Loading...
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