Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/13/1986 JUDITIt T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 SOUTHOLD HAMLET MEETING Proposed Updated Master Plan and Zoning Code Revisions Southold Town Hall 7:30 P.M., Thursday, February 13, 1986 Present: Also Present: Supervisor Francis J. Murphy Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran Councilman George L. Penny IV Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker Planning Board Chairman Bennett Orlowski Jr. Planning Board Member Richard Ward Supervisor Murphy introduced the Town Board members, Town Attorney, and Town Clerk. He then explained the history of the current proposed updated master plan and zoning code revisions and the purpose of the hamlet meeting, whcih is to receive public comment and suggestions to avoid any grave mistakes should the present proposal be submitted to a public hearing for adoption. Approximately 125 individuals attended this meeting, and the following comments and objections were received: DAVID STRONG, MarineLand, Mattituck: He is upset by the wording of the Marine Recreation and Marine Business Districts. Boat and Motor Repair and Sales are not included in the Marine Recreation District and should be without a special exception. Boatyard should be permitted on those districts. Every marina will be a special exception for theiruses or go out of business. CHRISTOPHER KELLEY, Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley, on behalf of Henry Weismann and Frank Blynn, residents of Tarpon Drive, Southold: Read a prepared statement with reference to the concern of his clients for the proposed zoning for the Conkling P~ge 2 - Southold Haml~vleeting 2/13/86 Point area of Sothold and the proposed marine business site (Southport Development). Mr. Kelley also submitted an "Analysis and Recommendation with reference to the Proposed Town of Southold Master Plan Update as it ~applieS to the Conkling Point Peninsula," dated February 5, 1986, prepared by Frederick H. Reuter, AICP, Community Planning and Zoning Consultant. Mr. Kelley recommended that the update eliminate water-enhanced uses and intensive commercial water-related uses with a view to maintaining and enhancing the environment and preserving the Iow density, residential character of the Conkling Point peninsula. If any water-enhanced uses are to be permitted, they should be severely restricted with reference to their impact and a clear accounting provided of the land area to be put to such use. He recommended that a land use category be provided compatible with a restricted Resort Residential' B District. (Mr. Kelley's remarks and the Reuter report is on file in the Hamlet Meetings file. ) INGEBORG FLYNN, Tarpon Drive, Southold: Spoke about the economic impact of the proposed master plan. Any change affects real estate values and a massive rezoning in Southold Town would result in a massive reassessment of the Town, which would have a tremendous detrimental affect on the Town economically, especially on the elderly people residing in homes which have not been reassessed for many years. The Master ~Plan is useless unless you have studied the affect of reassessment of the Town. ROGER BANCROFT, Greenport: Read a prepar~ed statement on behalf of the President of the Peconic Bay Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. and the Association Board of Directors. They oppose the proposed zoning of the area from Kerwin Boulevard east past Pipes Neck Road to B1, a proposal which will include heavy industry. They wish the area to retain its present Light Business designation. Their immediate concern involves the North Fork Welding Co., considered by them to be an eyesore. The area is adjacent to a large wetlands area, some of the most precious and scarce land in the world. Tourism is Southold Town's largest industry and a cluttered entrance to an increasingly beautiful village is illogical as well as unnecessary. They believe Article 22 should be restored to the proposed code. (Mr. Bancroft's written comments are on file in the Hamlet Meetings file.) LOUISE EHLERS, Mattituck: Questioned accessory apartment law with respect to her large, old 13 room house. She is being forced out. She must live in the house and "only charge $600 a month". Her property is on the south side of New Suffolk Avenue, east of the Tolendal Inn. The senior citizens need help. JOHN WICKHAM, Cutchogue: Two years ago he stated to the Town Board he favored two acre zoning, but there must be some trade-offs. There have been some trade-offs, the Town has bought some development rights and is doing something with the agri- cultural land. He is distressed that the proposed maps do not show where lands have been protected, where the water table has been protected. Mr. Wickham reiterated his'remarks made at the Cutchogue hamlet meeting with respect to one acre zoning along the Sound and Bay-front, with a second tier of one acre lots with water view. This proposal would provide a higher sale value for those properties, which would increase the assessment for the Town. Two acre zoning in those areas is poor planning and poor business for the Town. He spoke to Dr. Koppelman, Director of the Suffolk County Department of Planning, and he agreed completely. JEAN TIEDKE, Southold, member of the RPPW Workshop: Commended amendments to Article I, but those added purposes of town development tend to be obscured by a certain wordiness in the Code, and particularly by the extraordinary number of special exceptions, duplications and near-duplications, and the incredible map. Mrs. Tiedke read a prepared statement (on file in the Hamlet Meetings file) referring to P~ge 3 - Southold Ham Meeting 2/13/86 Articles 5 and 6, Articles 11 and 12, Article 8, 13, 14. The RPPW Land Use Map, dated August 1983, proposed certain'additions to recreation and open space in the Town, there is no public recreation area on the latest map and existing public recreation areas are notleven identified. Overlays of the map should have been prepared indicating wetlands, marshes, high and Iow tidal zones, 100 year storm tides, elevations and fresh ponds and marshes. Swimming pools should not be permitted unless processed as a special exception, with pools near the shoreline perhaps required to contain salt water and not fresh water. The plan should ban dug canals, extensions of canals, or dredging to enlarge natural creeks such as the long thin arms of Richmond Creek, a cause of excessive groundwater loss. Mrs. Tiedke!s prepared statement contained a list of words for inclusion in the definitions. ALBERT DINIZIO, Greenport: Owner of a service station at the northwest corner of Route 48 and Wickham Avenue, Mattituck, where the zoning classification is'to be changed from B1 to RO. He has been at that location for 19 years. This is his only source of income in future retirement. He is opposed to the proposal which would present a financial hardship on him and his family in years to come. JOSEPH LIZEWSKI, Cutchogue: Opposed to the zoning of a parcel of property which head zoned business four years ago and given permission through B1 zoning to build a professional building and extend it into a small health club complex. According to the proposed map this parcel is now to be R40, which means the property he now has has lost tremendous value, and will decrease the possibility of selling it or expanding it. He envisions many legal suits against the Town due to the change of business property to other incompatable zones. JOHN COSTELLO, Greenport: The proposed map should have been put in the news- paper and explained to the people how it will affect them. His 48 acre parcel near Greenport, which was recently zoned to "M" is now shown as one acre, adjoining a hamlet density. Further east there is a hamlet density which doesn't attach to any hamlet - Brecknock Hall. A better effort should be made to notify summer residents and the businesses ~that want to expand. There are no areas provided for waterfront business, North Fork Welding business which is a necessity to the Town and other types of businesses which wish to relocate in order to expand. BILL PENNY, owner of Tidy Car, corner of Youngs Avenue and North Road, Southold: His present zoning is Business and the proposal is LB which would make his business non-conforming. On the color-coded map there only appears to be about six parcels of B1 land. He does not understand how the community can survive with only six small parcels of business zoned property. DOMINIC PRINCIPI: Owner of business property on Route 48, Mattituck, which is proposed to be changed to R80. Has owned the property since 1964 and it going to be devaluated. Feels this is unconstitutional. AL PIETREWICZ, Cutchogue: Own 13 acres on northwest corner of Cox Lane and Route 48, eight acres of which are zoned industrial; requested Board to change this entire parcel to industrial. STANLEY KRUPSKI: Owner of land northwest of the Landfill Area. Requested proposed zone be changed from agricultural to light industry. Owner of land and a building at Pauls Lane and the railroad in Peconic, presently zoned light business and would llke it changed to light industry. Owner of a farm on the southerly side of the road opposite the Landfill Area and would like it changed from agricultural to light industry. Owner of land west of Duck Pond Road along the Sound where a road is proposed and they are opposed to the road as it would cut through his property and ower the value. P'age 4- Southold Haml~Meeting 2/13/86 ALBERT LATSON, Southold: The zoning extends the Village Market south about 25 feet on to his land. The Village Market is commercial. His land south of that is residential. Why has this boundary line been moved after all these years? He lives on Town Creek and it is proposed that the boatyard at the head of Town Creek is going to be changed to a motel area. Our creeks are very small and shallow and we don't need a motel at the head of Town Creek. JEANNE MARRINER, President, League of Women Voters, Town of $outhold; resident of Mattituck: Read a prepared statement which is on file in the Hamlet Meetings file. Reiterated the need for changing proposed Articles 11 and 12 and reinsertion of Article 22 and set standards for protecting the natural features of Southold Town. Reminded the Board of the lack of publicity for the hamlet meetings. Reminded the elected and appointed officials they are responsible to all voters and taxpayers in Southold Town, not just a special few. The League believes it is most important they enact the proper rules and regulations for the orderly growth and development, laws which are interpreted in the most conservative and careful manner by all town officials. She reviewed responses to the 1981 League questionnaire which asked: "How would you like the Town of Southold to look in the year 20017" HENRY P. SMITH, Southold: Protested the proposed zone change of his property on the south side of Route 25 at Willow Hill, Southold. Presently Business, proposed to be LB, as is the Chevron gas station, Hart Hardware and other business in the immediate area. Requested return to Blo ELLEN HUFE, Southold: Owner of business property at Route 48 - Future Marine Products. Proposed to be changed from B1 to LB and the proposal is totally unjust and unfair. The same problem exists with her property on the northeast corner of Route 48 and Youngs Avenue. Mrs. Hufe read the permitted uses in a LB District. Also most all of the businesses along the CR48 corridor would not be permitted in the proposed LB District. This will economically destroy or hamper many of the local businessmen, who have been providing jobs and/or services to the l~lorth Fork for many, many years. WANDA SENKO: Owner of a parcel of business property at the intersection of Route 25 and Ackerly Pond Road which is proposed to be changed to LB. Protested the change. DONALD GRIMM, Southold.' Is in contract for a parcel of property which is presently Cl and is proposed to be changed to LIO opposite the Landfill. Requested Cl be restored to that property. Heavy industrial should be in the area of the Landfill, homes will not be built there. VERA REGAN, Horton Lane, Southold: Requested clarification of an article in The Suffolk Times with respect to a proposed industrial park on Horton Lane (Jim Gray property on the northerly side of the railroad tracks, easterly side of Horton Lane). The Board should be careful about approving industry without knowing what the industrial use will be. PATRICIA BAILEY, Cutchogue: Owner of property on Route 25 and Skunk Lane. It was B1 and proposed to be LB. Has been paying taxes on the property for 20 years as B1 and protested the proposed change. P~ge $ - Southold Haml eeting 2/13/86 JOHN NICKLES, East Main Road, Southold: Representing Louis Barnett whose property is adjacent to LaGazelle and whose property has been business since the inception of zoning and the proposal is to change the designation to RO. Protested on Mr. Barnett's behalf. Asked if there is time to submit written objections to various problems? (Super- visor Murphy advised there is sufficient time while the Board reviews--at least two to three weeks.) Also represented Grace Lewis who owns property opposite Mr. Barnett whoseproperty was rezoned business in 1962 and now designated RO. It is a diminish- ment of the use of the property which also diminishes the value. Mr. Nickles (a former Councilman) assured the audience the Town Board is earnest and the Planning Board is earnest and a lot of effort has gone into the proposed plan. There are problems, but although it sounds from the comments as if the Town is about to fall apart, quite the contrary, the Town is going to be fine and the Boards will do their u~tmost to make Southold Town the way it should be and has been and they are listening with open minds to what is being said. RUSSELL E. MANN, Main Road, Southold: The map indicates the area on the Main Road, running from the American Legion south to Ackerly Pond Road, and across the street from the Legion from the Universalist Church south to Hart Hardware--a thoroughly developed area of residences and a few small business--would become R40 from the present 2 acre zoning. Mr. Mann also spoke about multiple dwellings of 8 to 12 units per acre, which will harm the already fragile water supply. Requested the Board to reconsider the down zoning. WILLIAM BEEBE, Cutchogue: Owner of a parcel of land in Cutchogue between Alvahs Lane and Depot Lane which abutts one acre zoning on one end and Seacroft (HD) on another. He requested his 30 acres be reclassified to one acre zoning. Cutchogue needs some one acre lots. FRED MORITT, Cutchogue: (Former Assemblyman, Senator, Judge) Article 7 is repealed and new Article 7 is added in its place. After listening to the people speak it is his opinion from B1 to RO is confiscatory and a crude violation and repugnant to the State and Federal Constitution which states no property shall be taken without due process. Section 100-70, Purpose, seems to be in conflict. No Town Board, Planning Board, regulatory agency can in any way take away from any citizen any portion of his property. RICHARD WILTON, representing Greenport-Southold Chamber of Commerce: Read a letter signed by Bobra Wetormore, President on behalf of the Board of Directors, which states the proposed amendments and map are poorly drafted and in an un- professional manner. It will negatively affect the economy. There are omissions, inconsistencies and errors throughout. HAROLD REESE, developer in the Town of Southold for the past 20 years: Owner of a parcel of property of 50 acres on the south side of Route 25, east of Chapel Lane, Greenport, which he purchased 20 years ago and which was zoned industrial, and later rezoned to business. The proposed new zoning is LIO,; but the size of the lots for such a district is 3 acres. Three acres is too much land, unrealistic, unaffordable for the average businessman for an industrial-type project. Requested the Board to reconsider the zoning and give consideration to small businesspeople. JERRY GRALTON, Southold Floor Covering, North Road, Southold: business there for 13 years and the proposal is to change it to LB. B1 zoning designation. Has been in Requested P~ge 6 - Southold Haml eeting 2/13/86 DONALD SPATES, owner of Hart Hardware, south side Route 25, Southold: Fears financial impact on himself by the zoning change from business to LB on his property. Suggested more information be made to those who may be affected by zoning changes, and committees formed to oversee diverse general areas of use and be responsible for receiving public lobbying for those areas. JOHN SKABRY, Henrys Lane, Peconic: Consideration should be given to the people that work on the North Fork that are employed by people that own commercial and business property. The grandfather clause will not grandfather a job. Protested motel zoning (RR) in different scattered spots, including the one at the end of Henrys Lane. Also concerned about the strip zone of R-80 between Peconic and Mattituck along the Sound bluff. This will encourage the building of a new thorough- fare along the Sound-front and will quickly encourage the development of that land, causing heavy traffic on the roads that feed that area. The Town should do more to encourage the farmland and open space. Does not see anything on the maps as far as recreation for working class people, which he favors and recommends to the Board. FRED SCHOENSTEIN, partner in North Fork Welding: Feels the new proposed building on Route 25, east of Bay Shore Road, will improve the appearance of the property. They provide services needed in the community to the public, as well as: Southold Highway Department, Southold Town Police, Southold/Greenport/East Marion/Orient Fire Departments, Plum Island, Eastern Long Island Hospital, local lumberyards, dockbuilders, boatyards and Shelter Island ferries, contractors, excavators, as well as a commercial fishing fleet. With their new building they will be able to perform their services more efficiently and feel most people are in favor of their new building because it will approve the appearance of the property and surroundings. They wish to be zoned Light Industrial. RUDOLPH BRUER, Attorney, Southold: He has studied the map and thinks the Town Board is wrong with respect to the Limited Business zoning they propose on Route 25 and on Route 48 where they have not taken into consideration the existing uses and buildings and properties that are there. To ignore what is there is wrong. JEAN TIEDKE: She is going to send the Board some further items she wishes to call to their attention, one of which is the north side of Route 48, Southold. She feels this is an ideal place to develop another 500 acres on the north side of the road as an industrial zone or light industry or business, near the Town where people don't have to commute 20 miles to their jobs. Should get off of the strip-zoning for business. Supervisor Murphy thanked everyone for coming out and emphasized that the purpose of the hamlet meetings is to receive input from the people to the Town Board. They are interested in how they feel. They welcome further input. They have tried to come up with a plan that is fair for everyone in the Town and provide for future growth. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Southold Town Clerk LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF RIVERHEAD/SOUTHOLD $0UTHOLD MASTER ~LAN ING February ~ 198~ LEAGUE OF' WOMEN VOTERS OF' RIVERHEAD!SOUTHOLD ~ am ~eanne F~arriner, President o£ the League of Wor~n Voters. I's like to thank ~he Southold Town Board for allowing the League to comment on the ~ter plan and proposed zoning changes in Orient, Mattituok, Cut- chog~-e, at the work session and again tonight. The League hopes we ha~ pe~rsuaded the Board of the need for changing the proposed Articles 11 and 12 which deal with our frag~ile water situation_ on the l~orth Fork, We also hope the Board will re-insert Article 22 and set s~a~ndards for proteotin9 the natural features of $outhold Town that will enable all our town boards to interpret wisely when rendering decisions involving these features. Again we rem~nd you of ~he lack of publicity for the hamlet meet/n~s, and urge that you send public service anaoun~ements to all the papers ~nd rad/o stations in addition to the legal ~otioes, when you schedule ~he public hearings on the Master Plan ~ld Zoning Law~ and ~ any f~ture meetings that affect ~he entire Town. The League would like to direct the next remarks to all Town Officials - elected and appointed~ We realize you are under attack by developers and business eelf-interest. But- weyou te The League believes it is most impor~ant that you enact the proper rules and r~gulations for the orderly growth and development of this ~/qt~ place ~hat is S~tt~l~d Tow~. Not only do we ask that y~l enact %he proper laws, but we also a~k that all town. ~f~oi&ls en oux T~wn wiX1 ~t he das~xoyod. The League believes it takes a special kin~ o~ ~s~on ~ a s~al k~d of p~lio official ~ foresee ~e ~ut~ ~d ~ ~rk ~alit~ ~f life ~at ~ ~jority of Sou~ld ~ ~d ~velo~, ~, bu2 no~ for ~ ~nefit o~ a few et ~ e~ense of m~ ~ 1981, tO ~lp ~ ~ B~ ~d ~e Piing i.~.~ter Pl~l, ~e L~.ag~!u did a s~y ~ ~r~e wi~ ~iu~ & ~r 5ou~oi~ ~ ~k ~ ~ ye~ 20017 A ~ry high outli:~.ec,~. ~%e ~ant~ ...... ~'~'i ne~=ds- of Sou~old To:~a% resi~onts for th~ future. p~lished ~ ~e pa~rs. ~ a ~lder, i s~uid nee6.s an(( %,~ts in brief~ historic si~s ~,~ ~c~ic view{. 3. Busines~ d~v~lop~t in ~as o[ agri~l~ure, co~r~al ~ish~ng, light, non-~lluting indu~tr~ - d~v~lo~ ~o ~ 4. I~ovati~ housing ~d affford~le ~usin~ wi~ o~n space con,pts. natu~ tra~ls, beao~s ~ ~is 6. ~cycling =~d Lnnovativ~ w~te ma~age~ont of local g~e~t ~ ~t ~r frenzy ~ pr~t ~d fu=~ plus for ~e ~ w~ f~2 ~ 2/7/86 3 This was our Southold Town residents wish list in 1981. How are we doing in 1986 and where will we be in 2,00177 There are many ways we can insure economic vitality and improve the aesthetiz5 of Southold Town without ~estroying its unique character. We can take tke ~astsr Plan~ and oux citizen wis~ list as a g~i~e~ enact proper protective zoning laws~ intsrprel these laws wisely, set priorities and goals object, yes for th~ next 15 years and go forward. Or - we can turn our backs on the needs and wants of the majority of our citizens and address ~he needs of a few selfish interests. This is the challenge for Town Officials -and in fact, for all of us in~ Southold T~wn. We are at the crossroads. Which path shall we take? STATRMENT FOR CUTCHOGUE MEETING ON ZONING 2/6/86 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF RIVERHEAD/SOUTHOLD I am Linda Fletcher of New Suffolk, speaking for the League of Women Voters. At the m~etings in Mattituck and Orient last week, the League applauded the Town Board for completing the Southold Town Master Plan update. And we asked that the Plan be used as a guide by our Town officials so that they keep uppermost in mind our unique, fragile natural features when considering development in the hamlets of Southold Town. The Master Plan is, a guide for zoning but it appears that Town official~ have not always followed the guide in thsir proposed changes for the Zoning Code. We refer to a statement in the Master Plan that says "marinas should he encouraged where they do not negatively impact on residential neighborhoods or natural environments." The League believes that the uses permitted in the proposed new amendments 11 and 12, including special exceptions and accessory uses, will nave negative ~mpact on both residents and our fragile creek and coastal waters. The League requests that proposed amendments 11 and 12 be deleted and new amendments be developed as rapidly as posslble that are more in keeping with sensitive waterfront areas. We suggest that you draw on the expertise CO~t~£v~T,~ o£ the $o~thold Town~dv~sory Council and others to formulate these new amendments that will permit uses of the waterfront to meet citizen needs without threatening our fresh water supply and our creek and coastal waters. To substantiate our request, we submit the following: 1) A quote from a speech by a Southold Town Official given at a League forum in January/ 1983~ ~The National Water Resources Council states that our region is one of the eleven most critical water problem areas in the nation. .Salt water encroachment diminishes our groundwater supply . Zoning controls and land use ordinances need revision to permit protection of sensitive areas." '~ LWV ' · 2 2. A January, 198~ letter to a Town official from the Coastal Resources specialist with the N.Y. Department of State expressed concern about the protection of coastal resources and raised questions about the extent of the Marine expansion on the North Fork, citing the proposed development for Young~s boatyard in Southold as an example. He would undoubtedly express the same concern about the proposed rezoning of New Suffolk to Marine Business and resort recreation. 3. The present condition of the Village of Greenport's water syste T~ Suffolk County Health Department says that new development could subject residents to serious, problems with water supply and indeed in providing enough water for fire protection -~ and that could happen to New Suffolk,too with over deVelopment~ and to other sensitive areas throughout the Town. The League belieVes that we can prevent problems if our zoning laws are carefully constructed and such is not the case with proposed Article 11 and 12. To fully protect our ground water supply and our~natural resources, we again ask tkat proposed Article 22 which, addressed the protection of our natural features ~ and which was deleted - be returned to the new zoning amendments. May ! also reaffirm the League's offer to assist in holding informational meetings for the public on the proposed zoning amendments. The League believes our citizens have th~ right to know about what is being proposed for ~ each hamle~ in our ToWn.~ Thank you fo~ allowing me to comment. I ~m y Slb°m of ~at~Ltuak, 81Mmk~ag for tho League of ~omen Vo~ora regarding the effect of the MaI~ PII~ ~.~d ~ ~ ~ontng law ~- ~tl on ~e ~et of ~~ Tho League applauds the oog~le~Lo~ of ~i8 Mao~or PLeA update. Tho Plan is · well-def~nod blue print for orderly deealopuawt of the heniete in Southold Township, goad of the proposed amendments do not agree wL~h the purpose of the Master Plan - TO PRBSHRVB AHD B~HA~CB OUR BC~I~IiXC BASB OF AGRICULTURE AHD CO~J~ZAL FISHING AND THB__(~LZTY OF LZFB OM THR ~ORTH FORK. ~o believe that new regulations should oom~ly wl~b the intent of the MASTER PLAN. Such is not the sase with the proposed seeing anendnauts dealing with our fragile creeks and coastal waters. We f~ud ~he proposals for waterfront usage in Marine Recreation sonod areas lo~a~od on creeks ex~emoly detrimental ~o the quality of our fresh water supply and alas to our coastal waters. WE STRONGLY OBJECT TO MARINA COMPLEXES SITED ON CP~BKS THAT INCLUDE: resort hotels .or motels, wlm~ng pools, retail stores, restaurant8, showers, bathrooms and laundromat facilities. Such uses will result in overpumping of our water supply and lead to salt water int~usion in the wells of the my all-~ear round and seasonal hms already sited on the crooks creeks in close proxinity to the proposed marine recreation zoning. ~hile we recognize the need for docking apa~es for recreational boats, particularly for those residents who live inland, we f~nd tho proposals for marine recreation zonings? be a complete "give- away to developers at the expense of long-tiros ~esidents and taxpa~rs. Through the years, by [~rmitting variances and special exceptions, Town officl&ll have aLLowed expanlion of ~XI nat=o on ~ttituck Inlet ~ ~ ~~ of ~a~ cro~. ~d now ~~lo ~ ~otion lush i~a~blo usage on o~ ~re ~rag~le areas. W~e ~ot dis~s~ T~ ~a~ ~ p~lie Input ~ore ~u enact ~y l~s ~t a~t ~ ~'o vaMrf~* oppor~unity to St. Th4 league also ureas ~ tJUSLusL41, Of ~ ~-t:Lole 22 ~ ~ son~g ~" ~ v~ ~le~, ~ ~e~s~, ~ ~G~ Of OUr na~aX ~eso~s ~s ~o~ud~ ~ v~L~e o~ ~ o~ ~ ~g C~. ~ ~nside~ ~l ~ 's~t~ XnoXusX~ ~, ~ ~ XI ~ ~~ ~ ozde~Xy d~eXo~ ~t ~ "w~t" ~n~g. ~ ~t ~t ~ f~g ~ ~lio of~Xoinlo lie rooognise that muah effort mt 4Rte emending W sou/ag regulations. Hoverer, w ~NX ~ of ~t effort w~ ~id~_ b --~ ~u~ info~l Met~ga ~ ~t exam ~t ~ ~ p~ ~~ot ~n mthgs. ~ o~tX~s ~ a EXght ~ M - ~ Xa~'s X~ ~d ~z~ps ~uqh ~ X~aX ~Xa - ~t ~N p~ zon~g ~ ~ ~y t~payors who wXXX ~ affeo~ by ~e C~gll. HoXdXng ~ur Me.rigs du~ing ~%e ~k in ~e ~ddge of t~ wingz a~ d~s not give oGz ~y seasonal tupa~rs a cA~oo to ~e~s~ vhat nd ip~d of~ioial8 ~o pEo~s~nq fo~ the future of ~ Xorth Fo~k. ~y of our .~r rosiest, pl~ ~ live aX1 Meat ro~d here Xn ~e ~u~re ~d aa ~yers, ~ey should ~ giv~ ~aXdera~Xon. ~ld ~ il ~der a~Ok by de.lo.rs ~ business ~loll our ~ o~Jiolalo ~ac~ ~d ~rpre~ our ~les ~d re~la~ons ~ ~ ~n~a~ivo ~d oareful ~er - Sou~ld'l oh~ac~ al ~ ~ow X~ ~ w~ i~ ~ ~ - will s~n ~ destroyed. we reeogntse and l. aud tbs at~ ~ ~vI ~ iums ~o pzeaem ~ llhll(I o~: Jootoita ~ Of IJt~ll~Jllt lid JllltleL'1 fLlh~lg, lid our QU&LX~r OF LZ~B. TM ~an md tho pmpooed mining ahangee mm vel.1- de£inod bXumprtnU for tho ordmrZy &iw~osmt of IomthoXd Tovu. The Loague uz~m ~ ~o~ ~t ~ ~i~ of tho ~m aIndmmU to the $~ ~. ~ ~a~%az%ymt ~ ~ ~t ~ mAng prooemi, Under ~o~e Z, sea,ion ~00-~0 - POIt-°OOB O~ I~ ~ ~ ~der ~icle X, Seo~on 100-10, ~ ~ ~u ~ ~t al~ ~ foll~A~ ~tAons ~ o~n as X. ~ p~on of ~e s~surfa~ ~ vaMr ou~ly ~ o~f~ va~ The League ooaoiders it vital ~o aired Section X00-ll by adding lUbdivilion Ii pazamount tn ~eiolving tn~e~pEetatAoni and/or ProMotion O£ NatuEal Fea~oI of the Torn.q ThAi new azttoXe vas impoFt~nt and we would like ~he opportunity to I~ fi O~ fOr pFotm~cing our vatmr resouroef - both gzoundvator supply fid ooutil wito:8 - vhln vt have had a ahanoe to review ArtAoXo XXXX. are mow mvmXLmb~ for ozdomXy dml~mm4 and .~bo ~m~ of SOUTHOLD HAMLET - TOWN CODE MEETING Feb./~, 1986 The lengthy zoning code and th$ revised zoning map for our Town. required a sustained effort that boggles the mind! The amendments to Article I are commendable maximum protection of residential and historic areas, enhancement of the appearance of the Town - particularly its open and rural en- vironment, protection of subsurface and surface waters,- and protection and enhancement of the coastal environment. These added purposes of town development, however, tend to be obscured by a certain wordiness in the Code, and particularly by. the extraordinary number of Special Exceptions, by some duplications md near-duplications, and the incredible map. ! Articles 5 and 8: Resort Residential~ A and B There appear to be only l0 or 12 small areas which fall into this zoning category, well scattered throughout the Town. These two Articles could be cbmbined; better yet, grandfather these small areas and delete both Articles. Articles 11 and 12: Marine Recreation and Marine Business To enhance and protect our coastal environment, the bays, creeks and inland waterways must be ~iven very close attention durinK thk planning for any and all uses. Article ll permits the sale of fuel and oil in waterways and creeks but does not indicate that the only logical location for such an enter- prise is at or near the outer end of such waterways where tidal action would help tokeep that waterway clean.. There is no mention of pump-out stations for transient or moored boats. The proposed variety of endeavors on inland waterways and coastal areas suggests that a Miami-type of shoreline is just over the horizon. Both Article ll and Article 12 should be ~e=w~itten, keepin~ all the interests of all the residents in mind,including the need for some open space On waterfronts and'public access to waterways. Inland waterways are in need of very strict pro- tection, as.the Mill Creek shellfish contamination suggests. Article 8, Article 13, Article 14 Limited Business District - LB Light Industrial Park/Planned Office Park - LI0 Light Industrial District - LI Article ~ to permit limited business along highway corridors could quickly get out of hand, if it indded is not already a blight. RPP~ vigorously warned against strip zoning along our corridors. Raymond and May, back in the early 1970's gave a similar warning. The Town has permitted development along Rte 48, r~rth of Southold hamle~ but has not required the other half of the professional planners' recommendations - that a service road be put in to prevent each and e~ery office or commercial establishment having its owndriveway, On the north side of Rte 48, two new commercial buildings have been erected within the ~ast year. But the zoning for most of the land north of that narrow business/commercial strip (LB) is mostly A-C. If a strip to a depth of 500 feet - 800 feet - were added, a light industrial/office park could be nicely accommodated, near a highway, and near the hamlet but reducing the possibility of blighting our highways with more strip de- velopment, and appears to fit the purpose in Article I, sec. l0 G. The distinction between a light industrial,planned office par~and Article 14, light industrial park ~eems quite ari- trary. Combining Articles~ 8,13 &14. iuto one might be beneficial. Planned parks,as these two Articles suggest, can be a real asset to our communities. Problems similar to Rte 48 in Southold are already developing in Cutchogue along Rte 25 and will con- tinue to increase without immediate steps to kommercial and office use off the main road~. l0 D on traffic applies. create areas for Article I, sec. An ideal plaace to locate such planned business/industrial parks might be at the outer circle of the concentric circular planning for each hamletthat Alice Hussie suggested. THE ZONING MAP In the fall of 1981, the League of Women Voters' Survey of Town residents asked what should be preserved or prgtected in our Town's environment. In this multiple choice question wetlands, woodlands, open space and scenic views were all con- sidered as '~ery important' There was overwhelming support for preserving what we have. (O. # VI) That same survey asked how best to use the shoreline. Out of 12 categories, the largest response was for nature preserves, followed by parks & recreation, limited development in all categories, access to fishing areas, and public beaches. Ranked at the bottom were industry, multiple housing,business and com- mercial development.~ (0. # XVI) ........ The RPPW Land Use Map, dated August 1983, proposed the following additions to recreation and open space in the Town: - The NIg corner fronting on Dam Pond and L.I.Sound -This is Now zoned R-80 on the Proposed Zoning Map - Pipes Cove, East side of Inlet - now zoned R-80 - Arshamomoque Pond, NW side now zoned R-80 - NE side of Great Hog Neck, near end - now zoned R-40 - East from County Park, Goldsmith's Inlet - now zoned R-80 - West side, Downs Creek - now zoned A-C There is no new public reareation area on our latest zoning map and existing public recreation areas are not even identified. I understand that parks and recreation areas for public use do not have to be considered in a zoning code. It would have been helpful, mnethelsss, to have existing public and semi-public recreation areas identified on the zoning map, which is really a land use map, as the RPPW designation suggests. As it stands, the zoning map puts great emphasis on commercial recreational areas - marinas, motels, etc. - which cater to the summer popu- lation. The permanent residents appear to be ignored, bu~ if the use of road ends to get to beaches increases, the Town will have increased problems confronting it. Parking will be a problem, safety will be a problem, complaints from nearby residents will be a problem. If road ends are sealed off, complaints from the permanent residents will be a problem. SPECIAL PROBLE~. 'Groumdwater protection is no doubt our number one concern. Mad the zoning map been prepared with the aid of overlays, have a groundwater contour mapwould perhaps/changed the manner in which zoning has been applied, as would a soils map. Likewise, an overlay indicating wetlands, marshes, high and low tidal zones, 100 year storm tides, elevations, and fresh ~ ponds and marshes, placed on top of a~oundwater overlay map, would also provide the kind of refined detail which the existing zoning map cannot indicate,and does not adequately consider. Bluffs could be identified on the same overlay. Swimming pools are generally allowed only with a special exception. Considering the fact that swimming pools need not only water but also chemicals for sanitary reasons,~o pool should be permitted without being processed as a special exception cleared by the Town Board or the Plannlng~ Board in conjunction with the CAC. Perhaps pools near the shoreline should be required to contain salt water, not fresh water. The example of salt intrusion into an East Marion well. owned by the Greenport Water Plant~, which resulted from a dug canal nearby3should be enough to persuade you to include an absolute ban on dug canals, extensions of canals, or dredging to enlarge natural creeks such as the long thin arm of Richmond Creek. Along with salt intrusion, an ex- cessive amount of groundwater loss can also occur with digging smd dredging in coastal areas. POPULATION My first reaction on reading the proposed zoning code was that it was more suitable £or a Town o£ perhaps 100,0~0 permanent population. But there is no clue as to what the Town is considering for a target population in the year 2001, for example. The Master Plan Update, May 1984, by RPPW, states that we can expect about 25% more permanent population by 1995 and an increase of 110% of that number ~n summer population. That is only 9 years away. Based on a 20,000 population in 1985, my very casual arithmetic indicates a permanent population~_o£ about 25 or 26 thousand and a total population in the summertime of How much can our 52 to 54 thousand in 1995. And in 20017 limited end fragile aquifer support? SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING CODE ART. I, Sec. 100-13 Definitions The nes list of definitions is a vast improvement over the earlier list. I recommend that the following list We con- sidered, also. Many of these words appear in theAKoning Code and the others will be encountered in dealings with the various Town Boards and offices, and in RPPW documents. Bluff Coastal Zone Coastal Zone Management Common open space ~ontours Creeks Dunes Erosion hazard areas Escarpment Estuary Flood Plain Insurance Groundwater (see subsurface water supply) High water table Historic District (Area) Historic Landmark Marsh, fresh water Marsh, salt water Recharge area Recreation facility-public Or semio, public Salt intrusion Scenic vistas Setback. Soil erosion Soil permeability Steep slope Surface waters (1) Subsurface water supply Tidal marsh Tidal mstland Transient Vernal ponds Waterfront Water quality Waterways Water table. Wetlands, fresh Wetlands, salt Woodlands (1) No public recreation areas are identified on zoning map. * SURVEY FOR THE EA 2 . TOWN OF SOUTHOLD * II SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK DEAR RESIDENT OF SOUTHOLD TOWN: * SPONSORED BY THE * . LEAGUE. OF wOmEN VOTERS' . OF RIVERHEAD-SOUTHOLD How would you like the Town of Southold to look in the year 20017 That's only 20 years away! Where do we want to 9o? How are we to 9et there? The League of Women Voters has prepared this questionnaire to help the Town of Southold in its effort to update the Town's master Plan, which was adopted in 1971. Your responses will be tabulated and turned over to the Southold Town 8card and to the Planning Board for their consideration in revisin9 the master Plan which is a broad picture of the future of a Town. There are opportunities and problems ahead. As the Town grows, many pressures will develop: Where should we put new homes or business establishments? What do we think about our natural resources? What can we do about the quality and quantity of our limited underground water supply which relies totally on rainfall for recharge? We believe that your responses will be of value to the Town Board and Town Planning Board and we look forward to your replies. The last question is set aside for your additional comment. Please return the form, preaddressed and stamped for your convenience, by October 30, if possible. Simply fold the form so our return address shows, and tape it together. If you wish to remain anonymous, please black out your name and address. Thank you for your interest, your patience, and your cooperation. October, 1981 Shirley L. Bachrach, President L.W.V. of Riverhead-8outhcld I. PI. EASE PROVIDE T]~ FOLLOWING INFOR~IATION: 1o Your local Post Office zip code 2o Your age and sex: Ao18-35 ~l B.36-60 3, Check whether: AoSeasonal resident 4° Your occupation: AoAgriculture related B,Construction related CoEducation DoGeneral business E.Government employee F°Marine-related business G.Professional HoReal Estate I.Retired J°If retired, check former occupation also K°Other II. NOW YUCII DEVELOPMENT WOULD YOU REC0~END IN TI~ FOLLOWING AILEAS? (Check Column A, B, C or D for each item) A.Large B.Moderate CoLittle D°Don't know 1. A~riculture or related (1) 7~ (1) ¢Z (1) business 2o Co.ercial fishing I~/~ (2) ~7- (~) ~0 S, Discos and nightclubs (3/ lO 5, Light industry 6, YiscelIaneous business ~ }7~ 7, Motels, BoateZs~ ho~eZs ~ {7), 7 8. Other ~MN~r5 III. DO YOU FAVOR A FARM PRESERVATION PROGRAM? 1o State agricultural districts 2. Suffolk County program 3. Town sponsored program 4. No program 5. Don't know 6. Other ~O~T~ - I~' -2- IV. WH~T TYPE(S) OF HOUSING DO YOU REC0~END IN YOUR OWN C0MI~NITY ~ IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD? (~ultiple choice -check both columns) A.Your Con.unity 18 Other 1. Condominiu~s 2. Convert larger homes to apartments 9. Mobile home parks 4. Mobile homes on standard lots 5, Modular housing 6, Rental housing ?. Senior Citizen housing 8, Single family houses 9. Some large apartment buildings 10. Some small apartment buildings 11. None of the above 12. Don't know Vo SROULD THE TOWN OFFER SPECIAL TAX INCENTIVES TO ATTRACT APPROPRIATE YEAR-ROUND BUSINESS AND LIGHT INDUSTRY? A.Yes 7q No- B°Possibly .,.~ CoNo opinion /~ D.Don't know VI. IS IT IMPORTANT TO PRESERVE OR PROTECT ANY OF THE FOLLOWING? (Check Column A, B or C for each item) VII. Wt~T A.Very BoSomewhat C.No important important opinion 1. Flood plain areas (1)//7 ~. Historical sites (2)~--'~?' ~O (2)----~ 3° Houses or buildings of architectural Open space 6. Wetlands 7. Woodlands (7) /~- 8. Other KINDS OF PUBLIC RECREATION FACILITIES ARE NEEDED? //q 1. Bicycle paths 7/2, Fishing .~/ 3o Marinas /~4. Nature trails 975 o Park-picnic- playground ~ 6. Swimming pools (~ltiple choice) ~' 7. Tennis courts ..$0 8° Town beaches 105 9. Use of school facilities ~10o None of the above ~11o Don't know 12, Other ~Ol~t~lEff~ ND hnsw S VIII. SIt0ULD THE TOWN ESTABLISH A DEPARTMENT OF PARKS ~D RECREATION TO REPLACE TIIE PRESENT PARK DISTRICT SYSTEM? A.Yes ~'~ B.No 80 C.No opinion ~{ D.Don't know IX. SHOULD TI~ TOWN ADOPT REGULATIONS TO REDUCE EROSION OF FAR~ TOPSOIL BY ANY OF TIIE FOLLOWING MEASUI~S? (Multiple choice) ~ 1, Crop rotation I~ 2. Greater use of cover crops ~'~ 3o Greenbelts as buffer zones to connect open spaces ~4. Plant hedgerows ~d 5. None of the above ~O~6. Don't know 07. Other methods Off NT5 ° 27 No A swe - 5 Xo WOULD YOU t~ WILLING TO SEPARATE GLASS, NEWSPAPERS ~ ~T~S ~0Y YOUR 0T~R T~II FOR ~CYCLING? A.¥es /$Y D.No // C°No opinion D.Don't know -3- XI. WHAT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES WOULD YOU USE IF 'rtt~ WERE CONVENIENTLY SCIIEDULI~,n? (Multiple choice) XII. ~71. Local light-plane airport i· L.I.R.R. and bus · Other bus service _~4. None of the above // 5o Don*t know '' 6. Other ~I~T*'5- /~ IN GENERAL, WHAT LOCATION(S) WOULD YOU I~C0MMEND FOR T~ FOLLOWING CONSTt~CTION? (Check Col~ A and B for each item) A.New Business B.Light industry (i) lll (i) 5)lOq (6) 1. Adjacent to existing business or industry 2. Along major highways 3, In shopping centers or small industrial parks 4. Scattered around the Town 5. ~nere there would be least environmental impact 6. Don't know 7, Other C0~1~ - /~ XlII. SHOULD CLUSTERING OF HOUSES 1~ ENCOURAGED TO PROTECT OPEN SPACE SUCH AS W00DLAND~ IYATERFRONT AND FARYLAND? A.Yes ~ B.No ~/J' C,No opinion /2., D.Don't know 7 XI¥, WHAT BEGULATIONS COULD BE ADOPTED TO REDUCE SIt0H.ELINE EROSION? ~D1. il2. 3! 3o IO74. 21 8o Build bulkheads above high tidb line Build bulkheads at high tide line Construct jetties or groins Locate buildings well back from bluffs or shoreline Plant protective shrubs and dune grass Replenish beaches with sand Restrict use of beach vehicles Don*t know Other IV. DO YOU THINK THAT TI~ TOWN SHOULD ENCOURAGE MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THE LAYOUT OF ROADS, LOTS AND I~ILDINGS TO GAIN MAXIMUM SOLAR ENERGY BENEFITS? A.¥es [~ B.No ~ C.No opinion 2~ D.Don't know /~ Co e r8 - 8 NSw e$- XVI. ~IICtI OF THE FOLLOWING AKE NEEDED ALONG OUR SIIORELINE? (multiple choice) 12.2o /t76. ~,7. qo S. Access to fishing areas Business and conmercial Marine related commercial Electric generating plant Multiple housing Nature preserves Industries Parks and recreation 9o Private docks 10o Public beaches .~11o Single family homes 12o Limited development in all categories 13. None of the above -'--~14o Don't know 15. Other CO~EH~ - /2. X~II. SHOULD TI~ PRESENT AGRICULTURAL-RESIDENTIAL ZONING CATEGORY BE SEPARATED IHT0 AN AGRICULTURAL ZONE AND A RESIDENTIAL ZONE? CoDon't care /2 D.Don't know XVXXXo PLEASE ~a~mCX THE PROCEDUI~S YOU THINK W~JLD HELP TO PROTECT OUR GROUNDWATFJt SUPPLY. (Multiple choice) ~1. Build recharge basins, dry.ells and cisterns 7~ 2, Improve irrigation practices /03 3, Keep all saltwater wetlands intact ~-4, Large lot zoningl 2 or more acres /3~ 5, t~aintain woodlands lliMeter private wells ?, Plant groundcover to reduce lawn areas Preserve freshwater ponds, lakes and woodlands Protect watershed and drainage areas Reduce water consumption --~11, No opinion 12, Other ~)~P~T~ - 2~' XIX, WHAT ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES MIGHT ALSO REDUCE POLLUTION IN OUR GROUNDWATER SUPPLY? (~ultiple choice) ! 1, Build area-wide sewer systems · Create small wa~er supply di~tricts · Decrease fertihzer applications · Modernize old septic systems ~o Routine cleaning of septic tanks and cesspools ~6· Severely restrict new development /~-2~-~· Strict controls on pesticide types and usage ~78~ Upgrade and expand the Greenport sewage system ~ 9, Use organic and slow-release fertilizers /~10, Don*t know 11o Other ~0~5 - 2~ XX. HOW MIGHT ~0~ (IN A WATER SUPPLY FOR OUR TOWN BE OBTAINED IF THE YEASURES LISTED QUESTIONS XVIII A~D XIX) ARE INSUFFICIENT? (~ultiple choice) ~/1. Build a major public water supply in the Town 70 2. Desalinate sea water or brackish water ~[ 3· Purchase public water supply from outside of the Town __5 4, Recycle used water after treatment · Don't know 6. Other ~NT-S ~ 2'2. XXI. DO YOU THINK THAT ALL UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD MEET TOGETHER MOBE FREQUENTLY TO EXCIIANGE IDEAS RELATING TO PRESENT AND FUTURE PLANNING? AoYes /~5-' BoNo // C·No opinion /~ D·Don't know /~ XXIIo YOUR ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON ~HAT YOU LIKE MOST ABOUT THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AT PRESENT AND ON TOPICS RELATING TO THE FUTURE OF THE TOWN ARE WELC0~Eo SURVE~SI~NSE BY CO~NITY Mailed out * Received F. Island 19 ~ Orient 55 16 29% E.Marion ~O 7 17% Greenport 187 - 1 30 16% Southold 272 - 8 60 23% Peconic 31- 2 14 ~8% Cutchogue 159 - 6 33 21% N. Suffolk 21 3 14% Mattituck 230- 5 ~1 18% Laurel 21 - ~ 2 23% 1035 ~ ,j · TOWM-WIBE Returned RESPONSE by P.O. - 26 20.7% 1009 SUBMI'I~£ED BY THE SURVET CO~[I'rl'~.~: L.W.V.R.S. Shirley Bachrach Frank Bear Marie Johnson Jean Tiedke Lydia Tortora December 2, 1981 Mt. Supervisor, Mr. QShA~npsrs~,Membens of the Commission, ?fiends of the Town of Southold: I am Roger Bancroft, Fas~ President of the Peconic Bay Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. Mr. Nicholas Calrnes, President is in New York City because of the serious illness of an immediate family member. He has asked me to represent him and the Association Board of Directors. We are here to appeal the present proposed zoning of the area from Kerwin Blvd. east past Pipe's Neck Road, an area in- cluded in our direct interest. The proposed change is to Bi, a catchall letter which will include Heavy Industry. We want this area to retain its present Light Business designation. This is our general concern. A specific and immediately involved concern involves the North Fork Welding Co. This company was able to obtain a temporary variance from Light Business to Light Industry. The following statements refer to both general and specific concerns, not in- cidentally we feel sincerely that a concerned incorporated asso- ciation,representing some 120 families might well have been con- sulted before such major changes were proposed. is /. By its very historicity this part of Rt. 25/ the gateway to Greenport and the true East End, an erstwhile very beautiful part of the world. Once this was uncluttered landscape neigh- boring on Pipe's Creek and Cove, occupied by two school houses. Due to past negligent zoning, the area just west of Kerwin Blvd. has already been despoiled by a lumber company and a blacktop factory. Th~s "grandfather clause" inevitability should not be used as a justification for additional m~stakes. To the ~]%en~ possible this area sho~id be -preserved from any further depr6~tton. 2. No matter how disguised by fencing, projected buildings, etc. a Welding Factory is an eyesore. 3. Mr. Fred Schoenstein, a partner, has admitted that his factory should not be located where it is now, that it should be off the main highway. Within the past few months, North Fork Welding Co. has attempted to move, 1st to the former Ballan Ford Showroom and then to a location in the former shipbuilding area. Rather than · ~ acqumessng to a socalled inevitability perhaps the Planning Comm- ittee could assist in relocation activities for such companies. 4. This area in recent times has been given a Light Business designation. An exception, a temporary variance, for Light Industry, was given to the North Fork Welding Co, allowing normal welding within a two employee business. blatantly and admittedly as an illegal, employees, manufacturing floating docks, The Company is operating now heavy industry, with five repairing heavy trucks and trailers and the like. It is an illegal eyesore and our membership wo~ld prefer that the owners find a new location. 5. Our Associatoon is strictly a residential area on Rt. 25. There are 4 homes west and 2 homes east of this particular business. There is considerable evidence that even the initial variance was improper. One resident bought one of the old school houses and fashioned it into a retirement home, this, when the area was Zoned Light Business; now they are threatened with a Heavy Industry next door. 6. Another COnsistent history of such happenings says.that ~ecrease-~ property value, as heavy industry moves in. ?. Rt. 25 is adjactent to a large wetlands area. some of the most precious and scarce land in the world. It makes no sense to have a heavy industrial compound impinge on this view. ' Studies of the Town of Southold have shown that Tourism is our largest industry. A cluttered entrance to an increasingly beautiful village is illogical as well as unnecessary. We too believe that Article 22 should be restored to the Zoning Code. It is our understanding that the Tov,~ of ~outho!d ?:ill i~m~inently be ' ~ - ' lnvo=w~_~ in a ±a'~ult against the owners of the property east of our Association area, on the north side o~ Rt. 25, east of the Lutheran Church. This is another, perhaps even more flagrant violation of the Zoning law. We hope that our appeal will be given similar attention. The membership of the Peconic Bay Estates Property Owners Association urge you most sincerely and most logically to assist us in preserving what could and should be a most plctuesque area of our town. Mr. Supervisor, Members of the Board My name is Christopher Kelley. I am a member of the law firm Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley. I am here on behalf of Henry weismann and Frank Flynn who live on Tarpon Drive in Southold. My clients are deeply concerned about the proposed zoning for the Conkling Point area of Southold. In particular, the proposed marine business site. My clients have had an analysis of the proposed zoning as it relates to the Conkling Point area prepared by Frederick Reuter, an experienced land use planning consultant. We submit copies of his analysis at this time. I must preface my remarks by stating that at the time our analysis was prepared reference was made to the Young's Marina site as being slated for Marine Business which at that time included motels as a special exception use. Since that time, that special exception use has been deleted from the proposed code and according to the Town planner's comments on the Southport DEIS, the Planning Board has now recommended Marine-Recreation for the site and the applicant has agreed to comply with that district. Because of the similarities between the old Marine Business and New Marine Recreation zones, Mr. Reuter's analysis is still totally on point. As Mr. Reuter points out in his comments, the master plan update background studies show that the Conkling Point area is an environmentally sensitive area. The area is characterized by soils with a high water table and low permeability, with severe septic fields and home-site limitations and with poor drainage features. The area in general is also characterized by low density residential and open space land uses. As the Natural Resourse Inventory Map contained in the background studies shows, scheduled for the Young's island with the embayment the marine business site Marina site is essentially an to the west, freshwater wetlands across Sage Boulevard to the north and a canal-like inlet to the east. The Conkling Point Peninsula also has title marshes in three locations including on the embayment, perimeter beaches and in forest areas. The importance of these title and -2- freshwater wetlands is highlighted in the master plan background studies on pages 10 & 11 of the Environmental Inventory. At pages 19 & 20 of that inventory it is reported that Conkling Point is considered a significant wildlife habitat. Obviously, any intensive development of the area could have a significant impact on the quality of groundwater and on surface water quality in the adjacent embayment. In addition significant impacts on the fisheries resource of the embayment and Southold Bay could potential impacts Penny on the DEIS previously submitted to this be expected. A discussion of these is set forth in the comments of Larry for the Southport Development project Board. As the Board knows, the project proposed for this site is an extremely intensive combination of uses which are not compatible with the sensitive marine environment of the site nor with the existing or proposed zoning. The applicant, Southport Development proposes to expand the existing marina facility of 91 slips to encompass 121 boat slips and support improvements and to develop the balance of the site into an approximate 82-unit motel complex and restaurant facility seating 125 -3- persons. Our consultant's analysis of the proposed zoning for this site can be summarized as follows. Whether the old Marine Business Zone, which allowed motels by special permit, or the new Marine Recreation district is to be placed on the Young's Marina site, the same problems are presented. An expansion of the existing marina and the addition of a large motel and restuarant are far in excess of what the site can handle. Such a reccomendation runs counter to many of the policies and goals set forth in the master plan. The master plan states that the Marine Business category "is generally used for properties that front on the bays where there is extensive tidal flushing". Clearly, that is not the case with this site. Although the master plan specifically makes an exception and allows this intensive marine use on the Conkling Point site it does this under the presumption that such zoning will help "in meeting future water related needs", (Master Plan pages 12 and 13). However, a closer look at the numbers indicates that the existing 91 slip marina at Conkling Point represents very little more than 1% of the 1800 slips now available in the Town, and only a very major expansion could raise this percentage -4- to a significant share. Such an increase would hardly be compatible with the scale of the embayment or with the surrounding environmentally sensitive, low density residential area. Likewise, the marine recreation use is designated in the master plan for sites where "marine-related water-dependent uses are encouraged at appropriate locations on or near the coast and/or along creeks and bays where they do not negatively impact on residential neighborhoods or the natural environment". It is submitted that either of these zones, with their wide variety of commerical uses, are inappropriate for the Conkling Point area given the surrounding low density residential and open space character. Given the sensitivity of the area, the limited tidal flushing action of this embayment and the fact that the entire surrounding area is shown in the master plan as designated open-space use, it to force this type these other less the master plan, for low density residential and would be highly unusual and irregular of commercial use in the midst of intense uses. As shown by a review of all but 10-15 acres of land on the -5- Conkling Poing Peninsula are considered either for low density residence or open space. In contrast, the proposed Marine Recreation use for the site would allow by special permit, an indeterminate motel density which could amount to 11 units per acre. Conceptually, and in light of the g~als and purposes of the master plan, it would appear to be in the Town's best interest to limit uses on waterfront property to water dependent uses as opposed to water enhanced uses where there exist such strong environmental constraints as exist on this property (i.e., wetlands, limited tidal flushing, poor drainage surrounding low density residential and open space areas). Marinas need to be near water, restaurants and motels simply do not. In lieu of removing all water enhanced uses from the Young's Marina site, it is submitted that the Board should seriously consider changing the zoning of the Young's Marina site to either the Resort Residential A or a limited Resort Residential B. If the parcel is located in the proposed Resort Residential A district the motel on the site would be limited to a density more -6- in keeping with the area. In fact, the purposes stated in §100-50 of the code regarding the Resort Residential A district seem to more closely coincide with the nature of the subject area than those purposes connected with the Marine Business or Marine Recreation Districts use. For the Resort Residential A district, the Code states as its purpose: The purpose of the Resort Residential A (RR-A) District is to provide an opportunity for waterfront resort development in what are essentially low density residential areas at a density and character consistent with surrounding uses. This district would allow a motel by Special exception at a density of 1 unit per acre, more in keeping with the character of the area. To allow the existing commerical marina to continue in that zone, an additional special exception use would have to be added to the Code to allow a commercial marina facility. Currently the Code only provides for a marina facility for occupants, clients and guests of the hotel or motel. Similarly, the restaurant use would be severely limited -7- by the regulations for this the character of this area. district in accordance with As an alternative, a limited Resort Residential B district might be appropriate for this area inasmuch as a commerical marina is a specially permitted use in said district. However, if this were allowed on this site, we would submit that the density for the motel be limited to 1-unit per acre as proposed for the Resort Residence A district, inasmuch as the purposes of this district include allowing development "consistent with the density and character of surrounding lanes". In closing I would just like to read you the recommendation of Frederick Reuter regarding the proposed zoning for the subject site. He states, and I quote as follows: Read from pages 14-15 of Reuter Report. RKCO~KNDAT[OM The proposed Marine Business area injected into the low density residential Conkling Point peninsula area is not compatible or appropriate. It sticks out like a "sore-thumbs in · the context of the findings and planning goals, even though it is relatively small a~d seems to confirm the much less intense existing marina, pool and tennis club, and dwelling use. Further, the Marine Business site proposed cannot produce a significant benefit to the Town's economy, even if it were intensively developed. The upland area available and the embayment surface water area, which must be shared with other abutling owners, simply do not have the capacity for enough development, never mind the impact, to achieve such a significant increase in the economy. The proposed Marine Business development, if implemented will have a negative impact on both the low density residential neighborhood and on the natural environment. In conformance with the findings of the Background Studies and the planning goals, it may be noted that the Master Plan Update does not propose any similarly situated Marine Business sites, even on larger embayments and estuaries in low density residential neighborhoods. It is clear in the context of the Back, round Studies and the planning goals, on which the proposed Ma~ter Plan Update is based, that the Coukling Point peninsula is an environmentally sensitive, low density residential neighborhood. Its future seems to be assured as a result of current developments trends. Further, in accordance with the Update's recommendation for cluster development desirable open spaces are being preserved. Despite this established low density,residential character, the Master Plan Update could justify continuance of the existing marina as set forth in its findings. It is recommended that the Update eliminate water-enhanced uses, and intensive commercial water-related marine uses with a view to maintaining and enhancing the environment and'preserving the low density, residential character of the Conkling Point 14 peninsula. If any water-enhanced uses are to be permitt-ed, they should be severely restricted with ~eference to their impact and a clear accounting provided of the land area to be put to such If we look to the purposes set forth for zoning districts in the Proposed Zoning Regulations of April 1985,-the nearest comparable purpose would be that for the Resort Residential A District. However, it does not anticipate any commercial marina use, as a result, a restricted Resort Residential B purpose would seem to be the best recommendation to provide for the continuation of the existing uses. Therefore, it is recommended that a land use category be provided compatible with a restricted Resort Residential B District purpose with particular emphasis on consistency with the density and character of surrounding land use and on preservation enhancement of the environment. Further, it should be applicable only to the exis[ing marina, pool and tennis club and dwelling site. 15 FRANCIS J. MURPHY SUPERVISOR -SOL MAIN ROAD $OUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1800 (516) 765-1939 SYNOPSIS OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE for HAMLET MEETINGS JANUARY & FEBRUARY, 1986 -2- List of new districts A-C - Agricultural -Conservation District (Two acre minimum) R-80 - Residential Low Density District (Two acre minimum) R-40 - Residential Low Density District (One acre minimum) R-120 - Residential Low Density District (Three acre minimum) R-200 - Residential Low Density District (Five acre minimum) Residentiali, Low Density District (Ten acre minimum) I' R-400 - HD - Hamlet Density Residential District RR - Resort Residential District RO - Residential Office District HB - Hamlet Business District LB Limited Business District B-1 General Business District M-Rec - Marine Recreation District MB - Marine Business District LIO - LI - Light Industrial Park/Office Park District Light Industrial District -3- Purpose of each District Agricultural-Conservation A-C District Low Density Residential R-80~ ~-120~ R-200~ R-400 District~ Section 100-30. Purpose. The purpose of the Agricultural-Conservation (A-C) District and the Low Density Residential R-80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 Districts is to reasonably control, and to the extent possible prevent, the unnecessary loss of those currently open lands within the Town containing large and contiguous areas of p~ime agricultural soils which are the basis for a significant portion/of the Town's economy and those areas with sensitive environmental features including aquifer recharge areas and bluffs. In addition these areas provide the open rural environ- ment so highly valued by year-round residents and those persons who support the Town of Southold's recreation, resort and second home economy. The economic , social and aesthetic benefits which can be obtained for all citizens by limiting loss of such areas are well documented, and have inspired a host of governmental programs designed, with varying degrees of success, to achieve this result. For its part, the Town is expending large sums of money to protect existing farm acreage. At the same time, the Town has an obligation to exercise its authority to reasonably regulate the subdivision and development of this land to further the same purposes, while honoring the legitimate interests of farmers and other farmland owners. Low Density Residential R-40 District Section 100-30A. Purpose. The purpose of the Low Density Residential R-40 District is to provide areas for residential development where existing neighbor- hood characteristics, water supply and environmental conditions permit full development densities of approximately one dwelling per acre and where open space and agricultural preservation are not predominate objectives. Hamlet Density Residential (HD) District Section 100-40. Purpose The purpose of the Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District is to (1) permit a mix of housing types and level of residential density appropriate to the areas in and around the major hamlet centers, particularly Mattituck, Cutchogue, Southold, Orient and the Village of Greenport and (2) to promote the provision of lower cost housing in these hamlet and village areas, where provision of utilities exists or may be possible and desirable and where public facilities and commercial activities are available. -4- Resort Residential (RR) District Section 100-50. Purpose. The purpose of the Resort Residential (RR) District is to provide opportunity for waterfront resort development in what are essential low density residential areas at a density and character consistent with surrounding uses. Residential Office (RO) District Section 100-70. Purpose. To provide a transition area between business areas and low density residential development along major roads which will provide oppor- tunity for limited nonresidential uses in essentially residential areas. Limited Business (LB) District Section 100-80. Purpose. The purpose of the Limited Business District (LB) is to provide an opportunity to accomodate limited business activity along high- way corridors, but in areas outside the hamlet central business areas that is consistent with the rural and historic character of surrounding areas and uses. Emphasis will be placed on review of design features so that existing and future uses will not detract from surrounding uses. The additional uses must generate low amounts of traffic and be designed to protect the residential and rural character of the area. Hamlet Business (HB) District Section 100-90. Purpose. The purpose of the Hamlet Business (HB) District is to provide for business development in the hamlet central business area, including retail, office and service uses, public and semi-public uses, as well as hotel and motel and multi-family residential development that will support and enhance the retail development and provide a focus for the hamlet area. General Business (B-I) District Section 100-100. Purpose. The purpose of the General Business/Highway Business (B-i) District is to provide for retail and wholesale commercial development and limited office and industrial development outside of the hamlet central business areas, generally along major highways. It is designated to accomodate uses that benefit from large parcels o~ land, and that may involve characteristics such as heavy trucking and noise. -5- Marine Recreation (M-Rec) District Section 100-110. Purpose. To permit and encourage water-related recreational uses on waterfront properties that are located on inland waterways or creeks. Marine Business (MB) District Section 100-120. Purpose. To provide a waterfront location for a range of water dependent and water related uses which are those uses which require or benefit from direct access to~ or location in marine or tidal waters. Light Industrial Park/Planned Office Park (LIO) Distric~ Section 100-130. Purpose. The purpose of the Light Industrial Park/Planned Office Park (LIO) District is to provide opportunity for the location of business and professional offices, research facilities, industrial uses and similar activities in an open, campus-like setting in areas which are not appropriate for commercial activity or low density residential development. In this area such uses can be established in an attractive environment and serve both as a means of preserving the open qualities of an area and providing an area, adjacent to hamlet areas where such uses can be appropriately developed with suitable protection for ground and water surface waters. All uses must conform to Suffolk County Health Department standards. Light Industrial (LI) Distr~ct Section 100-140. Purpose. The purpose of the Light Office (LI) District is to provide an opportunity for business and industrial uses on smaller lots than would be appropriate for the LIO Light Industrial Park/Planned Office Park District. The pages to follow are copies of the Table entitled. Summary of Permitted Uses Accessory apartment lB existing one-family delached dwelling Agriculture (~ncluding accessory buildings) ? - P£P44ITTED SE - SPECIAL EXCEFrlON [by Planning Board) SE* - SPECIAL EXCEPTION (by Town Board) A -ACCSSSOR¥ RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE P P P P P P P P P P P p~ SE SE SE SE SE SE A A A A A A A SE P P SE P P SE P P P P SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE P P A A A A A A P P SE SE P A A P SE SE SE SE SE ,llding, electrical or plund31ng contractor's l/ustness or yard ~lldi~lgs, structures and uses owned or operated P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P A A SE SE SE SE /- ~--~ SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE P SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE A A A A A A A SE A A P SE A A SE SE SE SE SE SE SE P P pursuant to ~10~-31C Gasoline service station, partial self service SUMMARY OF pEP~IITTED USES BY ZONING DISTRICT SE SE P A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A SE SE P P P P P P P P P P P A A A A A A A A A A A SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE S£ SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE* SE* SE* SE* SE* SE* SE* SE A SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE P P SE SE SE P A SE SE SE SE* SE* SE SE SE* SE* SE* P P SE SE A SE SE SE SE SE A A P P SE* SE* SE* SE* M~tor vehicle, mobile home sales room or ou[door SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE P P P P P P P P P P P P P P SE SE SE SE SE Sg SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE A A A A A A SE SE P P A A SE SE A A A A SE SE SE SE SE Recreation facility, fully enclosed, co~ercia! Recreation facility for use of employees Repair garage Repair shop for householdt business, or personal appliances Research design or development la~oratory Restaurant, drive-in, curb service Or fast food Restaurant (except drive-in) SE P P SE SE SE S£ P P P P P P P P P P P P A A SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE P P A A A A A A A A A A A A A SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE P. P A SE A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A SE* SE* SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE P SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE P P SE* SE SE P SE P A SE SE P P SE SE SE SE SE SE P P