Trustee Meeting July 23 2008
July 24, 2008 by John Kramer · 8 Comments
Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts
Trustee meeting notes of 7/23/08 5:30 -11 pm
I posed the following question to the Trustees during the work session, asking them to respond individually and in writing. I also gave them each a copy of Dunewood Truglia’s CD with the paginated LWRP and relevant Town Code.
Questions to the individual members of the Town Trustees:
We [SoutholdVOICE members] are concerned by the NOAA meeting entitled “Visual Impact Assessment of Small Docks, and Aesthetics Impacts of Small Docks. The DOS’ Steve Resler’s comments about zoning our waters for “passive” recreational uses, and Mark Terry’s dock work group, who are charged with crafting legislation to regulate docks in the sound and bay, seems to be an attempt to neuter the Trustee’s role.
1. How do you feel about this policy? 2. What good or ill do you think will come out of it? 3. Were Resler’s comments empowering or off-putting? 4. Do you agree or disagree with his rhetoric about property rights not being an important consideration to the policy? 5. Do you agree or disagree that we want to encourage “passive” uses, not active uses in our bay system? 6. Do you agree or disagree that boats are, in Resler’s words, “annoying and polluting?” Please click “comments” below for answers to these questions
Work Session:
The Dredging Committee gave the Trustee’s their priority list creeks to be dredged this fall/winter:
1 Sterling Harbor (this is a federal anchorage and all but 50′ of the entrance is Federal, so the county will probably not do this, the Feds will)
2. Mud Creek
3. Halls Creek
4. Budds Pond
5. Little Creek
6. West Creek
7. Brushes Creek
8. Corey Creek
9. Cedar Creek
Dave Bergen said that because we got so many creeks done last year, the County will be in Riverhead first then come to us and the other towns.
He also said the county purchased another dredge, but has no money in the budget to operate it.
There were two areas of concern that I noticed at the regular meeting,
First, there were about 4 applications that were tabled because the Trustees did not receive the LWRP consistency review. The process seems to be that they must wait 30 days for a review, after that they can go ahead and act without it. The problem is that while 30 days seems reasonable, the reviewer does not get 30 days because the Trustees don’t send the file to the LWRP reviewer the same date they receive it, So there may be a week or so lag when Scott Hillary, who seems to be the reviewer, stamps it in. It doesn’t seem fair to the applicant to have to wait another month for this piece of information because the file doesn’t get stamped in to the Trustees and Scott Hillary the same day, making the 30 day clock begin at the same time. One applicant last night had another 6 or 7 days remaining in the LWRP review allowance, so the Trustees could not process the application, causing another month of delay for the applicant. Why would both departments not start the clock at the same time?
The second issue is interesting and has great ramifications. An applicant applies for a permit for a renovation and all is well. The trustees, as a condition of approval, ask the applicant to demolish a structure on the property that is not in the application, is not being touched by the renovation, is not addressed in the application. Why? Peggy Dickerson said, “you could never get a permit to build that structure today, and we’re giving you a permit to do all that other work.”
At issue is this old deck, on top of a bulk headed bank that is probably over 30 years old. Because the Trustees say nothing is grandfathered, unless the owner has a permit covering that deck, it cannot be repaired. Why would the Trustees want this removed? I think because it is inconsistent with the LWRP, which does not view structures as “pretty.” I am told time and again that “things are changing” which means that what I think is “pretty,” things like boats, docks, decks overlooking the water, are really eyesores and should be removed so I can see the natural beauty of the landscape, which to me is boring and uninviting. The Trustees want non disturbance buffers at the top of a bank that is bulk headed. What could be more non disturbance than a deck? It seems the applicant now has to fight like hell to keep what, in my humble opinion is probably one of the most beautiful places on earth to watch the sailboat races and all the boating activity on Southold Bay. How or why one would be tied to the other is a HUGE problem for this applicant and will be a HUGE problem for anyone who lives in a house with anything built more than a few years ago. Why do the Trustees do this? I think, to bring it more into “consistency.” Why else? Think of your own property, any shed, BBQ, deck, close to the water? Do you have a specific permit for it? Could you get a permit for it? At what cost? What position would a buyer of your property be in with this structure? Will you have to repair it illegally? Most don’t know what LWRP stands for; don’t know where it came from, or why. It may now be read on our website.
There are decisions being made without your input. . . .
John Kramer
THE GREAT TRADEOFF
Bob Ghosio Jr. wrote, responding to the questions John Kramer presented at the last worksession:
This is a refreshingly candid and reasoned statement. However, I would note that past [and current] practice of Southold Town boards to engage in “ratcheting” [some would call it blackmail!] in an effort to extract, from applicants, agreement to carry out often unrelated actions as “the price” for application approval, make planning, on the part of the residents of Southold, difficult if not impossible. Want house changes approved? Agree to tear down a 30 year old waterfront deck! Want a 40 year old dock retroactively “approved” so that you can make repairs “legal”? Agree to tear up a 40 year old fence! Want a small storage shed approved? Agree to backfit gutters, downspouts and dry wells to your 25 year old residence! Etcetera, etcetera and so forth.
Realistic planning, on the part of Southold residents and potential future residents is being made impossible by the efforts of board members to “retrofit virginity”. It is impossible to plan, today, for the adverse impact, say ten years in the future, of board member efforts to retrofit not yet existing regulations upon projects to be completed this year. One can never have “a reasonable expectation”, relative to the impact upon existing structures and presently anticipated projects, of arbitrary future enforcement of regulations that do not yet exist.
The town needs to stop “retro” tradeoff ratcheting and concentrate on future looking fair and enlightened enforcement of presently existing regulations relative to current projects.
Dan Christianson
Bob Ghosio writes:
Hello All,
I cannot respond specifically to Mr. Reslers comments as I was out of town for both the NOAA meeting and the LWRP meeting. I can tell you my way of thinking. First of all I would like to say I ran for Trustee to represent the voice of the people. I believe the majority of the residents want to maintain the environment yet keep the right to enjoy the use of our waters. This is a balance I strive for with every decision I make. Including asking an applicant to remove a structure therefore making an environmental improvement to the property. You never know until you ask. Most of the time the applicant is receptive to the idea. When they are not receptive, I do respect their decision. What I am trying to say is I believe that we have to work together to do the best we can to balance what we have with what we want, while taking into consideration the overall picture of the effects of the action.
Mr. Resler has a right to his opinion, as everyone else does. However, he is only one person. Althought he respresents the state, that does not mean we have to adopt his personal views. The challange this Town has is to keep the Town the way it is yet foster the increase of population. I believe the Town needs to do a better job balancing mother nature and the population. After all people are part of the environment too. Unfortunately, this sometimes takes more legislation. With the help of groups like Southold Voice we can come up with something that we can all live with in order to keep that balance. The Town Board makes up the codes. The Trustees are charged with administering the code. That is why I feel it very important that the Trustees are part of this working group for the docks on the bays. There has to be a balance of property rights of not only the water front property owners but the inland owners as well. We all have the right to access our waters. Although we don’t have the final say, I think we can be that voice that needs to be represented.
I am a boater and have been all my life. I grew up on Gardiners Bay/Orient Harbor. To me it wouldn’t be Summer if I couldn’t be on the water. There are so many ways to enjoy the water. Yes, there are some people who need a lesson or two with the way they behave on the water, but isn’t that true for other areas of life? People have different interest. Some like boating, some don’t.
We as a communittee have to decide what we want for the future of our town and do the best we can to prepare for it.
Although I do not comment on this site often I do review it and I always remain available for any ideas, comments or questions.
Sincerely,
Jill Doherty
I will start off by apologizing for replying to the questions so late. I have also either been on vacation or swamped with responsibilities here at the College. I agree with most of what Bob and Jill have stated.
Let me start off by saying that I have grown up on Peconic Bay, learned to sail at Old Cove Yacht Club and currently keep a boat in New Suffolk. My college degree was in biology with an academic emphasis in marine biology, to include some graduate level coursework in fisheries biology. I have sailed our bays for many years, so I do consider myself very well aware of our waters from both a users perspective and an environmental perspective. By the way, the President recently signed the new clean water act which does NOT include the need for all recreational boaters to obtain a Federal permit for their grey water discharge system or their holding tank systems. But I digress. While I might not like very loud and fast boats, I do not find boats in general to be annoying. Technology has made excellent strides with addressing the level of pollution which results from boat engines. Add to this the new Federal law which addresses the requirement of holding tanks plus the Town’s purchase of two pump out boats and a local law which requires all marinas who are upgrading their facilities to include pump out stations, leads me to disagree with the statement that all boaters are polluters.
I believe that I have made my stance on some of these issues clear already. The town has now invited the opinion of several experts from the State who have all stated that “science” should not be used as a reason to ban docks in the bays. I feel that the Town Board should come up with a dock test similar to the one which the Trustees currently use in our consideration of applications for docks in the creeks, for docks in the bays, then leave it to the Trustees to grant or deny permits based upon these criteria. The zoning of the bays does have merit when taking into consideration all the different types of marine uses. I believe that a policy can be developed which can take into consideration the needs of the environment, the need for public access, what we would like our shorelines to look like and the rights of private property owners. Common sense should allow for this to happen. At the most recent dock meeting, a comment was made that as there are about 1000 lots on the water in our bays which do not have docks, there is the potential right now for 1000 additional docks being approved for the bays. The reality is that I do not see any local Board allowing this to happen.
I had worked with Steve Resler on dredging issues over the past several years. Steve is currently retired, so my understanding is that his current opinions are his own, not those of the Department of State. I hold him in high regard and find his input important. Saying that, I strongly disagreed with some of his comments made at the meetings. Government should not simply take a huge, lenghty comprehensive document such as the LWRP and use it to say no to everything. The information contained in the LWRP is very valuable when it comes to planning, and should be used as part of the consideration of permit requests. But I do not agree that the Town should use it to simply say no to almost everything, ignoring opportunites for mitigation. Property owners do have rights which should not be ignored.
I am pleased that the Town Board is including input from the Trustees as they continue to develop policy. This is very important as it will be the Trustees, unless the Courts or the Town Board determines otherwise, who will be using the policies to approve or disapprove permit applications. The input from Southold VOICE and every Southold citizen is also important. The value of yours and other’s input has already been demonstrated as what was first stated was the need for a total ban of residential docks has been amended as the group is now considering areas where docks might be OK. Thank you for requesting our input. As always, I remain available to discuss these or other matters with your members.
Dave Bergen
Southold Trustee
While I have already responded to the questions asked, I did want to make a couple of comments related to John’s reporting of the July meeting.
First, with regards to dredging. The County has not stated to me as fact that they will be dredging locations in Riverhead first, ahead of Southold. Last year, Southold was successful in getting ten locations dredged, while Riverhead only had one dredged. I believe that the County will be facing pressure to dredge some additional locations in Riverhead during the next dredging season.
Second, I agree with John on the issue of the LWRP consistency applications. They should be forwarded to the Planning Department’s attention when we get them, if the permit application is also submitted and complete.
Third, with regards to the deck in question. When we look at any proposed project, we see if we can bring it into compliance with current town code. The current code does not permit a deck to be built out over the edge of a bluff. We asked the applicant if they would be willing to remove it as a part of the permit application and they said no. We tried to talk them into it and they continued to say no. So we agreed to allow the deck to remain.
Dave Bergen
Town Trustee
With regard to the deck being “allowed to remain” I think (and please correct me if I am wrong) the parting words on this were that the applicant cannot repair one board, fix it in any way because it is not a “permitted structure” by the new definitions in Chap. 275 which are that the permit for each and every structure on your property within Trustee jurisdiction must be in the PRESENT OWNER’S NAME. I recall there may also be a flagpole there which is not permitted to the present owner. So yes, the board said it could remain, in its present state, as long as he doesn’t do anything to it, until the owner comes back for a permit, or an approval to repair. At which time the consensus of the board was that the deck would have to be moved back, modified or removed. If I am wrong please tell me what I misunderstood, I am not trying to make anything up, just to relay the salient points of the proceedings.
jk
Thanks and I will attempt to clarify. According to Town records provided to the Trustees, the deck was never permitted. The Town Code states that no work can be done on a non-permitted structure. So the owner is not allowed to do any work on the deck without first applying for a permit.
Please remember that the Town Board, not the Trustees, adapt and/or consider amendments to the Town Code. The Trustees must use the Town Code when making decisions.
Dave
Dave Bergen states
When was the deck built? When was the Town Code revised to state “that no work can be done on a non-permitted structure”? What exceptions are provided for and what is the penalty status of existing non-permitted structures?
If a structure was built prior to applicable “Town Code” and then an application for a permit is made, what version of “Town Code” is applicable to the permit application? What is the penalty status of the presently “non-permitted” structure?
Does the town maintain a detailed record of “Town Code” provision applicability vs date? Or is the “current” configuration of “Town Code” the only version that is maintained?
It has been stated that current position of the Town is that existing permits do not transfer with a transfer of property ownership and that a transfer to the new owner requires application for transfer, including (re)inspection and (re)evaluation. I have been advised that this “seems to run counter to general rule which provides that variances and permits affecting the land run with the land, not the person owning the land”. Please advise the details of any {new} policy regarding permit and variance durability.