Proposed amendments to the Local Law CH. 275
August 9, 2007 by Paul Birman · Leave a Comment
This link will take you to the full text of the proposed amendment(s) to Chapter 275, the restrictions on construction along Southold’s waterfront. A public hearing is to be scheduled and when the date/time is known it will be posted here. Readers of this website and particularly waterfront property owners whose ability to construct and repair structures will be affected are urged to read this document (all 7 pages) and return here to leave comments below. Your comments will be conveyed to the town.
Thank you for taking the time to post the draft of Chapter 275 revisions that have been forwarded to the Town Board.
I think this is an important part of the legislative process and the folks who organized this group should be commended in that you have now created a “voice” to allow us elected officials to hear what you are thinking about those issues that affect you most. (I read the web site every day!)
The first thing I’d like to address to allay some fears concerning these proposed changes, is that this is only the beginning of the process. None of what you see is written in stone (yet!) and is subject to change based on feedback from the public, town board, lawyers, etc. The Trustees make the recommendations, then they are given to the legal department to translate into “lawyer speak”, and then are presented to the Town Board for comment. Then more changes are made, back to legal, and then out for the public comment period. Then more changes, back to legal and a final draft is made, etc. until the final law is passed. As you can see, there are even grammatical errors in this first draft that need to be corrected before the actual law is drawn up.
Secondly, there was a misinterpretation of section 275-11 A. (11) which says that new homes within the Trustee’s jurisdiction shall be limited to 10% of buildable lot coverage as per Chapter 280 (the planning code). Chapter 280 is currently 20% and the way the wording ended up didn’t convey what I believe the Trustees were really concerned about. As such AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, I spoke with the other Trustees yesterday and we agreed to remove this from the existing draft all together and address it at a different time.
Concern with additions to existing houses ultimately occupying too much lot coverage next to sensitive wetlands is something that needs to be addressed. This is mandated by the LWRP. As a matter of fact, a lot of the changes you see in the draft are to help make the Trustees code coincide with the LWRP. And love it or hate it, the LWRP is here to stay. As for me, I think the LWRP intentions are good, but the practicality of applying the policy is overwhelming, burdensome, and ultimately in need of tweaking to take into account property owners rights and existing zoning as prescribed by the town board, but this is another topic for another day!
In proposing changes to 275, it is my vision to help property owners on properties in the Trustee jurisdiction, navigate various permitting processes a little easier and in some cases not even need a permit where currently one would be needed. For example, we noted that currently a person would have to come in for a Trustee permit to replace siding on a home within 100 feet of the wetland line. On a home that has existed for years and needs routine maintenance, this seems a little ridiculous. So we are proposing that a permit not be needed.
As you can see by reviewing the draft, there are many issues to be addressed. As I see the group’s questions and concerns, I will try to comment from time to time. The dialogue you have been having amongst yourselves has been very helpful to me and I look forward to meeting most of you in the future. Unfortunately, I was in Connecticut when you last had a gathering.
Bob Ghosio Jr.
Southold Town Trustee
I am confused by the two dock definitions…what is the significance? Cat walk seems to be defined but not mentioned.
When it says “a permitted structure BY THIS CHAPTER”, is the intent to not grandfather a dock that was permitted a long time ago, 1980 for instance? Similarly, is the intent of the FUNCTIONING definition also to disallow the repair of a storm damaged bulkhead, dock, building etc?
The dock size limits make no sense in the real world of boating. Every lot and navigable body of water is different and the purpose of the dock is to reach the water so a boat can navigate there. This has to be a case by case agreement between the board and lot owner. Just like Fishers Island.
My biggest objection to the changes in Chapter 275 is that no distance from the wetlands boundary is specified for the buffer zone. I have constructed a pool and an addition to my house on a Soundfront lot in East Marion, which are over 100 feet from wetland boundaries and were out of the Trustees jurisdiction at that time. I have waivers of No Jurisdiction in writing from them, as well as DEC permits. Are these structures now within that jurisdiction? The proposed changes leave the distance solely to the discretion of the Trustees, and could change with each election. That’s not acceptable, and I don’t think that it would hold up in court. State laws (NYCRR) governing wetlands and buffer zones have clearly-defined distances.
In addition, at the instruction of Southold police, who were unable to enforce trespassing laws without it, I installed a simple rope fence well within my property boundaries, to define trespassing limits. I notified the Trustees at the time and was told they had no jursdiction over this activity. The fence has greatly helped me enjoy my privacy. However, the statement that no fences are allowed on the beach without defining distances encroaches on my property rights, which are not within wetland boundaries or state-specified buffer zones.
Am I now to be fined and have my rope fence removed? Is the town allowed to enter my property to do so? I think not, and will defend my rights accordingly.
Susan Melamud
One of the biggest issues that I see with the amendments to local law CH. 275 are some of the “opened ended” definitions and statements without any clearly defined parameters.
For example: “FUNCTIONAL … retains its purpose and use as determined by the Board of Trustees.” There are no clear parameters for the Trustees determination spelled out to base their decision. Appears to be a Carte Blanche authority with no apparent defined basis.
This thread continues throughout the document. Again for example: “NONDISTURBANCE BUFFER – An area [again not defined] designated by the Board of Trustees,…” Could it be one foot; 100 feet; 1/2 mile?
The intentions may be worthwhile but there is too much that is open ended for these amendments to be put in place!
As a professional who has to work with this code and advise on Chapter 275 I am pleased that the Trustees are addressing some of the problems of Chapter 275. Here are my comments based on “real world” permit issues and problems. I apologize for some editorializing but my frustrations with the process sometimes needs to be vented.
I recommend added language in [ ]
Add to Definition: [ Grandfather structures: docks, piers, wharf, getty, groin, dike, dam or other water-control device or structure constructed prior to 1985 trustee wetland regulations.]
I have several clients who have marine structures built in 60′s and 70′s – yet no grandfather permit is on record (in 1985 the Town went around in a boat to try to identify existing docks- many were missed). There is no procedure in place to get a grandfather permit. I have had to make unnecessary requests to make repairs to existing structure just to get a permit on record.
275-4 Exceptions (5) the ordinary and usual maintenance or repair (of same dimensions)of a [grandfathered] or a presently permitted by this chapter, and functioning, building, dock, pier, wharf, jetty, groin, dike, dam or other water-control device or structure.
275-5 Administrative permits: What about Long Island Sound property owners. When 275 was revised the Trustees added jurisdiction from top of bluff- Duplicating the 100 foot setback which requires ZBA variance applications. Now you have to go to both ZBA and Trustees. This has created conflicting permits between two agencies. Do you want Trustees to have more jurisdiction. Were waterfront property owners paying attention? This group had not been formed- now you have to fight to eliminate regulations.
Foot Note: Why imposing lot coverage maximums does not work- the Town Board adopted this one recently and it is creating problems for Sound front property owners. The most recent “lot area” definition has made every lot along the sound 1/2 of it’s original size. Your 1/2 acre lot on the Long Island Sound is now only 1/4 acre for development purposes assuming that the bluff bisects your lot. Lot coverage (Zoning allows 20%) of 1/4 acre is significantly restricted. A pool, for example, will likely result in exceeding lot coverage. This law was adopted to address large lots with wetlands- they adopted this law without exception so most Long Island Sound lots are directly affected because most lots are small if you no longer include the bluff and beach. Many have already been developed with homes which are now nonconforming. I assure you that just because you have a house does not mean you are assured “reconstruction” of the house. If you demolish or lose the house in a fire or storm- your likelihood of rebuilding in the same foot print is highly unlikely. Fighting to get back what you lost is a very expensive and difficult battle.
275-11 Trustees should give notice to the owner that the fence “impedes” access- give the owner an opportunity to resolve the issue before Court action and certainly before Trustees unilaterally remove a structure. I had a case where the Trustees approved a distance for the fence, the owner believed she knew what that distance was, the code enforcer read the permit differently and it took three attempts to get this distance approved.
Court actions are expensive for both the Town and client- Trustees should give a “warning” in all cases. Often times the situation can be resolved cooperatively. As written this section of the code creates a very adversarial relationship with the property owner. Also this can lead to abuse between neighbors.
(10) access paths- some lots have right-of-ways for others to pass. There are many Long Island Sound water front and Bay front properties which have right-of-ways for associations. They may have community stairs or community docks- or worse- the waterfront owner has a dock or stairs already and now the association can not have access because of the “one” access rule. This was a flaw in the original code, rather than correcting the flaw it is being repeated with docks also.
(11) deleted 10% limit of development. (see my previous comment)
p.5 [1] Residential Docks
[a] only one dock catwalk or mooring is permitted per residential lot. This has been a problem already- Trustees should take the opportunity to correct the current code.
only one dock catwalk or mooring, [except if required by an easement to provide a dock catwalk or mooring access to others]
275-16 Violations- failure to comply with a permit may be an innocent mistake. You go through the expense and delay in getting a permit and when your contractor does the work something is not right. Easily remedied- not so. The Trustees has been very aggressive in code violations- the Judges no longer have discretion on the fine and this change will require you to pay the minimum fine of $1,000.00 (currently the fine for violations when you have a permit is $500) To most of us $500 is a lot of money. This is after you spent several thousand to get permits and build what you thought complied with the permit. If the Town was charged $1,000 if they made a mistake they may not be so willing to impose this fine on you.
There should be a difference in a fine based on culpability- remember this violation is if you have a permit.
I recommend that you push for warnings before violation.
Speak to your other waterfront neighbors- “quality of life” issues seem to be the catch phrase-
The Town Board and Trustees push Code enforcement (against you). Good for Lawyers bad for you.
Also- the Trustees will call the DEC and now you have not only the Trustees violation but a possible DEC violation with another $1,200 fine and months of delay. Innocent until proven guilty does not apply in Southold. Guilty until you prove your innocence
The time has clearly come for this organization to engage in a voter registration drive, to encourage summer property owners, who own the majority of waterfront property, to register to vote in the town of Southold. If every non-resident taxpayer elected to vote in town, we would finally be able to get rid of the corruption, mismanagement and cronyism that plagues EVERY decision that the Town makes.
Jim Haggerty – Southold
I concur completely with Ms. Moore. Her comments about lot coverage on all waterfront lots can not be stressed enough.
Jim Dinizio Greenport
When we went through the process of applying for a permit to build a seawall, we spent the greater part of 11 months trying to try to persuade 2 dissenting trustees that facing a high bluff with revetment vs. bulkheading would not work when facing a long reach. We begged, we pleaded to no avail and spent a fortune.
To make matters worse, we were obligated to lay sand on top of the steep revetment stone with several thousand beachgrass plugs – now think wind-blown moon tide – get the picture?. As we predicted, thousands of plugs (hence dollars) ended up floating in the bay. This past April storm jumped over the revetment and blew out the bluff. My trees are barely holding the vertical shear in place. We predicted this, yet, 2 trustees refused to accept expert opinion of a seawall consultant and a respected seawall builder. Here I am holding the bag as a result.
My children’s college fund is decimated and I am still waiting for a minor permit amendment (stuck in DEC) to secure the blown out bulkhead return. Its outrageous and immoral that the trustees (who are laymen after all) have the power to “design” seawalls in the face of expert opinion. Does a seawall builder tell a farmer how to plant his crops?
The public meeting to consider “A Local Law in Relation to Amendments to Chapter 275″ has been set for November 20th at 4:35 PM.
This date is just 2 days before Thanksgiving, when most of the people whom this law will affect will not be in town.
If you think this is an inappropriate date for the public meeting, please append your comments below. Let the folks in Town Hall hear your voice.
Paul
This is exactly what I thought would happen: schedule this to a time when most folks are not available to hear the discussion or comment. I will write a letter to the board and copy the SoutholdVoice and the Suffolk Times. I hope others do as well.
With little more than a month to go before the scheduled meeting, Join Southold Voice, make a committment to listen and educate your decision about this important amendment. If you are unsure about the wording, or implementation
LOG ON ask the question and the answer will be explained. Publish your comments and position. SoutholdVOICE is not organizied to influence your vote or position on an issue. We are here to share information, experiences and answer members’ questions. LOG ON, JOIN, and help us improve and maintain the shoreline resources of Southold Town.
Thank you for your involvment in this very important job of taking care of our enviroment while keeping a balance of our property rights. With that in mind the Board of Trustees has proposed the changes to Chapt. 275. I find your comments helpful. In proposing these changes, we tried to make our intentions clear. It is interesting and helpful to hear your perspective on how you interpet what we are trying to do.
I just wanted to make a few comments on what I have read on this site. First, I was at the worksession of the Town Board when the date for the public hearing was decided. I can assure you that we had no intention of making it more difficult for people to be heard. The thought of the holiday did not enter into any of our minds. The Town Board wants to finish the budget matter first. The first available date after the budget is done happens to be November 20th. This does not mean anything will be decided on the matter that day. I assure you if you request that the hearing stay open as to give people more time to reply, this request would be granted. We welcome your comments. After all this is your code.
After working on these changes for about 1 1/2 years the Board of Trustees submitted these changes to the Town Board months ago. Once these proposed changes became public, we posted them on our town website for all to review and comment. So please send your comments in.
In regards to the comments about buffers: Science tells us that for a true buffer to serve it’s purpose it should be 200 feet wide/long. If we put a fixed (“black and white”) buffer in the code it would probably be 200′. As you all know this is not practical. The board has these discretion areas in the code because each property is different. For example a property might have a 20 foot lawn to the water and we might determine a 5′ buffer is practical at the same time giving the property owner the right to utilize his lawn the way he wants. Other properties might be 100′ long and we might say 25′ of a non-turf buffer is what we want to see. The buffer areas are one way we are trying to mitigate stormwater runoff into our waters.
Again thank for you comments. I will try to get to this site more often.
Jill Doherty
Board of Trustees
For Tom Gleason: Re your 9/20/07 post, would you care to share with the citizenry the names of the two Trustees you referred to?