HomeMy WebLinkAboutLL-1995 #07 LOCAL LAW NO. 7 , 1995
A Local Law in Relation to Architectural Review
BE IT ENACTED, by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows:
Chapter 100 (Zoning) of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended
as follows:
1. Section 100-252 (K) is hereby amended as follows:
Architectural features: *~--*
t¢~4:~be~¢~, that the natural features of the site and sur-
roundin.qs, exterior design and appearances of existing adjacent
structures, and the character of the district are evaluated in accor-
dance with the architectural standards set forth in this Chapter.
2. Section 100-254 (C) is hereby amended as follows:
When the Planning Board determines said application to be
acceptable, it shall, within ten (10) business days of such deter-
mination, distribute said application and documentation to the town,
county and state agencies having jurisdiction, for their comment.
Such referral shall include a referral to the Architectural Review
Committee. The Architectural Review Committee shall make a
written recommendation to the Planninq Board on the site plan
within ten business days of receipt of the referral. If the committee
fails to make a recommendation within this time period, the project
shall proceed to the Plann n.q Board for consideration without
comittee review.
Section 100-257 (Architectural Review Standards) is hereby added to
read as follows:
Site Plans shall be reviewed for conformance with the followin.q criteria:
Appropriate diversity of design elements from another structure or
structures located or proposed to be located on the same street or
corner thereof and within five hundred (500) feet of the site of the
structure for which a site plan or building permit has been reques-
ted, in respect to one (1) or more of the following features of exterior
desi.qn and appearance:
(1) Substantially identical facade, disregarding color;
(2) Substantially identical size and arrangement of either doors,
windows, porticos, porches or garages or other openings or
breaks or extensions in the facade1 including reverse
arrangements; or
(3) Other substantially identical features such as, but not limited to,
setbacks from street lines, he .qhts, widths, and lengths of ele-
ments of the building desiqn and exterior materials and treat-
ments.
Minimize or eliminate visual discord or dissimilarity with respect to
other structures located or proposed to be located on the same
street or a corner thereof and within five hundred (500) feet of the
site of the structure for which a building permit is requested, in
respect to one (1) or more of the following features of exterior
design and appearance:
Facade, disregarding color;
Size and arrangement of doors, windows, porticos, porches or
garages or other openings, breaks or extensions in the facade;
o~
Other significant design features such as, but not limited to,
heights, widths and lengths of elements, roof structures, ex-
posed mechanical equipment, service and storage areas,
retaining walls, landscapin,q, signs, light posts, parking areas
and fences, service and loading areas.
Maximize sensitivity to visual appearance and qualities of exterior
desi.qn, including with respect to signs, considerations of the
harmony of colors, or compatibility of the proposed structure with
the terrain in which it is to be located includin.q but not limited to,
excessive divergences of the height or levels of any part of the
structure from the grade of the terrain.
Section 100-258 (Architectural Review Committee) is hereby added to
read as follows:
A.~. The Architectural Review Committee shall consist of five members
appointed by the Town Board to serve at the pleasure of the Board
without compensation. If possible, the members of the Committee
shall be appointed from the following categories: two members shall
be archi-tects or landscape architects, one member shall be from
the Landmark Preservation Commission, and two members shall b~
appointed from residents of each of the hamlets of the town. The
hamlet members shall vary and shall sit only on the site plans which
are proposed in their hamlet.
B_~ The term of office of the Architect and Landmark Preservation
Commission members of the committee shall be three years,
provided that those members first appointed shall be appointed for
one-, two- and three-year terms, respectively. The hamlet members
shall be appointed for two-year terms, with the first appointments te
be appointed for a one- and two-year term, respectively.
II. This Local Law shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State.
* Underline represents additions.
** Strikethrough represents deletions.
NYS DEPARTMENT OF STATE
BUREAU OF STATE RECORDS
162 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231-0001
DATE: 5/23/95
MUNICIPALITYl
Town of Southold
LOCAL LAW(S) NO. [ YEAR FILING DATE
7 & 8 1995 5/19/95
Local Law Acknowledgment
JUDITH T TERRY
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TOWN HALL
53095 MAIN ROAD
I__ PO BOX I179
~ OUTI-~LD NY 11971
DOS-236
-I
_1
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 WASHINGTOI'/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 inefude matter being eliminated and do not use
italic~ or underlining to indicate new matter~
K:lOj~ x _~ Southold
Town ut ..........................................................................................
Local Law No .............. .7. .....................of the year 19._.-9-5-
· in Relation to Architectural Review
A local law ...............................
Be It enacted by the Town Board
tt~,~ otL,sa~,~,, ~,~ ..................... of the
i~Ity -~ Southold
Town uL .......................................................................................... as follows:
Chapter 100 (Zoning) of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended
as follows:
1. Section 100-252 (K) is hereby amended as follows:
Arcllitectural features: that the natural features of the site and sur-
roundings, exterior design and appearances of existing adjacent
structures, and the character of the district are evaluated in accor-
dance with the architectural standards set forth in this Chapter.
2. Section 100-254 (C) is hereby amended as follows:
C. When the Planning Board determines said application to be
acceptable, it shall, within ten (10) business days of such deter-
mination, distribute said application and documentation to the town,
county and state agencies having jurisdiction, for their comment.
Such referral shall include a referral to the Architectural Review
Committee. The Architectural Review Committee shall make a
written recommendation to the Planning Board on the site plan
within ten business days of receipt of the referral. If the committee
fails to make a recommenc~ation within this time period, the project
shall proceed to the Planning Board for consideration without
comittee review.
(If additional space Is needed, attach pages the sam~ size as this shect, and number each.)
vos-~9 (R~. ~ 0 (1)
Section 100-257 (Architectural Review Standards) is hereby added to
read as follows:
Site Plans shall be reviewed for conformance with the following criteria:
Appropriate diversity of design elements from another structure or
structures located or proposed to be located on the same street or
corner thereof and within five hundred (500) feet of the site of the
structure for which a site plan or building permit has been reques-
ted, in respect to one (1) or more of the following features of exterior
design and appearance:
(1) Substantially identical facade, disregarding color;
(2) Substantially identical size and arrangement of either doors,
windows, porticos, porches or garages or other openings or
breaks or extensions in the facade, including reverse
arrangements; or
(3)
Other substantially identical features such as, but not limited to,
setbacks from street lines, heights, widths, and lengths of ele-
ments of the building design and exterior materials and treat-
ments.
Bo
Minimize or eliminate visual discord or dissimilarity with respect to
other structures located or proposed to be located on the same
street or a corner thereof and within five hundred (500) feet of the
site of the structure for which a building permit is requested, in
respect to one (1) or more of the following features of exterior
design and appearance:
(1) Facade, disregarding color;
(2)
Size and arrangement of doors, windows, porticos, porches or
garages or other openings, breaks or extensions in the facade;
or
(3)
Other significant design features such as, but not limited to,
heights, widths and lengths of elements, roof structures, ex-
posed mechanical equipment, service and storage areas,
retaining walls, landscaping, signs, light posts, parking areas
and fences, service and loading areas.
2
Co
Maximize sensitivity to visual appearance and qualities of exterior
design, including with respect to signs, considerations of the
harmony of colors, or compatibility of the proposed structure with
the terrain in which it is to be located including but not limited to,
excessive divergences of the height or levels of any part of the
structure from the grade of the terrain.
4. Section 100-258 (Architectural Review Committee) is hereby added to
read as follows:
A. The Architectural Review Committee shall consist of five members
appointed by the Town Board to serve at the pleasure of the Board
without compensation. If possible, the members of the Committee
shall be appointed from the following categories: two members shall
be archi-tects or landscape architects, one member shall be from
the Landmark Preservation Commission, and two members shall be
appointed from residents of each of the hamlets of the town. The
hamlet members shall vary and shall sit only on the site plans which
are proposed in their hamlet.
B. The term of office of the Architect and Landmark Preservation
Commission members of the committee shall be three years,
provided that those members first appointed shall be appointed for
one-, two- and three-year terms, respectively. The hamlet members
shall be appointed for two-year terms, with the first appointments to
be appointed for a one- and two-year tef'~, respectively.
II. This Local Law shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State.
(Complete the certification tn the paragraph that applies to the tiling of this local law and
strike out that which is not applicable.)
1. (Final adoption by local legislative body only.)
hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No ..... _7. ............................. of 19--9-5---
~ tke ~'~ .... ~'-,~Cl~ownXtg~lt~ of $outhold ............................. .was duly passed by the
~-~'~wn~'~a~'~' /' '~ on May. 1.5.___ 19_9._5_,inaccordancew~ththeapphcableprovm~onsoflaw.
2. (Passage by local legislative body with approval, no disapproval or repassage after disapproval
by the Elective Chief Executive Officer*.)
t
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
(N~m~ of*Leglslatlv~ Body)
disapproval) by the .................................................. and was deemed duly adopted on .................. 19 .... ,
(Elective Chltf E~tcutive Offer')
[n accordance with the applicable provisions of law.
3. (Final adoption by referendum.)
[ hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No2 ................................... of 19-} ....
of the (County)(City)(Town)(Village) of ................................................................. was duly passed by the
................................................... on .................. 19 ...., and was Iapproved)(not approved)(repassed after
(Plame ~f Leglsladve Body)
disapproval) by the ................................................. on ................... 19 ..... Such local law was submitted
(Et¢cti,*e Chief Executive Of~cer*)
to the people by reason of a (mandatory)(permissive) referendum, and received the affirmative vote of a 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 was filed requesting
referendum.)
I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, d~signated 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
(~' ame of Leglslati~,e Body}
disapproval) by the .................................................. on .................. 19 .... Such local law was subject to
[Elective Chief Executive
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 ora county elected on a county-
wide basis or, if there be none, the chairperson of the county legislative body, the mayor of a 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 of a majority oflhe
qualified electors of such city voting thereon ~it the (special)(geneml) election held on ................... 19 .... ,
became operative.
(Seal)
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 ci~-
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.
4.:
(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
is a correct transcript therefrom and of the whole of such original local law, and was finally adopted in the manner in-
dicated in paragraph ............ , above.
Clerkofthe~~nty g' ' y, 'ty, ' g /~"~--
or offiqqr desi~.Rated J2Y local legislative body
Llualth 'T. Jerry, Town Clerk
Date: May 16, 1995
(Certification to be executed by County Attorney, Corporation Counsel, Town Attorney, Village Attorney or
other authorized attorney of locality.)
ST^T~, O~ S~V ~J~ F 0 LK
COUNTY OF
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing l~:al law contains the correct text an that all proper proceedings
have been had or taken for the enactment of th~ l°cal llw~-c},annexed hereto.~, ~r i~
Signature .)
Laury L.Dowd, Town Attorney
Title
~ of Southold
To~vn
Date: May 16, 1995
(3)
IN THE MATTER OF
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
MAY 2, 1995
8:45 P.M
THE PROPOSED "LOCAL LAW
IN RELATION TO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW"
Present:
Supervisor Thomas H. Wickham
Councilman Joseph J. Lizewski
Councilwoman Alice J. Hussie
Councilwoman Ruth D. Oliva
Councilman Joseph L. Townsend, Jr.
Justice Louisa P. Evans
Town Clerk Judith T. Terry
Town Attorney Laury L. Dowd
SUPERVISOR WlCKHAM: We are about to begin the next public hearing,
and Ruth Oliva will read the notice of hearing.
COUNCILWOMAN OLIVA: "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 ~th day of April, 1995, a Local Law entitled, "A Local Law
in Relation to Architectural Review". 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, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York,
on the 2nd day of May, 1995, at 8:05 P.M.. at which time all interested
persons will be heard, This proposed "Local Law in Relation to
Architectural Review" 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:
1. Section 100-252 (K) is hereby amended as follows:
Architectural features: *~'"'*
~hs-~. that the natural features of the site and sur
roundinas, exterior desiqn and appearances of existinq adiacent
.structures. and the character of the district are evaluated in accor
dance with the architectural standards set forth in this Chapter.
Pg. :2 - PH LL
2. Section 100-254 (C) is hereby amended as follows:
When the Planning Board determines said application to be
acceptable, it shall, within ten (10) business days of such deter-
mination, distribute said application and documentation to the town,
county and state agencies having jurisdiction, for their comment.
Such referral shall include a referral to the Architectural Review
Committee. The Architectural Review Committee shall make a
written recommendation to the Planninq Board on the site plan
within ten business days of receipt of the referral. If the committee
fails to make a recommendation within this time period, the proiect
shall proceed to the Plannin.q Board for consideration without
comittee review.
Section 100-257 (Architectural Review Standards) is hereby added to
read as follows:
Site Plans shall be reviewed for conformance with the followinq criteria:
Appropriate diversity of desi.qn elements from another structure or
structures located or proposed to be located on the same street or
corner thereof and within five hundred (500) feet of the site of the
structure for which a site plan or buildinq permit has been reques-
ted, in respect to one (1) or more of the followin.q features of exterior
desiqn and appearance:
(1) Substantially identical facade, disreqardinq color;
(2) Substantially identical size and arranqement of either doors,
windows, porticos, porches or qaraqes or other openinqs or
breaks or extensions in the facade, includin,q reverse
arranqements; or
(3)
Other substantially identical features such as, but not limited to,
setbacks from street lines, hei.qhts, widths, and lenqths of ele-
ments of the buildin,q desiqn and exterior materials and treat-
ments.
Pg.3 - PH LL
Minimize or eliminate visual discord or dissimilarity with respect to
other structures located or proposed to be located on the same
street or a corner thereof and within five hundred (500) feet of the
site of the structure for which a buildinq permit is requested, in
respect to one (1) or more of the followinq features of exterior
desi.qn and appearance:
(1) Facade, disre.qard n.q color;
(2)
. . Size and arranqement of doors, windows, porticos, porches or
garages or other openinqs, breaks or extensions in the facade;
o_Er
(5)
Other siqnificant desi.qn features such as, but not limited to,
heights, widths and lenqths of elements, roof structures, ex-
posed mechanical equipment, service and storaqe areas,
retaininq walls, landscapinq, signs, liqht posts, parkinq areas
and fences, service and Ioadinq areas.
Maximize sensitivity to visual appearance and qualities of exterior
desi.qn, includinq with respect to si,qns, considerations of the
harmony of colors, or compatibility of the proposed structure with
the terrain in which it is to be located includinq but not limited to,
excessive diverqencas of the hei.qht or levels of any part of the
structure from the qrade of the terrain.
Section 100-258 (Architectural Review Committee) is hereby added to
read as follows:
A.~. The Architectural Review Committee shall consist of five members
appointed by the Town Board to serve at the pleasure of the Board
without compensation. If possible, the members of the Committee
shall be appointed from the followinq cateqories: two members shall
be archi-tects or landscape architects, one member shall be from
the Landmark Preservation Commission, and two members shall be
appointed from residents of each of the hamlets of the town. The
hamlet members shall vary and shall sit only on the site plans which
are proposed in their hamlet
B_~ The term of office of the Architect and Landmark Preservation
Commission members of the committee shall be three years,
provided that those members first appointed shall be appointed for
one-, two- and three-year terms, respectively. The hamlet members
shall be appointed for two-year terms, with the first appointments tn
be appointed for a one- and two-year term, respectively.
Pg.~- PH LL
II. This Local Law shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary of
State.
* Underline represents additions
** Strikethrough represents deletions
Copies of this Local Law are available in the Office of the Town Clerk to
any interested persons during business hours. Dated: April u~, 1995. Judith
T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk." Copies of this Local Law have been
posted on the Town Bulletin Board. We have an affidavit of publication in
The Suffolk Times. We do have some correspondence from our Planning
Board to Mrs. Judith T. Terry. The Planning Board reviewed the draft
legislation for the inclusion of Architectural Review into the Site Plan
ordinance. The Board supports the legislation as it is written provided the
last sentence of Section 100-25[[ (C) is deleted. The Planning Board asks
that the Town Board accept this report in this format. Ordinarily the
Planning Board adopts its reports at a public hearing, however, due to the
fact that our last public meeting was cancelled and the next meeting will
not be until the end of this month, we respectfully request that this
memorandum be accepted in place of the usual resolution. We also have
correspondence from Director of Planning, Stephen M. Jones. Pursuant to
the requirements of Section A 1[[-lU, 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 as there is no determination should not be
construed as either an approval or disapproval. Very truly yours, Stephen
M. Jones, Director of Planning. We have one other piece of correspondence
to all members of the Town Board, Attention Supervisor Wlckham, copies to
Judith Terry, Town Clerk. Because I will not be able to attend the meeting
of the Town Board, which will be considering the establishment of an
Architectural Review Committee, I should like the contents of this message
to be distributed to all concerned. My personal interest in promoting the
establishment of an ARB or it's equivalent for Southold town has existed
since I first moved my family here over eleven years ago. Throughout the
years of the previous administration, I appeared at several Board meetings
and presented evidence of the existence of such committees in other highly
desirable communities such as Easthampton, Southampton, Nantucket
Island, etcetera. My proposals were met by deaf ears, and I am happy to
note that the present Town Board seems to be moving on this issue in the
proper direction. It can only enhance the value and quality of life in our
community. It is a wholly unfounded assumption that an advisory committee
to the Planning Board, would present another layer of bureaucracy. If
properly structured, it could even expedite approvals of plans, and would
serve as additional insurance against some of the sins that have taken on
Main Road, which if continued will only serve to depreciate all of Southold
Town. The commercial interests that would like to streamline the approval
processes should realize that by asking a rotating group of professionals
for final advice on plans, will benefit all of us, including themselves. It
is my understanding that the committee would include five qualified
individuals who would serve a specified term, pro-bono, and two individuals
from the village where a project is contemplated. This would guarantee
fairness to each locality. Southold Town is a special place. Let's keep it
that way and be smart enough to enact this measure by approving the
establishment of an Architectural Review Committee. Yours sincerely,
Herbert Ernest. I have one more. Dear Members of the Town Board. This
letter is in regard to the proposed "Local Law in Relation to Architectural
Pg.5 - PH LL
Review". Since I will be away on May 2, the day of the public hearing, I
hope you will accept the following comments as though I had delivered them
in person on May 2. I regard the proposed law as very poorly drafter,
self-contradictory, and antagonistic to business. For example, under 3.
Section 100-257, item A., the proposed law calls for: A. Appropriate
diversity of design elements from another structure(s) within 500 feet in
respect of, 1. Substantially identical facade, 2. Substantially identical
size or arrangement of doors/windows, and other external features. 3. Other
substantially identical features, such as setbacks, height, width, etc. In
other words, don~t make the new structure quite similar to others nearby.
But item b. of the same section calls for, B. Minimize or eliminate visual
discord or dissimilarity with another structure(s) within 500 feet, Jn
respect of, 1. Substantially identical facade. 2. Substantially identical
size or arrangement of doors/windows, and other external features. 3. Other
substantially identical features, such as setbacks, height, width, etc. In
other words, donmt make the new structure dissimilar from others nearby.
When one item essentially says that the proposed structures should not be
similar to others nearby and the next item says that the proposed structures
should not be dissimilar, then how can an applicant abide by such
contradictory "standards"? In fact, those items could hardly by called
standards at all, especially when item C. of that same section is
considered. Item C. calls for "maximum sensitivity to visual appearance".
that is not a standard, just an opinion poll. Standards should be explicit,
non-contradictory, and non-subjective. Otherwise, applicants are always at
the mercy of the Architectural Review Committee and subject to its whims or
capricious actions. Although drafted with apparently noble motives, the
language of the proposed law makes it just another arbitrary and intrusive
and anti-business action. I would note that, according to item A. of Section
100-257, the Founders' Landing community would not meet the "standards"
because of lack of appropriate diversity from other structures proposed to
be located on the same street within 500 feet. I think most people, as well
as the residents there, feel that Founders~ Landing is an attractive
sub-community and an asset to the Town of Southold. A law which would
prohibit it would be a bad law. This is a poorly framed law, in my opinion,
and should not be passed in its present form. Sincerely, Wallace A.
McGahan. I have no further communications.
SUPERVISOR WlCKHAM: You've heard the notice of the public hearing on
the proposed Architectural Review Committee. Is there anyone who would
like to address the Board on this subject? Mr. Gammon?
BOB GAMMON: For the record, my name is Bob Gammon. I presently
reside in Laurel, although if the continued exists I don't know know how
much longer I'm going to be exiting in Laurel. I~m vehemently opposed to
this whole concept. The gentleman, who's letter Ruth just read, I agree with
it wholeheartedly. I~11 even go one step further. I don't want anybody
telling me, you're insulting my intelligence being a property owner, that I
don't know how to review my own architectural needs. That's number one.
It's an infringement of my property rights. God knows I pay enough taxes,
and so do all the business owners in this town. It's absurd to think that
somebody else is going to get up there, and they're going to dictate to me
what I am going to do with my money, and what is beautiful to them, as an
individual. Again, as was stated in the letter, this is a conceptual thing.
Everybody would love to live in Williamsburg, Virginia, but we need a lot
Pg.6 - PH LL
of tradesmen. We need cesspool people. We need ditch diggers. We need
roofers, and I am so fed up with the encumbrances, that are being placed
by government, well-intention government I'd like to add. I know all you
people personally, and I know that you're all well meaning, well-lntentioned
people. I don't question your motivations whatsoever, but what I am
questioning is your judgement in this matter. The other thing I don~t like
about it is, it's subject to too much politics. Once you start to get into
the area where you have appointees, who are going to be appointed by the
Board, and again, it's nothing personal, because you all realize that you
have a certain life expectancy as a politician, and as things are turning
out those life expectancies are getting shorter by the day, not just with
this Board, but with anybody that's in the theatre of politics. Precedents
are very dangerous things. I know all about precedents, because of the
different things that I~ve been involved in I have made the mistake of not
having enough guts to put my foot down, and I am as guilty of it as the
next person. So, I'm not pointing a finger at anybody. What I'm saying is,
you want to think about this thing very carefully. I think Southold Town, I
think Creenport, I think Mattituck, Laurel, all are beautiful little towns,
and I think there's a lot of diversity there, not only from an architectural
fence, but from a standpoint of what the towns have to offer. I, for one, do
not want to live in a glass house. I don~t want somebody else telling me
what I can do, and what I can't do. All you have to do is go down Town
Hall and you see all the Zoning restrictions we have now. Everybody knows
what that's all about, because you're all part of it. You deal with it every
day. We know whether we're in industrial zone, light industrial, commercial,
agricultural. We're not dimbows. We can figure that out for ourselves. We
don't need another layer of bureaucracy telling us what to do. I, for one,
don't like it, and I think it's a very, very dangerous precedent you're
going to set here. There are a lot of ramifications, that I don't think I
really want to go into this morning. If you want to see me privately, I'll
be glad to discuss those, but I don~t think this is the appropriate format
to discuss some of the concerns that I have, because I don~t want to be
accused of being a radical right-winger, which I am, by the way. But,
really, seriously, you'd better think about it. I mean, everybody loves
Williamsburg. I myself love Williamsburg. I love the architecture of it.
I love the atmosphere of it, but what's going on..we're talking about a Code
Enforcement Inspector. My Lord, when I came out here thirty years we
didn't have any of these things. We all got along fine. We didn't need all
of the these things. So, just think about it. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR WlCKHAM: Thank you, Bob. Who else would like to address
the Town Board on the proposed Architectural Review Law? Yes, sir, Mr.
Bruer.
RUDY BRUER, JR.: My name is Rudy Bruer, President of the
Creenport-Southold Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber a few months ago,
when this was first proposed, we took a vote, and we voted to oppose this
Architectural Review Board. We believe that just adding another hoop to
Town government, not only get to go through the Federal hoops, State
hoops, and now you get to go through an additional hoop with Southold
Town Architectural Review Board. I don't see how establishing another
committee is not creating another hoop. I mean, you have a proposal, it has
to be done with another hoop. One of the major concerns that our
membership had with this Architectural Review Board is that it is arbitrary
Pg.7 - PH LL
(tape change) It's very technical. Granted two out of the five members on
the Board would be experts, but the other three are not. I mean, they're
going to purely speculative..who knows what they're going to think. I
mean, somebody might think that facade is ugly, where somebody else would
not think that way, or the Architectural Review Board decision is
non-binding. They could come up with a decision, the Planning Board might
not like it, and might not decide to go with it. The businessperson, who
went through this hoop, just go through it, and now it doesn't matter.
Basically, in conclusion, the Chamber does not like this, does not agree
with the fact that it helps promote business in Southold Town. I mean
nobody here wants to see an ugly town, or anything like that. We all want
to see a nice town. Basically you're duplicating what's going on with the
Planning Board now. The Planning Board says they don't have the
expertise. I don~t see how three members out of the five members, who don't
have the expertise, are going to give it to them. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Mr. Carlin?
FRANK CARLIN: Just a short one. I agree with these two gentlemen here.
I've live out in Laurel for over forty years. I don't need nobody coming
into my house, and telling me how I can build my house, or do whatever. I
don't need that. We have enough red tape in Town Hall now with the
zoning, and the permits, and all of it. I know a gentleman, I'm not going to
mention his name, who sold five lots in Southold Town, by the time he got
done with the zoning, and the Health Department, and the wells, and the
sidewalk, and the curbing, it cost the guy $25,000., in order to sell the
five lots. We don't need that in this town. We got enough red tape now with
the Zoning Board, and our Planning Board now. We don't need no architect
in this town to tell us what to do. We want to move ahead. We need the
businesses in this town, not discourage businesses in this town. Like I
said, I moved in here forty years ago, and we didn't have Enforcement
Officer like this gentleman said here before. You had a Board, and a
Planning Board, and whatever was, they had common sense, they never
bothered you. You got your permit, and that was it. Now, it costs you a
fortune just for a permit. This Board should get on the ball, and get wise,
and sharpen up a little bit in this town. The people should realize what's
going on Southold. I have to come up here all the time, and I have to
speak. People should start realizing before it's too late in this town.
Don't be afraid of this mike. He won't talk back to you.
SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Is there anyone else who would like to address the
Board tonight on our proposed Architectural Review. Yes sir. in the middle.
HOWARD MICCICHE: My name is Howard Micclche. I live in Cutchogue.
I just moved here permanently. I've been coming here since probably since
the early 1930's. I've been a builder in the state of Connecticut all my
working years, and I've seen the town of Westport and Weston become
from very small towns to big towns, and they went through the same kind of
thing we're going through here with very unofficial procedures growing into
more official procedures. Believe me, as towns grow the environment
changes, sharp shooters move in, and you do have to have regulations from
the Building, Planning, and Zoning point of view. People start to chisel,
and cut corners, and you do have to have that. There's no question about
that, and your Architectural Review, the Towns up there have grown a lot
Pg.8 - PH LL
bigger than Southold Town now. They have it, and I certainly think it has
done much more good than bad. You're talking here about a ten day, I
believe it was, before you can get a decision. It's non-binding. I would
look at it as an unpaid consultant project, as opposed to being a pain in
the ass. I think that's a short-sighted view I~m hearing here.
SUPERVISOR WlCKHAM: Is there anyone else who would like to address the
Board on this subject of Architectural Review. Mrs. Lowry?
ANNE LOWRY: My name is Anne Lowry. I live in New Suffolk. I see this
as a situation, that can be used, or..it may be used, or it may not used. I
would hope that the Town Board could pass this, particularly since it has
been commented on a couple of times, that it is non-binding. It is something
which the builder may make use of or not, as I understand it, and if you
pass this, and those who want to use it may, and those who do not, do not
have to, and it will not be a burden to anybody. I hope that you pass it.
Thank you.
HARVEY BAGSHAW: My name is Harvey Bagshaw. I just have a
question on this. Does this Review Board just pertain to new construction,
or any preexisting buildings that might have to go to the Planning Board?
SUPERVISOR WlCKHAM: As I understand it, it refers to anything that
comes for Site Plan Approval, which is to say it excludes residential
building.
HARVEY BAGSHAW: Just strictly commercial?
SUPERVISOR WlCKHAM: Laury, do you want to add to that?
TOWN ATTORNEY DOWD: It covers anything that gets Site Plan Approval.
Now, if the renovation, or whatever they're doing, requires site plan
approval, it will have to go through this process. If it doesn't, it won't.
SUPERVISOR WlCKHAM: It's part of the site plan approval process. Anyone
else who would like to address the Board on the proposed Architectural
Review procedure? Yes, sir?
CHARLES NINTZEL: One comment. Charles Nintzel from Mattituck. I
understand Riverhead has a Architectural Review Board, and I certainly
don~t see much coming out of that. When they talk about buildings have to
be like a building next door, it could become anything, and I would be very
concerned about the fact that if we looked like 58. I would not be very
happy about that.
SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: I think this proposed
what Riverhead has, in the same way that the
different from Riverhead.
law is quite different from
Town of Southold is quite
TOM SAMUELS,JR.: My name is Tom Samuels. I'm an architect in Cutchogue,
and I live in New Suffolk. I don't personally look forward to another layer
of red tape either, on the part of my clients, and having to come and meet
with people in Town Hall. However, I do think there is some merit to this
proposal. I think that it does not, in fact, significantly add to the
Pg.9 - PH LL
regulatory burden. The Planning Board is already doing what this proposed
ARC would do, that is they have a very brief paragraph in the Code by
which they can review the design of projects before the site plan approval.
This proposal, as I understand it, expands on that very brief criteria, and
gives a little bit more information, as to what is appropriate, namely what
is surrounding, and what is deemed appropriate for the location of the
project. That seems to be important in this town, where there is a long
historic character, that has been developed over many years, and has been
eroded, as far as I can see, and I think that has a tremendous impact on
our way of life, and on our economy. I don~t think that Southold is a stand
on economy. It's on the fringe of a large region, and people come here to
spend their money, not because thereJs a better shoe store in town, but
because there might be a nice experience in getting to this shoe store. So,
to me anything that will in a non-compulsive fashion, and I think this law
is failing on compulsive..achieve that, and help achieve that end it would
be beneficial. I don~t think it's going to save the town. I don~t think that
it's only thing that is important. Obviously a balance in all things is what
is essential. We're not just trying to make it Williamsburg. This will
never be Williamsburg. It is a living town, a functioning town. However,
as the gentleman to my left had addressed before, it is growing, and it is
not the same town that it was four years ago. This is 1995, and there are
forces around this town, economic forces, which did not exist here four
years ago, when people were farming, and fishing only. This is a growing
place. It needs appropriate regulations, that will allow individual
expression, and will allow due process with regards to property rights,
which are constantly being debated, and tested in the courts, and out of
the courts. I think that this is a well written law. I obviously have some
reservations about some of the fine points of it, but on a whole I would say
it's positive, and I would urge you to approve it. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR WlCKHAM' Mr. Gammon?
BOB GAMMON: Again, for the record, Bob Gammon from Laurel. You
know this gentleman, Mr. Samuels was absolutely right, when he said we
llve in a changing economy. Everything out here has changed in the last
forty years. There's no question about that, and I, also, think that the
perplexity, and the magnitude of the decisions, that the Board has to make
have also changed in that forty year period, and for that reason what I
would like to see instituted, you want to institute a new procedure, or a
new idea, a revolutionary idea. Well, I have one for you. What is that, is
when something is of this magnitude, where it's going to affect so many
people, instead of you voting on it we have elections every two years in
this town. I'd like to see this, particularly this type of a resolution, put
on the ballot, so all the people can have something to say about it, because
I know even with myself, I~m busy. I~m not afforded the luxury of being
able to come to a Town Board every time a crisis arises, and again, because
of the society we live in, because of the complexity of it, there seems to
be a crisis every day. What we have to do ~s prioritize things, and
ascertain which crisis is going to have the most lasting effect or most
personal. I would like to personally contribute, and have a lot more input
into what goes in the town. I~m not afforded that luxury. I~m not foolish
enough to think that I'm the only one that is afforded that luxury. I bet
you, if you put this thing to a vote, it would go down with a resounding
defeat. Thank you.
Pg.10 - PH LL
JOHN ROMANELLI: John Romanelli, Southold. One comment on this. Had
a Chamber meeting, that Rudy Bruer spoke of earlier, we took a vote of
all the members of roughly fifty people at that dinner meeting. It was an
unanimous vote against the Architectural Review Board of over fifty people
at the dinner. Just another comment, maybe the Geier property, the
people that spoke earlier, maybe the reason they want to go to Greenport
zoning is to get away from some of this kind of stuff.
URAL TALGAT: My name is Ural Talgat. I'm an architect, and a
landscaper. I fully favor this law; and I just want to remind the people
here, that our population doubles in the summertime. I would assume that
most of our incomes out here are dependent upon the people that come in
from the outside, who wish to have second homes out here. They come out
here for a particular reason. One of the reasons is that it is a beautiful
town. It has quite a lot of charm, and if we start having people develop
properties, especially along the main arteries in a haphazard way, then they
will no longer see the need to come out here. They will sell their homes.
Why come out to town that doesn't look good. I'm basically in favor for
this. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Mr. Swiskey?
WILLIAM SWlSKEY: Well, I was just thinking when that gentleman was
speaking, that the people come out here, well, this town has been here
over, I guess, over three hundred fifty, sixty years, and the people here
have survived. Now, most of the local businessmen, I hear, are against this
law. I don~t know who's for it. I don~t know much about it, but, remember
people have been coming out here to escape something up the island, and
bringing something they had up there with them, is the point I'm getting at,
and if it's so good up there because of the laws they made, why are they
coming out here, and telling us, or why are they coming out here at all? I
mean, the people in this town, the natives, basically, the base population
should have a little input on what goes on in the town. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR WICKHAM:
the Board? Yes, sir?
Is there anyone else who has not yet addressed
MICHAEL HERBERT: Michael Herbert from Mattituck. My main concern with
the Architectural Review Board was their concern on how they would
scrutinize over the renovations, or condemnation of any of the historical
buildings. From what I understand, I don't know whether it will have any
say in that at ail with any of the historical buildings, that may be listed
on the National Register.
SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: The one comment I would say is, that the proposed
legislation explicitly reserved one seat on this committee to a member of
our Landmark Preservation Commission. So, there would be some capacity on
that to address the issues, that you're concerned about.
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: The Board that addresses that issue, the
Landmark, is the Landmarks Commission, which the Supervisor just alluded
to. That is also a voluntary, according to the sense that is can't stop you
from doing anything. It's advisory in nature. It can review building permits
if it's a local town landmark, and to become a local town landmark you have
Pg.11 - PH LL
to give permisslon..I mean you have to give your permission, if your
building is going to be a landmark. That received a fair amount of
opposition, when that Board was formed, but I don't think anybody has
considered it an imposition, since it has been. In fact, many people have
commented, maybe yourself, as to the fact that there is certain renovations
going on to the octagon house in Mattituck, and because it's not a Southold
Town Landmark they haven't got the authority to say anything on that one.
MICHAEL HERBERT: Even though it's on the National?
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: It's on the National Register, but it's not a
Southold Town Landmark. I guess they dldn~t give permission to the town.
SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Would anyone else like to address the Board?
FRANK CARLIN: Talking about people, you know, many years back when
the farmers were all farmers, many years back when they were farming sixty
thousand acres of potatoes, the economy in Southold was jumping. There
were more cars. They spent money. Last year it was only sixty-five
hundred acres of potatoes growing last year. As far as the farmers go, our
economy is down, so we can't depend on tourism because tourists don~t llve
here all year round. It's the people who live here all year round they pay
the taxes, and support the town. They only come out here in the
summertime. That's what we have to watch for, and we need to have
businesses in this town here. Take a good example of that building over
there by Youngs Avenue there, that double story brick building. That's
been vacant there for two years. Nobody wants it. Nobody wants to move
out here, because there's so much red tape, and this is going to create
more of it. We need to move in this town. We can't pay our taxes, and put
bread on the table by looking out the window at open space.
SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Is there anyone else in the audience, who would
like to address the Board on Architectural Review?
CLIFF BENFIELD: My name is Cliff Benfield. I live in Southold. I think
the logic thing to be said here tonight, two things have said here, but
there's a big truth here, and that is that it isn't easy for us to become a
Williamsburg, and I doubt that we ever will, or could be, but it's damn
easy to become another Middle Island, or to become that Northern Boulevard
all of the way into Queens to the Suffolk line. I think if people are left
entirely to their own devises, greed at the base of it, we'll look like
that. It's very easily done, and it happens without people knowing it's
going to happen, and I think we have to be very careful.
Pg.12 - PH LL
SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Thank you. I think thatls about all the people I
see who want to address us on this. Anyone on the Board want to respond,
or shall we go on to the next one? (No response.) I declare this hearing
closed.
'Judith T. Terry
Southold Town C;ler~
ON LOCAL LAW
PUBLIC NOTICE 15 HEREBY
GIVEN that een~ has been p~esented
to the Town Board of the Town of
Scolhold, ;Suffolk County, New York,
an ~he 411~ day of Alxtl, 1995, a Local
L~w ~ed, SA Loc~ L~w k R~
NOTICE IS FURTHER OIVEN
Ikat the Town Board of the Town of
~eulhold will hold a ~ hearing
els the aforesaid Locnl Law a~ the
$euthold Town Hall; 53095 Main
Ila~d, Southold, New York, ~1 the
~lsl day ef M~y, l~J, at &ff RM.,
I which time all interested persons
'this proposed "Loenl Lnw In
Relation to Arehlteetoral Revlaw~*
reads aa follows;
BE IT ENACTED, by the Town
Baard of die Town of Somhold as fol-
lows:
I. Chapter 100 (Zoning) of the Code
of d~e Town of Soud~oM is hereby
W as follows:
t. II~tion 100-252 (K) is hereby
alumded as follows:
sr ,~nl~tectural features:
2. Section 100-254 (C) is hereby
amended as follows: ·
: When the
4e~'.tailik~ demihnte said
· ~'~glllllen and documema-
ti~ to the town, county and
sine apmcies having jurisdic.
~,. Section 100-257 (Archheclund
Review Standards) is hereby
ar, ce:
iD~. signs, light nos(a~
4. Section 1~-258 (A~hitectural
added to ~d ~ follows:
il. ~is ~aJ ~w shM[ t~e eff~t
upon ~g with the Sec~y of
-~ ~ ~ ~tUnderline represents addiliop.~i
~ ' P*S~ikethtoughrepresentsdeletlons.
· ~ ~ C~es of Ihis Local Law acc availa~l~
~, _,.=.~ ' ...... h the Office of she Town Cle~ io any
,~, ..,'.~ ~: ~ , Ii,Meal: Aj~I 4 '995
~ :~ ~ .,~-~=' .'. = '"-, ,, , SOUTHOL~TOW~iI~,ERK
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) SS:
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK )
of Mattltuck,
in said County, being duly sworn, says that be/she is
Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly
Newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of
Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York,
and that the Notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy, has been regularly publis.hed in said
Newspaper once each week for _.]..__ weeks
ly, comm~pg on the ~ day of
~9~
Qualified in Suffo~ ~ '1~..~ Principal Clerk
ti~lion Expires ~
Notary Public