HomeMy WebLinkAboutLL-1999 #14Local Law Filing
NEW Y(~ ;. STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
41 STATE STREEt, ALBANY, NY 12231
(Use this form to file a local law with the Secretary of State.)
Text o£ law Should be given as amended. Do not include matter being eliminated and do not use
italics or underlining to indicate new matter.
County
city of .............................. _$_Q _u._t_h_ _o_ ! _c! ..............................................
Town
Village
Local Law No ................ _1_~ ................. of the year 19-9--9---
A local law ~-n-~-R--e~-a--tj-~-n~L~-~.A--m--e--n--d-(~-~C-~h-~a-p--t.e-~r-~Q.~-~t~cl~j-~e~Lt~e~ ............
(In.~rt .rhte)
_"_ L l _m_ j_t_e_c!__ _B_ ~ ~_L_ae~ 5_ _ J. LB~ "__ _Q_f_ _ E_e_ _ _Z_o.__n_i_u_g_ _q_o_de _ _o_f_ ~ _t_he__ _'tayto_ _o_f ...........
_S_.o_u_tg_o_[_d_ ................................................................................................
Be it enacted by the ............................. )--u--w-!L-D-u--a£-u- .........................................of the
(Na~¢ of Legltfi:tive Body)
i~K-yX of .................................... ~_o__u__-t_h__o..l_d_ ........................................ as follows:
Town
Section 1. Legislative Intent and Purpose
In order to achieve the goal(s) of well planned, environmentally sensitive balanced
development and to preserve the existing visual character of the Town we hereby find and
determine it necessary and desirable to make the following modifications to the LB zoning
district. The purpose is to allow a greater number of commercial uses and more flexibility
in the design of the structure and site layout then in the RO zoning district while
mitigating, to the maximum extent possible, the viSUal impacts from parking areas,
loading, storage, signs, and similar uses typical of commercial activity. It is strongly
recommended that a structure resemble a residential structure to permit this district to be
suitable to act as a transition zone between higher density residential and commercial in
addition to the purposes set forth in section 100-80.
Section 2. Chapter 100 entitled "Zoning" of the Town Code, Article vm "Limited
Business (LB) District" is hereby amended as follows:
§ 100-80. Purpose.
The purpose of the Limited Business (LB) District is to provide an opportunity to
accommodate limited business activity along highway corridors, but in areas outside the
hamlet central business areas, that is consistent with the rural and historic character of
surrounding areas and uses. Emphasis will be placed on review of design features so that
existing and future uses will not detract from surrounding uses. The additional uses must
generate low amounts of traffic and be designed to protect the residential and rural
character of the area.
~os-2~ 0~. 2m) (1)
§ 100-81. Use regulations.
In the LB District, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a
building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in
whole or in part, for any uses except the following;
A. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted uses. All permitted uses except
single family and owner-occupied two-family residences require site plan approval.
(1) Any permitted use as set forth in and regulated by § 100-3lA of the Agricuitural-
Conservation District except wineries, which shall' be as set forth in Subsection A(2)(i)
below.
(2) Retail businesses complementary to the rural and historic character of the
surrounding area, limited to the following:
(a) Custom workshops and machine shops.
(b) Wholesale or retail sale and accessory storage and display of garden
materials and plants, including nursery operations, provided that the outdoor storage or
display of plants and materials does not obstruct pedestrian flow or vehicular traffic and
does not occur within three (3) feet of the property line.
(c) Libraries or museums.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Professional and business offices.
Funeral Homes.
Restaurants, except drive-in restaurants or formula restaurants.
Repair shops for household, business or personal appliances, including cabinet
shops, carpenter shops, electrical shops, plumbing shops, furniture repair shops and
bicycle and motorcycle shops, landscaping and other service businesses.
Hotels.
(7)
(8)
(9)
Retail uses supplemental to the service business establishment.
Wineries which meet the following standards:
(a) Wineries shall be a farm winery licensed under New York State law from
which wine made from primarily Long Island grapes is produced and sold.
(b)
(c)
Wineries shall obtain site plan approval.
Wineries shall have retail sales on site.
(10)
2-7-1995 by L.L. No. 3-1995].
Bed-and-breakfast uses as set forth in and as regulated by § 100-3 lB(14). [Added
(11) Private warehousing,
(la)
B. [Amended 8-1-1989 by L.L. No. 15-1989; 11-29-1994 by L.L. No. 26-1994; 2-7-
1995 by L.L. No. 3-1995] Uses permitted by special exception by the Board of Appeals.
The following uses are permitted as a special exception by the Board of Appeals as
hereinafter provided and are subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board:
(1) Any special exception use as set forth in and regulated by § 100-3lB of the
Agricultural-Conservation District, except that wineries are not required to be in
connection with a vineyard, and except bed-and-breakfasts.
(2) Contractor's businesses or yards including, but not limited to, building, electrical
and plumbing yards,
(3) Telephone exchanges.
(4) Antique, art and craft shops and galleries.
C. [Amended 5-9-1989 by L.L. No. 6-1989] Accessory uses. The following uses are
permitted as accessory uses and, except for residential accessory uses and signs, which are
governed by Article XX, are subject to site plan review:
(1)
Any accessory use as set forth in and regulated by § 100-3 lC(l) through (8) and
(10) of the Agricultural-Conservation District, and subject to the conditions set
forth in § 100-33 thereof.
(2)
Outside storage of equipment, supplies and materials associated with any of the
normal operations of the principal use provided that the storage is adequately
screened along the road frontage and contiguous residential lots with natural
vegetation, landscaping, fencing and/or as shall be deemed appropriate by the
Planning Board.
§ 100-82. Bulk, area and parking regulations.
(1) Except as otherwise provided herein, no buildings or premises shall be used and no
building or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the LB District unless, the same
conforms to the Bulk Schedule and Parking and Loading Schedules incorporated into this
chapter by reference, with the same force and effect as if such regulations were set forth
herein in full.
(2) The Planning Board may grant a limited waiver from the applicable bulk
requirement for minimum lot size to a minimum of 40,000 square feet where it can be
clearly demonstrated that the subject parcel has been held in single and separate ownership
since January 10, 1989 or earlier, based on competent evidence thereof pursuant to:
(a) Chain of title certified by a title or abstract company or duly licensed
attorney-at4aw; and
(lb)
(b) A survey prepared by a licensed surveyor describing the subject premises
and all contiguous property.
§ 100-83. Front yard setbacks. [Added 8-22-1995 by L.L. No. 18-1995]
Structures shall be set back at least one hundred (100) feet from the right-of-way.
There shall be an exception to Subsection A if the adjacent parcels are developed,
in which case the minimum from yard setback shall be the average of the setbacks
of the adjacent parcels.
A project shall be divided into separate structures so that no single
structure shall have more than sixty (60) linear feet of frontage on one (1) street.
The setbacks of multiple structures on a parcel may vary, provided that the
average setback of the structures meets the setback required above and all
buildings are at least seventy-five (75) feet from the right-of-way.
II. Severability. If any section or subsection, paragraph, clause, phrase or
provision of this law shall be judged invalid or held unconstitutional by any
court of competent jurisdiction, any judgement made thereby shall not affect
the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part or
provision so adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional.
III. This LOcal Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the
Secretary of State.
(lc)
(Complete the certiflC~ii0n in the paragraph that applies to the th~fig 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 .................!_q_ ................ of 19_9_9_._
of the (igoVal{~(~i~vYdToW.n)(X~il~ of ........................ _S_ _o_ _u_ _t_h_ _o_ ! _d_ ........................... was duly passed by the
.... ~_,~.,I .... _T__o..w._n_~__B._6_a__r._ci._.~ .... '---~- on--O--c--t-o--b--e-C---l--9 19-9--9-, in accordance with the applicable provisions of law.
(Name o/Legislative 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
(Name of Leglsladve Body)
disapproval) by the ............ - ..................................... and was deemed duly adopted on .................. 19 .... ,
(Elective Chief Executive 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]aw No .................................... of 19 ......
of the (County)(City)qrown)(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 submitted
(Elective Chief Executlve Officer*)
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 hw 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 (appmved)(not approved)(repassed after
(Name of Lcg~.vla~e Body)
disapproval) by the .................................................. on .................. 19 .... Such local law was subject to
permissive referendum and no valid petition requesting such referendum was filed as of ........... - ...... 19----, in
accordance with the applicable provisions of law.
* EieCtive'Chlef 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 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 ordinanc~
(2)
5. (City local law concern lng 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 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 qu. alified 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
is a correct transcript therefrom and of. the whole of such original local law, and was finally ad6pted in the manner in-
dicated in paragraph ...... _1 ..... , above.
Cter~of .~.Co~t~
or officer designated by local legislative body
Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk
(Seal) Date:
(Certification to be executed by County Attorney, Corporation Counsel, Town Attorney, Village Attorney or
other authorized attorney of locality.)
STATE OF NEW YORK
coum'Y OF SUFFOLK
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing local law con~s~ correct text and that all proper proceedings
have been had or taken for the enactment of the local laWannexe~
Gre or F a '
Title
X~< of
Town
Date:
Southold
t, t
(~)
RECEIVED
NO¥ 1-9 l~S~
Soat~old To,,,~n C!e~
STATE Of NEW YORk
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
41 STATE STREET
ALBANY, NY 1223 I -000 I
ALEXANDER F. TREADWELL
SECRETARY Of STATE
November 10, 1999
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN HALL
53095 MAIN ROAD
S®UTHOLD, NY 11971
RE: Town of Southold, Local Law 14, 1999, filed 10/29/99
The above referenced material was received and filed by this office as
zndicated. Additional local law filing forms will be forwarded upon
request.
Sincerely,
Janice G. Durfee
Principal File Clerk
Bureau of State Records
(518) 474-2755
JGD:ml
HTTP ://WWW. DOS. STATE:. Ny, U S · E-MAIL: IN FO~ DOS,STATE.. NY. U $
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: (8:10 P.M.) O.K. since the time has come for the
public hearings to begin, we will leave the resolutions until later, and begin the
hearings with the continuation of the Community Development Block Grant funds
for public input. We held the public hearing on this at 5:00 P.M., September
1999. I left the hearing open at that time, so if there is anyone else that would
like to recommend or suggest any way for allotment of Community Development
Block Grant funds, we would be very happy to take you input at this time. Is
there anyone who would like to address the Town Board, pro or con, in relation
to the expenditures of the funds we get from HUD for the Block Grant througl~
Community Development? Hearing or seeing none, I will close the hearing at this
time and we will go on to the hearing that is scheduled for 8:00 P.M. Brian, do
you want to read this one? We will read it in its entirety.
COUNCILMAN BRIAN MURPHY read the legal Notice of Public Hearing on "A
Local law to Amend Chapter 100, Article VIII entitled "Limited Business (LB", of
the Southold Town Zoning Code in its entirety. Contained in this file is
Affidavit of Publication that it was published in the Official Newspaper, Suffolk
Times, and that it was posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board, letter from the
Suffolk County Planning Commission stating that they consider it to be a matter
for local determination, letter from the Southold TOwn Zoning Board of Appeals
requesting that the word "Zoning Board be substituted in place of Planning
Board with respect to granting lot waivers, letter from the Southold Town
Planning Board stating that they support the changes in the law.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak either
pro or con, please state your name and use the microphones. Mr. lizewski..
JOSEPH LIZEWSKI, CUTCHOGUE'. The law in itself takes away and makes it a
nonconforming use in retail out of the LB zones. The problem that I have with
this law is that we are going to look at another law later on 100-2~3 which takes
these nonconforming warehouses and doesn't allow them more than 15% expansion
because they are currently nonconforming and 30% on the actual new buildings,
and the technicalities of giving not to the Board of Appeals, but to the Planning
Board sole discretion, so once again, taking the Zoning Board of Appeals power
away and giving it to the Planning Board. The 15% and 30% and the way this
thing is worded basically means that these people will be stopped from doing just
about anytl~ing because the way I read this law is tl~at no matter what size the
building is, they will only be allowed 15% growth from what they have a'~ that
time. So if there building envelope isn't full, the maximum they will be allowed
is 15%. Now, the Zoning Board of Appeals used to be allowed when it made its
decision to allow what percentage is felt. By putting a number of 15% or 30%,
you are actually tying their I~ands in decision making and the discretion of the
Zoning Board of Appeals which is one of two outs the public always had in
trying to appeals something that this town has tried to make it do. Adding, that
the Zoning Board of Appeals is a very important process for people who own
property and try to do business in this town. By putting the Planning Board in
charge of it and by putting numbers on it 15% and 30% you are basically going to
take these warehouses that are in the nonconforming use by this first law and
going to make it so anybody that has that type of property will find it almost
impossible to expand or grow. That's my objection. Thank you
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Thank you, Mr. Lizewski. (Applaude) Please Ladies
and Gentlemen I asked that there not be any demonstrations. This is a large
group and we would like to do the business in a orderly and mature fashion. Is
there anyone else that would like to address the Town Board either pro or con
in relation to the Local Law in the Zoning Code changes in the LB? Mr.
McCarthy..
THOMAS McCARTHY: Good Evening. I would just like to say a couple of
comments. I am not in favor of removing the retail uses out of the LB zone. I
feel that in addition to the uses issues that you have tonight, additionally
creating 100 foot setbacks from the building from the property line and creating
a maximum width of the building of 60 feet is really going to reduce everyone's
rights who has LB property, especially on the North Road. Other properties
that are either LB today or may be lb after the Town Board decides on the
zoning changes, if these properties are only a couple of hundred feet deep, you
may now be required to set the buildings back 100 feet from the street. In a
LB district, the rear yard is 75 feet. So, if you had a 200 foot deep piece of
property, your building could only be 25 feet deep and 60 foot wide or you
would be in the ZBA. I think there should be something written into the Code
where the setback for the building is a percentage of the depth of the lot sizes
opposed to a strict 100 feet. I think it is going to throw a lot of people into
the Zoning Board of Appeals who don't need to be there
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Anyone else like to address he Town Board?
WILLIAM LIEBLEIN: I'd like to say that I thought the suggestion about the
percentage was outstanding. A 100 foot setback is excessive. In listening to
the letters that were written, the law that you are proposing is goin9 to take
power away from the Zoning Board of Appeals and give it to the Planning
Board. you had two letters, you had a letter from the Planning Board saying
we think this is a great idea, which is understood because they are going to get
more power than the Zoning Board of Appeals which has had the power to listen
to people make pleas on their behalf. You are taking away from them so, the
people who are getting more power are sayin9 yes and the ones that are losing
power are saying no, which is what they would be expected to say. I would
advocate leaving the power with the Zoning Board of Appeals so that they can
listen to someone make their plea on behalf of a hardship they may have, and
not give it to the Planning Board.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Thank you, Mr. Lieblein. (applaude) Please, we
would like to move along in an orderly fashion. Anyone else like to address
the Town Board either pro or con? Jim...
JAMES DINIZIO: I would just like to support Mr. McCarthy's comments and that
leter was dated today from Gerry Goehringer, Chairman of the Board of
Appeals. I am just wondering how you came about putting hotels in this? What
thought process went into it?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: The same as we did before.
Town Board's discussion, workshop.
Recommendations and the
MR. DINIZIO: Is there any paperwork on that on how you would determine that
a hotel would belong with all the other uses in here? Or is it just something
that you pulled out of thin air?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: We feel that there is a need for some kind of housing
as they come out to visit and tourism, it keeps the dollar here a little longer?
MR. DINIZIO: But, why?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: The need. There is a need.
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Jim, if you look at all the zones, the LB zone, the
business zone, the hamlet zone, RO zone, HB zone, LI zone and we all sat
around basically as a Board of six batting around, hey listen, we need hotels in
this town. Where are the people going to go? Do we want them in the RO
zone, no, I don't think so. At looking at recommendations from planners and
taking our own thoughts and feelings on being citizens of the Town where the
stuff should go. As a Board, we have to allow the hotels somewhere. RO is
not it, maybe hamlet business is it? But, that's what the public input is for.
If you don't think LB is right, well, you know, give me a suggestion.
MR. DINIZIO: I just wanted to know how you came to that conclusion, I haven't
gotten an answer yet. Oh, I withdraw my request to read all the local laws in
full in their entirety.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Jim, we knew you would.
read the first one. Anyone else? Yes, Tyler...
That's why we had him
TYLER CORNELL: John, I'm probably going to aim this one at you since you
were nice enough to answer the last one. Seems like there was a lot of work in
deciding where to put the hotels. As far as putting them into LB...
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: On really all the uses and laws, yes.
MR. CORNELL: Where are they being put right now, or previous to this?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: I think RR Resort Residential.
MR. CORNELL: When was the last time a hotel was built in this town?
SUPERVISOR: We used to have some mighty grand ones in the past. But, most
of them burned down. But, we have had people come out and inquire. Not
only, private individuals, but from chains, too. In the past the dollars didn't
work. you know you have to be able to make a Profit no matter what business
you are in.
Now, I believe people are beginning to look again, and the numbers are there
MR. CORNELL: The reason I ask, is almost every district that you zone has to
be just as much work as the hotel. Everything seems to have been doing so
well, why do we have all these changes that are so imperative to make right
away?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: We have tried to add uses. I think you will find that
both of these zones are added uses that would give the landowner a larger
opportunity for diversion.
MR. CORNELL: Thank you very much.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: You are welcome. Is there anyone else who would like
to address the Town Board? Yes ma'am..
KATHLEEN GRASECK, SOUTHOLD: I was just wondering why are we addressing
hotels when we have inns in the Town that are trying to reestablish themselves
that already are in existence and are having difficulty with the Town getting
their permits and building operating.
SUPERVISOR: Anyone else like to address the Town Board?
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: Mrs. Graseck we have to put hotels, we have to
accommodate hotels somewhere. We can't ignore them, or else they can go
anywhere. Perhaps someplace where we might not want them. They are also
constrained by the amount of property that they need for each room or each one
that they are going to be renting out. So, we felt that to put them in the LB,
they wouldn't really go in the industrial area, and they certainly don't go
downtown. So, we felt that LB might be the best place for them. We had to
recognize their existence, or possible existence.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: You have to allow for uses, many uses whether you
would like to see them or not. I will call on someone else... Oh, all right, you
have not spoken yet, Bob...
ROBERT JENKINS, CUTCHOGUE: I just have a question, regarding, i am
reading legislative intent and I think you are the legislative body.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Yes we are.
MR. JENKINS: (continued) preserve and exist the visual character of the
Town by changing the LB zone codes. I thought the last three days of the
hearings we determined that the visual character of the Town was in very good
shape and that the true purpose of changing the LB zones and the codes was to
preserve the integrity of the hamlet businesses. So, I don't know why it is to
preserve the existing visual character and to recommend that the structures of
the businesses resemble a residence .... I don't agree with that change of codes.
That's all I have to say.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN' Mr. Samuels, before I go back to anyone that has
already spoken, I am going to take anyone who has not. Mr. Penny, then Mr.
Cichanowicz..
GEORGE L. PENNY IV, PENNY LUMBER: Good evening. Something just s'truck
me because I had absolutely no intention of speaking on this particular local
law. Except when, my concern is not just the local law, but how it is going to
apply after these proposed zone changes. Now, we have a County Route
Study which says reduce the traffic on County Route L~8 and enhance the
hamlet. Being as most of the LB zones are already existing on County Route
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: But the thing is this law does not only affect the LB
on County Route 48 existing or proposed, it also affects LB throughout the
Town.
MR. PENNY: 75 OR 80% of the LB's are on CR 48.
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Correct, i think I understand your question is
that even though uses are being added that people who own LB might consider
beneficial..
MR. PENNY: That's right, particularly on the undeveloped parcels.
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: I believe your question is, yes, there are some
beneficial uses being added to LB, however, you are taking all of the LB's, is
that correct?
MR. PENNY: Well, we don't know that .... i've read the plan.
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: You don't know that's how it's going to be.
MR. PENNY: Well, you don't know either.
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: That's right, I don't.
MR. PENNY: We can only assume. My question is why, you make it sound as
though you are giving somebody something, but two days from now or three
days from now, you are going to be removing half the zones that could accept
this zone. How are people going to know, unless you put this into a total
picture, somehow, as it was mentioned earlier, and present a total picture of
what you are doing to the Town, is the Town supposed to understand what
direction this Town Board is thinking in?
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: If you add these uses to LB and LB stays the way
it is, you are giving LB quite a number of uses. You don't change all the LB
on the Route 48 Study. I mean we don't know how that vote is going to come.
But, if they don't change and the LB changes come through, LB has now become
an enhanced zone which 75% of the LB in this Town is on CR 48. and if it
stays up there, LB has now become a very useful zone within this town.
MR. PENNY: Right. How is an LB property owner that is sitting here with a
vacant parcel of LB property on CR 48 supposed to address the fact that you
are implying in a public hearing that you are going to give them something and
maybe a week from now, he is not going to have that zone.
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Well, it is one way or the other. You know there's
the other side too. We could change the zone first and then change the uses?
I mean, you know, you have to try to enhance the use.
MR. PENNY: The word is Master Plan. You present the map, the zoning code
and any changes all at the same time. It took us four years to do what you are
trying to do in about four months.
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: And it was a good job, a very good job.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: All right, Mr. Cichanowicz, go ahead...
DAVID CICHANOWICZ: It does seem like you are putting the cart before the
horse on this matter with these zoning changes, reiterating what George Penny
said. You don't seem to have everything clear in your mind, then how the hell
can we expect to have it clear in ours? I think it would be a lot better if all
had a clear picture of what the final result was, before you start changing the
zoning amendments to the code.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Anyone else like to address the Town Board?
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: I would like...I have made an observation and I
would like to put it as part of the record and that is right now there are 26
uses permitted in the HB Hamlet Business District. Of those 26 we are giving
23 to the LB zone and the other 3 are given by special exception. So this
business about enhancing the hamlet businesses and directing business toward
the hamlets seems to be bogus, because if it is all going to be able to be in
LB, where ever LB may be, Mr. Penny, we are not helping the hamlets.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Anyone else like to address the Town Board Has
everyone had the opportunity to speak? Any first time speaker? If now,
Samuels...
grant that relief, she could go to the Zoning Board and seek a variance from
that.
MR. SAMUELS: She still can?
COUNCILMAN MOORE: Sure. She is a single and separate lot. She is entitled
to go for a variance. The Zoning Board of Appeals is that relief valve there to
address the uniqueness of a given piece of property, as opposed to the overall
town plan.
MR. SAMUELS: I trust that is true. We do know that the previous
administration required site plan review for almost everything. It became a very
onerous burden for almost everybody who tried to change site plan. But, what
you have told me know that the situation is almost e better situation. You go to
the Planning Board first, and the Planning Board says, "well we don!t, we're
not sure about it, maybe you don't have enough parking and so forth and so
on, or for whatever reason. Now, you can go to the ZBA and seek to get relief
from the Zoning Board of Appeals from the Planning Board decision.
COUNCILMAN MOORE: No, you go right to the Zoning Board of Appeals. You
are talking about expanding your existing business, your nonconforming use?
and you want to expand? The present code prohibits it. So, now you come in
and if you are under our present code, any change to a facility any expansion,
would require site plan anyway because you are confronted with a
non-conforming use? And you go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and you beg
and you try to make some leap frog of an argument and stand on your head in
the face of an outright prohibition, we have tried to provide some relief. The
present prohibition is just too onerous. If you have an existing business and
you want to add storage to it, and you are up and going great guns in
nonconforming status. Forget any zoning map changes that we might consider.
The present law prohibits expansion of nonconforming uses. We are
contemplating some relief in that respect. You go direct to the site plan, and
you say "listen I've got to get site plan, I think there's an exemption there for
15%. You can do a 15% exemption, nonconforming, rather than getting site
plan. You can go to 30% expansion with site plan, with nonconforming use. It
was intended to be a relief mechanism, to assist the business community. It is
understood that this is probably most of the most difficult section of the zoning
code to contemplate, that you are confronted with and you have to deal with it.
But, it was intended as a relief valve right through this legislative body, not
back to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The example raised was one where it
didn't fit what we attempted to legislate, or proposed to legislate. In which
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: We just got this late this afternoon.
time to communicate with them on it.
We haven't had
MR. SAMUELS: It would seem to me that they should have had some input on
it, but apparently, their letter indicates that ....
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: They did. Wasn't this referred to ZBA for comment?
COUNCILMAN MOORE: The Planning Board.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: A copy went to them. They certainly saw it. Anyone
else like to address the Town Board that has not spoken? Tyler, then Mr.
Lieblein..
TYLER CORNELL: The way that Bill just described the new law seems like it
will actually do wonders for nonconforming property. My first question is "why
wasn't this pushed through a long time ago?
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: We just started working on it through all of the
zone changes and when it came about was we realized that if we went through
with the Cramer plan, there would be a lot more nonconforming uses within the
Town.
WILLIAM LIEBLEIN: I just want to get clarification, if I understand Bill
correctly, if I'm a non conforming use and I want to make an addition to my
building because my business is growing, I can go to the Planning Board for
Site plan approval and they can grant it, if I don't want more than the 15%
increase in the existing building I have, is that correct?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Or 30% to the ZBA.
TOWN' ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Correct. Two things, right now in a
nonconforming business you are prohibited under the law from expanding.
Normally, with a business, site plan is required if you had a conforming
business. So, yes you would need site plan approval. But the outright
prohibition on the expansion of nonconforming use, that is a relief valve in place
now. If you wanted to expand by 15%, it's there, it's granted already, for your
nonconforming business. If you wanted to go up to 30%, you could do so, from
the 15% to the 30%. The Planning Board has some say there that they might
seek some mitigation. It's a nonconforming use, perhaps some more screening.
All very fact specific, but the Board could seek some mitigation measures. But,
yes, it's a relief valve for your nonconforming business which you do not
currently have under the present code.
MR. LIEBLEIN: So, the person who has this nonconforming lot perhaps they
want to go to L~0%. So, the Planning Board says well that is beyond what you
want to do. But assuming this is passed. Let's say they had a very small
building on their nonconforming lot when their business had just started. Maybe
they only have a 1,000 square feet, but they have a huge lot, which if they
were a conforming use they could have a 10,000 sq. ft. building. So, they
would still have the to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals make an argument on
why I want to double the size of my building.
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Correct. The same relief that you were
entitled to, plus you gained some more automatic relief, which doesn't exist
now. It's a benefit to the business community.
MR. LIEBLEIN: In reading the law earlier this evening that certainly wasn't
obvious to me and I guess it wasn't obvious to a lot of people. If that is the
way it is going to be, then it changes the way i feel about it. It sounds like it's
good. It sounded very bad the way I read it and the way everybody
understood it.
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: It's meant to be good.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Anyone else like to address the Town Board for the
second time around? John Nickles, the first?
JOHN NICKLES, SOUTHOLD: I had not planned to speak either, but I heard
some of the comments. My understanding of a nonconforming use is that when
they tell a business person, for instance, upon the North Road on CR ~8, when
they change that persons zoning from B to LB, they are telling them that they
are a nonconforming business because they are changing number 1, the size of
the lot that they are presently on into a different zone that has a different lot
requirement. My experience with zoning is that when you tell someone that they
are now a nonconforming business, like they did at the inception of zoning here
in 1956, they made every gas station nonconforming, because they wanted to
eliminate a lot of the gas stations. That means that they didn't want them. If I
had business on the North Road and you changed my zoning from B to LB, you
are telling me you don't want me in my particular business in that area
anymore. Which is why when you have a nonconforming business, similar to
General Wayne, in a residential area, it's very difficult to get things done. If
you don't use it, you lose it over a period of two years. If the building burns
down, you can't rebuild it. That's why they had nonconforming uses in the
zoning. What I am hearing tonight is that you are going to change a lot of
people from one zone to another zone. You are creating, as the young man
said, nonconforming uses. Then you are creating some new safety valve to give
them relief. One of the questions I have is suppose that relief aspect is to buy
an incentive zoning right.
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: What does that mean?
COUNCILMAN MOORE: The answer is no. The law is right in front of you and
there's no provision for any kind of incentive right.
MR. NICKLES: No in this particular zoning or in the whole Cramer plan.
There's no provision for any kind of incentive zoning use?
COUNCILMAN MOORE: As to nonconforming uses, as you specifically asked for
it, no. We have local laws in front of us. A series of four which are the
culmination of what the Board wants to work on legislatively from his
recommendations.
MR. NICKLES: But, are there incentive zonings in the Cramer recommendations?
COUNCILMAN MOORE: He made, what? one passing reference to it.
MR. NICKLES: I don't know
COUNCILMAN MOORE: He made one passing reference to it, but it didn't get
itself into the legislation.
MR. NICKLES: So, you are not going to apply incentive zoning requirements to
people in nonconforming zones?
COUNCILMAN MOORE: Right.
MR. NICKLES: O.K., thank you.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: I am going to take Mr. Lizewski..
JOSEPH LIZEWSKI: Having read this thing many many times, this nonconforming
building with nonconforming uses, still I don't see where it says. The way I
see this is, if you had a nonconforming use at this time, we are just going to
use an arbitrary figure at this time, you could build a 200 ft. sq. building and
you built a 100 ft. sq. building, even though you were allows to have 200 sq.
ft., that you would only be allowed a 15% increase on that 100 sq. ft. the ZBA
used to be able to give you relief to your maximum.
COUNCILMAN MOORE:
nonconforming uses.
No. They gave you zero, prohibited expansion of
MR. LIZEWSKI: But this is only 15% of what you have...
COUNCILMAN MOORE:
present law.
No, the present law is zero.
Go back and read the
MR. LIZEWSKI: That's now what I am trying to get to.
COUNCILMAN: But, the point is that you are going from zero to 15% or 30%
MR. LIZEWSKI: This law only says 15% of what you presently have. In other
words, if you had a building envelope of 200 sq. ft., you are not going to be
given 15% of 200 sq. feet? You are going to be given 15% of what you presently
have? Is that correct?
COUNCILMAN MOORE: Presently, you can't build it one square foot more. Yes,
if you go to site plan, go to 30%.
MR. LIZEWSKI: After you build a new building?
COUNCILMAN MOORE: I don't think it said a new building. No.
enlargement..
Up to 30%
MR. LIZEWSKI: It says here 30%...
JUSTICE EVANS: It says remodeling, reconstruction, or enlargement...
MR. LIZEWSKI: Why would this power be given to the Planning Board? why
wouldn't this power by given to the Zoning Board of Appeals, where it belongs?
Who really deserves the power to begin with. Why would you do that?
They are two different personalities.
COUNCILMAN MOORE: Because you can make an applicant go to two different
places tl~en. First go to tl~e Zoning Board of Appeals and maybe riley will give
you tl~e relief and maybe riley won't, or maybe riley will and impose conditions
upon you. And tl~en you can go to tl~e Planning Board to be site planned. It
is an attempt to streamline..
MR. LIZEWSKI: But tl~ey are two different personalities, two different animals.
Tl~e Planning Board is more subjective titan tl~e Board of Appeals. Tl~e Board of
Appeals is certainly more arbitrary. Tl~e Planning Board l~as always been more
difficult to get tl~rougl~. Wl~y would anybody want to believe tl~at tl~is would
make it more streamlined by giving tl~em tl~e power. Tl~ank you.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: We have kind of gotten into ti~e hearing on
nonconforming buildings witl~ nonconforming uses wi~icl~ is down tl~e list a little
bit. If I may pull you back. I would like to ask if tl~ere is anyone tl~at would
like to speak in relation to tl~e cl~anges in use in tl~e LB zone? O.K., so tl~at
we can get down and open tl~e hearing on conforming uses? Tyler?
TYLER CORNELL, SOUTHOLD: The way tl~at this law is worded seems to be a
wonderful tl~ing. I mean we are going from zero to a 15% increase or possibly
even a 30% increase if we pick up the next step, wl~icl~ I like. Productivity is
great. Other titan tl~e fact that we actually I~ave to ask our town if we are
allowed to increase of our business. But, it is a relief valve like you said. I$
tlnat rigl~t, Mr. Moore?
COUNCILMAN MOORE: Yes.
MR. CORNELL: Tl~e relief valve, ! feel is going to make tl~e Board, or many
more people in tl~e room, vote possibly yes for tl~e law, and tl~en look at tl~e
Cramer study and possibly pusl~ tl~rougt~ the Cramer Study because we now I~ave
the relief valve. But, back to tine original law. Ti~is relief valve will I~elp us
as tl~ings presently sit, and if it was brought up a few years ago, before tl~ere
were any rezoning possibilities or any tl~ing of tl~at sort, it would sound great
and I would vote for it in a second. But with tl~e pending issues, as Mr. Penny
I~ad said, presenting everytl~ing at once would make it a mucl~ clearer decision
for people. If tl~is law goes tl~rougl~ as it is and automatically gives tl~e Board
sometl~|ng to step back on for tl~e Cramer Study if tl~ere are objections to it. If
you want to go into basic business 101 concept, when somebody I~as a piece of
property that riley start a business on it, and riley want to sell that business as
a nonconforming business, tl~e new buyer can buy tl~at piece of property and
utilize tl~at same business tl~at was tl~ere. If my understanding is correct of tl~e
law and if tl~e Board would help me, is ti~at true?
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE.' Same business.
COUNCILMAN MOORE: Or a similar business.
MR. CORNELL: Tl~at fits tl~e zoning criteria...
COUNCILMAN MOORE: Or a similar degree of nonconformity.
MR. CORNELL: If the business is sold without the property, but is more
suitable for its nonconforming use, that property value will be devalued. It's a
chain reaction, the proposition of this law which would change the lives of many
people in this town. To give a quick example, I might not be speaking
completely clearly. It is true that the town hall could collect real estate taxes if
they were moved down the road, right? Is that true?
COUNCILMAN MOORE: i didn't understand the question.
MR. CORNELL: Town Hall can collect real estate taxes if they weren't in this
building. Or let's say, this building and this property were zoned agriculture.
You could still collect real estate taxes. But if town hall moved down the road,
what farmer would want to buy this property? Now, I am telling you that you
have a relief valve and you can expand your collection of real estate taxes by
15% or possibly 30%, but if you move down the hall, this property is almost
worthless. The main point that I am trying to get out is that before you vote
on this law, please think about the entire impact that it will have in conjunction
with the Cramer Study and the other things going on in Town Hall. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Thank you, Tyler. Sir..
RICHARD MEAD, PECONIC: Hi, my name is Dick Mead, I live in Peconic.
Apropos of a point that was made in an earlier part of the discussion, if this law
passes hOw many people will be legislated into nonconforming use?
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: I'm sure there are going to be some.
MR. MEAD: But, you don't know the number, how many?
So, we don't know the impact.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: No.
MR. MEAD: We don't know the economic impact?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Not yet.
MR. MEAD: As well as the sociological impact which really begs the question
isn't incumbent upon all of you to put together a master plan that everyone that
has an interest understands what's going on, comprehensively understands.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the Town
Board? Anyone who has not spoken at all, or has only had one or two turns?
or three turns? Jim Dinizio.
JAMES DINIZIO: I just.. If I were at a Code Committee meeting, I would ask
this question. I come to Town Hall with a plan of my nonconforming business on
a nonconforming lot. ! want to put an addition on. Who do I go to? I think I
go into the Building Department. I think we go to the Building Inspector to try
to get a building permit to build this thing. Now, he is going to look at this
permit (application?), he is going to look at these plans and he is going to, I
:assume, make a determination on that? Am I correct?One of the determinations he
is going:to make is does this meet the lot size, you know, is it going to be
expandable. He is going to say, I think looking at this, he has every right to
say give me a changed title, give me a survey signed by a licensed surveyor,
and give them a 50% relief right then and there and send them on their merry
way, instead of having to have the Planning Board commensurate on them. I
mean, unless you are going to use this 15% or 30% as some kind of leverage in
whatever, you are going to get, screening, or something like that. There is no
reason the Building Inspector can't make these determinations because you've got
what you need to have in the requirements here, he just needs to see those
requirements. Therefore, you have taken a step out and you have actually put
the power back where it belongs and the person who knows the code. He is
supposed to know, he is the Code Enforcement Officer. He is the one who
issues the Building Permit, he is the one who determines whether you are over
or whether you can't expand because you are nonconforming. He determines all
of those things. So, maybe if not Planning or Zoning, maybe it is actually the
Building Inspector. Since, he makes those determinations. Yes, it is relief
because you cannot expand a nonconforming use. You can't have it, although
we have granted relief. But, I think Building Inspector better describes it and
it a more functional department for than the Planning Board. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Anyone else like to address the Board on the LB
changes only, please? If not, I will close this hearing. We will go on to the
next hearing scheduled which is a local law in relation to uses and conditions for
the residential office district. John, do you want to read this?
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Public Notice is Hereby Given that the Town of
Southold will hold a public hearing at Southold Town Hall at a little bit after
8:05 P.M. (actually 9:07 P.M.) on October 12, 1999. This local law is in
relation to the proposed changes in the RO zone. What I am going to read is
the changes. I won't read all the legal mumbo jumbo, but I will read the
changes.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN:
changing.
Why don't you read what was there and what we are
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: I will. I am going to start with the purpose. The
purpose of the residential office district is to provide a transition area between
business areas and Iow-density residential development along major roads which
will provide opportunity for limited nonresidential uses in essentially residential
areas, now this is added here: while strongly encouraging the adaptive re-use
of existing older residences, to preserve the existing visual character of the
Town and achieve the goal(s) of well planned, environmentally sensitive balanced
development, which the Town has determined to be desirable.
The permitted uses currently in the RO are one-family detached dwelling, not to
exceed one dwelling on each lot. The permitted uses which are being removed
are (2)Buildings, structures and uses owned or operated by the Town of
Southold, school districts, park districts and fire districts. Added: (2) You are
allowed owner occupied two-family dwellings. That's an added item. The
following items are removed from Permitted Uses: (3) Buildings, structures and
uses owned or operated by fraternal organizations and utilized for activities
typically conducted by a fraternal organization, including but not limited to,
public meeting places, charitable and fundraising events, patriotic observances
and catering for public and private functions. Added, now, this is all new now:
(3) The following uses are permitted uses subject to the site plan approval by
the Planning Board: (a) Buildings, structures and uses owned and operated by
the Town of Southold, school districts, park districts and fire districts. (b)
Buildings, structures and uses owned or operated by fraternal organizations and
utilized for activities typically conducted by a fraternal organization, including
but not limited to public meeting places, charitable and fundraising events,
patriotic observances and catering for public and private functions. (c)
Bed-and-Breakfast uses as set forth in and as regulated by Section 100-31B(1/4).
(d) professional offices. (e) churches or similar places or worship, parish
houses, convents and monasteries.
(Councilman Romanelli continued to read the context of this proposed local law in
its entirety. )
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: We have an affidavit that it was posted on the Town
Clerk's Bulletin Board, and an affidavit that it was published in the official
newspaper, the Suffolk Times. I have a letter here from the Suffolk County
Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination. A
letter from the Southold Town Planning Board. The Planning Board supports
the proposed amendment to the RO District, with the following exceptions: The
two-family residential use should be permitted as a special exception, not as a
matter of right. Site should not be required. Their recommendation is based on
two observations: Their first concern that apply to the addition of the second
residence are similar to those that apply to the addition upstairs over an
established business in the RO district. There are certain circumstances under
the addition of the second dwelling cannot be accommodated for any of the
number of reasons such insufficient minimum square .footage per family, lack of
water, wastewater capability. Further, the two family use should not be
considered the single use of the property. The ZBA has a history of a careful
review of such cases and they feel that it should remain within their
jurisdiction. Another one is their language should specify a minimum of ~40,000
sq. ft. of land area in order to apply for a special exception for a restaurant.
Sites smaller than one acre are not large enough to accommodate the amount of
parking and landscaping requirements for a restaurant. The term storefront
should be described as design elements involved, location of signage, the window
type, the lighting, etc. A clear definition will reduce the potential of a
misinterpretation and make the Building Department's job easier. Such a
definition might be worded as follows: Their example is a storefront large
picture glass window area display window, front building facade emphasizing
store name and signage, etc. and that's all the correspondence we have.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Thank you, John. You have heard the reading of the
local law in relation to amendment for the use in the RO district. Before I start
taking speakers, that anything that you spoke already, we will put all comments
in all hearings in relation to that topic. Bob Jenkins...
ROBERT JENKINS: If I am correct the lot coverage for RO District is /40,000
square feet? One acre? But, we have two acre zoning for residences in R-80
right? So, that means that if I am a struggling businessman with a one acres
lot LB and they go through with the zone changes and make it RO. Many pieces
are recommended for RO on CR /48, I can build a two family home on one acre
along CR /48. I can build a small shop with a large apartment over the store
and it sounds to me like, if this law goes hand in hand with the recommended
zone changes, you could have a whole residential area up on CR /48. People
could say well who the beck wants to live on CR /48? Well, if I could build a
two-family home on I acre, I'll live there and rent the other house. I would
examine that closely. It also says under purpose...John, you misread the
purpose of the law ..... "essentially residential areas". There is not much
residential area along CR ~8 presently, but if this law goes tl~rough and the
zone changes go tl~rough, there very well may be.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Thank you, Bob. Yes ma'am ....
CYNTHIA HALSEY: I live in a residential office zone. Years ago when this
came about I wrote to your Planning Board incumbent and asked them to please
define it. Apparently, that is what you are now, several years later, in the
process of doing. It seems to me that you are doing not very much with
residences and not very much with offices, but translating this into something a
little different. I'm not quite sure how different. I'm not quite sure how
different, but if sound a lot more like business than it does like residences. I
am also going to speak for the orphan of this storm, Route 25. Although Route
~8 is in the forefront of everybody's mind, I happen to live on Route 25. The
present residential office situation has worked quite we~l. We are having as much
peace as you can expect on a highway. We are comfortable with our neighbors
and we do not have all sorts of blenders in our minds about what is next to
befall us. Particularly since right across the street from me, I have a vacant
lot of notorious character. I think you have read about that. I wonder what
would happen to that. I would not like to see it a restaurant. I eat as we all do
and I like good food, as I suppose we all must. But one think may have noticed
in Southold is that where there are restaurants in existing residential districts,
they usually have a considerable amount of trouble. There was one down on
Hobart Lane that caused a lot of trouble to the neighbors and is now there no
longer. That's a major site, I think to explain why I don't want a restaurant
included i tl~is. Nor, do I think that anybody else that lives in the district
would want that. I hope you would take it out, no matter what they may think
in Hauppauge, ! think it would be wrong for us. ROute 25 has smaller areas
that ~8, and I think the closer you are together, the more difficult it is to live
in harmony. Particularly, if a restaurant or any other business decides to play
loud noisy music at 3:00 A.M. in the morning, which has also happened in other
places. So, I hope you will reconsider, go back to residences and offices and
eliminate some of this extraneous intrusion. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the Town
Board in relation to residential office? Linda Bertani...
LINDA BERTANI, SECRETARY OF SOUTHOLD PARK DISTRICT: I'd like to read
a statement from the Commissioner: "The Commissioners of the Southold Park
District would like to go on record in opposition to A Local Law to amend the
uses and conditions for the Residential Office (RO) District specifically the
change from A2 to A3a and the addition of D-2 as it pertains to the Southold
Park District. Even though the Park District has no properties in any
residential office zones, due to special legislation of New York State which
makes the park distrlct municipality a separate government entity independent
from Southold Town and not subject to zoning or planning codes, only to
building department codes, we feel that the change to the RO zone law stating
that park district functions and structures will now be subject to site plan
approval by the Planning Board, to be
not illegal, but also in the best interest of the functions of a park district. The
Planning Board should not override the acts of elected officials of an
independent government body such as a park district as the Planning Board's
rules and regulations are not designed for the purpose of park district functions.
As an example, in Section D 2, it states that all permitted buildings and other
structures shall be visually residential in character, the visible architectural
features of which shall be consistent and compatible with the architectural styles
of the existing structures of the immediate neighborhood. Even thouglq the
commissioners would try to make it as attractive as possible, a bathroom
outbuilding is a difficult thing to make look like a house. By Order of the
Commissioners: Michael p. Hagerman; Robert C. Cochran, John L. Conway-
Linda D. Bertani, Secretary.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Thank you, Linda. Don, Mr. Sayre...
DONALD SAYRE, COMMISSIONER OF THE SOUTHOLD FIRE DISTRICT: I am
hear to read this statement on behalf of the Commissioners of the Southold Fire
District: Re: Proposed Local Law Respecting the RO zone. Dear Members of
the Town Board: It has recently come to our attention that the Southold Town
Board is considering an amendment to section 100-70 et seq. of the Southold
Town Code, concerning uses in the RO zone. This is to advise you that the
Board of Commissioners of the Southold Fire District strongly opposes the
amendment as proposed. We reserve our most severe objection for that portion
of the suggested code which seeks to change the fire district operated
structures from "permitted uses" (section 100-71(A)(2) to "permitted uses
subject to the site plan approval by the Planning Board" (section
100-71(A) (3) (a) . The Southold fire District is a sub-unit of the State of New
York, with autonomous powers granted by the State Constitution. The Town of
Southold is itself just such a sub-unit and posses its own powers pursuant to
state grant. Nowhere in the laws of the State of New York does any authority
exist for the proposition that a Fire District is in any way subservient to, or
subject to the authority of, Town government. If and when a Fire District
decides to construct a facility of any kind it does so upon its own authority and
the power vested in it by the state law. While it is true that a Fire District
structure must comply with certain building, fire and environmental codes that is
because those requirements are imposed at the state level. New York State does
not impose, and in fact does not recognize, any requirement that a Fire District
property comply with any local zoning ordinances. The reason for this is
simple. The entity of the Fire District was created by the state for the purpose
of providing fire protection for its residents. Accordingly, decisions of the
elected governing Board of Fire Commissioners cannot be substituted for or
second-guessed by the appointed functionaries of a separate municipal entity. It
is the fervent hope of this Board that you will rethink the wording of this
proposed zoning amendment and delete the offensive language referred to
above. Frankly, we are at pains to understand how this part of the proposal in
any way helps to bring ~about the "Legislative Intent and Purpose" stated in
section 1 of the Local Law. in any event, we reiterate our strong objection and
look forward to continuing the fine working relationship we have usually enjoyed
with the Town of Southold. Very truly yours,/s/ s~gnatures of John
Stankewicz, Chairman of the Board; George Berry, Sr., Commissioner; Bill
Sawicki, Commissioner; Donald Sayre, Commissioner.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: First this appears in almost zoning district in the
present code. I think this was repeated as uniformity, because we hay at least
what 12 zoning districts, and it appears in all but 3.
legislation, Greg, would you fill us in on that.
I believe there was some
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Previously, the rule had been under a
municipal corporation and they did not have to comply with municipal
corporations, such as the Town's zoning laws. There has been a Board of
Appeal;s case which has changed that clear standard to a, quite frankly, a
wishy washy balancing test now on whether or not under a municipal
corporation's plan for a particular piece of property must comply with site plan
and zoning laws.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: All you fire departments are in the zones that do not
need or do not have this particular wording. You are in HB or you are in
R-80. Mattituck is in HB, Cutchogue is in HB, Southold is HB and your
annexes are R-80
MR. SAYRE: That's true, we understand that. However, what if we purchase
property and what if you change our zone? And where do we stand with this?
Are there going to be other changes coming down where you try to put Town
Law fire Districts in the category when you really don't have the jurisdiction to?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: I believe you are a taxing district standing alone by
yourself that you are elected by the public the same as we are.
As I said it is almost every zone district. So, if we are going to look at it
here, we have to look at it in other places, also.
MR. SAYRE: Well, ! feel that the Town and the, I and the Board of
Commissioners of the Fire District feels that the Town is wrong for taking this
position on this issue. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Anyone else like to address the Town Board?
Mr. McCarthy.
THOMAS McCARTHY, SOUTHOLD: I just had a quick question for perhaps Greg
or Bill
The RO district allows offices as well as a certain number of uses and you have
gone through the zoning code to say that "as an accessory, use you are allowed
to have an apartment on the second floor", as the code presently states.
So the minimum lot size for a conforming RO is ~0,000 sq. ft. or one acre. Is it
the Town's position that if you have an apartment on the .second floor as an
accessory use, do you need double the minimum lot size, or are you allowed to
have an apartment as classified as an accessory use under the code on a one
acre parcel. Because most of the properties around town are in the RO district
coming up and down 25, let's say from Hart's Hardware to DeFriest's to down
around the corner you are not going to find properties that over 2 acres in
size. So, you are limited to really one use on that property. If you are saying
that an accessory use is allowed an an accessory apartment above that use, will
the Building Department see that as a second use and hence requiring a two
acre lot in order to have a building and an apartment?
COUNCILMAN MOORE: They shouldn't because we have defined it as accessory.
MR. McCARTHY: O.K., so you need L~0,000 sq. ft. as the minimum lot size and
you are allowed to have it?
COUNCILMAN MOORE: Yes. Two family use on that one with the Planning Board
they were arguing make it twice the size. But, in this one as an accessory use,
no.
MR. McCARTHY: O.K. So, as the zoning code states and as you interpreted,
even though the RO district allows you the same accessory uses on an
apartment, as I believe HB does, you are not just relegated to just one
apartment? The town code states that you can have up to three apartments in a
building. So; they would not be seem as additional uses. So, anyone with an
RO conforming lot with a business on it, as long as they conform to the fire
code, would be allowed to have 3 apartments. Is that correct?
COUNCILMAN MOORE?: I believe so.
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: That's the way I understand it.
MR. McCARTHY: Is there an authoratative answer on it?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Greg ....
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: I'm just looking it up, if you want, I won't take
everyon
everyone's time up, but I could check it?
MR. McCARTHY: I just like the recipe to see if the ability exists as well
because there is no other apartments that allowed really in town as free standing
apartment buildings, and it's one way to get some of these older buildings into
adaptive reuse that is allowed within the zoning code. Especially within the RO
district because the Town doesn't allow us to build just apartments as free
standing and non-owner occupied.
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI:
about this before?
Have you spoken to the Building Department
MR. McCARTHY: The Building Department, the other times that I have spoken
to them they take the stance that any use requires the bulk square footage.
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKi: For each use?
use?
You are talking each particular
MR. McCARTHY: For each particular use, I haven't spoke with them
specifically about the accessory use, but I'd like to know what the Board's
opinion is on it? Because it is a major issue for anyone that has RO property
and any of the zonign changes that happen on Route 48 where you re-create
property, you are re-creating the RO zone with conforming lots, then it's
possible for other uses for people who own these properties.
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: I understand what you are saying.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Anyone else like to address the Board in relation to
the Residential Office changes?
Mr. Penny...
GEORGE L. PENNY IV: At present I do not own any residential office property
and I hoping to continue that way. The thing that I would like to address is
that if you is that if the changes were made, and you have me in kind of a
dilemma here because I'm not really sure whether or not I am supposed to be
addressing this under the present context or just a blanket generic code
change, or how this would possibly affect Penny Lumber if approximately 1.75
acres of commercial property were to be changed to residential office, including
any carpet shop. No retail sales of any kind of nature are allowed in residential
office, no outside storage of materials or goods are allows in RO, no outside
display of goods are allowed in RO. No custom workshop, provided that it shall
not be all or part of a commercial center, which I would really like
qualification on because I think that something belongs in the definition section
of the code because I am really not sure what this means. I mean if I was to
take, became non-conforming under your residential office law and I decided to
go out of the carpet business and move my woodworking shop into that building,
it appears to me that I would not be allowed to do that. No warehousing is
allowed, unless I guess if you can hide it in a residentially structured two car
garage that looks like a house. Does every e RO owner of title know that they
will require site plan for building permits from now on? I bet this something that
if this part of the plan hadn't gone through some sort of a public meeting,
outside of this particular menu, it if wasn't brought to a public meeting for
discussion, I think you would find that every doctor, lawyer, chirpraCtor~
dentist and anybody else that has a residential office structure is going to be in
shock when they find out for them to get a building permit they are going to
have to conform to some sort of site plan development by the Planning Board.
Residential Office was designed for the Main Road. We addressed it in the 1989
Master Plan. How does this spread of Residential Office along Route ~8 protect
the hamlets?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN:
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE:
You are waiting for an answer?
My answer is that it doesn't.
I thought you were.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Well, it does. Part of what you are doing is in this
plan and the focus is in preserving the hamlets. You are adding uses to the
RO, so it is not the RO as it is presently known. Your RO's in the hamlet are
limited. The one here runs as far as Hart's down. It is not extensive in each of
the hamlets. Part of the preservation of the hamlets, but still allowing business
on the North Road. And I am talking philosophy here, not necessarily my
opinion, because that will come when I put my vote down. On the North Road it
allows for uses, although they may be the same as some on the North Road, but
it is lower density of use. It is lower density of use in relation to traffic and
many other things. Vistas are another reason. They are not the number one
reason, they are not the number one reason, but they are another reason. To
maintain our rural quality along the two thoroughfares is another reason.
MR. PENNY: Just one more question and that is that my understanding is I am
not sure whether this is totally accurate or not, but I think that this might have
been part of the time when MacDonalds made their appearance in Mattituck. For
a restaurant to be developed on a new piece of property, the Suffolk County
Health Department requires something like 2 1/2 acres. I believe that you are
leading people to believe that with ~0,000 sq. ft. they can come in and apply for
a restaurant. I don't believe that is at all possible. There again, I think you are
giving people the illusion that you are giving them something that they can
never obtain. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Thank you, George. Anyone else like to address the
Town Board on the residential office changes?
If not, we will close the hearing and we will move on to the next hearing.
This hearing on Residential Office District was closed at 9:37 P.M.
SPECIAL MEETING
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
OCTOBER 14, 1999
9:00 A.M.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON ALL LOCAL LAWS TO CHANGE
THE ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION.
Present:
Absent:
Supervisor Jean W. Cochran
Councilwoman Alice J. Hussie
Councilman William D. Moore
Councilman John M Romanelli
Councilman Brian G. Murphy
Town Clerk Elizabeth A. Neville
Town Attorney Gregory F. Yakaboski
Justice Louisa P. Evans
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: I would like to open the Public Hearing on the
proposed zoning map changes on Route 48, Southold.
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: ...how does that work?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: It's a Special Meeting. At the conclusion of the
hearing, we certainly could take it from...
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: The point is, though, that this hearing is continued
because it was proposed that the code changes would have been adopted on
Tuesday and the people who are here to talk would be able to talk about their
property in relation to the new code changes - and we haven't done that,
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Well, then we can remember it from the day.
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: And then we can vote?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Yes.
Special Town Board Meetin.q - 10/14/99 - Pa.qe Two
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: A second ago you started the Public Hearing.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Yes, I did.
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: To have the vote - usually you would have to
adjourn from the Public Hearing back into the Special Meeting.
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSlE: I worked on this all night. I figured that was what we
would have to do but it's so clumsy.
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: No, it's just...
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: I would like to recess the meeting recess the
hearing. Excuse me. Now we're out of the hearing. Are we not?
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Correct.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Thank you.
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: And what do we have to do to make ourselves into
a Regular Board Meeting?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: We're in a Regular Board Meeting now.
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: O.K. - in which case, I move the motion of last
Tuesday.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: You are removing the motion from the table?
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: Yes.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Is there a second to remove it from the table?
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: I'll second to remove it from the table.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: May we have a vote on the removal?
TOWN CLERK NEVILLE: Councilman Romanelli?
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Yes.
COUNCILMAN MOORE: Yes.
Special Town Board Meetin.~ - 10/14199' Page Three
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSlE: Yes.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Yes.
TOWN CLERK NEVILLE: Resolution adopted.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Now we will go to the main motion. Do we have a
copy of it so we can hear it again? Thank you.
John, do you want to start with the first one?
Let's go according to time, please - in the way they were presented on the
agenda - the last agenda. The first one is the Local Law in relation to the LB
District - changes in the LB District.
COUNCILMAN JOHN ROMANELLI: I'm going to read the changes in the
proposed LB District and rm going to start with the Purpose of the LB District.
The purpose of the Limited Business District is to provide an opportunity to
accommodate limited. Hold on - yes, George?
GEORGE PENNY: I believe that normally before resolutions are acted on,
residents are given a chance to...
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: If you'd like.
GEORGE PENNY: I'm just recalling a procedure.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Let's have it read first and then I will ask in relation
to this resolution.
GEORGE PENNY: Do you have an agenda?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: No. Would you like an agenda? We'll stop and we'll
print one.
GEORGE PENNY: If we had an agenda, we'd know what resolutions we want to
speak on.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: All right, then we'll recess. 'The Town Board is
recessed until an agenda is printed. Let's go do an agenda. By law, legally, we
don't have to do an agenda, George.
Special Town Board Meetin.q - 10/14/99 - Page Four
The Town Board Meeting of October 15 - excuse me, October 14, 1999,
9:00 a.m. - would you all please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: It appears here, the Special Town Board Meeting
was set, I believe, at the Town Board Meeting on Tuesday and we also set the
Regular Board Meeting on Tuesday so those have already been resolutions
voted upon.
As you know, the Town Board has a policy that we invite you to give any
input you may have in relation to any of ~the resolutions. So, at this time I will ask
if there are any comments or anything you would like to share with us in relation
to Resolution Number 17 Mr. Penny?
GEORGE PENNY: The Local Law for Limited Business - I understand there
were petitions that were rendered pursuant to Article 265 of the Town Law or
State Law - whatever it is. Has a determination been made by the attorney as to
the validity of that petition?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Yes. Greg?
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Yes, the petitions were submitted. It's up to
the Board. In my opinion, the burden is on the Petitioner or Petitioners to show
that they meet the criteria set forth in the State Law and Section 265 of the Town
Law. The degree of the petitions - this is really a call for the Board. In reading
the petitions, you cannot tell on their face whether or not the criteria is met. The
Board has the option of rejecting the petitions and moving forward or if there was
a super majority vote, which on this Board is five members, it wouldn't matter if
there was a petition involved or not. It's up to the Board - whether or not to reject
those petitions that are at hand. Right now, I could spend a lot of time trying to
figure it out - calculations. I don't have it - from what was given to me, George.
GEORGE PENNY: I never saw those petitions so I don't know what is missing.
What do you feel is missing?
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: There are three criteria - I believe Mr.
Lizewski is in the audience today. When I asked him the other night, it was
under the first criteria which is 20% of the ownership of the actual land in the LB
District. Is that correct, Joe? O.K. In looking at the petitions, George - does it
show? The easiest thing to do is show how much land is in the LB and whether
or not they own LB land or whether or not it all totals up to more than 20%. It's
not here. It's up to the Board.
Special Town Board Meetin.a - 10/14/99 - Paae Five
GEORGE PENNY: O.K. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Mr. Lizewski?
JOSEPH LIZEWSKI: I'd like to present the Board with some more petitions and
some more names.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Thanks, Joe.
Legal Counsel has recommended we take the vote first and then we will
loOk at these petitions in relation to how it's submitted. Did you hear me? Did
you hear what I said? Legal Counsel has determined we can take the vote first
before we determine this. Would anyone else like to address the Town Board in
relation to the amendments to the Limited Business Zoning Code in the Town of
Southold?
DELORES PRINCIPI: Good morning. I'm Delores Principi and I have Limited
Business and I have submitted my family's petitions so I hope that's included in
the 20%. I brought it to your office last week - the three of them. I gave it to your
office.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: It's in the Change of Zone file. That's in relation to
the zoning map, is it not?
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: I believe so.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: This is in relation to the uses.
DELORES PRINCIPI: The uses. O.K. Question: what I'd like to know is if you
should for some reason - I hope that you don't change our parcel to R-80 - and
we have one acre - do we have to go through a variance? Can we put a house
on this? Are we restricted? What is going to happen to our parcels? My brother
has one acre. I have two and three-quarter acres and I would want to know how
you're going to handle this - if you're going to turn it into Residential?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Gregory?
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKi: May I, Supervisor?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Yes, you certainly may.
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Ms. Principi?
Special Town Board Meetin.a - 10/14199 - Pa.ae Six
DELORES PRINCIPI: Yes.
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: With respect to you, if we went to R-80, let's
say, your one acre lot would be a pre-existing nonconforming lot and there is a
separate Bulk Schedule in the Town Code, Zoning Code that would be applied -
area, height, width, things like that - setbacks. If you came in for a home and it
met those areas - setbacks - the variance would not be needed. If you wanted to
exceed those setbacks, then you would need a variance.
DELORES PRINCIPI: So, my question also is - and it's just hearsay - I don't
know how factual it is - is that if my brother doesn't meet the requirements of two
acres and he has to go and buy property - that's not so?
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: That's not so. That's an incorrect statement.
DELORES PRINCIPI: O.K. Now, on my two and three-quarter acres that is
Limited Business, I can get one house on it only? If you change it to R-807
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: One home.
DELORES PRINCIPI: One home on two and three-quarter acres?
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Correct. Following the Nonconforming Bulk
Schedule. Two and three-quarter acres...
DELORES PRINCIPI: Mine is two and three-quarter acres of Limited Business
now which was Business and now down to one residential acre.
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: There are some other uses in the R-80. I'm
sure you've looked at it.
DELORES PRINCIPI: Yes.
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: In answer to your question, without a variance
it would be one home without doing a subdivision.
DELORES PRINCIPI: O.K. At one of your meetings you had said...
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: May I have it quiet, please, so we can hear the
speaker?
Special Town Board Meetin,q - 10114199 ~ Pa,qe Seven
DELORES PRINCIPI: At one point in time, you were going to add to the Limited
Business - which I hope you leave my piece zoned as Limited Business - tennis
and golf?. Is that so or did you retract that? It was in the paper that it was
discussed and said that you would leave it on there instead of Commercial
Industrial?
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: I'm sorry. I was reading something and didn't hear
your question.
DELORES PRINCIPI: At one of your meetings, I brought up that we are working
~ a project ~o do'miniature golf and, at that time, I was told that you could only
put it in: a Commercial Industrial Zoning which I feel is not the best use for
children and adults, etc. You discussed it at one of your meetings here, and it
. was in the paper as well, that you were going to add that. use to Umited
Business. Is this still so or did you retract that?
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: We haven't done that.
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: It's not added.
DELORES PRINCIPI: It's not added. Are you going to add it?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Not at this time.
couNcILMAN ROMANELLI: Not at this time.
COU~? '.W. OMAN HUSSiE: Not today.
DELOI~S~I~RINCIPI:' Not today. I could go for a variance if my property stays
L~mitec~.'BUS[ness to h~ve that use added to it?.
TOW~!A-.'~.0RNEY ¥~,KABOSKI: Yes, you could.
DEL~31~S.PRIN, ClPI:: 'Thank you again for your t~me.
SUPE~,'{/i~{3R,COCHRAN::You're welcome. Would anyone else like to address
the To~h ~bard in relation ~ the first resolution? If not, we'll have the vote. O.K.,
no, I'ff~: {}(~i,h{~ to do t~is th~ same way I do it at other Board meetings. Would
anyon~el[se like to speak in relation to any of the other resolutions? Sir? This
gentl~e~r;t ,first ,and men I'll take you.
HERBPci~,T ~LER: I'm. H~rb Adler. I'm on the Landmark Commission and I'm
Special Town Board Meetinp - 10/14/99 - Paae Eiaht
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: Talk into the mike.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Would you please say your name again?
HERBERT ADLER: Herb Adler.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Herb Adler.
HERBERT ADLER: I'm On the Landmark Commission. I haven't talked to
anybody else about this but ! thought I should come here. I appreciate the efforts
of the Board to do creative re-use of property to preserve the ambiance of the
Town but I do feel that there are things that worry me especially in the
amendment to the use of the Residential Office District and especially I'm going
to tall~ to the Historical Distdct as it relates to them. I nTean I know that
Government can, Local, State and National, can change things as they go along.
What worries me is what we do today will be undone in the coming years and
down the way and people just don't have a chance to plan long term with regard
to things. That's a fact of life and just what I call morality of govemment.
Getting down to some of the more specific things, I noticed that in the
proposal as we talk about the Historic District, the Landmark Commission is in
no point involved in what decisions are made in that district. And I think that
maybe, while the Landmark Commission has no powers, it would be nice to at
least have them concemed in what goes on in those areas which they are
involved with.
I'll by to make this brief. I'm a little concerned about the broadening to
include small business offices such as insurance agencies, real estate. If you
want these businesses, I agree that they are perfect businesses for these
districts but you want them to grow and if they grow, they will outgrow it. There is
limited space. Especially in the Landmark District I do not see that there is
adequate parking facilities available. Deliveries would be a problem and I.just
wonder if these kind of things should be encouraged because you would have to
get variances along the way. I don't think it's fair to promote things if you want
gr~vth and we do want concerns to grow in the area. I feel that we should give it
a little more consideration. I'm also concerned within that I've heard rumors that
what happened to Route 25, there are going to be changes down the road in the
way that traffic flows and how this would affect something like the Historic
District. I do not know if this is a fact but I heard rumors.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: They will be blacktopping with blacktop or asphalt
that is more nonskid in wet weather. They may be changing some of the traffic
patterns. We've met with the DOT on more than one occasion. They have told
Special Town Board Meetin.e - 10/14/99 - Page Nine
us in form terms that there will be no widening of the highway. This is something
that we will not stand for so they are going to be developing different traffic
patterns. For instance, they wanted to put six turning lanes in the Village of
Cutchogue alone which we fought against. We would like people to slow down
through the villages; not speed up the traffic. So, that's been our philosophy in
meeting with them and we're holding firm on that and working with the
Transportation Committee. No, it will be blacktopped. It will not be widened in
any respect.
HERBERT ADLER: Will they be eliminating parking on one side of the street?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: There was some they had proposed. I don't think
there's anything through here. Cutchogue is pretty much as it was. They pretty
much went with the Transportation Committee's recommendations. If you'd like
detailed information, we certainly will get it for you. We've kept an eye on that.
HERBERT ADLER: I appreciate that.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: May I just have a clarification - are you speaking on
behalf of the Landmark Committee or are you here as a private individual?
HERBERT ADLER: I'm here as a private individual speaking as a member of the
Landmark Commission.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: But you're not speaking on behalf of the committee?
HERBERT ADLER: No, I'm not. I don't think it's fair to do that.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: O.K. Thank you, Herb.
HERBERT ADLER: In relation to library uses, I think we should have those uses
here and things like that but, again, there's limited access to the Landmark
District. I thought they should be allowed to do it in that area. I guess that's one
of the problems. I'm also worried about custom workshops. As I look at that, I
could have a shop that worked on cars - customizing cars. I don't see any
definition of cUstom workshops.
COUNCILMAN MOORE: That's a separate section of the Code - there's a
definition of custom workshop. There's a definition in the beginning of the Zoning
Code. When that came out, we looking exactly at that very point.
HERBERT ADLER: It does exclude cars?
Special Town Board Meetin.a - 10/14/99 -Page Ten
COUNCILMAN MOORE: Yes, sir.
HERBERT ADLER: What would be included?
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Want me to read it? I have it right here. Custom
Workshop: "A business premises used for the making of clothing, millinery,
shoes or other personal articles to individual order or measure, for sale at retail
on the premises only and not including the manufacture of machinery, vehicles,
appliances and similar heavy goods and ready-to-wear or standardized
products."
HERBERT ADLER: What word is furniture?
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: You're right - doesn't say anything about furniture.
You're right.
HERBERT ADLER: I'll just make one other comment. This is a very personal
comment. Everybody wants to restrict the architecture in Town to what they have
and I think we should look for the future to have architects do the creative work
so that it blends with the Town and, as the laws read, they couldn't even do that.
I feel that that's something that we should put ourselves into the Twentieth
Century with property. That's personal. Nothing to do with anybody else.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: O.K. Thank you very much, Herb.
Sir, I said I'd take you next.
DOCTOR ARNOLD URIST: Ladies and gentlemen of the Board and fellow
Southold patriots, my name is Dr. Arnold Urist. I have a medical practice on Love
Lane by the railroad tracks and I have a couple of questions. The proposal is to
shift me from Light Industry to Residential Office. In our building, we rent the
upstairs. We have a one-bedroom apartment. It's a rental that brings in income.
Under the change from Light Industry to RO, will I still be able to have a tenant?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: It's residential, yes.
DR. URIST: I can rent?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Yes.
DR. URIST: If ! sell and transfer the property, can the new owners tear down and
gut the present building to put up another structure like a workshop or a little
Special Town Board Meeting - 10/14/99 - Pane Eleven
office building. What about that? Do new owners have the right to drastically
amend it or tear it down and put up a new building?
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: If they keep a residential office or an office in the
building, you can tear it down and rebuild it, sure. As long as they keep the use
similar to what Residential Office allows.
DR. URIST: What about a small workshop within what was just read?
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: A custom workshop is allowed in that zone as
a Special Exception.
DR. URIST: With the new zoning, I have patients - a lot of them who can't walk
or in wheelchairs or use walkers and canes - they can't walk too far. Will new
parking regulations impede on that aspect of my practice?
COUNCILMAN MOORE: Whatever your present situation is is what you will
have; it will stay the same. You exist and were there so it's not going to add a
burden on your operation.
DR. URIST: Thank you.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: You're welcome.
BARBARA SZCZOTKA: I'm Barbara Szcaotka. I have a couple questions. If you
are going to vote on this today, Mr. Murphy is not present and Ms. Evans is not
present...
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: True.
BARBARA SZCZOTKA: Can I ask why? And shouldn't they be here?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Everybody is responsible for themselves, number
one. Number two, there are times in our lives that there are conflicts. The
complete hearing is transcribed. They can read it as well as sit here and listen.
True, it's better to be here because you get the feel that goes along with the
written text. Mr. Murphy had a meeting he could not reschedule. He said he
would try to be here between 10:00-10:30 a.m. at the latest. Mrs. Evans has a
family and with the travel, she wasn't able to make connections so she wasn't
able to come over today, She doesn't always come over for Special Meetings.
Special Town Board Meetin.q - 10/14/99 - Pa.qe Twelve
BARBARA SZCZOTKA: My other question is - when we get to the vote on the
RO District, is Mr. Moore going to abstain from the vote since he is in the RO
District?
COUNCILMAN MOORE: No, i'm not going to recuse myself on that. If we had to
enact any kind of zoning code or any kind of piece of property code, any one of
us who happens to own a piece of property couldn't vote on that whether it was
R-40, R-80, AC or otherwise. I looked into some legal opinions on that as far as
any kind of a conflict and there is none because it doesn't relate specifically to
my property as I'm saying: Look, we're going to rezone me from one to the other.
BARBARA SZCZOTKA: The uses will affect it.
COUNCILMAN MOORE: True. I operate my business there presently.
JODY ADAMS: i'm Jody Adams and I guess the thing that the gentleman from
the Historical District raised - he didn't ask you what is a machine shop by
definition.
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: It was custom workshop.
JODY ADAMS: Well, it's the same line. Custom Workshop and Machine Shop.
Page Two, l(a).
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: Ms. Adams, you,re looking at the Limited Business.
JODY ADAMS: I probably am.
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: Does it say LB or Limited Business?
JODY ADAMS: Yes, so workshops and machine shops are not in the one that he
was discussing? O.K.
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Ms. Adams, there's not a set definition in the
Code. It's been dealt with before by both the Building Department and, I believe,
the ZBA.
JODY ADAMS: O.K. Let me speak briefly, generally about what I consider a
problem in Southold which this may relate to. I happen to have a unit at the self-
storage place near Town Hall and they have now three businesses and one of
them is an auto type repair and they all deal with odors, noise... In relation to
these, I understand they meet the zoning. Now, I believe this is what - minor
industrial as opposed to LB?
Special Town Board Meetin.a - 10/14/99- Paae Thirteen
COUNCILMAN MOORE: Light Industrial Zone. A heavier zone than Limited
Business ZOne.
JODY ADAMS: How does a machine shop differ from this minimal auto repair
sh°p - what is it potentially creating? They're very near you incidentally so you
might be serious about this.
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: We don't have a written definition of a machine
shop, per say, but if I can just interject my limited knowledge of that sort of thing,
I would think that it would be a business that makes small machine parts of
metal.
JODY ADAMS: Yes, like the one over on Route 48.
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: Right, and that's a Machine Shop.
JODY ADAMS: rm very concerned that Southold Town has no control
whatsoever on excessive auto emissions, on the disposal of various chemicals
from similar shops. I think that this type of machine shop could create these
problems. You can refer this to the Department of Health and take these things
away from you so you don't have to gain responsibility for it and yet the people
visiting here are going to begin to inhale this stuff and I wish you would think
about it and consider it.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the
Board in relation to any of the resolutions? Tyler?.
TYLER CORNELL: I'm Tyler Cornell on behalf of Ruth Enterprises and the
Cornell Family. I rushed down here today for, what I heard through the
grapevine, was another hearing on input from the public on the Cramer Study
and how it would affect our properties. Unfortunately, I haven't to make the
beginning of any of the meetings and never seen an agenda before for any of
these meetings.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: They've been here.
TYLER CORNELL: I believe that they've been here. I just haven't been able to
get down in time. As I look at the agenda, I see a number of resolutions to enact
the laws and I don't see any mention of the Cramer Study which is why I thought
I was down here. Although, it does look like everything of these resolutions of
laws to be enacted directly affect the Cramer Study. I was wondering why I don't
know about any of this stuff and I would like to request, considering we're
Special Town Board Meeting - 10/14/99 - Pa.cle Fourteen
spending thousands of dollars to give input and to get down here - it seems
somewhat ridiculous on our behalf to have to do this so I would like to formally
request, in the form of a certified letter, a complete schedule of anything and
everything concerning the Cramer Study and when and what will be happening
so that we can formally prepare for each one of the meetings. I have people who
stop in the office to let us know. I'm missing out on a job right now up the island
which could be benefiting the Town by bringing more money down here. I was
here until 12:00 at night on Tuesday. I'm living my life down here when I should
actually be trying to make some money for my family and the Town. This has
really gotten out of hand. So, can I have the record state that I would like to have
a full schedule, by certified mail, of everything that relates to this study? Is that a
yes?
COUNCILMAN MOORE: ...what action and what's taking place at the next
meeting and the purpose of today's meeting was to continue the hearings on the
zone change applications. We tabled it Tuesday night after the Public Hearings
on the code changes and a motion was made that those be tabled. That's why
you have those four resolutions.
TYLER CORNELL: If I was out working trying to support my family and I wasn't
here to hear that, how would I know?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: It's noticed in the newspaper.
COUNCILMAN MOORE: And anyone can call Town Hall to ask what's on the
agenda for any meetings.
TYLER CORNELL: There are no phones necessarily in an industrial site and,
although the paper is very good, it gives what - three days, four days notice to
schedule a job that may have twenty guys on it - that has to be done by a certain
time period or there are penalties and losses that have to be taken. It's a little bit
tough to schedule an entire business around a meeting that gets thrown up in
the air on Tuesday night or maybe the Tuesday before. And I don't mean to
complain but you've got to understand. Almost everybody here is falling under
the same circumstances. The Town is getting hurt very badly by loss of income,
loss of work, loss of productivity across the board. Not just your board, but ours.
So, I would request a formal...
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Tyler, we notice legally what we have to notice. I'm
sure you can certainly appreciate that we cannot, on every given topic in the
Town, send a certified letter to residents. We're hopeful that they will look in the
paper for what government is doing. We're hopeful that you would feel
Special Town Board Meeting - 10f14199 - pa~e Fifteen
comfortable in picking up the phone and calling the Town Clerk or
Supervisor's Office. I just don't see the logistics of it.
TYLER CORNELL: Do you see the logistics of us trying to get down here?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Yes, I do. I can appreciate that. I can.
the
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: Mr. Cornell, if I may - part of this is part of what
appears to be a bit of confusion on motions that I made on Tuesday evening at
1:00. We were going to consider the four laws that are before you now. I moved
to table those - table the motion to enact those laws. The reason was that we
really hadn't discussed anything about the input that we had heard at the Public
Hearings. This morning we were reconvened for continuation of the hearings of
the 4th, 5th and 6th - the Cramer Study Zone Map Changes. As you recall, those
hearings were continued to this morning at 9:00, based on the fact that we would
know what the new code changes were going to be. And that's why we're here in
this position right now. Because those code changes have to be solidified - yea
or nay - before the people who are here with their various concerns can speak
knowledgeably about the impact that they might have.
TYLER CORNELL: Sure and I can understand that completely but at 12:00 I had
already missed two conference calls while ! was here just to hear something like
that and the biggest reason that I come is to find out what the heck is going on
and when I have to get down here. I got here late because we're trying to set up
a job. ! wasn't here at the beginning of it and it just seems to me that if that's
happening to me, it must be happening to a lot of people in the Town that this
directly affects and I wanted to get it on the record and ask the Town to, in the
future, find a better way to notify the people of their retirement funds being taken
away and things of that sort.
The second thing - and I wasn't going to talk about any of this but we've
got to do it - at least it's on the paper - was that I do have an agenda. I mad the
policy and it kind of makes all my efforts seem worthless. If you read the policy it
says "At scheduled Town Board Meetings, the attending public is encouraged to
briefly address the Town Board relating to agenda resolutions prior to their
enactment...".
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: That's what you're doing. We haven't done the vote
yet.
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: There am times when we have resolutions on that
are definitely noncontroversial and then we do have some that are controversial
and them are many times when we get input from the public and some of the
points must be considered in which case we might not move the resolution.
Special Town Board Meetin.a - 10/14/99 - Pa.ae Sixteen
TYLER CORNELL: I can see that that was the main reason for it but the word
enactment, doesn't that mean to enact?
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: Or not. If we hear things that say that we really
shouldn't be doing this at this time then we do not enact it.
TYLER CORNELL: O.K. It just seems that everything in the writing says that it
will be enacted.
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: We have, in the past, not enacted something when
we hear public input that we think definitely deserves a lot of consideration.
TYLER CORNELL: O.K. The main reason that I was here was to read into the
record a letter from my father, Clifford Cornell, and to submit that letter. Should
that be done later?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Yes, once we get back to the hearing. Right now
we're talking in relation to the resolutions that are on the agenda.
TYLER CORNELL: O,K. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Good morning.
PAULINE PHARR: Good morning. Pauline Pharr. We are looking at the changes
in LB and RO - if I read those correctly, no retail is allowed in RO and very
limited retail is allowed in LB. Only a winery or a nursery or if you consider a
custom workshop or a machine shop a retail use. This is being done prior to our
enacting the Cramer Study. If we enact the Cramer Study, we are going to take
out a lot of LB and RO property as well as business property. Where is retail
supposed to go? Is there room on the downtown corridors of our towns to
accommodate all of this retail or potential' retail that can't go anywhere else. i'm
thinking about this because I sat through the hearing on Mr. Mullen which was
such a hard thing to decide. I thought well what is Mr. Mullen to do if he
outgrows his lot - where is he to go? If we are taking away all of the empty
business property on 48 that's zoned B, he can't go there. Are there other B
properties? I think the problem here is that we are doing 48 not in conjunction
with 25 and so we don't have an overall sense of what's available all over the
Town so maybe there is some place that I can't imagine - I can't visualize where
he could go. Where is the carpet store supposed to go? Where is a tile shop
supposed to go? We have four zones where you could put a library or a
museum, i don't see too many of those in our future and it doesn't look like
they'll be too many tile shops or carpet shops either. There's a real problem here
because we haven't looked at 25 and 48 and all of the zones together and made
Special Town Board Meeting -10/14/99 ': pa.qe Seventeen
sure that we really were complementing the hamlets and providing adequate
space for growth and continuation.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the
Town Board in relation to the resolutions? This is not the hearing yet. This is on
these changes. I'm going to take the gentleman in the back and then I'll take you
Mr. Meinke.
PETER HENNESSEY: I'm Peter Hennessey from Southold. I'm one of those
businesses that is in the 25% of LB that is not on for ... I have two warehouses
for a book company on Depot Lane and I'm about two weeks away from
approaching the Building Department to put up another warehouse. You people
have put a line through my business. Not only will I not be allowed to put up the
size of the warehouse that I want, I won't be able to put up any warehouse
according to what I'm reading. Nor will I be able to buy other property that I can
build a warehouse on. What am I supposed to do? Can you tell me that I have
nothing to worry about?
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: You can have a warehouse in an LB Zone.
PETER HENNESSEY: But it won't be LB. It will be LB to whatever you're
thinking about changing it to.
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: It's your property in particular that you're thinking
of?
PETER HENNESSEY: Correct.
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: What is your property presently zoned?
PETER HENNESSEY: LB.
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Correct. But if I understand correctly, you're
on Depot Lane?
PETER HENNESSEY: Correct.
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: I don't believe that there is a zoning map
change proposed for any area around Depot Lane.
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: He's concerned about the uses in LB.
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Correct but there are two things. The first
thing is that I don't think there are any zoning map changes and the second
Special Town Board Meeting - 10/14/99 - Pa.qe Ei.qhteen
thing is - if the zoning map is not changed so thus he's still LB, the question then
arises...
PETER HENNESSEY: I came to the hearing the other night. I was told that LB in
the entire Town was going to be changed from LB to something else.
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Not true.
COUNCILMAN MOORE: There are certain LB pieces that have been proposed
to be changed. If you didn't receive a notice about your own piece of property,
then your parcel wasn't included.
PETER HENNESSEY: Then why did I sign a petition that was circulating for the
general changes of LB to something else. Are you telling me that t'm not affected
by any of these changes.
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: Yes, you are.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: The uses.
COUNCILMAN MOORE: You're presently zoned LB. There is no proposal in the
Cramer Study to take your particular piece of property and rezone it so it will
continue to remain LB. The question that you want examined then is any
proposed changes to the uses within LB, and in that, LB is looking at things like
private warehouses.
PETER HENNESSEY: Correct.
COUNCILMAN MOORE: O.K.
PETER HENNESSEY: You just put a line through a warehouse which means
what?
COUNCILMAN MOORE: No, if it was moved - if it went from...
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: We separated two definitions for warehousing -
private warehousing and public warehousing. Public and private warehousing
was one definition and what we did was to separate it into two definitions.
PETER HENNESSEY: So, are you telling me that I'm going to maintain my LB
status?
COUNCILMAN MOORE: Yes,
Special Town Board Meeting - 10/14/99 - Pa.~e Nineteen
PETER HENNESSEY: And then I won't have any problem putting up another
warehouse?
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: On the property that you're on now.
COUNCILMAN MOORE: Assuming you meet what the Code requres presently -
I'm assuming that you could do that with whatever plans you have.
PETER HENNESSEY: These percentages of 15 and 30...
COUNCILMAN MOORE: Have no bearing on you. You'd still be conforming.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Would you please spell your name and the name of
the business?
PETER HENNESSEY: Sure, Buccaneer Books and my last name is Hennessey.
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Mr, Hennessey, look at number 12. Do you
see private warehousing? There's another law about the definition of private
warehousing.
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSlE: And the private warehousing proposed definition is
"A building used for the storage of goods and materials by the owner of the
goods and materials for the owner's own use...ex, off-site storage for operations
conducted by the owner at another location. No retail sales are permitted at a
private warehouse. This is not to include self-storage facilities". Those are the
public warehouses.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: You're fine.
PETER HENNESSEY: Thanks for your time.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: You're welcome. Thank you for coming in.
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Mr. Hennessey, may l ask one question?
PETER HENNESSEY: Sure.
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: It's up to you completely - does that mean that
you are withdrawing your protest or not? it's up to you. I'm asking this because I
might have to do calculations later depending on what the Board votes.
PETER HENNESSEY: I don't agree with altering the Town Code.
Special Town Board Meetin.Q - 10/14/'99 - Page Twenty
TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: That's fine. I just wanted to make sure. I might
have to be doing calculations later.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Would anyone else like to address the Town Board?
Yes, I'm sorry, Mr. Meineke?
HOWARD MEINEKE: I'm Howard Meineke of the North Fork Environmental
Council. This is more in the area of a question I asked. I thought in the
nonconforming uses the ability to expand 15% and at 30% was all good stuff. !
just wondered though, in the effort to make it simple, my impression is that site
plan requirements and things like that are no longer requested and I can
understand why some people feel that way by the 15% or the 30% increase
does impact parking and some of the other things that site plan looks at and ~
would just suggest that we have to make sure that while we're allowing - and we
should allow these things - 15% and 30% expansion - it's all to the good. We still
have to do what we have always done in the past and analyze those expansions
for the utter impacts. Expansion is not just a building footprint. It's number of
employees; it's parking and a lot of other stuff that site plan looks at. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to
speak? I see your hand, George, but is there anyone else that hasn't spoken
yet? - and then I'll go back to the second time around. Is there anyone who has
not spoken who would like to address the Town Board on the resolutions? O.K.,
Mr. Penny.
GEORGE PENNY: I just have a question regarding 1 through 4. I left at 11:30
Tuesday night. I was not able to stay awake long enough...
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: 1:30, George.
GEORGE PENNY: (Inaudible coversation due to simultaneous noise.) Yes, on 1
through 4...
TOM CRAMER: ...If my memory serves me correctly, the RO and LB were Type
I Actions, Amendment to Section 100-13, the definition of private and public
warehousing is an Unlisted Action. The same is for nonconforming buildings and
nonconforming uses...of the Unlisted Actions...as well as the Type 1 Actions, a
full EAF was done.
GEORGE PENNY: ! was just curious.
TOM CRAMER: I was just letting you know that the long form was done.
Special Town Board Meeting - 10/14/99 - pa(:le Twenty-One
GEORGE PENNY: O.K., thank you.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: You're welcome. Would anyone else like to address
the Town Board in relation to the resolutions? Jim?
JIM DINIZIO: You had a hearing the other on these four laws and took a lot of
information and a lot of comments. And I'm wondering when did you meet to
discuss those comments as to whether or not you're going to change any of
these laws. And are these laws that (noise interference)...the other night?
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: They are the same laws that you looked at the
other night. We haven't taken those comments and changed anything based o~
those comments.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: They are the same.
JIM DINIZIO: So, you haven't taken any of the comments and changed them
based on the those comments...(noise interference). You're saying to me now
that you haven't changed anything based on the information that the people
gave you. In other words, the law is the same even though you had the public
hearing, you took information and disregarding all of that because you feel that
these are the motions that should be voted on? Is that correct?
?: Yes.
JIM DINIZIO: Without regard to any of the comments?
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: We can't say that we're disregarding the
information.
JIM DINIZlO: You know, well, why have a hearing that you don't at least, at
some point in time as a Board, sit down and discuss the information that you
took in and perhaps formulate - that's why you have the hearing - because the
law is requiring to have comments from the public. And if I read this correctly,
you haven't changed the laws as they were written so you disregarded the
comments that the entire public has commented on...Am I correct, you haven't
discussed anything that you heard at that meeting? You just are going to vote on
those laws as they were presented to the public on that night?
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: It has not been discussed as yet. Is that the answer
you want?
JIM DINIZIO: Yes.
Special Town Board Meetin.q - 10114/99 - PaRe Twenty-two
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: You've got it.
JIM DINIZIO: In other words, if you make a motion...
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: And that doesn't mean that those comments have
been discounted.
JIM DINIZIO: O.K., but, well, it does if you vote for this law.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: You don't know how this vote is going to go.
JIM DINIZIO: I agree...(noise interruption) is what rm saying ....
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the
Town Board that has not spoken? This is on the resolutions? We are not in the
hearing part of the zone district changes. Wait a minute, Joe. Anyone else that
has not spoken that would like to speak. Yes, sir?
GERARD GRASECK: I'm Gerard Graseck and rm definitely opposed to any
changes in the LB Zone. Retail has been in the LB Zone for years and I think it's
a big mistake to change it.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Thank you. Anyone else who has not spoken who
would like to address the Town Board in relation to the resolutions on the
agenda? O.K. We will begin with number 1. O.K., I'm sorry. Joe and then Tyler.
JOE LIZEWSKI: I just want to make a comment - people sometimes think they're
maybe on the opposite side of the fence...The way this was conducted, to me, is
the most alarming - the fact that we didn't have a chance to go to legislative
meetings and have people put input on this subject. If we have a law up here
that said - and it happens quickly, within ten days - you have a public hearing
without any discussion and we were allowed to clearcut all of the pieces of
business land. And this was happening with that from the previous discussion
with the Zoning Board or Planning Board - in having legislative meetings. I think
that a lot of people would be very, very upset so the methodology of the way that
this has come about is just very alarming to me - the fact that we've lost - I mean
you can do it. We know that this is legal but it doesn't mean that it's the way to
go. If we're going to take a Cramer Study or a study done by somebody and jam
it down people's throats without the normal input from many of the public -
normally you'd go like the Greenhouse Law where the greenhouse people would
be there and there would be all sorts of input and there would be time to think
about things and there would be time to make a lot of comments before it ever
got to this Public Hearing stage. I think there's a lot to be designed here.
Special Town Board Meeting - 10/14199 - Pa.qe Twenty-three
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Thank you. Tyler?
TYLER CORNELL: Thanks, Jim and Joe. That's kind of where I was going with
the way it was written for enactment. I really have two things that I want to say. I
don't feel like pushing you guys too hard or anything but I was just thinking about
the logistics as I just mentioned about getting the word out to people. If more
people had the word and everything had gone where it could be thought about
before they had the second hearing...It would probably be worth the taxpayers
money to look into that and get things rolling smoothly before they're pushed
through and the lawsuits arise. Dollar for dollar, I'm sure that the lawyers will
outbid any logistics for their way to get notice out to the public. And concerning
the resolutions, when I was speaking before, Alice, you had mentioned before
that we couldn't have that hearing. I think it was you that mentioned it - that we
couldn't have the hearing for the Cramer Study until the hearing for these laws
and resolutions was had.
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: It wasn't a matter of couldn't - it was a matter of the
request of the public to continue the hearings until they knew what the laws
were. They were objecting to talking about proposed laws.
TYLER CORNELL: Anyway, will the votes on the laws be taken before the vote
on the Cramer Study is taken.
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: That's what we're supposed to be doing today.
TYLER CORNELL: Wouldn't that make the Cramer Study worthless, considering
it was done on previous zoning laws?
COUNCILMAN MOORE: No, because the Cramer Study included proposed
recommendations - it was a two prong study. The proposed recommendation
was for a zoning code to be considered since the time these proposals were
made to us and we've worked around through a series of work sessions and, in
conjunction with that, the specific set of recommendations as to zoning changes.
It was one, two - here are suggestions on both phases: the Code and property.
TYLER CORNELL: So, in other words, I just found out about these laws at the
hearing but Mr. Cramer knew about them months ago.
COUNCILMAN MOORE: These recommendations were all part of his proposal
which was recommendations to our Code change to be made to us back when it
first came out and was in his report.
TYLER CORNELL: How many pages is his report?
Special Town Board Meetin.cl - 10/14/99 - Pa.ae Twenty-four
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Would you like me to count?
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: We don't know. These laws - this proposal and Mr.
Cramer's Study were made in generality - that we were the ones - this Board
who worked on the laws as you see them today. They weren't made by Mr.
Cramer.
COUNCILMAN MOORE: Not in a law form but the recommendation...to add it to
the uses of the zones.
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: The various uses, yes.
TYLER CORNELL: And most of these laws actually work with people to a huge
extent because they can increase nonconforming property and things of that sort
which, in the past', they have not been able to do. Of course it still devalues the
property if they ~vant to sell it...
COUNCILMAN MOORE: On the one example, they presently can't do anything
to expand or improve their nonconforming business and this is something that
you could never do before - this one proposal that you're talking about.
TYLER CORNELL: Yes, but I wouldn't be here ....my property was going to be
nonconforming.
COUNCILMAN MOORE: That's a different question but the nonconforming
section is providing, if enacted, something that's never been done before.
TYLER CORNELL: Oh, sure. And I think it's great.
COUNCILMAN MOORE: We're talking about two different things.
TYLER CORNELL: If it was done a few years ago, maybe we wouldn't need the
Cramer Study. Now we're talking about nonconforming property. All right, thank
you.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Would anyone else like to address the Town Board
on any of the printed resolutions. Would anyone at all like to address the Town
Board? Mr. Meineke?
HOWARD MEINEKE: Howard Meineke from the North Fork Environmental
Council. i like to say that it isn't very often that we stand up here and agree with
Joe Lizewski but, I do think that this heals - for those in the audience - that
people stand up and worry about they're going to say and analYze what they
Special Town Board Meeting - 10/14199 - Pa~e Twenty-five
read in the publication of the laws and say I think it would be better this way or I
think it would be better that way. There's a bunch of opinions out there and it
does feel to us too that all the comment, at least one round of comment, should
marinate in the heads of the Town Board and be discussed and then be put into
potentially reworded laws. We all feel as though we're part of some sort of a
giant play here where everybody is asked to be part of the deliberations and
nothing every appears as a change effort. You hear hours and hours and hours
of opinions but you get the feeling that none of it was considered important
enough to become a new sentence in any one of these things that you're
working on. Maybe there's something about your procedures that I don't fully
understand but l do find it unsettling also. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Thank you, Mr. Meineke. No demonstrations, please.
Would anyone else like to address the Town Board? Mr. Foster?
ARTIE FOSTER: Good morning.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Good morning.
ARTIE FOSTER: I'm Artie Foster. Item number 4 in reference to the
nonconforming with expansion - either 15 or 30% - whichever is determined and
it's my understanding that, if by law you can expand 15 or 30%, you still have to
go to the Planning Board?
COUNCILMAN MOORE: Beyond 15%. If you're going as far as 30, you're going
to the Planning Board.
ARTIE FOSTER: Fifteen is done...
COUNCILMAN MOORE: Without site plan,
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: Without.
ARTIE FOSTER: Without site plan. From 15 to 30 - say 20%, you have to go to
the Planning Board for the site plan.
COUNCILMAN MOORE: Beyond 15.
ARTIE FOSTER: What determines that - the size of the lot; the size of the
building that you presently have in relation to -
COUNCILMAN MOORE: Expansion of the existing building the existing
footprint.
Special Town Board Meetin.q - 10/14/99 - Pa.qe Twenty-six
ARTIE FOSTER: And the expansion of 30% is based on building size or -
COUNCILMAN MOORE: Footprint. That's how they've always looked at lot
coverage.
ARTIE FOSTER: All right, now, I'm nonconforming. I have three buildings. Can I
expand each of those three buildings 15% or is it the total of 157
COUNCILMAN MOORE: It's the total lot coverage.
ARTIE FOSTER: Thank you.
SUPERVISOR COCHRAN: You're welcome, Artie. Would anyone else like to
address the Town Board in relation to the resolutions? Would anyone else like
to address the Town Board in relation to the resolutions on the agenda? If not, I
will call for the action on the resolutions.
COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: In the LB District, no building or premises shall be
used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is
arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any uses
except the following: Permitted Uses - the following uses are permitted uses. All
permitted uses except single-family and owner-occupied two-family residences
require sit plan approval. Retail business complementary to the rural and historic
character of the surrounding area, limited to the following: custom workshops
and machine shops. Wholesale or retail sales and accessory storage and
display of garden materials and plants, including nursery operations, provided
that the outdoor storage or display of plants and materials does not obstruct
pedestrian flow or vehicular traffic and does not occur within three (3) feet of the
property line. That's all been existing so far - that's no change. Libraries and
museums, professional and business offices, funeral homes, restaurants, except
drive-in or formula food, repair shops for household businesses - for household,
business or personal appliances, including cabinet shops, carpenter shops,
electrical shops, plumbing shops, furniture repair shops and bicycle and
motorcycle shops, landscaping and other service businesses, retail uses
supplemental to the business establishment - service business establishment,
excuse me - wineries which meet the following standards: Wineries shall be a
farm winery licensed with New York State law from which wine made from
primarily Long Island grapes is produced and sold; wineries shall obtain site
plan approval and wineries shall have retail sales on site; bed and breakfast set
forth in the regulations for bed and breakfast; private warehousing - and early up
above we removed wholesale and warehousing and we broke up the
warehousing definition. Private warehousing is allowed as a permitted use in the
LB Zone. The rest are permitted through special exception and that would be
Special Town Board Meetin.q - 10/14/99 - page Twenty-seven
contractor's businesses or yards, but not limited to, building, plumbing and
electrical yards, telephone exchanges, antique and art and craft shop galleries.
Accessory uses that are added are outside storage of equipment, supplies and
materials associated with any of the normal operations of the principal use
provided that the storage is adequately screened from along the road frontage
and contiguous residential lots with natural vegetation, landscaping, fencing
and/or as shall be deemed appropriate by the Planning Board. We made some
changes in the bulk area and parking requirements. The Planning Board m~y
grant a limited waiver from the bulk schedule requirements from a lot size to a
minimum of 40,000 square feet where it can be clearly demonstrated that the
subject parcel has been held in single and separate ownership since 1989 or
eariler based on title, a survey prepared by a licensed surveyor describing the
subject premises and all contiguous property. This stays the same as the old law
was - structures shall be set back at least one hundred (100) feet from the right-
of-way. There shall be an exception to Subsection A if the adjacent parcels are
developed, in which the minimum front yard setback shall be average of the
setbacks of the neighboring parcels. A project shall be divided into separate
structures so that no single structure shall have any more than sixty (60) linear
feet of frontage on~ one (1) street. The setbacks of multiple structures on a
parcel may vary, provided that the average setback of the structures meets the
setback requirements above and all buildings are at least seventy-five (75) feet
from the right-of-way. And that's as the law states right now. That's it.
Ihe hamlet central business ~eas,
tha~ is'~t with the nmd~d
historic ~er of so~ng
~m and ~. E~h~ ~ ~
~ ~w~s
M that ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0
~ n~si~ ~ m~ ~te
~w nmounm of ~a~c a~ ~
~ to ~ ~e ~
C. [Amended 5-9-1989 by
L.L No 6-1~89] Acce~ory uses,
The foliowil~ uses are permitted as
asees~ory uses and, except for resl-
dential accessory uses and signs,
which are governed by Article
are subject to site plan review:
(1) Any accessory use as ~t forth
andmralclu~ac~eroftbe are~ in and regulated by § 100-31C(1)
0 .10~.,. _U~_~n~ds~, . tl~oush (8) and (10) of the
~ ~ be u~d ~ no: ~' soh,je~ to ~e oondidons set
b~ or ~ of a ~ dtell loath in § 100-33 thereof. '
us~t in whoae or in t~ far my ' =----v- ~
beasset fortkln~A(2)(i) herein, no buildings or premises
beiow~ shaft be mad nad ~o building or part
tl~chnll bu er~ or altered i~
sand
"Limited Businese (LB)", of I
Zonins'Code of the Town-, and b~ness
Somhold."
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY, ~, ~ drive-
GIVEN that the Town Board of tine.
Town of So~thold will hold a Public in restaurants or fommin restau-
Hearing on the aforesaid Local Law -
at the Southold Town HaH, 5~J~ '. ~ chops for hmme-
Main Rsnd. Southold. New York M hold. business o~ personal appli-
8:00 P.M. , Tuesday, Octob~ t2, .~"~*~, ~ cat,net sbu~ car-
1999. A~pyofthepmpmedLorei .p~:nter cho~ e .lect~.al shops,
Law is set forth below: . ~ shop~ furniture repair
LO~AL LAW No. '':
"Limited Business (t,lJ)~,~O~.~lJB '- · .. . ' _ -- -
Zoning Code of the' Town'of
S°uth°l~'ENAcTi- O. by the 'lbwn
which meet the
k~ms~r to achieve New York
wine made
. ~: ~ ~ have ~tail
of ~er~
tibHty~the~ ~H). ~ ~7-~ by
s~ and ~te ~yout
RO ~g d~t~ w~k mi~
~ t~ ~ ~ont ~b~, ~
I~ s~gn, ~gm.
st~ctore re~mble'a r~M~ ~~'~
s~to~t ~s~
~d ~m~M in a~ to
p~ ~t f~h ~ ~n 1~, (1) ~y.
~' of ae To~ ~, ~' ~3~ of ~ ~.
V~ll. '~mit~ B~m (~ ~ ~ e~ that
D~m~"m~~ · ~~to~
~ p~ of ~ I~m~
B~ (~) Da~
~ ~ty ~o
way ~don, but ~
the LB I~ tmless the same con
/roms to the Bulk Schedule an~
Parki~ and Loading Schedidel
~l~ated into this chapter by
reference, with the same fore and
~feet ns if mleh regninfiorm were set
(2) ~ PIMming Board may
~rent a Hmtted waiver from the
~l~ltcable bulk' requirement for
minimum lot s~e to a minimum of
40,000 s~ feet where it can be
clearly demomm~tod that the sub-
ject panel has been, held in single
and sel~rate o~narship since Jan-
uory 10. 1989 or earlier, based on
competent evidence thereof por-
title ~ nbstra~ ~'mmn.v or duly Ii.
~J~[lll~. Front yard setbacks.
[Added 8-22-1995 by LL No. 18-
back at least one hundred (100] feet
from the right-of-way.'
B. There shaft be an excep-
tion to Sul~on A ff the adjacent
the minonum front yard setback
of th~ adjacent parcels.
C. A project shaltbu:divlded
into separate st~ so that no
sin~in attuctore shall have more
_dian .~xty (~0) [blear ~fe~t of
frontage on one (1) street. The set.
hacks of muMple structures on a
parcel my vary, previded dmt the
average setbacl~ of the structures
n~ the setback required above
and aB iNtiidltl~s al~ at leart sev-
amy-five (75) feet Jfmm the right-
of-way.
Copies of ~ Lo~4~ Law ara
available in the Office of the Town
Clerk to any interested persSns dur-
ing regular business boors. Any
pe~on desirin~ to be heard on the
psup0sed amendment .should ap-
pear, has the right to app~tr· at the
time an~ place above-so speeded.
Agy penon also. has the ~sht to
submit v~itton ~omments to the
SonthoM Town Clerk either prior to
the public ~ 0/at t~he pt~blic
Dated:. ~-ptemb~ ~ l~
BY ORDER OF THE TOWN
BOARD OF TI~ TO~N OF
$OUTHOLD. SOUTHOLD.
NEW YORK
Ef. JZABETH A. NEVU_.LE
SOUTHOLD TOWN CLE__RK
19~6-1TS30 ~'
STATE OF NEW YORK)
)SS:
C~iOUNTY QF SUE. FOLK)
CLf~ ~-', [~ ~ ~ ~ '\3 of Mattituck, in said
county, being duly sworn, says that he/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 regu-
larly published in said Newspaper once each
week for ~ weeks successively,
commenc, ing ~on th_.e~ ~)(~*~' .day
/ I Princioa~lClerk