HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013
3 t/.roS~
Ig soUg~®
OFFICE LOCATION: MAILING ADDRESS:
Town Hall Annex P.O. Box 1179
54375 State Route 25 Southold, NY 11971
(car. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.)
Southold, NY 11971 A~® Telephone: 631 765-1938
COUPJTV, Fax: 631 765-3136
LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO: Supervisor Scott Russell RECEIVED
Members of the Town Board
Donald Wileenski, Chair f_ r 'tii1r
Members of the Planning Board
Leslie Weisman, Chair
Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals Sou4ftold fawn Clerk
FROM: Mark Terry, LWRP Coordinator
Principal Planner
RE: 2013 Year End Report on the application of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
DATE: February 25, 2014
The 2013 year end report to the Town Board outlining the workload and achievements with the implementation
of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) follows.
A. Consistency Determinations
Summary of coastal consistency review statistics.
Table 1. LWRP Coastal Consistency Review Summary for 2010 through 2013.
Recommendations 2010 2011 2012 2013
Consistent 171 197 224 293
Inconsistent 46 61 51 88
Inconsistent/Consistent 0 0 0 36
Exempt 64 30 41 61
Other Determinations 3 7 16 3
284 295 332 481
Other etermmahom me u e wit rawa app tcauow.
Total Number of Items Reviewed (Includes exempt determinations) =481
Total Number of Consistent Recommendations =293
Total Number of Inconsistent Recommendations = 88
Total Number of Exempt Actions =61
B. General Comments
Town Board
The Town Board referred a total of 8 legislative actions for review.
Board of Trustees
The Board of Trustees referred the greatest number of applications for review (398) or 82 percent of the
total number of applications. This number increased from the previous years due to storm
damage from "Superstorm Sandy".
Significant progress has been made on problems identified in the past including: The
implementation of Policy 6.3. The policy states:
A. Comply with statutory and regulatory requirements of the Southold Town Board ofTrustees
laws and regulations for all Andros Patent and other lands under their jurisdiction
1. Comply with Trustee regulations and recommendations as set forth in Trustee permit
conditions.
In the past the Board of Trustees have repeatedly raised the issue that this policy is problematic for
actions on small parcels in that it requires an action to comply with "regulatory requirements" and then
requires compliance with "regulations and recommendations as set forth in the Trustee permit". Based
upon the language, all proposed actions within 100 feet of a wetland or top of bluff were recommended
as Inconsistent. In some situations, the ability of the reviewing Board to amend the permit to meet
Chapter 275 and therefore further Policy 6.3 was not possible.
In the past, recommendations that actions was Inconsistent with the program based on distance alone,
was not effective in furthering LWRP policies unless other concerns arose like FEMA Flood Zones and
Natural Protective Features and the increased distance from the hazard or feature mitigated impacts.
LWRP Coastal Consistency Review currently places greater focus on the potential impacts from an
action on ecosystems and other environmental qualities. The potential impacts are mitigated through
recommendations that include best management practices (BMPs).
Planning Board
The Planning Board accounted for 23 referrals or 5 % of the total.
Zoning Board of Appeals
The Zoning Board of Appeals accounted for 59 referrals or 12% of the total.
One significant problem that was identified in the past has prompted a change in process and more
efficient reviews.
The problem is that for certain proposed actions less than 100 feet of the top of bluff line and/or less
than 75 feet from a jurisdictional wetland with abulkhead, the area is included within both the Board of
Trustees and the Zoning Board of Appeals jurisdictions enabled by § 280-116 and Chapter 275. The
reviewing Boards would impose different conditions based on their legislative authority.
What resulted was two different decisions that contained inconsistent conditions. The different
conditions often resulted in the need to have an applicant go back and seek an amendment to the first
permit issued.
What resolved this problem is that the Board of Trustees has been sending applicants that are subject to
the two jurisdictions to the Zoning Board of Appeals first for a decision.
If you have questions about this report, I can be reached at 631-765-1938.