Q1:Discretionary Decision Making

DISCRETIONARY DECISION MAKING: Does your candidacy support proposed changes that will replace existing prescribed measurements to waterfront construction with new language “At the discretion of the Trustees?” Do you believe these proposed changes would be helpful to future applicants for; Maintenance Repairs, Replacement Structures, and Storm related Damage?

(Candidate responses appear in the order in which they were received)

Bill Edwards:

Yes. The proposed changes actually relax many requirements (windows, siding, sashes, etc.). Moreover, reliance upon the judgment of an elected board will always deliver more flexibility in the interest of the property owner compared with operating through an appointed board such as the ZBA or Planning Board.
________________________________________

Jim King:

The Board of Trustees needs the ability to waive setback requirements as is now in place in our wetlands code. Every waterfront area is unique. One size does not fit all.
______________________________________

Bill Ruland:

The Town Trustees have been elected by the people and one of their responsibilities is to protect our town’s waterfront. Nothing should be done to limit these responsibilities. Establishing a single department to streamline the cumbersome application process for permits and approvals should be helpful to landowners.
______________________________________

Bob Ghosio:

I think the crux of the question is really whether one supports complete “black letter” law which prescribes every single detail pertaining to the usage of wetlands and/or near wetland areas (as the LWRP Coordinating Council is represented by its chairman to believe), or if one believes that the Trustee Board is elected to be the group of people responsible for deciding details based upon certain parameters and criteria. While “black letter” law would certainly make the Trustee job easier by eliminating any decision making and thus making them nothing more than an administrative board, I do not believe that is what the Trustee Board is meant to be. Trustees are elected to be stewards of the environment, protectors of publicly owned lands, and insurers of public access to waterways, maintainers of clean water and clean beaches, and adjudicators of wetland codes as determined by the Town Board. For me, that means some decisions have to be discretionary.

If the intent of the originators of the Trustee Board did not mean it to have discretionary powers, why would they have determined that five Trustees were needed? There wouldn’t be anything to debate. Clearly, some discretionary powers need to be available when it comes to deciding what a property owner can and cannot do with his/her property. This is, of course, is the whole concept behind zoning and a zoning board of appeals, for example. Well, this concept is the same whether the property is inland or riparian in nature. For riparian property owners, it is the Trustees who make the decisions using wetland code 275 and Coastal Erosion 111.The problem, I suppose, is that discretionary decision-making can lead to accusations of corruption and patronage but this is limited by the fact that the board has five members who would all have to be corrupt at the same time. The other problem is that discretionary decision-making always makes the people who do not agree with the decision angry. This generally leads to a move to insist on regulations that are written in stone. If we don’t like the decision, remove the powers of decision making altogether, right? This is where we are today with the LWRP debate. Unfortunately, if codes are written in stone, it usually means the erosion of all property rights. I do not support that. As far as Chapter 275 codes, I believe that the changes in Code 275 which are currently before the Town Board (see 275-4A) will be very helpful to applicants looking to do maintenance repairs, landscaping, and minor home improvements by eliminating the need to get a permit from the Trustees. As far as total replacement of structures and storm related damage, I believe the Trustees need to retain the right to be discretionary in determining how to do the repairs in the best way to reduce the possibility of further shoreline damage, and thus helping protect your rights, your neighbor’s rights, the needs of the wildlife and the community’s interest.

_______________________________________

Chris Baiz:

Yes and yes.

.

.

_______________________________________

Scott Russell:

The current Town Code while, including prescribed measurements, does already allow for the discretion of the Town Trustees to be the governing factor in the application process. In cases such as set backs from bluffs and bulkheads, the discretion of the Zoning Board of Appeals is also the governing factor. The discretion to say “yes” is also the discretion to say “no”, and that is problematic.I would support legislation and policy changes that outline criteria for all Town Boards to consider in the decision-making process. Policies should be based upon reasonable standards that factor in not just the environmental goals of the community but also consider the reality of circumstances as they exist. “Hard”set back provisions may be reasonable in some cases but completely unworkable in others. Good policy distinguishes between the two and clarifies the role of town government and reduces arbitrary and dogmatic decision making.

________________________________________
Dan Ross:

The existing prescribed setbacks set forth in section 275-3 of the Southold Town Code are discretionary. In any land use regulation there should be a set standard and then provision for the exercise of discretion when circumstances justify a relaxation of the standard. Section 275-3(D)(2) states, “The Board of Trustees reserves the right to waive or alter these setbacks where site-specific and/or environmental conditions justify such action.” When making a decision, the discretion lies with the governing body.If the present Town regulations governing the approval process for maintenance repairs, replacement of structures and the repair of storm related damage are too onerous, the reasons should be examined and then corrected.

__________________________________________

The following candidates were invited to respond to this question also, but chose not to do so by publication deadline: Vincent Orlando, Anne Trimble, Frank Wills. Everyone is encouraged to add their own comments and questions below, including all candidates.