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
Comments ( 8 )