HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/11/1987RECONVENED PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
FEBRUARY 11, :1987:
2:00 P.M.
IN THE MATTER OF "A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING
CODE AND THE ZONING MAP INCORPORATED THEREIN, TO IMPLEMENT, IN WHOLE
OR IN PART, THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MASTER PLAN UPDATE PREPARED
BY THE PLANNING BOARD".
Present:
Supervisor Francis :J. Murphy
Justice Raymond W. Edwards
Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh
Councilman James A. Schondebare
Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran
Councilman George L. Penny IV
Town Clerk Judith T. Terry
Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker
Town Planner David Emilita
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: The Town Clerk is'here and the public;stenographer is'
on her way so a record will be keptl. I would like to, before we offici'ally open
the public hearing, just to make a couple of statements. Any written comments
are included in:the record. They are entered into the record. All Town Board
members, the people who will' make the decision, have copies of them all, so it's
not necessary to read a letter that had been sent in; We're going to set this ~up
and we're going to start on my right over here, from the front to the back, and to
use the front mike, and on my left over here, we're going to start from the back
row and use the mike in'the rear. What we'd like to do is"ask three or people to
line up and get ready to speak. We'll go from the front mike to the back mike,
and this, I remind you, is a public'hearing, and the Town Board is :only here to
hear your comments. This~is~not a discussion. Nothing can be discussed at this'
time. All we're doing is ~taking. comments on what your feelings are on the proposed
Master Plan, the whole thing or part of it.: Okay, so at this~time, it'~ now 2:00
o'clock, I'd like to officially open this public hearing and I'll read the notice .....
This is reopening a previous public;hearing. It's a Notice of a Public'Hearing on
A Local Law to Amend the Southold Town Zoning Code and Zoning Map," postponed
from January 22nd, :1987. to reconvene on Wednesday, February 11th, :1987, from
2:00 to 5:00 P.M., and again'tonight from 7:00 to: 9:00 P.M. It's a "Local Law to
Amend the Southold Town Zoning Code and the Zoning Map InCOrporated therein,
to implement, in' whole or in' part, the recommendations of the Master Plan Update
prepared by the Planning Board," which hearing was recessed on January 2Znd,
1987, will reconvene on February 11th, and a copy of this Local Law has been
placed inall the local libraries and in'the Southold Town Hall. It has been duly
published in the newspapers as official notices, as well as ads and it has been on
the radio. So at this time, rather than go on with the reading of the whole Local
Law, we'd be wasting our afternoon doing just that, I would like to start by asking
the people in the front here, and go row by row, and get two or three there at the
mike and start giving us your input. Again, this is only input to the Town Board.
Page 2 - Zoning Code & Map 2/11/87
This'is~not a discussion with the Town Board. We're here to hear everbody's
comments. I'd like to ask the people in the back on the left to start lining up
at the microphone in' the rear, and what we'd have to do, you have to identify
yourself and then make your presentation. Thank you. Over on my right.
WILLIAM D. MOORE: Members of the Town Board, my name is'William D. Moore,
I~m an attorney-at-law with my office at 370 Terry Lane, Southold, New York. I
have been requested by Bruce Wolowitz Of Greenport Development Co. to present
to the Town Board what appears to Mr. Wolowitz to be a mistake or error in' the
Master Plan Update labeling portions of his 'property as a Residential' office District.
The Treenport Development Co.~s property known as Brecknock Hall, which consists
of 145 acres on the northerly side of Main Road (State Route 25), Greenport, New
York, has been rezoned several times in' the past. The rezoning as recommended was
used as a planning tool by the Southold Town Planning Board and was implemented
by the Town Board for the sole purpose to ensure compatibilitY with a flexible, long-
term development approach that makes economic:as well as planning sense. In effect,
the Town and the owners of this property - of which there have been only two -
Gus Schad and now the Wolowitz family - Greenport Development Co. - have in effect
entered into bilateral agreemtns which affect this ~entire parcel of land. In other
words, it's been a blend, the owner with covenants, restrictions and agreements;
the Town with agreements and proper zoning districts to accomplish a planned unit~
development for the entire property. I wish to give you copies of the covenants,
restrictions, and agreements with the Town, as well as copie~ of the zoning history.
I'm going to list very quickly ten exhibits. I'm going to give you copies.
Exhibit #1 is Scenic'Easement. Exhibit '#2 is Declaration of Protective Restriction.
Exhibit #3 is a letter of Howard Terry, Building Inspector. Exhibit '#4 is'Amended
Grant of Scenic Easement. Exhibit '#5, Amended Declaration of Covenants and
Restrictions. Exhibit '#6, Resolution of Southold Town Board. Exhibit #7, Letter
of Edward Hindermann, Building Inspector. Exhibit '#8, Water Supply and Sanitary
Sewage Agreement between the Village of Greenport and Greenport Development Corp.
Exhibit #9, Letter of Bennett Orlowski,'Jr., Chairman of the Southold Town Planning
Board. Exhibit #10, Letter from Mr. Wolowitz, which at this'time I'd like to read
very quickly.
"Members of the Town Board: Please consider this~letter as a formal objection
to your proposed rezoning of our 12.436 acres of property currently zoned for "B"
Light Business on the property commonly known as "Brecknock Hall" to Residential
Office (RO) District (Suffolk County Tax Map District 1000, Section 035.00, Block
01.00, Lot 025.000). I wrote you on January 16, 1987 concerning this matter, but
have not heard anything from you. The local newspaper contains a notice that you
are conducting a public hearing on February 11, '1987 for the purpose of considering,
in whole or in part, the recommendations of the Master Plan Update. I urge you not
to implement the Residential Office (RO) District for the 12. 436 acres of our property,
but rather leave it to the equivalent of the present "B" Light Business District. The
reason being, since ~1971 to the present, this portion of the property has always been
an integrated part of the Planned Unit Development with other portions of the property
as reflected by the easements and covenants mutually entered into with the Town of
Southold. These bilateral agreements with the Town of Southold in' planning the develop-
ment of the property certainly bind us as owner, and it 'must bind you as the governing
municipality. The unilateral change of the agreements on your part is :a breach of
contract and would therefore be illegal. This is why I firmly believe the designation
of this portion of our p~operty as Residential office (RO) District must have been a
mistake or a clerical oversight and that is the reason I wrote you a letter on January
16, 1987. I know you are anxious to pass the Master Plan Udate, but please consider
Page 4- Zoning Code & Map 2/11/87
EDWARD SIEGMANN: Mr. Chairman, my name is:Ed Siegmann, and I am representing
an organization by the name of CANDO. Just so everyone knows who CANDO is; it's
an organization that was formed 13 years ago by Gene Danieri to fight the condomin:~ms
that were supposed to be built in Mattituck on the Norris property. This:property
has been sold to a developer by the name of Carr, and I'm going to read you the
position of the people that live in that area, as to how they feel about what's being
done about the Carr property.
We know you have heard this story before. Because we believe only some of you
are listening to us, we will continUe to repeat it until We have all of your attention.
We also know you told us that there will be a chance to resolve this problem after the
Master Plan is :passed, but we really have no reason to belie~,e that because history
indicates it's better to solve problems before, not after the horse is:out of the stable.
First of all we are opposed to the hearings being held in January, because many of
the people affected by it :are not living here at this time. It Would make much more
sense if this were held in July. You seem to forget that the summer owners are tax-
payers also and should have a right to representation. We do belie~,e a Master Plan
is necessary, but not one with a lot of faults in:it.: We also believe that by passing
it With many flaws, all you are doing is :passing along your responsibility to your
constituents. Why should it ~be necessary for people to have to pay thousands of
dollars to fight somethign that is~detrimental to the community because you failed to
take care of the problem in'the first place. You know as well as we do that many
of the developers propose things that are not proper, but you pass that problem to
the people livirhg in that area. You cause them to hire lawyers, consultants, water
study engineers, traffic engineers and so forth. This should have been done by the
Town Board. l~nstead what really happens, the same engineering firm that is working
for the developer is also working for the Town. What chance do we have against those
odds? It's like shooting crap against yourself.
Now let us again make the request we made to you before. We want the HD zone
given to Mr. Carr in the Master Plan changed back to the two acres, the way the first
Master Plan Map indicated. We asked you why it :was changed in: future maps and
received no answer. We asked you who changed it 'and we received no answer. We
have learned upon our own investigation that after the first map was published the
Planning Board brought it ~to the attention of the Town Board that thirteen years ago
there was a court case on this piece of Norris property and out of fear of a law suit
from the' present owner the~ Planning Board was told to disregard the two acre zoning
and proceed as an HD zone. If this is true it is 'proof of what we said before, that
the responsibility of fighting the developer is~passed on to the public~ Let's make it~
clear. We are not opposed to condos as such, because we believe in:some instances
there is a need for them. What we do believe is 'improper is 'to give the right to a
developer to put: 95 codos on 27 acres right smack in' the middle of a well developed
one-family house communitY. Especially in an area that is 'surrounded by water.
Marratooka Lake to the north, Great Peconic Bay to the south, James Creek on the
west and Deep Hole Creek ont he east. The salt water intrusion into wells in that
area is well documented. The many wells that had to be moved further inland away
from the water because of salt water intrusion is'a matter of record. Why do we need
more proof that this:is no place to put a condominium complex? You are also well aware
of the traffic p~oblems this will cause going from New Suffolk Avenue into Route 25
on the corner where the Tolendal stands. Why must we spend money to prove this?
Furthermore, this is spot zoning at its worst for the benefit of one individual developer,
which we understand to be illegal under the law. If this is not enough proof, let us
take a look at the adjacent property to the Norris property. It is a parcel of 15 acres.
With the knowledge that the designers of the Master Plan had of this area, they labled
it a two acre zone. Mind you, these are two adjacent pieces of property. One you
zone HD and refused to change, and the other you labled two acres. The owner of
Page 3- ZOning Code & Map 2/11/87
this formal protest as a request to review our property and correct the mistake
so as to avoid any future dif~culties in this 'matter and allow us to proceed with
the comprehensive development of the property."
I'd like to kill two birds with one stone ifil can and read another presentation
on behalf of Herb ~andel.
WILLIAM D. MOORE: (Presentation on behalf of Herbert Mandel.) I am referring to
his~38 acre piece of property located between Boisseau Avenue and Yennecott Drive
in $outhold. Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-55-6-15.1. I would like to submit'
.as an exhibit a photo~pyof that portion of the proposed zoning map on whicl~ this'
property is ~located. (Mr. Moore submitted color-coded map to each member of the
Town Board.) The area colored in orange is~Mr. Mandel,s piece of property. The
area colored in'yellow shows the proposed R-40 zoning of the surrounding properties.·
As you can see the R-40 zone wraps around three sides of this~property and is
immediately adjacent to it On two sides. The red hash marks mark the area within
one-half mile of the hamlet of Southold. With the benefit of the map before you I
would like to point out why the proposed R-80 designation f~r this piece of property
is inappropriate: First: The Master Plan is ~founded and developed upon the theory
that development inthe Town of $outhold should be focused in and around the exist-
ing hamlets. This ~theory is 'reflected in the purpose clauses preceding each of the
proposed zoning districts. The purpose clauses act as a justification for that particular
district. For example, "The purpose of the Iow density R-40 District is to provide
areas for residential development where existing nei§hberhood characteristics, water
supply and environmental conditions permit the full development densities of approx-
imately one dwelling per acre where open space and agricultural preservation are not
predominate obj~ectives." With respect to Mr. Mandel's property, the properties in
the immediate vicinity of the subject property range in size' from approximately 14,000
to 22,000 square feet. As you can see on the map, the proposed zoning for the
surrounding properties located along Boisseau Avenue and Yennecott Drive is R-40.
Mr. Mandel's property adjoins both of these areas proposed for R-40. There is no
reason why this piece should not be included inthat designation. The property is
located close to the hamlet of Southold and is served by the Greenport Water District,
and the property itself has a more than adequate water supply. The R-40 density is
both appropriate and feasible because the criteria'which justify this ~densit¥ are
satisfied in~all respects by this property. Second: The proposed Master Plan also
includes a Hamlet Density Residential District the purpose of which is~"to permit a
mix'of housing types and level of residential' density appropriate to the areas in~and
around the major hamlet centers and to promote the provision of lower cost housing
in these hamlet and village areas, where provision of utilities exists," Again; as you
can see by the map, Mr. Mandel's property is located within one-half mil~ of the hamlet
of Southold and as such should be considered as property to be appropriately developed
in a densit~ greater than the proposed two acre minimum. We ask for inclusion in the
R-40 District surrounding this property and are willing to forego a future request for
the hamlet density designation, as we believe the property can best be utilized for
one-acre lots. The proposed R-80 designation for this ~property is simly inCOnsistent
with the theory upon which the Master Plan was based; namely, that increased densit~
should be permitted and encouraged in the hamlet areas leaving outlying areas under-
developed. We, therefore, request that the Town Board revise the proposed zoning
map to include this property in the R-40 District.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay, thank you. In the rear. There are plenty of seats
up front for anyone who is standing up.
Page 5 - Zoning Code & Map 2/11/87
the 15 acres is'now inthe process of having a plan reviewed by the Planning Board
for seven houses. What is the justifii:ation or Iogic~to this kind of reasoning? How
can both pieces of property be zoned correctly when they are side by sid~ and o~
at two acres and the other HD? Once again we see its a developer who owns the HD
property.
Now let's take a look at what the Suffolk County Planning Commission recommended
to our Town Board 13 years ago on the Carr property. Then known as the Norris'
property. On November 8th, :1973' they recommended disapproval of the down zoning
and listed the following reasons why: Number 1: While consideration of the clustering
concept on the entire land holdings of the petitioner is 'welcomed, no attempt should be
made to down zone portions thereof to allow an increased density to effectuate such a
land development patter. Number 2: An increase in density would tend to adversely
affect the limited underground fresh water supply on the North Fork and establish a
precedent for the continuation of such a practice. Number 3: It is inCOnsistent with
the low density single family residence patter of zoning in the locale. Number 4: It
would tend to establish a precedent for further down zoning in the locale, especially
along New Suffolk Avenue. Number 5: It is 'inconsistent with the Town Master Plan
which designates this area for Iow density single family residence development.
Ignoring this, our Town Board 13 years ago passed the down zoning. We are
asking you to reconsider: the Suffolk County Planning Commission's findings and
correct the mistakes your predecessors made. The time has come for you to get on
the side of your constituents and let us fight this :spot zoning together. Mr. Carr
has one thing in mind, to ignore the proper development of Southold and squeeze as
much profit as he can from a 27 acre piece of property.
Now let us~ take a look at a letter that was sent from the Suffolk Health Depart-
ment to H2M, signed by Dennis Moran, Principal Engineer: "Established Departmental
Policy for implementation of Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code requests
that any new community water supplies to be dedicated to the Suffolk County Water
Authority, or a Town District. Southold Town has authorized the active in~'olvement
of SCWA, therefore the project should be coordinated with the Water Authority."
After reading this we want to let you know we do not care to be used as guinea
pigs in the struggle for Suffolk County Water Authority to get its foothold in'Southold,
to supply water to areas that are affected by condominium projects that could not build
here if they did not have Suffolk County Water Authority to supply them. When our
wells go bad, will it be necessary for us to pay to tie into their:systems? Now is the
time for the members of our Town Board who say that zoning controls development and
not water supply to prove it.
Now, let us turn to CouncilWoman Jean Cochran, and remind you of something
you said when you cast your vote against continuing the study for the airport.' You
said, "you have traveled from Laurel to Orient and could find hardly anyone in favor
of the airport. That you were elected to represent the people and you felt obligated
to do so." We listened to you that night and we respected you for that decision. We
ask you to do the same thing here. Look at the property we discussed, talk to the
people in the area, and when you find over 90% opposed to it, vote to change the zone
to two acres. Sure you will find some people in favor of condos, but even those will
tell you that they do not belong in this 'sensitive area. Even those small business men
who are in favor of dense population to increase their business will~find that they will
be mistaken. When the population gets dense enough and the Genoveses, and the Flowe~
Times, and the chain stores come, they will be no longer able to compete.
Thank you for hearing us, and we hope we can work together to stop some of
the unreasonable development instead of working at odds.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Ed, would you mind, could we have a copy of that statement
too ?
Page 6 - Zoning Code & Map 2/11/87
MR. SIEGMANN: I have a copy for you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Would you give it to the Town Clerk here.
And please, when you address the Town Board, please be sure to identify yourself
and speak slowly so we can pick the name up. Jeanne?
The balance of this ~hearing was recorded and will be transcribed by Sheila Pariser,
Modern Shorthand Reporting Agency, and ~will' be added to this~transcript.
Judith T. Terry ~/'
Southold Town Clerk