Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB-02/14/2017 ELIZABETH A.NEVILLETown Hall,53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK ��o�OgpFFO(ycoGy PO Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS o Fax(631)765-6145 MARRIAGE OFFICER 4� tao Telephone: (631)765 - 1800 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER southoldtown.northfork.net FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD REGULAR MEETING February 14, 2017 7:30 PM A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board was held Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at the Meeting Hall, Southold,NY. Call to Order 7:30 PM Meeting called to order on February 14, 2017 at Meeting Hall, 53095 Route 25, Southold,NY. Attendee Name Organization Title Status Arrived James Dinizio Jr Town of Southold Councilman : Present William_ P. Ruland I Town_of_Southold Councilman Present Jill Doherty ' Town of Southold_ _.. Coulwoman Present .__.._ .�.un __ .w.._�...._ _ .__ _ RobertGhosio_ Town of Southold Councilman Present Louisa P. Evans _ Town of Southold Justice Present Scott A. Russell Town of Southoldµ Supervisor Present Elizabeth A.Neville Town of Southold Town Clerk Present William M Duffy Town of Southold Town Attorney ; Present I. Reports 1. Solid Waste District Monthly Report 2. Recreation Dept. Monthly Report 3. Department of Solid Waste Monthly Report 4. Zoning Board of Appeals Monthly Report 5. Town Clerk Monthly Report 6. Judge Hughes Monthly Report 7. Justice Evans Monthly Report 8. Justice Price Monthly Report Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 2 II. Public Notices 1. NYS Loans & Grants Department III. Communications IV. Discussion 1. 9:00 Am -Janet Douglass 2. 9:15 Am -John Sepenoski o 3. Councilman Ghosio 4. Supervisor Russell 5. Home Rule Request S.3225/A.2671 6. Coastal Erosion Appeal Application 7. 9:30 Am - Melissa Spiro 8. Amendments to Section of the Town Code Entitled "Definitions" 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION-Labor-Matters Involving Employment of Particular Person/S 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION-Litigation 11. 9:45 Am -Jamie Richter Pledge to the Flag Opening Comments Supervisor Russell SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Please rise and join in the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. Would anybody like to address the Town board on any of the agenda items? We do have a public hearing scheduled shortly but any of the agenda items? Robert? Robert Dunn ROBERT DUNN: Robert Dunn, Peconic. Yes, 162. This started, it was first posted in December for a hearing and unfortunately, I was away for January. I have a couple of issues with it based on catastrophic loss, I am assuming the gist of it is primarily about those who might choose to game the system and start with something smaller and go to something big and when you do that, you are effectively building a new house and maybe conceptually you should be required to meet that standard and I am just fine with that. I was born in Flushing, lived my adulthood in Bayside and you see what happens when you go crazy with infill and how it can Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 3 change a neighborhood negatively. When you take, there's any number of houses here that are legal, non-conforming uses and when you pull that out from under them when they have had a catastrophic loss, be it a storm, fire or whatever, it can be devastating. Yeah, there are solutions, I have been speaking with you back and forth through emails and Jim, you mailed me once. Yeah, you can appeal it but an appeal with ZBA but that could cost $5,000, just to build what you had. In one of my emails to you I mentioned Board of Health, I wasn't suggesting anything could happen there but if you had to move your house or jiggle it a bit because of a new rule, well, you have to be 100 feet from your neighbors well, your septic system has to be 100 feet from their well, your well has to be 100 feet, so things could have changed since the time you built your house. And basically, you could make it really hard on somebody who's suffered catastrophically. And that's outside of the FEMA zone. You made a point and that's very valid, you have nothing to do with FEMA rules. FEMA rules are FEMA rules. FEMA doesn't care about zoning, though. FEMA is just going to ask you, tell you, that you have to rebuild with flood protection. Whether you have got to raise it, fill you basement, whether you have got to move your mechanicals upstairs, whatever you have got to do there, it's fine and I am all for that because you are asking somebody else to foot the bill for the future. I am just concerned about houses that can be severely, negatively impacted on a catastrophic loss. In the FEMA zone or outside the FEMA zone. Like I said, FEMA doesn't care about zoning, that's a local issue. FEMA cares about building codes, so FEMA wouldn't tell you where to put your house. That's something that's, you got my point. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes. I actually agree with you on the catastrophic loss, I don't think this law is where we should address it. That's a separate issue. Because this speaks to, I guess for a lack of a better term and certainly not arguable, voluntary demolition. Catastrophic loss, as I have talked to you about, not just Sandy damage but fires and things like that, I know philosophically I agree with you and I don't want to speak for Jim but I do think there should be recognition in the code for getting to keep what you have and that certainly, from my perspective, would pertain to catastrophic loss. But I would say Department of Health is going to be triggered whether it is 51 percent or 76 percent. You are going before them, we can't control them. MR. DUNN: The Department of Health, they are not going to be concerned, if you have got a house, an existing house with two bedrooms and you are just going to repair a house with two bedrooms, they are not going to be really concerned because you have already met their standard, somewhere. If you add a third bedroom, they are going to be very concerned. But I don't really think the Department of Health is going to get, if you had a fire and lost your kitchen and bathroom, you want to rebuild your kitchen and bathroom, they are not going to be upset but a kitchen and bathroom could easily run over 50 percent of the value of homes here. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah, I mean, as I explained to you, the calculation is based on replacement versus new. So if you look at the actual value of the home and the damage and the new construction, it could easily exceed 50 percent. MR. DUNN: Right. Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 4 SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: But you are taking the whole thing at it's replacement cost new, so if you have 1,000 square feet, it's going to be calculated based on current Marshall, Swift or Beck's index, whichever standard you wanted to use and then, you know.... MR. DUNN: But what I am saying is if you rebuild a kitchen or rebuild a bathroom, in a smaller home could easily reach 50 percent of the value of that home because a kitchen is exponentially more expensive than a bedroom or a den. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That would be a definition then, of catastrophic loss. I understand what you are saying but you know, you are talking about the distinction between 51 percent and 26 percent, so... MR. DUNN: It's a third. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: What's that? MR. DUNN: It's a third. Going from 75 back to 50, you are talking about 1/3 difference. So you know, it's just if you, and again, if you make a commitment to tweaking it a bit to cover catastrophic losses down the road, I am okay with it. You know, I mean... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I agree, we should take that up as a separate issue. MR. DUNN: Yeah, because in the code and we don't know what's going to happen 10 years down the road or 15 years down the road, also in the code is the gradual elimination of non- conforming uses, so we don't know how another Board might take that. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: You are right. MR. DUNN: In the future. So, I just think that people that are fairly buying homes or who have bought homes or will buy a home tomorrow or next week or next month should be comfortable that should they choose to rebuild it after a catastrophic loss, they can without being encumbered by a lot of other stuff. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I agree. The basis of the pre-existing, non-conforming is that you are entitled to what you have and I would support or certainly philosophically that that should speak to whether you lose it through a catastrophic event or not. MR. DUNN: Exactly. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I would agree. MR. DUNN: Exactly. Supervisor Russell Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 5 SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you, Robert. Would anybody like to address the Town Board on any of the agenda items? (No response) Well then we will get some resolutions passed and then the public hearing. V. Resolutions 2017-160 CATEGORY: Audit DEPARTMENT.• Town Clerk Approve Audit RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby approves the audit dated February 14, 2017. ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-160 E1 Adopted ❑ Adopted as Amended ❑ Defeated yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ❑ Tabled James Dmizio Jr 1 Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Withdrawn ❑ Supervisor's Appt William P Ruland Voter CSI ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Jill Doherty Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rescinded Robert Ghosio Seconder 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Town Clerk's Appt Louisa P Evans Mover El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt Scott A.Russell Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Action ❑ Lost 2017-161 CATEGORY: Set Meeting DEPARTMENT: Town Clerk Next Town Board Meeting RESOLVED that the next Regular Town Board Meeting of the Southold Town Board be held, Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at the Southold Town Hall, Southold, New York at 4:30 P. M.. ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-161 * Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ❑ Adopted as Amended James Dmizio Jr Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Defeated William P Roland Voter z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tabled Jill Doherty Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Withdrawn Robert Ghosio Seconder 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supervisor's Appt Louisa P Evans Mover 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Scott A Russell Voter Rl 0 0 0 Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 6 ❑ Rescinded ❑ Town Clerk's Appt ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt ❑ No Action ❑ Lost 2017-162 Tabled 1/17/2017 7:30 PM, 1/31/2017 4:30 PM CATEGORY.• Enact Local Law DEPARTMENT. Town Clerk Enact LL- Chapter 280 Demolition RESOLVED that there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York, on the 20th day of December, 2016, a Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Chapter 280, Zoning, in connection with Demolition" and be it further RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold held a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, now therefor be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby ENACTS the proposed Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Chapter 280, Zoning, in connection with Demolition" reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 2017 A Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Chapter 280, Zoning, in connection with Demolition". BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: 280-4 Definitions. DEMOLITION _Any removal of a structure or portion thereof, where the total cost of the reconstruction of the structure or portion thereof-4hat exceeds 7-5-50% of the total square footage market value of the existing structure before the start of removal. III. SEVERABILITY If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 7 IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by law. ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-162 0 Adopted ❑ Adopted as Amended ❑ Defeated Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ❑ Tabled 11Withdrawn James Dimzio Jr ; Mover R1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supervisor's Appt William P Ruland Seconder lZ 11 El El Tax Receiver's Appt Jill Doherty Voter ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rescinded Robert Ghosio Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Town Clerk's Appt Louisa P Evans Voter 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt Scott A Russell Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ; ❑ ❑ No Action ❑ Lost 2017-163 CATEGORY: Budget Modification DEPARTMENT: Police Dept Police Department-Budget Modification Financial Impact:Reallocation of funds for the 2016 PD budget to compensate for shortages after final payments of holidays and on call time for the 2016 year RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby modifies the 2016 General Fund Whole Town budget as follows: From: A.3020.1.100.200 Public Safety Comm/Overtime Earnings $1,441 A.3120.1.100.200 Police/Overtime Earnings $1,998 Total $3,439 To: A.3020.1.100.500 Public Safety Comm/Holiday Earnings $1,441 A.3120.1.100.201 Police/Overtime/On Call $1,998 Total $3,439 ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-163 0 Adopted - Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ❑ Adopted as Amended ❑ Defeated James Dmizio Jr Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tabled William P Ruland Seconder 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Withdrawn Jill Doherty Mover CEJ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 Supervisor's Appt Robert Ghosio Voter 10 0 0 0 Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 8 ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Louisa P Evans Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rescinded Scott A Russell Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Town Clerk's Appt ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt ❑ No Action ❑ Lost 2017-164 CATEGORY. Employment-Town DEPARTMENT Accounting Acknowledges Retirement John A. Cushman II WHEREAS,the Town of Southold has received email notification on February 2, 2017 from the NYS Retirement System concerning the retirement of John A. Cushman II effective March 6, 2017 now therefore be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby acknowledges the intent to retire of John A. Cushman II from the position of Town Comptroller for the Town of Southold effective March 6, 2017. ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-164 0 Adopted ❑ Adopted as Amended ❑ Defeatedyes/Aye No/Nay� Abstain Absent ❑ Tabled ❑ Withdrawn James Dmizio Jr Voter 0 El ❑ ❑ ❑ Supervisor's Appt William P Ruland Mover 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Jill Doherty Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rescinded Robert Ghosio Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Town Clerk's Appt Louisa P Evans i Seconder 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt Scott A Russell Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Action ❑ Lost Comments regarding resolution 164 COUNCILMAN RULAND: I would like to add with certainly grateful appreciation of myself and I think the people of the Town of Southold. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I also want to say that losing John Cushman's work ethic, his knowledge and his services to this Town is a huge loss and it's going to be very difficult to fill Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 9 that position. I am happy for him, he is looking forward to new opportunities and I wish him the best. JUSTICE EVANS: We all do, I think. 2017-165 CATEGORY Y. Close/Use Town Roads DEPARTMENT. Town Clerk St. Patrick's Day Parade in Cutchogue Financial Impact: Total Department Cost for Event =$1,381.44 RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby grants permission to The North Fork Chamber of Commerce and the Cutchogue Fire Department to use the following route: staging on Eugene's Road and begin at Cox Lane, west on the Main Road to Cases Lane, ending at the Village Green for its 13th Annual St. Patrick's Day Parade in Cutchogue, on Saturday, March 11, 2017 beginning at 1:00 PM, provided they adhere to all the conditions in the Town's Policy for Special Events on Town Properties. No objects of any kind shall be thrown to event spectators. All fees, except the clean-up deposit, shall be waived. ,,'Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-165 0 Adopted ❑ Adopted as Amended ❑ Defeated ----_ — Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ❑ Tabled . - — _ ❑ Withdrawn James Dmtzio Jr Voter 0 ❑ ❑— ❑ ❑ Supervisor's Appt William P Ruland Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Jill Doherty Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rescinded Robert Ghosio Seconder, 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Town Clerk's Appt Louisa P.Evans Mover 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt Scott A.Russell Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Action ❑ Lost 2017-166 CATEGORY. Budget Modification DEPARTMENT. Accounting Create Capital Project for PCs, Laptops&Printers Financial Impact: Create capital budget for personal computers, laptops &printers WHEREAS the Town Board of the Town of Southold adopted a 2017 Capital Budget which includes a$9,400 appropriation for Personal Computers, Laptops, Printers, and Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 10 WHEREAS the Town's Capital Budget process requires a resolution to formally establish Capital Budget items in the Capital Fund, now therefore be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes the establishment of the followinlZ Capital Project in the 2017 Capital Fund: Capital Project Name: Personal Computers, Laptops, Printers Financing Method: Transfer from the General Fund Whole Town Budget: Revenues: H.5031.35 Interf ind Transfers $9,400 Total $9,400 Appropriations: H.1680.2.600.100 Data Processing Capital Outlay Workstations &Printers $9,400 Total $9,400 ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-166 0 Adopted ❑ Adopted as Amended ❑ Defeated Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ❑ Tabled — ❑ Withdrawn James Dmizio Jr Voter El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supervisor's Appt William P Ruland Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Jill Doherty Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rescinded Robert Ghosio Mover I 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Town Clerk's Appt Louisa P Evans Seconder 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt Scott A Russell Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Action ❑ Lost 2017-167 Tabled U17/2017 7:30 PM CATEGORY: Consulting DEPARTMENT:• Information Technology RPF for Computer Firewall Upgrades RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk's office to advertise for bids for Firewall Upgrades to all Town locations including but not limited to hardware, software, etc. as needed. ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-167 0 Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 11 ❑ Adopted as Amended James Dmizio Jr Mover 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Defeated William P.Ruland Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tabled Jill Doherty Seconder 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Withdrawn Robert Ghosio Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supervisor's Appt Louisa P Evans Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Scott A Russell Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rescinded ❑ Town Clerk's Appt ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt ❑ No Action ❑ Lost 2017-168 CATEGORY: Bid Acceptance DEPARTMENT.• Town Clerk Accept Bid on Used Generator RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby accepts the bid of Devino Trucks &Parts, 190 Doremus Avenue,Newark,NJ 07105 in the amount of$567.00 for a Used Generator. ,,'Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-168 0 Adopted ❑ Adopted as Amended ❑ Defeated Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ❑ Tabled ---- - -- ------0 ----- - - — --- ❑ Withdrawn James Dmizio Jr '7o—ter -0 -❑ ❑-- ❑ Supervisor's Appt William P.Ruland Seconder 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Jill Doherty Mover D ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rescinded Robert Ghosio Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Town Clerk's Appt Louisa P Evans Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt Scott A Russell Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Action ❑ Lost 2017-169 CATEGORY: Budget Modification DEPARTMENT• Accounting Create Capital Budget for Tax Receiver Collection System Upgrade Financial Impact: Create capital budget for Tax Receiver Collection System Upgrade Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 12 WHEREAS the Town Board of the Town of Southold adopted a 2017 Capital Budget which includes an$11,000 appropriation to upgrade the Tax Receiver Collection System, and WHEREAS the Town's Capital Budget process requires a resolution to formally establish Capital Budget items in the Capital Fund, now therefore be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes the establishment of the following Capital Project in the 2017 Capital Fund: Capital Project Name: Tax Receiver Collection System Upgrade Financing Method: Transfer from the General Fund Whole Town Budget: Revenues: H.5031.21 Interfund Transfers $11,000 Total $11,000 Appropriations: H.1680.2.300.300 Data Processing, Capital Outlay Town Clerk&Tax Receiver Tax Collection System Upgrade $11,000 Total $11,000 ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-169 0 Adopted ❑ Adopted as Amended ❑ Defeated — Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ❑ Tabled - ❑ Withdrawn James Dimzio Jr Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supervisor's Appt William P.Ruland Mover RI ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Jill Doherty Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rescinded Robert Ghosio Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Town Clerk's Appt Louisa P Evans Seconder 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt Scott A Russell Voter D ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Action ❑ Lost 2017-170 CATEGORY: Bid Acceptance DEPARTMENT.• Town Clerk Accept Bid- Truck for DPW RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby accepts the bid of Mullen Motors, PO Box 1408, Southold,NY in the amount of$33,000.00 for a 2017 2500 Series Truck for the Department of Public Works. Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 13 ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-170 0 Adopted ❑ Adopted as Amended ❑ Defeated Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ❑ Tabled James D --- ❑ Withdrawn m�zio Jr Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supervisor's Appt William P.Ruland Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Jill Doherty Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rescinded Robert Ghosio Seconder 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Town Clerk's Appt Louisa P Evans Mover 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt Scott A.Russell Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Action ❑ Lost 2017-171 CATEGORY.• Budget Modification DEPARTMENT. Human Resource Center Modifying Donation Revenue to Programs for the Aging Appropriations Financial Impact:No negative impact RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby increases the 2017 General Fund Whole Town budget as follows: Revenues: A.2705.40 Gifts and Donations $1,000 Total $1,000 Appropriations: A.6772.4.600.200 Programs for the Aging, C.E. Senior Trips and Excursions $500 A.6772.4.100.110 Programs for the Aging, C.E. Senior Program Supplies/Materials 500 Total $1,000 ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-171 0 Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ❑ Adopted as Amended -- - -- James Dmizio Jr Voter 0 ❑ ❑ El ❑ Defeated ❑ Tabled William P.Ruland Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Withdrawn .till Doherty Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supervisor's Appt Robert Ghosio Mover 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Louisa P Evans Seconder 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Rescinded Scott A Russell Voter 0 0 0 ❑ Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 14 ❑ Town Clerk's Appt ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt ❑ No Action ❑ Lost 2017-172 CATEGORY.• Local Law Public Hearing DEPARTMENT: Town Clerk PH 2128 4:31 Pm - Chapter 245 WHEREAS,there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York, on the 14t1i day of February 2017, a Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Chapter 245,Taxation in Connection with Authorizing Exemptions from School District Taxes for Cold War Veterans and RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold,New York, on the 28th day of February,2017 at 4:31 p.m. at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. The proposed Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Chapter 245, Taxation in Connection with Authorizing Exemptions from School District Taxes for Cold War Veterans" reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 2017 A Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Chapter 245,Taxation in Connection with Authorizing Exemptions from School District Taxes for Cold War Veterans". BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: I. Purpose. The New York State Legislature has amended the New York State Real Property Tax Law to authorize School Districts to permit a tax exemption for Cold War Veterans upon approval of the School District. It is the intent of this local law to incorporate this Amendment in the Southold Town Code so that it is consistent with the New York State Real Property Tax Law. 11. Chapter 245 of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: 4245-18. Cold War Veterans Exemption. Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 15 F. The exemption allowable under this Article may be extended to taxation of School Districts if the governing body of the School District in which the property is located adopts a resolution providing such exemption as provided in Section 458-b(2)(d)(i). Any Such resolution shall be provided to the Town of Southold Assessors' Office on or before March 1 for the assessment roll issued within the year. III. SEVERABILITY If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,the judgment shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall apply to assessment rolls prepared on the basis of taxable status dates occurring on or after January 1, 2017. This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by law. ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-172 R1 Adopted ❑ Adopted as Amended ❑ Defeated Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ❑ Tabled James Dmizio Jr Mover D ❑ 01 ❑ ❑ Withdrawn ❑ Supervisor's Appt William P Roland Seconder � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Jill Doherty Voter D ❑ 11 Robert Ghosio Voter D ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rescinded ❑ Town Clerk's Appt Louisa P.Evans Voter El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt Scott A Russell Voter El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Action ❑ Lost 2017-173 CATEGORY. Attend Seminar DEPARTMENT. Building Department Training RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby grants permission to Chief Building Inspector Michael Verity and Roger Richert to attend a seminar on Solar PV Permitting and Inspection Methods in Hampton Bays, on February 28, 2017. All expenses for registration and travel to be a legal charge to the 2017 Building Department budget (meetings and seminars). ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-173 0 Adopted - ❑ Adopted as Amended Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 16 ❑ Defeated .lames Dimzio Jr Voter ❑ ❑ ❑ Tabled William P Roland Seconder 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Withdrawn Jill Doherty Mover 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supervisor's Appt Robert Ghosio Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Louisa P Evans Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rescinded Scott A Russell Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Town Clerk's Appt ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt ❑ No Action ❑ Lost 2017-174 CATEGORY: Employment-FIFD DEPARTMENT: Accounting Accept Resignation of Dylan Hoyt RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby ratifies and approves the resolution of the Fishers Island Ferry District adopted February 6, 2017 that accepts the resignation effective January 30, 2017 of Dylan Hoyt, full time Deckhand, for the Fishers Island Ferry District. ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-174 0 Adopted ❑ Adopted as Amended ❑ Defeated Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ❑ Tabled - James Dimzio Jr Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Withdrawn ❑ Supervisor's Appt William P Roland Mover 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ El Tax Receiver's Appt Jill Doherty Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Robert Ghosto Voter 0 1111❑ ❑ Rescinded ❑ Town Clerk's Appt Louisa P Evans Seconder 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt Scott A Russell Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Action ❑ Lost 2017-175 C,4TEGORY.• Employment-FIFD DEPARTMENT: Accounting Appoint Ryan Healy Full Time Deckhand Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 17 RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby ratifies and approves the resolution of the Fishers Island Ferry District adopted February 6, 2017 that appoints Ryan Healy to the_position of full time Deckhand at a rate of$15.08 per hour effective February 16, 2017. ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-175 0 Adopted ❑ Adopted as Amended ❑ Defeated Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ❑ Tabled James Dmizio Jr Voter D ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Withdrawn ❑ Supervisor's Appt William P Ruland Voter D ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Jill Doherty Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rescinded Robert Ghosto Seconder 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Town Clerk's Appt Louisa P Evans Mover 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt Scott A Russell Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Action ❑ Lost 2017-176 CATEGORY. Contracts,Lease&Agreements DEPART1VIENT: Fishers Island Ferry District FIFD-Docko, Inc RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby ratifies and approves the resolution of the Fishers Island Ferry District Board of Commissioners dated February 6, 2017 in regard to Docko, Inc. ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-176 0 Adopted ❑ Adopted as Amended ❑ Defeated Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ❑ Tabled James Dmizio Jr Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Withdrawn ❑ Supervisor's Appt William P Ruland Voter D ❑ ❑ ❑ El Tax Receiver's Appt Jill Doherty Seconder � ❑ ❑ El Robert Ghosio Mover ❑ Rescinded D ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Town Clerk's Appt Louisa P Evans Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt Scott A Russell Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Action ❑ Lost 2017-177 Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 18 CATEGORY.- Authorize Payment DEPARTTW NT: Fishers Island Ferry District FIFD- Change Order 91 RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby ratifies and approves the resolution of the Fishers Island Ferry District Board of Commissioners dated February 6, 2017 in regard to Change Order#1. ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-177 El Adopted ❑ Adopted as Amended ❑ Defeated Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ❑ Tabled James Dmizio Jr Mover Rl ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Withdrawn ❑ Supervisor's Appt William P Roland Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Jill Doherty Seconder El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rescinded Robert Ghosio Voter El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Town Clerk's Appt Louisa P Evans Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt Scott A Russell Voter ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑' No Action ❑ Lost 2017-178 CATEGORY: Contracts,Lease&Agreements DEPARTMENT• Fishers Island Ferry District FIFD-Airport Lighting Project RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby ratifies and approves the resolution of the Fishers Island Ferry District Board of Commissioners dated February 6, 2017 in regard to the Airport Lighting Project. ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-178 El Adopted ❑ Adopted as Amended ❑ Defeated Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ❑ Tabled .lames Dmizio Jr Voter D ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Withdrawn ❑ Supervisor's Appt William P Roland Seconder Rl ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Jill Doherty Mover 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rescinded Robert Ghosio Voter R1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Town Clerk's Appt Louisa P Evans Voter R1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt Scott A Russell Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Action 0 Lost Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 19 2017-179 CATEGORY. Contracts, Lease&Agreements DEPARTMENT. Fishers Island Ferry District FIFD- Cross Sound Ferry RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby ratifies and approves the resolution of the Fishers Island Ferry District Board of Commissioners dated February 10, 2017 in regard to the Cross Sound Ferry. ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-179 0 Adopted ❑ Adopted as Amended ❑ Defeated _.___.____.___.___ _ _-i--- ----Yes/Aye No/Nay _ Abstain Absent - ❑ Tabled --- James Dimzio Jr Voter l Cif ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Withdrawn ❑ Supervisor's Appt William P Ruland ; Mover D ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Jill Doherty Voter i R1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rescinded Robert Ghosio Voter R1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Town Clerk's Appt Louisa P Evans Seconder El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt Scott A Russell Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Action ❑ Lost 2017-180 CATEGORY: Bond DEPARTMENT. Town Clerk Bond Release-Aries Estates Subdivision RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby approves, upon the recommendation of the Southold Town Planning Board and the Office of the Town Engineer, the release of the performance bond for Aries Estates (Tully)Standard Subdivision SCTM# 1000-22- 3-2 in the amount of$19,520.00, all in accordance with the approval of the Town Attorney. ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-180 * Adopted - -- --- - - - Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ❑ Adopted as Amended - --- -. ❑ Defeated James Dmizio Jr Voter 0 ❑ ii ❑ ❑ Tabled William P Roland Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Withdrawn Jill Doherty Voter El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supervisor's Appt Robert Ghosio Seconder 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Louisa P Evans Mover lZ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Rescinded Scott A Russell Voter z 0 0 0 Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 20 ❑ Town Clerk's Appt ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt ❑ No Action ❑ Lost 2017-181 CATEGORY.- Property Usage DEPARTMENT: Town Clerk Approve Relay for Life Event Financial Impact: Cost Analysis: $ 1010.72 RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold does hereby grant permission to the Relay for Life of Southold&the American Cancer Society to use all of Jean Cochran Park for their annual Relay for Life event from 8:00 a.m. on Friday, June 2 to 10:00 a.m. on Saturday June 3, 2017. This is an overnight event. Applicant has filed with the Town Clerk a One Million Dollar Certificate of Insurance naming the Town of Southold as additional insured. ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-181 EI Adopted ❑ Adopted as Amended ❑ Defeated yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent^ ❑ Tabled [I Withdrawn James Dmizio Jr Voter D El ❑ Supervisor's Appt William P Ruland Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Jill Doherty Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rescinded Robert Ghosio Mover RI ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Town Clerk's Appt Louisa P Evans Seconder 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt Scott A Russell Voter lz ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Action ❑ Lost 2017-182 CATEGORY: Employment-Town DEPARTMENT. Accounting Acknowledges Retirement Mark A. Zaleski WHEREAS,the Town of Southold has received email notification on February 13, 2017 from the NYS Retirement System concerning the retirement of Mark A. Zaleski effective April 22, 2017 now therefore be it Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 21 RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby acknowledges the intent to retire of Mark A. Zaleski from the position of Public Safety Dispatcher I for the Police Department effective April 22, 2017. ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-182 0 Adopted ❑ Adopted as Amended ❑ Defeated - - Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ❑ Tabled ❑ Withdrawn James Dmizio Jr Mover 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supervisor's Appt William P.Ruland Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Jill Doherty Seconder 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rescinded Robert Ghosio Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Town Clerk's Appt Louisa P Evans Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt Scott A Russell Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Action ❑ Lost Comment regarding resolution 182 SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: We are losing another talented worker to retirement. I just want to say that Public Safety Dispatch is a very difficult job. Mark has always done it with a great deal of grace and professionalism and I want to wish him well. COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: He has worked 30 years. That's a long time to do that job, he has done a good job._ 2017-183 CATEGORY: Budget Modification DEPARTMENT: Highway Department 2016 Budget Modification -Highway Financial Impact: to cover over expenditures RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby modifies the 2016 Highway Fund Part Town budget as follows: From: DB.5130.4.100.500 Parts & Supplies $2,750 DB.5140.2.200.100 Office equipment 250 Total: $3,000 To: DB.5110.4.100.200 Fuel &Lubricants $3,000 Total: $3,000 ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-183 0 Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 22 ❑ Adopted as Amended James Dmizio Jr Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Defeated William P.Ruland Seconder 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tabled Jill Doherty Mover i 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Withdrawn Robert Ghosio Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supervisor's Appt Louisa P Evans Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Scott A Russell Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rescinded ❑ Town Clerk's Appt ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt ❑ No Action ❑ Lost 2017-184 CATEGORY.• Field Use-Town DEPARTMENT.• Town Clerk Strawberry Festival 2017 Financial Impact:PD Cost analysis: $20,119.19 RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold does hereby grant permission to the Mattituck Lions Club to use Strawberry Fields in Mattituck, NY from Monday, June 12 through Monday, June 19, 2017 for the Annual Strawberry Festival and be it further RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold authorizes the Town Clerk to issue a Special Events Permit to the Mattituck Lions to hold its Annual Strawberry Festival at Strawberry Fields Mattituck, NY from Monday, June 12 through Monday, June 19, 2017 provided 1. They file with the Town Clerk a Two Million Dollar Certificate of Insurance naming the Town of Southold and the County of Suffolk as an additional insured; 2. Coordinate traffic control upon notification of the adoption of this resolution with Captain Kruszeski 3. No permanent markings be placed on town, county or state roads or property for the event; 4. Any road markings or signs for the event be removed within twenty-four(24) hours of the completion of the event. Some of the requirements for issuing a Special Permit may be waived. ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-184 0 Adopted - - — — - Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ❑ Adopted as Amended ❑ Defeated James Dmizio Jr Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Tabled William P Ruland Mover 0 0 0 0 Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 23 ❑ Withdrawn Jill Doherty Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supervisor's Appt Robert Ghosio Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Louisa P Evans Seconder, 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rescinded Scott A Russell Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Town Clerk's Appt ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt ❑ No Action ❑ Lost 2017-185 CATEGORY. Committee Appointment DEPARTMENT.- Town Clerk Audit Committee Appointment RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby appoints John Malley to the Town Board Standing Committee of the Audit Committee as a Community Member to serve at the pleasure of the Town Board without compensation for a one (1) year term of office to expire on February 14, 2018. ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-185 0 Adopted ❑ Adopted as Amended ❑ Defeated Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ❑ Tabled _ ❑ Withdrawn James Dmizio Jr Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supervisor's Appt William P Ruland Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Jill Doherty Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rescinded Robert Ghosio Seconder, 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Town Clerk's Appt Louisa P Evans Mover 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt Scott A Russell Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Action ❑ Lost 2017-186 CATEGORY. Employment-Town DEPARTMENT: Accounting Appoint Lester Baylinson Ordinance Inspector RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby appoints Lester Baylinson to the position of Ordinance Inspector for the Town Attorney's Office, effective February 27, Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 24 2017, at a rate of$54,815.93 per annum. ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-186 IZ Adopted ❑ Adopted as Amended ❑ Defeated — - - — - - Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ❑ Tabled ❑ Withdrawn James Dmizio Jr Voter 171 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supervisor's Appt William P Ruland Voter lZ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Jill Doherty Voter Ci ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rescinded Robert Ghosio Mover 1 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Town Clerk's Appt Louisa P Evans Seconder Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt Scott A Russell Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Action ❑ Lost 2017-187 CATEGORY: Contracts,Lease&Agreements DEPARTMENT: Town Attorney Memorandum of Agreement RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby ratifies and approves the Memorandum of Agreement between the Town of Southold and Employee#3862, dated February 14, 2017,resolving pending charges pursuant to Civil Service Law Section 75. ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-187 121 Adopted ❑ Adopted as Amended ❑ Defeated Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ❑ Tabled ----- ---- --- - --- - - - ❑ Withdrawn James Dinizio Jr Mover IZ ❑ El 0- ❑ Supervisor's Appt William P Ruland Seconder El ❑ El ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Jill Doherty Voter 21 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rescinded Robert Ghosio Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Town Clerk's Appt Louisa P Evans Voter Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt Scott A Russell Voter lZ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Action ❑ Lost 2017-188 CATEGORY. Contracts, Lease &Agreements DEPARTMENT: Town Attorney Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 25 Family Service League Agreement RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes and directs Supervisor Scott A. Russell to execute an Agreement with Family Service League of Suffolk County in connection with the 2017 Southold Youth Services Program in the amount of$33,000 for the term January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, this Program is funded in part by a grant from the Suffolk County Youth Bureau, all in accordance with the approval of the Town Attorney. ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-188 0 Adopted ❑ Adopted as Amended ❑ Defeated Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ❑ Tabled _ James Dinizio Jr Voter Ri Mo ______0 _ 0 ❑ Withdrawn - ❑ Supervisor's Appt William P.Ruland Seconder El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Jill Doherty Mover 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rescinded Robert Ghosio Voter El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Town Clerk's Appt Louisa P.Evans Voter 171 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt Scott A.Russell Voter D ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Action ❑ Lost 2017-189 CATEGORY.• Enact Local Law DEPARTMENT: Town Clerk Enact LL Chapter 275 &280 WHEREAS there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York, on the 17th day of January, 2017, a Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shorelines and Chapter 280 Zoning". and WHEREAS the Town Board of the Town of Southold held a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard,Now therefor be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby ENACTS the proposed Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shorelines and Chapter 280 Zoning" reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 2017 A Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Chapter 275 Wetlands Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 26 and Shorelines and Chapter 280 Zoning". BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shorelines Article I: Definitions; word usage. 275-2. Definitions; word usalle. A. Unless otherwise expressly stated,the following terms shall, for the purpose of this chapter, have the meanings as herein defined. Any word or term not noted below shall be used with a meaning as defined in Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged (or latest edition). [Amended 10-11-2005 by L.L. No. 17-2005; 12-18-2007 by L.L. No. 23-2007; 10-9-2012 by L.L.No. 12-2012] BANK-Land incline alongside a body of water. BLUFF- Land presenting Any bank with a precipitous or steeply sloped face along adjoinin a beach or a body of water. For the purposes of this chapter, a precipitous or steeply sloped face shall be a face with a slope of 20%or greater with a height of greater than 10 feet from the toe of the bluff. LIMITS OF BLUFF - The waterward limit of a bluff is the landward limit of its waterward natural protective feature. Where no beach is present, the waterward limit of a bluff is mean low, water. The landward limit is 25 feet landward of the receding edge or, in those cases where there is no discernible line of active erosion, 25 feet landward of the point of inflection on the ton of the bluff. The point of inflection is that point along the top of the bluff where the trend of the land slope changes to begin its descent to the shoreline. Chapter 280. Zoning Article XXII. Supplementary Regulations § 280-116. Building setback requirements adjacent to water bodies and wetlands. [Added 3-14-1989 by L.L.No. 3-1989; amended 11-24-1992 by L.L. No. 20-1992; 6-15-1993 by L.L. No. 8-1993; 12-15-2015 by L.L.No. 9-2015] Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the following setback requirements shall apply to all buildings or structures located on lots adjacent to water bodies and wetlands: A. Lots adjacent to a bluff as defined in Chapter 275 of the Southold Town Code along the following bodies of water; Long Island Sound, Fishers Island Sound, Gardners Bay, Block Island Sound and Peconic Bay. All buildings or structures located on lots upon which there exists a bluff Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 27 landward of the shore or beach shall be set back not fewer than 100 feet from the op of such bluff. (2) Exeept a otherwise provided i„ Q„b seeti„r, A 111 he-ee f all buildings e struetures leeated on lots adj aeopA to sounds shall be set baek not less than 100 feet fom the or-dinar-y high .,ter mark of said sound. Buildings or structures which are proposed landward of existing principal dwellings shall be exempt from the requirements set forth in Subsection hereof. B. All buildings or-sti:uetures located on lots upon w-hieh a bullchead, eener-ete wall, riprap of similar-stme4ur-e exists and w-hieh are adjaeent io tidal water-bodies Oiher-than sound-s shall be set baek not less than 75 feet fiem the bulkhead. The fellowifig exeepfiens (1) Buildings,- ie a proposoa landward of existing b,,,ildinga of Town Tfustees under- Chapter-qZ�, Wetlands and chor-elifie, of the Code of the Town of Southold. !2\ Deeks, ,,,l,an,esf pilings, b ea,-dwalksv stairs7 „ „adds7walkways an p � ier whieh are accessory and separate;fiem existing buildings or-aeeessor-y st-ruetufes-. Q All buildings and stfuetures located on lots adjaeent to any fFesh-water-bedy shall be set back not less than 75 feet from the edge of such water body er not less than 75 et fiffflm— the landward edge of the freshwater-wetland, w-hiehover-is greater-. The following exeeption will apply: (1) Lands whial, a of bulkheaded and a „bjeet to a determination by the Boar 1 of T.,,,,,, Trustees under-Chapter-qZS Wetlands and Shereline, of the Code of t Town of Southold. III. SEVERABILITY If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by law. ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-189 ❑ Adopted ❑ Adopted as Amended ❑ Defeated Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ❑ Tabled James Dmizio Jr Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Withdrawn William P.Ruland Seconder 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supervisor's Appt Jill Doherty Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Robert Ghosio Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rescinded Louisa P Evans Mover 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Town Clerk's Appt Scott A Russell Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt ❑ No Action ❑ Lost Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 28 2017-190 CATEGORY: Attend Seminar DEPARTMENT. Town Clerk Justice Training RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby grants permission to Justice William H. Price, Jr. to attend a seminar on Drug Court School in Saratoga,New York on March 8, 2017 through March 10, 2017. All expenses for registration, meals and travel to be a legal charge to the 2017 Town Budget (meetings and seminars) Al 110.4.600.200 & 300. ✓Vote Record-Resolution RES-2017-190 0 Adopted ❑ Adopted as Amended ❑ Defeated ---------- --- _. ._._...._. ____ ._.__. _____.,._--..- _____.______,..•__.________----__----_•-__ Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ❑ Tabled ❑ Withdrawn ------ James Dmizio Jr Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ — ❑ Supervisor's Appt William P Ruland Mover 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Tax Receiver's Appt Jill Doherty Voter 0 ; ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rescinded Robert Ghosio Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Town Clerk's Appt Louisa P.Evans Seconder 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Supt Hgwys Appt Scott A.Russell Voter 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Action ❑ Lost Motion To: Motion to recess to Public Hearing RESOLVED that this meeting of the Southold Town Board be and hereby is declared Recessed at 7:56 pm in order to hold a public hearing. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Louisa P. Evans, Justice SECONDER:Robert Ghosio, Councilman AYES: Dinizio Jr, Ruland, Doherty, Ghosio, Evans, Russell VI. Public Hearings 1. Set PH 1/17/17 7:32 PM Chapter 280 - Demolition History: 01/17/17 Town Board ADJOURNED Next: 02/14/17 Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 29 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York, on the 20th day of December, 2016, a Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Chapter 280, Zoning, in connection with Demolition" and NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold,New York, on the 17th day of January 2017, at 7:32 p.m. at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. The proposed Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Chapter 280, Zoning, in connection with Demolition" reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 2017 A Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Chapter 280, Zoning, in connection with Demolition". BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: 4 280-4 Definitions. DEMOLITION _Any removal of a structure or portion thereof, where the total cost of the reconstruction of the structure or portion thereof—that exceeds 75-50% of the total square footage market value of the existing structure before the start of removal. III. SEVERABILITY If any clause, sentence,paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,the judgment shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by law. RESOLVED THE Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby closes the public hearing on the proposed Local Law regarding Demolition at 7:38 PM. RESULT: CLOSED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Louisa P. Evans, Justice SECONDER:Jill Doherty, Councilwoman AYES: Dinizio Jr, Ruland, Doherty, Ghosio, Evans, Russell 2. PH 2/14/17 7:31 Pm LL Chapters 275 & 280 COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN,there has been resented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York, on the 17' day of January, 2017, a Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shorelines and Chapter 280 Zoning". NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold,New York, on the 14th day of February, 2017 at 7:31 p.m. at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. The proposed Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shorelines and Chapter 280 Zoning" reads as follows: Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 30 LOCAL LAW NO. 2017 A Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shorelines and Chapter 280 Zoning". BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shorelines Article I: Definitions; word usage. § 275-2.Definitions; word usage. A. Unless otherwise expressly stated,the following terms shall, for the purpose of this chapter, have the meanings as herein defined. Any word or term not noted below shall be used with a meaning as defined in Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged (or latest edition). [Amended 10-11-2005 by L.L. No. 17-2005; 12-18-2007 by L.L. No. 23-2007; 10-9-2012 by L.L.No. 12-2012] BANK-Land incline alongside a body of water. BLUFF - Land presenting Any bank or with a precipitous or steeply sloped face along adjoinin a beach or a body of water. For the purposes of this chapter, a precipitous or steeply sloped face shall be a face with a slope of 20% or greater with a height of greater than 10 feet from the toe of the bluff. LIMITS OF BLUFF - The watenvard limit of a bluff is the landward limit of its waterward natural protective feature. Where no beach is present, the waterward limit of a bluff is mean low water. The landward limit is 25 feet landward of the receding edge or, in those cases where there is no discernible line of active erosion, 25 feet landward of the point of inflection on the top of the bluff. The point of inflection is that point along the top of the bluff where the trend of the land slope changes to begin its descent to the shoreline. Chapter 280. Zoning Article XXII. Supplementary Regulations § 280-116. Building setback requirements adjacent to water bodies and wetlands. [Added 3-14-1989 by L.L. No. 3-1989; amended 11-24-1992 by L.L.No. 20-1992; 6-15-1993 by L.L. No. 8-1993; 12-15-2015 by L.L.No. 9-2015] Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the following setback requirements shall apply to all buildings or structures located on lots adjacent to water bodies and wetlands: Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 31 A. Lots adjacent to a bluff as defined in Chapter 275 of the Southold Town Code along the following bodies of water; Long Island Sound, Fishers Island Sound, Gardners Bay, Block Island Sound and Peconic Bay. All buildings or structures located on lots upon which there exists a bluff landward of the shore or beach shall be set back not fewer than 100 feet from the op�of such bluff. (2) Exeepti asother-wise provided in Subseetion irij-hereof-, all buildings yr structures located on lots adj aeant to sounds shall be set baek not less than 100 feet ffem the or-dinafy high water mark of said sound. Buildings or structures which are proposed landward of existing principal dwellings shall be exempt from the requirements set forth in Subsection hereof. B. All buildings or structures leeated on lots upon w-hieh a bulkhead, eonerete wall, r-ipr-ap of similar strueture exists and whieh are adjaeent to tidal water bodies other than setin shall be set baek not less than 75 feet from the bulkhead. The following eNeeptions apply- (1) Buildings whieh a proponod landward of existing buildings. (2) Lands whieh are not bulkheaded and are subject to a detennination by the Bea of Toyffi Trdstees Under Chapter- Wetlands and�7 1 of the Code of t > ' G. All buildings and strdetur-es leeated on lots adjaeont to any fiesl+water-body shall be set baek not less than 75 feet fiem the edge of sueh water body or-not less than 75 the landward edge of the freshwater-wetland, whiehever is greater. The following emeeption will apply: (1) Lands whieh are not bulkheaded and are subjeet to a deteEmination by the Boa -M Wetlands and Shoreline, of the Code of Tovffi of Southold. III. SEVERABILITY If any clause, sentence,paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,the judgment shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by law. I have an affidavit that this has been noticed on the Town Clerk's bulletin board and also an affidavit that this has been noticed in the Suffolk Times. That's all I have. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody like to address the Town Board on this local law? Joe? Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 32 JOE FISCHETTI: Good evening, Joseph Fischetti. I am a board certified structural engineer. I would just like to ask the Board what the goal was to making the changes to this local law? COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: Some changes were made about a year ago now and the changes that were made, the way the wording was ended up doing something we didn't expect and it included so many more properties that shouldn't have been included. Like creeks and things, so the word bluff incorporated every waterfront property. And so we wanted to make it a little more clear, the definition between bluff and bank and a lot of the section of 280 that was put in there before the Trustees existed, it was duplicating applicants to go to two different boards for the same thing. So a lot of this was taken out of 280 and just trying to clean up the code and update it and make it a little easier for people. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Just to clarify, one of the problems when we made those changes was the words bluff and bank became interchangeable and so people were going through a process and if a bank was indicated on a survey, there was never the intention of the Town Board to make someone go through ZBA relief against a bank, it was against a cliff or you know, so that was really what the intent was, to clean up an undue mistake we made that we felt put undue pressure on waterfront property owners. MR. FISCHETTI: I am still not understanding why the Trustees have to deal with banks and steep bluffs? Because the Trustees, the primary core, the core purpose of the Trustees are wetlands. There are no wetlands up on bluffs. Maybe there might be on a bank but there are no wetlands on bluffs. And to put this in the code, requiring the Trustees to handle areas that have no, that's not their primary goal. Secondly, to put in steep bluffs and cliffs in the zoning law, where this goes in front of the, I am not understanding that. This should be part of the building department, building on, in relation to bluffs should be a building department issue. It is part of the New York State building code, I have it right here. And it's part of the section under foundations, it has specific, it is section 403.1.7, footings on or adjacent to slopes. This stuff should be done by the building department not by the Trustees and not by the Zoning Board. Steep slopes are a building department issue and not a Trustees issue. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I think there is a misunderstanding. We didn't add cliffs or bluffs to the code, it has been there for a long time. What we had there was an unfortunate circumstance where they were interchangeable between blank.... MR. FISCHETTI: You are making your setbacks from the top of a bluff now. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: They have been there. They've been there for a long time now. COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: It's not changing the review that the Trustees do. MR. FISCHETTI: Okay. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: It's been the same for years. We are actually easing the code, not making it more onerous. Tom? Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 33 ROB HERMANN: Good evening. Rob Hermann. As many of you know, I am principal at EN- Consultants and I appear in front of the Trustees to make various applications related to wetlands and bluff setbacks. First of all, I can't tell you how elated I am that you are going to make this change because we have for a long time been struggling with the fact that the definition of bluff has not been quantified and it appears that you are now attempting to do that in lieu of the changes that had been made in 2015. So having dealt with dozens of these projects over the years, I want to make four or five suggestions related to this language because I have a pretty intimate familiarity of what the struggles are that come up with this section of the code and this is my one shot to offer you some input to make sure this comes out the right way. First of all, with respect to how the bluff definition is actually written, it says for purposes of this chapter and this is the proposed language, `a precipitous or steeply sloped face shall be a face of a slope 20% or greater with a height of greater than 10 feet from the toe of the bluff. I think what this means to say is where the top of the bluff elevation is at least 10 feet higher than the toe. What I am guessing this attempts to do is to try to quantify by the height of the bluff, so you don't end up with a four or five foot bank that is then called a bluff. So the language that is in here is actually not written correctly, because the relationship to the toe, the 10 foot relationship to the toe should be the top not the face. The second thing is and I see that Joe is here and I would defer to his knowledge to help me on this but since you are finally quantifying this, I do have a question with respect to what criteria was used to come up with these numbers? Typically with actual geologic bluffs, glacial bluffs, you see a difference of two or three vertical feet for every five feet of horizontal feet. You get a slope that's really closer to 40% on a true bluff. True bluffs are also much higher than l Ofeet. If a reasonably fit person can jump from the top to the bottom, it is probably not a bluff. We had a case before the Trustees about a year ago, where the whole case which had already been before the ZBA and was also before the Trustees revolved around whether this embankment that was above a seawall on the beach was in fact a bluff. And there was a guy, had to be in his late 70's, who showed up, he was a neighbor and he said I am so confused about this conversation about this bluff because I am 70 something years old and I drag my kayak up and down that hill all summer long, so I must be a lot stronger than I think I am if I can make it up to the top. So the height is probably not a realistic height, it probably should be higher. Again, it's really an arbitrary decision, what number you pick, but I am afraid if you keep it that low, you may end up with still having that problem that you are trying to eliminate. The other question is relates to the limits of bluffs. And this limits of bluffs is really a definition that is taken from your coastal erosion code and it says that the landward limit is 25 feet landward of the receding edge or in those cases where there is no discernable line of active erosion 25 feet landward of the point of inflection on the top of the bluff. The problem is you are now using these terms top of bluff and toe of bluff in these definitions but nowhere in 275 do you define what a top of bluff or toe of bluff is. If you are going to ask people to start to quantify what the slope of a bluff face is between the top and toe and also to calculate the height difference from the top of the toe, they are going to have to know what the top and the toe are. And this has created a source of ambiguity both at the top and the bottom over several cases I have handled and I will just give you an example of each. The Zoning Board and the Building Department have always enforced your 100 foot top of bluff setbacks from the top of the bluff. This landward limit being 25 feet landward from the top of the bluff, it's a coastal erosion definition, it is used to define what the full extent of the bluff actually is for the purpose of protecting a natural resource that's a natural protective resource under coastal erosion. It's kind Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 34 of a non sequitur with what you are doing. And it's worrisome because there have been times where someone has raised at a hearing well, if this house is supposed to be 100 feet from the top of the bluff, isn't the landward limit of the bluff 25 feet landward of the top of the bluff? You get into this almost insane, circular reasoning because under the landward limit, you are including in that definition the top of bluff. So I don't know if you can go back to the drawing board on defining what the landward limit is and I don't know that you have to but I think it should be made clear that you have a separate definition for top of bluff, so if somebody is reading chapter 275 or 280 and they understand that a pool or a garage or a house or whatever is supposed to be setback 100 feet landward of top of bluff, they understand that it is literally from the top of the bluff and not from the landward limit of the bluff as is defined here. It also creates a problem that there's no toe of bluff definition but that has never really come up before but it will come up now especially if you are defining the vertical height between the toe and the top, the reason I say that is because you have lots of properties on the sounds that have a revetment or a bulkhead that have been there anywhere from 5 to 75 years, so if you take a typical land survey where they show the top of the bluff, the toe of the bluff and the bulkhead, the typical land surveyor will show.the toe of the bluff being the natural, sandy bluff face that's behind the bulkhead but you could just as easily define the toe as the seaward toe of the wall being the beach, right, because if the bulkhead wasn't there, that's where the toe would be. So it's really your Board's decision as to what you want to define it as but you have got to define it as something because it can tell you right now, that's going to be the big fight, especially if you have a 10 foot or 15 foot definition, if a bulkhead is 5, 6, 7 feet tall, someone needs to know are we including the 5, 6, 7 feet of the bulkheading in that height calculation or not. Substantively, it should probably be the bottom of the wall because that is where the toe of the bluff would still be if the bulkhead wasn't there. But it would make sense to include that in there. so again,just in summary, it's fantastic that you are doing this but it is really, really critical that you cover these items because I see these coming up as a problem, I have seen them coming up as a problem for years and it's just gone haywire since you made the change at the end of 2015 because like Jill was explaining a few minutes ago, really you could take a bank that's as tall as this podium and really, you could call it a bluff, the problem is it then enables the Trustees to sort of interpret on the case by case basis whether they have an extra 100 feet of jurisdiction or not and I don't think it was the Town Board's intent to do that. The only other comment I would have is it looks like although you are changing, all those comments are related to 275, I only have one comment related to 280, it looks like you are going back to the definition of where you are associating specific waterbodies with the code. That's the way it always was, it was Long Island Sound, Fishers Island Sound and Block Island Sound and then I think and correct me if I am wrong, when you made the change in December of 2015,you just said any bluff associated with 275. So it's good again that you are putting these waterbodies back in and it looks like you are adding Gardiners Bay and Peconic Bay but you are not making the same change to 275, so now you have got these two different measurements in the two codes again that is going to create some potential unrest between your two sections of code because you may have a bluff that meets your height requirement and meets your face slope requirement under 275, so you are going to have the Trustees regulating a 100 foot setback but if it's on a body of water that you haven't listed in 280, then you don't have to meet that 100 foot setback under 280 which is the way it was for a long time and we just kind of worked with it but it's not really ideal. You should really have 275 and 280 married as closely as you possibly can. I mean, when you fixed the, I think when 275 Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 35 was fixed for the pool setback, you had a 50 foot bluff setback for a pool on 275 but 100 foot setback on 280. So you may want to just use the same language. If you want to tie it to the height and the slope and also the waterbody, I would say consider tying it to those same three things in chapter 275. Because I always tell Board's that I appear before, I don't really care what the substance is, I mean it should be correct and based on science obviously, but it's more important that people know what it expected of them, so that they can either, we can either create a code conforming design or we are knowing that we are creating a non-conforming design and have to get relief from the ZBA, the Trustees etc. The worst part of my job is thinking we are creating a code conforming design and then coming in and finding that something that we didn't think was going to affect us, was going to affect us. JUSTICE EVANS: Can I ask you a question on that? MR. HERMANN: Sure. JUSTICE EVANS: So the way section A is worded in 280, it says lots adjacent to bluffs and in 275 we defined bank and bluff. MR. HERMANN: Right. JUSTICE EVANS: You don't think that, because we are not talking about banks now, we were trying to keep out creeks. MR. HERMANN: That's right, but you are still creating, in this definition of bluff, you are still creating in 275 a quantifiable measures and you might have and I can think of some properties that exist on Mattituck Creek that would absolutely be 10 feet in height or more and would absolutely have steeper than a 20 percent slope. So the way you have got this written now, you are still going to end up with properties that are not on one of these five waterbodies getting sucked into the bluff setback under 275. Now one way to fix that would be to take this same language from 280 that specifically says, in other words, if here you define what a bluff is and then in 280 you say it has to meet the definition of a bluff but only if it's adjacent to these two waterbodies, 275 could just as easily and probably should say the same thing. It should say it has to meet these quantitative criteria but also be on one of these five waterbodies. COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: Can I interrupt you there? This is, with the Trustees and the bluff and the bank, the 280 is only for 280, those waterbodies. For 275 it's for all waterbodies. MR. HERMANN: That's right. So what's the rationale behind that? COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: The rationale is so we don't feel that 280 needs to be, you would just need to go to the Trustees and not have to go to, if we put that language into 280 that's in 275 then you are going to go to ZBA for all these properties. And that's what we are trying to alleviate. MR. HERMANN: I don't follow that logic. Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 36 COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: For this purposes. You still have to go for other reasons, for ZBA, whatever the building department says. MR. HERMANN: If you have got under 280, you are saying only bluffs adjacent to these five waterbodies would cause you to have to meet the 100 foot setback under zoning... COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: Under zoning. MR. HERMANN: Why not limit it to those same five waterbodies under 275? COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: Because then you wouldn't have to go anywhere. You would just go to the Building Department. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Can I.... COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: A lot of this 280, 1 personally feel that it doesn't even need to be there anymore because the Trustees review it. But we are trying to alleviate the double review. So you still have to... MR. HERMANN: You only have double review if you are not meeting the setback. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Can I jump in for a second? I don't think we should confuse jurisdictional authority with zoning authority. COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: Yes. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: This is meant to address zoning authority which would ultimately affect the ZBA. It was never the intent of this legislation to remove what's been around for a long time which is the administrative or jurisdictional authority of the Trustees. MR. HERMANN: But you are changing the definition of bluff under the Trustees code. In other words, you could, based on what you and Jill are saying, you could do what you are trying to do without messing with 275 at all. You can put in whatever bluff definition you want under 280 and say if it affects, all I am saying is I am looking for consistency between the two codes. If it is your intention to still allow the Trustees to regulate bluffs on any waterbody... COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: Yes. MR. HERMANN: But limit the ZBA scope only to specific waterbodies, then I don't have any objection to that. COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: That's what we are trying to do. MR. HERMANN: Fine, that's your decision. But what I am saying is, you're still, as a vehicle to get there, you're changing the definitions of bluff under 275 which if you are on one of those Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 37 five waterbodies, sucks you into 280. So you have to get these definitions right under 275. So you have answered sort of the ideological part of my question, which is fine. That's done. But the substantive part of it is still hugely important because it's not just the Trustees who is going to be using this newly defined bluff definition, it's also going to be the ZBA. So because you can have, you've got places on Long Island Sound where you know, you have got more of what you would call a low dune or a ridge type system as opposed to a bluff. COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: Right. MR. HERMANN: So all I am saying is, I hear you that you are really doing this to correct an issue in 280 but you are using the language of 275 as a catalyst, so while you are doing that please consider the things that I am saying because the Trustees are going to be left with this new definition and so you're still going to end up in a situation where the Trustees, under the wetlands code, are regulating things as bluffs that aren't bluffs. COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: Can I give you some background of why we made some of the decisions? MR. HERMANN: Mmmhmm. COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: First of all, the bluff definition as it is now is a combination of bluff and limits of bluff, and I felt that limits of bluff should be separated out from bluff. And I also, in wanting to fix some of the major issues we have been having quickly, we discussed the Trustees will work on the definitions of limits and bluff and we know that needs to be tidied up and changed. So we are going to do that, the Trustees are working on that and we will correct that at a later date. But for these purposes we just wanted to separate it out from bluff. MR. HERMANN: And I hear you, I completely hear that. All I am saying is, that within your definition of what a bluff is, you're using the terms top and toe.... COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: Yes. MR. HERMANN: You have to define what makes the top and what makes the toe, too. COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: I agree with you on that, that was the other thing that I spoke to Mike Domino and Jay Bredemeyer that they are going to clarify that as well because as you know, to come up with definitions for that that make sense and work with everything is a little more convoluted.... MR. HERMANN: It is. COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: So the Trustees are going to be working on those definitions as well. MR. HERMANN: Okay. And again,just the same thing in terms of the slope and the height.... Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 38 COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: And the reason we picked the height is because we couldn't come up with a height but we knew that was parallel to the DEC of your above 10 foot elevation, so we... MR. HERMANN: Totally unrelated. Just completely unrelated. Because the DEC actually, the 10 foot elevation contour jurisdictional limit for the DEC assumes that you are on a gradual slope, it assumes you are on a slope that's not steep. So if you have a steeper slope, let's say the top of the slope is say 25 feet in elevation, then their jurisdiction extends up to the top of that slope, so the way their code actually reads is it's 10 foot elevation on a gradual slope or up to the top of a bank, cliff, or a slope on a non-gradual slope and they don't have it codified but I think generally they use 15 or 20% to be non-gradual but not to define precipitous or what would actually be a bluff. So that would be my only question again, if you are going to quantify a bluff which I am so happy you are, just make sure that it is quantified in a way which actually resembles what a bluff should be which is going to be taller than 10 feet and it's going to be steeper than 20% slope. COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: Right. MR. HERMANN: So if you are saying these are numbers the Trustees are still going to be working on in the future, that's great but I mean, you are working on it now, why not get it right now and so you are not visiting it for the third time in three years, six months from now. you actually get it done.... COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: We have visited this more than three times. This has been going on for 8 years. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Just where the confusion came is, when we took the coastal erosion hazard mitigation line over from the state and the state, those definitions used bank and bluff interchangeably, and literally it is just a cut and paste to come over and didn't work and like I said, our goal is to ease that regulatory... MR. HERMANN: Right. Again, December 15 changes kind of sucked in anything and everything and this is a great way to resolve that but an even greater way to resolve it is by quantifying it and defining the top and toe which you have almost done. You are almost there. so again, it's years of frustration of getting a survey and you know, trying to help someone with a design and having to say, well, we won't know until we are in the middle of this whether the Trustees are going to call this a bluff or not. Sometimes if they don't like the project, it might be more likely that it's called a bluff. You get into these interpretations and you get into these ideologies and it's so much easier if you actually have something quantified in there because it takes all of the guess work out of it and people then can knowingly design something that conforms to the code or not. But at least they are not guessing, so they have invested in architects, consultants and engineers and $50,000 into a project and suddenly find out that what you thought was conforming isn't conforming anymore. Anyway, I don't want to talk you to death.... Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 39 SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: The essential components would be the toe definition, the bluff definition and maybe revisit the (inaudible) are those three critical? MR. HERMANN: Yes, basically adding the top and toe and then revisiting the slope and the height that actually creates the quantification. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. Thank you very much, Rob. We appreciate it. COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: Yes, as Rob knows, we have been dealing with it for a long time and it's interesting because when you look at it and you think this is such a simple thing to take care of,just a few definitions but we have gone round and round in many different meetings with many people in Town Hall and I dealt with it all the time, Jill and I when we were on the Trustees.... COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: It needs more work. COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: And I think that we put the 10 feet out there with the hopes that we would get that kind of input, that's what this is all about. MR. HERMANN: That's what I figured. COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: We needed a starting point, so... MR. HERMANN: Yes. It's a huge step in the right direction. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you, Rob. PATRICIA MOORE: Patricia More, I am a local attorney, I am also on the board of Southold Voice and so we have studied this, we want to thank on behalf of my clients Southold Voice, we want to thank you for bringing this back on. You had promised that it would be put back on because of the unintended consequences of the previous law created which was bringing all the creeks in where honestly there was no intent to bringing the creeks into a zoning setback definitions. So that's a great thing you are doing here. That cleanup is very necessary and we appreciate bringing it back on for a public hearing. I want to focus more on the zoning aspect, the 280 because I go regularly to the Zoning Board and when I go to the Zoning Board, this setback of 100 feet is going to drastically change the character of communities that are already established. And I will explain what I mean. For example, you have Nassau Point where all the properties for the most part have had their measurements taken 75 feet from the bulkhead. Most of the properties have bulkheads and that's how the community has developed. I would say 90 % of that community is developed, 99 %. About all you get now are the homes that maybe get replaced or reconstructed and what you find is that when you let's say you have the demolition and now we have a new definition of demolition in the code and it's going to be very simple to reach a demolition status on any property, particularly a house that was built maybe in the 70's, their square foot value is maybe $150 a square foot and now the square foot value is closer to $300 a square foot, the calculation is you don't have to spend very much before you are Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 40 considered a demolition. So even though common sense would tell me I am saving a lot of this, when you are applying the demolition definition it's truly going to be found to be a demolition. Now what you are going to find is that the entire neighborhood that has been completely developed, you are the one house that is going to be pushed 100 feet back from what is now the top of the bank or top of the slope. It is now 75 feet let's say or closer to probably 50 feet difference because you used to measure everybody's home from the bulkhead. So what I would suggest is if you are going to implement this 100 foot, I don't think it's necessary but if the choice is to implement it, I would suggest you add a provision into 280 which allows an average setback rule. The same rule that you apply for front yard setbacks when we adopted upzoning, we created an average setback because communities that were completely developed, if you had all the homes at 35 feet and now the code required 50, you should be able to develop in line with the rest of your community. The same should apply as you are developing from the top of the bank. That would ease up the zoning variances that might be necessary. It might eliminate zoning variances altogether. So it's a really important when you are dealing with zoning, create some form of relief, so that if you are in a completely developed community, you are not stuck being the sole guy out behind in what I call the tunnel effect, that you have these beautiful waterfront homes that are all in line and you look to the right and look to the left and everyone has built up and redeveloped and you are the last one in under this new rule, at least in Nassau Point, you will be building a house on the street. If you are in Cutchogue, the same thing. Really all the areas that have these bluffs. For the most part, bluff or properties, we use the term bluff but it's really not a bluff, the banks on the bay, Gardiner's Bay and the bay areas, those have been routinely been protected from erosion by bulkheads. That's why the code used to say 75 feet from the bulkhead because if you had a bulkhead, there was already an understanding that your house was being protected by that bulkhead. You have eliminated that now. so now you are disregarding whether the property has any protections whatsoever, you are just going to assume that the property has no protections, you are treating a property that has no bulkhead the same as a property with a bulkhead that used to be, well, we shouldn't do that and in fact, by not doing it and by pushing everybody to the top of the bank, you are going to be creating enormous variance requests and I can tell you that when I go to the Zoning Board and I have to ask them for an 80 % variance because everybody is at let's say 50 feet from the top of the bluff that has bulkheads because they have all developed at 75, I really have a hard time. It's a very difficult case, the Zoning Board makes me take everybody's setbacks and now we have a new law on the books, so please, if you are going to impose those kinds of drastic changes on developed communities, create an average setback. That's the easiest solution. I still think it's unnecessary to have the duplication we have in our code, you are now requiring the Trustees review everything, I know you are not trying to change that and the Trustees review all the properties that are now waterfront properties because most of them I would say that very rarely do you have properties that are 100 feet from whatever distance,jurisdictional distance you are creating. The only time this works is on the new subdivisions and we are already doing that. All the new subdivisions have 100 foot setbacks from the top of the bluff and vegetated buffers on the rest. These laws are only penalizing existing communities, so if you are going to go back and look at is, if you ask the Trustees themselves, they don't think they need to regulate 100 feet back from the top of the bluff, they were persuaded to do 75 when they first got the jurisdiction, so I would actually sit them down and ask them, do you really think you need this? Because many of the reasons that we used to have the Trustees involved was because we didn't have a drainage code Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 41 that prevented water runoff from running down the bank. That was a significant impact on the erosion of, water is a huge erosion effect on bluffs and banks. We have a storm water code, there are other, the state building code, we have a lot of protections now that weren't on the books at the time when the original laws were put in, so please take a look at that if you would. If you adopt the average setback, well, whatever setback you decide is going to be difficult but it won't be so traumatic and so difficult and costly for homeowners in existing communities. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you, Pat. Would anybody else like to address the Town Board on this local law? BRUCE ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting and we handle a fair amount of zoning cases and wetland cases and I want to say what Rob Hermann spoke of makes, I am in total agreement with, you totally should have that definition. I am also in agreement with what Pat Moore said because it wouldn't be terribly difficult to figure out where 100 feet from the top of the bluff is as properly defined. You have to ask yourself, if I enact this law, am I creating hundreds of non-conformities? Because I am of the view when you enact a law and you create all these non-conformities, now you have all the bay properties. I am thinking Reydon Shores would all be non-conforming. Paradise Shores would be non- conforming. Nassau Point would be non-conforming. Peconic Bay Boulevard, all of those homes there would be non-conforming. It's usually not the fault of the property owners that they are non-conforming, it is the fault of the law. So, I am a big fan of average setback rules and I have always thought and as a member of the community also, I live in Southold as you know, that someone's reasonable property expectation should be when they look right and look left, how big of a house should I have. You should have a house that fits into your neighborhood. That's not too big that overwhelms your neighborhood for example. Not setback terribly different from other properties and that's why this concept of an average setback makes a great deal of sense. It's easy to do because once we figure out how tall bluffs should be, I quite agree it should be more than 10 feet because that's not very much. I quite agree a 20 % slope is not something that's unmanageable or precipitous because a bluff is more like 35 or 40 % in there, but I think if you make those three adjustments, the bottom, the top and provide yourself with some sort of average setback, it's a fair rule and it's something that everybody should be able to live with because the town is developed. There are very few vacant waterfront lots left and I think people should have a reasonable expectation, they can build in line, the same quality, the same size, the same setbacks as what they find in their neighborhoods and I think the neighborhoods themselves would be better served by those kinds of regulations. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you, Bruce. Just a couple of questions, in the current, before the adoption of this law, the current setback for the ZBA review would be 75 feet. COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: Right. MS. MOORE: From the bulkhead. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: So what we are talking about is from the bulkhead? Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 42 COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: From a bulkhead. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I thought they had a setback from a bluff,too. COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: No,this particular... MS. MOORE: From the bluff was on the Sound. It was limited to the Sound. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: You know, the one thing I can say is I appreciate what everyone is saying and we can probably pull this law back and draft some changes. But I appreciate the community character and the average of the setback that's existing. There's a couple of issues and we really have to look at the larger picture and I am not suggesting we shouldn't consider what you are saying. But suppose the average setback is 17 feet? You know, zoning needs to mean something and the pre-existing, non-conforming status the goal over time was to bring t hose into compliance. Secondly, to take the average setback, you have to remember, people aren't building the average houses anymore. They are substantially different than what the neighbors to the left and the right are. You know, I don't know that you should be looking at them the same when you are going from, I mean, I grew up on Nassau Point, I know what's taking place. You have to factor that into the equation too, the nature of what people are building now especially on the waterfront is fundamentally different and you need to at least factor that into the equation somehow. I can appreciate what you are saying. MR. ANDERSON: You know, I get that but again, remember, if you adopt a law that makes everyone non-conforming because of the setback issue, it's really not the property owner's fault. It's not a properly, you should resist doing that and one way of doing that is make a study of the waterfront lots, it's easy to do. You know where the houses are, you can download those from Suffolk County GIS. I suspect we are going to come out of this with a defmition of tops and bottoms and slopes and all of that that are workable. It would be easy to figure out how many non-conformities you are going to be creating and I would suggest to you, if you are knocking out 90 % of the homes out there, it's not the 90%, you wind up with hundreds of non- conforming. Maybe that's what you want because you want to control the size but I am just saying... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I understand. MR. ANDERSON: It's probably not a great idea in many, many cases because we are talking setbacks here and if people can't realistically make those setbacks because the property is not deep enough, there has got to be some consideration for those folks. That's all I am saying. COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: I agree with you, Bruce, because as you know, I am familiar with most of the waterfront properties and I would say, I am going to be conservative and say 75 % of the properties won't fit into this, it's more than that. so I like the idea, maybe if the rest of the Board wants to keep the 100 feet and also put in there that the average setback that the Zoning Board can decide. If they want to use the 100 feet or the average setback and maybe that Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 43 would be something we can discuss further. But I agree, I have trouble with this 100 foot myself. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: The 100 feet can be discussed but I don't think we should start adopting terms like average setback. Maybe we need to look at reducing the impacts on non- conforming uses but if it's going to the ZBA, it's going to the ZBA. They have to look at the code as it exists and then determine for themselves what type of relief should be granted and not by prescription by town code. Well, we are going to send you to the ZBA and ZBA is going to calculate the average setback. We don't need the ZBA for that, so. MR. ANDERSON: You should and I am surprised Joe didn't say this, I am sure he would agree with me, is that in our experience with working with waterfront property owners and I am assuming quite honestly, this is about protecting a bluff as it is a natural resource, I think that's what is driving this, but you should understand that bluffs fail not because of the proximity of the house to the bluff mostly, most of the time they are impacted or they fail because a wave slams against that toe and takes out the toe of that bluff and then the bluff sloughs down. So it's not so much a setback, if I am thinking of protecting a resource, it's not so much a setback that I would be concerned about, it's protecting of that toe. A lot of properties, if they have a large beach in front of them, the beach will absorb the wave energy. Other places like Nassau Point, you have to rely on bulkheads because there is no beach, the water laps right up against the toe of the bluff but it has been my experience throughout my career is that when a bluff fails it usually fails because a wave slams up against the toe of a bluff. And you should keep that in mind, not so much a setback from a house at the top. MR. HERMANN: I just want to add one quick thing that kind of ties together what Scott, you and Bruce were saying, to remember to keep in perspective what the purpose of this particular setback is. It's really driven, it's an environmental setback that's built into the zoning code, into the wetlands code which is why it's so important to get the definition of bluff correct. Because if you are on a very tall, precipitous, steep bluff on Long Island Sound, there would be a lot of people who would argue with what Bruce just said and say it's just as important to keep those structures away from the top so when it does fail at the bottom, the house doesn't go down with it or if you have sort of this top down erosion, the house doesn't go with it. So for those instances, that's where it really is important to have the greater setback. And so like you said, maybe you don't want an average setback, purely an average setback so you get a 15% setback from the top of the bluff because that's not smart science either but maybe you have an average setback with a minimum if you are using an average setback rule. Something like that. but again, it really all comes back to getting the definition right because if it's a creek front property or a Mattituck Inlet property that has maybe a 12 or 13 foot hill and a six foot bulkhead behind it and it's not really a storm endangered area, you are not using this legislation to try to create 100 foot setbacks from the top of the hill. The wetland setbacks are what's important in those environments. So maybe some of those non-conformities get knocked out, the ones Pat and Bruce are talking about are getting added in, maybe some of those get knocked out if you get the basic definition correct. Don't make it too gradual of a slope, don't make it too short. Make it those real steep, dangerous environments that you are trying to keep houses as far back as possible. Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 44 SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you, Rob. MR. FISCHETTI: Let me get, I will address that because what I didn't get to before is that on the north fork and on Long Island with the gravel and sand that we have, I have found over the years that 37 degrees and probably two degrees either side of that is what was the sheer force,the internal sheer force of the bluff. That is the bluff face. That is what you find. So one in three slope or 20 degrees, that's one in three, is a stable slope. Even if you lose the toe, it will not go down. So just to help you with your definition, you need to be closer to 30 maybe 35 degrees and maybe steeper than that. Those are unstable. Anything over 37 are an unstable slope and it will lose. So you need to get closer to that. UNIDENTIFIED: What are your thoughts on height? MR. FISCHETTI: It's an arbitrary one. And any slope that's 37 degrees and loses even the bottom toe, it will collapse. So even a 10 foot slope will collapse. But again, you go back to the New York State building code, which again, tells you how far back. Which Bruce said, it's not where the house is and as an expert, I have been in front of the Zoning Board and I have always been asked will that swimming pool make that slope unstable? No. Will that house make the slope unstable, no. If it's behind the angle of repose, it will not affect it. So we need to look at what you are trying to protect here. On the Sound, you have the coastal zone erosion line which is a great line. They are telling you that coastal zone erosion line is back there because if you lose the toe, you are going to lose that. but in some of the other areas, you don't have that. you don't have that in Nassau Point. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Well, one of the things is, the concern of the town isn't that the house is going to make the bluff unstable, it's the bluff is going to make the house unstable. So, that's something we need to consider. Thank you very much. Benja? BENJA SCHWARTZ: I wanted to thank you for your comments and second them, Scott, that some of these new houses, bigger should be further away from the water. It's common sense. And I would like to agree with the suggestion that maybe we need a steeper than 20 percent. I was just playing with a little square piece of paper, which is 45 % if you fold it in a diagonal, if you fold it over again, that's 22 '/z %. And that's still a pretty low slope. While I was listening, I was going on line and I think in Michigan they define it as a 33 %, above the 33 % which would be in line with what Mr. Fischetti was saying. But in any case, I encourage you to be conservative and if 37 is the stability point engineering wise, go with something lower. Same with the distances of the setbacks, property owners can always apply for area variances and they are not that difficult to get, much easier than use variances but if you just permit them to build close to the top of the bluff without any review, we will continue to lose the beauty of our shorelines and the safety of our shorelines and in fact, what has been continuing to happen in recent years is more and more rock revetments seem to be more popular. And they are not friendly to beach goers, rocks. Or to beaches. They are known to cause erosion, possibly they protect the land upland of the rock revetment but the beach shoreward, seaward, of the rock revetment is endangered by these structures. So I would like to speak on behalf of conservative and stricter regulations. Thank you. Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 45 SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you, Benja. But I do want to say for the record that at 8:45 February 14, 2017, Benja said I did something right. He agreed with me. I am having cake in the office tomorrow. Would anyone else like to address the Town Board? Yes, Marie. MARIE BENINATI: Marie Beninati, speaking as chair of Southold VOICE. I would like to thank you, I would like to applaud you for responding to the concerns of the property owners and for the people in Southold Town and for acting on it in a very timely way. So, hope you will finish this session because we all would like to celebrate Valentine's Day but thank you again. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Would anybody else like to address the Town Board? (No response). RESULT: WITHDRAWN Closing Comments Supervisor Russell SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anyone like to address the Town Board on any issue? Benja Schwartz BENJA SCHWARTZ: Before I begin on the subject I came to speak about tonight, one last thing about the bluffs, most of the bluffs I am familiar with, I have sailed all over the place here; are not uniform height. They tend to slope down towards the one end very low and the other they are very high. And I think the 10 foot is a reasonable minimum below which something would not be a bluff but maybe you might consider an average height along the property, length of the property, shoreline or something like that if the height is uneven. COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: That's what I was thinking during this discussion and I am wondering if our engineering department can do the mapping and get an average height of the bluffs around town, so that's something we can look into. MR. SCHWARTZ: Jill, we agree today, too. Can you believe it? COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: Yes. COUNCILMAN DINIZIO: It's Valentine's Day. MR. SCHWARTZ: And I am happy to be here with you on Valentine's Day or any day. I was looking at the agenda this morning, unfortunately I couldn't be here for the work session. The work sessions are still not being recorded? Am I correct? Or are they being recorded that we can access? COUNCILMAN DINIZIO: We are waiting on some money. Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 46 MR. SCHWARTZ: We are working on it. There's no recording done by the Town Clerk's office? None at all? COUNCILMAN DINIZIO: Not audio recording. MR. SCHWARTZ: Waiting for some money on it, huh? I don't know how much it costs but meanwhile, we are kind of stuck if we can't get to the meeting in the morning, if we work or whatever. I wonder if someone can fill me in a little on updating the role and specific tasks of the Land Preservation Committee? COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: Basically we are going to, the Land Preservation Committee is going to take some time, put together basically a report that tells us what they are doing now, what they have traditionally done, what they feel their role is and perhaps some changes that may need to be made for them to address things that really weren't thought of when the original code was put together. Basically taking a step back and see how their role has evolved over the years since the original code was put in place. I have asked them to do that because the Town Board wants to be able to guide them and give them a sense of what we believe they should be doing. I felt that wouldn't be fair to do that without at least evaluating what they are currently doing and getting their input. MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, that sounds good. I see at the last meeting of the Land Preservation committee, there was an agenda item, Land Preservation Committee duties, review applicable code sections,prepare initial recommendations to Town Board. COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: Mmmhmm. MR. SCHWARTZ: So you are telling me they haven't done that yet? COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: correct. It's going to take more than one meeting. And that's why it was on the agenda as new business,now it will probably go into old business. MR. SCHWARTZ: I am talking about the Land Preservation Committee meeting. COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: So am I. MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. Even without more money though, if they do produce a report, hopefully it will be attached, am I correct? COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: Attached to what? MR. SCHWARTZ: Ms. Neville, it will be attached to the agenda? If it's discussed at a work session, you can still attach documents so the public can participate in some way, at least to know and to be able to review the material. COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: Oh, sure. (Inaudible) Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 47 MR. SCHWARTZ: Even if we can't get an audio. COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: Sure. MR. SCHWARTZ: Meanwhile, I think the focus on the Land Preservation Committee might be a little too narrow. You know, united we stand but we need balance of powers so there should be unity but there also should be, we shouldn't merge everything into one authority. I think what we have now with the Land Preservation committee and the Land Preservation Department appears to be similar to the mixup between the Planning Board and the Planning Department. But let's leave that one aside for now and just focus on if you are going to define roles of Land Preservation Committee, I think you need to also include definitions of the Land Preservation Department and the Land Preservation Coordinator, who plays, I believe, acts as a secretary and accepts directions given by the Land Preservation Committee and yet considers to be a separate entity. So that's something you might work on while you are working on that. Meanwhile, again in the interests of permitting the public to understand and possibly contribute, maybe we could update the folder, the document in Southold Town laserfiche entitled `The Town Board charges/duties of the Land Preservation Committee'. it doesn't seem to have anything to do with that topic. It was written in August 5th of 1992, it appears to be a page from Town Board meeting minutes or something discussing a property on Fishers Island. While it is mentioned it was brought to a committee called Land Preservation Committee, that was, there was no attempt here to, there was just an attempt to explain by the Supervisor at that time, it was not adopted as an official position or a policy or definition. I mean, I am certain that there was a point at which the Land Preservation Committee was formed and at that time there were specific duties, so maybe we could do some research and put them in laserfiche and you know, maybe even update, let people know.... COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: That's why I have embarked on this little project to begin with. I can't seem to find much of anything going way back to when the Committee was formed, aside from what's in the code. The code itself follows, establishes what the Land Preservation and the farmland preservation are there to do which in essence is administer CPF funds. The actual protocols and the procedures they should follow aren't codified and there really isn't a policy that I could find. So that's what brought this up. I want to see that that gets addressed, the same as you do. MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, not only that but the procedures that are currently being followed are not necessarily serving the purposes that were intended to be served. I am looking at the agenda again for the Land Preservation committee for February 7"' last week and I see a heading here- Inquiries for Uses or Structures on Preserved Property: None. It's not only hard to believe but I can think of one specific instance where there is already quite a controversy going on right now about someone who is using property in a way that many people believe is inappropriate. The review by the Land Preservation Committee of that use was, that was it. they said, okay, you call it agricultural, it's agricultural. Well, I think that.... COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: You realize that they are not in a position where they can approve or disapprove, correct? Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 48 MR. SCHWARTZ: They should not be. COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: Well, they aren't. Which is .... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I would suggest that the work that has... MR. SCHWARTZ: They do. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: ...essentially a budget, although we are ultimately the ones that spend the money, several million dollars in land preservation efforts each year, I would think that at the very least they have the right to review its structure to see if its consistent with the very covenants they put in place on the original purchase, so I understand Bob's point that the don't have that authority but I think they have that responsibility to look at the structure. COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: My point was that they don't have the authority to either be able approve or disapprove. And their perspective to say that it's either consistent or not consistent with the agreements that have been made and then it can move from there. There has to.... MR. SCHWARTZ: No, no, no, they cannot. If they say whether it's consistent or not with the agreements then they are essentially approving or disapproving. COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: No. MR. SCHWARTZ: And the way that they are doing it currently is without proper legal procedure. With no due process. So when things come before them, they don't have the facts and they are looking at a building and they do not consider the way that building will be used or have not, in this one particular instance that I am thinking about and I hope it's not endemic within the organization. COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: No, I've been involved in most of the meetings for the last three years and yes, the do take that into consideration and it was discussed.... MR. SCHWARTZ: That didn't happen with the Kaloski deed, the deeded development rights. There was no questioning, no investigation, nothing presented by the applicant. The applicant didn't show up. All they said was we are building an agricultural barn. Turns out it's a commercial garage. And not only that but the land is currently being used for purposes that I believe are not agricultural. So... COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: Well, that's a different issue. MR. SCHWARTZ: That is a different issue. COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: Sure it is. Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 49 MR. SCHWARTZ: And when does that come up and how does that come up and who does that go to because currently there is no one working on that. COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: Not necessarily, they come in and they go to the Planning Board or whatever it might be and they put together a proposal that they want to put an agricultural building. MR. SCHWARTZ: What if they don't? What if they just start doing things? COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: Well,then that's a good question. COUNCILMAN DINIZIO: That's code enforcement. You go to the code enforcement officer and he compares it to the code and violates them or doesn't violate the. MR. SCHWARTZ: If the deeds of development rights are not part of the code. COUNCLMAN DINIZIO: No, I am not... MR. SCHWARTZ: They are not codified. COUNCILMAN DINIZIO: I am talking about if he is building a building, you have a dispute... MR. SCHWARTZ: Who is talking about a building? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I think Benja's point is that the code enforcement is set up to enforce the code, covenants aren't to code, so what is the enforcement mechanism for those? MR. SCHWARTZ: Right. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I would agree with regard to that or any easement in Southold, particularly open space easements, we need to revisit how we are going to enforce those because they require inspections that probably aren't getting done because workloads are already too much but I would agree that the idea of covenants and easements needs to be a new focus of the town. COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: Inaudible. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Oh, I am not suggesting that they are not working hard but there's a lot of easements out there that even pre-date the members of that committee. COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: Oh, I am sure. That may be, yes. MR. SCHWARTZ: And this case that we have been discussing, it involves a deed of development rights which does two th ings basically, number one, it says you are allowed to farm, we want you to farm the property. Number two, it says you cannot do anything else. So t Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 50 hose deeds, yes, I would like to see some consideration and some action taken to develop some enforcement mechanism. There are also a problem with private easements because one of the way Southold Town developed before subdivisions were required, landowners would dedicate roads to the town and divide the property into sections or lots and sell t hem off. And many case, they would give rights of way that would serve the neighborhood. Of course, the people who live in the neighborhood have friends that live in other parts of town, it's not just, it's a public, even though they are private easements, they are, you know.... JUSTICE EVANS: If it's a private easement, it's not the towns easement. So it's really the homeowners that would have to take action on that. MR. SCHWARTZ: The problem is, if there's one homeowner then, okay, that's their problem. but if you have 20 homeowners, who is going to be responsible? And the fact is, that the town not only is not taking responsibility but is actually assisting some of the people that are trying to eliminate the public or this, the local public, you know, we have how many hamlets in this town? JUSTICE EVANS: Ten. MR. SCHWARTZ: You say ten? Okay. Whatever. I consider anyway, they are not officially separate places but yet we have hamlet study groups to try to (inaudible). I live next door to a property that is owned by the Fleet's Neck Property Owners Association. In that case, they do have an association. But the town still doesn't treat them the way, probably the town still favors the nearby adjacent property owner even though there's one single person that owns that property. That is what the town is used to dealing with and working with and that is the way the systems are set up. The legal systems. I am not blaming anybody for this, I just think we need to consider it to protect our community, we need to start thinking in the Town Attorney's office and the Trustees and Building Department, that when there is an easement that benefits most multiple properties in the neighborhood, there should be someone in town who is able to advocate for that. Possibly this is a duty the Land Preservation Department could take on, in addition to all the properties which the town is invested in, they could look at properties which benefit the public which the town doesn't own.... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: There are people in Southold that advocate. They are called civil attorneys. Because it's private property, I don't believe the town, not only do I think we have the authority, we probably, it would probably be inappropriate to mingle in the affairs of private property owners. I know what you are saying and one of the biggest problem is there is no identified underlying fee owner, so you have these layers of ownership and what happened was the developer sketched it on a piece of paper, submitted it years ago and never conveyed ownership of the rights of way but for the residents to use. MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, now we jumping a little from deeds of development rights, in the case of deeds of development rights, there is an owner of the fee conditional. There's no owner of the absolute fee. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Right. Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 51 MR. SCHWARTZ: The fee is conditioned on the presence of the development rights. When the owner does not recognize and honor and respect those rights, then it goes before town authorities, boards or departments that essentially try to apply the law and to be fair but there's nobody advocating even in the case where the town owns the development rights, we don't have anybody in this town government that is fighting for the public interest or the town's interest. When you get to a situation where's there's a right of way in a neighborhood and it provides access to a number of houses of, I don't think that there's a, I think that there's, I think that what would be ethical and fair and right would be for the town to have some agency of the town, the town is not a single agency, the town is not a single body and parts of the town are acting in ministerial, bureaucratic ways to apply the laws and other parts of the town the ZBA and Planning Board etc. and some of these others, Land Preservation committees are acting with more discretionary authority but there's no legal reason that I know why the town could not designate or create an agency under the local rule powers or perhaps take an agency that exists, like Land Preservation and authorize it to assist groups of people who have interests in real property that do not amount to fee interests. Do you understand what I am saying, Bob? Because you are looking like... COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: I understand, I am just not sure I am getting there with it. You know... MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, we will give you some time to think about it. COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: I am not, I don't want to become big brother here either. MR. SCHWARTZ: No, I am not asking for that. COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: So, you know... MR. SCHWARTZ: But you will consider it,then? COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: We should have a conversation about it. You know, when I put this together, I wasn't looking to have a referendum on the Land Preservation Committee. Just trying get a feel for where we are at and to see what the Town Board can do to guide them. Some of these other issues may very well be good ideas for us to talk about, so I am open to it. MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. Betty, have you looked for the resolution authorizing the Land Preservation Committee? TOWN CLERK NEVILLE: That is all there is, yes. MR. SCHWARTZ: You haven't found it. TOWN CLERK NEVILLE: We searched for each committee, board for charges for it and that's all that was found. Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 52 MR. SCHWARTZ: I wonder if anybody watching the TV tonight could figure it out. Okay, thanks very much for your time. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thanks, Benja. Would anybody else like to address the Town Board? (No response) I will say, I sent a memo to myself to put the issue of catastrophic loss on the agenda in two weeks. That's certainly worth a discussion. There might be some legal challenges. I seem to remember discussing this in the past but let's take it up in two weeks and see what we are looking at. COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: It's come up a few times in some of the decisions we have made with the Trustees and I have always been an advocate for folks that have had catastrophic loss because I experienced it myself when the house burned down. But there are laws that make it, you would be surprised at how much you can't do replacing catastrophic loss. COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: Yes, when Bob and I were on the Trustees we had a policy... Robert Dunn MR. DUNN: On the other side of that issue, the house we sold in Bayside, they left two studs up. I mean, different jurisdiction but I understand where you are coming from, too. Left two studs up... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: As soon as he got the rest of the house done, he pulled those studs out, so... MR. DUNN: Inaudible. Supervisor Russell SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: We will have a discussion in two weeks regarding catastrophic loss, okay? Motion to adjourn? Motion To: Adjourn Town Board Meeting RESOLVED that this meeting of the Southold Town Board be and hereby is declared adjourned at 9:12 P.M. T� l� Eli eth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk Southold Town Board Regular Meeting February 14, 2017 page 53 RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Louisa P. Evans, Justice SECONDER:William P. Ruland, Councilman AYES: Dinizio Jr, Ruland, Doherty, Ghosio, Evans, Russell