HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/18/1988PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLO TOWN BOARD
October 18, 1988
3:35 P.M. & 7:35 P.M.
IN THE MATTER OF: THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WITH RESPECT TO A PROPOSED "LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE SOUTHOLD TOWN
ZONING CODE AND ZONING MAPS INCORPORATED THERIEN, 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
Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran
Councilman George L. Penny IV
Councilwoman Ruth D. Oliva
Councilwoman Ellen M. Larsen
Town Clerk Judith T. Terry
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: This is a public hearing on the Final Generic Environmental
Impact Statement with respect to a proposed "Local Law to amend the Southold Town
Zoning Code and Zoning Maps incorporated therein, to implement, in whole or in part,
the recommendations of the Master Plan Update prepared by the Planning Board".
The reading will be done by Ruth Oliva.
COUNCILWOMAN OLIVA: "Legal Notice. Notice of Public Hearing. Notice is hereby
given that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at
3:35 P.M. and 7:35 P.M. on Tuesday, October 18, 1988, at the Southold Town Hall,
Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement
with respect to a proposed "Local Law to amend the Southold Town Zoning Code and
Zoning Maps incorporated therein, to implement, in whole, or in part, the recommenda-
tions of the Master Plan Update prepared by the Planning Board". Notice is further
given that the comment period with respect to the aforesaid Final Generic Environmental
Impact Statement is from September 21, 1988 to October 20, 1988. SEQR lead agency
is the southold Town Board. Copies of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement are
on file in the Office of the Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold,
New York, and may be reviewed during regular business hours. A copy has also
been placed in the Floyd Memorial Library, Greenport, the Southold Free Library,
Southold, the Cutchogue Free Library, Cutchogue, the Mattituck Free Library,
Mattituck, and the Fishers Island Free Library Fishers Island. Dated: September 20,
1988. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk." I have an affidavit of publication
Page 2 -
from the Suffolk Times, an affidavit of publication from the Long Island Traveler-
Watchman, and also an affidavit from Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk, that it
was posted on the Bulletin Board. No further communications.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Ruth. You've heard the official reading.
At this time I would like to open it up. I would like to ask anyone who would
like to address the Town Board to please use the mike, identify yourself, and
let us hear what you have to say. Starting on my left, is there anyone here
who would like to address the Town on our proposed Master Plan? On the environ-
mental aspects of the Master Plan?
THOMAS LOWRY: Tom Lowry, New Suffolk. I am here this afternoon in a
different mood than that which marked by last appearance before the Board.
Then I was angry, and now I'am thoughtful. The change has been brought
about because I have learned that passion is not enough to change something.
Nor is a petition with over a hundred names on it. Nor is plain common sense.
What is at stake is a zoning change in the Master Plan map of New Suffolk,
two blocks which are to be zoned as HB, Hamlet Business. Dave Emilita's
response to all ny passion and common sense and my having a lot of New Suffolkers
at my side was this, "The Hamlet Business designation on the proposed zoning
map in New Suffolk for the two blocks is in agreement with the adopted Land
Use Plan." I am not at all certain what "the adopted Land Use Plan" may
be, but I will do the best I can with the materials I have available. First,
the DGEIS says (p. 61) that most of the allowed growth will be restricted to
the hamlets which are better adapted by the "existing infrastructure" to cope
with further development (some might say, overdevelopment). At another place
(p. 11) the DGEIS says" within the areas designeated as Hamlet Commercial,
retail uses predominate." In the case of the so-called HB area in New Suffolk,
that's just not true. In one of the two blocks there is a moribund store, a
bar, and a seasonal restaurant, and these are on sites mainly contiguous with
the buildings themselves. That is the sites are not much larger than the
building. The rest of the area is either vacant or residential. As for the so-called
infrastructure which is supposed to lend the area to commercial development,
there just is no infrastructure. The potential developer of the North Fork
Shipyard who has (you might say) looked into the matter, proposed a hi-tech
RO plant and a fancy denitrification plant for his project. No existing intra-
structure there. Now, as I understand it, the Master Plan's rationale is to
Page 3 -
intensify further the existing hamlet business areas, and then, very carefully,
to allow up to four dwelling units per acre in the surrounding areas, when
there is enough water for wells and for efficient septic systems. All this is
to keep the Main Road and the North Road from being overdeveloped. This
Master Plan is really pretty late, isn't it? What New Suffolk faces is this:
an enlarged HB area which will necessitate underground public utilities, and
then further over-development of its tiny residential area, which will then require
more public utitilities. And just who is going to end up paying for these utitlities?
Not just the New Suffolkers. This prospect requires more than a two and one-
half line response in the FGEIS. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Th~nk yo~, sir. Is there anyone else on the left? In
the back: Mrs. Rafferty?
NATALIE RAFFERTY: My name is Natalie Rafferty, Fishers Island Conservancy.
I want to thank you for welcoming us. Nina Stanley, and myself, from Fishers
Island. It's very kind of you. We seem to turn up rather often. We enjoy
coming over and hearing your offers. It's always a great help to us from out
of town. Forgive me, I don't know if I'm going to repeat myself or not, but
in the last month we have read chapter 44 of the Environmental Review Town
Code plus the State Environmental Conservation articles related, and I think
this is part of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement. We have been
given State protection through classification one "an Island of Unusual Sensitivity."
and assume that you were referring to that section in 44.4 types of action,
consistent with 617.12 criteria therein. See FGEIS your comments- attached
herewith herewith B and C our comments on FGEIS, which we,and also with the
help of Charlie Fergurson, with the Fergurson Muesum, has some comments
on. Although you have clearly put a mammoth amount of work into planning
the final chapter 100 zoning update plan, there still are zoning definitions that
are not applicable to Fishers Island. Development and Building, as you describe
it, has a greater impact on Fishers Island because our island is such a small
remote land mass. We have many more habitats- birds, wildlife, sensitive fish
nursery areas, different soil conditions and Wetlands (over 90), pristine glacial
pockets and moralns than mentioned in your FGEIS which should be recognized
in your Zoning Update Plan. The whole island should be declared a barrier
island of unusual sensitivity, along with perhaps all of your Town of Southold
islands of similar characteristics. More reasons for considering present zoning
categories too dense for us are that we are concerned about reaching a satura-
Page 4 -
tion point with sewage septic systems, with no provision for protection for
our open reservoir system other than wetlands regulations. Harbor coastal
protection where increased density can cause sand washouts and pollution from
boating activity and these are sensitive areas to crustacean beds as well as
deteriorating shorelines. Perhaps all our zoning should come under exceptions
and variances. We are all interdependent on this small island and care about
impact. Public hearings contribute greatly to forming island policy for residential
as well as light business zoning and such hearings should include making decisions
for the entire island. Areas in the update still not addressed are: (this may
not apply to this hearing) 1. Definition of towers permitted, (these are suggestions).
Definition of towers permitted, both for residential use, which appear to become
a third floor, and metal high structures which can be a menace in heavy wind
storms and their non-scenic or view obstructing possibilities. 2) Definitions
for use of attached garages and guest houses. Adds to a tremendous amount
to our density. 3) Mining or removing stone and pebbles from beaches and
island natural coastline. A great concern to us. 4) Defining side yard and
buffer areas on residential small and large lots and business buffer green zones.
Larger for larger buildings and lots suggested. And now I have see page
A for additional environmental wording to be included in the Master Plan.
Respectively submitted, Natalie R. Rafferty, Vice President, Fishers Island
Conservancy. For what it's worth, may I hand it in?
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Mrs. Rafferty, we appreciate you two
ladies coming here today. Anyone else?
HERBERT MANDEL: My name is Herbert Mandel. I feel that it's important to
remember that the SEQRA Handbook states that a Generic E.I.S. is a conceptual
document and that it is inappropriate to reference site specific information as
was done in the Draft Generic Impact Statement. Such a conceptual document
should have addressed overall .impacts of the Town's Master Plan to include
such items as traffic, water supplies, public services such as school and police,
and especially requirements of increased service type businesses that a nearly
double the population would result in a need for. Reference is made to 617.15
Generic Enviromental Impact Statements, sub-paragraph (b): "Generic E.I.S.'s
and their finding should set forth specific conditions or criteria under which
future actions will be undertaken or approved, and shall include procedures
and criteria for supplements to reflect impacts." Nowhere can I find in the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement the Final specific conditions or criteria
Page 5 -
under which future actions shall be undertaken, approved, and/or submitted.
For example, if this Draft Envirionmental Impact Statement is complete and ade-
quately covers environmental impacts for rezoning of a parcel for hamlet density,
then the supplement for the site specific impact will be limited to those items
that are only site specific and not general in nature, such as impacts to traffic,
loss of agricultural land, schools, hospitals fire departments and so forth. The
fact that this Generic Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement does
not include the required criteria for future actions, in our opinion makes it
incomplete and does a disservice as well as potential economic hardship to those
that, for example want to provide affordable housing projects within the proposed
hamlet density. We request that a supplement to the Final Generic Impact Statement
be provided to provide such specific conditions of criteria under which future
actions will be undertaken or approved, including their appropriate procedures
and relative impacts. Affordable housing districts should be given consideration
because under the proposed master plan such districts would be forced to prepare
D.E.I.S. for each specific site at substantial time and cost. It may be helpful
to note that under the State Environmental Act, effective July 1, 1987, the
applicant is required to include such generic statements as might effect traffic,
water availability and community services such as police, schooling, fire, hospital,
etc. It is also good to remember that when a final G.E.I.S. has been approved,
that no further SEQRA compliance is required except for specifically unaddressed
items such as wetlands. Because of the failure on the part of the Generic
Statement now under public scrutiny to encompass the required impact statements
indicated, we are concerned that the Town would have an incomplete, unsatis-
factory basis for the proposed master plan; also that it would be subject to
substantial suits should they accept the generic environmental impact statement
proposed. The omitted items must be included under the law. Thank you
very much for your time.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir.
HERBERT MANDEL: I'd like to leave a copy.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Sure. Is there anyone else on the left, who would
like to address the Town Board? (No response.) Anyone in the middle? Frank?
FRANK BEAR: I'm Franklin Bear. I have written something, which looking
over makes me wonder how I could have done it. Some of things which I have
said in it I want to include in what remarks I'm going to make. I am concerned,
very deeply, and others are too, about the fact that these proposed zoning
Page 6-
changes have not taken into account of the environmental impact of much of
the Master Plan, which exists today. As time is going on since the Master Plan
was first drafted five years ago, changes in that Master Plan have reduced
the value of the plan and created more environmental problems with zoning.
Some of the zoning for marinas and other things. Some of these things need
to be taken into consideration. The vision of the Master Plan done before a
zoning change, or zoning changes, are adopted. For example, as I drive along
the Main Road, or the North Road or most any other street in Southold, I sense
the need for the Town Board to act now, with a real sense of urgency. 1. To
protect those farms which we can see behind those rows of houses. 2. To avoid
some of the strip zoning permitted uses along our fragile creeks and bay fronts.
and to prevent more and more development which not only threatens our rural,
maritine way of life, but also plays havoc with our drinking water. It has
been discouraging over the last five years to watch the Town Board create
more and more deterioration of the Master Plan proposed by RPPW in 1983.
No doubt changes needed to be made in the original version, but for the better,
not for the worse. Recommendations made by an advisory committee for such
improvements have been ignored. The ambitions of developers and their allies
in related businesses seem to have served as guidelines for changes in the
Master Plan from one version to the next. Why not put a temporary barricade
to the rush which is going on to get as many developments as possible in the
works before the rules for development are, hopefully, changed for the better
in order to keep Southold from becoming a mirror of much of western Suffolk
and Nassau County? We heard here this morning, how so many sub-divisions
are in the works one way or another at one point, and this is happening while
we are deciding to make a zone change based on the Master Plan which now; or
a version of the Master Plan; which now is before you. I hope that we can
take a good look at this. This Master Plan, which needs to be started again,
about where it was five years ago. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the middle, who
would like to address the Town Board? (No response.) Anyone on the right?
Alice?
ALICE HUSSIE: I'm Alice Hussie, President of the League of Woman Voters
Riverhead/Southold. The League of Woman Voter Riverhead/Southold has not
been convinced that this Final Generic Environmental Impact Statemnt is an
improvement on the original. The problems are still there, and the very few
changes certainly don't answer the many questions and apprehensions raised
Page 7 -
by the League and the others who spoke to the issue in April. In our comments,
we pointed to an open-ended sentence regarding applications to develop more
than 100 units. Your reply, or' your representatives reply to me, was, "Calling
for a limit on project size in the Hamlet District prevents an out-ofqscale development
from being proposed. However the limit needs to be set high enough to make
affordable housing projects feasible." The GElS never mentioned affordable
housing in the Section 6 on Hamlet Density. The text and the explanation
do not fit. Your reply regarding Village Lane in Orient is confusing, also.
It said "This area will be returned to the current designation for that zone
M-I." The current designation is "Light Business", which does not include
boat yards, marine engine repair and special exceptions such as recreational
clubs and mariculture uses, which are expansions of present use, and yes,
I do know that the Orient Yacht Club is there now. By your own explanation
and admission to Freddie Wachsberger, "The limited land area available here
is felt to be too limited to continue to propose it as an M-11 and is now recommended
as "M-I" To allow a boat yard and engine repair shop, does not appear to
fit into your own observation as to a limited land area. We repeat our original
objections. The GElS is inadequate in scope, resolve and language. This
is a serious document and cannot be open to subjective interpretation. Thank
you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Alice. Anyone else on the right, who would
like to address the Town Board? Anyone else in the audience, who would like
to address the Town Board? Mr. Lowry?
THOMAS LOWRY: I've been reminded of my obligations, when I see it in spite
of the reservations that I have about the GELS, I really think,it is absolutely
essential that the Master Plan be put into place, and really the sooner the better.
I hold with Frank Bear in what has happened in the last five years. It looks
more and more like North Conway, New Hampshire every day, and that's not
good. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Anyone else who would like to address the Town Board?
BEN SCHWARTZ: My name is Ben Schwartz, and I live in Cutchogue on Fleets'
Neck. For the past three years, I've been attending law school in Westchester
County, and I've just graduated with a concentration in the areas of environmental
law, property law, and government law. I came back out to the North Fork
yesterday, and tried to prepare myself for this meeting. As usual the local
library tried to be very helpful, but wasn't. Unfortunately most librarians
Page 8-
don't really understand the environmental impact statement process, and I
sympathize with them fully. I've studied it for three years, and I'm sure that
I don't fully understand it. But I do have a gripe on what it has been and
also what it can be. The key it seems to me, is the lead agency, officials
who are in charge of the process, who can really shape the process with more
impact, more importantly, maybe, than the Department of Environmental Conser-
vation or legislatures that intially set up the laws. One interesting experience
I had when I went to the librarian and asked her for the plan, she said "Well,
which part are you interested in? Everyone is interested in one specific part,
and which part is it that interests you?" Well, I have come to look at the whole
plan, and I suggested that it's neccessary for more people to do the same.
I think that a master plan is something for the community, and every part
of it effects and should interest everybody in the community. I don't have
too much more to say, because I don't know really exactly what is going on
here. One option which is open to the Town Board at a public hearing like
this is turn it into a public speaking, and hearing. I much prefer more of
the give and take thing. I would like hear the Board making some statements
as to what they think is of importance here, what the issues are and where
we stand on them. Perhaps an ortunity for some questioning. I regret that
I'm terriable ignorant with respect to the current state of the law in Southold
Town. I'm not clear that we do have a real master plan. I do know that the
terminologies master plan, managers plan and zoning law are used inappropriately
fifty percent of the time. I believe what we are calling the Master Plan here
is really just part of the zoning law. While zoning is an inportant part of land
use law, the zoning process is variances to the zoning plan. The zoning plan
can be called a plan also. It's supposed to set out a scheme for the entire
community. That's why you have the prohibition against spot zoning. It's sup-
posed to apply to everything. But the zoning never was, and never will be
complete as a land use program. For land use law,we also need things like
sub-division planning, which is separate from zoning. Something that works
with zoning, but is different. Site plan, another method that's used along
with zoning. Or innovative types of zoning, perl~ormance zoning. Along with
the variances, you have special exceptions, and then some other new methods
of controlling the land use, like linkage fees, and transfer taxes on land, I
think should be considered in $outhold Town. I have traveled fairly extensively
halfway around the world, and I don't know of any other place that has the
rich natural hertiage and cultural potential that we have here in Southold Town.
This is a wonderful area. We have a wonderful political and legal system in
this country, and yet it's not perfect. That should be the understatement of
Page 9 -
the century, I think. Some people say that it's the best in the world. And
I think they may be right. I'm not sure exactly what the point of making that
claim is. But one thing I do know is that it bothers me when people say that
we have the best country in the world, when they say it with the intention
of meaning that we are better than all of those other countries. And really
what they're doing is putting down all those other countries. I think that
we have to maintain our position by building our own strength, and not by
capitalizing on the weaknesses of other systems. I think that our own strength,
the strength of our system in land use is not all that great at this point. I
would hope that local government, where the power is vested, take the opportuni-
ties they have through the SEQR, State Envirnomental Quality Review Act,
Envirnomental Impact Statement process, which we're envolved in right now,
and all the other related methods and means of regulating that land use that
are available to protect in public interest. I can easily talk all day. I would
be glad to come back, or to fill in, if anyone has any questions, or anything.
I guess in the end 1 just, to try and conclude, I'd just like to read for us
what I just tried to express about the importance of the public interest and
the need for a strong local government to protect and promote that. And,
also, the relationship of that public interest to individuals' interest. Really,
what I think, all this zoning law and master planning is all about, is really
development rights. We're not going to be taking land away from the owners.
Or really interfering with their exclusive right to possess that land. That is
the essential right of ownership of property. Property owners have the right
to possess their land. The right to develope land is not as easy to define.
What exactly the right consists of and who holds that right. There's a common
misconception in our system that the constitution protects the development rights
for the owners. The owners have the unlimited right to develop their property,
and this is protected for them by the United States Constitution. Technically,
it's just not true. Legally speaking the Constitution protects owners only from
having their property rights taken and used for public purposes. But if the
Southold Town says these are sensitive lands, we've come to a conclusion on
the basis of studies, that these lands should not be developed or that we should
have one house every twenty acres, should give us about, what fifteen houses...
t here would be no constitutional problem with that. There would be a problem
with our sense of fair play. Our sense of fair play tells us that if someone
owns the property and wants to develop that property and make a profit they
should have a right to do something with the property. 13ut, also, I hope
that our sense of fair play protects the rights of the neighboring property
Page 10 -
owners and the other residents of the community. Some of them cannot come
to this meeting, because they are fish and birds, etc. Trees and waterways.
But those rights should be taken into consideration in development process.
I'm not sure if the Town Board understands what I mean when I refer to the
tragedy of the commons. Does that ring a bell with anybody? Evidently not.
COUNCILWOMAN COCHRAN: What commons?
BEN SCHWARTZ: The tragedy of the commons is a little story about a town
where they had some pasture land and everybody in town had a right to pasture
their sheep on that land. They all had one sheep, the sheep do well, and
they all make a good profit. But then a number of the town's people; this
is not exactly the way the story goes, I haven't heard it myself in a long
time. I understand the principal of it and I think I'll be able to express that
to you. A number of the town's people say, "Well, why don't we have two
sheep, and make twice as much, and it won't hurt the town that much if we
just have one more sheep. And it didn't, but the next year some of the town's
people said "Well, we're going to have five sheep.", and pretty soon they're
grazed out the pasture and even though each individual decision to add another
sheep for that particular owner was difinately in their own economic interest
and not against the economic interest of the whole town, ultimately the whole
town suffered, because the amount of development there, the number of sheep
exceededthe limits to growth that were naturally present in that situation. The
carrying capacity of the natural environment was exceeded. I'm trying to finish
up very quickly. I just want to say that there's difinately a lot of extra
formality in the development process. The cost of building a house and profit
from selling it is not the whole picture. There's considerable amount of cost
called social cost, which is borne by the community. There are many citizens
here today and on the north fork, who are trying to express that, and it's
very difficult to put dollar figures on those social costs. The only hope we
have is that the local government will take them into consideration. There's
a lot of uncertainty in this process. We don~t know exactly what the social
costs are, or exactly what we can do. But I ~ould ask, and this is the last
thing I'll say, is that if we're going to error let it be on the side of the public
interest and caution, and not the apparent temporary profit of the individuals.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Anyone else who would like to address
the Town Board?
Page 11 -
THOMAS LOWRY: I have a question. I heard that your Board member, George
Penny, has said that he is apprehensive unless a hindrance be placed on the
right to develop some land, and the land owners brings section 1983 action
against the Town Board, or against the members of the Town Board. It might
be interesting to hear Mr. Penny's and Mr. Schwartz have in regard to what
might happen. What is George worried about? I don't know if its appropriate
at this hearing.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: I don't think it's appropriate at this time. Maybe
they could meet and talk. I'm sure they'd be happy to. Okay, is there anyone
else who would like to address the Town Board? If not, we'll recess this hearing
until 7:35 tonight.
Public hearing reconvened at 7:35 P.M.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: This is a public hearing on a proposed "Local Law
to Amend the Southold Zoning Code and Zoning Maps Incorporated therein,
to implement in Whole or in Part, the Recommendations of the Master Plan Update
Prepared by the Planning Board." and I would like Ruth Oliva to read the
notice of it.
COUNCILWOMAN OLIVA:" Notice is hereby given that the Town Board of the
Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 3:35 P.M. and 7:35 P.M. on
Tuesday, October 18, 1988, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold,
New York, on the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement with respect
to a proposed "Loc, al Law to amend the Southold Town Zoning Code and Zoning
Maps incorporated therein, to implement, in whole or in part, the recommendations
of the Master Plan Update prepared by the Planning Board". Notice is further
given that the commend period with respect to the aforesaid Final Generic Environ-
mental Impact Statement is from September 21, 1988 to October 20, 1988. SEQR
LEAD AGENCY IS THE Southold Town Board. Copies of the Generic Environmental
Impact Statement are on file in the Office of the Southold Town Clerk, Town
Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and may be reviewed during regular
business hours. A copy has also been placed in the Floyd Memorial Library,
Greenport, the Southold Free Library, Southold, the Cutchogue Free Library,
Cutchogue, the Mattituck Free Library, Mattituck, and the Fishers Island Free
Library, Fishers Island. Dated; September 20, 1988. Judith T. Terry, Southold
Town Clerk." We have a sworn affidavit from the Suffolk Times, the Traveler-
Watchman, and from Judith Terry, that it has been posted. There were no
further communications. Thank you.
Page 12 -
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Ruth. At this time I would like to open
up to anyone to make a comment on our Envirnomental Impact Statement that
was submitted. Anyone have any comments at all? Jeanne?
JEANNE MARRINER: Jeanne Marriner and I'm representing Peconic Bay Task
Force. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Final Generic Environ-
mental Impact Statement for Southold Town's Master Plan and Zoning proposals
as they relate to the Peconic Bay Estuary System. But first, the Task Force
would like to commend the Southold Town Board for recognizing the importance
of the Peconic Estuary as both a Town and regional resource, and for resolving
to share in the responsibility for restoring the bays to good health. As some
of you know, the Task Force is the liasson with the technical experts monitoring
the bays and the various levels of government and the publics who value the
estuary as an economic and recreational resource. For the past year, we have
been working to provide information to all interested parties, receive comments
and coordinate efforts. We have also been talking with federal, state and county
officials to assure that local Town governments will receive the necessary financial
assistance and espertise to carry out the projects necessary to control pollution
and restore the vitality to the diseased waters. Task Force efforts have born
fruit and this week the Peconic Bay Estuary will be added to the list of National
Estuaries and be elegible to receive federal financial assistance and scientific
aid. At this time, it is very important that all further pollution to the estuary
be curtailed. The bays are in crisis and extremely susceptible to numerous
ailments including the devastating Brown Tide. Further pollution could compound
the restorarion efforts and make what is now a manageable restoration project,
an impossible clean-up situation. It is for this reason that the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services has called for a townwide moratorium on construction
in Riverhead and the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation has
imposed an indefinite freeze on all hook-ups to the Riverhead Sewer District.
Dr. Harris, County Commissioner of Health Services, in a letter to DEC com-
missioner Jorlin stated that the Peconic Bay is "particularly sensitive to nutrient
loading, which can promote deleterious algae blooms." More brown tides loom
on the horizon unless present pollution is cleaned up and further pollution
is curtailed. Because of the severity of the situation, the Pe¢onic Bay Task
Force is now obliged to speak out on any plans or projects that may adversely
affect the entire estuary. What happens in one part of the Peconic Bay system
affects all the other parts, as our information guide explains. The Task Force
has therefore reviewed the Southold Town FGEIS and related documents and
finds that the Town falls short in protective measures for the wetlands and
Page 13 -
surface waters of the estuary. The FGEIS proposes enacting laws limiting site
clearance, lawn sizes and fertilizers used and proposes buffer zones in new
development. Such proposals, while commendable, do not make up for the lack
of strong protective proposals in the Master Plan and Zoning amendments. Section
E., Page 42 of the DGEIS only briefly treats the significant impacts of the
proposed marine zoning. The zoning has not been altered to assure protection
of the surface waters and their ecosystems. In view of the fact that more
than 50% of the Town is in the coastal zone, Southold Town's zoning laws should
particularly address coastal zoning. As the results from the Chesapeake Bay
study show, it was the cumulative effects of individual shoreline projects that
resulted in the near demise of that estuary system. The programs developed
to restore the Chesapeake demonstrate that the battle between conservationalists
and commericial interests can conclude agreeably by recognizing that conservation
of natural resources and basic human needs are similar. If the Towns who
share the estuary disregard the impacts of shoreline development and marina
expansion on the natural resources and do not take steps to mitigate these
impacts through legal meanst the demise of the Peconic bays is a certainty,
and a dead waterway will even more severely affect the east end economy than
the Brown Tide has. The Peconic Bay Task Force asks Southold Town to enact
more stringent protective measures and revise the proposed master plan and
zoning in the Town's coastal zone and legally carry forward the Town's resolve
to save the Peconic Bays. Members of the Task Force are available for assistance.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Jeanne. Anyone else like to address the
Town Board? Ronnie?
RONNIE WACKER: I'm Ronnie Wacker, and I'm president of the North Fork
Environmental Council. last April at the public meeting on the draft environ-
mental impact statement, we at NFEC directed your attention to the fact that
the statement did not do what it is supposed to do, assess all the environmental
impacts of the zoning ordinances. We had hopes that this would be corrected
in the final impact statement. It has not been. Instead we've been handed a
lot of reasons why nothing more was done. We are not satisfied that these
zoning amendments are the best that can be devised for Southold Town. Trying
to get a handle on what zoning is supposed to do, I went to the New York
State Guide to Planning and Zoning published by New York State Department
of State. In this, I found that the such regulations must "promote the public
health, safety and general welfare" and" advance the goals of the master plan."
Page 14 -
In both areas this zoning falls short. In general, the goal of the master plan,
as I understand it, is to preserve the rural maritime character of the Town
of Southold. The environmental impact statement acknowledges that there will
be "major irreversible impact" from the zoning amendments proposed, which
will allow more that half our farmland to be destroyed for houses, shopping
centers and light industry. We believe an environmental impact statement should
follow state environmental quality law which defines the environment as "land,air,
water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, resources of agricultural, archeological,
historic or esthetic significance, patterns of poputlation concentration, distribu-
tion of growth, existing community or neighborhood character and human health:'
So all the concerns we voiced last April are confirmed by state law. We feel
this environmental impact study still does not assess enough of the impacts
of the planned growth; impacts on our general welfare, our schools, roads
and traffic and on our taxes. Where are the parks, where are the bicycle
paths? Where is the concern for our health, safety and general welfare? Right
now you take your life in your hands crossing Route 25 to get to a farmstand.
What will it be like with the population these zoning amendments will bring
in? If the Town Board directed planning consultant David Emilita to address
only those criticisms voiced by the public a year ago, as he noted last April,
then the Town Board was wrong. Not only does this impact study not address
environmental concerns but it does not advance the goal of the master plan,
to preserve the rural maritime character of the town. It is a far cry from
the original master plan and zoning map presented by Raymond Parish, Pine
and Weiner in 1983, which has been weakened over the years by Town Board
tinkering. Once again, we would like to suggest to you that you return to
those maps with a full-time envionmental planner and a qualified zoning lawyer
to be sure the new zoning can hold up in court. And, in order to stop the
out-of-control land development that is going on, place a moratorium on sub-
divisions for a year which we expect will be enough to rework the RPPW plan.
Let us finally get a master plan and zoning that puts in place what residents
of the Town want, rather than what a score of developers want. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Ronnie. Is there anyone else who would
like to address the Town Board? Sir?
WILLIAM CREMERS: I'm Bill Cremers. I'm from Mattituck, and I'm the Director
of Southold/2000. I have a statement from the organization. Last April, at
the public hearing on the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement and
its assessment of the impacts of the Master Plan, Zoning Amendments and Zoning
Page 15 -
Map with regard to the economic and natural environment and the people of
Southold Town. Southold/2000, upon advice of legal counsel, called to the
attention of the Town Board that the DGEIS fell far short of its purpose because:
1. It failed to point out that the proposed zoning map and zoning laws are
not legally defensible because they do not advance the goals of the Master Plan.
2. It did not adequately describe the broad impacts- economic, environmental,
and otherwise of the plan as a whole. Other organizations, individuals, and
legal counsels made similar comments. At this time, the 225 members of Southold/2000
are extremely distressed because: The minor changes made to the DGEIS to
produce the Final GELS, and the response to comments made do not in anyway
address the concerns of our members. Furthermore, the very valid goals of
the Master Plan are still just rhetoric with no legal means to advance them in
the zoning code. And, the zoning map does not in any way reflect sound planning
prinicples, and is, in the words of various Town Board member, "a mess"
"revisions have been handled in an unethical manner" and another quote,"We
screwed it (the map) royally". In his response to one of our concerns, that
the 2 acre A/C zone will not preserve agriculture or the Town's rural character,
one of the goals of the Master Plan, and the quality of life will change immutably,
Mr. Emilita suggests that we read further in the DGEIS where it says, "the
quality of life will have changed immutably, if the Town does not continue to
strive for controlled, quality development. This is the job of all Boards, including
The Town Board." This comment only serves to reinforce our concerns that
the proposed zoning does not meet the standard, does not guarantee "controlled
quality development" and leaves the Town Boards without the proper tools and
expertise to advance the goals of the master plan
and unique resources of the Town. The fact that
Impact Statement does not sound this alarm makes
and preserve the character
the Final Generic Environmental
it an unacceptable document.
Mr. Emilita also dismisses our concerns about the marine zoning and refers
us to a section on wetlands, which gives a detailed description of the value
of the Town's wetlands, but does not address our concerns about the protection
of these wetlands and the qualtiy of our surface water resources which are
currently in sick condition. He claims that many areas of impact mitigation
will be covered in the Town's local waterfront revitalization plan, and mentions
areas that must be paid attention to, but there are no changes in the zoning
to address the important issue of protecting our maritime environment, another
goal of the Master Plan. Moreover, Mr. Emilita dismisses our concerns about
the economic impacts on the current residents with regard to financing roads,
traffic and safety measures, increased police and fire protection, water supply,
and sewage disposal, and all the other improvements that increased growth
will necessitate which must be paid for by the Town and ultimately the citizens
Page 16 -
of the Town. He cannot estimate variables for municipal cost analysis. But
surely such figures are available about the impact of growth on taxes from
other Towns who have experienced this growth. In view of our many unanswered
concerns, and because we believe that a legally defensible zoning map and
laws can be developed from the information available in the R.P.P. & W. Master
Plan study and the Local Waterfront Plan. Southold/2000 once again, would
like to state that ecologically sound and legally defensible zoning is the only
way to insure that Southold Town in the year 2000 and beyond will still be
a viable place for all of us who currently live and do business in the Town.
We, again, reconnend to the Town Board. 1. Adopt the purposes of the Master
Plan. 2. Declare a one year moratorium with a fixed target date by which appro-
priate zoning map and amendments will be developed. 3. Engage the services
of an environmental planning consultant and a counsel specializing in zoning
law to develop the map and the zoning amendments based on sound planning
principles and legally defensible laws which will protect the Town's rural/mari-
time character, economic and natural environment, and the health, safety, and
general welfare of the people who live in Southold Town. A moratorium will
give the overworked planning board a chance to get organized. Assistance
from impartial experts will ensure that the Town will be able to control growth
through legally defensible zoning so that the Town Boards can indeed make
sure that the quality of life in Southold Town will not change immutably. In
closing, we appeal to the Town Board to strive for controlled, quality development,
and to advance the goals of the Master Plan by taking these steps. I thank
you. We're also including a copy of the New York Times real estate section
that addresses this, and the importance of quality life.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience with
questions?
CHRISTOPHER KELLEY:My name is Christopher Kelley from the law offices of Twomey
L~tham,.Shea and Kelley, and I'm here on behalf of Henry Weismann and Frank
Flynn.l'vebeen before you before representing Mr. Weismann and Mr. Flynn,
in regard to a zone change application for the Young's Marina site on Sage
Boulevard. I've also appeared to represent Mr. Weismann and Flynn on making
comments on the draft GElS as that statement relates to the zoning, the proposed
M2 zoning, for the Youngs' Marina property. I'm here tonight to submit to
you that the comments, the responses to the comments, contained in the final
GElS do not adequately deal with the issues that have been raised. As a
result, we have a document that is still not complete and still not legally de-
fensable. The five points we'd like to touch on are the points we raised and
Page 17 -
comments that we submitted in writing and orally at the last hearing. Those
points are that the definition of, the type of site that appropriate for an M2
zone does to comply with the environmental setting of the Young's Marina property.
Second point is that the GElS does not adaquately address the environmental
impact, the potential environmental impact, of the permitted and especially permitted
uses of the YoungsT Marina site. The third point is that the alternative section
does not deal with the reasonable alternatives which are very obvious and could
have been addressed in this state, which we released on those envirnomental
impacts. The fourth point is that the mitigation measures that were addressed
in this statement were not incorporated into the code. As a result, we've left
the environmental impact identified unmitigated. The fifth point is that the
growth inducing aspects, particularly in regards to the Youngs Marina site
have not been addressed to the statement. In regard to the first point we
made on the draft GElS the code says that the M1 zoning classification is the
type of zone that should apply to creeks and bays, small bays, and that the
M2 zone, because the uses are more intense are more appropriate for open bay
frontage. I pointed in our comments, that the Youngs Marina site, although
its located in a relatively small tidal highly flushed creek, it has been zoned
M2, and this was not appropriate. The response we got in the GElS was that
although its not on open bayfront, it has a direct connection to Southold Bay.
This is a bit of circular argument because all tidal creeks have a direct connection
to open bayfront. It does not address the real issue. The real issue here
is whether this definition applies to this zone, and I don't think it does. The
response goes on to challange my knowledge of theSEQRAregulations. I will
pit my knowledge of SEQRA regulations against Mr. Emilita's in Supreme Court
any day, and that day, if this plan is approved, may come sooner, rather than
later. In point two in our comments, we refer to the potential adverse impacts
of the M2 zone on the Sage Boulevard property. The Town's only response
to this is that the Town would never approve a project that had significant
environmental impact. However, the statement fails to discuss those impacts
in particular as they relate to this property. Again this is an inadequate
reason, which we're prepared to challenge in Supreme Court. At point three,
we dicuss the alternatives. The only alternatives that are offered in the draft
GElS are the no action alternatives, the possible adoption alternative and the
hold for further study alternative. The obvious alternative in regards this
particular property, which is changing the zone from M2 to M1, which would
be infitting with the definition contained in the plan in the code itself, is not
looked at,at all. It is not looked at in the orginal Gl=IS, nor was it looked
Page 18 -
in the terms of responses to our comments. This, I think, makes the alternative
section inadequate and again something we will, again, be challenging in Supreme
Court. Point four of our comments deals with the mitigation measures that
are identified in the GELS, they are not incorporated and the response when
we pointed this out, responses in the final GELS, is that such measures are
not normally enacted under the zoning ordinance, whether it's up to the Town
to enact the other regulations and ordinances. This is an absurd argument
as far as I'm concerned, because your duty under SEQR is once you identify
the potential impacts you must mitigate them, before you go forward with the
project. Here you've identified the impact. You've even gone as far as to
identify certain mitigation measures. Then you don't enact mitigation measures,
so then we do have unmitigation impacts, and you can't go forward with the
project if you haven't mitigated the impact. So I submit to you that simply
indentifing the mitigation and not enacting it, is not enough to meet your duties
under SEQR. At point five of our comments, we indicated that the growth
inducing aspects of the projects were not looked at in any depth. They were
not looked at all in fact, with regards to the Youngs Marina site. The Town's
response was that you all know what the potential growth of the site is, and
that, again,you wouldn~approve anything that was environmental damaging.
That sounds good, but it's not enough, meeting your obligations under SEQR.
In fact, I refer you to the comments made by your own planners, Ms Valerie
Scopaz, and Mr. Emilita. Their comments were reported in the Suffolk Times
in July of this year. When asked for an opinion, Ms. Scopaz said that the plan
should be consistent with the Board's intent. If the Town Board doesn't want
a motel or restaurant on the site, then they shouldn't enact zoning that would
permit it. Mr. Emilita said he didn't believe it would be possible to entertain
three uses, the marina, the motel and restaurant. As you recall, those are
the uses that were proposedfor the site in a recent application and those are
the uses that could potentially be constructed on the site with the benefit of
the special permit under the new M2 zoning. Again, this shortsightedness
is something we would challange in court, if this claim is approved as it's been
proposed. In conclusion, I'd just like to say the SEQRA process you prepare
the documentation, we've responded. We've given our comments. You've come
and responded to those comments and I'm afraid, those comments have not
alleviated the inadequacies of the GELS, and if the inadequacies are not alleviated
before you go forward, we will then proceed into Supreme Court, to challange
the enaction of the plan. Thank you.
Page 19 -
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Chris. Anyone else in the audience who
would like to address the Town Board?
MICHAEL ZWEIG: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Town Board. My name is Michael
Zweig. I am President of Southold/2000 and was a member of the Economic
Advisory Committee to the Southold Town Board until the Committee completed
its duties in May, 1987. The Board of Directors of Southold/2000 has considered
the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed master plan,
and our views on it have been conveyed to you this evening by our Board member
Bill Cremers. I would like to speak with you tonight about critical weaknesses
in the FGEIS from the point of view of the final report of the Economic Advisory
Committee, which was submitted to you in March, 1987. In that report, four
Southold business men and I concluded that, "The real question facing the
Town is whether residential growth can be limited and channeled so that the
rural character of the Town is preserved, while agriculture, fishing and tourism
prosper. The Economic Advisory Committe believes that market forces alone
will result in the end of agriculture and open space on the North Fork. The
area is most likely to become residential, a bedroom community for upper income
personnel working the industries west of here, along the summer and retirement
homes for the relatively wealthy. We also believe that this is not a foregone
and necessars outcome." That's on page 2 of our report to you. Exactly because
it is true that residential saturation is not our foregone future, it is a fatal
flaw in the Master Plan that it proposes nothing more than 2 acre A-C zoning
to preserve agriculture and open space. This measure will certainly be inadequate
to the task in protecting agriculture. In fact, the Plan itself now envisions
only 2,000 acres of agriculture preserved through purchases of development
rights, while the population of the Town doubles and all other farmland turns
into residential property. This projected future for the Town is at odds with
the stated goals of the Master Plan itself, which are, in part, to "preserve
Southold's prime farmland and encourage the continuation and diversification
of agriculture as an important element in the life and economy of the Town."
That's from the Master Plan Update Summary, pages 3-4, April, 1985. I think
there can be no question that the stated goals are in the hearts and minds
of the great majority of Town residents. The fact that the zoning proposed
does not accomplish the goal is of utmost seriousness, and the fact that the
GElS does not focus on this problem and does not propose remedies is cause
enough to reject the GElS as inadequate. The Economic Advisory Committee
took up this question. We made six specific recommendations to help preserve
Page 20 -
agriculture to help preserve agriculture, on of which bears directly on the
question of zoning. And here, again, I quote from my report to you. "The
Committee endorses the concept of 25 acre zoning for the 9,000 acre agricultural
core of the North Fork, as proposed by Michael Zweig in his study of the local
grape and wine industry. Such large lot zoning is a necessary part of the overall
strategy to preserve farmland and open space." As the unanamous view of
the Economic Advisory Committee we would now suggest that farmers adversely
affected by upzoning be provided economic compensation from one of a number
of sources. I would like to point our that farmland preservation is not simply
an aesthetic issue. Suffolk County is the leading agricultural county in New
York State, and North Fork farmland and microclimate are unique and precious
economic resources, fundamental to economic and agriculture production in Suffolk
County. The loss of this farmland is surely a most serious, irreversible destruction
of a unique environmental asset with great financial potential. The fact that
the GElS pays only cursory attention to the problem and provides no solution
is reason to reject it as incomplete. I stress that we are on the threshold
of a major environmental and economic loss, which the proposed Master Plan
evindently is incapable of preventing, despite its stated goals. Southold Town
needs a Master Plan. But it needs one which will respect and preserve the
essential local environment, which includes the foundations of our traditional
agriculture and marine economies. The goals of the proposed Master Plan are
proper and should be accepted, but the zoning map should be rejected as inade-
quate to the goals. The GElS should also be rejected, because it fails to solve
the problem, or even call forceful attention to the problem. You on the Town
Board need to prepare a different zoning map-- not one which differs only
marginally from the one proposed or currently in place, but a map which provides
adequate large lot zoning through the agricultural heart of the North Fork.
In short, you should now accept the advice given to you a year and half ago
by your Economic Advisory Commitlee. As a bonus, You will also be acting
to protect the aquifer. You nee~l to take steps immediately to impose a moratoru~r~
on all further development pending the completion of a new map which will truly
advance the interests of the ~aster Plan goals, not the iinterests of d.~velopers
an~ a handful of people with large sums ef money anxious to take advantage
of the Town to its unending detriment. State law requires that any moratorium
be for a fixed time, at the end of which a new zoning map must be in place.
I think that one year should be enough time to prepare such a map, on the
basis of the work already done by RPPW. To accomplish the task, you should
hire an environmental planner to assist you and the Planning Board the Planning
Board as you work through the issues. The moratorium will have the beneficial
Page 21 -
side effect of allowing the Planning Department and Planning Board to get caught
up on the current backlog of over 200 applications I~fore them. Large lot zoning
is sure to be controversial and sure to precipitate law suits. We've heard tonight,
that there is no way out of law suits. Two recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings
are said by some to open the Town to damage claims if we restrict property
use through zoning. Do not be deterred by these threats. Zoning continues
to be legal, and zoning may continue to limit and reduce economic yield from
property to amounts less than free market outcomes, as long as some reasonable
use of the land is left to the owner. The Town should retain an attorney with
specialized knowledge of zoning issues to help prepare the final plan and help
defend it in court. Ladies and gentlemen of the Town Board, time is moving
along and the pressures are intensifying. IJrgent action is needed. It is urgent
that you act. I urge you to act in the manner consistent with the d~sires
of the great majority of the people on the North Fork~ in the manner consistent
with the advice given to you unanimously by your own Economic Advisory Committee,
in a manner consistent with the needs of our unique and fragile environment.
Reject the GELS, declare a moratorium on development for one year, and take
the Town on a course which will make it a model of sound planning. I can
assure you that, whever opposition you may encounter you will be buoyed by
the support, energy, and imagination of almost everyone on the North Fork.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Mike. Very good. Anyone else who would
like to address the Town Board.
INGEI~ORG FLYNN: I'm Ingeborg Flynn. l'ma resident of the Town of Southold.
I'm also a real estate broker in the Town of Southold. Good evening, Supervisor
Murphy and members of the Town Board. I would like to say, that in my opinion,
and that of many other about the Town, that this FGEIS is completed. That
is not a term to meet the requirements of the SEQR. The FGEIS ..... all the
aspects of the proposed Master Plan impact on the community and the future
of the community, its economy, environment, and sociological impact. We have
here some unsupported and often contr~itory statements regarding some specific
sides and limited aspects of the proposed ordinance. By nature the Master Plan
affects the Town's economy and future, foreseeable future. The Town I~oard
has consistly refused to consider a GELS, that does not cover what a GELS,
one of the Master Plan most significant, and particularly disastrous impacts.
I'm sure everyone here present, understands that when you change a propert~s
zoning, you also change the market value of the surrounding properties. The
Page 22 -
new law of the State of New York is that all real estate should be assessed
equally. If you change the assessed property values by rezoning by means
of the Master Plan, you must as a Town by the law of the State of New York,
equalize assessment. This calls for a Townwide reassessment. You cannot
under the law of the State of New York conduct a partial reassessment. We
would have to reassess the whole Town. What equalization means is, that
the assessment and the taxes of under-assessed parcels would be raised and
assessment of over-assessed properties would be lowered. The under-assessed
parcels in the Town of Southold consist primarily of vacant land and older modest
residences. So any increase of taxes resulting from the Master Plan are mostly
likely to be paid by owners of vacant lots and older modest homes, those least
likely able to afford it. Does the GElS address this drastic obvious impact?
Of course not. Nor does the Town Board. In the end does the Town Board
bear the responsiblity for this action? This Board and its members, who are
voted into office by the people of the Town, to protect its economy, its environ-
mental safety and future. In my opinion, not realizing the impact of the reassess-
ment. If the source of this impending economic diaster is not spelled out
in a GELS, you the people of the Town Board are betraying your responsibilties
and you are not honest with the people of the Town. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else, who would like to
address the Town Board? Michael?
MICHAEL ZWEIG: I'm Michael Zweig, and I just would like to say that it really
is, that we're dealing with something serious here. And I understand it, I've
been working on the stuff, part with you and part sometimes in cross purposes
with some of you. I know that everybody is tired with dealing with this Master
Plan. Everybody would like to get this behind us. And I'd like to address that
for a second. It's very tempting to say, let's just pass the damn thing. Get
it done and then we'll fix it, because no Master Plan is forever and everybody
agrees with that. That's certainly true. I don't really believe that if you
pass this plan, this zoning map, that very much is going to get fixed. I just
don't believe that the dynamics of it is realistic. It's think it's just going
to be there. People are going to be so happy that it's done, that there's going
problems trying to assess it. That's one problem. Another problem, even
if try address the short comings. The sfort comings as I tried to point out
in the statement of mine, are not marginal, here or there. These are very
major problems with this GELS. Very major problems with the zoning map. It
does not support the goals of the plan. No marginal adjustment. No tinkering
with that map, is going to support the goals of the plan. It just won't. And
Page 23 -
the GELS, if you read it says so. It says that what is going to happen to
this Town is not in accordance with the statement, the purposes and goals
in the Master Plan. And I just think that we have to just pull ourselves up
to do the neccessary work to make sure that it happens. I think we can do
it, if we sit down to do it. And there are a lot of people in Town that are
willing to help. And I just want to say, let's get down and do what really
needs to be done and it can be done. It has been done. Sometimes snatching
it right at the very end, from the fee and going on and doing some very positive
things, and I just really hope you'll be able to do that here.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would
like to address the Town Board on the Final Generic Envirnomental Impact State-
ment? (No response.) If not we'll close this hearing, and thank everyone
for taking the interest in the Town and coming out here tonight.
Thank you.
Judith T. Terry
Southold Town Clerk