Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB-06/25/2002 - WSSOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD WORK SESSION ON MORATORIUM JUNE 25, 2002 Present: Supervisor Joshua Y. Horton, Councilman William D. Moore, Councilman John M. Romanelli, Councilman Craig A. Richter, Councilman Thomas H. Wickham, Town Clerk Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Attorney Gregory A. Yakaboski. Absent: Justice Louisa P. Evans. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Good Morning to you all for again the third week in a row. This is a special meeting that the Town Board called last week at the regular scheduled Town Board meeting and specifically to discuss the moratorium proposal before the Town Board. The special meeting today was scheduled hoping to have all Board members present to give all Board members an opportunity to weigh in on this proposal. We are absent one Board member but there is quite a bit that we can accomplish here in regard to moving forward and not losing any time. The Attorneys office has prepared a memo and # 1, 2 and 3 the first is the net. Essentially which is the moratorium as written, what it currently covers. What is currently covered in what the Town Attorney's office prepared is a moratorium that would include major and minor subdivisions. Second what is prepared by the Attorney's office is a, which ! think is ultimately important in what we should focus our discussions on today, is what the exclusions would be, exclusions to the net. After a lengthy meeting with the Planning Department and the Attorneys office, have fairly clearly spelled out what the exclusions should be. If you will turn to section 2 of your hand out. Subdivisions for which final plat or conditional final plat approval was granted by the Planning Board prior to the effective date of the Local Law. The second exclusion spelled out as new or pending applications for the subdivision of a parcel of property where permanent preservations rights to a portion of that parcel have been sold or gifted to either the Town of Southold as pursuant to the various sectors and chapters of the Town Code, the County of Suffolk, the Peconic Land Trust or the Nature Conservancy and then there is or, ! guess Greg, that is to leave open preservation opportunities from other entities? TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: If something comes up and also to make sure that people don't look at it as, that each one can stand on its own. If the Board wanted to add something today or if can stand on its own for each of the exclusions. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: I just wanted to clarify, so #2 is saying is that if 5 years ago, you sold development rights to the Town, you held off 4 acres of land at that time for future development but you didn't go through the subdivision process at that time if you come in now to develop those couple acres of land that we are talking about that you held out you would now be caught in this moratorium? TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Correct. 2 COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: In other words, you came forward years ago you did the right thing, you sold your development rights and you held a portion out. TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Yes, and exactly John. What happened in the past folks who come up and take the time to sell their development rights to the Town, the County, Peconic Land Trust or the Nature Conservancy to preserve property, they often times held portions of that property back from the sale of development rights. Be it a lot or several acres one person held back 6 acres ! know recently because there was 2 acre zoning, they didn't do any subdivisions and said one day they might do 6 acres, 3 lots for my kids. These exemptions are designed to recognize that and if people want to come in to do that subdivision of 6 acres for the 3 lots, the door is open to come in to go through the process they have to go through all the steps that a normal subdivision would be in the process but they would not be frozen because of the moratorium. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Okay, ! accept the logic of that but take a person who has sold development rights to say 10 or 15 acres of a 50 acre piece. That doesn't mean that the remaining 40 acres is being exempted from the moratorium, does it? TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Yes, it does. The way that it is currently set up.. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I don't think that we want to do that. TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: I am not sure, Tom, and there are other people who might know this better than ! do, that in the past most of the examples you would not have an example of those numbers. It would be more along the lines of 30 acres total lot, 24 sold 6 kept out. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I know, what I am getting at is, is there a way that we can put in some numbers to prevent that from happening? TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: That is a concern. We can craft anything. One thing that I want to add is that I am not, one thing that and I am not sure that we have covered here is if somebody sold- had a 30 acre parcel-they sold 24 acres and at the time they did a subdivision on those 6 now they have two lots, one lot which is 6 acres with the development rights intact and one lot which is 24 acres with development rights sold. If they came in, they already did one subdivision but didn't subdivide those 6 acres, I am not sure if we could catch that or if the Board wants to catch that under the moratorium or not. This definitely catches the situation of a 30acre parcel, 24 acres sold but no subdivision involved just an area was designated on survey and they want to come in and subdivide that is definitely or was intended to be excluded from the moratorium. MELISSA SPIRO: I was just saying what Greg said, I can't think of any example where they sold only 10 or 15 acre parcel .... unintelligible... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: So it is not likely to be a problem? 3 SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thus far that hasn't been a reality? MELISSA SPIRO: I can't think of ever seeing any .... unintelligible... SUPERVISOR HORTON: Any more questions in regard to that portion of the second. The third is new or pending applications for the subdivision of a parcel of property where an executed contract dated prior to the effective date of this Local Law exists to either sell or gift the permanent preservation rights to a portion of that parcel to either the Town of Southold pursuant to the various sections of the Town Code, Suffolk County, (malfunction with tape...) TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: (tape malfunction) sometimes the things are all ready in contract. Number 2 and number 3 really work hand in hand, one has already been completed and one has already been signed up and they are agreed upon. Through, not just verbally but an executed contract. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: So a preservation oriented seller is in negotiation with a contract? TOWN ATTORNEYYAKABOSKI: Not in negotiation, in contract. Prior to the effective date of the Local Law. It's formalized. We have a written agreement, everybody knows where we stand and part of thing is getting to the written agreement process through our Chapter 6 or Chapter 25 or Chapter 59 is even if it is a gift, you go through the same process, there is a public hearing there is a recommendation from the Land Preservation Committee, everybody-the normal process that you go through. So there are a lot of safeguards there, that something a long the line like Tom mentioned earlier doesn't come about. Do we know how many there is-in contract? MELISSA SPIRO: How many preservation in the subdivision are in contract? Inaudible... SUPERVISOR HORTON: Any questions on that, Craig, Bill? John, are you all set on that? We'll move to #4 then. New subdivision application, where an applicant has entered into a contract, dated after the effective date of the Local Law, to either sell or give the permanent preservation rights to a portion of that parcel to either the Town of Southold, the County, the Peconic Land Trust or the Nature Conservancy. Provided that that portion of the property on which the permanent preservation rights are being sold or gifted encompasses at least 75% of the entire parcel. The following areas are not to be included in the calculations of the 75% threshold. That portion of the parcel which is wetlands as defined by Chapter 97 of the Town Code, streams, creeks, ponds, slopes over 15%, underwater land, land encumbered by easements or other restrictions preventing use of such land for construction of building or development, or land within the coastal erosion hazard area as defined by Chapter 37 of Southold Town Code. 4 COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: We talked about this last night at out Blue Ribbon meeting and at that time there was some discussion about having two separate panels, one for farmland and one for open space. This is more or less designed for open space. ! think that the way the discussion went last night was, if it were a block of farmland, chances are these non-productive parts of it, the sloped or coastal hazard areas the ponds and all that would be minimal. There was some discussion about defining it two ways. One if it was a farmland development rights purchase another if it were an open space purchase. MELISSA SPIRO: Perhaps it doesn't need the definition because farmland doesn't have any .... inaudible .... and it just doesn't apply, if you leave that definition in and a piece of farmland comes in and it doesn't have any wetlands or slopes then it is 75% of .... inaudible.., acres. Use of open space won't keep a farmland that is on a creek ... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: So you don't really see the need to have two different.. MELISSA SPIRO: it .... inaudible... don't see the need. To make it simpler you can separate SUPERVISOR HORTON: Would any members of the Board, in regard to the exclusions like to weigh in, is there something that is being missed within that maybe should not be included that is? COUNCILMAN MOORE: The one thing that jumps out at me is on the application for lot-line changes. Kind of an odd one to include in the moratorium. TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Lot-lines and set-offs are not included. COUNCILMAN MOORE: Am ! misreading section 3? TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: That was not updated. ! have the same copy, that was one spot that ! missed. But we drafted all different versions. COUNCILMAN MOORE: Under Roman numeral I, section 3. Applications. TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: That was one spot that we missed. COUNCILMAN MOORE: Set-off and lot -line changes? TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: different versions of things. Yes, in cleaning things up, in cleaning the COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Let's go back if we could, to what we were just talking about-excluding these areas of the 75% criteria. If a parcel came in a 73 or 72% after excluding all of this, there is still an avenue for that coming before the Board for a waiver or an exception. Is that right? SUPERVISOR HORTON: That takes us to the next section, that covers this. If it will answer your questions maybe we can just move right to II! section 6, the appeals procedures, lettered A, B and C. Under A, basically it says the Town Board will have the authority to vary or waive an application of any provision of this law, if you read through it, the Town Board shall take in to account the existing lands use in the immediate vicinity of the property, impact of the variance or waiver on the water supply, agricultural lands, open and recreational space, rural character, natural resources, and transportation infrastructure of the Town. This application must comply with all other applicable provisions of the Southold Town Code. Greg and ! discussed this yesterday and the options were the appeals process before the Zoning Board of Appeals or come to the Town Board. My thoughts were that it should be before the Town Board as we are most directly tied into the Land Preservation Commission and any preservation efforts that are being made in the Town as well. This is a moratorium that is a proposal that is moving forward from the Town Board. ! think that anything in regard to this issue should be centrally located at the Town Board level. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: I am behind you on that one. COUNCILMAN MOORE: My only observation is not so much as to who would have it as to have it at all and it ties into another comment which is proposed duration being one year would put a pretty wide net out there for minors and majors, we've got a good size planning staff and ! would like to see us shorten the duration and eliminate the need for the appeals side of it. So you are taking it from both ends. You've got six months .... if you have a piece of legal advice you want to share with me, it's fine. TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: ! think it would be prudent to keep the appeals process in because of what the moratorium is in term zoning and zoning, one of the reasons it has been upheld is because of the relief valve which is afforded by the Zoning Board of Appeals, you have Administrative Review. To put zoning in and not allow a process, ! think Bill has a good point if you wanted to shorten it because people might not use the appeals process by the time you get, deal with certain things unless you've got a problem. You are not going to take the time here, it's a valid appeals process. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: ! think that both issues that Bill raised had ought to be judged on their own merits and while it is true that the shorter the moratorium the less importance there is to the waiver provisions. ! would like to see the waivers left in there but ! do think that the question of the duration of the moratorium is something that this Board had ought to discuss. And ! tend to agree with Bill, ! am open to a relatively short one it could always be extended. ! would like to see some discussion about a six month moratorium. If our Blue Ribbon Commission is any experience, things come together against a deadline. That is the nature of groups working together. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: My only thought on that is and maybe one year is too long maybe 9 months is the answer. My thoughts on that is I'd rather end it earlier than have to extend it. ! would hate to be in the seat in six months and say that we didn't 6 complete everything and would have to extend it. I would rather say, in seven or eight months, we end it. COUNCILMAN MOORE: I wish that I could share your optimism .... (inaudible) is a vacuum and people will not sit there with the sense of urgency and ! don't think that it is fair to sit there and tell the public we are doing a year's moratorium and if we are lucky we can pull it inside and that is a great goal to shoot for. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: I hate to say that we tell the public it is going to be six months and in six months say that it is incomplete. Why don't we do another three months? SUPERVISOR HORTON: Those are all important points but ! think that the point that will drive or should drive the use of such a tool, is what does the Town Board look to accomplish over the course of the time. Is it something that the Town or the Town Board will accomplish in six months or is it something that will take a year? As opposed to, it is important to be very clear to the public and certainly make sure that the public is well informed but basing a decision off of what you think public concern is going to be is that the big concern will be what our job to the public is to actually accomplish what we set out to do over the course of the moratorium. So ! think that that is where the conversation should go in regard to the duration of such. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: That is a really good point, we really should tailor this for how long it will take for us to put in place the structures and procedures we want. ! think that Josh has really hit it right on the head. COUNCILMAN RICHTER: ! think that we take what Valerie has supplied us with, with a procedure and a timeline, can we do that in a shorter period of time? ! think that is the discussion that we need to have. Drafting new legislation and procedures and so forth is just not going to move that fast forward, you know not that fast in that direction. SUPERVISOR HORTON: inaudible...we want to accomplish that. So getting back to the appeals procedures, that ignited the direction of this conversation, ! think that we need to .... ! agree with implementing or having the appeal process ..inaudible...parallel with what Bill said, if it is a one year process than ! think that it should certainly be a part of the entire system. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Skip down to C on that same page. It says the application and the recommendation shall be transmitted to the Town Board which may conduct a public hearing, ! think that it must be a public hearing. ! don't think that it should be an option, ! think if you are going to grant the relief, you should have a public hearing. SUPERVISOR HORTON: That is in C section? The application, recommendation shall be transmitted to the Town Board which may conduct, okay, note that. Is there any more input on regard to what should be excluded? Actually, is there a legal? 7 TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Yes, I came up with one thing which I am not sure if the, I've just got to speak to Melissa and Valerie about it but ! am not sure how applicable it would be but ! wanted to run it by the Board. Somebody had a thirty acre piece at one point in the past and sold off 24 acres (2 acre zoning) so it was a six acre piece by the 24 acre piece. And at that time, they also did the subdivision to divide those two. So now you have a six acre piece standing by itself. The way that it was worded, ! don't believe that that six acre piece, if they came in for a subdivision right now would be specifically excluded under these specific exclusions in speaking to Melissa and Valerie a minute ago, quite frankly, we are not sure how often that occurred in the past. Usually what happened was that you would not go through that subdivision process for a six acre piece, usually if you had a house with one or two acres you would have done it, ! can't say that formerly that always happened but ! wanted to through that up to the Board so that the Board is not, that that issue is out there. Any feedback on that? COUNCILMAN MOORE: 24 and 6. The 24 and 6, the 6 has always been a part of the larger, it had not been legally separated out of the separate parcel. The thought was, what if it was and actually had two lots, the 24 and separate legally established 6 acre piece. That six acre piece by itself is not considered a portion of the larger under section 2. So it would not be protected, it would be within the moratorium it would not be exempted. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: However, if it had not been subdivided if there were just.. COUNCILMAN MOORE: It would be in subdivision, it would be an exclusion to because it was a portion of a larger piece. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: The other part should be excluded also because you are using the same logic, the guy came forward... SUPERVISOR HORTON: The problem was that and ! understand where you are going with that but ! think that you can take that one step further where you can get into heavy discussion. Say you own several properties and at some point owner A sold 12-15-20 acres to the Town or County and has a 10 acre piece that is sub-dividable, that is not anywhere near that. In reality what is the difference between if that owner came forward and did the right thing even though the piece that he is looking to have sub-divided is nowhere near the other piece, the development rights are sold. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: ! think we are saying that it is next to the parcel that was sold. He has a parcel in Mattituck and a parcel in .... SUPERVISOR HORTON: Right but the way that it is legally drafted right now is that that owner would have to come to the Town Board or wherever that appeals procedure lays and come before the Town Board and look for an exemption. Is that correct? TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Correct, right now again we can't think of any examples, we are just discussing it here it dawned on me that this situation could arise and the relief that would be afforded right now probably would match up with a lot of the criteria without prejudging it, would be with an appeals process. SUPERVISOR HORTON: So it begs the question of, ! wanted the Board to be aware of it. You are talking about a piece of property that is right next to something where the development rights have been sold. It doesn't end there. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Speaking for myself, it wouldn't bother me if this example that was just brought up gets caught up in the moratorium. Just my own view and ! don't feel strongly about anything. As Josh says there is the exception, the waiver avenue that could be pursued and it is only for a year, ! don't think that is a major problem. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: ! think that it should be caught up in the exclusion. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Wait a minute. It should be caught up in the exclusion. Yes, it should be. We should provide for it, explicitly in the exclusion is what you are saying. COUNCILMAN RICHTER: ! don't know the answer to that. To me it would make sense to be caught up in the exclusion because the right thing is already done. That could be, how much are we talking about? TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: We can't think of any examples, we are just having a conversation. We have a problematic drafting it. ! am thinking out loud. SUPERVISOR HORTON: What ! would like to say in regard to that is that you have to think are you saying the right thing because the six acres that are sub-dividable and 24 acres that have been preserved and it is the right thing because the properties are right next to each other- that should be excluded. Is that different from the same owner having 24 acres sold in Mattituck and six acres are sub-dividable that same owner sold the development rights it is still, regardless if the lot splits the properties it is still two separate properties whether they are right next to each other or they are in different hamlets. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: One tax map parcel. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: ! am not talking about parcels on opposite ends of Town. COUNCILMAN MOORE: Josh's point is how do you distinguish legally and if the person has gone along and done morally, 24 acres of good stuff, what difference does it make where the six is? People have done it on the same piece of property, ! understand the point that you are making. You make one donation to one charity, it is an interesting point. 9 COUNCILMAN RICHTER: Let's get an answer over there. MELISSA SPIRO: I don't have an answer, I don't see any ...inaudible...you go to the expense to do a sub-division to create one lot which then they come in and do another one. There are plenty that sold development rights on some but not all, it did not go to the Planning Office. ! can't remember any that ever came in that go with development rights next door it is quite the opposite. COUNCILMAN RICHTER: So...inaudible... go through an appeals process if it does surface. TAPE CHANGE COUNCILMAN RICHTER: Yes, it is a non-issue, ! wouldn't worry about it. It is going to be hard for him to draft legislation, there doesn't seem to be any. So let him use the appeals process. SUPERVISOR HORTON: As long as you are comfortable with the legalities of that. That is why ! am asking the question. Very good. Again, to the Town Board, is there anything else in regard to moving ahead with this? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Exclusions. ! think that ...inaudible .... ! am pleased with the work that is going to do it and ! am satisfied. SUPERVISOR HORTON: The questions that haven't been answered by the Town Board, and again we don't have a full Board and ! think to judiciously move with this we have to have a full Board. We will have a full Board at this coming regularly scheduled Town Board meeting, Louisa will be here. Bill, thank-you for coming, ! wasn't expecting you to be here today and ! really appreciate you taking the time to come in here today, it is important. If we move to take this up this coming Tuesday, that puts us still in step with the same time-line as if we had moved last week, this week or next week. Again, under the advice of counsel, to have the whole Board present and to move ahead under that time-line has been the advice that ! have received. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: There are a few other things that ! would like to ask. Not the exclusions but the general policies. First of all, this has all got to do with sub- divisions. There are some major developments in this Town, like Peconic Landing which are site plan type developments they are not sub-divisions. One of those things can have an enormous impact. Shouldn't we be considering those kinds of developments in the moratorium? SUPERVISOR HORTON: Residential site plans? TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: It really is a policy question for this Board. 10 COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I would think that in fairness and in terms of potential impact on the Town it would be smart to include that for the Board. That is one question. The second question is ! would like to see the Board consider as long as we are doing the moratorium, a moratorium on down zoning for broad projects. ! always wanted to see a policy in place that would permit, encourage the Board to grant such a down-zoning in exchange for some preservation compline. Since we don't have that in place yet it does seem to me a logical area to include in a moratorium while we can consider building such a structure. The third thing ! would like to propose is that the moratorium include applications that go to the Zoning Board for multiple variances for to build great big multiple variances on relatively small lots. Those are three proposals that ! would like to have some discussion about. COUNCILMAN RICHTER: The third one, why? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Because ! think that it is changing the character of the Town, ! think that it is a serious impediment to neighbors, ! think that the Zoning Board hasn't figured out, ! think that the Zoning Board would like to deal with it but doesn't feel that it has the legislative authority to do so given the way that the code is written. ! think that we and they and the Town could benefit from some thought into changing the legislation dealing with those homes. COUNCILMAN RICHTER: The only question that ! have is you are starting to put another layer of restriction on that ! am not so sure should be included in the moratorium. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Where we come out on it, ! am not prepared to say it myself, we might come out a year, or six months or a year when the moratorium is over we might conclude that we can't do much and don't want to do much but at least we have had six months or a year to try to do it. At worse, it means a delay to a potential home owner to be doing what he wants to do. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: ! questioned Greg, can we put a moratorium on a judicial board methods. To say that you can't make a decision? TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: The answer is yes, you can supersede the authority of the ZBA in granting variances for certain projects. A thought that ! would throw out to the Board, when you are talking about building large houses on small lots something to consider when someone goes to the ZBA for a variance, that is in effect a safety mechanism where some of the criteria the ZBA can consider and issue denials on some of the variances. One thing that is out there is that we have the non-conforming bulk schedule for small lots. This non-conforming bulk schedule has certain percentages of lot coverage which is as of right, if you wanted to build a home your as of right district you need a building permit, as long as you stay within the parameters set forth in the non- conforming bulk schedule i.e. your side yard set back and front yard, the really side yards are more of the issue in your lot coverage, you can go in to the Building Department and have an as of right building permit without any variances for a small lot and if you look at some of the size lots and some of the variances and the as of rights building envelopes 11 which is three dimensional, the height is the critical aspect which is what you are talking about not just the footprint, that might be something. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: If we did want to do it, the easiest way to do it would be to put a moratorium on any application that requires more than one or two variances. If it was just one variance, like a side lot extension, that would not be caught up in the moratorium but if it is a multiple variance application it would be. SUPERVISOR HORTON: What would you hope to accomplish through that? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: To have the Zoning Board, Planning Board and the Town Board carefully think through how we want the Town to look like and what the legislation should be in place to see that that is what happens in the future. COUNCILMAN RICHTER: That's pretty popular, Tom. One of the things that ! have a problem with, you have in the Building Department in your codes you have lot coverage. A non-conforming lots, the small lot, what kind of lot coverage is in existence now? Does anyone know the answer? TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: ! think that it is 20%, depends on the size of your lot. If you are under a half-acre, 20% on your side yards for a total of one side 10 and 15. COUNCILMAN RICHTER: 10 and 15 for half acre lots and smaller. So you take a quarter acre lot and you are going into three variances so you can build a two-story home, six feet off the side yard because you had a porch that came out there and you start taking the lot coverage and they are looking for a variance on lot coverage, the side yard set back, my question has got to be why is the Zoning Board of Appeals granting it? It is in the law already. TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: What the Zoning Board does and again ! am not certain, ! don't have the data in front of me to know if the real issue is the granting of variances when the ZBA does the balancing test for area variances, which is the balance of the community, things like that. Or perhaps the real issue might be a bulk schedule, which is an as of right building on a non-conforming lot. There are a lot of lots in town which are less than half acre and you shrink the size of the lot and still have and deal with your non-conforming bulk schedule. A lot of building can go on that small lot without any of the safe guards that the ZBA offers. The ZBA offers, you don't have to grant the variances and they look at the character of the community and other issues like that, they look at the neighborhood, they give public notice, people from the neighborhood come in and give their opinion, so there are a lot of safe guards there and checks and balances. Versus when you can come in and build as of right. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: You can build with a non-conforming schedule, as of right you can build on a non-conforming lot. 12 TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Right, and you can build a lot of house. That is close in some people's minds, to the property line. COUNCILMAN MOORE: So what you are saying that is if anyone has a given house in mind that they have seen in their neighborhood or their friends neighborhood, that anecdotally you don't know what the cause of it was, whether it was the bulk schedule or the Zoning Board granting relief. It may not be the Zoning Board, they are the easy ones and it may well be and it may not be that. ! would think that those that work in that section of the code particularly, the Zoning Board people and the Town Attorney and others and ! think that the Building Department could identify for us the specific cause of this problem, and ! don't know if we need to go the moratorium route, but if we could pinpoint the cause of the problem... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: What you are saying is that there are several causes of the problem? COUNCILMAN MOORE: Maybe. Or they haven't identified the cause yet if the house is being built as of right, and that is the one that didn't go the Zoning Board, because of the schedule because of the way it is written. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: ! think that it should be clear to us that the Zoning Board route, the multiple variances is one route of that. There may be other routes, but that is clearly one of the routes. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: moratorium, multiple variances. can't go along with lumping that in with the TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: ! believe that there could be something crafted for a short term and that is what we are doing. SUPERVISOR HORTON: This has been mentioned before, change of zone applications. There has been a lot of discussion on the Board about that which is change of zone applications come in and they come right to the Town Board. So the question has been posed is it necessary to have those included in the moratorium when right now they come before the Town Board, we are the end of the road for them, we either say yes they can continue on or no it won't be granted. Which ! think leaves the question, is it necessary to have it included in the moratorium? We have had seven change of zone applications come in the past couple of years, none of them have been granted. It is almost as if at the Town Board level there is a moratorium on change of zone applications, none of them have been granted. So is it necessary to include them? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: ! don't believe so. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: You don't believe what? 13 COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: I don't believe that the change of zone applications should be caught up in the moratorium. COUNCILMAN RICHTER: Me either. SUPERVISOR HORTON: ! would like to say that what we have discussed in the past here and ! would like to see some, if it was possible to implement such in regard to change of zone applications, is there a mechanism that would allow the Town Board to say contingent upon this change of zone but what is preserved elsewhere in the community. That ! think is reasonable for the Town Board to pursue. COUNCILMAN MOORE: No, it is in separate zoning. That requires legislation but we can do that. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Yes, we can do it but we don't do it and we won't do it unless there is a moratorium with a date on the end. SUPERVISOR HORTON: ! can't agree with that. ! strongly disagree with that, ! think that if it is something that the Town Board wants to do then we will do it. The question is what does the Town Board want to do? Will that be answered as a result of a moratorium, no? We are elected, we are here to do a job and if that, bring it forward, bring it to the table. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Is there interest on the Board in having this brought forward and acting on it in the coming months? If there is an understanding among the Board, ! would be happy to drop the idea from the moratorium. Okay. Josh ! will take your offer of bringing it to the Board. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: The next question is the residential site plans. Those residential site plans, which the example that has been used before the Town Board is Peconic Landing, 250 homes on 130 acres. Was that originally zoned hamlet density. In the early 1980's? TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: is... inaudible... It still is, I believe. The current zoning (at this point someone is speaking for a while but can't be heard clearly) SUPERVISOR HORTON: Can the Board educate me very briefly, residential site plans, what can that, how far can that stand? ! know how large it can be and I've seen that, how small is it? What is it limited to in regard to.. COUNCILMAN MOORE: Any multiple dwelling on a single parcel, it's putting more that one single family unit on a parcel of land. However you choose to do that. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Also it depends on how big the parcel of land is. 14 COUNCILMAN MOORE: Right. How small you could make it. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Does it require a change of zone. COUNCILMAN MOORE: No, that is hamlet density. H-D. SUPERVISOR HORTON: So residential site plan is specific to H-D? TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Any use be it, covers a two family dwelling, that requires under our code site plan approval and that could be in many of the zones. Slowly branch out to multiple dwellings, which ! don't believe are solely limited to H-D, when people talk about residential site plans, most likely they are really talking about some of these bigger projects, not a two family home. That tells how simple it can get. With an H-D parcel, it could be a conforming or non-conforming lot, that is zoned H-D, you would look at the..inaudible...depends on how many square on the lot, how much you can fit on that lot. It is limited by lot size, the minimum that can be on that lot and the maximum that can be on that lot. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: ! think that we are leaving ourselves open to a huge hole in the moratorium if we don't include residential site plans. ! think that it should be included. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Residential site plans, as it stands now with the proposals that are before the Town Board that come out of code committee in regard to accessory apartments in the ROHB and B districts, what would the effect be on that? TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Right now the way that it is drafted we specifically stated that no site plan approval would be required as long as certain criteria were met. We could always re-visit to make sure that the language is excruciatingly clear, that is not to cover, we set it up as an accessory use, in the apartments for accessory use. That is how that law was drafted. It was meant to be no site plan approval as long as foundation was.., inaudible.., square feet, ! don't recall exactly how many square feet. SUPERVISOR HORTON: We will put a lot of effort into preservation, rightfully so, and come up with a plan. At the same time, we've got a housing crisis on our hands in Southold Town that is phenomenal and to take away that opportunity for business owners or home owners to have an accessory apartment within those districts that we are looking at, ! think would have a devastating effect on the housing, the already exacerbated housing crisis in Southold Town. So ! will not support anything that is going to hamper that. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: ! agree with that, ! think that the Board feels the same way, we don't want that to be caught up in the moratorium. SUPERVISOR HORTON: So we've that coming forward to try to fit in a public hearing so we need to absolutely make sure. 15 TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Is it more prudent to do residential site plans or site specific uses? Is it better to focus on uses, other than uses which would require site plans? Are we talking about certain uses? While the Board is all here, for site plan approvals for anything a two family dwelling on up. Inaudible speaker TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: I'm sorry, no I meant vacant land. Vacant land, we are talking about including in the moratorium stopping the Planning Board from giving site plan approval for residential type of use. Would it be more focused to focus on specific uses? Multi-dwelling and not catch two-family homes, for example. Multi- dwellings, life care facilities... Inaudible speaker TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Actually life care facilities are not. That is the reason that ! am bringing it up. Well, if it is an H-D and AC but it is a permitted use. It is a paragraph A use, not a paragraph B use. SUPERVISOR HORTON: It doesn't require special exception from the Zoning Board of Appeals? TOWN ATTORNEY YAKABOSKI: Correct. I wanted to get a feel for the Board, I would like, we had a little team working together on these kind of things to let us craft, I think that the Board was not really on the two family dwelling, it is more of a larger scale project. Perhaps I could work with Melissa and Valerie and Mark to address what the Boards .... SUPERVISOR HORTON: As I see it right now, what we have accomplished today excluding the appeals process, we haven't come to terms on the length of a moratorium. In regards to setting a public hearing next Tuesday we will want to get very clearly in line what will be major sub-divisions, minor sub-divisions, residential site plans. Depending on what Greg and the Planning Department come up with. That will be the specific discussion next Tuesday, at which point we will move to set a public hearing. As well, the Planning Department has a proposal for a plan what will be accomplished in that the, I've also asked Tom Wickham in regard to the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan which in my mind isn't something that necessarily falls under the purview of a moratorium. That is something that has been in the works for a number of years and we should set out to accomplish regardless of that. So the Board has an understanding, Tom and Valerie are setting up a work schedule for that. To have that brought to the Board. ! sent you all memo's out for a specific date. So that is already in the works, but a defined plan of what should be accomplished over the course of the moratorium and it may even be expanded upon what was brought to the Board. So that would be the source of our discussion this coming Tuesday. Is there anything else that our Board would like to add in regards to todays discussion? 16 COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Do you want to try to canvass the Board about this six month, nine month or twelve month at this time or do you want to wait? SUPERVISOR HORTON: My thoughts on that are, this coming Tuesday we are going to be moving to plan a public hearing. So in setting a public hearing, this Board is going to have a clear idea of what they want to accomplish and what it wants the moratorium to accomplish. ! think that that will dictate the length of this proposal, the moratorium. Are we all clear on this? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I take it that there is not much interest on the Board on this big house business. And there is not much interest on the Board in including in the moratorium zone changes that the Town Board gives. But there is interest on this question of residential site plans and Greg will sit with them and figure out the best mechanism. As it relates to the moratorium. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Anything else for me? Thank-you. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk