Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBluffs - Chapter 275 & 280 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD PUBLIC HEARING February 14, 2017 7:31 PM Present: Supervisor Scott Russell Justice Louisa Evans Councilman William Ruland Councilwoman Jill Doherty Councilman James Dinizio, Jr. Councilman Bob Ghosio, Jr. Town Attorney Bill Duffy Town Clerk Elizabeth Neville This hearing was opened at 7:56 PM 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 17t day of January, 2017, a Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shorelines and Chapter 280 ZoninjZ". 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: 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. Public Hearing Ch's 275 & 280 —Bluffs page 2 February 14, 2017 $ 275-2. Definitions; word usal4e. 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 of with a precipitous or steeply sloped face along adjoining a beach or a body of water. For the purposes of this chqpter, 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 top of the bluff. The point of inflection is that point alongthe he 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 landward of the shore or beach shall be set back not fewer than 100 feet from the op of such bluff. /�\ ( ) Exeei t-as her-wise pr-oyided in S'GT'bseetion A(11.hereof, all buildings stnietufes leeated en lots adj aeont to sounds shall be set baek not less than 100 feet f+aM the ordinary high .,tom mark of aid 23 Buildings or structures which are proposed landward of existing principal dwellings shall be exempt from the requirements set forth in Subsection hereof. Public Hearing Ch's 275 & 280-Bluffs page 3 February 14, 2017 proposedsimilar- stmeture exists and whieh afe adjaeent to tidal water-bodies other-than sotm shall be set baek not less than 75 feet from the bulkhead. The following eNeeptions appb- 1....11......,..... ..E .....sting .,...._..„b.".. (2) Lands 1,' 1, are t 1, 11 17 aded andafe s bjeet to a d tPr.-..in t;...-. b y the Boa uv.,. a..1au ...vJ��� ry w ...�R1111111LLL1 Vll V�' alt JJ VK f Town Trustees under Chapter-2 Wetlands n Shoreline, of'tb (`ode of the LTV � ZIO�1 Lllt Code UL V l V T.,.,r., of C.,,,+b,,,1.7 Deeks, > pilings, v ewalkwas and , whieh are J separate a buildings G. All buildings and stmetur-es leeated on lots adjaee an),ffeshwater-body shall be se baek not less than 75 feet ffam the edge of sueh watef body or-not less than 75 feet the landward .l f the f h Y tar wetland,tl rl b+' bever- t The f 11 P<L11411U V 111 F. g exeeptio will apply: (1) T .l b,' 1, afe t 1, I1 b, rl a .lare j bt to determination by the Bo r 1 Shoreline,of Town Traistees under Chapter��Wetlands and of the Code of T.,.,r,-, 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? 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 Public Hearing Ch's 275 & 280 —Bluffs page 4 February 14, 2017 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? 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 Public Hearing Ch's 275 & 280—Bluffs page 5 February 14, 20,17 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 10feet. 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 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 Public Hearing Ch's 275 &280—Bluffs page 6 February 14, 2017 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 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. Public Hearing Ch's 275 & 280—Bluffs page 7 February 14, 2017 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. 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.... Public Hearing Ch's 275 &280 —Bluffs page 8 February 14, 2017 COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: A lot of this 280, I 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 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. Public Hearing Ch's 275 & 280—Bluffs page 9 February 14, 2017 COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: Can I give you some background of why we made some of the decisions? MR. HERMANN: Mmirih mn. 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.... 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. Public Hearing Ch's 275 & 280—Bluffs page 10 February 14, 2017 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.... 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. Public Hearing Ch's 275 & 280—Bluffs page 11 February 14, 2017 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 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 Public Hearing Ch's 275 & 280—Bluffs page 12 February 14, 2017 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 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- Public Hearing Ch's 275 &280 —Bluffs page 13 February 14, 2017 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? 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 Public Hearing Ch's 275 & 280—Bluffs page 14 February 14, 2017 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 definition 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 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 Public Hearing Ch's 275 & 280—Bluffs page 15 February 14, 2017 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. 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 Public Hearing Ch's 275 & 280—Bluffs page 16 February 14, 2017 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. Benj a? 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 %2 %. 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. 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). This hearing was closed at 8:48 PM a Eliza h A. Neville Southold Town Clerk Southold Town Board - Letter Board Meeting of February 14, 2017 RESOLUTION 2017-189 Item# 5.30 ro;'°f 1aa� WITHDRAWN DOC ID: 12772 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2017-189 WAS WITHDRAWN AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON FEBRUARY 14, 2017: 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 Zonina". 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 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 Afiy ban ^r eliff with a precipitous or steeply sloped face along Generated February 15, 2017 Page 40 Southold Town Board - Letter Board Meeting of February 14, 2017 adjoining a beach or a body of water. For the purposes of this chqpter, 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 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: A. Lots adjacent to a bluff as defined in Chapter 275 of the Southold Town Code along the following-bodies of water; Lona Island Sound Fishers Island Sound Gardners Bay, Block Island Sound and Peconic Bay. LD 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) Exeeept as eu , i de Subsection A/11 1, ''1 L,11 'ldi gn vD struetufes leeated eii lots adiaeeRt to sounds shall be set baek not less than feet from the ordinaryhigh late mark f said nr„ rl 23 Buildings or structures which are proposed landward of existing principal dwellings shall be exempt from the requirements set forth in Subsection AAM hereof. B. All buildings or structur-es leeated on lots upon whieh a bialkhead, eener-ate wall,r-iprap OF similar strdetuf e exists and whieh are adjaeepA to tidal water-bodies other-th--- -'e-ulad-9 shall be set baek net less than 75 feet from the bulkhead. The following ey-eeptions "1}�Y-- (1) Buildings Whieh are proposed laiidwar-d of existing build-i .,,.. (2) La-ads w-hieh are not bulkheaded and are Subjeet to a deteEmination by the Board of Town T +ees-under Chapter 7' Wetlands and Sher-elinf+-, Qra L Code of lea Town of setA1,.,1,1 > > > stairs, promenades, wallwiays and pier-s, G. All buildings and stfuet- s leeated on lots adj eent to any freshwater-body sha4I be , Generated February 15, 2017 Page 41 Southold Town Board - Letter Board Meeting of February 14, 2017 baek not less than 75 feet ffem the edge of sueh water-body or-not less than 75 feet the landward F:.1LULt1 -. The followingo emeeption will apply.: (1) Lands which are t b. lkheaded and are bj +to a detennination by the Bo r l f T-ovffi Trustees under Chapter 21S Wetlands and Shereli f the Code f the 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. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: WITHDRAWN [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Louisa P. Evans, Justice SECONDER:William P. Ruland, Councilman AYES: Dinizio Jr, Ruland, Doherty, Ghosio, Evans, Russell Generated February 15, 2017 Page 42 Reso 2017-289 SUMMARY OF LL/AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 275 "Wetlands and Shorelines"& CHAPTER 280 "Zoning" THE PROPOSED LOCAL LAW FOR WHICH A PUBLIC HEARING IS BEING HELD PROPOSES TO AMEND CHAPTER 275 OF THE TOWN CODE ENTITLED "WETLANDS AND SHORELINES" AND CHAPTER 280 ENTITLED "ZONING." THE PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT IS TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITIONS CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 275 AND WHERE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR LOTS ADJACENT TO BLUFFS CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 280 AR•E APPLICABLE. SPECIFICALLY, THE AMENDMENT IF ADOPTED WOULD AMEND SECTION 275-2 OF THE TOWN CODE BY AMENDING THE DEFINTION OF "BLUFF" AND ADDING DEFINTIONS FOR THE TERMS "BANK" AND "LIMIT OF BLUFF." IN ADDITION, IF ADOPTED THE LOCAL LAW WOULD AMEND SECTION 280-166A OF THE TOWN CODE SO THAT BUILDING SET BACK REQUIRMENTS FOR LOTS ADJACENT TO BLUFFS WOULD ONLY APPLY TO LOTS ADJACENT TO BLUFFS ALONG THE LONG ISLAND SOUND, FISHERS ISLAND SOUND, GARDNERS BAY, BLOCK ISLAND SOUND AND PECONIC BAY. THE FULL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED LOCAL LAW IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE AND ON THE TOWN'S WEBSITE t #13142 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Karen Kine of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1 week(s), successfully commencing on the 26th day of January, 2017. Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this day of 2017. UV STING VOLMSKI NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK No. 01V06105050 Qualified In Suffolk County My Caromib®lan Expires February 28,2020 pose of this chapter,have the meanuigs 1992;6-15-1993 by L.L.No.8-1993;12- the Board of Town Trustees under C-h r, as herein defined.Any word or term not 15-2015 by L.L.No.9-20151 2-75-wetlands - noted below shall be used with a mean- Notwithstanding any other provisions ing as defined in Webster's Third Inter- of this chapter,the following setback re- LEGAL NOTICE national Dictionary of the English Lan- quirements shall apply to all buildings I_ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING guage,unabridged(or latest edition). or structures located on lots adjacent to NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, [Amended 10-11-2005 by L.L No 17- water bodies and wetlands: from existing "ry 1 there has been presented to the Town 2005;12-18-2007 by L.L No 23-2007;10- A. Lots adjacent to a bluff as de- straetures: I I Board of the Town of Southold,Suffolk 9-2012 by L.L.No.12-20121 fined in Chapter 275 of the Southold E3 All buildings and struetures lo County,New York,on the 17th day of BANK - Land incline alongside a• Town Code along the following bodies eated on lots adjacent to any freshwater January,2017,a Local Law entitled"A body of water of water:Long Island Sound.Fishers Is- body shaR be set baek not less thatt 75 Local Law in relation to Amendments BLUFF Land presenting Any Hann land Sound,Gardners Bay,Block Islandor feet from the edge of sttelt water body I to Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shorelines or ehf€ with a precipitous or steeply Sound and Peconic Bay. not less than from - 'ward f and Chapter 280 Zoning". sloped face along adJeining a beach or a All buildings or structures located NOTICE IS- FURTHER GIVEN body of water. For the purposes of this on lots upon which there exists a bluff ever is greater.The foHowing exeeptte that the Town Board of the Town of chapter,a precipitons or steeper sloped - landward of the shore or beach shall be willpply Southold will hold a public hearing on face-shall be a face with a slope of 20% set back not fewer than 100 feet from the (1)Lands which are not bulkhea led the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold' or greater with a height of greater than top of such bluff. Town Hall,53095 Main Road,Southold, 10 feet from the toe of the bluff. New York,on the 14th day of February, LIMITS OF BLUFF-The waterward 2_75-Wetlands and Shorelme,of the 2017 at 7:31 p.m.at which time all inter- limit of a bluff is the landward limit of ted on: lots atbaeent to Code of the Town f Southold ested persons will be given an opportu- its waterward natural protective feature. 111.SEVERABILITY l nity to be heard. - Where no beach is present,the water- If any clause, sentence, paragraph, I i The proposed Local Law,entitled,"A ward limit of a-bluff is mean low water. eEsaid sarmd! - - section,or part-of1this Local Law shall Local Law in relation to Amendments The landward limit is 25 feet landward 23 Buildings or structures which are be adjudged by any court of competent } to Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shorelines of the receding edge or,in those cases - proposed landward of existing principal jurisdiction to be invalid,the judgment 4 and Chapter 280 Zoning"reads as fol- where there is no discernible line of, dwellings shall be exempt from there- shall not affect the validity of this law as { lows- active erosion.25 feet landward of the quirements set forth in Subsection Ail) a whole or any part thereof other than LOCAL LAW NO. 2017point of inflection on the top of the bluff. hereof the part so decided to be unconstitution- A Local Law entitled,"A Local Law The point of inflection is that point alone B Ali bitaldings or struetutes loeated al or invalid. in relation to Amendments to Chapter the top of the bluff where the trend of IV.EFFECTIVE DATE 275 Wetlands and Shorelines and Chao- the land slope changes to begin its de- - This Local Law shall take effect im- ter 280 Zoning". scent to the shoreline - _ mediately upon filing with the Secretary BE IT ENACTED by the Town Chapter 280.Zomne' of State as provided by law. Board of the Town of Southold as-fol- Article XXII Supplementary-Regu - --- not - from the Dated- January 17,2017 THE- lows: latis— —- - =BY ORDER OF THE- on Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shorelines 280-116. Building setback require- apply: TOWN BOARD Article 1:Definitions;word usage. ments adjacent to water bodies and wet- OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD §275-2.Definitions:word usage, lands I landward of exishng butidings Elizabeth A Neville A Unless otherwise expressly stated, , [Added 3-14-1989 by L L.No.3-1989; Southold Town Clerk the following terms shall, foc the pur- amended 11-24-1992 by L.L: No. 20- 13142-1T 1/26 STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold,New York being duly sworn, says that on the 20th day of January ;2017, a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy was affixed, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York, to wit: Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, 53095 Main Road, Southold,New York. Bid on Used Generator ILAda M Rudder Southold Deputy Town Clerk Sworn before me this 2e day of Januar , 2017. Notary Public SABRINA M BORN Notary Public,State of New Yolk No.01 B06317038 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires Dec.22,2018 LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN,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". 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: 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 er with a precipitous or steeply sloped face along adjoining 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 heightof 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 top of the bluff. The point of inflection is that point alongthe 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 y 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 landward of the shore or beach shall be set back not fewer than 100 feet from the op of such bluff. (2) Exeept as other-wise provided in Subseetion Atjhhereof-, all buildings o stfuetwes loeated on lots adj aeent to setmds shall be set back not less than 100 feet from the ordinary high water-mark of said setmd. L-31 Buildings or structures which are proposed landward of existing principal dwellings shall be exempt from the requirements set forth in Subsection AM hereof. B. All buildings or- s4uewres loeated on lots upon which a bulkhead, conerete wall, riprap or similar structure exists and whieh are adjaeentte tidal water bodies other than soun shall be set baek not less than 75 feet from the bulkhead. The following exeeptions (1) Buildings which are proposed!a-ndward of existing buildings. (2) Lands whieh are not bulkheaded and are subjeet to a detefmination by the Bea of Town T-nastees under Chapter-_> Wetlands and Sherelifle, of the Code of Town of Southold. st epilings, , > ides, walkways and piefs, G. All buildings and stmetufes leeated on lots adjaeent to any ffeshwater-body shall be set baek not less than 75 feet from the edge of such water-body or not less than 75 feet the landward edge of the freshwater-wetland, w-hiehever is greater-. The following exeeption will apply: ofTevffi Tfustees under- Chapter- 5M We eline,of the Code of cnv T-ovai 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. Dated: January 17, 2017 BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk Please publish on January 26,2017 and forward one affidavit of publication to Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk, Town Hall, P O Box 1179, Southold,NY 11971. Copies to: The Suffolk Times Town Board Town Attorney TC Bulletin Bd Website Southold Town Board - Letter Board Meeting of January 17, 2017 ��Su4yF°m" RESOLUTION 2017-125 Item# 6.29 °f+ "a ADOPTED DOC ID: 12713 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2017-125 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON JANUARY 17, 2017: 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". RESOLVED 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: 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. 4 275-2. 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 A-ii-N-bank-OF-eli4,,Nith a precipitous or steeply sloped face along Generated January 19, 2017 Page 37 Southold Town Board - Letter Board Meeting of January 17, 2017 a }t4+l g a beach or a body of x�'ater. 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 4F 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 lan&N and limit is 25 feet landward of the receding edge or. in those cases where there is no discernible line of active erosion 25 feet landy,-ard 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: 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. t a ethefwise provided, Subs +i„ n r1l h r-ee f, all •lubv uuuid' iign of struetufes leeated on lots adjaee-nt to sou-nds shall be set baek not less than 100 feet ffem+L erdi.,ary l,i,.1-, water-.,.,ark 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-str-uetur-es loeated on lots upon w-hieh a bulkhead, eenerete wall, riprap or- similar-stmetur-e exists and whieh are- adj aeent to tidal water bodies other than sounds shall be set back not less than 75 feet ffem the bulkhead. The following exceptions appy !1\ Buildings „hie are proposed landward rd of existing buildings. iga. Generated January 19, 2017 Page 38 Southold Town Board - Letter Board Meeting of January 17, 2017 (2) Lands whieh are nat bulkheaded and are c to udeterminationby the Boa of Town Trustees under Chapter Wetlands and Shoreline, of the Gode of the �7 Deeks,Town of Southold. st whan,es, pilings, bowdwalks, > ides, , whieh are 5 separate existing buildings C. All buildings and stfuetur-es leeated on lots adjaeent to my fteshwater-body shall be set baek not less than 75 feet from the edge of sueh water body or-not less than 75 feet the landward edge of the fieshwater-wetland, whiehever-is greater-. The follwA41ig exeeptio will apply: (1) Lands whieh are not bulkheaded and are subject to a detemination by the Board a '-Y of To n T- own under ChapTcrs�-Wetlands Shoreline, of+h Code f+ho Too„ 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. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Louisa P. Evans, Justice SECONDER:Robert Ghosio, Councilman AYES: Ruland, Doherty, Ghosio, Evans, Russell ABSENT: James Dinizio Jr Generated January 19, 2017 Page 39