it works out to a 20% maximum increase. So
if you have a 10 lot subdivision, you could add two units. That is the limit, i will tell you
that...
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: How is the (inaudible)
MR. VOORHIS: ...there is a precedence for it because it is exactly the same as the
program that is used in the Pine Barrens where local to~vn government can marginally
increase, through the Planning Board, the density.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Marginally. Okay, if you have that one acre lot and you want
to take and create two, you have the existing structure, do you want to create a separate
building lot? That under this current plan would require Town Board action. Town
Board action. Okay. That is a change of zone realistically from 80,000 to 40,000 square.
40,000 to 20,000. Okay. Did we confuse you enough? John?
MR. COPERTINO: It seems to me that we are mentioning affordable housing, ~ Comrnent v5
nnaffordable housing, four and five bedroom housing etc~ The problem is housing. No
matter what cost the housing is here and the easiest solution to housing in my estimation ] Sectmn 2.25
your estimation and yonr previous Board's recommendations that you chaired is
regulating accessory apartments. 1 don't know why that isn't being, that is an immediate
fix. An immediate fix.
Southold Town Board Public Hearing
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
32
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: We are working on that. We are actually, through the
housing commission, the Affordable Housing Commission, met ~vitb the Suffolk County
Department of Health to explore options. We are moving in that direction. There is a
certain amount of science involved because we just again, don't have the right to convey
what we want, you need Department of Health okay as to the sewer system; But we are
working on that very program right now.
MR. COPERTiNO: And that is the immediate problem.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: And it addresses a much...
MR. COPERTINO: You know, we mention TDR's and building on an acre. It is all
going to be unaffordable. You know? It is alwaYs going to be very costly. $300,000-
$400,000 for the acre etc. Get the people housed first, put them in accessory apartments
and then try to figure you know, TDR's and ...
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: You and I have talked about this a lot. And I agree. I think
statistically much more significant to look at the apartment route. We can make a bigger
difference.
MR. COPERTINO: I mean it seems simple to me. I mean, of course it is much more
difficult than that but you know, I think that the Board should be working on it diligently
and trying to get something passed for the younger people in the Town.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody like to address the Town Board?
UNIDENTIFIED: I will be quick, I jnst have an observation. Previously farmers would
sell their land, sell their development rights and that was it, it ~vasn't like, well, okay what
am I going to get for it? They would just sell their development rights, the land would be
preserved for the future and right now something has started where well, they can get
probably more money and in the meantime it is going to be creating higher density
somewhere else. To me it is an observation that just says it is kind of sad in my respect.
I don't kno~v what incentive a farmer would have to just sell the development rights for
the land to be preserved unless they were truly altruistic and you know, unfortunately
they want to make a buck too, so I wouldn't blame them for getting more money with the
TDR. But it isjust an observation.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I think the one thing that needs to be understood with what
you said was, we are really changing the focus of preservation a little bit because
historically development rights were bought by the Town and extinguished the same day
by the Town. If you are going to go to a private market, those rights are going to have to
be, the developer is going to want to be make whole, so he is going to want to land them
somewhere. Whereas if the Town served as a bank and went out and bought these
TDR's, we could, at the vote of the Board, extinguish them at any time. Just like we do
with current PDR's. and that was one concern I had with Councilman Ruland, we talked
about maybe the Town should stay in as a bank because if we decide you can't land 30
Comment 26
Section 2.26
Southold Town Board Public Hearing 33
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
units here, we can extinguish them and that is that. It would be no different than our
traditional approach. That is a good point. Anyone else like to address the Board?
FLORENCE COPE: Florence Cope fi'om East Marion. Maybe just another part of our
uniqueness, we are two square miles in size, two thirds of which is surrounded by water,
Bay and Sound and in that two square miles, we currently have 650 residences. My
concern is previously a gentleman mentioned when they spoke of caps on development
within a hamlet or a HALO zone, East Marion was listed to 73.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is total potential, isn't it? 29, your, the cap. Seventy
nine is the total you can absorb based on Depamnent of Health standards. The cap would
impose your limit at 29.
MS. COPE: Twenty nine but it could go to 73.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: No. Twenty nine.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would be the cap. But a new To~vn Board could always
elevate that cap down the road.
MS. COPE: That is my point. Right. It could be elevated. For clarification, looking at
the map here, East Marion has no sending acreage at all. So I don't know just ho~v this
formula applies to us, other than what we have in Orient because we are talking of school
district.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is again, I raised that issue earlier. You do have
potential for sending area in Sep's. My understanding of that is that the o~vner of that
wants to enroll in the ag district. That would potential add it to the list of sending areas.
But again, when you are looking at active farmland, there is not a lot in East Marion that
is part of the ag district, I know. Fair point.
MS. COPE: Okay. One other issue for East Marion and starting now today it is the end
of May. For the next three months and Mr. Wickham, I would invite you to try and come
to our post office on a Saturday morning and leave it safely. The traffic, you want to talk
about density, we put up with there and an excessive speed limit. I would love to see
down to even 40 for safety, not that everybody is going to do it maybe they will do 55
instead of 65. but the density there for us, all the way out to the Point, we have no other
road and to add additional density to that, I think maybe that is one of the reasons we are
all fighting so hard for this little place, we really can't, it is just not safe. So I just need to
mention that. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the
Board? I really have to read this from Albert (Councilman Krupski). I am sorry, you
have to indulge me, I promised him. Albert could not be here tonight because both of his
daughters are being honored at ROTC awards ceremony and as dads go, I don't blame
him. That should have been his first priority. "I regret not being able to be here with the
Southold Town Board Public Hearing
Drai2 GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
34
Board this evening, my two daughters both participate in the Mattituck ROTC program
and tonight is the annual awards dinner for the whole Mattituck-Southold-Greenport unit.
1 feel that my presence there to support my daughter's and their participation in the
ROTC program is important. I have attended several TDR work sessions as a Town
Board member as well as the previous public presentation. I believe that the program as
proposed, I am sorry, he hand wrote this; has merit and I support this concept as a means
of enhancing the Town of Southold's land preservation efforts. Land preservation is a
long term goal of the Town and I believe we should explore all options to reach that goal.
Sincerely, Albert I~upski, Jr." Okay. Would anybody else like to come up and address
the Town Board? (No response) Hearing none, can I get a motion ....
COUNCILMAN W1CKHAM: I would like to make just one brief comment about the cap
and the ratio of sending areas to receiving areas. In my experience and knowledge about
transfers of development rights programs elsewhere, the programs that have really
succeeded in making a lot of transfers are those that have a lot of receiving areas relative
to sending areas. When you don't have, when the ratio is reversed, when you have a lot
of potential sending areas and not many receiving areas those programs they are on the
books, there may be an occasional person who will take advantage of it but generally
speaking, there aren't a whole lot of transfers that are consummated. With the caps that
we have and that are in the book, that are proposed, and given the numbers that are out
there, I think this can be a useful program but I really don't think we are going to see a
whole lot of transfers. Unless we have a commercial component, which is one of the
alternatives in the book, that would provide another way to receive units, unless that were
in place, I think this program could be successful, it could be nice to have in the books. It
might have some marginal value here and there but I don't really think that it will result
in very many transfers.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Anybody else? Board members like to comment? I have a
lot of reservations about it. I sort of expressed them in piecemeal fashion to you earlier
tonight but this isn't a vote tonight. This is just a, we are going to close the hearing but I
am sure ~ve will have other public hearings and be able to explain a lot of our ongoing
concerns. Move to adjourn?
COUNCILMAN WlCKHAM: I move we adjourn but we keep the hearing open for
written comment for ....
TOWN ATTORNEY F1NNEGAN: You actually close the hearing, and you will accept
written comment for 10 days.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay, we are going to have a motion to close the hearing
tonight and then accept written comments for 10 days.
Motion to close the hearing.
Motion to adjourn.
Southold Town Board Pablic Hearing 35
Draft GEIS for Transfer of Development Rights
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
Town of Southold
Transfer of Development Rights Program
Final Supplemental Generic EIS
APPENDIX D
HALO ZONE PARCELS NEAR NYSDEC-REGULATED
FRESHWATER WETLANDS