HomeMy WebLinkAboutLL-1983 #02 LOCAL LAW NO. , 1982
A Local Law to Amend the Zoning
Code of the Town of Southold
IIo
III.
BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows:
Chapter 100 of the Code of the Town of Souihold is hereby amended as follows:
(additions are indicated by underline; deletions by [brackets])
Article I is amended by additing thereto a new section~ to be Section 100-9 to
read as follows:
Section 100-9. Title
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Southold Town Zoning Code".
Section 100-10 of Article I is amended by adding thereto a new subdivision to be
subdivision J to read as follows:
J. To make provision for, so far as conditions may permit, the accommodation
of solar energy systems and equipment and access to sunlight necessary
the re for.
Article I. Section 100-13, Subdivision }3 (Definitions) is amended by amending.khe
following terms to read as follows:
BASEMENT - A story [in] of a building [, the structural ceiling level of which is
four (4) feet or more] partly below the finished grade level which, has more than
one-haIf (1/2) of its height, measured from floor to ceiling, above the average
[level of] established curb level or [the] finished grade [where such grade abuts
that exterior wall of such building which fronts on any street, and 'the floor level
of which is below finished grade at any point on the periphery] of the land
immediately adjacent to the building°
CELLAR - Any space in a building [, the structural ceiling level of which is less
than four (4) feet above the average finished grade where such grade abuts that
exterior wall of such building which fronts on any street. A "cellar" shall not be
considered in determining the permissible number of stories] partly below the
finished grade level, which has more than one-half (1/2) of its height, measured
from floor to ceiling, above the average established curb level or finished grade
of the land immediately adjacent to Lhe building.
FLOOR AREA - The sum of the gross horizontal areas of [the several] all floors
of the building or buildings on a lot~ having a clear height of not less than six (6')
feet, measured from the exterior faces of exterior walls or from the center line
of party walls separating two (2) buildings, [excluding] including cellar and base-
ment areas_ [used only for storage or for the operation and maintena.nce of the
building. ]
FLOOR AREA, LIVABLE - All spaces within the exterior walls of a dwelling unit,
exclusive of g~ra. ges, breezeways, unheated porches, cellars, heater rooms and
IV.
approved basements having a window area of less than ten percent (10%) of the
square foot area of ~he room. Usable floor area shall include all spaces not
otherwise excluded above, such as: principal rooms, utility rooms, bathrooms,
all closets and hallways opening directly into any rooms 'within the dwelling unit
and all attic space having a clear height of six (6) feet from finished floor level
to pitch of roof rafter with a clear height of seven (7) feet six (6) inches from
finished floor level to ceiling level over fifty percent (50%) of the area of such
attic space.
HEIGHT - The vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the
finished grade [at the front] of the _land immediately ad,jacent to the building to the
highest point of the roof for flat and mansard roofs, and to the mean heigh~ between
cave and ridge for other types of roofs.
I-IO1VI~ OCCUPATION - This shall be understood to include the professional office
or studio of a doctor, dentist, teacher° artist, architect, engineer, musician,
lawyer, magistrate or practioners of a similar character, or rooms used for
"home occupations" including home baking, millinery or similar handicrafts,
pr'ovided that the office, studio or occupational rooms are located in a dwelling
in which the practitioner resides, [orin a building accessory thereto] and pro-
vided, further, that no goods are publicly displayed on the premises and no sign
or advertisement is shown other than a sign nog larger than two (2) square feet
in total area, bearing only the name and occupation (words only) of the practitioner.
STORY, HALF - Any space with a minimum clear height of five (5') feet partially
within the roof framing where the clear height of not more ~han fifty percent (50%)
of such space between the top of the floor beams and the structural ceiling level
is seven (7) feet six (6) inches or more.
STRUCTURAL ALTERATION - Any change in the supporting members of a
building, such as beams, columns [or], girders [. ]. footings, foundations or
bearing walls.
Article I, Section 100-12, subdivision B, (Definitions) is amended by adding
thereto the following new terms:
ALTERATION - As applied to a building or structure, means a change or rearrang_~-
ment in the structural parts or in the exit facilities, or an enlargement, whether
extending on a side or by increasing in height, or the moving from one location
or position to another.
BUILDING AREA - The aggregate of the maximum horizontal cross section of the
buildings on a lot, measured between the exterior faces.of walls.
The term "Building Area" shall include the following:
(1) Balconies.
(2) Terraces, patios, decks and other structures above the finished grade.
(3) Swimming pools, tennis courts and other similar structures.
The term "Building Area" shall exclude the following:
-2-
.V.
VI.
VIIo
VIII.
(1)
CorniCes, eaves, gutters, chimneys and fireplaces projecting not more
than twenty-eight (28") inches frorm exterior walls.
(2)
Steps and open porches projecting not more than five (5') feet from
exterior 'walls and having an area of not more than thirty (30) square
feet.
(3)
First story bay windows projecting not more than three (3') feet from
exterior walls, and exterior cellar doors projecting not more than six
(6') feet from exterior walls.
CONDOMINIUM - A building or buildings the dwelling units of which are individualllz
owned, each owner receiving a deed enabling him to sell, mortgage or exchange_
his dwelling unit independent of the owners of the other dwelling units in the
building or buildings.
LOT COVERAGE - That percentage of the lot area covered by the building area.
YARD - An open space, other than a court, on the same lot with a building, which
is, exclusive of trees,, shrubs, and naturn] rock formations, unoccupied and
unobstructed from the ground upward.
Section 100-30 A(2)(b) is amended to read as follows:
(b)
The keeping, 'breeding [and] ,_ raiSing [of fowl, except ducks, and large
domestic' animals] and !trairiing of horse s, domestic animals and fowl
(except ducks) on lots of ten (10) acres or more.
Section 100-30 A(2)(c) is hereby repealed and Section 100-30 A(2)(d) is relettered
100-30 A(2)(c), and amended to read as follows:
(e)
Barns, storage buildings, greenhouses (including plastic covered), and
o~her related structures, provided that such buildings shall conform to
the yard requirements for principal buildings.
Section 100.-30 B is hereby amended by adding a new subsection, to be Subsection
14, to read as follows:
14. Wineries for the production and retail sale of wine produced from grapes
primarily grown onthe vineyard on which such winery is located.
Section 100-30 C(2) is amended to read as follows:
(2)
Garden house, toolhouse, storage building, playhouse, wading pool or
swimming pool incidental to the residential use of the premises and not
operated for gain, subject to the following requirements:
Section 100-30 C(2)(a) is amended ~o read as follows:
(a)
Any swimming pool shall be completely enclosed with a permanent chain-
link (or similar type) fence of not more than two-inch mesh~ not less
than four (4) feet in height, erected, maintained and provided with a
self-closing, [self-locking] self-lat.ching gate to prevent unauthorized use
of Lhe pool and to prevent accidents~ However, if said pool is located
-3-
more than four (4) feet above the ground~ then a fence is not required,
provided that all points of access to said pool are adequately protected
by a self-closing, /self-locking] self-latching gate. Any swimming pool
in existence at the effective date of the provisions of this subsection shaD.
within one (1) year from such date, comply with all of the provisions hereof,
Section 100-30 C(4) is amended to read as follows:
(4)
The storage of either a boat or travel trailer owned and used by the owner
or occupant of the premises on which such boat or travel trailer is'stored,
for his personal use, subjec~ Co the following requirements:
XIo Section 100-30 C(5) is hereby repealed and the following is added in its place:
(5)
The keeping of not more than a total of two (2) horses and/or ponies owned
and used by the owner or tenant of the premises for his personal use, pro-
vided that the land devoted exclusively to such use (not forming a part of the
yard requirements for any other use) shall not be less than forty thousand
(40, 000) square feet for each such horse or pony, and further provided that
all buildings shall be located not less than fifty (50') feet from all loc lines.
XII.
Section 100-34 is renumbered 100-119A and Section 100-35 is renumbered
100-119B and the reference therein to Section 100-34 is changed to 100-119A;
and Section 100-36 is renumbered to 100-34.
XIII. Section 100-34.(as renumbered from 100-36) is hereby amended to read as follows:
In the A District, in the case of a lot held in single and separate ownership [on the
effective date of this chapter] prior to November 23, 1971 and thereafter, with an
area of not less than twelve thousand five hundred (12, 500) square feet and [/or] a
width of not less ~han [the requirements of this chapter] one hundred (1,0~') fe.et~,
a single family dwelling may be constructed thereon with rear 'and side yards reduced
by twenty-five (25%) percent [provided that all other yard requirements are com-
plied with. ] , with a front yard set back of thirty-five (35') feet, or the average
setback of the existing dwellings within three hundred (300') feet therefrom on the
same side of the street within the same block, whichever is greater.
XIVo Subdivision C of Section 100-50 is amended by adding a new subsection (3)° to read
as follows:
XV.
(3) Signs as set forth in Section 100-40C(3) of this chapter.
Subdivision A of Section 100-60 is heZ~ebyamended to read as follows:
A. Permitted uses [. ], subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board in
accordance with Article XIII hereof:
XVIQ Section 100-60A is hereby amended by adding a:n~,w -subsectiono to be subsection
(10) to read as follows:
(10) Single family dwelling units in existing buildings.
XVII+, Subdivision A of Section 100-70 is hereby amended to read as follows:
-4-
XVIII.
XXo
XXI.
XXII.
XXIII.
XXIV.
XXV.
Ao Permitted uses [. ] , subject to sit. e plan appr.oval by the Planning Board
in accordance with Article XIII hereof:
Section 100-70 A(1)(c) is amended to read as follows:
(c) Subsection At2) to [(9)] (10), inclusive of Section 100-60.
Subdivision C of Section 100-70 is amended by adding a new Subsection (2) to read
as follows:
(2) Signs as set forth in Section 100-60 C(2) of this chapter°
Subdivision C of Section 100-80 is amended by adding a new subsection (2)j to read
as follows;
(2) Signs as set forth in Section 100-60 C(2) of this chapter.
Section 110-112 is corrected to read Section 100-112.
Section 100-121 is hereby amended by adding a new subdivision, to be subdivision
D, to read as follows:
Interpretations. On appeal from an order, decision or determination of
an administrative officer, or o__n recluest of.any town officer, board or
agenc~ to decide any of the followingj
(1)
Determine the meaning of any provision in this chapter, or of
any condition or requirement specified or made under the pro-
visions of this chapter.
(2) Determine the exact location of any district boundary shown on
the Building Zone Map.
Section 100-124 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 100-124 Fees
Ail applications to the Board of Appeals for any relief provided for herein
shall be accompanied by a fee of [fifteen dollars ($15)] twenty-five dollars
($25.00L
The first sentence of the first unnumbered paragraph of Section 100-136 (ClusLe. r
Development) is amended to read as follows:
The Planning Board may [approve], in the exercise of its discretion, require
cluster developments for one family d~wellings in an A Residential' and-
Agricultural Distric~ according to the procedure and requirements [specified
below. ] hereinafter set forth~ without the requirement that the owner make
written application for the use of such procedure.
Section 100-136, Subdivision A. Subsection (2) is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(2) In a cluster development, lot area [, ] shall not be reduced by more than
fifty (50%) percent, and lot width, depth, front yard, rear yard and side.
yards sl~all not be reduced by more than [fifty percent (50%)] thirty (30%)
,percent of the minimum requirements set forth in the "Bulk and Parking
S c he dule".
XXVI. Seciion 100-141, Subdivision A is hereby amended by adding a new sentence
thereto Go read as follows:
If the Building Inspector deems it necessary that plans and specifications be
examined to ascertain if the proposed building will comply with applicable
building construction, housing and fire codes, he may require that plans and
specifications be filed with the building permit ap. plicationo
XXVII. Section 100-141 J(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) are hereby repealed and the following
provisions are added in place thereof:
(1) Sin~nily dwellings.
New Dwelling and additions and alteralions to existing dwellings
Twenty-five ($25.00) dollars, plus five ($0.05) cents for each
square foot of floor area in excess of eight hundred fifty (850)
square feet.
(b)
Accessory buildings and additions and alterations to existing
accessory buildings - Ten ($10.00) dollars, plus five ($0.05)
cents for .each square 'foot of floor area in excess of five hundred
(500) square feet.
(2) Farm l~ildings and additions and alterations to existing farm buildings -
Fifteen ($15.00) dollars 'for each building.
(3) Itotels, motels, multiple dwellings° business, industrial and all other
buildin~z~_
(a)
New buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildin sg_~L
Fi___f~$50.00) dollars, plus five ($0.05) cents for each square
foot of floor area in excess of one thousand (1, 000) square feet.
(b)
Accessory buildings and additions and alterations to existing
accessory buildings - Fifteen ($15.00) dollars, plus five ($0.05)
cents for each square foot of floor area in excess of five hundred
(500) square feet.
(4) Foundations constructed under existing buildings - Thirty ($30.00) dollars.
(5) All other structures (i. e. fences, pools, etc. ) and add'itions and
alterations to such structures - Fifteen ($15.00) dollars.
(6) For the purposes of this subdivision J, cellars, decks, attached
a_g~_~9~~' habitable area shall be include d in the calculation of
floor area.
XXVIII. Section 100-144G is hereby amended to read as follows:
-6-
Upon written request and upon paymen~ of a fee of[five dollars
($5.)] fifteen ($15.00) dollars, the Building Inspector shall, after
inspection, issue a certificate of oeeup~n~y:i'f01~ any building or use
thereof or of land existing at the time of the adoption off,his chapter,
certifying such use and whether or not the same and the building
conform to the provisions of this chapter.
XXIX. This Local Law shall take effect immediately.
-7-
ETATE OF NEW YORK
OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER
ALBANY, NEP~ YORK
EDWARD V. REGAN
STATE COMFTROLLER
1983
March 3, 1983
Robert Tasker~ Town Attorney
Town of Southold
425 Main Street
Greenporc, NY 11944
Dear Sir/Madam:
This is to-advise that Local Law(s) No. --2
Town of Southold
. for the .
2/8/83
on
of
1983
was received and £ded
- Vff,~v-truly
~ dali R. Pirr~
Associate Attorney
Charters Unit
KRP:dai
cc: Secretary of'State
(Please Use this Form for Filing your Local Law with the Secretary of Statej
Text of law should be g~ven as amende& Do nor include matter being
eliminated and do not use italics or dnderiining to indicate new matter
Southold
Local Law No .......... ,2. .............................................. of the year 19 .8.3. ......
law to amend the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold ..................
local ............................................................................................................................................... .
(L~'~ titla)
II.
III.
Town Board ............................................. of the
Be it enacted by the ..................................... '{'~;'~'i~i.l~ti.e Bo,ti)
~r'__,~.¥X ~ 1
of ....... ~..o..u..t..ho d ................................................................................................................. as follows:
Town
Chapter 100 of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows:
(additions are indicated by underline; deletions by [brackets])
Article i is amended by additing thereto a new section, to be Section 100-9
read as follows: .,
Section 100-9. Title
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Southold Tox~m Zoning Coae .
Section !00-10 of Article I is amended by adding thereto a new subdivision to be
subdivision J to read as follows:
J&
To make provision for, so far as conditions may permit, the accommodation
of solar energy systems and equipment and access to suplight necessary
therefor.
Article I. Section 100-13, Subdivision B (Definitions) is amended by amending the
following terms ~o read as follows:
BASEIVlENT - A story [in] of a building [, the structural ceiling level of which is
four (4) feet or more] partly below the finished grade level which, has more than
one-half (1/2) of its height, measured from floor to ceiling, above the average
[tevel of] established curb level or [the] finished grade [w.here such gr'ade abuts
that exterior wall of such bUilding which fronts on any street, and the floor tevel
of which is below finished grade at any point on the periphery] of the land
immediately adjacent to the building.
CELLAR- Any space in a building [, ~he structural ceiling le vel of which is less
than four (4) feet above the average finished grade where such grade abuts that
exterior wall of such building which fronts on any street. A "cellar" shall not be
considered in deternn_ining the permissible number of stories] partly below
finished grade level, which has more than one-half (1/2) .of its ~might, measured
from floor to ce. iling, below the average established curb level or finished ~rade
of the land immediately adjacent to the
Page 1
IV.
FLOOR AREA , The 'sum of th~'g~oss horizontal areas of [the several] all floors
of the building or buildings on a lot, having a clear height of not ]ess fha,~ ~ix (6')
feet, measured from the exterior faces of exterior walls or from the center line
of party walls separating two (2) buildings, [excluding] including cellar and base-
ment areas._ [used only for storage or for the operation and maintenance of the
building, ]
FLOOR AREA, LIVABI.E - Ali spaces within the exterior walls of a dwelling unit,
exclusive of g~rages, breezeways, unheated porches, cellars, heater rooms and
a_~j~roved basements having~a w'~mdow area of less than ten percent (10%) of the
s~re'fo6g~a~ea of the r'6om. Usable'f~oor'a{~ea' Shall include ali spaces not
otherwise excluded above,- such '~s: principal rooms, utility rooms, bathrooms,
all closets and hallways opening direcily into any rooms within the dwelling unit
and all atiic space having a clear height of six (6) feet from finished floor level
to pitch of roof rafter with a clear height of seven (7) feet six (6) inches from
finished floor level to ceiling level over fifty percent (50%) of the area of such
attic space.
HEIGHT - The vertical distance measured from the average elevatio~ of the
finished grade [at the front] of the land immediately adjacent to the building to the
highest point of the roof for flat and mansard roofs, and to the rnean height between
cave and ridge for other types of roofs.
HO~*vZE OCCUPATION - This shall be understood to include the professional office
or studio of a doctor, dentist, teacher, artist, archfiecr, engineer, musician,
lawyer, magistrate or practioners of a similar character, or rooms used for
"home occupations" including home baking, milline.my or similar handicrafts,
provided that the office, studio or occupational rooms are located in a dwelling
in which the practitioner resides, [or in a building accessory thereto] and pro-
vided, further, thai no goods are publicly displayed on the premises and no sign
or advertisement is shown other than a sign not larger than two (2) square feet
in total area, bearing only the name and occupation (words only) of the practitioner~
STORY, HALF - Any space with a minimum clear height of five (5') feet partially
within the roof framing where the clear height of not more t~han fift,~ percen~ (50%)
of such space between the top of the floor beams and the structural ceiling teve]
is seven (7) feet six (6) inches or more.
STRUCTURAL ALTERATION - Any change in the supporting memb~ rs of a
building, such as beams, columns [or] , girders [. ] f~+;-=~
: ...... ~, foundations or
bearing walls.
Article I, Section 100-12~ subdivision B, (Definitions) is amended !~y adding
thereto the following new terms:
ALTERATION - As applied to a building or structure, means a chaa~e or rearr:an~e-
ment in the structural parts or in the exit facilities, or an eniar~er:~ent, whether
extending on a side or by increasing in height, or the moving fron~ one toca:ion
or position to another.
BUILDING AREA - The aggregate of the maximum horizontal c~'~,~ :~cc[ion cf the
b. uildings on a tot~ measured between the exterior faces of v/ails.
The term u~ldmg Area shall include the ~ollowing:
(I) Balconies.
(2) Terraces, patios, decks and other st,'uc[ures
(3) Swimming pools, tennis courts and other similar strucru:,:~:.
The term Bufldmg rea shall exclude the following:
VI.
VII.
VIII.
tkan twenty~e!ghr~ {2g J iItcnes !rom ,.xter~or
(2) _Steps and open porches projecting :lot more than five (5') fe~t from
exterior walls and having an area of not more than thir~,y (30~ srkuare
feet.
(3) First story bay windows projecting not more than three (3') feet from
exterior walls, and exterior cellar doors projecting not more than six
(6') feet from exterior walls.
CONDOM!NIUI%f'!z~* A-=Sffiidl~gj¢~in'~'~ the'~wel~ing~t{ni~.~ :~f which a're individually
owned, each owner receiving_a deed enabling him to sell, mortgage or exchange
his dwelling unit independent of the owners of the. other dwelling units in the
b.~lding or buildings.
LOT COVERAGE - That percen,mge of the lot area cove. red bv the buildina area.
YARD - An open space, other than a court, on the same lot with a building, which
is, exclusive of trees, shrubs, .~and natural rock formations, unoccupied and
_unobstructed from the ground Upward.
Section 100-30 A(2)(b) is amended to read as follows:
(b) The keeping, breedhxg [and] ,_. raising [of fowl, except ducks, and large
domestic animals] and training of horses, domestic animals and
(except ducks) on lots of ten (10) acres or more.
Section 100-30 A(2)(c) is hereby repealed and Section 100-30 A(2)(d) is retettered
100-30 A(2)(c), and amended to read as follows:
(c)
Barns, storage buildings, greenhouses (including plastic covered), and
other related structures, provided that such buildings shall conform to
the yard requirements for principal buildings.
Section 100-30 B is hereby amended by adding a new subsection, to be Subsection
14, to read as follows:
14.
Wineries for the production and retail sale of wine produc:e~ from a. rapes
primarily grown on the vineyard on which such winery is t~eated.
Section t00-30 C(2) is amended to read as follows:
(2)
Garden house, toolhouse, storage building, playhouse, wading pool or
swimming pool incidental to the residential use of fl~e premises and no;
operated for gain, subject to the following requirements:
Section 100-30 C(2)(a) is amended to read as follows:
(a)
Any swimming pool shall be completely enclosed with a pc mnanent chain-
link (or similar type)fence of not more than two-inch mesh, not less
than four (4) feet in height, erected, maintained and provided with a
self-closing, [self-locking] setf-latc[dng gate to
of the pool and to prevent accidents. However, if ~;aid t)t,ol ia loc. ai~-d
-3-
XI,
XIL
XIL!.
more than four (4) feet above the ground, then a fence is not required,
provided that all points df access To said pool are adequately protected
by a self-closing, [self-locking] self-latching gate. Any swimming pool
in existence at the effective date of the- provisions of this subsection shall,
within one (1) year from such date, comply with ail of the pro~Ssions hereof.
Section I00-30 C(4) is amended to read as follows:
(4) The storage of either a boat or travel trailer owned and used by the owner
or occdPant 6f~the 15r~/nis~,s:~iq ~h.--:s,u'ch-hoat ar traiml trailer is stored~
for his personal use, subject 'to the. following requirements:
Section 100-3'4"i's, ri~numBered 100-119A and Section 100-35 is renurnbered
100-119B and-the reference therein to Section 100-34 is changed to
and Section 100-36 is renumbered to 100~34.
Section- t(10-34 (.as renumber~d from 100-36) is hereby ~mended to read as follows:
In the A District, in ~he case of a lot held in single and separate o~mership [on the
effective date of this chapter] prior to November 23, 1971 and thereafter, with an
area of not less than twelve:thousand five hundred (12, 500) square feet and [/or] _a
width of not less than [the requirements of this chapter] one hundred {100') feet,
a single family dwelling may be constructed thereon with rear and side yards reduced
by twenty-five (25%) percent [provided ~hat alt other-yard requirements are com-
plied with. ], with a front yard set,bdck of thirty-five (35') feet, or the average
setback of the existing dwellings within three hundred (300') feet therefrom on the
s~me side of the street within the same block, whichever is greater.
Subdivision C of Section 100-50 is amended by adding a new subsection (3), to read
as follows:
(3) Signs as set forth in Section t00-40C(3) of this chao[er.
Subdivision A of Section 100-60 is hereby'amended to read as follows:
A. Permitted uses [. ], subject to site plan approval by the P!annCr,g Board in
accordance with Article XI!I hereof:
Subdivision A of Section {-~ is hereby amerliie--d-~6-r-e-~i as ro~iow~: .....
A. Permitted uses[. ], subject to Site plan approval by the Planning
in accordance with Article ]fill' hereof:
X~4I. Subdivision C of SectiOn 100-70 is amended by adding a aew Subsection (2) ro read
as follows:
(2) Signs as set forth in Section 100-60 C(2) of this chapter.
Subdivision C of Section 100-80 is amended by adding a new subsection (2L to read
as follows:
!2) Signs as set forth in Section 100-60 C(_) of this
XVIII. Section 110-112 is corrected ro read Section 100-112.
-4-
Section 100-121 is hereby amen-de-d by adding a new subdivision3 to be subdivision
D, to read as follows:
D. Interpretations. On appeal from an order, decision or determination of.
an administrative officer, or on reauest of an~ [o~ officer, board or
agency to. decide ~y of the fo!lowing:
(i) Determine the meanin~ of any pro,sion in this chapter, or of
any condition or requirement spec~ied or ma~ under the pro-
xdsiOns of this~ct~pte~._ .... ~ '
(2) Determine the exac% tocmtion of any district boundary sho%%~ on
the Budding Zone ~Iap.
XX. Section 100-124-is hereby amended to readas fOllows:
Section 100-124 Fees
All applications to the Board of Appeals for any relief provided for herein
shall be accompanied by a fee of [fifteen dollars ($15)] twenty-five dollars
($2 5.00),
The first sentence~of the first unnumbered paragraph of Section 100-136 (Cluster
Development) is amended to read as follows:
The Planning Board may [approve], in the exercise of its discretion, require..
cluster developments for one family dwellings in an A Residential and
Agricultural District according ~o the procedure and requirements [specified
below. ] hereinafter set forth, without the requirement that the owner make
written application for the use of such procedure.
Section 100-136, Subdivision A. Subsection (2) is hereby am~n~,c] to read as
follows:
(2)
In a cluster development, lot area [, ] shall not bc ~-~d~?(:d by ~nor,~ than
fifty (50%) percent, ~_d~l~_t. width, depth, front yard, r~:ar ya~'d and side
yards shall not be reduced by more ~han [fifty percent (50~i.)] thirty (30%)
percent of the minimum r~quiremen[s set forth in the "Buik~ and i~arking
Schedule".
Section 100-141, SubdivisionA is hereby amended by adding a ne~vsen~cnce
thereto to read as follows:
If the Building Inspector deems it necessary, that plans and s~0ecifications be..
examined to ascertain if the proposed building will 9omply with applicable
building construction, housing and fire codes, he may require that ptan~ ~nd
specifications be filed with the building permit application.
Section 100-141 J(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) are hereby repealed and the following
provisions are added in place thereof:
(17 Single family dwellings.
(a) New Dwelling and additions and alterztions to existing du,ellings~ -.
Twenty-five ($25.00) dollars, plus five ($0.05) cents for each
square foot o{ floor area in excess of eight hundred fifty
square feet.
(b) Accessory buildings and additions and alterations ~o existing
accessory, buildings - Te~ ($10~00) dollars, plus five ($0.05)
cents for each sq,~re foot of floor area in excess of~ive hundre.d.
(500) square feet.
-5-
(3) Hotels, motels, multiple dwellings, business, industrial and all other
buildings.
(a)
New buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings -
Fifky ($50.00) dollars, plus five ($0.05) cents for each square
foot Of floor area in excess of one thousrmd (1,000:) square feet.
Accessory buildings and additions and alten~ion~x~.ex.~u[ing- ~
accessory buildings - Fifteen_ (~ 15, 00) ~dg~ars, plus five ($ 0.05)
cents for each square fooi of floor area inexcess of five hundred
(500) square feet.
(4) Foundations constructed under existing buildings - Thirty ($30.00) dollars.
(5) All other structures (i.e. fences, pools, etc. ) and additions and
alterations to such structures - Fifteen ($t5.00} dollars.
(6) For the purposes of this subdivision J, cellars, decks, attached
and any habitable area shall be included in /he calculation of
floor area.
Section 100-i44G is hereby amended to read as follo%~s:
Upon written request and upon paymcnl~ of a ibc of [five dollars
($5.)] fifteen ($15. 00)' dollars, the Building Inspector shall, after
inspection, issue a certificate of occupancy for any building or usc
thereof ~or of land existing at the ti~l~ of the adoption of [his chapter,
certifying such use and whether or no~ the samb and the building
conforn~ to the provisions of this chapter.
XXVI. This Local Law shall take effect immediately.
matteFkl%r~ia'q¥[/ihh-is not applicable.)
(Final adoption by Iaea, ieglslat~ e body onty..~
I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated aslocal taw No ................... of
of the :C~, of Souihold
TOWH ...................................
on February 1, ~983 ~.. ......
was duly passed by the ......T...°...w.-r{....B..?..a...r.~. ..................................................
(Name of Legislative Body)
in accordance with the applicable provisions of !aw.
(Passage by local legislative body with approval or nO disapproval by Elective Chief Executive Officer .*
or repassage after disapproval.)
I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, design ated as local law No .....................of i9 ........
County
City
of the Town of ...................................... was duly passed by the ..................................................................................
(Name of Legzslatlve Body)
Village
not disapproved
on .................................................. i_9 ........ and was approved by the .......................................................
repassed after disapproval Elective Chief Executive Officer '
and was deemed duly adopted on ........................................................ 19 .........in accordance with the applicable
provisions of law.
I Final adoption by referendum.)
I hereby cert ify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No ................... of 19 ..........
County
of the City of ...................................... was duty passed by the ......................................................................................
Town (Nam~ of Legislative Bndy)
Village not disapproved
on ................................................... 19: ....... and was approved by the ...............................................................
repassed after disapproval Elective Chief l~xecutive Officer '
on .................................................................. 19: ........ Such local law was submitted to the people by reason of a
man datoU-
permissive referendum,and received the affirmative vote of a majority of the qualified electors voting
general
thereon at the special election held on ...................................................... 19 ......... in accordance with the appli-
annual
cable provisions of law.
(Subject
referendum.)
I hereby certify that the local law
County
City
of the Town of ...................................... was
Village
...................................................... 19 ........ and
to permissive referendum,and final adoption because no valid petition filed requesting
annexed hereto, designated a's local law No ................... of 19 ..........
duly passed by the ................................................................................ on
(Name of Legislative Body)
not disapproved
was approved by the ......................................................... on
repassed after disapproval Elective Chief Executive Officer ~
Such local law being subject to a permissive referendum and no
valid peti{ion requesting such referendum having been filed, said local law was deemed duly adopted on
...................................................................... 19 ........ , in accordance with the applicable provisions of law.
*Elective Chief Executive Officer means or includes the chief executive officer of a county elected on a cTouuty-wide basis
or, if thexe be none, the chairman of the county legislative body, the mayor of a city or village or the supervisor of a town,
where such officer is vested with power to approve or veto local laws or ordinances.
Page 2
, ~ ~
~ u~cen~ cerdf,, that th~.
of the City of .......................................................................... i~asit~g been submitted to referendum pursuant to the
~36 ,
provisions of 37 or tllcz ~,iunicioa[ t~ .ie tqule Law,and kavmg received the affirmative vote of a majority
special
of the qualified electors o£ such city voting thereon at the general election held on ..................................
................ 19 ............ became operative.
6. (County local law concerning adoption of Charter.)
I hereby certify that the local law am~exed hereto, designated as Lo&l Law No ....... of 19 ...... of the
County of ......................................... State of New York, having been submitted to the Electors at the
General Election of November ........... 19 ........... pursuast to subdivisions 5 and 7 of Section 33 of the Muni-
cipal He,ne Rule Law, and having received the affirmative vote of a majority of the qualified electors of the
cities of said county as a unit and of a majority of the qualified electors of the towns of said county
considered as a unit voting at Said general election, became operative.
(If any other authorized form of final adoption has been foIiowed, please provide an appropriate
certification.l
~ I further certify that I.have compared the preceding local law with the original on file in this office
and that the same is a correct transcript therefrom and of~ the whole of'such onbdnal local iaw~ and was
finally adopted in the manner indicated in paragraph ........... .~. ............... above.
officex designated by loc~ legislative body
Date: February 3, 1983
Judith T. Terry, Town ~lerk
(Seat)
(Certification ;o be executed by County Attorney, Corporation Counsel, Town Attorney, Village Attorney
or other authorized Attorney of locality.)
STA rE OF NEW YORK
SUFFOLK
COUNTY OF ....................................................
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing local law contains the correct text and that all
proper proceedings have been had or taken for the enactment of the local law annexed hereto.
. T.a.s.k.e..v.,. o. r .n.ey' .......
Title
Date: February 3. 1983
of ...... ......................................
Town
Page 3
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
DECEMBER 21, 1982
3:30 P.M.
IN THE MATTER OF A PROPOSED LOCAL LAW TO"AMEND THE ZONING CODE OF
THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD".
Present:
Supervisor William R. Pell., III
Councilman John J. Nickles
Councilman Lawrence Murdock, Jr.
Councilman Francis J. Murphy
Councilman Joseph L. Townsend, Jr.
Justice Raymond W. Edwards
* * *
Town Clerk Judith T. Terry
Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker
SUPERVISOR PELL: This is a hearing on a Local Law to amend the
Zoning Code of the Town of Southold. Public Notice shall be read
by Councilman Murdock.
COUNCILMAN MURDOCK: "Public Notice is hereby given that there has
been presented to the Town Board of the Town o£ Southold, Su££olk
County, New York, on the 23rd day of November, 1982, a Local Law
entitled, "A Local Law to amend the Zoning Code of the Town of
Southold". Said Local Law provides for general amendments to the
Zoning Code consisting of the following: . Adding a title; adding
accomodation of solar energy systems as a purpose of said code;
amending and adding definitions; permitting the training of horses
in the "A" District; permitting greenhouses in the "A" District;
permitting storage buildings as an accessory use in the "A" District;
amending the type of gates at pool fences; permitting the storage of
travel trailers in the "A" District; permitting the keeping of not
more than two (2) horses, as an accessory use in the "A" District;
amending the definitions of a lot held in single and separate owner-
ship in the "A" District; de£ining signs allowed, in "M-i" Districts;
requiring site plan approval for uses in the "B" and "B-i" Districts;
permitting single family dwelling units in the "B" District; providing
for the type and size of signs in the "B-I" and "C" Districts; author-
izing the Board of Appeals to interpret the meaning of various provisions
of the code and to determine exact district boundary lines; increasing
fees of the Board of Appeals; authorizing the Planning Board to require
cluster developments in the "A" District; limiting reduction of lot
areas to 50~, and the reduction of lot depth, and lot width, front,
rear and side' yars to 30% in cluster developments; authorizing the
Building Inspector to require plans and specifications if deemed
necessary; amending the fees for building permits. Copies of said
Local LAw are available at the office of the Town Clerk to any interested
persons during business hours. Notice is further given that the Town
Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the afore-
Page 2 - Public Hear~.~g - Local Law to Amend Zon,~.~ag Code
said Local Law at the So.uthold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New
York, on the 21st day of December, 1982, at 3:30 o'clock P.M. at
which time ali interested persons will be heard. Dated: November
23, 1982, Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk, Town of Southold."
I have an affidavit of publication from Patricia Wood on behalf
of The Long Island Traveler-Watchman. An affidavit by Troy Gustavson
of notice of publication on behalf of The Suffolk Times. Notice from
the Town Clerk saying the notice has been posted on the Town Clerk's
Bulletin Board.
We also have a notice from the Town Clerk that the following
people have been notified and have responded: Suffolk County Depart-
ment of Planning, Long Island State Park Commission, Village of
Greenport, Town of Shelter Island, Town of Riverhead, Town of Southampton,
Southold Town Planning Board, Southold Town Board of Appeals, Southold
Town Building Department.
We have a notice from the Suffolk County Department of Planning
to the Southold Town Clerk: "Gentlemen: Pursuant to the requirements
of Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the above
referenced application which has been submitted to the Suffolk County
Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination.
A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an'
approval or disapproval." Signed by Lee E. Koppelman, Director of
Planning.
We have a letter from the Southold Town Planning Board to Mrs.
Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk: "The Planning Board passed the
following resolution at a regular meeting held November 8, 1982.
Resolved that the Southold Town Planning Board accept as submitted
the proposed Local Law to Amend the Zoning Code of the Town of
Southold containing 28 proposed changes regarding the transmittal
letter from the Town Clerk's Office October 21; 1982." Signed by
Henry Raynor, Jr., Chairman, Southold Town Planning Board.
SUPERVISOR PELL: You have heard the reading of the legal notice.
There are several changes here. I presume you ail have copies of
this and you are here for a specific one, instance. I will ask
you people out there to address the Board in the specific instance
you are interested in. Anybody wish to be heard on these proposed
changes?
MR. DAVID MUDD, Mudd's Vineyard, Southold: In the reading I notice
that Section 100-30B was not read. Is this to be considered today?
TOWN CLERK TERRY: What Mr. Murdock read was the capsulization of
the entire Local Law.which is many pages long. ..What you have in
your hand, Mr. Mudd, is what is being considered.
MR. MUDD: "Wineries for the production and retail sale of wine
produced from grapes primarily grown on the vineyard on which.such
winery is located". Can you further amplify the intent of that
paragraph?
SUPERVISOR PELL: Councilman Townsend is chairman of this committee.
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: No, I'm not chairman of this committee, but I'd
be happy to discuss it and I think that John, who has been in it maybe
a year or two longer than I have, will also discuss it. It was my
Page 3 - Public Hear~-~g - Local Law to Amend Zonz~g Code
impression that this wa~ to bring in line with our other agricultural
uses in Town where theor, etically incidental uses are allowed for the
sale of products, but not---the intent of this is to'avoid retail
sales of products that are not created on the property. For instance,
certain packaging or bottling, if you will, of wine is not supposed
to be affected, and in fact if you have to have wine added to your
wine or grapes added to that process we're not trying to keep you
from selling that either, but what we're trying to eliminate is the
winery being established without growing at least a goodly percentage
of the grapes.
MR. MUDD: I have to take it that primarily it means that if we have
at least 50~ plus percent of grapes grown on your property you come
under this?
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: That's right, yon can do that, right. That's
the intent, yes.
MR. MUDD: I thank you.
COUNCILMAN MURDOCK: Mr. Mudd, it also, if you notice, says wineries
for the production and retail sale of wines produced from grapes
primarily grown on the vineyard. It's to enable a grape grower to
do all of the processes necessary to provide wine from his grapes.
It's also, under State law, the producer of wine is allowed to sell
at retail wine on his premises. We intend that the grape grower be
allowed to do all the things he needs to do on that agricultural land.
It is the intent that if somebody were to import wine'or grapes grown
on other than his own land he would have to process them in an
industrial zoned piece of land. He could not use agricultural land
to do outside commerce in. We are recognizing the difference in the
fact that a grape grower is a farmer and there are necessary processes
to be done with the handling of those grapes by the grape grower. We're
granting him the right to do that in the Town of Southold. However, if
he intends to expand and do other than his own vineyard, he will have
to go to appropriately zoned land for that purpose.
MR. MUDD: My concern is one that I produce grapes.' Does this prohibit
me from selling grapes to other vineyards or wineries here in Southold
Town?
COUNCILMAN MURDOCK: No. It doesn't prohibit you from selling them.
However, it may prohibit the man who wants to buy your grapes from
processing them in Southold Town in two ways One, if your gz'apes--
if the amount of your grapes that he uses were to be less than 50~
of his own ~roduction---I'm sorry, more than 50~ of his own production
it would prohibit him from doing that. The second that it would do,
it would prohibit him from buying your grapes and your neighbors
grapes and putting them all together, unless he were doing this from
an industrial piece of property.
MR. MUDD: Industrial versus commercial?
COUNCILMAN NICKLES: Commercial/industrial.
SUPERVISOR PELL: My apologies, the chairman of this committee is
Larry, not Joe.
Page 4 - Public Heary~g - Local Law to Amend Zon"i~g Code
ABIGAIL WICKHAM, Attorney, Mattituck: I think the committee has done
a tremendous job and very comprehensive job.. I have one comment and
two objections. My comment has to do with several sections in the
Code which impose upon the Planning Board authority for site plan
review, primarily in a multiple residence zone. I don't object':to
that but I think the Board should take into account the fact that
the Planning Board already has. I think a crushing burden of matters
before it and this is just one more. It's not necessarily the wrong
thing to do, and I think the Planning Board is very overburdened now
with the work they have and that should be addressed, perhaps not by
this law'but in a separate concern.. My first objection has to do
with the proposed change to the definitional Section 100-13 B on
page 2, specifically home occupations. The proposed change is to
eliminate, in the definitional section of home occupation, the
accessory structures from housing a home occupation. Apparently
this has been done to resolve a conflict in the Code between the
definitional section of a home occupation and the actual section
defining uses of the home occupation which refer just to the main
structure. I don't see why a home occupation can't be--shouldn't
be conducted in an accessory building, rather than just in the main
house. The definition of home occupation is very carefully worded
to limit those occupations to. uses which are'presumably comparable
with the residential setting, particularly professional and home
trades, and if that professional or homemaker wants to use--conduct
an occupation from the accessory building, I don't see why that
should be distinguished from the main house. In Southold Town you
may have a lot of young people who can't afford their own'office and
maybe want to use their home for an office. You may have a lot of
women who are getting into the professional or business area who
have a family and can't go outside of their own home property to
an office. You may also have people who are semi-retired who would
be using their home as an occupation. I think those kinds of people
should be encouraged to use their home occupation for these limited
purposes and not necessarily restricted to the main house where there
may be too many living demands that have the business conducting.
My second objection
SUPERVISOR PELL: Gail, go back to that one. You're saying that you
don't believe it should be in the main building, right?
MS. WICKHAM: No, I'm saying it should be either. This change is
restricting you to the main building and I don't think that that's
necessarily appropriate.
COUNCILMAN MURDOCK: In the copy I'm reading from it says, "---studio
or occupational rooms"---"provided that the office, studio or occupational
rooms are located in a dwelling in which the practitioner resides,
[or in a building accessory thereto]---".
SUPERVISOR PELL: Brackets mean out.
MS. WICKHAM: Brackets mean deleted, so you are deleting the ability
to have a home occupation in an accessory structure, for instance, a
garage. I would suggest instead that you amend the other section of
the Code--I don't remember the number--which refers to only the main
residence, and allow it in the accessory structure, and you may want
Page 5 - Public Hea~'~g - Local Law to Amend zon~'ing Code
certain restrictions on it but at least let it be there if they
comply with those restrictions. Now, number two, this would be
the proposed Section 100-136 regarding clustering by the Planning
Board. I'm strongly opposed to giving'the Planning Board, or the
Town Board or any other board in this government the ability to
mandate cluster zoning. I think it's a really insidious intrusion
into a private property owner's rights and it has really serious,
even constitutional overtones. I think cluster development is in
many cases a very'wise lhing to do and a beneficial thing to do,
but I don't think a government should have the right to tell a person
that his property has to be developed so that houses are scrunched
in one area with a lot of room somewhere else.. Clustering, as I said,
is often valuable, but in some there are disadvantages to ~t too that
I've seen. Some people don't like to have their houses so closely
clustered together, they may want a little more space around them.
Also, people have expressed reservations to me about the open space
itself, how ~t's going to be managed, who's going to take care of
it, the liability on it, etc., and I don't think the Planning Board
should have the ability to mandate that. I think zoning is a--
obviously it's a constitutional appropriate government exercise of
police power, but I think at some point you have just too much
government and a private property owner is being unfairly treated.
I do have one more comment and that is just briefly in the winery'
section. I don't know why you restricted it to retail sale. I~
think that some wholesale sale may occur. I don't know what the
regulations on the liquor are regarding it. That would be a question
I would raise. Thank you.
COIJNCILMAN NICKLES: I would just like to ask Gail Wickham a question.
Are you representing a client or are you .just hear to speak---
MS. WICKHAM: I'm here speaking for myself, I'm not representing anybody
other than myself.
SUPERVISOR PELL: Larry, do you want to speak to the winery question?
COUNCILMAN MURDOCK: It should have been inferred that selling the
wine is as much a product as selling the grape. That is a part of
selling the wine. After if's bottled you do have to dispose of it.
I'll have to read the section over to make sure that it's not
restricted. It certainly should be allowed to be wholesaled.
SUPERVISOR PELL: 'Mr. Smith.
MR. WILLIAM SMITH, Southold: I would like to say that Ms. Wickham's
sentiments on cluster zoning are exactly my own and I feel it should
not be mandated. Thank you.
RICHARD J. CRON, Attorney, Cutchogue: If it plegses the Board, I too
would like to take a position with respect to that specific amendment
that deals wi.th clustering, and that is Section 100-136 as proposed.
I too share the same sentiments as the other speakers with respect to
a mandatory clustering imposed upon anyone by any governmental body,
and specifically in this instance the Planning Board. Firstly, I'm
strongly in favor of individual rights and that periains not only to
personal individual rights but it also pertains to property rights.
Page 6 - Public Hea~z.ng - Local Law to Amend Zoix:xng Code
When you grant to any governing board in their sole discretion~
whether that discretion be based upon sound principles, or just an
arbitrary discretion, I think you impose upon an individual,or an
individual who has property rights, a substantial disadvantage. I
don't think you should start with .the assumption that clustering
in of itself might be appropriate, and certainly you ought not to
impose that in an arbitrary manner by granting the right to impose
it upon a governing body. I think when the situation warrants
clustering I would believe that the developer mandated by economic
reasons or a~sthetic reasons would himself elected to make such a
choice. It need not be imposed upon him by others and I would
respectfully request that the Board seriously consider not adopting
such a resolution or amendment of the Zoning Code.
SUPERVISOR PELL: Thank you, Mr. Cron. Ruth Oliva.
MRS. RUTH OLIVA, North Fork Environmental Council President, Orient:
I would object to Mr. Cron's statement. I think that we need mandatory
clustering in certain instances, and he says the developers would take
aesthetic or economic reasons into consideration in developing their
own cluster situation, but after attending'the Planning'Board meetings
£or several years I have found that the Planning Board has'recommended
clustering to some of the developers for really good valid reasons and
it has been turned down, so I heartily support the adoption o£ the
cluster zoning. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR PELL: Thank you. Mr. Frank Bear.
MR. FRANK BEAR, Southold: I would like to support'the remarks of
Ruth Oliva. It seems to me that we do need this sort of regulation
in order to assure the saving of open space and farmland in situations
which are--can have serious affects on the entire environment of the
Town and it's'affect on the people who live in the Town. The people
who live here also have rights and I think those rights should be and
must be taken into consideration and'I would like to urge that the
Town Board approve that'aspect of the resolution. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR PELL: Thank you, Mr. Bear. Mrs. Jean Tiedke.
MRS. JEAN TIEDKE, Southold: I would agree that this law says the
Planning Board may require cluster zoning. It does not say it must
require cluster zoning, and it seems to me that i£ you're going to
attack this particular law because it's attacking property rights~
why do we have any zoning at all?
SUPERVISOR PELL: Thank you, Mrs. Tiedke. Anybody else wish to be
heard on this one or any other part o£ the proposed law?
MRS. KATHLEEN GRASECK~ Southold: I'd tike to review a Local Law to
Amend the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold. I was questioning
in the paper a law'regarding livestock and supposedly the 400,000
square £eet to house an animal, is that on the agenda?---40,O00 square
'£eet.
COUNCILMAN MURDOCK: It's title is Section 100-3.0 C (5) Js hereby
repealed and the £ollowing is. added in it's place:"(5) The keeping
Page 7 - Public Hear'i~g - Local Law to Amend Zon'~ng Code
of not more than a total of two (2) horses and/or ponies owned and used
by the owner or tenant o£ the premises £or his personal use, provided
the land devoted exclusively to such use (not forming a part o£ the
yard requirements for any other use) shall not be less than forty
thousand (40,000) square feet for each such horse or pony, and further
provided that all buildings shall be located not less than fifty (50)
feet from all lot lines." Is that what you read about?
MRS. GRASECK: Yes, I did. I was wondering does that include the
house on that property, or is that a separate lot?
COUNCILMAN MURDOCK: It's intended to be separate. It says, "..for
the use only of the horse.."
MRS. GRASECK: Is that a law that is in effect now?
COUNCILMAN MURDOCK: Yes, we do have that law in effect now, and
we're changing ~t to allow more than one. In other words, if you
have---I believe it calls for if you want to raise more than one
horse, i£ you wanted to go into horse farming per se, you would
a~to have ten acres or more. After you have ten acres or more
you are exempt from the number of animals you may keep on the
property. Our intent is that some people have two acres o£ property,
or three acres of property, and would like a horse and a pony, or
two horses, and by the way the statute was written before they were
only allowed one horse in a residential area, and we're trying to
address that and allow people to have two horses in a residential
area, provided they still have one acre of land available for each
animal.
MRS. GRASECK: May I question you when that law was enacted, because
I know when I moved into the area the law used to be that you were
allowed two livestock on so many thousand square feet?
TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: That's all that this allows now.
~RS. GRASECK: But it was never a separate lot. It used to be within-- ·
you know, we didn't need---
TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: What this is doing is clarifying the section
that you're talking about. It never speci£ied that the house had to
be separate, but that's the way that the Building Department construed
it and we had a case litigated and the court so held that that was a
proper construction. What we're doing here is amending this to make
it very clear that in a residential,as an accessory use, you can have
up to two horses as long as you have 40,000 square feet of land area
devoted to each one of those horses, in addition to the 40,000 square
feet that you require for your house. Now, as Councilman Murdock
indicated, if you wish more then tile rationale was then you should
go into a farm area Where you could have unlimited horses as long as
you have ten acres o£ land, but they felt in an exclusively residential
area where you have houses, two horses was enough, and if you wanted
more they should be out in farms. That was the rationale.
MRS. GRASECK: Well, the only thing I can say is I think it's very
un£air. I think you're making it so you have to be a very wealthy
Page 8 - Public Hear~.~g - Local Law to Amend Zo~,~llg Code
.person to buy a separate acre to own a horse for your own personal
use, and I think it's unfair, I think the Board is construing, the
law to the way they feel it should apply.
TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: They're also taking into consideration
complaints of neighbors where you have horses housed in small
lots. They get lose, they run around t~-~ neighborhood, they tear
up the neighbor's shrubs and so forth, so in addition to allowing
what they thought was a reasonable number of horses, they also
gave consideration to the affect that those horses would have on
the neighborhing home owners. They took that into consideration
too, and this is what they came up with and they felt it was a
rational balancing of the rights of people who wish to have horses
and those neighbors would would have to live with them.
SIRS. GRASECK: Unfortunately, we do have children and in a community
such as this most of the children enjoy riding horses as a pasttime~
I mean, there aren't a lot of recreational activities out here for
children and I think this should be kept in mind, because, you know,
it is an important psrt of their life. Thank you.
S.UPERVISOR PELL: Thank you for your comments. Anybody else wish
to address the Board?
MR. KERWIN, Bay Avenue, Cutchogue: I want to talk on the lots, the
70 footers that's going to be passed on. Now, I.happen to be in
the neighbhrood like Nassau Farms, which is a development of 70 foot
lots--the whole area was. Of course, as years go on they limited
them with zoning. Of course, there's not many pieces left at 70,
and I happen to have one, and I know of a few pieces around Ime.
It think it is a hardship the way it is in the paper, you s~y that
I would have to have 100 foot on the road. Now, that's almost
impossible, the way the lots were cut up, and I've owned the lots
for the last 15.years and now I'm coming into the position where I
have to sell them eventually. Now, what do you think can explain
that, what do you think can be done about it?
TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: I think the amendment that you are referring
to is what's held in single and separate ownership.
· MR. KERWIN: In husband.and wife ownership. Now, I don't have the
100 foot on the road, but the lot has been cut up for years. Well,
your Zoning Board of Appeals, now we're coming up~ of course---
TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: You say the Zoning Board of Appeals ....
MR. KERWIN: Cut i.t up ten years ago.
TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: Well, then this doesn't even bother it. The
Zoning Board of Appeals has the right to give a variance.
MR. KERWIN: I'm going to give you an example. A neighbor of mine
just bought a piece of property, it's 70 foot by 250 foot. Now,
what have we got, 15,000 square foot of property, roughly. I'm
using even 'numbers. Now, he just got that a year ago. Now what's
going to be involved again. Can he build on that in the course of
the---it says in the paper here legally able to.
Page 9 - Public Hearing - Local Law to Amend Zo~g Code
TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: The only thing that this amendment does--
let me start from the beginning. If you have an undersized lot
that pre-existed before zoning, and continued the same way, that's
a non-conforming use. Now., what this amendment does, is if it was
in existence prior to 1971, and if it had an area o£ 12,500 square
feet, you can reduce the side yards by half. That's all this is
doing, is allowing the reduction of side yards.
MR. KERWIN: Yeah, but the paper says you got to have 100 feet on
the road for frontage.
TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: I£ it existed before zoning you have a non-
conforming legal constitutional right to have it. You may not get
side yards reductions, but that can continue.
SUPERVISOR PELL: Councilman Nickles wishes to respond to that.
COUNCILMAN NICKLES: In your point of view, in your case, really
nothing is changed. Of these 28 Code proposal changes that we have,
many of them are kind of like what I would call housekeeping items.
In this particular one it is trying to take some of the work load
off the Zoning Board of Appeals, because everybody that has an under-
sized tot, doesn't meet the 150 front requirement, the one acre, would
have to come in and get a variance. This costs the applicant money,
it costs the Town money and it costs the time of the Zoning Board.
So in an effort to give immediate relief to all these undersized
lots, this is the reason why we have th~s change in here and the
idea was set up with the 100 foot front lyou could conform to the
prior setback, side yards and front yards, which the Zoning Board
regularly gave as a matter o£ course because it was a hardship, but
it was cut off at 100 feet. Nothing is Ichanged from your point of
view. If you have a 70 foot lot you're still going to have to come
in before the Zoning Board of Appeals a year ago and next year into
the future.
MR. KERWIN: But now is that attached t¢
The Zoning Board can say, "Well, usuall'
does the Zoning Board know when there's
COUNCILMAN NICKLES: That's up to the Zc
MR. KERWIN: Well, there you are, we're
your other piece of property?
there is no hardship." How
a hardship in my ease?
,ning Board to determine.
coming back to that 100 foot
that you were talking about. That ther~ is one .leverage they have over
me is that 100 foot.
COUNCIL~AN NICKLES: No, if we do not pass this your situation is
not going to change whether we pass it dr we don't pass it. You're
going to be standing in the same position that you were £ive years
ago, that you were last week and will b~ next week. This will not
affect you one way or the other.
MR. KERWIN: But you don't have to chan
is the same as it was before.
COUNCILMAN NICKLES: We don't have to
to eliminate a lot of the applications
anything because everything
~ange it except we're trying
)ecause of so many lots
Page 10 - Public Hea'i,~ng - Local Law to Amend Zo~J±ng Code
created since 1971, which is when we started, I think, the 100 .foot
requirement.
MR. KERWIN: I'm still going to have to come before the Building
Inspector~ I'll have to come before the Planning Board, I've got
to come before the Zoning Board of Appeals, so it's the same thing,
so what are you voting on? What are you trying to create, another
body or what?
SUPERVISOR PELL; Councilman Murdock wants to respond to it.
COUNCILMAN MURDOCK~ The present law requires that you have so much
side yard, I believe eleven foot three inches, and fifteen foot~ so
much rear yard~ fifty foot rear yard, so much front yard set back~
which at the present time--- and what we are doing with this statute
is removing the restriction so that, let's say your lot is 70 feet
wide~ it's 12,500 square feet that is the criteria~ and not less than
12,500 square feet, or a width of not less than the requirement, 100
feet. So what we're going is that when you come in with your lot--
let's say your lot is 70 foot front and 100 foot deep, and you have
a 35 foot setback and you want to build a house 45 feet deep. Because
you have a narrow lot you're now going to put your house on the lot
sidewards as opposed to the width being across the front so that you
can fit it in. At the present time that 30 and 45 will now be 75 feet
and say your lot is 105 feet deep, you only have 35 feet left. You
now have to come before the Zoning Board of Appeals. What we are
changing it to is so that it can be adapted down to 33 feet and you
will not have to come be£ore the Zoning Board of Appeals. We are
now giving the Building Department the authority to ease your load
in using a smaller lot. We're making it more accessible to the owner
to build a home without going through two or three steps. If you
wanted to build a really large house, that would be a separate matter,
but we're trying to accomodate people wh~ understand that they have
a small lot and realistically no matter what you did on 105 foot depth
of lot~ you couldn't have a setback a house and a 50 foot back yard.
You just couldn't do it. 'Since you're allowed by law to use your
land you now have to be turned down by the Building Department and
then go be£ore the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. KERWIN: Yeah, but you're still losing the point of the argument.
The point of the argument is that the 70 foot that I own butts into
the other piece of property that I live on~ right, you follow me?
The Zoning Board we're been in before them before--they've been very
decent and everything and they said there was no hardship. If they
say there's no hardship I can't do anything with that lot because
they say there's no hardship.
COUNCILMAN MURDOCK~ I think now you're talking about a different
problem. You own a 70 foot ~ot next door to your house.
MR...KERWI.N: Yeah~ it abutts my property where the house is.
COUNCILMAN MURDOCK: The zoning law was changed and I forget exactly
when, but the law says that any property contiguous to the same--
any contiguous property in the same ownership~ no matter when they
were purchased~ are construed to be one piece of land and must be
Page 11 - Public Heralding - Local Law to Amend Z~Jing Code
accepted---must be treated as one piece of land. If you were to
sell off a piece then, regardless of when you bought'it, when you
wanted to sell that 70 foot lot, you would now have to apply for
permission to sell it as a subdivision.
MR. KERWIN: That's all well and good, but they pulled a trick on me--
we're talking about 70 foot lots. I had two 70 foot lots--I had five
all. told in Nassau Farms, which is a 70 foot development, and seven
years ago I had two lots left out of the five that I had--they were
all 70's--sold the three, they came in and they said you can't split
the two lots up because they are in my wife's name and my name, so
then we were coming back with this lO0 foot again.
SUPERVISOR PELL: Your comments are taken. We know what you are
.talking about, other people have been before the Board with the
same argument. That is something different other than what we are
talking about right now. Your comments will be on record. The
Board will review them and take them under consideration, and if
they are applicable to this proposed change, we will consider them.
MRS. BONNIE ROSE, Orient: I have questions on Article 100-30. It
says here you can have two horses per owner. First of all I have
an objection. I have five in my family and we all ride and I have
five horses. Now you're telling me I can't have five horses?
COUNCILMAN MURDOCK: Yes, in a residential area.
MRS. ROSE: Okay, so now what do we do? Do we have to turn around
and sell them or do we have to pay somebody like'Jackie Bittner to
board them?
TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: How long have they been there?
MRS. ROSE: Five years.
TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: They're not even allowed now.
MRS. ROSE: Okay, we have four acres at the present time, and
according to the original thing it said that we must have two
animals per acre, which means I have four acres, I could have
eight horses. Now you're telling me that we can only have two
per family. That's objection number one. Then it says here--
you contradict yourself, you said you can own two horses, but later
on, next to the last line, it says 40,000 square feet per horse.
Now you're telling me you've got to have an acre per animal. Okay?
Up here it says you can have two per acre.
COUNCILMAN MURDOCK: No, it says you can have two ....
TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: You can have a maximm~ of two.
MRS. ROSE: So then you're telling a home o~ler that they've got to
.now have your house on whatever it is and if they own two horses
they've got to have 90,000, you're talking three acres of land?
How:many people around here can afford three acres of land?
Page 12 - Public He~ ~. n~ - Local' Law to Amend ZbYJing Code
COUNCILMAN MURDOCK: We have to try and set laws on the basis of
everybody's needs and at specific times they may be cumbersome.
We don't have the option o£ passing a law, or solving a problem
that is going to be a solution acceptable to all people. It's
like there is no common denominator for what everybody likes and
doesn't like and for what everybody's uses are. At the present
time where you have no neighbors it's fine, but suppose you had
moved into the area and you had neighbors around you.
MRS. ROSE: I would have taken that into consideration. I think
most people that are buying a lot today, or people that are living
in a neighborhood, aren't going to put in five or six horses in an
acre of land.
SUPERVISOR PELL: Mrs. Rose, Councilman Nickles wants to address this.
COUNCILMAN NICKLES: I don't really want to' address you, I just want
to make a comment. I think our hearing would be more productive if
the Town Board listens to what the people have to say and then we can
review it later, okay? I fhink to ask questions if you're not clear
on what something which you're doing, but to get into this back and
forth---I more interested in what you have to say about these proposals
so that we can make a good evaluation on whether they should be modified
or thrown out completely or adopted and I would like to ad~, while
I'm discussing input, I see there are winery people here, and there
was only really an explanation asked of a particular section of the
law. The winery business, the vineyard business is one of the finest
things that has happened to the North Fork. We're not interested in
ruining it or harming it, we're interested in your input to see how
it should be controlled, if it should be controlled, and how it should
be controlled properly. I'm a little disappointed that we haven't
gotten more input from you folks that have vineyards, so I hope you
don't get disenchanted with all this zoning code business relative
to horses and buildings before you get disgusted and leave without
giving us some input of what you feel these recommendations are that
we put forward today. Excuse me Bonnie, go ahead and give us.
COUNCILMAN MURPHY: What do. you feel would be a good balance in the
neighborhood on an acre ....
MRS. ROSE: I think if somebody owned an acre of land and has a
horse on it, okay, that legally you could have two horses on it--
that's fine. Okay? And I think that if I have four acres I should
be allowed to have every one in my family to have a horse. Now, I.'m
not saying I agree--okay, I will agree with the law, that you need
a place to live and you keep your animals on a separate acre. I agree
with that ~vholeheartedly. But I do agree that more than two horses--
if I have four acres I should be able to have that many horses.
SUPERVISOR PELL: Eight horses?
MRS. ROSE: Yes.---No, six.
SUPERVISOR PELL: Who else would like to speak?
MRS. GRASECK: I won't take up too much of your time. You were
Page 13 ~ Public Hearing - Local Law to Amend Zoning Code
say a little input into this law or consideration, I'd like to
suggest that possibly a person mighf be fined if an animal did
destruction to a person's property. Most horses don't get loose
that often and I don't understand how a law that's enacted now
will involve-people who previously housed animals. I mean, if
you were legal before, now all of a sudden you're illegal and
you have to, you know, change whatever you had before? I mean,
usually if you have an animal and you were allowed before, accord-
ing to the law, in.the law you would still be allowed, and fhis
law is just effective now. Am I right or am I wrong?
TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: You're correct. In other words,'what you're
saying is that what is legal and allowed 'today should be continued
even though we changed the law in the future, and that is so, that's
true. That's called a pre-existing non-conforming use, which is
protected. They're talking about changes in the future. If what
you have today is allowed under the zoning, and they changed the law
to prohibit that use, you can continue that use as a pre-existing
use.
MRS. GRASECK: Also I'd like to suggest that when you consider---I
can understand the 50 foot, but what about other animals such as
goats, etc. at aren't the usual household pet. I mean,'there are
children who are interested in taking care of animals, 4-H encourages
this, encourages the children, and you know, it helps bring them, you
know, understanding, etc., and I think as far as horses goes if they
are corralled and housed and properly you wouldn't have as many
complaints. I think that should be in the law and it's more important
than putting two horses, or one horse on each additional acreage of
property. I think you're really discriminating against the average
person. You're making this the law for the wealthy individual and
I think it should be reconsidered. I think it should be the way the
original law specified and you were allowed two livestock per acre
and I think that's the way it should be kept and also, you know,
maybe put in there that a corral should be maintained to keep an.
animal restricted. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR PELL: Thank you for your comments. They will be
considered.
MR. BOB GRANGER,' Jamesport Vineyards, Jamesport: Jamesport is in
the Town of Riverhead, however, we are looking at properties in the
Town of Southold and we intend on putting, vineyards out here. I'm
a little bit concerned about your sentence here, number 14, where it
says, "...primarily grown on the vineyard on which such winery is
located". Now, as it stands, and as it was clarified that would
represent 50% that would have to be grown on your own vineyard which
would allow you to purchase grapes from the next vineyard which, if
it was the same size would be the other 50%. We have already gotten
our variance to build a winery in the Town of Riverhead and, of course,
we have potential plans to do it in this town later on. The restriction
that we have from the Town of Riverhead is only grapes grown on the
subject premises or on the North Fork shall be used in the winery.
Now, we feel that that is a little restrictive and we would like to
get that changed some time because we may at some point want to get
a small percentage of either grapes or wine from upstate for a special
Page 14 - Public Hea~-ing - Local Law to Amend z~ning Code
blending or whatever. However, this allows us, and as I interpret
your sentence here, right now we presently have purchased 'three
farms and if they're all the same size and we have a winery on one
of the farms we would only be able to use the'grapes £rom two of
our farms, we would not be able to use grapes from our third farm.
Also, you are interested in getting vineyards out here and not
everybody that is putting in vineyards is considering putting up
a winery. If the wineries that go up are only allowed to purchase
50~ £rom their neighbor's grapes,'what possibly can happen is they
having to be sold upstate from Long Island and I don't think this
is what the people on the North Fork are going to be looking for.
We want to produce'excellent wines and produce most of the wines from
the grapes that are grown here. Thank you.
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: I think, Bob, you can correct me if I'm wrong,
under the present agricultural situation we have here often times
a £armer rents land or owns lots in different areas, and they sell
if they have a £arm stand, they'll sell it out of one location and
it's not construed to be 50~ off their property. In your instance,
when you mention owning three farms it's going to be under one
ownership and that will be 100~ your own production. It doesn't
have to be sold on that specific lot.
MR. GRANGER: Well, it says, "..primarily grown on the vineyard on
which such winery is located". Now, also, we have other investors,
other investing groups that we are in contro~ o£, but it may be a
different name. We may have one vineyard which will have different
owners, but we are in control of the whole thing. So it may be
different names for different vineyards and according to this we
would not be able to use all of our production.
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: The intent was to really avoid having somebody
take one acre o£ land, build a winery and then have in effect a
commercial use.
MR. GRANGER: Just in answer to that question, I think that perhaps
one way to address this question, and I understand and we appreciate
that yes, we do not want somebody from upstate coming down here,
putting up a winery and using 99~ of upstate grapes or California
grapes which we £eel will produce an inferior wine to what we are
capable of producing here.' We do not want.to see that also. One
way to possibly address this is to make some sort of restriction
that the winery would only be able to take up a certain percentage
of that particular farm, whether it was 20~ or whatever it may be,
and the vineyards would have to be grown on that property.
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: You're saying instead o£ 50~, 20~?
MR. GRANGER: No, no, I'm saying so that you don't have what you
just said, somebody comes down and buys two acres---
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: What I said was having one person, I don't
care where he buys it, one person set up an agricultural acre,
grow fifty feet of grapes some where, a one row of grapes, and
then become a major winery. In other words, a'commercial, almost
industrial use on a lot where the major occupation was not growing
wine. We're trying to avoid that.
Page 15 - Public Hea'~'ing - Local Law to Amend Z~b'~ing Code
MR. GRANGER: Yes, I understand what you're saying. To possibly do
that you could put a restriction that in order to put a winery up,
that winery would not be able--and I don't know the actual percentages--
but the winery could only represent 20~ or whatever percentage of that
particular farm and the balance of it would have to be vineyards, so
that you couldn't ..... In other words if a person'had a 50 acre £arm
they could only use five acres or ten acres for the winery and the
rest would have to be vineyards.
SUPERVISOR PELL: You have made a lot of good points here.
COUNCILMAN MURDOCK: Number one, when you start talking in terms of
wine, some of the finest chateaus in the world only have two and
three acres of land and when you start saying because you have 50
acres you should--your percentage of wine making capability should
be done on a percentage basis so therefore somebody with two or
three acres of wine, who may have excellent potential, would never
qualify, you're one premise, and I will speak for myself, not for
the rest of the Board, but if you're worried that it is the intent
o£ this law that if somebody wants to go into a commercial winery
to bring grapes in from other areas that excees 51~--in other words,
we would agree that you have the right to make a varietal wine and
in order to make a varietal wine you can bring in 49.% of your grapes
from another area. If you want to extend your bottling and your
commercial capabilities we agree you can make a varietal wine and
bringing in grapes from other areas to blend with yours, but if your
intent is to say that because you own three or four farms in resi-
dential/agricultural area, "A" zones, and you intend to operate a
"C" type business, which is an industrial business, it is my intent
as one person to say no, you should not be allowed to do that, you
may go purchase industrial land and now we will treat your winery
and we will certainly welcome the industry. We will do everything we
can to we]come industry, but that industry will be in a commercial or
industrial zone and properly zoned, that you as a grape grower may
certainly use your product to the best of your advantage, but when it
comes to a commercial operation, I think it's only fair to everybody
else that you get commercial land.
MR. GRANGER: One other question, please. Assuming this were to go
into effect and I have 100 acres in production and I would be allowed
then to purchase another 100 acres for production and one of my boys
instead of fungicide in the spring on the 100 acres, he put herbiside
in and completely wiped out the crop that year. That will allow me
to purchase no things and if I have a 2 million dollar winery I have
no production and I am basically out of business.
COUNCILMAN MURDOCK:
purpose to make wine?
the two. :
Is your purpose to grow grapes, or is your
You see, you have to differentiate between
MR. GRANGER: It's a two-fold purpose. That's the trouble.
SUPERVISOR PELL: Thank you for your comments.
Page 16 ' PUblic He~ing - Local Law to Amend Zoning Code
MR. STEVE ROSE, Jamesport; Just in comment to your question of
putting a winery in a commercial area, I think you have to consider
the nature of the industry and i£ you're establishing vineyards,
one of the attractions in having your winery sitting on your vineyard
~s just that and I think that when you consider the wine industry in
the United States and where the wineries are situated 'in comparison
to where the vineyards are there are very few of them set up in a
commercial area and your vineyards are of£ someplace else. And I
think that out here on Long Island you would be making a very big
mistake in looking at a winery strictly from a commercial point of
view. I th~nk that point is well taken. There are some who are
just going to put up a winery. You may have certain questions
that you would want to consider in that situation alone, but where
you are dealing with people that are looking at a winery and a
vineyard together and are looking at the industry from the point
of view of the setting of a winery and a vineyard, I think you're
making a big mistake in isolating out right now that a winery is
in fact jusl a commercial operation.
COUNCILMAN MURPHY: Do you have any suggestion on size of land
for that, £or a small operation?
M~. ROSE: I think~ number one, that when you consider the capital
required'to n~nber one go into a vineyard and the period of time
that it takes until your vineyard is established and the capital
required to put up a winery and until you actually have an operating
winery and are turning a profit, I don't think somebody wou]d~ for
example, put up before, come out and buy three acres and put up a
winery and expect to do anything with it.
COUNCILMAN MURPHY: But how could you stop a man from coming in and
buying a three acre site and just putting a winery in?
MR. ROSE: I think that the best approach is i~ he's buying a piece
of property, agricultural property, that you derive a formula based
upon the use of the property. That X~ of that property has to be
used for agricultural purposes and if he's putting up a winery,
specifically specify that X~ of that piece of property must be used
for a vineyard, and I think that you would eliminate some o£ the
other problems and zero in more on the protection that you want fo~
jus~ the winery situation.
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND; In existing commercial zones, the zoning---I
don't know what the lot coverage is~ but it's.only like 30 ro 40~
of the property under some of our existing lot coverage requirements--
what we would probably be considering if we did it on that basis
would be a smaller lot coverage than 20~ say~ which is what was
suggested, becaused that would be not too far away from what our---
MR. ROSE: I think you're separating the issue. Number one, when
you establish a winery your greatest cost and the element that's
going in~o the winery is the grape itself and just taking that
aspect o£ it, put a restriction on a winery owner as to where he
can get his grapes, forgetting Long Islar~ just £or the moment,
I don't th~nk is a fair restriction on someone going into a winery.
That's point number one. Number two, i~ you are goin~ to put a
Page 17 - Public Hea'~ing - Local Law to Amend Zoning Code
restriction in and if you're going to put that restriction around
Long Island, then don't restrict, okay, a use of 50~ of the production
only. It's just too many variables that go into an operating winery,
too many problems, too many down sides to a winery to begin with. If
you put in these restrictions you're going to only discourage the
wineries'out here.
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: Could you come up with a formula, for instance,
if a certain person has 50 acres of land, how many gallons of wine
could he reasonably be expected to produce saying that he got---
MR. ROSE: If I turn the question around maybe ....
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: In other words, if he had three acres of land
he couldn't reasonably be expected to produce 600,000 gallons of wine.
MR. ROSE: Let me just turn the question around. If someone' is estab-
lishing a winery, has fifty acres and puts a winery up, but he wants
to---his winery capacity is going to be three times that amount. If
the Town of Southo]d has no objection to a winery and has no objection
to a vineyard why should they have an objection to him having a winery
on a piece o£ property where maybe one third of his production, based
upon the land he has established as a vineyard, is coming from his
production and two thirds is coming from down the block. The issue
of a winery is not a problem, then where the grapes come from, except
maybe within the region, also should not be a problem. If the concern
of the Board is such that it wants no one to come here and just put a
winery up and bring grapes in from other areas, restrict it from that
point of view only. Take that situation, only a winery on an agricultural
piece of property and put the restrictions there. I think you're applying
your logic in the wrong.way, I think you should go the other way.
SUPERVISOR PELL: Thank you very much.
COUNCILMAN MURDOCK: In the Town of Southold, I cannot speak for
the Town of Riverhead, I can only speak for the deliberations we
made. In the Town of Southold our intent is to allow a winery as a
use in grape growing. Our intent is not to establish wineries per se.
We understand in the Town of Southold that the ability to press grapes
and produce wine must be protected as part of growing grapes. We do
not recognize that the commercial value of pressing grapes and making
wine has to be establibhed only on agricultural land. The commercial
value of establishing a winery really should be done on commercial
property. Our intent in this law, in this ruling, is to establish
the right of a person farming grapes to develop a w~nery that suits
the size of his production and his land. We're not interested in
Joe Jones' land. If Joe Jones does not want to produce wine and
prefers to sell his grapes as grapes that's his prerogative. If Joe
Jones does want to come before the Town Board and say I need permission
from the Building Department---goes to the Building Department and says
I need permission to establish a winery because I can make better money
producing wine, we want to protect that man's right'to do that. We are
not in the least interested in somebody's commercial value to produce
wine without buying commercial property. We are interested in protecting
the grape farmer's right to use his crop--not to use somebody else's
product, his product. The product of the grape that's grown in Southold
Page 18 - Public Heg~ing - Local Law to Amend Z~ning Code
Town. The ability of that man to grow grapes, process his grapes
and make a profit.
MR. ROSE: Is it fair to restrict somebody, okay, the right in
this country to use whatever product he wants.
TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: Can I make one comment. What we're talking
about is the right to have w~nery as a matter o£ right. No variance,
no nothing, you can have it, restricted to these restrictions. That
does not mean that you cannot apply for a variance to add a l~ttle
bit more. As a matter of £act, the only winery we have here is the
outcome o£ a variance by the Board of Appeals. That you always have
a right to. What we are trying to do is to limit the wineries by
saying that vineyards is an agricultural use, as potato farming is
a agricultural use. Potato farmers have the right to package their
crop on their property. We're saying that the vineyard owner has
the right to put up a winery on his farm, on his vineyard. Now, when
you're talking about the commercial winery, there's no question but
that's allowed in the industrial district. But we're really talking
about an accessory use to a vineyard as a matter of right. 'If you
wish anything more than that and you can prove a case you can go to
the Board of Appeals and plead your case to them and they probably
will grant a reasonable extension.
MR. ROSE: But why should a winery, okay, as an outgrowth of an
agricultural process, be limited as to who and where'their grapes
can come £rom as a matter of law?
TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: Because we're in an agricultural/residential
district and this is all we'r.e talking about.
MR. ROSE: But you're allowing the winery there.
TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: We're allowing the winery in conjunction, as
an accessory use to the vineyard which is an agricultural use.
MR. ROSE: .But are you not then saying that i£ somebody wants to
come out.and buy a fi£ty acre farm and put up a. winery for his
fifty acre farm they have all their blessings, but i£ somebody
wants to come out and establish thousands of acres of vineyards
and put up a large commercial winery and maybe they want a particular
area £or a particular reason for the setting of that winery they're
going to run into a problem in the Town of Southold?
TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: If you're establishing a non-agricultural
and non-residential use in a residential/agricultural district, yes.
MR. ROSE: It's not non-residential, it's just a bigger extent.
TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: I£ we lump the agricultural and residential
into one use district that, o£ course, creates a problem, but that's
the way our Code is written and so we also have to try to protect
the uses.
SUPERVISOR PELL: Thank you very much. Mr. Alex Hat,raves.
Page 19 - Public Hea'~ing - Local Law to Amend Zoning Code
~R. ALEX HARGRAVES, Cutchogue: Forgive me for getting here a little
late. I haven't heard all of the argument before, but I would like
to speak in favor of this proposed amendment. For clarification, as
I understand it, it essentially dovetails with existing agricultural
rules that apply and so as such this should come as no surprise to
anyone who has planted grapes and commited them to the soil in
Southold Town. There are other reasons for it that I think--in my
opinion, the most important wine growing region on the face of the
earth is Bordeau in France, outside of Long Island. In the town of
Bordeau 100~ of your grapes has to come from your own vineyards. The
vineyards have to be mapped and they can only be in certain soils.
There's a big raging controversy there when people go over a town
line as drawn. What plots qualify as what and as I understand this,
if I bought across the road presumablY I would be able to include
them in my own production. By contrast to that Nappa Valley, and
this speaks to what Mr. Rose was saying, Nappa Valley heretofore has
had absolutely no restriction whatsoever on on grapes, so a winery in
Nappa'Valley could buy grapes from'anywhere in the State of California.
Nappa Valley had a very good name for a while until the night traffic
from Bakersfield got so heavy no one knew what Nappa Valley grapes
tasted like anymore. We're .in the position of trying to--we can grow
grapes on Long Island and they are going, to have to come from Long
Island in my opinion if we are going to be successful in distinguishing
our grapes, and in particular in the Town of Southold. I know there
are industrial districts in the Town of East Hampton that would throw
their arms open to you if you want to make wine from upstate or
Pennsylvania, but it is not going to be as good as ours. The federal
government has just come through with enabling restrictions which now
require that grapes that are going to have a designation such as Nappa
Valley or Long Island, must come from 75~ £rom the region from which
they're stated, so there has been a big war over what the definition
of Nappa Valley is. That's going to be a change. If you say estate
grown, which we do, they stamp on your label 95~ of the grapes have
to come from your area. We happen to be 100~. However, I do feel
that 51~ rule as implicit by the word "primarily" certainly gives us
enough leeway year in and year out to get through a tough season. What
it does do however, I think should be recognized, because I'm in favor
of it, I like to see it written in nice hard type, and that is that
to my knowledge this will be the first law in the United States o£
American that specifically defines that a grape that can come from
an area must actually be grown in the area and I think that's
incredibly commendable. To me it means the whole Long Island district
is starting out on the right foot. I have been able to do it and I
wish most of the others will follow. Thank you.
MR. GENE OLIVA, Orient: What Mr. Hargraves said, something along
that line is something that we're all familiar with and that's
cognac~ and cognac is grown in 235,000 acres in a little town of
Cognac~ the limited acreage there and we all know how popular and
exciting to drink cognac is and perhaps one day so will all of the
wines grown in Southold.
SUPERVISOR PELL: Anybody else wish to speak on any of ~he proposed
Local Laws? Mrs. Jean Tiedke.
I~ lng
Page 20 - Public H~ - Local Law to Amend Z6~nlng Code
MRS. JEAN TIEDKE, Southold: Why does the section on swimming pools
require--no longer require locked gates? Why are you going to
latchable gates? Is this a safety factor?
TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: Ali I can say is it i.s the recommendation
of the Building Inspector and he thought that they should have
self-latching rather than self-locking.
MRS. TIEDKE: I don't think that's very effective.
TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: There is one of them here, maybe he can
explain it.
MR. VICTOR LESSARD, Executive/Administrator: I'm not an inspector,
but I'd be glad to answer that. If you people who have swimming
pools can visualize the way the gate is designed, the gate is designed
so that it will close by itself, and it will latch by itself and it's
spring loaded to unlatch. Now, if you close that you have fo put a
lock on it. If you have a kid in that pool and the kid got into
trouble and you're on the outside and that gate is locked, it's
locked and your kid is gone. As far as the Building Department felt
this was a far greater safety thing than what we had at the time.
That's the only reason they put it in there.
SUPERVISOR PELL: Thank you.
MRS. TIEDKE: Well, if you reverse that situation and somebody on
the inside has to get out in a hurr5 .... I just think that this is
going to be a problem.
SUPERVISOR PELL: Thank you. Anybody else wish to address any of
these proposed Local Laws? If not, we thank you for your input and
I declare the hearing closed.
Judith T. Terry /~/
Southold Town Clerk
:- · LEGAL NOTICe..
i:..,. NOTICE OF ADOPTION
,, LOCAL LAW NO. 2-1983
· h .. NOTICE iS Hi~_REBY GIV-
~,"EN,,.. that th'e Southold Town
,'' Board at a regular meeting
:,i held on~ February .'1. 1983
I,,': 1983. entitled, "A Local Law
,~,~ to amend the Zoning Co, de of
:i' t e Towff, of South~ld. ' 5aid
[,:<al [a~;' pro'rides for general
I, amendm~'ms to thc Zoning
i'1' Code ¢onslstmE_ at the [ollc~.
,ng' Adding a rule'- adding
,, acc,:,mrr,6dations of sc, Jar euer.
, g) 5~slem~ as a purpose of
,~.' .surd colic; amcnchng and
:~':' addine ~efinitinns: permitting
'; the training of horses in [he
.' 'A" Dist{ia. permitting
"gteenY, ouses in the "A" Dis.
trier: permitting stora?e build-
iJ'~.g$ US ;t[','eisor} uses I1~ the
"A" D~slr~,"t;,amending the
'1 ~.pe of ga~es or, pool fences.
,~ permitting the slorage o|
.t?travel trailers' iff' the "A"
..,( :District amending 'the deism -
'~!I lions ora lot held rfi single and
r!;L~eparate ownership in the
i{i,"A" District; 'defining signs
[', t~pc .ind ~ize of signs in, the
~1. B-I and "C" Districts;
'jau~hom~r,.e the Board 6ffAp-
I' ,peal~- to interpret Ihe'me'iri!ng
, and to d<te_rmmc cxac~ thstrict
"boundary lines: increasing
' ~ee-_' at the Board of Appe;alS;
; authorizing the Planning
· ' B~ard ~o require <luster de,el.
~ opm<ors m the "A"
lim~tm~o £¢du<uo, o[ lot areas
to. 50% and 'the reduction of
· ',lot depth and lot wMth. front.
,' rear and side vards"to 30% in
"duster developments: author-
izing the Building Inspector to
require p[ans and 'specifica-
tions if 8e~me~ "necessary;
ameoiding.~he fees for buBding
permits. ~ '
Dated: Februa}y 1, 1983.
BY ORDER aT TIlE
SOUTROLD TOWN BOARD
JUDITH T. TERRY,
TOWNGLERK
1T-2/10/83(1)
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
STATE OF NEW YORK
P~tricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the
Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCH~4AN,
a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County;
and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy,
has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watch-
man once each week for ........................... ./. ........... weeks
successively, commencing on the ............ ../.?....~.. .............
.................. ,
Sworn to before me this /~ day of
.......... ....~.~....~/.~.~ .............. , 10....7..~
Notary Public
r egal Not,ces
~ LEGAL~oTiCE
~ NOTICE OF,ADOPTiON
l LOCAL LAW NO. 2 - 1983
~ NOTICE IS HEREBY ·
?GIVEN that the Southold
,/Town Board at a regular
auoz ~u~oFo~ ~ql puame
ey~ ua '~86I 'q~Je[~ lo ,,:ep
~ ql~ aq~ ~o 'j~ d a~o[a,o 00:8
',~,: ~e a~0~ ~aN p[o~nos 'peo~'
;" u~e[g 'lleH u,~oz p[oqinos
,, e~l le pioqlnoS jo u~o~ eqi ju
~maeaq auqnd e 'adoA ,~aN
' {lunoD ~ioJ In~ 'ploqinoS jo
~'~ ~o~aqi ~o apo5 aqi IO
-a~inbe~ pu..~e~ u~o~
IO S9g uoq~ag oi luensdnd
O~31~t aL q¥~OdO~d
NO ~NI~H ~O
s®OgON leiie-I
COUNTY OF SUFFOLI~, I
STATE OF NEW YORK, ~ ss:
J
??.Qy..~.uA~.~.v.~.0.n. .................... being duly Sworn,
says that ...h.e..., is Printer and Publisher of the SUFFOLK
WEEKLY TIMES, a newspaper published ~t (~reenport, in s~id
county: and that the 'notice, of which the m'mex~cl is a printed
copy, has been published in the said Suffolk WeeklT Times
once in each week, tot .... P~¢ .................... weeks
successively commencing on the . ~ .0.~]:L ...................
dm/ of.., .~.e.~.'t,T ,~ .~(,~I~~L....~ .
Sw. ern to be/ore me this ~ .0.~.,. ~:,. ~,
I
day of ?.~.~.~. ........ 19. ~.~. J
.............. .......
RELEN ff. DE VP.E
NOTAR'r' PUBLIC, State of New 'lrDr~
Term Expires Ma~ch 30, ]9~