Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 PECONIC BAY ESTATES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. P.O. Box 366 Greenport, New York 11944 January 2, 1986 Mr. Bennett Orlowski Chairman Planning Board Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 RE: ~Hcoletti (vs) Schoenstein Dear Mr. Orlowski: It has come to our attention that North Fork ~lelding submitted an application for a light industry zone. - ;~e have further been advised that the Southold ~laster Plan for this area has been zoned heavy industry. Our association members are greatly disturbed over these events since it affects their property values. Je herewith formally protest any decision to change the zoning for ;4orth Fork Helding. 2e aware that we wish to appear before the Town Planning Board Hearing in order to voice our objections. HC:jp CC: Frank t.lurphy - Town Supervisor Victor Lessard - Exec. Admin. Bldg. Dept. Joseph Schoenstein - North Fork Welding Sincerely yours, ~res~dent PECONIC BAY ESTATES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. P.O. Box 366 Greenport, New York 11944 January 2, 1986 Mr.' Victor Lessard Executive Administrator Building Department Box 723 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Nicoletti (vs) Schoenstein Dear Mr. Lessard Thank you for the time you spent with Mr. Bancroft and myself on ~.~onday, December 30, and for your interest in our problem. Our association is deeply concerned that the rights of Lydia and John ~4icoletti are being violated and that there is evidence of the additional deterioration of their position. The Nicoletti's purchased their property of 50 Pipes Neck Road in good faith at a time when the neighborhood was zoned as light business. Subsequently, a "light business" two employee welding shop has burgeoned into a large "heavy" multi-employee industry - all this in violation of zoning regulations. The Peconic Bay Property Owners Association Inc. protests these violations and insists that town authorities put a stop to them. Although zoned light business, this is a residential neighborhood. There are four homes to the west of Mr. Schoensteins's ~elding Plant with the, Nicoletti's home on the immediate east. We will greatly appreciate any assistance protect the rights of our association and Nicoletti. your office can give us to its members, Lydia'and John i~C:jp cc: Mr. Frank Murphy - Southold Town Supervisor Mr. Bennett Orlowski - Chairman Lydia and John Nicoletti Mr. Joseph Schoenstein Si n ce ~el~ yo u~s, 1~icholas Carnes President Planning Board JEANNE MARRI~, private citizen I've just finished a quick review of the Master Pla- and your goals for Southold Town -It's all very nice but you are missing the big picture. You, in your re-zoning, are going for short-term profits without considering the long term economic vitality of SoutaChe. ~4~&~ ~1 your'~--"~~round. On the one hand you You have no co~/to aev op recognize the unique character of the North Fork and that agriculture,fishin~ and tourism are the economic base .and on the other hand you zone to destr( fishing by your concentration of building activity along the shoreline - and you will ultimately destroy touris~when the coastal waters are polluted and the ground water supply is gone. The owners of the large agricultur~l tracts will also not benefit when the demand for the North Fork is gone. We do have a~otential unifying concept - "the Unique Character for which there is and could be a great demand.~ The North Fork could be another Williamsburg, Va. for example - at~-ract~n~ tourists and our seasonal residents year round and providing $ for our local businessmen. I AGREE WITH THE GREENPORT?SOUTHOLD C OF C that there is little provision for resort hotels. What there is~is concentrated on the / waterfront where large development is not environmentally feasible, beca%~-~ of our water problems. WHAT IS REALLY NEEDED are some large inland tracts to be set aside for ~ or ~large resort hotels [Hilton/, Sheratorn, etc.) Hotels that have lots of open space and attractive landscaping and INDOOR SWIMMING POOLS~ TENNIS COURTS, RESTAURANTS, PERHAPS A THEATER, ETC. This is the way it is done in '~ t~.urist areas. The hotels offer jitney transportation to the hamlet boutiques and waterfront and other tourist attl actions. Special weekends throughout the Fall and Winter as well as summer could be arrange, perhaps in conjunction with the LIRR to a~trac~ the NYC affluent for a "get,avway"~ Our own residents could have arrangement through club memberships, etc. to use the hotel facilities (swimming, etc) at off-times. There are infinite possibilities for creative thinkers. A plan such as this with a concept!can provide a rationale for zoning and protecting of certain areas including the waterfront from over- development. It will keep the local business people happy, it can preserve open space and build our tourist base while assuring our year round and seasonal residents that the North Fork will not become another Jersey shore or suburban sprawl. By creative planning~ you can create a really unique get-away area - our natural features are already here and so are some tourist attractions. It has to be carefully ~n~ but it could be the answer,--~. ,0/[ -~ ~aa_/ ~/~3'r~c~;/'~' ~/~//~3 I would be happy to explore this concept further at another time. But at this time I just want to urge you to think long range plans and what you are building for the future when you consider zoning c~anges. Don't just think of the short term profits for a few when you can benefit the whole Town if you move carefully. I also think you would be advised to talk with your economic advisory committee before you are pressured by the developers into making serious mistakes with the North Fork. LWV TO TOWN BOARD February 4, 19~ The League of Women Voters urges the Town Board to undertake a program of public education about the proposed zoning law amendments - such as was done for the Master Plan - before you go further with the process of enactin~ the new amendments. The League believes that there must be well-defined channels for citizen input and review of government policies and programs and such has not been the case with the proposed zoning changes. We suggest that you publish the zoning maps, with rationale in the local newspapers, and that you xH-schedule well~publicized informational meetings for late March or early April. The League would be willing to assist in conducting these meetings r. perhaps with the NFEC ~ as we did for the Master Plan. I am here today because~ as a result of the ad placed in the Suffolk Times by the Greenport/Southold Chamber of Commerce, League phones were busy all weekend taking calls from people who wanted to know what was going on. These calls were from Southold Town taxpayers ~ both year round and seasonal - who were distressed that the Town was attempting to enact laws without fully disclosing to the public what changes were to be made. People living in sensitive shoreline 'areas in Mattituck, Cutchogue, New Suffolk and Southold were particularly upset The League believes that as voters and taxpayers, Southold citizens have a ritht to know all the.facts regarding laws that could affect their future water supply, water quality, and indeed, the very fabric of life that th- Master Plan proposes to protect. The League sees no reason to delay accepting the Master Plan. It is a guide for orderly development ? not a law. But we do urge postponement _ ~3~P,,.~.~ of enacting any zoning cnanges%untl± we have 'had a good town-wide dialogue. The League offers, to assist you in informing Southold Town residents in whatever way you feel is most enlightening and appropriate. Thank you. HOBART ROAD FEB 1 31986 $OUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971 516-765-:~954 February 12, 1986 Southold Town Board Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Master Plan - Marine Business and Marine Recreation Districts Dear Supervisor Murphy and Board Members: This letter, I hope, will clarify an inconsistency between the intent of the Master Plan and the current Proposed Zoning Map and Proposed Zoning Code as they pertain to transient motels in general and Young's Marina (Southport Development) in particular. When Southport Development was first proposed to the Planning BOard in May, 1985, it was consistent with the then draft Proposed Zoning! Regulations, dated April, 1985, prepared by Raymond, Parrish, Pine and Weiner. At that time, both the Marine Business and Marine Recreation districts allowed transient motels and restaurants. The Planning Board was in favor of the project and recommended the zoning change to the Town Board. During the scoping session on the Enviromental Impact State- ment for Southport Development, the Town Board notified us that Mr. Tasker, the Town Attorney, was make possible revisions to the Zoning Code at the Town Board's request, and that we should coHtact him to inquire whether Southport Development was still consistent with the Proposed Zoning Ordinance. In discussions with Mr. Tasker, we were advised that the Marine Business and Marine Recreation districts were, in fact, being revised. Transient motels would be permitted only in the Marine Recreation district, while in the Marine Business district this use was being removed from the Code. Southold Town Board February 12, 1986 Page 2 We then contacted the Planning Board, through Mr. Emilita, and were advised of the changes in the Code. It was our understanding that the Zoning Maps were being revised to reflect the changes the Town Board was requesting, and that the Town Board, in support of the Master Plan, in- tended to transfer certain properties, including South- port Development, into the Marine Recreation district. It seems, however, that the maps were released to the Town Board prior to those changes being made. The Zoning Maps as they stand now will not allow transient motels on sites designated as Marine Business, such as Port of Egypt and Young's Marina, but would allow motels in Marine Recreation sites, such as Goldsmith's Marine at the end of Hobart Road in Southold. I therefore request that the Town Board revise the Zoning Maps to show Young's Marina in the Marine Recreation district to better reflect the intent of th~ Master Plan in regard to transient motel use. It is our feeling, and the Planning Board's feeling, that the Young's Marina site is one of the most suitable for transient resort motels. ~4eph Fischetti.,\~ . Jr}~P.F. JF:mdh I cc: Southold Town Planning Board CHAMBER ¥ Orient East Marion Greenport Southold Peconic March 11, 1986 Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Members of the Board: My name is $ohn Berryman, I am the Treasurer of the Greenport- Southold Chamber of Commerce. I speak to you this day as a representative of the Board of Directors of the Chamber. A copy of my remarks will be given to each of you and the Town Clerk. In my hand I have a document entitled "Zoning Ordinance Amend- ments for Master Plan Update presented to the Southold Town Board on December 17, 1985". What is unknown about this proposal is who presented it to the Southold Town Board? Was it the consultants you hired three years and $70,000. ago? Was it the Southold Town Planning Board? Or was it a committee of the Town Board? An answer would be appreciated by our 256 members and other concerned citizens. Similarly, in my hand I have a document entitled "Proposed Zoning Town of Southold" with your consultant's name and address and dated December 4, 1985, stamped in the lower left corner is an ink stamp with the caption "Received - Town of Southold - Oan. 16, 1986". The question is, again, who prepared the maps? A reasonable assumption would be your consultants, but, no one can be sure, again, who was the compiler of the maps with the zoning designations thereon? The Directors have spent much time analyzing these two documents, which we hope are the latest proposals, are there any later proposals? Southold Town -2- March 11, 1986 Directors attended each of the so-called community input sessions. Frankly, they were unhappy with the format of the meetings. They expected that the meetings would be in the form .of a New England style "Town Meeting", with give and take between local residents and their elected town officials. Unfortunately, the meetings, whether by design or not, deni- grated into allowing those most affected by the proposed legislation to make a statement. Valid questions were forbidden, one Town Board board member, however, was perceived as receptive to gathering addi- tional information from speakers at the earlier meetings. The con+ sensus was that the meetings were a waste of time, attendance of 40 people at the earlier meetings would seem to buttress this impression. Before giving specific examples of those areas of the proposals which are viewed as (1) poor draftmanship or (2) outright expansions of regulatory powers by local government, some concerns should be considered, namely: (1) Why is the "accessory apartment" ordinance included in the zoning regulations when it has been adopted by the Town Board in separate legislation? (2) The Town of Southold already has a landmark preservation ordinance in place, this legislation was adopted several years ago after much local debate and compromise in which the Chamber of Commerce played an active role. The concept of "architectural review" was specifically rejected at that time. Why is this old idea being resurrected in the proposals now? Is this a form of "back-door" legislation? If you are going to include every ordinance in "The Code of the Town,of Southold" in the "Zoning Regulations", why not the "House Boat" oridDance, the "Horse Per Acre" regulation, etc.? Why not just restrict the "Zoning Regulations" to traditional zoning matters and leave the rest of the "social engineering" ideas to stand or fall on their own merits, after public exposure? (5) In 1984, I personally wrote to the Town's Public Document Access Officer for a copy of the then existing "Master Plan". I was informed that there is no "Master Plan", per se, which has been adopted by the Town Board. There is, however, a series of reports prepared over the years by various groups and consultants, some of these reports date back to the early 1960's. While never adopted by the Town Board, they are quoted by planners and special interest groups as gospel. It is sad to see a so-called "Master Plan Update" quoted with authority, again without this board formally adopting it as public policy. (4) From no person, group, or board have we heard about the economic cost of the proposals over the present regulations. Mow much will the proposals save the local taxpayers? If the local taxpayers are going to receive a reduction in taxes, we are sure the announcement to that effect would be loud and repeated. (5) A comparison of the existing zoning regulations and the proposed regulations show a fantastic expansion of the regulations. Southold Town Boat -3- March 11, 1986 Our President, Ronald Reagan, in 1980 ran on the platform of "Getting Government Off Your Backs", apparently, his message has not been heard in the Town of Southold in 1986. (6) More basic and important is the concept of unelected Town Officials exercising economic powers (through their inter- pretation of generalized, non-specific, regulations) over the financial plans of local citizens~ The proposed amendments contain few standards. They do give too much discretion to appointed officials. Harry Truman had a desk sign that stated "The Buck Stops Here". How do you hold unelected appointed officials accountable for their decisions without expensive recourse to the courts? I personally was told at a meeting of your board that you appoint the members of regulatory boards but, they act on their own. This, of course, is an ideal position to take, if they do good work, you appointed them. If they foul up, they are independent of you. Board Members! Are you willing to bite the bullet and accept the responsibility for the actions of the regulatory boards you appoint? Or, will you recommend the election of such members by the voters in the future? (7) The Directors of the Chamber are also concerned with (and have expressed their concerns to your Commerce and Industry Committee) about possible conflict of interests between Town regulators and their consulting contracts, the awarding of consult- ing contracts by the Town Board in the planning area without formal bidding, and the extension of such contracts, again without formal bidding. But these concerns are for future consideration by you and us and the public. Before getting to the specifics of the proposed regulations and maps, the Directors instructed me to tell you of a particularly disturbing development. One of our members, adversely affected by the proposed regulations, was counseled by his attorney not to make a public statement. The lawyer's apparent logic, as related by our member, was to the effect, "You might win the battle~ but you will sure as hell lose the war - We will try another way to solve your future zoning problem." In this day and age this is a sad commentary on local govern- ment. We do not know which of the proposals (the proposed regulations or the zoning maps) is the poorest in content. However,-I will start with the "Zoning Ordinance Amendments": (1) What is an "Historic District?" There is no definition in the ordinance, as stated before, it shouldn't be there anyway. (2) Why are "profit-making" golf courses (2 in our town) not allowed? Is this merely an example of poor draftsmanship? Or are open areas, forever green, not really needed in the town? (3) Why does the ordinance discriminate against tennis players (as opposed to backyard swimmers)? (4) Why are vineyard guest accomodations not mentioned in a Southold Town Boa -4- March 11, 1986 $70,000. study? Does Napa Valley exist? (5) How does a bureaucrat decide Are there objective standards or merely official in power at the time? if a use is "appropriate?" the "feelings" of the (6) Why are the vast majority of uses designated as a "special exception" rather than as a "matter of right?" Should the property right of the owner be subservient to the dictates of a "Big Brother?" Are the drafters of the regulations admitting that they cannot write a future - related ordinance? One that looks to the next few years or so? Will we be subjected to future "urgent" requests for "moratoriums" so that the alleged "planners" can do the planning they should have been doing all along? (7) How many off-street parking spots should be provided at residential yard sales? l, 2, 3, .... 187 (8) What guest house ("bed and breakfast" in the old days) can afford waterfront property? (9) How does a structure fit the "historic character" of the surrounding area? As stated before the whole concept should not be in the ordinance. But, for us uneducated mortals, please tell us what is "historic character" and how is it determined? (10) Are there more than two blocks in Southold Town where the "architecture" is the same? (11) How does a sign become an "historic sign?" (12) What is a "cultural feature?" (13) What are "aesthetic considerations?" Members of the Town Board, do that can be generated by such terms through 13 above? you appreciate the mischief as questioned in-items 9 (14) If all that I can afford is a development home, as opposed to a custom home, why cannot I have my own private backyard with all the amenities that go with a backyard? Why must the homes in the development be mandatorily "clustered?" Fifteen years ago when I lived in Fort Hamilton, my neighbors were 20 feet away. Why would anybody opt for similar spacing in Southold Town. Those who advocate clustering should first look at the homes in the Pebble Beach Development and then make public pronouncements about the advantages of clustering. If "clustering" is economical, let developers take the chance on doing so and let them suffer the consequences if they are wrong. But, let the "market" decide, not a bureaucrat. (15) Why must I use the Greenport water system if I bui~ a new home? Why must I pay $3,000. to hook up and pay water rates expected to increase 60% over current rates. Will it be able to supply me with water in the future? Southold Town Boa -5- March 11, 1986 Please don't tell us such use is mandated by the bureaucrats in the County Department of Health Services in the "regulations" they wrote. If you didn't mandate it, why are these regulations in your proposed zoning ordinance amendments? (16) Why is the Planning 8oard attempting to shield itself from liability suits arising in the site plan approval process? "If they can't stand the heat, they should get out of the kitchen." (i7) Why not require Town Officials to provide written reasons for their negative decisions? Expecially those negative decisions that costs the local citizen more money. The proposed regulations require such written reason from the Town Building Inspector. Why not all officials? Are they concerned with Article 78 worries because the boards may be exceeding their authority? (18) The drafter(s) of the "zoning ordinance amendments" forgot to delete many existing sections after they inserted new sections on the same topics. Is this just poor draftsmanship? Town Board Members! Enough is enough. By now you must appre- ciate that the proposed amendments were poorly thought out and drafted. Your next step is obvious. Let us now consider the proposed "Zoning Maps", that is, those stamped "3anuary 16, 1986." As a generality, many proposed zoning existing uses. we can state without fear of contradiction, designations do not conform to long-standing Let me give you a glaring example which relates to me person- ally as a golfer. Island's End Golf Course has been in Greenport since 1961, 25 years. All of you have been there at one time or another during the 25 years. For almost as many years, Cedars Golf Course has been in Cutchogue. Question: Why are the 110 acres shown as "R-40" rather than "LB", in the case of Island's End? Question: Did the person(s) who drew the maps ever go beyond Porky's Circle, or was it more convenient to sit in Town Hall and copy old maps? I know of one property, originally built as a factory and now used as a repair building/garage and storage area, which was in existence before zoning came to Southold Town, It is proposed that it be included in a "R-40" zone. Are the map drawers aware that they imperil the jobs of six men in their zeal to convert the town into a "new" town? Let me give you some more glaring examples which have been brought to our attention. The following are not in any particular order of importance, but each cries out for change. (1) Would you build a home next to the town dump? . Southold Town Boa~ -6- March 11, 1986 (2) Would you build a convention center/motel next to the town dump or next to a railroad track? (3) Many years ago, before some of you were born, Charlie Van Duzer established a business on the North Road, currently, the business is conforming. On the "proposed zoning map", dated April 25, 1985, it was designated "B-l", general business. Under a literal interpretation of ~he current proposed map designations and the provisions of the proposed regulations, Charlie's business and that of his neighbors would become non- conforming. Should Van Duzer Gas Service or its neighbors decide to enlarge their existing buildings because successful operations of their businesses dictate more space'is needed, such additions would be permitted as a matter of right under existing regulations. Under the proposed regulations and map, as presented, they would be prohibited - see subdivisions "A" of proposed sections 100-241 and 243. I have searched my vocabulary for an adjective to describe the draftin9 of this particular item. The most charitable word I could find was "incompetent." Members of the Town Board, since the last "informational" meeting the Chamber of Commerce has received numerous complaints concerning the proposed amendments and map, most of these came on coupons attached to the Chamber's public notice in the local papers. Upon checking these complaints, the Chamber found that many changed business properties were in existence before the Town had zoning ordinances. Yet, on the proposed map they are zoned "R-40". I need not tell you that this so-called "up-zoning" is a form of "inverse condemnation." That is, a form of "eminent domain", whereby the land owner is deprived of some of the value of his property by governments, such as Town Boards. The plight of our fellow businessmen, the farmers, is well- known by you. The Directors know that you know how the farmers feel about the proposed chan9ed zoning designations. They too are affected by "inverse condemnation." Whether done intentionally or inadvertently, the result to the property owner, be he farmer or small businessman, is the same. Is it possible that the map preparers redesignated the effect- ed areas without physically inspecting the areas? You have heard enough, so have we, it is time for re-thinking! Your two proposals need much revision - not only in specifics, but also in concepts. The Directors told me not to discuss the $?0,000. you have already spent for one consultant and the monies spent for another alleged planner, so I won't, now. My Directors recommend: (1) Send the proposed "Zoning Ordinance Amendments" and the proposed "Zoning Maps" back to the drawing board. Southold Town Bo~ -7- March 11, 1986 (2) Open to the public your discussion meetings at which you revise the current proposals. Not for public input, but for view- ing representative government at work. (3) As a minimum, record for future inspection the votes of each Board Member on each specific proposal. It is highly unlikely that each and every amendment to the ordinances and map (most of which are highly controversial) were unanimously agreed to. As representatives of the voters, you shouid be happy to make known your actions on matters which affect their pocketbooks. The "Heat in the Kitchen" affects everybody in the kitchen. Are each of you willing to stand up and be counted? At a future "Candidates Night", conducted by the Chamber each October, how will you respond to the question, "How did you vote on the resolution to require the recording of the votes on each specific change to the existing "Zoning Ordinance" and "Zoning Map?" (4) Place a "legal" in the local newspapers alerting effected property owners that you plan to change the use designation of their property so they may be informed about what is going on. After spending over $100,000., I am sure that $50. can be found to give such information. (5) In addition, Not like in the recent maps were at Town Hall, make the changes known to the general public. past in which the only available copy of the not in local libraries as advertised. (6) Conduct true town meetings before you conduct the mandatory public hearing. The time for "gathering information" will be over. Let those affected by your decisions question your prior decision- making in an open forum. (7) After the changes are made, appoint an "ombudsman" to represent the "little guy." This person would monitor the acti- vities of the regulatory boards and accept complaints from the "little guy." This representative will not need formal power. The glare of publicity is the only tool he/she will need. Thank you. CC: Town Board Members (6) Town Clerk Town Attorney Town Pianning Board Zoning Board of Appeais Daiiy News (Long Isiand Editor) Long Isiand Traveier/Watchman Newsday New York Times (Long Isiand Suffoik Life Suffoik Times Editor) MAR '[ 8 1986 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VI:3TE:ES DF I~IVERHEAD/SOLITH~3LD · Box 449, Mattituck, N.Y. March 14, 1986 To: The Members of the Southold Town Board From: The Board of Directors of the Riverhead/Southold LWV Subject: The Proposed Amendments to the Southold Town Zoning Law It has come to our attention that the Town Board may be considering a move to discard the proposed new zoning amendments and continue with the zoning regulations currently in effect. The League urges you not to take this action. Much time and effort and dollars have been expended on the revision of the Southold Town Master Plan/Zoning. And while the League pointed out some of the imperfections of the zoning amendments at the recent hamlet meetings, we certainly did not intend to give you cause for totally discarding the progress that has been made. It is our understanding that Ruth Oliva and Jean Tiedke, as members of the original Master Plan committee are proposing revisions to the proposed amendments. We suggest that you permit them to complete their revisions. We also suggest that you engage a specialist in zoning law. Spending a few more dollars on this type of consultant would, in the League's opinion, be a most cost-effective use of tax money. The League is confident that the Town Board will act in a responsible manner in this situation and carefully consider the following: 1. The revised Master Plan is a guide for orderly growth. 2. Some revision of the proposed zoning amendments is necessary to insure the protection of the Town's voters and taxpayers from unwise development. 3. The expenditure of a few more $ to hire an expeert in zoning to oversee the revision process would insure the Town's future and benefit the entire town. This expenditure would truly be money spent in the public interest. Again, we urge you to continue to see the Master Plan/Zoning through to completion. Please don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Jeanne Marrlner, President for the Board FYI Counselor at Law, Daren Rathkopf of Paine, Wood and Littlejohn in Glen Cove, L.I. is a zoning specialist. His law firm was responsible for drawing up the NY State zoning guidelines. Zoning Law must be carefully constructed by an expert, according to the guideline~ tc protect the Town.