Loading...
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