Comments on: How Big a Buffer? http://www.southoldvoice.com/2009/12/how-big-a-buffer/ Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:49:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: John Betsch http://www.southoldvoice.com/2009/12/how-big-a-buffer/comment-page-1/#comment-210 John Betsch Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:19:39 +0000 http://www.southoldvoice.com/2009/12/how-big-a-buffer/#comment-210 At the Town Board meeting tonight, December 15th, Local Law No. 2009 entitled "a Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Minor Exempt Actions List of the Waterfront Consistency Law" was passed by resolution. The version passed, however, excluded section KK which had the Wetland Buffer Tables as well as some wording including the undefined term "a scenic viewshed important to the community" which were stricken from the passed version. These are to be addressed at a future date. To be continued ... At the Town Board meeting tonight, December 15th, Local Law No. 2009 entitled “a Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Minor Exempt Actions List of the Waterfront Consistency Law” was passed by resolution. The version passed, however, excluded section KK which had the Wetland Buffer Tables as well as some wording including the undefined term “a scenic viewshed important to the community” which were stricken from the passed version. These are to be addressed at a future date. To be continued …

]]> By: Dave Bergen http://www.southoldvoice.com/2009/12/how-big-a-buffer/comment-page-1/#comment-208 Dave Bergen Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:52:10 +0000 http://www.southoldvoice.com/2009/12/how-big-a-buffer/#comment-208 I thought that I would provide my perspective on this. I am sorry to hear that the entire LWRP Council has not met since July, as I thought that they had met and supported this proposed legislation. Let me start by saying that I commend the Town Board for their attempts to expand upon the list of projects which would be declared exempt from LWRP review. This supports the idea of trying to make the LWRP application process easier. And to his credit, many of the proposed actions put forward by Mark Terry were fine. Mark had forwarded a draft of this proposed legislation to the Trustees for comments I believe back in October. At that time I expressed my concern about the buffer table. My point then, as it was last week, was that once a recommended table is established, it can then possibly be used as a standard for the future. While I realized that this was not the purpose or intent of the proposed table associated with this particular proposed legislation, I was concerned and remain concerned that the use of the table will be expanded upon in the future. So I was simply suggesting the removal of the table from the legislation, and that the table could be used as best management practices when planning a project. Everyone realizes that the Trustees need to take into consideration not just the square footage size of the property, but the topography, the distance of current structures from the bluff or wetland boundry, the soil composition and other factors when determining appropriate buffer widths. As a side note, I also commended the Board for considering the exemption of pest control fencing, otherwise known as deer fencing, but recommended that they change the current code first. The current code does not allow for pest fencing down to the high tide mark. My friends have also noted that I spoke well considering that I had just gotten out of the hospital and was "highly medicated" on Tuesday night. Happy Holidays Dave I thought that I would provide my perspective on this. I am sorry to hear that the entire LWRP Council has not met since July, as I thought that they had met and supported this proposed legislation. Let me start by saying that I commend the Town Board for their attempts to expand upon the list of projects which would be declared exempt from LWRP review. This supports the idea of trying to make the LWRP application process easier. And to his credit, many of the proposed actions put forward by Mark Terry were fine. Mark had forwarded a draft of this proposed legislation to the Trustees for comments I believe back in October. At that time I expressed my concern about the buffer table. My point then, as it was last week, was that once a recommended table is established, it can then possibly be used as a standard for the future. While I realized that this was not the purpose or intent of the proposed table associated with this particular proposed legislation, I was concerned and remain concerned that the use of the table will be expanded upon in the future. So I was simply suggesting the removal of the table from the legislation, and that the table could be used as best management practices when planning a project. Everyone realizes that the Trustees need to take into consideration not just the square footage size of the property, but the topography, the distance of current structures from the bluff or wetland boundry, the soil composition and other factors when determining appropriate buffer widths.

As a side note, I also commended the Board for considering the exemption of pest control fencing, otherwise known as deer fencing, but recommended that they change the current code first. The current code does not allow for pest fencing down to the high tide mark. My friends have also noted that I spoke well considering that I had just gotten out of the hospital and was “highly medicated” on Tuesday night.
Happy Holidays
Dave

]]> By: John Kramer http://www.southoldvoice.com/2009/12/how-big-a-buffer/comment-page-1/#comment-207 John Kramer Wed, 09 Dec 2009 04:02:26 +0000 http://www.southoldvoice.com/2009/12/how-big-a-buffer/#comment-207 Just watched the meeting. Amazing! What propertyowner would know to attend a meeting about "Minor Exempt WCRL"! And the TB said it was advertised! To top that, I heard it said that the LWRP Coordinating Council has already done its work on this! NOT! The LWRPCC must be a secret society, or the meetings are held in Mark Terry's head. How could it be that John Betsch, a member, was NEVER informed of all this work, NEVER received one meeting notice about this, and upon his hearing about it asks for a copy and it isn't sent. The answer to the secret planning to pass this is to attend the 12/15 meeting and make it public: ask a question about every phrase, sentence and definition, demand that this be a clear positive change for the propertyowner, every word of it, demand that advertised public notices be intelligible to the public, so that the public can attend and be heard. It is incredible that the ONLY member of the public in the room was Gail Wickham! Thank heaven for her! Thanks to Trustees Dougherty and Bergen who expressed their objections. Thanks to Al Krupski who didn't buy the "don't worry, we can change it later, if it needs correcting...." This kind of action is insulting to every taxpayer, not just waterfront owners who bear the burden of the LWRP. SEE YOU ON THE 15th at TOWN HALL! Don't forget to read the proposal on the Town Board link and if you want a copy of the LWRP and other regulations, SoutholdVOICE has them on a CD free for the asking. John Kramer Just watched the meeting. Amazing! What propertyowner would know to attend a meeting about “Minor Exempt WCRL”! And the TB said it was advertised! To top that, I heard it said that the LWRP Coordinating Council has already done its work on this! NOT! The LWRPCC must be a secret society, or the meetings are held in Mark Terry’s head. How could it be that John Betsch, a member, was NEVER informed of all this work, NEVER received one meeting notice about this, and upon his hearing about it asks for a copy and it isn’t sent.
The answer to the secret planning to pass this is to attend the 12/15 meeting and make it public: ask a question about every phrase, sentence and definition, demand that this be a clear positive change for the propertyowner, every word of it, demand that advertised public notices be intelligible to the public, so that the public can attend and be heard. It is incredible that the ONLY member of the public in the room was Gail Wickham! Thank heaven for her! Thanks to Trustees Dougherty and Bergen who expressed their objections. Thanks to Al Krupski who didn’t buy the “don’t worry, we can change it later, if it needs correcting….” This kind of action is insulting to every taxpayer, not just waterfront owners who bear the burden of the LWRP. SEE YOU ON THE 15th at TOWN HALL! Don’t forget to read the proposal on the Town Board link and if you want a copy of the LWRP and other regulations, SoutholdVOICE has them on a CD free for the asking.
John Kramer

]]>