Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLL-1993 #05 lOCAL LAW NO. $., 1993 A Local Law in Relation to Certificate of Determination BE IT ENACTED, by the Town I~oard of the Town of Southold as follows: I. Chapter 100 (Zoning) of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: Section 100-13 (Definitions) is hereby amended by adding thereto the following: II. CERTIFICATE OF DEI'ERI~IINATION - A document issued by the Build. in Ins ector ~ that ~ business use of an existln~g_ business -structure an--~O~om~h~~ Town's Zonin~l Code at the date of issuano.. 2. Section 100-280(G) is hereby added to read as follows: G. The. I~uildinc~ Inspector, at the request of the applicant, shall review, and, if appropriate, shall issue a certificate ol determination upon the inspection of an existin~l busines., structure and/or property for compliance with the Town', Zonin~ Code at the time of issuance. The fee for the issuance of a certificate of determination shall be se~ .resolution. This Local Law shall take effect upon its filing with the Secretary of State. * Underscore represents additions. NYS DEPARTHENT OF STATE BUREAU OF STATE RECORDS 162 Washington Avenue ALbany, RY 12231-0001 DATE: 6/1/93 Local Law Acknowledgment JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN HALL 53095 MAIN ROAD PO BOX 1179 I-- SOUTHOLD NY 11971 DOS-236 (Rev. 6790) _[ MUNICIPALITY Town of Southold LOCAL LAWCS) NO. I YEAR FILING DATE 5 & 6I 1993 5/27/93 The above-referenced material was received and filed by this office as indicated. Additional local law filing forms will be forwarded upon request. Local Law Filing NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 162 WASHINGTON AVENUE, ALBANY, NY 12231 (Use this form to file a local law with the Secretary of State.) Text of law should be given as amended. Do not include matter being eliminated and do not use italics or underlining to indicate new matter. $outhold Local Law No ............... .5. .................... of the year 19--9--3-- A local law In Relation to Certificate of Determination Ilnsen Title) Town Board . Be it enacted by the ........................................................................................ of the ~ of ....................... .S..°.u..t..h. gJ.d. ...................................................... as follows: Town II. Chapter 100 (Zoning) of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: Section 100-13 (Definitions) is hereby amended by adding thereto the following: CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION - A document issued by the Building Inspector certifying that the proposed business use of an existing business structure and/or property complies with the Town's Zoning Code at the date of issuance. 2. Section 100-280(G) is hereby added to read as follows: -G. The Building Inspector. at the request of the applicant, shall review, and, if appropriate, shall issue a certificate of determination upon the inspection of an existing business structure and/or property for compliance with the Town's Zoning Code at the time of issuance. The fee for the issuance of a certificate of determination shall be set by Town Board resolution. This Local Law shall take effect upon its filing with the Secretary of State. (If additional space is needed, attach pages the same size as this sheet, and number each.) DOS-239 trey. 7/91) (1) (Complete'the certification in the paragraph that applies to the filing of this local law and strike out that which is not applicable.) 1. (Final adoption by local legislative body only.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No .............._5...: ................ of 19-9--3--- ~f the (_(~i~l~(~it~)(Town)(X'~g~) of .............. .S.~.u_.t..h_o_.l_cl. ..................................... was duly passed by the -!--°--w--n---O-o-a--r-0 ............................. on ___M__a_y___2_.0_ ..... 19 9_3_, in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. (Name of Legi*lative Body) 2. (Passage by local legislative body with approval, no disapproval or repassage after disapproval by the Elective Chief Executive Officer*.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No .................................... of 19 ...... of the (County)(City)(Town)(Village) of ................................................................. was duly passed by the ............................................... on .................. 19 ---, and was (approved)(not approved)(repassed after tName of Legislative Body) disapproval) by the .................................................. and was deemed duly adopted on 19 ...., (Elective Chlef Execudve Officer') in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. 3. (Final adoption by referendum.) 'I hereby certify that the local law annexed heretO, designated as local law No .................. - ................. of 19 ...... of the (County)(City)(Town)(Village) of ....................................................... 2..~ ...... was duly passed by the ................................................... on .................. 19 ..... and was (approved)(not approved)(repassed after (Nam~ of Legislatlve Body) disapproval) bythe ................................................. on- .................. 19 ..... Such local law was submitted (Elective Chief F~e~dve Officer*) to the people by reason of a (mandatory)(permissive) referendum, and received the affirmative vote ora majority of the qualified electors voting thereon at the (general)(special)(annual) election held on .............. -'--- 19----, in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. 4. (Subject to permissive referendum and final adoption because no valid petition ~vas filed requesting referendum.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No .................................... of 19 ...... of the (County)(City)(Town)(Village) of ................................................................. was duly passed by the ...................................... : ............ on .................. 19 ...., and was (approved)(not approved)(repassed after (Name of Legislative Body) ' disapproval) by the .................................................. on .................. 19 .... Such local law was subject to (Elective Chief Executive Of~cer*) permissive referendum and no valid petition requesting such referendum was filed as of .................. 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 county- wide basis or, if there be none, the chairperson of the coui~ty legislative body, the mayor ora city or village, or the supervisor of a town where such officer Is vested with the power to approve or veto local laws or ordinances. (2) 5. (City local law concerning Charter revision proposed by petition.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No .................................... of 19 ...... of the City of ............................................. having been submitted to referendum pursuant to the provisions of section (36)(37) of the Municipal Home Rule Law, and having received the affirmative vote ora majority of the qualified electors of such city voting thereon at the (special)(general) election held on .................. 19 .... became operative. , 6. (County local law concerning adoption of Charter.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local 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 .... , pursuant to subdivisions 5 and 7 of section 33 of the Municipal Home Rule Law, and having received the affirmative vote of a majority of the qualified electors of the cit- ies of said county as a unit and 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 followed, please provide an appropriate certification.) I further certify that I have compared the preceding local law with the original on file in this office and that the same dicatedlS a correCtin paragraphtranscript ....... therefromj .... , above.and of the whole of such original local law, and was finally ad~pted in the manner in- ty g' lative body, C~, Town or Village Clerk ~ or officer designated by local legislative body JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK (Seal) Date: May 21, 1993 (Certification to be executed by County Attorney, Corporation Counsel, Town Attorney, Village Attorney or other authorized attorney of locality.) STATE OF NEW YORK couhrr~ oF. SUFFOLK I, the hereb3) certify that the foregoing local law contains the correct text and that all proper proceedings undersigned, have been had °r taken f°r the enactment °f the l°cal~ l~,,iiff~°' dC MATTHEW G. KIERNAN, ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY Title Town of x~l~x Date: Southold 'May 21, 1993 (3) PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD May 20, 1993 4:30 P.M. IN THE MATTER OF A PROPOSED "LOCAL LAW IN RELATION TO CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION". Present: Supervisor Scott L. Harris Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilman George L. Penny IV Councilman Thomas H. Wickham Councilman Joseph J. Lizewski Councilwoman Alice J. Hussie Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Town Attorney Harvey A. Arnoff SUPERVISOR HARRIS: At this time we have a public hearing called, "A Local Law in Relation to Certificate of Determination". The reading of said public hearing on the Local Law verification and certification of such will be read by Councilman Wickham. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: "Public Notice is hereby given that there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 20th day of April, 1993, a Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in Relation to Certificate of Determination". Notice is further given that the Town Board of the Town fo Southold will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the 20th day of May, 1993, at 4:30 P.M., at which time all interested persons will be heard. This pro- posed "Local Law in Relation Certificate of Determination" reads as follows: BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: I. Chapter 100 (Zoning) of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: I.Section 100-13 (Definitions) is hereby amended by addinc, t thereto the following: CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION - A document issued by the Building Inspector certif¥incj that the proposed business use of an existincj business structure and/or property complies with the Town's Zoning Code at the date of issuance. 2. Section 100-280(G) is hereby added to read as follows: I~g 2 - PH LL Certificat~ ~f Deter. G. The Buildin~ Inspector, at the request of the applicant, shall review, and, if appropriate, shall issue a certificatn of determination upon the inspection of an existin~l business, ~tructure and/or property for complicance with the Town's Zoninc~ Code at the time of issuance. The fee for the issuance of a certificate of determination shall be set by Town Board resolution. I~. This Local /aw shall take effect upon its filing with the Secretary of State. * I~nderscore represents additions. Copies of this Local I-aw are available in the Office of the Town Clerk to any interested persons during business hours. Dated: May 4, 1993. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk." I have here in this folder notification, that it has been on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board outside the room here, I also have notification, that it has printed in The Long Island Traveler-Watchman on the 13th of May. Additional communications regarding this proposed Local Law, there an enclosure here. First dated April 27th from the County of Suffolk to the Town Clerk regarding the proposed amendment. Pursuant to the requirements of Section A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, 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 determina- tion should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. Very truly yours, Arthur Ho Kurtz, Director of Planning, and dated May 4th from the Southold Town Planning Board. Judith T. Terry, Dear Mrs. Terry, the Planning Board adopted the following report at it's publi meeting of May 3, 1993. I~e it resolved that the Planning Board has reviewed the aforementioned proposed Local Law, and finds it has objections to same. Our professional assessment of this proposed legislation is that it not be adopted because it is counterproductive to sound plan- ning. Our reasoning is set forth below. On the face of it, this proposed amendment seems merely to codify the October 1992 interpretation of the Site Plan Ordinance by the Zoning Board of Appeals that the Building Inspector alone has the sole authority to determine whether a site plan is required. If the ZI~A's interpreta- tion is left to stand unquestioned, then it would seem only logical to provide the Building Inspector with an official type of document to prove that he looked at the site and based his determination on some assembly of facts. There are several problems inherent in this approach to site plan review. First, taken as a whole, this amendment leads one to the erroneous conclusion that the act of perfunctorily checking a land use proposal against a list of technical data is a sound method of implementing a community plan. Quite to the contrary, sound planning practice requires that all proposed changes to a site be viewed within the context of the goals and objectives of the community's Comprehensive Plan, and of the health, welfare and safety of the existing community. Adherence to the letter of the law (using a technical checklist approach to implementing plans) while violating its spirit (ignoring community concerns) is contrary to the purposes of Planning. Second, the proposed amendment does not provide any concrete guidelines for the Inspector to use in making his determination. The wording used in the amendment is too vague and allows too much discretion to be exercised by an administrative officer. "The Building Inspector, at the request of the applicant, sl~all r~view. and, .!f appropriate, shal! issue a certificate of determination..- Using this wording, if a proposed use appears to meet zoning requirements, but also requires County Health Department review, the Building Inspector could defend the issuance fo a Certificate of Determination on the grounds that the proposed use meets Town Zoning requirements, period. The appeal of this approach is that it allows the Town to expedite its own review procedures. Unfortunately, the danger in this approach is that a health hazard or violation may go unaddressed. Pg 3 - PH LL Certificat Jf Deter. Other legitimate concerns of all levels of governments may be ignored in like manner. The third problem with this legislative approach is that it creates the potential for one official to exercise an enormous amount of discretion, unchecked by either pUblic scrutiny or the differing, hence balancing perspectives of peers. To explain, the proposed legislation will give the Building Inspector the sole authority to determine whether proposed changes of use of a building on a site require a site plan. And, since only an applicant may ask the Inspector to review a request for a Certification of Determination, it appears that only an applicant may appeal that decision; an improbable event. By contrast, if the Building Inspector feels it is not appropriate to issue a Certificate of Determination, he may be obliged to defend his decision of "inappropriateness" before the Zoning Board of Appeals. (The Zoning Board interpreted the Site Plan ordinance to mean that only the Building ~nspector could make the decision as to whether a site plan was needed, and this proposed legislation would give only the Inspector the right to issue a Certificate of Determination. Therefore, the Zoning Board would be the the appeals board for an Inspector's decision.) In turn, that Board could be asked to decide whether the Building Inspector's refusal to issue a Certificate of Determi- nation was reasonable. In addition to our concern about the wisdom of concentrating such authority and discretion with one person, is our concern with the fact that the content of the Certificate of Determination form itself can be changed at will. The proposed legislation sets forth no criteria about the form and content of the Certificate; consequently, this official document can be amended without public notice or explanation. By contrast, the procedure that was set up by the Site Plan Ordinance of May 1989, minimized the potential for one governmental official to prejudice the review procedure by requiring the review of the proposed change by a Board of five people representing the community's interests. In addition, the use of professional staff to assist in the review and inspection helped to further ensure that the review remained impartial. The potential for a predjudiced decision was significantly less than is going to result from the proposed legislation. Finally, our reservations about this proposed legislation go back to the October 1992 Inter- pretation of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Interpretation itself flounders in face of the facts. First, the Planning Board sponsored the drafting of the Site Plan ordinance which was adopted in May of 1989 after two year and about seventeen rewrites of the legislation. Through the entire period that this ordinance was being drafted, all of it under the aegis of the Town Board's Code Committee, comments were solicited and received, from the Town Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Building Inspector, the Town Attorney's Office and the business community at large, including local attorneys. Every attempt was made to use plain, unam- biguous language to convey the precise idea that the Planning Board would be the sole determiner of whether a site plan was required. The wording and meaning of the entire site plan ordinance was reviewed by the aforementioned boards, offices and public participants. Contrary to the impression given by the Interpretation and the act of referral of the law by the Town Board to the Zoning Board for an Interpretation, there were no misunderstandings of the legislative intent behind this wording in 1988 and 1989 when this ordinance was drafted, discussed, debated and adopted by the Town Board. Furthermore, the wording of Section 100-280 Administration and Enforcement, which predates the Site Plan Ordinance, makes clear that the Town Board's intent in adopting the new Zoning Code pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan was to delegate control of site plan review to the Planning Board. F. At the request of the Planning Board, the Building ~nspector shall review site plan applications for compliance with this chapter and requirements established in the presubmission conference. One of the purposes of the May 1989 revision of the Site Plan ordinance was to ensure that there was no confusion about Pg 4 - PH LL Certificat f Deter. the leading role of the Planning Board in the site plan review procedure. In closing, we cannot endorse the proposed legislation. The benign acceptance of a decision made by an Inspector acting alone, without any criteria other than whether the use is allowed, and whether the site complies with only some of many technica~ standards noted in the Code, will allow development to occur withour sensitivity to community concerns about quality of life issues such as traffic, drainage, and aesthetics to name just a few is the very antithesis of sound planning practice. Instead, we strongly recommend that the Site P~an ordinance be amended so that it is unequivocably clear that the responsibility for site plan review, determination and waiver rests with the Planning Board. This was the recommendation of the Planning Consultants who prepared the Comprehensive Plan, and we feel that it remains a valid one. Sincerly, Richard G. Ward, Chairman of the Planning Board. I have another one with an enclosure. We won't worry about the enclosure. To, a memorandum dated May 18th, received May 20th, to Scott ~.. Harris, members of the Town Board from Richard G. Ward, Chairman of the Planning Board regarding the proposed amendment. On May 12th, this proposed legislation was discussed in Legislative Committee. However, since the philosohical underpinnings of the Planning Board's position, as set forth in its April 30th report, were not addressed adequately, the purpose of this memorandum is to further explain the reasons for our opposition to this legislation. First, the potential for either the abuse of power or the undue exercise of influence in the review procedure for site plan or waiver of site plan is greater when it rests in one set of hands rather than in that of an appointed Board. Second, the nature of a Building ~nspector's responsibilities and training has to do with inspecting structures and their relationship to the specific site for compliance with building construction codes. Site review, by contrast, requires review of a much broader range of factors having to do with the health safety and welfare of the surrounding community. It requires an evaluation of an entire site in conjunction with its surroundings, not just the structure alone. Which leads to the third reason for our opposition. Given the nature of the Building Inspector's job, which is to check components of a structure against a list of required construction standards, the lack of site review guidelines leaves the door open to a less than stringent or comprehensive review. Also, the nature of code enforcement is such that a Building ~nspector can deny permits only where he can prove a clear violation of the law. If there are no quidelines, and there are none in the proposed legislation, an inspector cannot prove a clear violation. By contrast, a planning board may look at issues of community concern, such as traffic safety, coordination with adjacent sites, and placement fo landscaping, lighting, signage, etc. which cannot be colified into a zoning code. Fourth, the Certificate of Determination form is not part of the proposed legislation. We have seen many versions of this form. The attached copy of this form is the latest revision that we have received. Since this form is not part of the proposed legislation or the public hearing, it can be changed at whim, and without public notice. Which leads to the fifth concern. There is a striking difference in meaning between the wording on the attached draft of a Certificate of Determination form which states: The following information is required to assist the building inspector in determining if a site plan is required, and the proposed definition for a Certifi- cate of Determination which reads, a document issued by the Building Inspector certifying that the proposed business use of an existing business structure and/or property complies with the Town's Zoning Code at the date of issuance. Sixth, we have seen no documented evidence as to why this legislative proposal is necessary. ~n fact, in preparing this report, we had no written records to refer to: such as a written legislative intent, a publically advertised Certificate of Determination Pg 5 - PH LL Cert. of [ .erm. form, and public minutes of the Legislative Committee. We are quite concerned that our April 30th report represents the only written discussion or position state- ment on the record. Finally, we made a strong recommendation that the Site Plan ordinance be revised to clarify the working relationship between the Planning Board and the Building Inspector under the lead of the Planning Board. This recommen- dation dates back to 1985, when the Town's planning consultants drafted a new site plan ordinance, a copy of which is attached for your convenience. The dismissal of these recommendations without documented cause gives us reason enough to pause. I believe that's all the written information, all of the documentation, we have on this. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: I'd like to thank you for reading that short novel from the Planning Board. It was long and lengthy, and I appreciate your patience in reading it. At this time, are there any members of the audience, that would like to speak in reference to this amendment to the Local Law? ANNE LOWRY: My name is Anne Lowry. I'm speaking for the North Fork Environ- mental Council. I urge the Town Board not to pass those laws in relation to Certificate of Determination at this time, and perhaps never. There has been little or no public information about this proposed ordinance. It is of such importance, that I think the public should be well informed before Town Board vote is taken. This is an ordinance, which will effect every citizen in this town in ways, that we can't really imagine at this time, and the consequences of which are enormous. As proposed the law would empower one person, the Building Inspector, to make decisions, which would far reaching effecting the welfare of the people of this town. There would be no group of experienced peers, that could bring several points of view to an issue. One person only would determine issues of health, and safety, ethetics, and legality, precedent setting, and many others. This would be accomp- lished with a minimal checklist. One person with no provision for record keeping, no way to follow, what or why something had occurred. No way to even know from the files, that a certain building, or changes to a site had even happened. The person hired for the iob of Building Inspector would be choosen possibly not to be an independent entity with his own communication with other boards, committees, and organizations, but solely to operate at the Town Board's pleasure with the public possibly not informed at all. This morning in the Town Board Work Session, there was some talk about the desirability of trust of the Town Board, and among the Town Board members. We certainly agree with that as a goal. Openness begets trust. There is too much possibility in the proposed ordinance for a lot to go on without public awareness, and no one being directly accountable. In the original request to the ZBA, the Town Board asked who has the authority under the Southold Town Code to determine in the first instance, whether or not a particular application must go before the Planning Board for site plan review approval. This in itself is unclear, I have learned. I have been unable to find out for sure what the phrase in the first instance means. If it means what it sounds like it means the very first decision made on an application about site plan review may be made by the Building Inspector. How can this be considered good planning? A person trained for quite different responsibilities will be making the decisions with no basis, and experience, or training in the kinds of concerns, which thoughtful broad planning requires. There is not enough adequate provision for appeal for a decision should the applicant wish to make one, and very troubling is the fact that this proposal is in direct contradiction to the democratic way of distributing power, which includes a system of checks, and valves, among several agencies. I wish to suggest very strongly, that the public hearing be expanded to include another session for public comment, and that in the meantine Pg 6 - PH LL Cert. of ~ ~er. the Town Board make every effort to inform people of the legislative intent for this proposal. There is no such information available now, and I would like to urge, too, that all committees of the Town Board be required to keep minutes, and keep them up to date, so that the public can easily afford itself of what the committee is doing, any committee is doing and thinking. This is a suggestion, at the Town Board Work Session this morning, and from the Supervisor, as a possibility, and I think it would add to trust building, that the Supervisor would begin this practice immediately. Good planning, and good government are two means to insuring a health living environment for the Town of Southold. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Anybody else like to speak in reference to this amendment? BETTY ROSS: My name is Betty Ross. I oppose the Local Law Certificates of Determination. The proposed law is yet another attempt by some members of the Board to weaken the jurisdiction of the Planning Board, and the professional Town Planner. To give sole authority to the Building Inspector to determine whether a site plan is required for a change of use would be a grave mistake. In the first place, the present Building Inspectors stated within the last month, that they do not have time to enforce the sign law, which is already on the books, and which the Town Board has threatened to enforce for over a year to no avail. I recall that about a year ago, you were all set to dismiss one of the Building Inspectors, at a time when there were three ~nspectors in that department. After a public outcry the Board reversed it's decision. Recently the Chief Building Inspector retired. Will you be hiring another Building Inspector to handle these Certificates of Determ nation? The Building Inspector is charged with determining whether or not a structure complies with the building contruction codes. He presently does not have to make decisions based on community concerns, such as traffic control, safety, and public health. Furthermore the new law does not provide any guidelines in which the Building Inspector is required to make a determination. What recourse is there for the public to object to decision of the Building ~nspector? Good govern- ment provides for checks and balancest and I have not conferred witl~ Ann Lowry on this wording. The Certificate of Determination does not even list any guidelines, let alone checks and balances. It places two much power in one unelected Town employee. Decisions could be solely subjected. The present Town Zoning Code should not be changed. In the words of the Beatle song, let it be. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you. Yes? In the middle? GERALD WALTS: My name is Gerald Waits, and I'm representing, also, North Fork Environmental Council. I'm perplexed at the management approach, that the Town Board seems to have taken. Since the Building Inspector is overloaded and in demandt I've heard that several times, not here but in the newspaper~ I hear you're now going to give the same department a huge load. Now, if that's the case, what is not going to apply here? Is the normal Building Inspector's work going to suffer? Or is the Site Review work going to suffer? Or these people managing to do all this work on the time or less time? It seems to me, unless you're p~anning to hire additional people, probably two Building Inspectors to do the work load, that you can't be serious on one of those two aspects. A man, who runs something, who manages something, has experience in government or in private business knows that for a fact. So, I urge you not to pass this, not only for all the reasons that two previous people, but this seems from a management point of view to be illogical , and maybe dishonest, because it's such a elementary fact that you've go to face up to. Thank you. Pg 7 - PH LL Cert. of ~' ~erm. FRANK CARLIN: Frank Carlin, Laurel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentleman on the Board. It is true, that adding this sign issue to the load for the Building Inspectors, you only have three of them, is going to give them a tremendous amount of work load. Now, there's over 200 miles to cover in Southold Town with three Building Inspectors. How are they going to be able to do the sign work, and the normal work? Now, you went to dismiss the Building Inspector recently. Now, you could use another Building Inspector, or maybe more. Now, to hire another Building Inspector now, to me, would be contradictive. That's a lack of planning. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Mr. Carlin, I'm going to have to ask you to come back to the public hearing on the Local Law amendment. FRANK CARL~N: I am on the public hearing. It was mentioned about the Building Inspector. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: We're not here to talk about Building Inspectors. We're here to talk about a Local Law amendment, a Certificate of Determination. FRANK CARLIN: This lady talked about the Building Inspector. This gentleman talked about the Building Inspector. That's all I'm doing, and I'm not going any further with it. In fact, I'm finished now. But I wanted to bring that point across. You dismissed the Building Inspector, and now you're going to need him. Poor planning. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak? MARGARET BROWN: My name is Margaret Brown. I've been at several of the meeting, where the Certificate of Determination is discussed, and in fact, where the title for it was finally evolved, and the impression that I gathered from the meetings was that you needed a method of record keeping more than anything else, a way of keeping track of what was happening on various properties, so that you would know if they were within the legal rights of whatever they were doing. It seems to me, that if that is what you mean, you don't need to amend this law, and what looks like an awful lot of power or responsibility in the hands of a non-elected official. There must be another way you can go about keeping track of what happens on Town property without amending the law in it's place. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak in reference to this amendment? JAMES DINIZIO, JR.: I'm James Dinizio, Jr., a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals, and also a member of the Legislative Committee, at least I show up once in awhile. I have a couple of things I'd like to comment on. First, there's the letter from the Planning Board sent on May 4th, that Councilman Wickham read. I read this thing over several times, and for the life of me, I can't see where this letter has anything to do with what you're trying to decide here today. It makes reference to a Zoning Board of Appeals decision, that we made way back in October, as to who in the first instance would determine if the site plan is needed. I've been on the Zoning Board now for about six years. To be quite honest with you, this is the easiest decision we ever made. It was all written down. There was nothing subjective about this. The Code is clear on this. A site plan is merely a part of Chapter 100 in our Code Book. Just as special exceptions are, just as each zone, business zone, residential zone, are all part of that one chapter, including Pg 8 - PH LL Cert. of ~erm. in that chapter, the ~ast one, Chapter 280, or Chapter 28, is enforcement. The Code states, that it shal~ be the duty of the Building Inspector, and such deputys and assistants, as may be appointed by Town Board to administer, and enforce, the provisions of this chapter. This is Chapter 100, which the site plan is included. Okay? It is not made a part of it. The whole ordinance, Chapter 100, is maybe an inch thick. Site plan, part of that, is maybe five, or six, pages. Part of that, it is not separate. It is not a separate entity of any of other than Chapter 100. The enforcement, the provisions of this chapter, all rules, conditions, requirements, adopted specified pursuant thereto. Now, this is obvious that what you read right here is that, he will enforce everything that is in that chapter. Okay? It further goes down to, B, Site Plan Approval, review and consideration standards, it goes down to blah, blah, blah. Now, the Planning Board cites Chapter 100-280F has requested the Planning Board, the Building Inspector shall review site plan applications for compliance with this chapter, requirements established by the pre-submission conference. The P~anning Board has admitted that the Building Inspector is the sole authority on site plan review. Now, the Code is clear. If you have a hard time reading it, I realize it's kind of difficult to read. In dealing with it for five, or six years, I had a tough time. Zoning administration put out by the Department of State, our wonderful Governor, Governor Cuomo, and someone else in 1985 has a book, that pretty basically I've followed since I've been on the Board. There is a diagram shows just how Town govern- ment should run, how the building permit process should go. If you don't need a building permit, you don't need site plan approval. Okay? So, if anybody would like a copy of this, just go to the Zoning Board over there, it's right there on the wall, there's a door, it's there. The top box, requests made to the Building Inspector for building permits. Okay, a person comes to Town Hall, Mr. Lessard, or whoever happens to be a door, I have this piece of property, I'm doing such and such now, can ~ do this? The Building Inspector has to by law go through the Code, every part of the Code, and find out if this person can do just that. Okay? If he can't. If he needs Health Department approval, that is the Building Inspector's job. He is supposed to check that. It is I believe, 100-80E, Health Department, the Building Inspector has to check it to see if it needs Health Department approval. Okay? The Planning Board says, that, in their letter, that that is not so. By the way, site plan is precluded in that. There is a A. There's a B., access to streets. C. is site plan. D. is special exceptions, which Mark Ward would under, and E. is Health Department. This Certificate of Determination really in my view, is start at the beginning, at the first box on the diagram, which is when a person comes in,. Basically he leaves with something in writing, which says, I spoke to the Building Department, he said that I could do this. He said that he has looked through all the Code, and this is what I can do. He will put down square footages, marring, he will set all that. That is his job. That is his job. That's what we hired him for. Okay? We assume that he's doing a good job, if he still has a job. Okay? If he's not doing a good job, hopefully he's not here. So, the ,Certification of Determination is that. Okay? It doesn't go beyond that. The Planning Board seems to imply that this somehow goes into site plan. Site plan isn't even considered in that. If you need the site plan, it has to go to the Planning Board. It's as simple as that. But, after the site plan, guess what? It has to go back to the Building Department. Be has the first say. He has the final say. That is the way it works. That's good management. People come to Town Hall, they know right where to go, The Building Department, he will tell them where to go. The Building Department is the lead authority. They have the authority to code, to enforce the Code of this Town, and we should not take this away from them, because that's where the responsibility will lie if you make a mistake. All you're doing here now is having him put that down in writing, which Pg 9 - PH LL Cert. of I erm. is, in my opinion, anybody in Town Hall can say something to somebody else, if someone requests in writing, they should get it in writing. ~n my opinion, they should always have it in writing. I do want to make a couple more comments on this letter, if you don't mind. ~ felt that this letter..if they read the decision I don't know how they can come to this, because neither one comes anywhere near the other, and I found it somewhat insulting to, at least the Building Department, I mean what they're saying, and they're quoting is, not to trust the Building Inspector to do his job, the job he was hired for. You know, that department . shouldn't be talking that way about another department. He does have the person s interest. It was stating that there was heresay, and he was trying to eliminate that with the certificate, and yet they can go ahead, and say, there was no misunder- standing, it was legislative intent behind the wording of the 1988, 1989 ordinance. There is no legislative intent. I don't see where it is. It is not in the Code. I don't know where they are coming up with their facts, and speaking of facts, the interpretation of the ZBA, itself, in the face of facts, and they go on, first, the P~anning Board responds to this, and then they consult the Zoning Hoard, and the Huilding Inspectors. They are stating the facts. There are enough facts to support what they're saying. I just urge you, please, don't be swayed. This is going to be a good thing. It's going to help us. It's going to help everybody leave a trail, as to where decisions are made. The Zoning Board of Appeals is the appeals part of the whole process. If you don't like what the Huilding Depart- ment says, you don't like their determination, you come to us. That's what the Zoning Board of Appeals is all about. By this letter, the Planning Board does not understand how the Code works. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Dinizio. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? GARY FISH: I'm Gary Fish, Building Inspector. I really don't know how to say it more eloquently. You'renot dealing with any new construction. You're not dealing with any alteration. You're only dealing with a building that's existing at the time. We do it everyday. People come in, like Jim says, do it verbally. All the peop e want is something in writing, and I think there seems to be a ot of much to do about nothing. It's just putting something verbal in writing. That's all it ist and I really can't see what the problem is. To me, that law, proposed law, it's only speaking about an existing law, that nothing has been done to. If the building is altered, or rearranged in anyway structurely, it will have to go to the Planning Hoard. I don't really understand what the problem is. Can I ask for. a~yone. to speak from the Board.~ SUPERVISOR HARRIS: We're here to listen right now. GARY FISH: I really can't see what the problem is with this. We do this every day. We do it verbally. It's our job. We are Public Safety Officers along with b~Jnc~3uildlng Inspectors, and the Fire Inspectors. I read that letter before saying, that we only look at buildings structurally, is really incorrect. We are interested in the planning of the town, and safety, and fire safety, health safety. I think we're just misinformed on this particular issue. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Is there anyone else, who would like to speak, who hasn't yet? Fg 10 - PH LL Cert of [ ar. GERALD GOEHRINGER: I'm Gerry Goehringer. I've worked here for thirteen years. I just want to make a couple of brief comments. I don't think anybody can do it as eloquently as Jim did. Two quick things, I take great exception in comments made today concerning elected, as opposed to appointed civil service, and appointed officials. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Gerry, would you just state your position, please. GERALD GOEHRINGER: I'm a member of the Zoning Board. We are all interested in the best thing for the town. It doesn't make any difference if we're elected, appointed, or Civil Servce, n my particular opinion. What concerns me here, in this particular situation, is that there seems to be some misinformation, and this misinformation was clearly stated by Gary Fish. I had no idea he was going to be here. My concern is, basically, what came out in the paper today, which is just one instance of what occurs. This is on page ten, and I won't read the entire article, concerning the donut plan. I'm not boring you with the entire article. It start.s out, the owners of Southampton Dunkin Donuts franchise, this week formally submitted a site plan application to the Southold Town Planning Board. Skipping down it says, the only stumbling block is a Planning Board concern over whether one or two use are permitted in this 1,500 square foot parcel. It houses an automotive garage. This is where the clear problem is, ladies and gentleman, the Planning Board is dealing with uses. That is not their forte. That is not their purview. Their purview here, ladies and gentlemen, is to deal with, this i'm referring to everybody in the audience. Okay? These uses, as they pertain to parking, not as they pertain to a building that has been standing for in excess of fifty-five to sixty years. Okay? We know that gasoline was sold in this building for fifty-five to sixty years. We know that this person, who is now running an automotive business there, has an office in this particular building. That is ultimate concern. Just as Gary has mentioned, just as Jimmy mentioned, and again, I'm not paraphrasing them, the concern here, is that we have some sort of document indicating that there is a pre-existence of this building as it stood. Okay? I assume what we have here is this determination, or Notice of Determination, which will clearly state that, and then we can work from this particular point forward. The last thing I want to say is the issue of the October 15th by our Board, and it was an unanimous decision. My opinion is, the buck has start somewhere, and it has to stop somewhere. I have definitely, in my particular opinion, and it's only my opinion, great, great respect for the amount and the ability of the Building Inspector, and what he, or she, has to do, in this particular case it's he, what they have to do in determining when a piece of property requires site plan approval, Zoning Board of Appeals approval, Health Department approval, so on and so forth. Okay? That relies on them, based upon that determination, and it should rely on them, because that's where the buck should start. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Is there anybody else, that would like to speak in reference to this amendment? I'll recognize the Town Attorney Harvey Arnoff. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: There are a couple of comments, which I feel some- what constrained to make. I think that the public, in one regard, use this as a delusion of the powers of one, or more, of the Boards in this Town. It's not. If someone didn't like the October 15th decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals, this Board today can not serve as a matter of law, as an Appellate forum for their determination. There was a time, and a place, for someone to act. Since there has been no action taken, that determination is for all purposes, the law of the Pg 11 - PH LL Cert of ~ ~r Town of Southold. It is a final, and binding, determination as to what the powers of the Building Department are. Now, since my tenure here, which is somewhat shorter than that of James, I have found not only, and I take great umbrage with I don't know who's comments about the independence of our various Boards, and officials, but I have found the various Boards, and the Building Department as well, as being painstakingly independent in this town. They are, to say it very simply, their own man or woman. They make their determination, and not lead around by the nose by anyone else, and if the public's interpretation of what is going on is anything to the contrary, I welcome anyone, who wishes, to come to my office, and I can show them countless examples of where these Boards, and these departments act independently. They will often times come to my office for consultation, but they will still act independent. The duties of our Building Department are to enforce our Code, and the New York State Building Code. I am amazed. This document, this little amendment to our Code, and the form which is also being bantered about, and is part of it, took longer, I think, to prepare then the Magna Carta, and the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, all combined. I really don't understand the hew and cry. It's a mere codification of a power, that the Building Department already has. It is nothing more than thatt and the view that it's going to create an enormous influx to the Department is just absolutely untrue. I've come to that conclusion having spoken to everyone in the Building Department, and having had a fairly decent knowledge of the limited number of people, who this even applies to in the first instance. It does not apply to any new construction. It only applies to existing buildings within the town, existing commercial buildings within the town, and I ask each one of you, think of the turnover in existing commercial buildings, and then figure out how much activity, that really is going to be in this town. That's all. Thank you, Scott. SI~PERVISOR HARRIS: I'll declare this public hearing closed. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk LEGAL NOTiC~E NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON LOCAL LAW PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 20th day of April, 1993, a Local Law en- titled, "A Local Law in Rela- tion to Certificate of Deter- NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the 20th day of May, 1993, ~t 4:30 P.M., at which time all Interested persons will be heard. · This proposed "Local Law m Relation to Certificate of Determination,, reads as follows:' BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: 1. Chapter 100 (Zoning) of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: 1. Section 100-13 (Defini- tions) is hereby amended by adding thereto the following: CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION __ A document issued by the Building Inspector certifying that the proposed business use of an existing business stroc- lure and/or property complies with the Town's Zoning Code at the date of issuance. 2. Section 100-280(G) is hereby added to read as follows: G. The Building Inspector, at the request of the applicant, shall review, and, if ap- propriate, shall issue a cer- tificate of determination upon the inspection of an existing business structure and/or pro. Perry for compliance with the Town's Zoning Code at the time of issuance. The fee for the issuance of a certiflcale of determination shall be set by Town Board resolution. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATEOF NEW YORK ss: Patricia Wood,' being duly sworn, says that she is tile Editor, o(THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of wbich the annexed is a printed copy, has been publs~ecl in said Long Island Travele~-Watcbmun once cacb week for ........ .~ .... weeks st cccssively, commencing on thc /~? ~ dayof. ~ .,19 /-:~ ~ Swoln to I~ef'me hie this //-~' ~ ..................... day ot / ~:*'7 19. Notary Public BARBARA A. SCHNEIDER NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York No, 450B~46 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires I1. This Loca] Law shall take effect upon its filing with the Secretary of State. Bold represents additions. Copies of this Local Law are a~able itl the Office of the ~ Ci~} ~0 any in- terested persoti$ during business hours. DATED: May 4, 1993. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK 1X-5/13/93(26)