Sams Club July 2009 Same Store Sales

Document Sample
Sams Club July 2009 Same Store Sales Powered By Docstoc
					                                         Southold Town Board                              53095 Main Road
                                                                                        Southold, NY 11971
                                                Regular Meeting                      southoldtown.northfork.net

                                                  ~ Minutes ~                           Elizabeth A. Neville
                                                                                          (631) 765 - 1800


Tuesday, October, 20, 2009                          4:30 PM                                   Meeting Hall


          Call to Order
          4:30 PM Meeting called to order on October 20, 2009 at Meeting Hall, 53095 Route 25,
          Southold, NY.


I.        Reports
     1.   Trustees Monthly Report
          September 2009

     2.   Program for the Disabled
          September 2009

     3.   Judge Bruer
          September 2009

     4.   Building Department
          September 2009

     5.   Zoning Board of Appeals
          September/early October 2009

     6.   Recreation Department
          September 2009

     7.   Human Resource Center
          September 2009

II.       Public Notices

     1.   NYS Liquor License Renewal
          Legends Harborside Ltd., d/b/a Legends, 725 First St., New Suffolk




Southold Town Board                                   Page 1                                   Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                    Minutes                           October 20, 2009

III.    Communications

IV.     Discussion

  1.    9:00 Am - Trustees
        Salt Water Fishing

  2.    9:30 Am - Phillip Beltz
        Update to Code Committee Discussion for Increasing Apartments and Affordable Housing
        Apartments

  3.    9:45 Am - Jim McMahon, Jamie Richter, Phillip Beltz
        Peconic School Renovation and IV-3, IV-4 and IV-5

  4.    Basketball Half Court in Cochran Park

  5.    Roller Hockey Rink Resurfacing at Cochran Park

  6.    Animal Shelter Guillotine Upgrade

  7.    Request for Reduction or Deferral of P&P Fee

  8.    Wate r Map in Orient Follow Up - Town Attorney Finnegan

  9.    Emergency Response Coordination - Per Councilman Krupski

  10.   Update on Meeting with Planning Board - Per Supervisor Russell

  11.   Blight Law?

  12.   Letter from Vito Minei
        re: SC Water Supply Map

  13.   Kace Annexation SEQRA Update

  14.   ZBA Office Vacancy

  15.   Budget

  16.   Executive Session - Update on Litigation
        Southwold


Southold Town Board                                 Page 2                                 Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                     Minutes                                  October 20, 2009
  17.   Executive Session
        Employment of Particular Person

        Pledge to the Flag

        Opening Comments
        Supervisor Scott A. Russell
        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I am sure, if you don‟t have an agenda, they will be available to you
        as quickly as possible. They are still working on printing them. I just want to clarify a couple of
        things before the meeting gets underway. First there are a couple of things that we need to do
        tonight that you might not see on the agenda. One is to adopt the preliminary budget of the Town
        Board. The final budget vote would be due, I believe, around the 20 th of November. So tonight
        we are passing the preliminary to get that out for public no tice and we are setting a public
        hearing on that. We also have three public hearings tonight, I know there are many people here
        for 7-11 tonight, convenience stores, wireless code and preservation purchase. Those will have
        their own time and place within the meeting in a couple of minutes. In the meantime, I am going
        to ask anybody that would like to come up and address any item as it appears on the agenda.
        You know what, let‟s get this meeting off. Please rise and join with me in the Pledge of
        Allegiance to the Flag. Okay, so I am going to ask anybody that wants to address any item as it
        appears on the agenda to please feel free to do so now. Can we notice the public hearing at this
        point? Can we get the public hearing on?

        JUSTICE EVANS: Before we even begin, I make a motion that we recess for the purpose of
        public hearing. We are doing the land preservation hearing soon because I think the family
        could only be here at the beginning of the meeting. Okay?

        After the reading of the resolution

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: What I would like to do now is, now that you have had the agendas
        and I realize that you have just gotten them but would anybody like to come up and address any
        issue as it appears on the agenda? Okay. Let‟s get some, yeah, we actua lly, the Town Board had
        been working up until about 5 minutes before the meeting started which is why the agendas are
        coming out late. A lot of the work that had been done needed to be included in the agenda, so
        we were trying to get caught up with the process. This was one of those days that the meeting
        started at 9:00 and didn‟t stop until this one started. They overlapped each other. Okay, I would
        like to get down to business and then we will address those public hearings.

        JUSTICE EVANS: Are you going to ask does anyone want to address the Town Board?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I asked them. Do you want to address the Town Board at this time?
        Marie?

        Marie Domenici, Mattituck
        MARIE DOMINICI: Marie Dominici, Mattituck. Can you hear me? Alright, I am looking at
        the agenda and it talks about the budget modifications contingent for copy paper.


Southold Town Board                                   Page 3                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                    Minutes                                 October 20, 2009
        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: What number?

        MS. DOMINICI: Copy paper.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: What number resolution?

        MS. DOMINICI: Oh, I am sorry. It is 851 on page 11.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I presume we are. That was a resolution submitted by your office,
        Betty? For copy paper.

        TOWN CLERK NEVILLE: Yes.

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Do you see this agenda? Is there any wonder?

        MS. DOMINICI: Well, I wanted to ask you, does the Town of Southold participate in shared
        services? Because….

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: We do to the extent that it will benefit us. We also, a lot of the
        shared service agreements through BOCES etc. they invariably end up in the same bid process
        which is through the state bid contract. So, you know, we do, every time we buy something look
        for the best deal and the best possibility to leverage our purchase power.

        MS. DOMINICI: Aside from the fact that this agenda is double-sided, is this a practice for the
        Town? Because this is a way to save, I don‟t want to look for a change but I mean, there has to
        be a way to look administratively how best to cut and still do your jobs.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I would, I wish you were at the budge t meetings because that is
        exactly what they have been doing every step of the way. But it is a point well taken.

        MS. DOMINICI: As far as the budget that will be coming out in November is it?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: We actually, I have the budget right now that I am going to notice
        for public hearing.

        MS. DOMINICI: Okay. If I can make a recommendation, when, the last time I came to a
        budget meeting, there was like for every cost that you have, there were like three or four lines
        that meant a lot to you guys but meant absolutely nothing to me as a taxpayer and for me to
        critique or even understand what is contained in those budget lines is really, doesn‟t give me
        insight to give you insight.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay.

        MS. DOMINICI: If there is any insight. Like the school district, if you look at their budget
        lines, their budget lines are very comprehensive. Almost to a fault. And I think it would
        behoove you to put that information out there, I realize it will use more paper.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: We actually have those budgets in detail and certainly anyone that
        would like one is welcome to ask for a copy. They are about that thick and they are very detailed

Southold Town Board                                  Page 4                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
        which is why we don‟t make them as part of the general distribution.

        MS. DOMINICI: Okay. another recommendation would be in the instance like either today or
        any other time that you have to hand out paper, maybe if you have a visual up for people to have
        a discussion about, it would be taking the papers on an as need basis, if in fact you have a visual.
        That may help or maybe I am just being silly…

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: No, it is a good point. Well taken.

        MS. DOMINICI: The other remaining topic that I would like to talk about, you have to let me
        know if it is open for discussion at this point is the cell tower renovation of the…..

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Right after we get these general resolutions out of the way, we are
        going to go to the public hearing on both the cell tower and the convenience store.

        MS. DOMINICI: Okay. Thanks for your time.

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: And as far as the paper goes, Betty‟s office has done a great job
        and so has the Supervisor‟s office, in reducing the amount of paper. Everything is electronic
        now. not everything but almost everything, so instead of going home every two weeks with this
        big stack of paper, it is all electronic. So they have made great strides in reduction.

        MS. DOMINICI: And I am glad to hear that. And you know what? For some people, they have
        to have paper in their hands and for others of us, you know, if you had a screen up here and you
        were talking about specific line items, then that might help reduce it and if people really have to
        have a copy, maybe you can email it to them and let them print it out. Okay?

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Mmmhmm.

        Benja Schwartz, Cutchogue
        BENJA SCHWARTZ: Good evening, Benja Schwartz, Cutchogue. I just got this thing. It is so
        hot, I can‟t hold it but resolution 862, I did happen to read that, I couldn‟t understand it. I could
        read it to you but I don‟t know what it means. It says in connection with relocation of a
        proposed pipeline.

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Right now, Suffolk County Water Authority, when the town
        purchased what was called the McFeeley property on the west side, I am sorry, the east side of
        Laurel Lake there was an agreement made with the Suffolk County Water Authority which owns
        a considerable amount of land further to the east to run an easement through there because they
        their access point is underneath the railroad, alright? So but for whatever reason, I wasn‟t
        involved with that, I am not sure why it was done but the easement is kind of a, it must use an
        existing road because it is kind of an odd curve and it goes around instead of going straight in.
        Now, the Water Authority wanted to change their easement in order to make a straighter run in
        so that if they have to run a pipe through there, they don‟t have to extend it out and come around
        and make a big turn and all of that. So the town has been negotiating with them through the
        Land Preservation and Town Board to accomplish that change and it did not, we didn‟t just
        rubber stamp this, we took, it took quite a few months actually to go through this process and one
        of the problems was the way the easements were written originally. The town had, I think 30
        days if the Water Authority wanted to get off their property, right now we use their property for

Southold Town Board                                    Page 5                                        Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                     Minutes                                  October 20, 2009
        trails and now we have got a much longer, I think a 30 year agreement with them. So we
        negotiated a much better agreement to use their property for passive trails. Got a considerable
        amount there.

        MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay, it is just the English of this. I don‟t know, it says something for use
        within the town trail system but I am satisfied with your explanation. It makes a lot more sense
        than this and I think I am happy with that one. If I could briefly touch on another subject right
        now, on the agenda there were items scheduled at 9:00, 9:30, 9:45 and then there was four other
        items before the water map in Orient. As you may remember, I got here at 10:30 this morning, I
        was busy with other business and at the end of the meeting you said you had handled the water
        map in Orient at 9:00. So are we going to hear tonight what happened at that….

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah, we had about 20 people from Orient that were here
        specifically to have a discussion about the water main in Orient and out of deference to them,
        rather than make them sit around for 1 ½ hours, we moved it to the top of the list. Actually, it
        was the second item we discussed. The first was salt water fishing licenses. But it was out of
        deference to them, so they wouldn‟t have to sit there for an hour and a half listening to painful
        discussions about all sorts of things.

        MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah and I agree with you doing that but now I would like, it is possible if
        you could fill us in on what was discussed?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes. On the Water Authority, yes, can I just, it is outside the
        boundary of the current agenda, would the Board allow me to just quickly clarify? Okay.
        Actually, we notified Suffolk County Water Authority that although Browns hills is part of the
        water map, the original water map that was declared by both sides, the county and the town,
        there is no reference in narrative or in map to transmission or distribution to Browns Hills. We, I
        called Steve Jones yesterday, told him it will be the position of the Town Board that they can‟t
        move forward on the water pipe without the town taking the legal process to amend the water
        map. That would require them formally requesting it of the town, that would require a public
        hearing and that would require a change, an amendment to the local water map. Mr. Jones
        accepted that yesterday, said they would not pose any opposition to that. Further he said that
        given the lack of community support for the program, the state of New York is rethinking its
        distribution of stimulus money to that particular project and he said the project at this point is
        best described as being in limbo.

        MR. SCHWARTZ: Glad to hear that. Too bad we don‟t have the time to talk about those banks
        that are using the stimulus money to build more banks. We need, you know, a bunch of them
        more. Thank you.

        Supervisor Russell
        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. Anybody else on the agenda items? (No response)

        Minutes Approval

        Tuesday, September 22, 2009

        Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Southold Town Board                                   Page 6                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                  Minutes                           October 20, 2009

V.      Resolutions
  1.    Resolution 2009-838
        Set Next Meeting 11/4/09 7:00 Pm

          RESULT:        ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:         Louisa P. Evans, Justice
          SECONDER:      Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman
          AYES:          Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  2.    Comments regarding resolution 838
        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: 7:00 PM, not 7:30?

        JUSTICE EVANS: Don't we have a budget hearing? Is that noticed? Do we have another
        resolution about that?

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: It is coming up.

  3.    Resolution 2009-839
        Audit Dated October 20, 2009

          RESULT:        ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:         Louisa P. Evans, Justice
          SECONDER:      Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman
          AYES:          Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  4.    Resolution 2009-816
        McCabe‟s Beach Timber Guardrail

          RESULT:        ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:         William Ruland, Councilman
          SECONDER:      Vincent Orlando, Councilman
          AYES:          Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  5.    Resolution 2009-840
        LIPA Workshop

          RESULT:        ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:         Vincent Orlando, Councilman
          SECONDER:      Albert Krupski Jr., Councilman
          AYES:          Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  6.    Resolution 2009-841


Southold Town Board                               Page 7                                Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                    Minutes                              October 20, 2009
        Budget Modification 2009 FIFID

          RESULT:         ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:          Albert Krupski Jr., Councilman
          SECONDER:       Vincent Orlando, Councilman
          AYES:           Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  7.    Resolution 2009-842
        FIFD Employee Resignations

          RESULT:         ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:          Louisa P. Evans, Justice
          SECONDER:       Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman
          AYES:           Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  8.    Resolution 2009-843
        Grant Permission to the Southold Elementary School to Use Certain Roads for Its Halloween
        Parade in Southold, on Saturday, October 31, 2009

          RESULT:         ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:          Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman
          SECONDER:       Albert Krupski Jr., Councilman
          AYES:           Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  9.    Resolution 2009-844
        Accept Grant from FEMA for FIFD

          RESULT:         ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:          William Ruland, Councilman
          SECONDER:       Vincent Orlando, Councilman
          AYES:           Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  10.   Resolution 2009-845
        FIFD Hire Chernoff and Diamond Actuarial GASB 45

          RESULT:         ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:          Vincent Orlando, Councilman
          SECONDER:       Albert Krupski Jr., Councilman
          AYES:           Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  11.   Resolution 2009-846
        Accept the Intent to Retire of Linda Kowalski


Southold Town Board                                     Page 8                                Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                    Minutes                              October 20, 2009

          RESULT:         ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:          Albert Krupski Jr., Councilman
          SECONDER:       Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman
          AYES:           Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  12.   Comment regarding resolution 846
        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: She will be certainly missed.

  13.   Resolution 2009-847
        Accept the Intent to Retire of Barbara Rudder

          RESULT:         ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:          Louisa P. Evans, Justice
          SECONDER:       Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman
          AYES:           Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  14.   Comment regarding resolution 847
        JUSTICE EVANS: She also will be missed.

  15.   Resolution 2009-848
        Grant Permission to Oysterponds School to Hold Its Annual Halloween Parade in Orient, on
        Friday, October 30, 2009 at 2:00 PM

          RESULT:         ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:          Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman
          SECONDER:       Louisa P. Evans, Justice
          AYES:           Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  16.   Resolution 2009-849
        Hamptons Collegiate Baseball

          RESULT:         ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:          William Ruland, Councilman
          SECONDER:       Vincent Orlando, Councilman
          AYES:           Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  17.   Resolution 2009-850
        Hamptons Collegiate Baseball




Southold Town Board                                     Page 9                                Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                     Minutes                                 October 20, 2009

          RESULT:         TABLED [UNANIMOUS]                             Next: 11/4/2009 7:00 PM
          MOVER:          William Ruland, Councilman
          SECONDER:       Albert Krupski Jr., Councilman
          AYES:           Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  18.   Resolution 2009-851
        Budget Modification from Contingent to Copy Paper

          RESULT:         ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:          Albert Krupski Jr., Councilman
          SECONDER:       Vincent Orlando, Councilman
          AYES:           Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  19.   Resolution 2009-852
        Appoint Adam West to Deer Management Task Force

          RESULT:         ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:          Louisa P. Evans, Justice
          SECONDER:       Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman
          AYES:           Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  20.   Resolution 2009-853
        2010 Yearly Town Bids

          RESULT:         ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:          Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman
          SECONDER:       Louisa P. Evans, Justice
          AYES:           Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  21.   Resolution 2009-854
        Establish Position - Part-Time Electrical Inspector Building Funding for Position in 2010 Budget
        No Increases for 2010 and 4% for 2011 and 2012 Per Csea Agreement of July 16, 2009

          RESULT:         ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:          William Ruland, Councilman
          SECONDER:       Vincent Orlando, Councilman
          AYES:           Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  22.   Comments regarding resolution 854
        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I just want to quickly clarify because we are hiring someone in a
        very bad fiscal climate, this position, typically there are two big companies that do electrical
        underwriting inspections. One of them is going out of business. There is a fee attached to these

Southold Town Board                                  Page 10                                      Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
        inspections. Southold Town hopes by hiring the part-timer to do it in house, we will be able to
        generate the revenue, each year we estimate at $50,000 to $60,000 for these inspections and
        make the process a little easier for local applicants who have a hard time getting these companies
        to inspect electrical work. We estimate the annual cost of the part-timer to be $25,000 so we are
        estimating our net to be $25,000 to $30,000 revenue for the year. We will eva luate it at the end
        of 2010 to insure that those goals have been met, if not, we are going to revisit the issue of
        continuing with the part-timer.

  23.   Resolution 2009-855
        Grant Permission to the Cutchogue Fire Department to Use a Certain Route for Its Annual
        Halloween Children‟s Parade in Cutchogue, on Saturday, October 31, 2009

          RESULT:          ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:           Vincent Orlando, Councilman
          SECONDER:        Albert Krupski Jr., Councilman
          AYES:            Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  24.   Resolution 2009-856
        Set PH for 2010 Budget

          RESULT:          ADOPTED [5 TO 1]
          MOVER:           Albert Krupski Jr., Councilman
          SECONDER:        Vincent Orlando, Councilman
          AYES:            Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Evans, Russell
          NAYS:            Thomas H. Wickham

  25.   Comments regarding resolution 856
        COUNCILMAN RULAND: I will have to say before I cast my ballot, this has been one of the,
        if not one of the most difficult part of anything connected with this job. I have never looked at as
        much paper, line items, figures, paper clips, everything that we have looked at as a Board
        collectively and having a tremendous time trying to figure out in the end is this going to be
        what's in the best interest of the people of the Town of Southold? At this point, I would say that
        that answer is yes and I cast my vote as aye and am also saying that between now and the
        adoption of the final budget that there are items that we may or may not look at and there are
        items in some people's minds are still outstanding.

        COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: I have to give the Supervisor kudos for his work on this budget.
        There was no meat on the bone, as a matter of fact, he took bone off the bone before we even got
        it and we shaved off maybe a little more bone but there was nothing there. So I have to give him
        credit, he did the hard work and left nothing on there except a few paper clips and maybe
        enough asphalt to do one road and a couple of pot holes. That is about it. Aye.

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I have to echo that, the comments of my colleagues, based on their
        hard work and the Supervisor's hard work. This is a budget that we have been actually working
        on since last year and this didn't just come up in the last month and it took a lot of hard decision
        making and it is, did we do the best we could? I think we did. I agree with Councilman Ruland.

Southold Town Board                                    Page 11                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
        Aye.

        JUSTICE EVANS: I also agree with them and vote aye.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I do not support this resolution and I would like to explain why.
        But I would like to begin by saying, I think it is actually overall quite a good budget and I also
        support moving this resolution towards a public hearing on November 4th, so the public can have
        its input on it. There is one particular provision that I object to and I wish, I have asked the
        Board to reconsider that one little item. The rest of it I am really quite pleased with. And that
        one item has to do how do we finance asphalting roads in this town? In my experience on the
        Board we have always put it in the operating budget. We haven't bonded for that, we have not
        bonded and paid interest on a bond to do maintenance asphalting on roads in this town. We have
        always done it on a pay as you go basis. We have some $600,000 in this budget for asphalting,
        maybe some of it could be justified as a project, particularly one big project on Fishers Island but
        the routine maintenance asphalting of roads done in this town has always been done on an
        operating basis and I have asked the Board to place it in the operating budget and not to bond for
        it. Bonding excessively seems to me to call into question our very good credit rating and it just
        doesn't seem to be necessary. However, putting it in the operating budget would increase the tax
        rate a little bit for next year which none of us on the Board really want to see done. So I am
        asking the Board and I am also asking the public to reflect on this so that they can give us their
        views during the public hearing to be held on November 4th. At this stage, for that reason I don't
        support this particular budget. So I am voting no against the budget.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I am going to vote for it and I am going to suggest that the bonding
        issue, I am glad the Councilman has come to see it my way. He was the one, as part of a Town
        Board that created a bond for asphalt a few years ago when I first became Supervisor, some
        $400,000. I didn't agree with it then. Let me point out the distinction here, we have just applied
        for a grant through this TIGRA program, it is stimulus money. Stimulus money at its root,
        cannot be used to supplement or replace allocated money at the existing current budget, it has to
        be new money. That is the premise of the stimulus funds. New money. The State of New York
        very skillfully removed their asphalt from the budget last year, just so they can qualify for
        stimulus money to replace their asphalt and then the projects went forward. The premise of this
        bond is to not execute this bond unless we get the grant. We will not carry, this is debt service, it
        is removed from the current appropriations, we have applied for the grant. When we learn as to
        how much we can win, we would then exercise the bond then and then retire that debt with the
        payment through that stimulus grant money. If the stimulus grant money does not come to pass,
        this bond does not have to come to pass.

        COUNCILMAN RULAND: I think it is notable, Scott, that it is also short term financing. One
        year. It is not lengthy.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I didn't establish the rules to the stimulus money game but I am
        going to try to play them and win some of the stimulus money. As of yet, we have got very little.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: But if this grant comes, we have to expend the money,
        appropriate it and use it and then spend it and then get reimbursed. That is how it works.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is right.


Southold Town Board                                    Page 12                                        Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                  October 20, 2009
  26.   Resolution 2009-857
        Amend Resolution 2009-661

          RESULT:          ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:           Louisa P. Evans, Justice
          SECONDER:        Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman
          AYES:            Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  27.   Comments regarding resolution 857
        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Can I just clarify? That is a lot of words to simply achieve one goal,
        to simply delay the laying off of three police officers subject to the ongoing negotiations with the
        PBA, with their union representatives.

  28.   Resolution 2009-858
        SWMD Budget Modifications

          RESULT:          ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:           Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman
          SECONDER:        Louisa P. Evans, Justice
          AYES:            Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  29.   Resolution 2009-859
        Amend Resolution 2009-759

          RESULT:          ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:           William Ruland, Councilman
          SECONDER:        Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman
          AYES:            Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  30.   Comments regarding resolution 859
        COUNCILMAN RULAND: I am assuming that the first bullet under permit fees are
        commercial fees? Is that correct?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes.

        COUNCILMAN RULAND: Probably should have said that. But, so moved.

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Maybe you can explain what we did there?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Basically with the landfill, we are now going to a two year permit
        for landfill permits. It is both going to be able to infuse some short term cash at least into the
        budget for 2010 and more importantly, cut down on the need for people to come to Town Hall,
        every Christmas, to come and get their renewal for their landfill permit each year. Now you can
        do it every other year, it should be more convenient for you and easier for us to administer.


Southold Town Board                                    Page 13                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                    Minutes                              October 20, 2009
  31.   Resolution 2009-860
        Authorizes and Directs the Town Clerk to Forward the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
        for Northwind Village Proposed Annexation and Development to the Southold Town Planning
        Board

          RESULT:        ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:         Vincent Orlando, Councilman
          SECONDER:      Louisa P. Evans, Justice
          AYES:          Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  32.   Resolution 2009-861
        Advertise for Vacancy in ZBA Office

          RESULT:        ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:         Albert Krupski Jr., Councilman
          SECONDER:      Vincent Orlando, Councilman
          AYES:          Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  33.   Resolution 2009-862
        Authorizes and Directs Supervisor Scott A. Russell to Execute License Agreements Between the
        Town of Southold and the Suffolk County Water Authority

          RESULT:        ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:         Louisa P. Evans, Justice
          SECONDER:      Vincent Orlando, Councilman
          AYES:          Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  34.   Resolution 2009-8631
        Accepts LGRMIF Grant Award

          RESULT:        ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:         Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman
          SECONDER:      Vincent Orlando, Councilman
          AYES:          Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  35.   Resolution 2009-863
        Accept General Code Proposal on Municity




Southold Town Board                                 Page 14                                   Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                   Minutes                         October 20, 2009

          RESULT:         ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:          Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman
          SECONDER:       Vincent Orlando, Councilman
          AYES:           Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  36.   Resolution 2009-864
        Town of Southold Comprehensive Plan

          RESULT:         ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:          William Ruland, Councilman
          SECONDER:       Vincent Orlando, Councilman
          AYES:           Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  37.   Resolution 2009-865
        LL/Wireless Code Amendments SEQRA

          RESULT:         ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:          Vincent Orlando, Councilman
          SECONDER:       Albert Krupski Jr., Councilman
          AYES:           Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  38.   Resolution 2009-866
        LL/Convenience Stores SEQRA

          RESULT:         ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:          Albert Krupski Jr., Councilman
          SECONDER:       William Ruland, Councilman
          AYES:           Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  39.   Resolution 2009-867
        Enact LL Wireless Facilities

          RESULT:         ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:          Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman
          SECONDER:       Vincent Orlando, Councilman
          AYES:           Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  40.   Comments regarding resolution 867
        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I would like to propose an amendment to the resolution that
        appears in our agenda, in the third paragraph.

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Would you please, Tom, can you please read those two changes?

Southold Town Board                                Page 15                            Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                     Minutes                                October 20, 2009

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: The changes are as follows: The Planning Board offers the
        following suggestions for changes as proposed. 1. Fall zones should be clarified of how the size
        of the fall is determined and there is some detail about that. 2. Interior mounted antennas, the
        code is unclear about setbacks for the base equipment of interior mounted antennas located
        outside the building, we recommend adding the following regarding the site design standards and
        there are a couple of sentences about that. 3. Rather than striking the language as proposed in
        the law in section 280-70 e general requirements of all wireless regarding locations near
        wetlands and other protected features, we suggest modifying it to be in accordance with the
        language of chapter 240 as follows and it says antenna support structures shall not be located in
        the following areas without a permit from all jurisdictional agencies as regards wetlands, land
        about high ground water, within 500 feet etc. etc. Those three things.

        JUSTICE EVANS: Within 500 feet (inaudible)

        TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: Yes (inaudible)

        JUSTICE EVANS: Okay.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: So the proposal is to enact this law together with those three
        recommendations from the Planning Board.

  41.   Resolution 2009-868
        Enact LL Convenience Stores

          RESULT:         TABLED [UNANIMOUS]                             Next: 11/4/2009 7:00 PM
          MOVER:          Louisa P. Evans, Justice
          SECONDER:       William Ruland, Councilman
          AYES:           Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  42.   Resolution 2009-869
        Droskoski Elect to Purchase & SEQRA

          RESULT:         ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:          William Ruland, Councilman
          SECONDER:       Vincent Orlando, Councilman
          AYES:           Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  43.   Comments regarding resolution 869
        COUNCILMAN RULAND: Do you want to move it now, Mr. Supervisor?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I think we have to vote and accept the SEQRA report first.

        JUSTICE EVANS: I think it is in the resolution.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Oh, it is in the resolution? Okay.

Southold Town Board                                  Page 16                                      Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                                        Minutes                                                   October 20, 2009

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I think we should go through the regular way.

        JUSTICE EVANS: Well, except the family is here right now. That is why they want to do it.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Sorry. You are right.

VI.     Public Hearings

  1.    Motion To:           Motion to recess to Public Hearing
        COMMENTS - Current Meeting:
        RESOLVED that this meeting of the Southold Town Board be and hereby is declared recessed in order to hold a public hearing.


          RESULT:                 ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:                  Louisa P. Evans, Justice
          SECONDER:               Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman
          AYES:                   Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  2.    PH 10/20/09 4:45 P.M. the Purchase of a Development Rights Easement on Property
        Owned by the Estate of Anna T. Droskoski

        Councilman Thomas H. Wickham
        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to the provisions
        of Chapter 17 (Community Preservation Fund) and Chapter 70 (Agricultural Lands) of the Town
        Code, the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby sets Tuesday, Octobe r 20, 2009, at 4:45
        p.m., Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York as the time and place for
        a public hearing for the purchase of a development rights easement on property owne d by
        the Estate of Anna T. Droskoski. Said property is identified as part of SCTM #1000-18.-4-7.1.
        The address is 28105 NYS Route 25. The property is located in the R-80 zoning district and is at
        the northwesterly intersection of NYS Route 25 and Browns Hill Road in Orient, New York. The
        proposed acquisition is for a development rights easement on a part of the property consisting of
        approximately 19± acres (subject to survey) of the 21± acre parcel.

        The exact area of the acquisition is subject to a Town-provided survey acceptable to the Land
        Preservation Committee and the property owner. The easement will be acquired using
        Community Preservation Funds. This project is eligible for partial funding from an awarded
        grant from the United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation
        Service (USDA-NRCS). The purchase price is $75,500 (seventy- five thousand five hundred
        dollars) per buildable acre for the 19± acre easement plus acquisition costs. The purchase price is
        subject to a provision that the landowner satisfies and agrees to any and all Federal requirements
        imposed in connection with the awarded grant from USDA-NRCS.

        The property is listed on the Town‟s Community Preservation Project Plan as property that
        should be preserved due to its agricultural value.

        FURTHER NOTICE is hereby given that a more detailed description of the above mentioned
        parcel of land is on file in Land Preservation Department, Southold Town Hall Annex, 54375

Southold Town Board                                                      Page 17                                                      Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                                       Minutes                                                   October 20, 2009
        Route 25, Southold, New York, and may be examined by any interested person during business
        hours.

        I have a short environmental assessment form duly filled out and signed in the file and those are
        the only notices in the file.

        Supervisor Russell
        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody like to come up and address the Town Board on this
        public hearing ? Melissa?

        Melissa Spiro, Land Preservation Coord
        MELISSA SPIRO, LAND PRESERVATION COORDINATOR: Hi, Melissa Spiro, Land
        Preservation Coordinator. Tom, just for clarification, the purchase price was $75,500.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I read $75,000 but I will have to look again carefully. $75,500
        per buildable acre. Thank you.

        MS. SPIRO: Okay. So as noted, the hearing is for the Town‟s purchase of development rights
        easement of agricultural purposes. The farm has been in the family for over one hundred years,
        the ownership is in a state. Patricia Sepenoski is the executrix of the estate and her son and
        extended family currently farm and plan to continue to farm the property. Patricia Sepenoski
        owns 10 acres of other farmland in East Marion and also she owned together with her brother- in-
        law, another 54 acres of farmland in Southold on which they sold the development rights
        easement to the Town in 2008. So she is a repeat participator in the Town‟s development rights
        program. The particular farm contains all prime ag soils and is adjacent to a preserved farm to
        the west. I am sorry the map doesn‟t have its easel, so I can‟t point that out. It is also in the
        vicinity of many other active farms. The purchase price is $75,000 per acre, it is in accordance
        with an appraisal which was completed for this specific property. The purchase is going to be
        funded with community preservation funds and 50 percent of the purchase price, which is over
        $700,000 will be funded by an awarded grant from the United States Department of Agriculture
        and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The landowners are reserving about 2 acres on
        the southeast corner of the property fronting on Main Road. This allows for over 90 percent of
        the property to be currently preserved for agricultura l purposes. The Land Preservation
        Committee and I both support this very important preservation, we hope that the Town Board
        proceeds with the acquisition. There are family members here tonight behind me and over on the
        other side of the room and I certainly thank them and I am sure the Town Board thanks them for
        giving us the opportunity to preserve this important farm and also to work with the federal
        government to get funding for this acquisition.

        Supervisor Russell
        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody else like to address the Town Board on this local
        law? (No response)

        JUSTICE EVANS: I move to close the hearing.

  3.    Motion To:           Motion to recess to Public Hearing
        COMMENTS - Current Meeting:
        RESOLVED that this meeting of the Southold Town Board be and hereby is declared Recessed in order to hold a public hearing.


Southold Town Board                                                      Page 18                                                      Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                   October 20, 2009

          RESULT:          ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:           Louisa P. Evans, Justice
          SECONDER:        William Ruland, Councilman
          AYES:            Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell

  4.    PH 10/20/09 4:35 PM - LL Wireless Facilities

        Councilman Wickham
        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, there has been presented to the
        Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 22 nd day of September
        2009, a Local Law entitled “A Local Law in Relation to Amendme nts to Wireless
        Communications Facilities” and
        NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will
        hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road,
        Southold, New York, on the 20th day of October, 2009 at 4:35 p.m. at which time all interested
        persons will be given an opportunity to be heard.
        The proposed Local Law entitled, “A Local Law in relation to Amendme nts to Wireless
        Communications Facilities” reads as follows:

                                               LOCAL LAW NO.            2009
        A Local Law entitled, “A Local Law in relation to Amendme nts to Wireless
        Communications Facilities”.
        BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows:
        I.       Chapter 280 of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows:
        §280-4. Definitions.
        STRUCTURE - An assembly of materials, forming a construction framed of component
        structural parts for occupancy or use, including buildings antenna support structures, and small
        wind energy systems.
        WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY - Antenna or antenna support structure and base
        equipment, either individually or together, including permanent or temporary moveable facilities
        (i.e. wireless facilities mounted on vehicles, boats or other mobile structures) used for the
        provision of any wireless service. Any unstaffed facility for the transmission and/or reception of
        wireless telecommunications services or other radio transmission and/or receiving service or use
        usually consisting of a wireless communication facility array, connection cables, an equipment
        facility and a support structure to obtain the necessary elevation. The support structure is either a
        building, telecommunication or radio antenna or tower or other approved structure.
        §280-67. Purpose.
        A. It is the express purpose of this article to minimize the visual and environmental impacts of
             wireless communication facilities while protecting the health, safety and welfare of
             Southold‟s citizens and allowing wireless service providers to meet their technological and
             service objectives. In addition, the regulation of wireless facilities, including the type of
             structure, is intended to protect the scenic and aesthetic qualities of the Town of Southold.
             This article allows wireless communication facilities, to be reviewed and approved in
             keeping with the Town's existing zoning and historic development patterns, including the
             size and spacing of structures. The goals of the following sections are to accomplish the
             following:
             (1) Site wireless facilities in these preferred locations:

Southold Town Board                                    Page 19                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                       Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
                 i.      Within or on existing buildings and structures where the antennas are invisible (or
                         nearly so) from public and residential vantage points;
                 ii.     Industrial areas;
             (2) Take into account the aesthetic aspects of the Town, including open vistas, scenic byways
                 and historic districts, when designing and siting wireless communication facilities.
        §280-68. Scope.
        The regulations of this article shall govern and control the erection, enlargement, expansion,
        alteration, operation, maintenance, relocation and removal of all wireless communication
        facilities. The regulations of this article relate to the location and design of these facilities and
        shall be in addition to the provisions of the Southold Building and Zoning Codes and any other
        federal, state or local laws or Federal Communication Commission (FCC), Federal Aviation
        Administration (FAA) or other regulations pertaining to such facilities. Nothing herein shall be
        construed to, apply to, prohibit, regulate or otherwise affect the erection, maintenance or
        utilization of antennas or support structures by those licensed by the Federal Communications
        Commission pursuant to Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97, to operate amateur
        radio stations, or satellite antennas that are used for individual business or residential voice, data,
        or video communications.
        §280-69. Definitions.
        As used in this article, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below:
        ANTENNA -- Any transmitting or receiving device, including whip (omni directional antenna),
        panel (directional antenna), disc (parabolic antenna) or similar device, mounted in or on a tower,
        monopole, building or structure and used in communications that radiate or capture
        electromagnetic waves, digital signals, analog signal, radio frequencies (excluding radar signals),
        wireless telecommunications signals or other communications signals.
        ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE -- Any structure that is designed and constructed
        primarily for the purpose of supporting one or more antennas for wireless telephone, television,
        radio and similar communication purposes, including self-supporting lattice towers, guyed
        towers and monopoles. Lattice and guyed towers are not permitted antenna support structures.
        The term includes radio and television transmission towers, microwave towers, common-carrier
        towers, cellular telephone towers, camouflaged tower structures, and the like. The term includes
        the structure and any support thereto. The term does not include wireless facilities located in or
        on existing buildings or structures that previously existed or are being constructed for a primary
        purpose other than a wireless facility e.g. water tower, electric utility pole, or church steeple.
        BASE STATION EQUIPMENT -- Equipment integral to the operation of an antenna system.
        Base station equipment typically includes, but is not limited to, communications equipment
        cabinet/shelter, backup power supplies, generators, electric and telecommunications backboards,
        wiring, grounding loops, equipment enclosures, security fencing and lighting.
        CO-LOCATION -- The use of a single mount on the ground by more than one provider
        (vertical co- location) and/or several mounts on an existing tower, building or structure by more
        than one carrier for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for
        communications purposes.
        EQUIPMENT SHELTER -- An enclosed structure associated with the mount within which is
        housed the base station equipment for a wireless communications facility.
        FALL ZONE -- The area on the ground within a prescribed radius from the base of a wireless
        communications facility. The fall zone is the area within which there might be a potential hazard
        from falling debris or collapsing material, including the antenna support structure.
        GUYED ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE -- An antenna support structure that is
        supported, in whole or in part, by guy wires and ground anchors.
        HEIGHT -- When referring to a tower or other antenna support structure, the height is the

Southold Town Board                                     Page 20                                        Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                       Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
        distance from the top of the structure at its highest point, including antennas, lightening
        protection devices or any other apparatus attached to the top of the antenna support structure, to
        the base of the structure, measured in feet above ground level (AGL). Absolute height is the
        distance from the top of the structure, including all attachments, to the height of Mean Sea Level
        (MSL).
        LATTICE ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE -- An antenna support structure that has
        open- framed supports on three or four sides and is constructed without guy wires and ground
        anchors.
        MODIFICATION -- The addition, removal, or change of any of the physical and visually
        discernable components or aspects of a wireless facility, such as antennas, cabling, radios,
        equipment shelters, landscaping, fencing, utility feeds, changing the color or materials of any
        visually discernable components, vehicular access, parking and/or an upgrade or replacement of
        the equipment. Adding a new wireless carrier or service provider (co- location) to a wireless
        communications tower or site is a modification. Modifications also include: extending the height
        of the antenna support structure above its current height, changing the footprint of the structure,
        expansion of the base station equipment or compound area, addition of antennas to an existing
        carrier‟s antenna array, re-orientation or relocation of existing antennas, changes affecting the
        operating frequencies, effective radiated power or number of operating channels. A modification
        shall not include ordinary maintenance, as defined herein. Modifications shall be classified as
        major or minor.
        A.      MAJOR MODIFICATION ---Changes to existing wireless telecommunications facility
                or antenna support structure that result in a substantial change to the facility or structure.
                Major modifications include, but are not limited to,
                      (1)     Extending the height of the antenna support structure by more than 5 feet
                              above its current height;
                      (2)     Replacement of the structure;
                      (3)     Expansion of the base station equipment or compound area;
                      (4)     Addition of antennas to an existing carrier‟s antenna array;
                      (5)     Co-location;
                      (6)     Re-orientation or relocation of existing antennas;
                      (7)     Changes affecting the operating frequencies, effective radiated power or
                              number of operating channels.


            B. MINOR MODIFICATION - Changes to existing wireless telecommunications facility
               or structure, that result in a material change to the facility or structure but of a level,
               quality or intensity that is less than a substantial change. Such minor modifications
               include, but are not limited to, replacement of antennas, components and accessory
               equipment on a like-for-like basis within an existing wireless telecommunications
               facility.
        MONOPOLE -- A freestanding antenna support structure consisting of a single pole, without
        guy wires or ground anchors.
        MOUNT -- The structure or surface upon which antennas are mounted and/or the location of the
        antenna, e.g.:
            A. ROOF-MOUNTED - Mounted on the roof of a building.
            B. SIDE-MOUNTED - Mounted on the side of a building.
            C. STRUCTURE-MOUNTED - Mounted on a structure other than a building.
            D. FLUSH-MOUNTED - Mounted very close on a building or structure so that the profile
               of the antenna(s) is not readily apparent.

Southold Town Board                                    Page 21                                        Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                       Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
            E. INTERIOR-MOUNTED - Mounted within a building or other structure so that                 the
                 antennas are not visible from the outside.
            F. GROUND-MOUNTED - Mounted on the ground.
        ORDINARY MAINTENANCE -- Work done to an existing wireless telecommunications
        facility and antenna support structure for the purpose of maintaining them in good operating
        condition. Ordinary maintenance includes inspections and testing to maintain functionality,
        aesthetic and structural integrity, and involves the normal repair of a wireless facility including
        the like-for-like replacement of damaged or defective components without otherwise adding,
        removing, or substantially changing anything and therefore does not include modifications.
        RADIO FREQUENCY (RF) PROFESSIONAL -- A person who specializes in the study of
        radio frequency engineering and has expertise in radio communicatio n facilities.
        RADIO FREQUENCY (RF) EMISSIONS or RADIATION -- The electromagnetic field of
        radiation emitted by wireless antennas.
        RADIO FREQUENCY (RF) SIGNAL -- The actual beam or radio waves sent and received by
        a wireless facility. A signal is the deliberate product of a wireless antenna. The RF radiation is
        the by-product.
        WIRELESS CARRIER -- A company that provides wireless telecommunications services.
        WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY -- Antenna or antenna support structure and
        base equipment, either individually or together, including permanent or temporary moveable
        facilities (i.e. wireless facilities mounted on vehicles, boats or other mobile structures) used for
        the provision of any wireless service.
        WIRELESS SERVICES -- Commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and
        common carrier wireless exchange services, including, but not limited to, voice, data, images or
        other information, cellular telephone service, personal communications service (PCS), Enhanced
        Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) Service, and paging service.
        §280-70. General re quirements for all wireless communication facilities.
                 A.       No wireless communication facility shall be used, erected or altered in the Town
                          of Southold except in accordance with the provisions of this article and any other
                                    applicable sections of the Town Code.
                 B.       All wireless communication facilities, and modifications to such facilities (as
                          defined in §280-69) shall require a building permit, site plan approval, and special
                          exception approval unless listed as exempt in §280-71 “Required Approvals”
                          except in cases of ordinary maintenance, as defined in §280-69.
                 A.C. No new antenna support structures may be constructed without a carrier licensed
                          by the FCC as a provider. An FCC-licensed provider of wireless communications
                          services must be the applicant or the co-applicant for any proposed new wireless
                          communication facility, co- location or modification.
                 B.D. Guyed or lattice antenna support structures are prohibited.
                 C.E. Antenna support structures shall not be located in the following areas:
                                (1) Wetlands, tidal and freshwater;
                                (2) Land above high groundwater (within ten feet of the surface ).
                                (3) Within 500‟ of residences;
                                (4)(1) Lands purchased with Community Preservation Funds;
                                (5) Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas;
                                (6)(2) Designated parkland.
                 D.F. Fall Zones. An antenna support structure must include an area surrounding it that
                          is free of other structures and areas where people congregate, except the base
                          equipment, with a radius equal to a distance of two times the height of the
                          structure. A smaller fall zone may be allowed if supported by a report submitted

Southold Town Board                                    Page 22                                        Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                       Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
                        by a qualified structural engineer, and corroborated by an independent consultant
                        hired by the Town that demonstrates that a smaller fall zone is appropriate and
                        safe. The fall zone of an antenna support structure must not include areas where
                        people congregate, and must be clear of all structures except the base station
                        equipment.
                 E.G.   Federal Aviation Regulations. All towers wireless facilities shall comply with
                        applicable airport and/or air space hazard and/or obstruction regulations. Any
                        facility that would be classified as an obstruction or hazard under current federal
                        aviation regulations or would otherwise interfere with the operation of radio
                        navigation aids, communications and/or airport operations is prohibited.
                 F.H.    Antenna support structures in the zoning districts: LI, LIO, MI, MII, B, and HB,
                        are subject to the following restrictions:
                        (1)      Minimum lot size: i. LI, LIO, B & HB - in accordance with the bulk
                                 schedule for each zone
                                 ii. MI & MII - 200,000 sq. ft.
                        (2)      Maximum Height: 80 feet
                        (3)      Minimum distance of all wireless equipment to adjacent residential
                        property lines or streets shall be no less than 500 feet.
                 G.I.   Antenna support structures permitted in AC, R-40, R-80, R-120, R-200, R-400,
                        LB, RO, RR, HD, or AHD zoning districts, are subject to the following conditions
                                 (in addition to any other applicable conditions):
                         (1)     Minimum area surrounding the proposed location: 200,000 sq. ft. of
                                 contiguous vacant land restricted from future residential development by
                                 deed for the duration of the property‟s use for the wireless facility; and
                         (2)     Maximum height: 45‟; and
                         (3)     The structure is a monopole with interior- mounted antennas, or a suitable
                                 unobtrusive camouflage structure; and
                         (4)     Structure is screened from view from surrounding properties by dense
                                 vegetation and trees, either planted or existing, and meeting the site design
                                         appearance criteria for residential zones in Section 280-76; and
                         (5)     Noise from base equipment, including any backup generator, measures
                                 less than 45dB at an outside location 10 feet from the equipment shelter;
                                 and
                         (6)     Minimum distance of all wireless equipment to adjacent residential
                        property lines or street shall be no less than 500 feet.
                 H.J.   Radio emissions must fall within the Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE)
                                 limits established by the FCC.
                         (1)     A power density analysis of the radio emissions for the proposed wireless
                                 communication facility must be provided by the applicant. The power
                                 density analysis shall be prepared and signed by a qualified professional
                                         specializing in radio communication facilities.
                         (2)     The results from the analysis must clearly show that the power density
                                 levels of the electromagnetic energy generated from the proposed facility
                                 at the nearest point(s) of public access and the point(s) of greatest power
                                 density (if other than the nearest point of public access) are within the
                                 Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits established by the FCC
                                 which are in effect at the time of the application.
                         (3)     The power density analysis must be based on the most recent edition of
                                 FCC Office Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, must cite the

Southold Town Board                                     Page 23                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                  October 20, 2009
                                specific formulas and assumptions used and must show all calculations
                                and must include simple sketches showing the spatial relationships
                                between the facility and the points of interest. If the wireless
                                communication facility would be co- located with an existing facility, or is
                                designed for future expansion or co- location, the cumulative effects of all
                                emitters now on, or likely to be on, the facility in the future must also be
                                analyzed.
                        (4)     The power density analysis shall be based on the assumption that all
                                antennas mounted on the proposed facility are simultaneously transmitting
                                radio energy on all channels at a power level equal to the maximum
                                transmitter power rating specified by the manufacturer.
                         (5)    The conclusions of the power density analysis must be corroborated by an
                                independent radio frequency engineer retained by the Town to provide
                                such determinations.
                 I.K.   At the request of the Building Inspector, which shall be no more frequently than
                        every five years, the provider owners of wireless facilities shall provide a
                        structural inspection report prepared by a structural engineer which verifies the
                        structural integrity of the wireless facility and any associated antenna support
                        structures.
                 L.     No ntenna support structure shall be constructed at, or remain at, a height that is
                                taller than that required by installed and operational antennas.
                 M.     Site design standards.
                        (1)     All wireless facilities, including co-locations, shall be the least visually
                                obtrusive design possible that also permits the applicant to achieve its
                                service needs. To that end, the following design standards shall apply to
                                all wireless communication facilities installed or constructed pursuant to
                                the terms of this chapter:

                               a.      Setbacks. Antenna support structures and equipment facilities
                                       shall adhere to the setbacks for principal uses in the Bulk Schedule
                                       applicable to the zone in which the structure(s) are located, unless
                                       otherwise indicated elsewhere in this chapter.
                               b.      Signs. Signs shall not be permitted on facilities except for signs
                                       displaying contact information and safety instructions, which are
                                       required. Safety signs shall be in accordance with American
                                       National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards for radio frequency
                                       radiation warning signs. Contact signs shall identify all service
                                       providers located on the facility and shall include normal and
                                       emergency contact information for each. Such signs shall not
                                       exceed five square feet in surface area.
                               c.      Base equipment shelter. For newly constructed wireless facilities,
                                       a base equipment shelter is limited to 500 square feet in floor area.
                                       If the newly constructed wireless facility is designed for co-
                                       location, the facility may be up to 1,000 square feet. The base
                                       equipment shelter shall be constructed with a finish similar to that
                                       of adjacent structures on the property and integrated into the
                                       architectural style. Any newly constructed base equipment shelter
                                               shall be located in accordance with the minimum height
                                       and yard requirements of the zoning district applicable to the site,

Southold Town Board                                    Page 24                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                       Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
                                       and up to two adjacent off-street parking spaces may be provided
                                       for service vehicles.
                              d.       Base equipment shelter landscaping. A screen of evergreen trees
                                       shall be planted outside the fence of the telecommunication tower
                                       base area to provide a visual screen or buffer for adjoining private
                                       properties and the public right-of-way or other vantage points
                                       accessible to the public. The screen shall consist of a double row of
                                       evergreen shrubs and trees that are of sufficient density and height
                                       to immediately screen the base equipment from view. Required
                                       front yard setback areas shall be landscaped and include shrubs and
                                       trees. Survivability of the landscaping shall be guaranteed and
                                       maintained by the applicant for the life of the installation.
                              e.       Site lighting. The lighting permitted shall be the minimum
                                       required to protect the public welfare. Facilities sited on existing
                                       developed sites shall be incorporated into the lighting plans of
                                       those sites. Outside lighting shall use fully-shielded fixtures so that
                                               the light source is not visible from beyond the property
                                       line, and no light is reflected or shone towards the sky, except in
                                       the case of structures required to follow FAA guidelines for safety
                                       lighting.
        §280-70 71. Applicability, permitted uses Required approvals.
        B.
        C.A. Building Permit Required.
              (1)    Minor modifications (defined in 280-69); or
              (1)    All applications for a building permit shall comply with §280-70 General
                     Requirements for all wireless communication facilities and §280-74 Application
                     Requirements.
              (2)    Building permit only. A wireless communication facility is a permitted use
                     requiring only a building permit, without the requirement of site plan approval
                     and special exception approval if it conforms to the following Section 280-70 and
                     falls in one of the following two categories:
              (2)    (a)      New wireless facility that is interior- mounted in an existing
                              building or existing structure in the LI, LIO, B, HB, MI, or MII zoning
                              districts which conforms to the following requirements:
                              i.       Interior- mounted facilities in existing buildings shall be
                                       constructed so that the outward appearance of the building or
                                       structure before and after the installation is complete is identical or
                                       nearly identical. The addition of a significant architectural feature
                                       on to an existing building that is visible from outside for the
                                       purpose of accommodating interior- mounted antennas shall require
                                       site plan approval; and
                              ii.      Base station equipment
                                       1.      Located within an existing shelter or building, not to be
                                               expanded beyond an additional ten percent of floor area; or
                                       2.      Located in an underground vault, with any above-ground
                                               components screened from view with evergreen planting;
                                               or
                                       3.       Entirely concealed from view with dense evergreen
                                               planting so that all equipment, shelters, fences, gates and

Southold Town Board                                    Page 25                                        Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                       Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
                                                  other associated structures are not visible from any vantage
                                                  point. Plantings shall be of sufficient size to achieve this
                                                  screening effect immediately upon planting.
                                          4.       Noise from base equipment, including any backup
                                                  generator, measures less than 45dB at the nearest property
                                                  lines of all adjacent residences; or
                 (3)     (b)     Major Modification, as defined in §280-69, including co- location,
                                 on an existing antenna support structure or other wireless facility holding
                                 all valid permits and causing essentially no visible change to the exterior,
                                 and which conforms to the following requirements:
                                 72.
                                 i.       Modifications causing essentially no visible change in the
                                          appearance of the exterior means that the antennas are interior-
                                          mounted in the existing structure and are not visible from the
                                          outside after installation. The base equipment area is expanded by
                                          no more than 10% of its existing floor area, and is entirely
                                          screened from view from any public or residential vantage points,
                                          including all roads, yards, and commercial buildings the public
                                          enters. Exceptionally well-designed flush- mounted antennas may
                                          also fall into this category if they present no visible profile
                                          protruding from the surface to which they are mounted, and are
                                          camouflaged to blend in with the background surface to which they
                                          are mounted; and
                                 ii.      Base Station Equipment (as specified above in 280-71 A(2)(a)(ii)
        D.B.     Site Plan Approval Required:
                 (1)     All applications for site plan approval shall comply with §280-70 General
                         Requirements for all Wireless Communication Facilities and §280-74
                         Application Requirements.
                 (2)     A wireless communication facility is a permitted use requiring a building permit
                         and site plan approval without the requirement of special exception approval if it
                         conforms to Section 280-70 and falls in one of the following two categories:
                         (1)(a) New wireless facility that is roof or side-mounted to an existing building
                                 or existing structure in the LI, LIO, B, HB, MI, or MII zoning districts
                                 which conforms to the r following requirements:
                                 i.       Roof- mounted facilities shall conform to the following
                                          requirements:
                                         1.       Visual impact minimized to the greatest extent possible;
                                          2.      Height limited to no more than 10 feet above the highest
                                                  point of the building; and
                                 ii.      Side- mounted facilities shall be flush- mounted and painted or
                                          otherwise camouflaged to blend with the façade or background
                                          materials of the structure; and
                                 iii.     Base Station Equipment (as specified above in 280-71 A(2)(a)(ii);
                                          or
                         (2)(b) Major Modification, as defined in §280-69, including co- location, to an
                                 existing wireless facility holding all valid permits in the LI, LIO, B, HB,
                                 MI, or MII zoning districts and causing a visible change to the exterior,
                                 and which conforms to the following requirements:.
                                 i.       Co-locations shall not extend the height of the structure more than

Southold Town Board                                     Page 26                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
                                       ten feet over the original approved structure. To prevent the
                                       incremental extension of height over time, any subsequent
                                       application with a proposed extension beyond the first ten feet
                                       shall require special exception review and approval; and
                               ii.     Base Station Equipment (as specified above in 280-71 A(2)(a)(ii).
              C.      Special exception. All applications for special exception shall comply with the
                      standards in §280-70 General Requirements for all Wireless Telecommunication
                      Facilities and §280-74 Application Requirements.
        E.C. All other wireless communication facilities, major modifications, and co- locations
              require a building permit, site plan approval, and a special exception approval by the
              Planning Board.
           Text of former §280-71 and amendments moved to §280-70 of this Amendment.
           Text of former §280-72 moved to §280-71 of this Amendment.
        §280-72. Site plan approval.
        A.    Standards. In addition to the standards in Article XXIV and the standards in §280-70
              herein, all wireless facilities, including co- locations, shall be the least visually obtrusive
              design possible that also permits the applicant to achieve its service needs. To that end,
              the following design standards shall apply to all wireless communication facilities
              installed or constructed that require site plan approval:
              (1)     Camouflage on buildings. Wireless antennas, if mounted on a building façade,
                      shall be flush mounted and painted or otherwise treated to blend with the façade.
                      When a wireless communication facility extends above the roof height of a
                      building on which it is mounted, every effort shall be made to conceal the facility
                      within or behind existing architectural features to limit its visibility from public
                      and residential vantage points, yet permit the facility to perform its designated
                      function. Facilities mounted on a roof shall be stepped back from the front facade
                      in order to limit their impact on the building's silhouette. If antennas are part of
                      the stepped back facility, the applicant shall submit an access control plan that
                      precludes inadvertent access to the front faces of the antennas by building workers
                      and the general public. The wireless communication facilities shall blend in with
                      the existing building's architecture and shall be painted or shielded with material
                      which is consistent with the design features and materials of the building.
              (2)     Access. Access to wireless facilities shall be from already established site access
                      points whenever possible.
              (3)     Dish antennas. Dish antennas shall be colored, camouflaged or screened to the
                      extent that they are as unobtrusive as possible, and in no case shall the diameter of
                      a dish antenna exceed six feet.
              (4)     Electric line setback. Except for wireless facilities specifically designed for
                      mounting on electric transmission towers, or within the footprint of such towers,
                      no wireless communication facility shall be located nearer to any overhead
                      electric transmission line carrying more than 220 volts than a distance equal to the
                      facility's height above the roof or other permanent structure to which it is
                      attached.
              (5)     Co-location. Wireless communication facilities shall be designed to provide for
                      co-location by multiple providers or designed so that they can be retrofitted to
                      accommodate multiple providers, wherever possible.
              (6)     Scenic landscapes and vistas. All antenna support structures which are not
                      concealed inside of buildings or screened by existing trees or buildings, must be
                      surrounded by a planted buffer of dense tree growth. An antenna support structure

Southold Town Board                                    Page 27                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                    Minutes                                 October 20, 2009
                     that is located within a scenic vista or scenic landscape or within 300‟ of a scenic
                     road, as designated by the Town, shall not be taller than ten feet above the height
                     of trees within a 300‟ radius of the proposed location, or 35‟ maximum in the
                     absence of trees.
              (7)    Color. Antenna support structures in the form of monopoles or other towers shall
                     either be blue/gray in color, or be colored appropriate to the context of the
                     structure‟s location so that the tower is as unobtrusive as possible, unless
                     otherwise required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). If a wireless
                     communication facility is installed on a structure other than a tower, the antenna
                     and supporting electrical and mechanical equipment must be of a neutral color
                     that is identical to or closely compatible with the colors of the supporting
                     structure so as to make the antenna and related equipment as visually unobtrusive
                     as possible.
              (8)    Wireless facilities sited within new structures meant to mimic some other
                     structure or natural feature must be designed at a scale compatible with the
                     community, be unobtrusive, and characteristic of the area.
              (9)    Antenna support structures in or adjacent to residential zones. Where the site
                     proposed for an antenna support structure is located within a residential zone or
                     has one or more property lines abutting or on the opposite side of a street from a
                     residential zone or use permitted in a residential zone, no antenna support
                     structures may be constructed unless adequately screened from view of those
                     residential zones by existing buildings or large trees, including evergreens. The
                     structure may protrude no more than 10‟ above screening buildings and/or trees.
                     In the absence of an adequate arrangement of existing large trees or buildings to
                     provide effective screening, the height of the proposed structure may be no more
                     than 35‟, and the base equipment must be buried in an underground vault. Two
                     rows of evergreen trees must be planted encircling the structure, one row at a
                     distance from the structure of 50% of the height of the structure, and the other at
                     90% of the height of the structure. Transplanted trees shall have a minimum
                     caliper of three inches, spaced thirty- feet on center. The trees must have an
                     expected height at maturity of at least 10‟ less than the height of the structure to
                     be screened. Smaller evergreen shrubs must be used to fill in the gaps in between
                     for screening during the time the trees are filling in and maturing. The Planning
                     Board may vary the arrangement of the trees and shrubs to accommodate specific
                     site conditions, and accomplish the goal of screening the facility from view of
                     residential properties. A written guarantee from the wireless facility‟s owner shall
                     be required to ensure that the plantings survive and are maintained throughout the
                     existence of the installation.
              (10) Commercial and industrial siting. Antenna support structures to be sited on
                     developed commercial or industrial properties shall be located to the rear of other
                     principal buildings and shall not encroach on planting buffers, parking areas or
                     otherwise impair the operation of previously approved systems such as
                     stormwater drainage basins. Existing buildings and structures should be used in
                     the siting of freestanding towers to contribute to the visual screening of the
                     antenna support structure.
        §280-72. Special exception approval.
        A.    Authority. For the purposes of this section, notwithstanding Article XXV of the Southold
              Town Code this Chapter, the Planning Board shall be empowered to issue a special
              exception approval for wireless communication facilities, subject to the provisions of this

Southold Town Board                                  Page 28                                      Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                       Minutes                                  October 20, 2009
                 chapter. This supersedes Article XXV in that the Planning Board is the reviewing board
                 in place of the Zoning Board of Appeals for wireless communication facilities that
                 require Special Exception approval. The remainder of Article XXV remains in effect and
                 shall apply to the Planning Board‟s consideration of a special exception approval for
                 wireless communication facilities, together with the additional standards and
                 requirements in this section.
        B.       Standards. In addition to the standards in Article XXV of this Code Chapter, no special
                 exception approval shall be granted unless the Planning Board specifically finds and
                 determines the following:
                 (1)     Construction of the proposed facility or modification of the existing facility is a
                         public necessity, in that it is required to meet current or expected demands of the
                         telecommunications provider and to render adequate service to the public.
                 (2)     The applicant has made substantial effort to co- locate with existing wireless
                         facilities, or, failing that, has made substantial effort to locate on municipally-
                         owned land or structures, or within or on existing buildings or structures.
                 (3)     There are compelling reasons which make it more feasible to construct the
                         proposed facilities rather than alternatives.
        C.       Matters to be considered. In addition to the matters to be considered in Article XXV of
                 this Chapter, the Planning Board shall give consideration to the following in issuing a
                 special exception approval for wireless communication facilities:
                 (1)     The proposed antenna support structure must be demonstrated to be the lowest
                         height above the ground feasible to achieve the service needs of the carrier(s). The
                         rationale behind the explanation by the applicant must be corroborated by an
                         independent consultant hired by the Town.
                 (2)     The wireless communication facility has been situated to minimize its proximity
                         and visibility to residential structures, residential district boundaries and
                         landmarks designated by Town, federal or state agencies.
                 (3)     The wireless communication facility is designed and situated to be compatible
                         with the nature of uses on adjacent and nearby property.
                 (4)     The wireless communication facility has been designed to use the surrounding
                         topography to minimize its visual impacts.
                 (5)     The wireless communication facility has been designed to use the surrounding
                         tree, building or foliage coverage to minimize its visual impac ts.
                 (6)     The wireless communication facility maximizes design characteristics to reduce
                         or eliminate visual impacts and obtrusiveness.
                 (7)     Other adequate conditions have been placed on the wireless communication
                         facility which will minimize any adverse impacts of the facility on adjoining
                         properties.
        D.       Expiration.
                         (2)      In approving a special exception the Planning Board may waive or reduce
                         the criteria in this article, to the extent specified below, if the Planning Board
                         concludes that the goals and stated purposes of this law are better served, and that
                         doing so will have no detrimental effect on adjacent properties or on the public
                         health, safety and welfare, and thereby:
                         (a)      Minimize proximity of the tower to residential structures or historic
                                  landmarks listed by federal, state or Town agencies.
                         (b)      Modify the planting of surrounding tree coverage and foliage to account
                                  for existing vegetation and land contours, but only to the extent that the
                                  existing vegetation achieves the purpose of concealing the structure.

Southold Town Board                                     Page 29                                      Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                  October 20, 2009
                       (c)     Modify the design of the tower, with particular reference to design
                               characteristics that reduce or eliminate visual obtrusiveness.
                 ()    Any special exception approval granted under this article shall have a term of five
                       years, commencing from the grant of the special exception, which may be
                       extended for an additional five- year term upon application to the Planning Board.
                       On a renewal application, the applicant shall demonstrate that the wireless
                       communication facility is in compliance with all applicable laws, rules and
                       regulations and with all of the conditions of the special exception approval and
                       site plan, that the facility is necessary to provide adequate service, and that there
                       is no reasonable alternative available to the owner which will provide adequate
                       service without the continuing use of the facility. Subsequent special exception
                       renewals shall be subject to review by the Planning Board and subject to such

        §280-74. Application re quirements.
        A.    Fees. The following fees are in place of those required in other sections of the code.
              (1)    Building Permit Application Fees
                     i.      Minor modification              $250
                     ii.a.   Major modification              $500
                     iii.b. New facility                     $750
              (2)    Site Plan Application Fees
                     i.a.    Major Modification.             $1000
                     ii.b.   New facility                    $2000
              (3)    Special Exception Application Fee $1000
              (4)    Review by independent consultants. In all cases where the Town determines that a
                     review of an application by a qualified expert is warranted, the applicant shall
                     bear the reasonable cost associated with such review, which cost will be assessed
                     as an additional application fee. This payment shall be made to the Town prior to
                     the review commencing and the decision being rendered on the application.
                     a.      Upon the Planning Board‟s determination that referral to the Planning
                             Board‟s consultant(s) is deemed necessary, an escrow account for the
                             applicant shall be established with the Town Comptroller‟s Office. Said
                             escrow account shall be established prior to the Town‟s referral of the
                             application to its consultant(s). Said escrow account shall be funded by
                             the applicant in an amount to be determined by the Town Planning
                             Director. Upon the determination that any application shall be subject to
                             the Town‟s review aided by consultant(s) as set forth herein, no
                                     application shall be considered complete for review purposes until
                             an      escrow account is established and funded.
                     b.      Withdrawals from said escrow account may be made from time to time to
                             reimburse the Planning Board for the cost of its consultant(s‟) professional
                             review services actually incurred. Whenever the balance in such escrow
                             account is reduced to ¼ of its initial amount, the Planning Board shall
                             notify the applicant; thereafter, the applicant shall deposit additional funds
                             into such account so as to restore its balance to ½ of the initial deposit or
                             to such sum as deemed necessary by the Committee. If such account is
                             not replenished within 30 days after the applicant is notified in writing of
                             the requirement for such additional deposit, the reviewing Board may
                                     suspend its review of the application.
                     c.      The consultants will work under the direction of the Town Planning

Southold Town Board                                   Page 30                                        Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                       Minutes                                  October 20, 2009
                                 Director. Copies of the consultants‟ qualifications, findings and reports
                                 will be provided to the applicant and an opportunity given to the applicant
                                 to respond to the content of the consultants‟ report prior to any decisions
                                 being made.
        B.       Building Permit Application
                 (1)     The following application requirements are in addition to those required in §144-8
                         (C).
                         a.      Written analysis demonstrating the project complies with the Maximum
                                 Permissible Exposure regulations in accordance with §280-70(J).
                         b.      Written documentation as to the facility‟s structural compliance with local,
                                 State and Federal Codes.
                         c.      Copies of all applicable FCC licenses, notices of proposed construction or
                                 alteration, federal environmental impact statements and other documents
                                          verifying compliance with federal, state and local regulations.
                         d.      Propagation maps shall be submitted for existing coverage from existing
                                 surrounding and/or approved sites, coverage from all alternative sites
                                 considered and coverage from the proposed site. Propagation maps shall
                                 include a minimum of three signal strength depictions (-75dBm, -85dBm
                                          and -95dBm) and any other signal strength levels deemed
                                 appropriate by the applicant based on the applicant‟s documented
                                 coverage and reliability needs.
                         e.      A „gap map” prepared and signed by a qualified radio frequency engineer
                                 and overlaid on an “existing coverage” background propagation map
                                 demonstrating the area(s) within which the applicant‟s existing service is
                                 not adequate. In addition, a search ring shall be depicted indicating where
                                 the wireless communication facility needs to be located in order to provide
                                 adequate signal strength and/or capacity to the target gap area. The
                                 applicant must explain and document its standards and criteria for
                                 adequate signal strength, capacity and reliability and must demonstrate to
                                 the satisfaction of the Planning Board why these standards and criteria are
                                 applicable to the Town of Southold.
                         f.      Digital files of the propagation and gap maps, including attribute
                                 information, in a Geographic Information System (GIS) format and
                                 projecting that is compatible with the GIS technology currently in use by
                                          the Town of Southold.
                         g.      A copy of the deed or lease agreement establishing applicant's right to use
                                 the parcel on which the wireless communication facility is to be located.
                         h.     Other information deemed necessary to assess the compliance with this
                                 law.
                 (2)     Once the application is received in the Building Department, it will be forwarded
                         to the Planning Director for report and recommendations on compliance with
                         §280-71 General Requirements, §280-72 Requirements for Permitted Use, and
                         any technical consultant reports that may have been required. No building permit
                         for a wireless facility may be granted prior to this report being submitted to the
        C.       Site Plan Application.
                 The following application requirements are in addition to those required in §280-133:
                 (1)     Seven copies of items a-c listed above at §280-73B(1) the completed Building
                         Permit Application required under §280-73(B).
                 (2)     Aeronautical study or appropriate consultant‟s report demonstrating that the

Southold Town Board                                     Page 31                                      Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                        Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
                         proposed facility will not constitute an obstruction or hazard to air navigation.
                 (3)     Visual Impact Analysis - renderings or computer graphics illustrating the
                         appearance of the completed facility from residential and public vantage points to
                         be determined by the Planning Board.
                 (4)     Adjacent land uses, structures and zoning within 500 feet.
                 (5)     The location in latitude and longitude, type and height of the wireless
                         communication facility.
                 (6)     A list of other carriers already located on the facility with the number, type,
                         height, orientation, effective radiated power, number of channels and operating
                         frequencies of each antenna, including the proposed.
                 (7)     Digital information about the facility (AutoCAD, Shapefile) that can be imported
                         into a geographic information system depicting the search ring of the proposed
                         facility.
                 (8)     A photo of the facility, if already existing.
                 (9)     Location of landmarks listed by federal, state or Town agencies within 300 feet.
                 (10) Distances between the proposed facility and the following:
                         a.        the nearest residential structure,
                         b.        the nearest property line with a residential use,
                         c.        all other structures.
                         d.        Roads, rights of way, driveways
                 (11) Fall zone radius and distance
                 (12) Proposed means of access
                 (13) Elevation drawings with dimensions clearly indicated, including diameter or
                         width of the structure at its widest and narrowest, and the tallest point including
                         antennas or lightening protection.
                 (14) Other information deemed by the Planning Board to be necessary to assess
                         compliance with this law.
        D.       Special Exception Application.
                 To make the determination on an application for special exception, the Planning Board
                 shall require the following in addition to the requirements of Article XXV of this
                 Chapter:
                 (1)     Each application shall include:
                         a.        One copy of the building permit application
                         b.        One copy of the site plan application
                         c.        Each application shall include a written site location alternative analysis
                                   describing the location of other sites considered, the availability of those
                                   sites, the extent to which other sites do or do not meet the provider's
                                   service or engineering needs and the reason why the subject site was
                                   chosen.
                         d.        Other information deemed by the Planning Board to be necessary to assess
                                   compliance with this law.
                 (2)     The applicant shall document to the satisfaction of the Planning Board that a
                         good- faith effort has been made to locate or co-locate on existing towers or other
                         available and appropriate buildings and structures, that it is not feasible to co-
                         locate on an existing facility and that the proposed location is necessary to
                         provide adequate service to the public. The documentation shall include a
                         notarized statement by the applicant as to whether construction of the wireless
                         communication facility will accommodate co- location of additional antennas for
                         future users.

Southold Town Board                                      Page 32                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                       Minutes                                    October 20, 2009
                (4)(3) The Planning Board and Planning Department may retain technical consultants as
                         they deem necessary to provide assistance in the review of the needs and site
                         location alternatives analyses and other matters that the Board deems necessary.
                         The applicant shall bear the reasonable cost associated with such consultation,
                         which cost shall be assessed as an additional application fee. The consultants will
                         work under the direction of the Town Planning Director. Copies of the
                         consultants‟ qualifications, findings and reports shall be made available to the
                         applicant upon acceptance of the final draft of the report by the Planning Board.
                ((4)     The applicant must explain in writing to the Planning Board why it selected the
                         proposed site, discuss the availability or lack thereof of a suitable structure within
                         the search ring for collocation, and the extent to which the applicant has explored
                         locating the proposed facility in a more intensive use district. Correspondence
                         with other telecommunication providers concerning collocation is part of this
                         requirement. The applicant shall also provide evidence supporting the existence of
                         inadequate service. This may include the propagation maps cited above, drive test
                         maps, traffic studies, customer complaint logs and similar data. The applicant
                         must also demonstrate to the Board that the proposed facility satisfies the
                         demonstrated service deficiency to an equal or greater degree than any of the
                         reasonably available alternatives.
        §280-75. Historic buildings and districts.
        No wireless communication facility is allowed on any designated landmark property or district
        listed by federal, state or Town agencies, except as specified below, and subject to §170
        Landmark Preservation:
        A.      Any wireless communication facility located on or within an historic structure listed by
                federal, state or Town agencies shall not alter the character-defining features, distinctive
                construction methods or original materials of the building.
        B.      Any alteration made to an historic structure to accommodate a wireless communication
                facility shall be fully reversible.
        C.      Wireless communication facilities within an historic district listed by federal, state or
                Town agencies shall be concealed within or behind existing architectural features, so that
                they are not visible.
             Text of former §280-76 moved to §280-71(M) of this Amendment.
        §280-77 76. Removal and height reduction
        A.      Any wireless communication facility that is not operated for a continuous period of 12
                months shall be deemed abandoned. At that time the owner of the wireless
                communication facility or the owner of the property where the wireless communication
                facility is located shall remove all components thereof within 90 days of such deemed
                abandonment or will be in violation of this Article. In the case of a wireless
                communication facility on preexisting structures, this provision shall apply to the wireless
                communication facility only. If the wireless communication facility is not removed
                within the said 90 days, the Building Inspectors may, with the approval of the Town
                Board, give the owner notice that unless the removal is accomplished within 30 days, the
                Town will cause the removal at the owner's expense. The grant of a site plan approval
                under this article shall include requiring the applicant to post a decommissioning bond
                and irrevocable permission to the Town to accomplish removal of the wireless
                communication facility under this article. All costs and expenses incurred by the Town in
                connection with any proceeding or any work done for the removal of a wireless
                communication facility shall be assessed against the land on which such wireless
                communication facility is located, and a statement of such expenses shall be presented to

Southold Town Board                                     Page 33                                        Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                 October 20, 2009
               the owner of the property, or if the owner cannot be ascertained or located, then such
               statement shall be posted in a conspicuous place on the premises. Such assessment shall
               be and constitute alien upon such land. If the owner of the facility and the owner of the
               property upon which the facility is located shall fail to pay such expenses within 10 days
               after the statement is presented or posted, a legal action may be brought to collect such
               assessment or to foreclose such lien. As an alternative to the maintenance of any such
               action the Building Inspector may file a certificate of the actual expenses incurred as
               aforesaid, together with a statement identifying the property in connection with which the
               expenses were incurred and the owner of the facility and the owner of the property upo n
               which the facility is located, with the assessors who shall, in the preparation of the next
               assessment roll, assess such amount upon such property. Such amount shall be included
               in the levy against such property, shall constitute a lien and shall be collected and
               enforced in the same manner, by the same proceedings, at the same time and under the
               same penalties as is provided by law for the collection and enforcement of real property
               taxes in the Town of Southold.
        B.     Height reduction. Where antennas are moved to lower heights on an existing antenna
               support structure, and the full height is no longer needed, the overall height of the
               structure shall be reduced. No antenna support structure shall remain at a height that is
               taller than that required by installed and operational antennas.
        C.     This section is enacted pursuant to §10 of the Municipal Home Rule Law to promote the
               public health, safety and general welfare of Town citizens through removal provisions to
               insure the proper decommissioning of wireless communication facilities within the entire
               Town. The removal reduction provision of this chapter shall supersede any inconsistent
               portions of the Town Law §64(5-a) and govern the subject of removal of wireless
               communication facilities in this chapter.
        §280-78 77. Nonconforming uses Pre-existing antenna s upport structures and antennas.
        A.     Pre-existing transmission support structures and antennas, for which a permit has been
               issued prior to the effective date of this article, may continue in use for the p urpose now
               used and as now existing, subject to the conditions of that permit. Preexisting
               transmission support structures and antennas may not be replaced, structurally altered, or
               added to without complying in all respects with this article. The issuance of permit
               renewals or other new permits for such facilities shall be in accordance with the
               provisions of this article. Preexisting transmission support structures and antennas
               without the proper permits shall be considered out of compliance with this article.
        B.     Any wireless service provider with at least one preexisting transmission support structure
               or antenna in the Town of Southold that is out of compliance with the building and
               zoning requirements in this Chapter, prior to the adoption of this article, shall not be
               eligible for any new approvals until the preexisting transmission support structure or
               antenna is brought into compliance with this article.
        C.     Until all required permits are secured, no issuance of any new permit shall occur for a
               request to co- locate, attach, or share an existing transmission support structure, when
               such existing facility is found to have one or more antennas or mounts without permits.
        D.     Any application by a wireless service provider shall be deemed incomplete, if that
               provider has a preexisting transmission support structure in the Town on which there is
               any antenna or mount without permits, and said application shall not be processed until
               that facility is brought into compliance with this article.
         -
        §280-79 78. [Reserved] Waivers of crite ria.
        In approving a site plan or special exception, the Planning Board may waive or modify the

Southold Town Board                                   Page 34                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                            Minutes                                      October 20, 2009
        following criteria if they find that the goals and stated purposes of this law are better served by
        doing so, and that there is no detriment to the public health, safety and welfare.
            A. Section 280-70 H (2). Maximum Height: 80 feet
                      (1) In commercial zones, where co-location will achieve the result of fewer antenna support
                          structures, the Planning Board may modify 80 foot height restriction with the condition
                          that the antenna support structure be constructed so that antennas can be installed at any
                          height on the structure, and that the overall height of the structure can be reduced if
                          antennas are moved to lower heights. No antenna support structure shall remain at a
                          height that is taller than that required by installed and operational antennas. The applicant
                          must show that co-location of other carriers is likely by demonstrating that coverage or
                          capacity gaps of other carriers are located in the same area as the proposed structure.
            B. Section 280-70 H (3). Minimum distance of all wireless equipment to adjacent residential
                property lines or streets shall be no less than 500 feet.
                    (1) This setback requirement may be modified upon a showing by the applicant that
                        the actual distance of the antenna support structure to the residential structure is
                        minimized to the greatest extent possible.
            C. Section 280-72 A (6). Scenic landscapes and vistas.
                    (1) The requirement of planting of surrounding tree coverage and foliage to account
                        for existing vegetation and land contours may be modified by the Planning Board
                        but only in cases where it can be shown that the existing vegetation achieves the
                        purpose of concealing the structure.
            D. Section 280-70 M (1) d. Base landscaping.
                    (1) The requirement of planting of screening vegetation may be modified by the
                        Planning Board in cases where it can be shown that existing screening that
                        accomplishes the goal of concealing the base equipment shelter from other
                        properties and roads.
            E. Section 280-72 A (9) Antenna support structures in or adjacent to residential zones.
                    (1) If the structure is located on a property that is adjacent to a residential zone, the
                        Planning Board may modify the requirement of planting of surro unding tree
                        coverage and foliage in cases where it can be shown that existing vegetation and
                        land contours achieve the purpose of concealing the structure from nearby
                        residences.
            F. Section 280-76 B. Pre-existing antenna support structures and antennas not in compliance
                    (1) The provision requiring pre-existing non-conforming facilities to be brought into
                        compliance may be modified by the Planning Board where such facilities would
                        be required to be rebuilt or relocated to be in compliance, if, in those cases only,
                        the applicant demonstrates that those pre-existing facilities, given the carrier‟s
                        coverage or capacity needs, are already located in a place that would comply the
                        same or better as any alternate locations, or are already constructed to be as
                        unobtrusive as possible.
        §280-8079. Severability.
        The various parts, sections and clauses of this article are hereby declared to be severable. If any
        clause, sentence, paragraph, section or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of
        competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not affect the validity of this law as a
        whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid.
        §280-8180. Effective Date.
        This Local Law shall take effect immediately upo n filing with the Secretary of State.

        I am going to ask our Planning Director to summarize this. She has done much of the work on it.
        Before doing that, I will just say that the legal notice has appeared in the local newspaper, it has

Southold Town Board                                         Page 35                                            Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                       Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
        appeared on the Town Clerk‟s bulletin board outside, I have several other notes in the file here of
        interest and one of them is from the Suffolk County Department of Planning. They have
        determined that this application which has been submitted to the County Planning Commission is
        considered to be a matter of local determination as there is no apparent county wide affect. We
        have a memo from the chair of the town‟s Planning Board, a local law in relation to
        amendments. The Planning Board supports amending the wireless communication facilities
        code. While the code enacted last February was necessary and useful, in practice it has proved to
        need some changes in order to make it more understandable and more flexible. And there are a
        number of suggestions and recommendations that the Planning Board has made to us. There are
        several additional notices in here but I think maybe the best thing would be to let the Planning
        Director summarize this to the Board.

        Heather Lanza, Planning Director
        HEATHER LANZA, PLANNING BOARD DIRECTOR: Thank you, Tom. Okay, I will try to
        make it quick, there is kind of a lot here. Basically, you see a lot of cross outs in the code. A lot
        of that is because we moved chapters around to improve the overall flow. The code was a little
        difficult to read and understand once we started using it, so we thought we should switch things
        around and make it flow a little more logically. The general requirement section we moved to
        the front and site design standards were located all the way at the end, we moved those up into
        general requirements. We made some minor changes to the definition section, 280-69, basically
        we merged the two categories, major and minor modifications into a single definition and moved
        the last part of it out into ordinary maintenance and that was to let wireless carriers maintain their
        equipment without having to get a building permit every time. Other minor changes for
        clarification included replacing the word tower with our more expansive antenna support
        structure in the definitions and also the section regarding the process by which the town retains
        an outside consultant for technical review in 280-74a4, we just elaborated on that and made it a
        little more clear how that was supposed to go. On the significant changes, we made, well, we are
        proposing in this code change are basically needing more flexibility in the code. Looking at a lot
        of the applications that have come in over the last 8 months, we have seen where there are cases,
        for instance, where a co- location would make more sense and if you stuck exactly to the way the
        code was written for the maximum height you would end up with more towers rather than less
        which was the whole point of these code amendments. So the waivers of criteria section was
        added at the very end, 280-77 and basically allows the planning board to waive certain criteria
        for certain reasons. Should I run down what those are? Unless there are question, I could
        quickly….

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Just very briefly.

        MS. LANZA: They can waive, they can modify the height restrictions in certain cases where
        pole location achieves the results of fewer antennas but only in the commercial zones. They can
        waive or modify the minimum distance to residential property lines or streets but only in
        commercial zones where the setback requirements, well, they have certain criteria they have to
        go through to be able to do that. They can waive some of the landscaping requirements, if there
        is already landscaping there or land contours or buildings that already screen the thing and for
        preexisting support structures, they can waive the requirement that they comply to the new code
        if it is going to result in less towers in the end. That is generally how that goes. The section on
        preexisting, nonconforming wireless facilities, we made that more clear and put in more detail so
        basically preexisting towers can continue to operate but they have to comply with this article if
        they add to it. Co- locations can be, can only be added to a preexisting facility if it complies with

Southold Town Board                                    Page 36                                        Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                  October 20, 2009
        the article or is made to comply. Again, the proposed waiver section gives the Planning Board
        some leeway there. and then, an existing carrier, a carrier with an existing location that is not in
        compliance has to bring those other locations into compliance before they can locate in other
        places in the town. Last, the Planning Board, this is from their memo, they had several
        suggestions for changes to these amendments as proposed. In 280-70f, fall zones, just clarifying
        how the smaller fall zone can be determined by the engineer, it is just a few additions to the code
        language. Very simple stuff. Interior mounted antennas, there wasn‟t, the code was unclear
        about the setbacks of the base equipment, so this would just clarify that. Number 3, oh, we had
        been advised by the Department of State that we couldn‟t restrict these towers from wetlands and
        other places that have other agencies with jurisdiction but then upon further conversations, they
        suggested that we could just mirror the language in section 240 and add the language without a
        permit. Antenna support structures are not located in the following areas without a permit from
        all jurisdictional agencies. So you could actually keep those, that section in there with that
        caveat, the additional language. There is a mistake in that last section C, in the Planning Board
        comments. It shows within 500 feet of residences as staying in but we recommend it stays struck
        as in the proposed language because we moved it to section 280-78. And the last suggestion of
        the Planning Board was that the wireless facilities planning guide be finalized so that we can all
        use it to help with the application process. And that is it.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Would anybody else like to address the Town Board on
        the issue of wireless cell tower proposed legislation? Marie?

        Marie Domenici, Mattituck
        MARIE DOMINICI: Hi. When, I don‟t remember how long ago but when you guys started
        talking about cell phones, I was, cell phone towers, I was very much opposed to having you
        know, too many of them put into the town for various reasons and the most important reason to
        me is health related issues. I know that by law, that you are not, it doesn‟t matter if health, it
        should not be part of the picture but I have to tell you that I mean, there is so many things that
        come as a result of health issues that people are probably not aware and I urge you to arm
        yourself with good information because this has an impact on your families as well as other
        people‟s families. The impact on children is incredible. So my question is, is there going to be a
        cap on how many cell tower things are going to be in our town? Or is just going to be as the
        many companies apply to it, then they just get it?

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I think the cap will be determined by the economic incentives of
        the company. And no company is going to want to put up these things that cost hundreds of
        thousands of dollars if they can get by with fewer of them. I think there will be, shortly, a
        maximum. And furthermore, I wouldn‟t be a bit surprised if in some years in the future, many of
        them will be removed when a whole new technology comes out and they won‟t even need those
        things.

        MS. DOMINICI: But currently, isn‟t there something like 11 or 12 cell towers in Southold? I
        have the statistics but I don‟t remember what they were. But there were quite a few.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes, at least.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Yes, there are. At least.

        MS. DOMINICI: And some of them are truly not in compliance with the fall zone because some

Southold Town Board                                   Page 37                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                  October 20, 2009
        of them, if they do fall, will fall on the police station or fall on Route 48, so how does that
        impact, like the ones that have already been there, are they grandfathered because they are there?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Well, they are preexisting, nonconforming status. Like any
        structure, they would have to go through the process to upgrade or to replace the structure and
        follow the new rules. I think you need to understand, though, that this is to restrict cell towers,
        this legislation and I remember having this discussion with you last year. The legislation prior
        to this was fairly lenient. The idea was that we are trying to restrict and make site selection more
        appropriate through this legislation than to have just anybody that wants to apply for a cell tower
        come in and get one through the Zoning Board of Appeals process.

        MS. DOMINICI: Now are the bulk of the permits that are coming in, is this for town property
        use?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: The applications that are before the Plannign Board, I can‟t speak to
        them but my suspicion is they are probably almost entirely on either private property or generally
        some type of municipal corporation such as a park district or a fire district.

        MS. DOMINICI: Okay. Well, I remember in the last conversations that we had about this,
        putting a cell tower in a park district or a beach is really not wise on your behalf. And again, I
        will talk about health issues and you know, if I am wrong nobody gets hurt but if you are wrong,
        everyone get hurts. Your family as well as our families.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: We agreed with you and I think that is why we proposed that
        legislation because there were two pending applications, both located at heavily attended public
        beaches. One in north Mattituck, one in the south end of Mattituck on the bay. And that is was
        one of the watershed moments that led to this Town Board taking an effort to redo its existing
        cell tower code.

        MS. DOMINICI: Now the question I also have is for curre nt towers that exist with however
        many vendors that are on those towers, there has got to be with just like the LIPA lines that cross
        Route 48 and Sound Avenue, there was a time when those lines only carried about 29,000 watts,
        now they are at 69,000 watts. Does that also apply to cell towers where right now they will be
        emitting so many thousands of watts and can that increase with each new vendor that gets on the
        pole and what kind of health issue does that propose to this community?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: We put through this legislation the onus on the applicant to prove
        that it is not harmful to the public but you do need to remember that we are limited as to what we
        can legislate because of preemption. The federal communications commission regulates cell
        towers, not towns. So we are limited as to what public health safety benefits or protections we
        can put in the legislation, the FCC already rules on that and they are the ones that promulgate
        those types of legislation requirements. But we did put the onus on the applicant to prove that it
        is not going to be harmful.

        MS. DOMINICI: But you realize, Scott, that there is two sides to every story.
        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Mmmhmm.

        MS. DOMINICI: So if the cell tower vendor is coming in and saying here is the documentation
        that I have that says everything is good and you know, life is good and your phone service will

Southold Town Board                                   Page 38                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                  October 20, 2009
        even be better but in the interim you know that there is opposition, you know, information that is
        opposing that. And just because the cell tower provider comes and says hey, life is good here, no
        problems; that is really not looking at it from both sides of the coin.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I trust you didn‟t read all of the legislation that is there?

        MS. DOMINICI: You trust correctly.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: We, then let me tell you, we don‟t actually let the cell tower
        applicant pick the consultant to come and tell us that everything is a bed of roses. They merely
        have to pay for it. We select the consultant, so that it will be our co nsultant that will determine
        the health or the risk to health of any application. They merely get stuck with the bill. That way
        we make sure that the process is impartial and scientifically accurate not simply advocacy. We
        recognize in applications you pay for what you get and we are trying to avoid that by selecting
        our own consultant and making them simply pay for it.

        MS. DOMINICI: Okay, there is another question I had. Let me just see, oh, structural
        inspections, now is that, where is the onus? Is that on the owner of the tower or is that….?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Ultimately structural inspections of any kind for health safety issues
        would fall with the town, the towns building inspector.

        MS. DOMINICI: Okay, now when we issue permits, is there a life expectancy of that permit? Is
        it a two year, five year, ten year, what is the life expectancy?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Building permits are actually by state law, I believe they are good
        for up to one year with I think, up to two six month extensions presuming you ask for the
        extension prior to the expiration of that permit. Rules change every day, so the idea is that
        building permits aren‟t these free floating documents that let you undertake something five years
        from now. they need to be reviewed every time laws change, particularly state building code.

        MS. DOMINICI: So is the onus on the town to say, hey, AT&T, you permit is up six months
        ago or we are just waiting for them to come back to us and say oh by the way, I need to renew
        my permit? Because most times things like that just don‟t….

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Permit for construction?

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: No, I think you are on different….
        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay.

        MS. DOMINICI: We are on different wavelengths.

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Yeah.

        COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Radio wavelengths.

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: You meant, Scott is talking about the permit itself when it is
        issued, how long it is good for before the structure is built and completed and I think you are
        talking about, I think once the structure is built with the permit I think that is it.

Southold Town Board                                   Page 39                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                   October 20, 2009

        MS. DOMINICI: That is it?

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: It is good. Yes.

        MS. DOMINICI: Okay. So there is no further financial implication on the provider?

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Well, there some. For example, if they discontinue the use of it,
        they have the requirement to take it down completely. If there is any modification to it, if they
        change it in any significant way, they have to come back to the town and get another permit for
        that. If another provider wants to co-locate on that same, and we are encouraging the co- location
        on one tower so that we don‟t have a proliferation. Again, it has to go back through this whole
        process.

        MS. DOMINICI: Okay. Alright. Well, I probably have 30,000 other questions; one last
        question, you talk about site lighting, is that going to be in compliance with dark skies kind of
        thing?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Everything the Planning Board is producing now is in compliance
        with dark skies guidelines.

        MS. DOMINICI: Alright. And outside of that, I will leave you this document if I may, it talks
        about health concerns in children and pregnant women and other workers and things of that
        nature. You can read through it in your spare time and thank you for your time.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Would anybody else like to address the Town Board?

        MELANIE NORDEN: Hi, Melanie Norden, Greenport. Tom, I wonder if you could elucidate
        for me the comments that you made earlier regarding letting the economy takes care of this issue
        and how that fits into our notion of comprehensive planning? I mean, when we talk about
        planning, we really talk about our being in the drivers seat. We do not talk about economic
        factors dictating the future of the Town of Southold. Now how about if cell towers don‟t go out
        of fashion or out of style? Are we really saying the more the merrier? And as many as we want
        and if the economy supports it, we will support it?
        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: You asked me and I will just give my own view.

        MS. NORDEN: Okay.


        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Other Board members may have their own views. We have been
        talking about doing comprehensive plan. A plan, a comprehensive plan should include some
        planning for the infrastructure. I started out several years ago with very, with rather strong views
        against the whole cell phone industry. I have come to view the use of cell phones as rather
        important. Important to me, important to all of the people I see who are using them constantly
        and I changed my view a little bit to the extent that I view now the use of cell phones as an
        important part of the, and providing for them, an important part of the infrastructure of this town.
        In order to use that infrastructure effectively, the companies tha t sell cell phone services have to
        have a certain coverage and a certain number of units in this town at certain distances so that
        calls don‟t get dropped and so that there can be a number of calls in the same location. There

Southold Town Board                                    Page 40                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                  October 20, 2009
        are, I believe, three maybe four primary companies that provide cell service in this area. Each of
        them has to have a network of these aerials, of these antennas if they are going to provide
        reliable service in our community. Exactly where they are going to be located really can‟t be
        specified by the town. They can only be specified by their own people who know how far their
        signals go, what coverage they have, how many people they are trying to serve. It is not, I have
        had some disagreement with other board members and they probab ly have different views but I
        don‟t think it is appropriate or realistic to expect the town to tell those companies where they can
        place there….

        MS. NORDEN: Right. But I was addressing not where, I was addressing how many.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: How many of them really is a function of location. Because if
        you have a good location and a relatively high place, it can extend a long ways and you don‟t
        need another one for a long ways. If you have one set down in a valley someplace, you are going
        to have another one pretty close. So they are related. My expectation is that there is not going to
        be a great proliferation of these things in the town provided we can have them located in a few
        key places and we can have promote co-location so you get two or three different companies all
        located on the same aerial.

        MS. NORDEN: We are promoting it but we are not establishing it as a prerequisite or a
        requirement and so it may be to the advantage of one provider not to co- locate and there is
        nothing that will assure us that in fact, we are going to require that.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: It is somewhat unfair and I can‟t speak to the legality of it but it
        is somewhat unfair for the town to encourage one company to establish a network in this town
        and then bar a competitor….

        MS. NORDEN: Oh, I am not suggesting that. But I am just saying co- location is not, we
        wouldn‟t necessarily, according to this legislation we are going to bar nobody. And co-location
        is not a requirement and so in point of fact, we could ha ve lots of cell towers providing services
        to all of Long Island and beyond not necessarily providing simply services to the people of the
        Town of Southold. And all I am saying is, to suggest that we let the economy drive this part of
        planning is indefensible from my perspective.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Well, the maximum number, your question is the maximum
        number?

        MS. NORDEN: Right.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM:               I think it is unrealistic for the town to specify a number.
        However…

        MS. NORDEN: Tell me why that is unrealistic.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Because I don‟t think we are in a place, in a position to define
        that number. However, the legislation that we are adopting and that we did adopt last February
        gives us many opportunities to turn down applications. And it is not as if this is just opening the
        floodgates for every applicant who wants to come in and put one where he wants. In fact, there
        are many conditions here, there are many criteria by which the town can and will turn down

Southold Town Board                                   Page 41                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                       Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
        applications.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I also think, if I am not mistaken, we do make co-location the first
        order of business.

        MS. NORDEN: Is that a requirement?

        MS. LANZA: Yes. In the code right now, the code that we passed last February, there are
        places and if you are going to put up a new tower, you have to prove that you can‟t co- locate
        somewhere else. And that has to be, the proof has to be reviewed by our own technical
        consultants and radio engineers to make sure that that is true.

        MS. NORDEN: Right.

        MS. LANZA: So there is a requirement in there for co- location. There are several places where
        it is required.

        MS. NORDEN: Yeah, I understand that. No, I am just concerned with the idea that we are
        going to let any outside factors dictate our future without somehow shaping it ourselves. I think
        that is a very slippery slope and if we can make that argument for cell towers, we can make that
        argument for real estate, for just about any other factor that affects the lives and the future and
        the health and the well-being of anyone in Southold. We should be and we must remain or get
        into the drivers seat. Thank you.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I want to just, I don‟t think Tom meant to suggest that we are going
        to cast fate to the economic wind. As a practical reality, cell towers are regulated by federal law.
        We have exerted ourselves as much as we can legally to control sound siting, safe siting,
        reductions in visual, all of those negative aspects of cell towers by trying to demand co-location
        unless they can prove otherwise, by proving to us that they need the cell tower they are applying
        for, they have to do the aerial surveys of service. We put a lot of onus on them now. That was
        always absent before. This hopefully will reduce the need or the application process for cell
        towers, not increase it. That is why we undertook this…

        MS. NORDEN: Let me ask you just as a point of reference, what is the relationship between say
        federal law, in this case the FCC and the SEQRA review process?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Well, unfortunately federal law preempts all.

        MS. NORDEN: Does it?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes. Everything flows to the top. We can declare SEQRA, pos dec,
        anything but at the end of the day, the FCC regulates output, all those, the frequency output, all
        of those things. And everybody, unfortunately, is subject, it is no different than trying to, well, it
        is a different issue but similar in the context of trying to deal with helicopters and having the
        FAA tell me, well, we can‟t, you can‟t do anything and we refuse to.

        MS. NORDEN: Right.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is the reality of living in structured government.

Southold Town Board                                    Page 42                                        Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                    Minutes                                October 20, 2009

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: And we didn‟t rush pell mell into this. we did have a year long
        moratorium on this issue. The Planning Board….

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: 18 months.

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: And the Planning Board staff worked really hard on this. And as
        Tom said, we adopted this in February and we are amending it now to try to make it more
        effective. It is a work in progress.

        MS. NORDEN: And just out of, another point of reference, Heather, do we have any application
        in the hopper right now?

        MS. LANZA: Yes. There is a big backup from the moratorium, so we have about eight at least.

        MS. NORDEN: And how many cell towers do we have at present?

        MS. LANZA: Well, they are not all cell towers. A lot of those are co-locations.

        MS. NORDEN: Well, how many actual, whether there is one or more?

        MS. LANZA: Yeah, I don‟t remember. I don‟t have the inventory right here. Somebody said
        11 earlier. I think there is more than that.

        MS. NORDEN: Okay. So there may be 11 now, there is an eight backup. That seems like a
        whole lot of cell towers.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah and ….

        MS. LANZA: Those eight applications, many of them are co- locations on existing…

        MS. NORDEN: Okay.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: And it is a whole lot, which is why we passed legislation to try to
        cut down the number needed. That is exactly why we undertook this legislative initiative. So
        that we didn‟t have this proliferation of cell towers…

        MS. NORDEN: Right. Okay. So Heather do you think that would change then? Do you think
        that some of these applicants will fall off as a result of the new legislation?

        MS. LANZA: I don‟t think they will fall off. I mean, we already have good legislation here to
        make sure they go where they are needed and towers don‟t go up where they are not needed.

        MS. NORDEN: Right. So would you say that the primary amount of those applications are co-
        location applications?

        MS. LANZA: Most of them are.

        MS. NORDEN: They are?

Southold Town Board                                 Page 43                                   Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                    Minutes                                 October 20, 2009

        MS. LANZA: A lot of them I haven‟t even seen yet, so it is really hard to say, to answer that
        question.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I also think it is subject to ZBA review, so you can‟t answer for the
        ZBA in many cases.

        MS. LANZA: Well, it is all coming to the Planning Board but it is, a lot of these have just come
        into the building department so we haven‟t seen the actual applications, so it is really hard to
        answer that question. What is going to happen with them.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: There is one other aspect of our legislation that I feel is
        important. And that is that we give points to locations of cell towers within existing buildings,
        so that it doesn‟t require a stark new aerial, a stark new tower.

        MS. NORDEN: Mmmhmm.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: And there are buildings in this town that it turns out are suitable
        for these kinds of aerials.

        MS. NORDEN: And have you, let me just ask you, have you ever considered whether t here
        would any kind of legitimate revenue kickback from, I don‟t know how else to phrase that. I
        mean, we give cell towers a permit, the Orient fire department or some fire department has a cell
        tower, they make a whole lot of money from the cell tower. Does the town receive any of that at
        all?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: No. The town is not in the position right now to receive any money.
        Were we to host a cell tower, we could receive that as income. We are actually discussing that
        prospect right now with cell tower companies. But no, we can‟t cut ourselves in on the action
        when a private homeowner or a private property owner comes in, whether it is a municipal fire
        district….

        COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: No commission. We call it commission these days.

        MS. NORDEN: Right.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: We can‟t carve ourselves in on the action unfortunately.

        MS. NORDEN: Right. And that is because?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is because I don‟t have, we don‟t have the legal right to insist
        on payola for…

        MS. NORDEN: I am not talking about payola, I am just talking about whether there would be
        any kind of administrative fees or anything else?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Other than….

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Permit fees, yes.

Southold Town Board                                  Page 44                                      Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                        Minutes                                   October 20, 2009

        MS. NORDEN: Right. That I know.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Site plans, ZBA applications etc.

        MS. NORDEN: Gotcha.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: And annual revenue from taxes.

        MS. NORDEN: Thank you.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody else like to come up and address the Town Board?

        JIM DINIZIO: Jim Dinizio, Greenport. You know, I just glanced through it because this is the
        first I saw of it but one thing is good is that it looks like it doesn‟t go to the ZBA, it is just going
        to be a special exception by Planning Board?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Planning Board, mmhmm.

        MR. DINIZIO: And I would urge this Board to do that with every special exception. Not just
        this. You know, Tom, your comments were following exactly what I would say quite honestly.
        Having listened to a number of applications, the tower or the radius that the tower will serve is
        finite. There is not, there is, you can‟t extend it, you can‟t make it smaller, okay? it is what it is.
        Now, topography has something to do with it, Long Island is flat. I mean, (inaudible) you got a
        problem there but that is a problem. now, I know you have spent a certain amount of money on a
        study and before you had that study I had submitted a map with circles on it that tell you where
        they exist and where they would be needed based on the testimony that I heard from engineers
        during ZBA hearings. Now, one is Bayview, the firehouse in Bayview. If you had one there,
        you wouldn‟t need another one, okay? two more at the end of Southold Town, you know, in like
        that gully at the end of the divided highway, you need one there. and AT&T has proposed that
        on their maps. If you look closely at the maps that they have submitted to the Town. They have
        little triangles where they would like to have them. And I am kind of disappointed that you
        didn‟t look at that information because a lot of the questions you were getting and a lot of the
        legislation you have in here could have been, you know, hopefully answered. You don‟t seem
        to, you know, address, to me, the FCC mandate in the law, that you have a certain responsibility
        to ensure that the Town is covered. There is a certain responsibility. People, you know,
        (inaudible) people who live in the town, people who do business in the town, have an expectation
        that this technology will work, you know, in the town. And to my mind, what I am hearing from
        the audience and what I see in the law, is that you are setting up more roadblocks. Alright, you
        are going to hire your consultants. What does that mean? Your consultant? Is your consultant
        any less or any more non-partisan than any engineer who specializes in wireless communication?
        No. I don‟t think so.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Jim, may I respond to that?

        MR. DINIZIO: Yeah.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I think what Scott meant and what the law says, is the applicant
        has to come in with some scientific basis for why he wants this where he wants it. We have the

Southold Town Board                                     Page 45                                         Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                       Minutes                                    October 20, 2009
        right to take that information and send it our consultant to review his assertions, so they are not
        just pie in the sky or some statement that is designed to roll right over us. And as he said, the
        applicant has to pay for our review. But it is not as if we initiate it. The applicant initiates it, he
        hires his own specialists and experts to make a case for it, we only send it to our specialist to
        review his assertions. I think it is a good system.

        MR. DINIZIO: I disagree with it wholly. Only for the fact that, you know, the numbers are the
        numbers. To my mind, if you are not specifically telling them where the town needs to have
        towers, then you know, they have a right to ask for and in some times, get that tower. Okay?
        They have that right. And Tom, I understand what you are saying but it does to my mind, create
        an adversarial application that is unnecessary. The FCC does spell out the health risk of these
        cell towers and that is for the most part, what most people worry about. You know, we granted
        one in East Marion. That poor woman lives there with three children. I believe she is scared to
        death, quite honestly, that something is going to happen to her children because she has read
        stuff and yes, I know the government isn‟t always right. I worked for the industry for 15 years. I
        have confidence in radio frequency, certainly it is no where near the amount of energy that is put
        out by any radio station that people live near now. WLNG, WABC, no where near that. Quite
        honestly, it is not much more than the cell phone that is sitting on my belt right now. Doesn‟t
        have to be. Because it is line of sight. Certainly I would have hoped that you would have taken
        that map into more consideration. Certainly I wouldn‟t mind the town finding the locations that
        need to be, buying the land and telling them, here is where you have got to put the towers and
        getting the $600,000 a year from them to you know, it is your payola if that is what you want to
        call it. Get your piece of the pie.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: The information you had given me, actually my office was the first
        piece of information we sat down with when we hired the consultant. It was the basis for all the
        decision making that flowed from there. One of the problems we had from the previous code
        was that we were getting applications in, not necessarily based on need but based on want.
        Someone would apply for it here, even though someone five parcels away had one. That is, we
        want saturation of coverage not everything, you know, going to the path of least resistance. That
        is exactly what we did with that map.

        MR. DINIZIO: That is what we thought, Scott, that is honestly tha t is what we thought but I
        would have thought that the direction that the town would have gone is to number one, purchase
        the land for number one, the protection of the people okay, you know, I don‟t know, you
        purchase five acres, six acres or whatever it is going to take and you put the cell tower there and
        you put the cell tower there, and all the cell towers go there. quite honestly, there are different
        technologies, you know, Sprint might use different technology than AT&T but the amount of
        loss is not that great. Now, you want to talk about cell towers, you want to talk about going
        green, well, let me just put this to you. There is probably about 6,000 telephone poles out here
        right now that carry phones. Those have to be maintained every day by somebody. Okay? If
        there is 14 cell towers in this town, imagine the amount of trucks you are taking off the road.
        Now the Suffolk Times, because only 14 cell towers have to now be maintained and driven to
        once a week or whatever it takes. Lines aren‟t falling down, water isn‟t getting in the lines, there
        is no under construction, there is no pulling poles out, there is no poles hits. There is a lot of
        things that are involved with cell towers that regular poles aren‟t involved with that. I mean, I
        listen to Troy Gustavson gush about his I phone, okay, how much technology it did, he wrote this
        big article, this is great, I can do this, I can buy tickets. Well, he is sitting in his back yard. He
        has a cell tower. Someone on Bayview can‟t do that. Okay? so I think really this legislation

Southold Town Board                                     Page 46                                        Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                     Minutes                                 October 20, 2009
        should have been more in the direction of the town studying where these cell towers are needed
        in order to fill the obligations to service the people in the town and then from there, purchasing
        land and doing whatever it takes. But I will point out to you that I believe in this whole
        legislation, there is no ZBA approval. It is approval by the Planning Board….

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I stand corrected on that.

        MR. DINIZIO: And that is a good thing. Thank you very much.

        Supervisor Russell
        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody else like to address the Town Board on an issue I
        didn‟t think would turn out to be nearly as exciting as it turned out to be? Cell towers?
        Anybody? (No response)

  5.    PH 10/20/09 4:40 Pm - Convenience Stores

        Councilman Wickham
        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, there has been presented to the
        Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 22nd day of
        September, 2009, a Local Law entitled “A Local Law in relation to Amendme nts to the
        Zoning Code, Article X entitled Hamlet Business (HB) District and Article XI entitled
        General Business (B) District” and
        NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will
        hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road,
        Southold, New York, on the 20th day of October, 2009 at 4:40 p.m. at which time all interested
        persons will be given an opportunity to be heard.
        The proposed Local Law entitled, “A Local Law in relation to Amendme nts to the Zoning
        Code, Article X entitled Hamlet Business (HB) District and Article XI entitled Gene ral
        Business (B) District” reads as follows:
                                             LOCAL LAW NO.           2009
        A Local Law entitled, “A Local Law in relation to Amendme nts to the Zo ning Code, Article
        X entitled Hamlet Business (HB) District and Article XI entitled General Business (B)
        District”.
        BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows:
        I.      Purpose - The goals of the Town of Southold, as set forth in numerous planning
                documents over the past twenty years, include the preservation of land, preservation of
                the rural, cultural and historic character of the hamlets, preservation of the Town‟s
                natural environment and natural resources, promotion of a range of hous ing and business
                opportunities that support a socio-economically diverse community, and an increase in
                transportation efficiency while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of the Town.
                In consideration of these goals, the Town has found that certain retail uses have
                characteristics that can cause an adverse impact on the public health, safety and welfare.
                Convenience stores, because of their proximity to similar uses and their operation
                characteristics, including increased traffic generation, long hours of operation, bright
                lights, and the noise and litter problems associated with such uses, tend to be more
                intrusive to the community, and have the potential to cause adverse impacts. This local
                law is intended to mitigate the potential impacts of convenience stores by ensuring,
                through the appropriate revisions to the Town Code, that convenience stores are located

Southold Town Board                                   Page 47                                      Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                       Minutes                                  October 20, 2009
               on sites that have adequate on-site parking and circulation, are a sufficient distance away
               from similar uses and are designed to fit in with the community in scale, architecture, and
               overall site design in order to preserve the community‟s      character.
        II.    Chapter 280 of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows:
        §280-4. Definitions. [Amended 7-31-1973]
        CONVENIENCE STORE - A retail store generally less than 5,000 square feet that is designed
        and stocked to sell prepackaged food items, beverages, periodicals and household goods for off-
        premise consumption.
                                               ARTICLE X
                                         Hamlet Business (HB) District
        §280-45. Use regulations.
        C.     Accessory uses. The following uses are permitted as accessory uses and except for
               residential accessory uses and signs, which are subject to Article XIX, are subject to site
               plan review:
                 Subparagraphs 1 and 2 - text remains the same.
                 (3)    Convenience store located with a prior non-conforming gas station use (gas
                        stations are not a permitted use in the HB zone, however, there are a number of
                        pre-existing gas stations in operation) shall be considered an accessory use subject
                        to site plan review, only if the following requirements are met:
                        (a)      Maximum gross floor area of the retail store equals 800 square feet
                        or less, including storage and counter area.
                        (b)      Parking requirement equal to one space per 100 square feet of floor area
                                 devoted to retail sales area including the sales counter and retail products
                                 storage. The gas station must still meet its parking requirement separately,
                                 however, each fuel dispenser can count as one parking space toward the
                                 convenience store requirement.
                        (c)      The physical design, including color and use of materials, of the
                                 establishment shall be sensitive to the visual and physical characteristics
                                 of other buildings, public spaces and uses in the particular location, and
                                 shall comply with the retail building standards in 280-45 A(7) (a)-(e) to
                                 the extent practicable.
                          (d) Advertisements of any kind, including audio or visual, and including
                                 trademark logos, may not be affixed, painted or glued onto the windows
                                 of the business or onto any exterior structures, including banners or flags,
                                 and may not be displayed via outdoor monitors or t.v.s.
                          (e) Signs for the convenience store shall conform with Article XIX of this
                                 Chapter, and further, may not be lit from within.
                          (f) Formula food restaurants are not permitted within accessory convenience
                                 stores.
                 (4)    Convenience stores associated with gas stations that do not meet these
                        requirements are considered a second principal use and must meet the minimum
                        bulk schedule requirements (e.g., a gas station with a convenience store that is
                        1,200 square feet in size must have a minimum of 60,000 square feet of lot area).
                 (5)    Pre-existing, non-conforming convenience stores with the proper approvals in
                        place prior to the enactment of this law may continue as they are with no increase
                        in size unless they can meet the requirements for a second principal use.

                                                   ARTICLE XI

Southold Town Board                                    Page 48                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                  October 20, 2009
                                          General Business (B) District
        §280-48. Use regulations.
        C.     Accessory uses. The following uses are permitted as accessory uses and, except for
        residential accessory uses and signs, which are governed by Article XIX, are subject to site plan
        review:
                 Subparagraphs 1 through 3 - text remains the same.
                 (4)    Convenience store located with a gas station use shall be considered an accessory
                        use subject to site plan review, only if the following requirements are met:
                        (a)     Maximum gross floor area of the retail store equals 800 square feet or less,
                                including storage and counter area.
                        (b)     Parking requirement equal to one space per 100 square feet of floor area
                                devoted to retail sales area including the sales counter and retail products
                                storage. The gas station must still meet its parking requirement separately,
                                however, each fuel dispenser can count as one parking space toward the
                                convenience store requirement.
                        (c)     The physical design, including color and use of materials, of the
                                establishment shall be sensitive to the visual and physical characteristics
                                of other buildings, public spaces and uses in the particular location, and
                                shall comply with the retail building standards in 280-45 A(7) (a)-(e) to
                                the extent practicable.
                        (d)     Advertisements of any kind, including audio or visual, and including
                                trademark logos, may not be affixed, painted or glued onto the windows of
                                the business or onto any exterior structures, including banners or flags,
                                and may not be displayed via outdoor monitors or t.v.‟s.
                        (e)     Signs for the convenience store and gas station shall conform with Article
                                XIX of this chapter.
                        (f)     Formula food restaurants are not permitted within accessory convenience
                                stores.
                 (5)    Convenience stores associated with gas stations that do not meet these
                        requirements are considered a second principal use and must meet the minimum
                        bulk schedule requirements (e.g., a gas station with a convenience store that is
                        1,200 square feet in size must have a minimum of 60,000 square feet of lot area).
                 (6)    Pre-existing, non-conforming convenience stores with the proper approvals in
                        place prior to the enactment of this law may continue to operate as a non-
                        conforming use with no increase in size unless they can meet the requirements for
                        a second principal use.
                                                  ARTICLE XVIII
                                             Parking and Loading Areas

        §280-78 Off-street parking areas.

        Type of Use                                   Required Numbe r of Parking Spaces

        Convenience Stores                            at least 1 space per 100 square feet of gross
                                                      floor area of the retail store, including
                                                      storage and counter space


Southold Town Board                                    Page 49                                        Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
        III.    SEVERABILITY
        If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any
        court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not affect the validity of this law
        as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid.
        IV.     EFFECTIVE DATE
        This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided
        by law.


        The primary purpose of this legislation is to deal with convenience stores associated with gas
        stations. Gas stations are allowed in hamlet business only as pre-existing, non-conforming gas
        stations. In the business, general business zones, they are allowed there as of right. (commentary
        made during the reading of the public hearing)

        That summarizes the proposed law that is in front of us tonight. I have a notice here that it has
        appeared in the Suffolk Times newspaper as a legal, it has appeared on the Town Clerk‟s bulletin
        board outside. The County of Suffolk has said that this is a matter for local determination, so
        they are not going to weigh in on this. The principal planner and LWRP coordinator has
        concluded in a memo of October 19th , that this, based upon the information provided to the
        department, this proposed action is consistent with the LWRP policy standards and therefore is
        approvable as, under the LWRP. I have a short environmental assessment form that has been
        submitted together with the file and finally a memo from the Town Planning Board, dated
        October 19th . „The Planning Board supports the concept of limiting the size and other aspects of
        convenience stores at gas stations. Most of the gas stations in So uthold came into a being at a
        time in the past when there were fewer cars on the road. Site circulation, parking and traffic
        were much less of an issue then, allowing a gas station to operate on a very small site with no
        problems. Many of those sites do not offer much in the way of parking or safe circulation under
        crowded conditions and are thus not well suited to handle the higher volume of cars currently
        using their sites. After reviewing the proposed code amendments, the Planning Board offers the
        following. The section regarding signs is unnecessarily restrictive. The Town code already
        addresses advertising and window signs in article 19, which restricts them to a certain percentage
        of the window area. Two, the Town Board should consider adding specific language about
        outdoor advertising monitors to the sign code so that it applies to all businesses, not just to this
        one type of business, convenience. They are a new aspect of advertising that the code has not
        been clear about in the past and they are out of character with the community. Three, section
        280-45 c 4 should state 40,000 square feet in the example instead of 60,000 square feet. The
        hamlet business district requires 20,000 square feet per use. And finally, the Town Board should
        consider adding the accessory use to the LB business zone, what I just read applies to hamlet
        business and general business. Their recommendation number four, the Board should consider
        adding accessory use to the LB business zone in addition to those two to cover existing gas
        stations in that zoning district, too. It appears the proposed amendments go beyond addressing
        only convenience stores accessory to gas stations in the definitions and parking section.‟ And
        those are the only notes in the file.

        Supervisor Russell
        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody like to come up and address the Town Board on this
        particular issue?

        Beth Sterns, Mattituck

Southold Town Board                                    Page 50                                        Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                       Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
        BETH STEARNS: Hi, I am Beth Stearns from Mattituck. I did not hear anything that would tell
        me, well, perhaps you can clarify for me whether this law, this resolution that you passed relates
        at all to the proposed 7-11 at the Citgo station in Mattituck? I am very concerned that the 7-11 is
        a possibility to go in there because it exacerbates problems that already exist on that site and I
        really implore the Town Board to take whatever means it may possibly take to prevent 7-11
        going up there. not because I personally I personally do not appreciate 7-11, although I don‟t,
        but because living in that area, I experience every day that the traffic pattern is not sufficient
        right now to be safe, in my view, and that I do not believe that whatever change to the traffic
        pattern 7-11 might provide will ameliorate the situation, I think. It may not be as bad as a traffic
        pattern as could possibly go in but I think it will exacerbate the situation. I am also concerned
        about loitering in the area, I am concerned about increased litter in the area but mostly I think
        that it is a safety hazard to have people coming in and out with the frequency that they will and
        the hours that they will. So I please, I know that this a late point in that process, but I really hope
        that the Board will use all creativity and diligence to prevent the 7-11 going up in that spot. We
        already have a number of convenience store type of or fast food type of situations in Mattituck
        and I see t hat further east that is not the case and I ask you that if you live in another hamlet of
        this town that you bring the same concern that you would have for your own hamlet to the
        hamlet of Mattituck and please stop the 7-11 from going there. Thank you.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Who else would like to address the Town Board?

        Maryann, Anitque Deli
        MARYANN: My name is Maryann, I am one of the owners of the Antique Deli that is directly
        across the street from where you are going to put 7-11.

        COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: We are not putting 7-11 there.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Where one is proposed.

        MARYANN: Okay. But I know a few of you are for it and a few of you are against it and I am
        probably wasting my time but I have been told that it has already gone through, there is not much
        more that we can do about it. I am just really here to tell you that I am really disappointed, I
        have been in business there four years October 1 and our name is a little odd for a deli, Antique
        Catering and Deli, I chose to bring it out here and I employ local women in my store who I have
        been friends with for many years and I love it out here. I always liked the fact that out here is
        like old-fashioned beliefs. Mom and Pop stores, I have been working at my entire life and I
        really think that it is going to be a thing of the past. Everybody shops BJ‟s, everybody shops
        Sams Club and I feel as though like I did 10 years ago, maybe longer, when Boar‟s Head sold us
        out. I feel Boar‟s Head sold out the Mom and Pop stores when they went into the shopping, you
        know, to King Kullen and we weren‟t allowed to just provide that for the public anymore. So I
        kind of feel the same way, I feel like we are be ing sold out and I know can speak for not just
        myself and I know if each and every one of you came into my store, I know there is North Fork
        deli, there is the bagel store across the street, I know I would be willing to s hare my books with
        you and tell you and show you, we don‟t make a million dollars. We are fighting to stay above
        water as it is. And I really mean that from my heart. You can come in and I would share my
        books and show you, we are, last winter was horrendous to try to get through and now I am
        going to lose part of my coffee trade. Granted, I don‟t think 7-11 can ever compare to my food,
        my catering. They will never compare. And they will never take that part of my food away. Or
        my local people I know support our store. But I do feel they will take a part of my coffee

Southold Town Board                                     Page 51                                        Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                     Minutes                                  October 20, 2009
        business because people on the run, those moms who want to grab juice, a half gallon of milk, a
        dozen eggs, a cup of coffee; I now lost that customer who would come in for that cup of coffee
        in the morning because she can now get a pre-packaged bagel, a coffee and a juice and a snack
        for her kid for school and meanwhile, I can put that kind of that stuff in my store, I chose not to
        put beer and cigarettes in my store because I want to sell good old-fashioned food. Where I
        thought it was good old- fashioned north fork. And I just feel really let down that they are
        actually allowing it to happen. That really basically all I have to say. Thank you.

        COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: This legislation is what we see the future of gas stations. There
        are always gas stations with convenience stores associated to it, so what we are doing is trying to
        be proactive here before they all come out here, is do a legislation like this, so we can manage
        the convenience store that goes associated with it.

        MARYANN: The traffic there is horrendous.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Let me just clarify, the legislation that is before us started out as an
        issue to address convenience stores. I am disappointed because I thought that we could have
        made a better effort to address the issue and for me, I know the competition with, it is just, you
        know, it is simple for me, I used to live on Sigsbee Road, Mattituck has had enough and I don‟t
        blame them. On top of that, investment begets investment. When McDonalds or CVS come in
        and the 7-11 serves as anchor stores, you know, where does it stop? Well, you know we thought
        it would stop with a McDonalds in 1993, it didn‟t. We thought it stopped with a CVS before I
        got here and it didn‟t. now it is McDonalds, on top of that, look, I sound a bit hypocritical
        because I probably spend more money at 7-11 every day than you, every body in this room, go to
        Southold every 5 minutes but as a practical reality, bad use, bad spot. It is as simple as that.
        What this legislation was, was the best consensus this Board can come up with in terms of
        recognizing that we have other challenges in Mattituck and other places right now with
        convenience stores as accessory uses. We have pending litigation, we have those other things.
        So we do need to get something passed. However, I have to agree with anyone here that wants
        to say that is the worse place I can think of for a 7-11.

        MS. STEARNS: Inaudible from audience

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes. Yes it does. Does it impact them greatly? The application, no
        but does it impact it? Yes.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Could you explain….

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: You know, my problem is, every time I start talking about specifics,
        my attorney says shut up, we have got litigation. Specifically, the bulk schedule requirements
        for convenience stores, all uses, principal or accessory, is now double than what it was before.
        Rather than requiring one car per hundred square feet, we would require two cars per hundred
        square feet.

        UNIDENTIFIED: No.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: If you, the other way around. I am sorry. I am sorry. One car per
        hundred. We have doubled their requirement for parking. That is not so we want them to
        accommodate more cars, we wanted to make sure that the site can handle that type of traffic and

Southold Town Board                                   Page 52                                      Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
        that type of intensity of use.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: And that is for all such sites throughout the town. It is not
        targeting any particular one.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Right.

        COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: So if you have a small site, yo u can‟t build a big structure
        because you can‟t accommodate the parking. So they kind of go hand in hand.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: There are other aspects of the legislation I talked to you about the
        other night. I will talk to you about those at another time. But for the time being, I want to hear
        what the public has to say.

        Melanie Norden
        MS. NORDEN: The Planning Board hearing was quite elucidating for a number of reasons and I
        don‟t believe any of you were there but it did strike me rather astonis hingly that we have a
        hearing on a large 7-11 convenience store and less than a week later you propose this very
        limited legislation that you are talking about in terms of I am disappointed or reaching a
        consensus. But the issue is far greater than that. I mean, maybe legally adverse because you do
        suppose that presumably you might get somehow sued by 7-11 but the idea of having legislation
        for small convenience stores attached to gas stations and not for large convenience stores is
        utterly ludicrous and flies completely in the face of everything that everybody said here when
        they talked about comprehensive planning just five nights ago. Everything that you have said
        about the small convenience stores in terms of quality of life, light, noise, all of that, applies 10
        times, 10 fold greater to the large convenience store and the idea that you would exempt large
        convenience stores I can only conclude it is because you are adverse to potential legislation,
        which again is a very bad use of planning. That is not how we plan. I mean, frankly if you are
        going to get sued by 7-11 because you changed the legislation after 3, 4 or 5 years, so be it. But
        this is completely unacceptable in terms of a planning initiative. The small convenience store
        attached to a gas station is probably not going to be open 24 hours. It may very well be owned
        by a mom and pop because they can afford it and they may not want to do a franchise. There
        also may not even be that many new convenience stores attached to gas stations in the Town of
        Southold so this might be a legislation that may not have many applications. That legislation
        that would have real application to the whole barrel of wax in terms of the problems with large
        convenience store, I can‟t understand how that can be in any way left out of this discussion. So
        if any of you can explain to me how you can somehow carry those issues and separate out the
        small convenience store attached to a gas station and not address the over arching social,
        economic and environmental implication of large convenience stores, I would love to hear your
        explanation because I am really disappointed in this.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Sure. I will tell you right now. First of all, the idea of small
        convenience stores attached to gas stations is that, to keep them small. We have convenience
        stores that have grown to 2,500 square feet. They have fundamentally two principal uses on site
        with the gas station and a convenience store. What you also don‟t forget, if you might recall, we
        have pending issues with regard to the Hess station in Mattituck, with an applicant that applied
        for a 2,300 square foot convenience store. That is not small, it is not incidental, it is
        monumental. I would like to have seen a broader law that addressed the convenience….


Southold Town Board                                    Page 53                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
        MS. NORDEN: Okay, so why wasn‟t there one?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Because the Board did not support it. Period.

        MS. NORDEN: That is not an adequate explanation for me.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: It‟s the…

        MS. NORDEN: I mean, it flies in the face of everything that we have talked about in terms of
        planning. So if any of the Board members who didn‟t support having a comprehensive
        legislation about convenience stores, could you please explain yourselves? Because you know,
        with the many problems, first of all I know Heather Lanza did say that you pay no attention to
        petitions. She said in Suffolk Times a while ago that 1,200 signatures don‟t really mean
        anything because nobody cares about the petition. So the public comes, it weighs in after a three,
        four, five year process in which the Planning Board has spent time with the applicant but never
        with the public, we get a chance to weigh in at the very last minute and we are told by the
        Planning Board, well, we really don‟t have the capacity to do any visioning for the town apart
        from what Scott had to say at the comprehensive plan hearing; the Planning Board says we just
        really have to respond to the site application. So I would really, at this point, from those
        members who did not support move comprehensive legislation. How you can separate out
        convenience store by small as opposed to large? Why does that make sense in a broader scheme
        in terms of comprehensive planning?

        COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Well, we didn‟t finish the convenience store legislation because
        we all couldn‟t agree on the final aspect of it.

        MS. NORDEN: So why suggest any?

        COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: (inaudible) radius, how far apart we agreed on, we got caught up
        in definitions about trying to hurt an existing convenience store. We didn‟t want to hurt that one,
        so we were trying to work on how we, definitions on the new one without hurting the old one if
        something happened to the old one.

        MS. NORDEN: Which is the old one?

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: One of the problems….

        COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: The old 7-11, the old deli or an old convenience store that is
        existing.

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: One of the problems there, the definitions with convenience store
        was that a store, a convenience store like 7-11 could circumvent the code because we had the
        planning department work up a lot of definitions to try to update it and try to be more specific
        about which type of store we wanted to allow, which type we wanted to discourage and a store
        like a 7-11 could simply put in a small grill or a small deli counter and then they wouldn‟t be a
        convenience store anymore. And they would circumvent any law that we made concerning
        convenience stores. Because that legal definition, if you can circumvent it that easily, it is really
        not effective.


Southold Town Board                                    Page 54                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                       Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
        MS. NORDEN: Well, isn‟t, wouldn‟t that make sense then for you to more thoroughly define
        what a convenience store is? Rather than not take the responsibility….

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is what the law does. There is no definition of convenience
        store in the current code. We actually cull it out and make it its own use. In the old days, it used
        to caught under the aegis of retailing and it is not the same as a hat store, which is what this law
        tries to address but I think, look, the problems with trying to address it were enormous. I asked
        the Board months ago, I said the planning staff, the attorney‟s office have been working on this
        but I need to get a direction and a sense from this Board, are we willing to go to even a draconian
        step to make this work or not. The consensus from the Board was, no. we will take care of the
        accessory uses. Convenience stores, not small convenience stores, accessory convenience stores
        and this is an issue….

        MS. NORDEN: And then, but that presupposes answer my question regarding what is going to
        happen to large convenience stores? Where is that proposed legislation which is far more
        reaching and will have, that many more impact on all of the things that you site here that are part
        of your obligations in terms of insuring the future of Southold Town. It seems that you have
        taken on the smaller problem because you didn‟t the will to take on the larger problem and I wish
        that you would define that more thoroughly or at least in some way admit that. Because
        otherwise, this is, to say everything that you have said about convenience stores, about their
        impacts to life, quality of life and all of that and somehow to leave large convenience stores out
        of the equation is truly just doesn‟t make sense. Tom, maybe you can explain a little better.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: First of all, I have trouble with your distinction between large
        and small. We have spent a great deal of time…

        MS. NORDEN: Let me just say, small, let me say convenience stores not associated with gas
        stations then. That would be a better definition.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: That is right. That is right.

        MS. NORDEN: Okay.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: The Town Board must have dealt with this at at least three or
        four work sessions and at least three or four code committee meetings that I attended, maybe
        even more than that. We went back and forth on this many times. As Scott said, one of the
        issues is definition. It really is not easy to define exactly what is a convenience store and be sure
        that we can make it stick. We are not worried. I am not worried about a legal challenge, I am
        just worried about doing this in a way that will work. That will work for what you….

        MS. NORDEN: I know but you have not done it all now.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: That is right. because we weren‟t clear that we could define it in
        a way that would work well. But to do it in association with a gas station, we thought, that is
        clear, we thought we could define it well and it will work. But let me just say, this is a first step.
        One of the things we thought for the non gas station type convenience store, we tried identifying
        we can have one separated by what was it, 500, no two miles or….

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Half a mile and a mile.

Southold Town Board                                    Page 55                                        Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                   October 20, 2009

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: One mile, we tried different special. You can‟t just, as we
        learned a long time ago, you can‟t just ban them from the town. That just isn‟t going to work.
        There has to be some criteria on which we would allow convenience stores and others that we
        are going to regulate them out. You can‟t just say no. one criteria would be to put a distance
        marker. One would be to have a size marker, one would be other, we went all through this. our
        conclusion was for tonight, let‟s put up a proposal that would regulate convenience stores
        associated with gas stations which have been proliferating. And which are, some of us feel are
        somewhat unsightly. This does not preclude the Board moving ahead more aggressively on the
        broader question. I think we should take it up as part of our master plan. And I think there, I
        don‟t quite agree with the Supervisor, I think there actually is willingness on the part of the
        Board to deal with it….

        MS. NORDEN: I know but by then the 7-11 will be located in Mattituck. I mean, don‟t you
        understand that this is a time bound argument? Of course you understand that. To make it part
        of our master plan means by 2012 maybe there won‟t be a 7-11 in where else? Laurel?
        Cutchogue? Whatever. But the point is, this is a time bound argument. People from the public,
        from all walks of life have stepped up to the plate, came to the Planning Board hearing,
        expressed their concerns from everything from Factory Avenue residents to the Unity Baptist
        Church to all sorts of people who live in the neighborhood, to traffic is sues, to quality of life
        issues, to loitering issues, to creating an atmosphere where kids can hang out after hours or hang
        out all night, to drug related issues, to all sorts of issues and the point is, there is nothing
        presumably that your Planning Board who claim has the capacity to envision something can do.
        So now the question is not to just say we are going to front load the master plan in two years
        from now, by then it really will be too late. And the public has asked you, as elected officials, to
        respond to some of their concerns. And we heard virtually no response that included the public
        at the Planning Board hearing the other night and we are hearing no response now. I mean, the
        small convenience store, we don‟t even know if it is going to have an effect now or maybe in six
        months or a year or two years, when a small convenience store affiliated with a gas station wants
        to put up some new signage or whatever. I guess the question is, are you going to deal with this
        issue of, not call them large, just call them convenience stores not affiliated with gas stations and
        can you deal with it any time in the immediate future?

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: My only response to that is, it is inappropriate for the Town
        Board to design new legislation that is targeted to one specific enterprise.

        MS. NORDEN: I am not asking for, I am asking for legislation that is targeted for convenience
        stores not affiliated with gas stations. Not just one. For legislation and it would go hand in
        glove with this. so if you are going to have legislation for small convenience stores affiliated
        with gas stations, then you can have legislation for convenience stores of any size non
        affiliated….

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I view this hearing as, for me personally, as an opportunity to get
        insight and input from the town. If there seems to be support for that approach, I think I and I
        believe other members of the Board will be quite interested in putting it on our agenda and
        continuing to work on it.

        MS. NORDEN: Right. But, right. I think that is great but the point is not if there seems to be, I
        think the evidence is overwhelming that there is quite a bit of concern on the part of the residents

Southold Town Board                                    Page 56                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                    Minutes                                 October 20, 2009
        regarding this large convenience store. I am not asking you to spot legislate. I am asking you to
        come up with comprehensive legislation for convenience stores of any size not affiliated or
        affiliated with gas stations. And we are asking you to do that in response to a number of
        concerns that have been already raised by the public in several forums. And so far, they have
        fallen quite heartbreakingly, on deaf ears.

        COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Well, Melanie, jumping back to the public hearing tonight. if we
        don‟t do this now, next year you will be back here yelling at us for a 2,500 square foot
        convenience store with the Hess station in Mattituck.

        MS. NORDEN: I don‟t think so. I don‟t think so.

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: With a subway in it….

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Wait a second, don‟t diminish the importance of that information
        because there are real issues and if you live on Bayview, you really do care about accessory gas
        stations. And these…

        MS. NORDEN: But you don‟t care only about ….

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I am talking now, please.

        MS. NORDEN: Alright.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I have listened to you very patiently. But let me tell you right now
        what I just heard before which is very troubling to me. We can fix it as part of the
        comprehensive plan. That is the problem with what has happened with Mattituck.

        MS. NORDEN: Right.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Every time we get it right, it is after the building has gone up in
        Mattituck. We address box store legislation after the CVS, we address formula food restaurants
        after the McDonalds….

        MS. NORDEN: Precisely.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: That is not true. That is not true.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Inaudible

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: McDonald‟s was….

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I go to it every night with two kids. I am pretty sure it is in
        Mattituck, if I am not mistaken.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: We did not stop in McDonalds, we designed legislation to make
        a McDonalds that would be appropriate to the Town of Southold.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. But then the formula food law requires all future formula

Southold Town Board                                  Page 57                                     Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                       Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
        food restaurants to be located in shopping centers and the like.

        MS. NORDEN: Right.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. But this is the one problem and you know, I used to live on
        Sigsbee Road, like I mentioned before, and I am very sensitive to that issue when I see that we
        are literally not addressing a convenience store that is going to be located within only a couple of
        yards of 22 community affordable houses that we just sponsored just a couple of years ago. Bad
        spot, bad use.

        MS. NORDEN: Right.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is all I can say to it, that is what I have been saying right along.

        MS. NORDEN: But that is not enough. Bad spot, bad use is not enough. Bad spot legislation
        that addresses bad spot, bad use is. That is what we are asking for. Thank you.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Arthur?

        Michael Confsione, Mattituck
        MICHAEL CONFUSIONE: Hi, my name is Dr. Michael Confusione and I live in Mattituck.
        And I would like to know the definition, if we are leading to a definition of a convenience store,
        as being when it is convenient for people to shop or the exception of when it is not convenient
        for people to shop?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That would be a very compelling part of, the legislation we defined I
        believe was based on size, traditional type of characteristics.

        DR. CONFUSIONE: I don‟t see anything in there regarding hours and I wonder how convenient
        it is for any of the Board members here to go shopping at 12:00 at night?

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: We brought that up…

        DR. CONFUSIONE: 2:00 in the morning.

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: The hours of operation came up numerous times at the code
        committee meetings and at our work sessions. I kept being assured by our town planners and
        town attorney that it was unconstitutional to regulate the hours of operation. I hate to say
        because I am not an attorney, that I don‟t believe that but I think a lot of the quality of life issues
        are coming from a 7-11, come from after hours type of use. And that if it closed at 11, than I
        think you would eliminate a lot of those problems.

        DR. CONFUSIONE: Yeah. At the planning meeting, which I attended, we were challenged by
        some of the Planning Board members as to would this be the same if mom and pop were opening
        up a delicatessen on that corner? Let‟s forget mom and pop. A delicatessen on that corner would
        not be open 24 hours a day. Our free standing deli‟s that we have on the north fork do not attract
        kids late at night. I used to work Suffolk County drug abuse treatment services, 30 years ago and
        for about 7 years and one of the things that is very evident is that drug addicts and not all the kids
        in Mattituck certainly fit this criteria but look to hang out at a place that is open late at night.

Southold Town Board                                     Page 58                                        Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                     Minutes                                 October 20, 2009
        There are reasons for that. They get the hungies as they are called, they need a quencher as they
        are called. The same thing would exist with gas stations. If they get a convenience store and
        they are open 24 hours a day, we are creating an environment where we are giving kids a
        playground in the backyard. The same thing exists for 7-11 where it is proposed in Mattituck. I
        ask you to consider that. You are looking for insight, there is insight.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you, Doctor.

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Arthur, do you want to comment?

        Art Tillman, Mattituck
        ART TILLMAN: Art Tillman, Mattituck. I would just like to go very briefly, a little bit of the
        history of what we have tried to do to bring this to the attention of the Town Board and basically
        stop the 7-11. Deacon Leroy Heyliger and I, he is of the Unity Baptist Church, when we first
        heard the 7-11 was coming to town, we managed to get 1,200 signatures against it and that was
        just in the community of Mattituck. I would like to ask you a question. You have seen petitions
        come over the years, is 1,200 signatures a lot of signatures?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes.

        MR. TILLMAN: A very lot?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes.

        MR. TILLMAN: Does that impress you? Does it impress the members of the Board? You
        don‟t have to answer individually. We were pretty proud to get 1,200 signatures. And I want to
        tell you, it was easy. Nobody wanted it. Armed with that, we went to a Planning Board meeting
        up over the bank and spoke to the members of the Planning Board and we walked away from
        there elated. It seemed everybody was against it that was on the Planning Board who attended
        that meeting. So we felt we were on a roll and it looked like maybe we could stop this thing.
        We went to the Planning Board meeting last week and a lot of the wind came out of our sails. I
        don‟t know what happened in a month or two but the whole tone seemed to have changed, even
        to the point where some of the members of the Planning Board seemed to be almost advocating a
        7-11. And I can‟t figure out what went wrong. Marty Sidor, the chairman of the Planning
        Board, in opening the meeting said we are here to listen. Great. That is what it is for. And
        Marty and a number of people on that Planning Board did listen. But there one, possibly two
        people on that Planning Board who continued to interject their opinion, which left no doubt on
        the part of the audience, that these people were pro 7-11. The question then becomes what is the
        role of the Planning Board? And I notice in their recommendation to you that was just read,
        there was nothing about 7-11. I really don‟t know what kind of communication or lack of
        communication is going on here but something is wrong. Also, Joe Townsend said he was
        commissioned by the Town Board only to review the site plan in terms of parking, buffers, etc.
        And therefore, when we brought up, the people in the audience and myself, brought up the issue
        of social and economic impact on the community, the Planning Board‟s point of view was, oh,
        we are not here to discuss that. Well, what kind of planning is that? Planning is more than just
        parking spaces and buffers. Now when we come to buffers, it seems that buffers can be enforced
        for some convenience stores or establishments and not others. Henry Bremer is here from North

Southold Town Board                                  Page 59                                      Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                     Minutes                                  October 20, 2009
        Fork Deli, he has had some experience with buffers, which he will tell you about. The store that
        was proposed in Orient, I don‟t know, what was that? A restaurant?

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Coffee house.

        MR. TILLMAN: Coffee house. They were kept out because they couldn‟t conform to buffers
        but I know for a fact because someone on the Planning Board told me, some waivers were given
        to this 7-11 regarding buffers. And that comes right from the Planning Board. I would ask you
        to look into that. The whole issue of buffers. So I don‟t know. How, what do you do to impress
        or move the Town Board to move in the direction to stop something we don‟t want? We tried
        the petitions. We had the rally, very well covered by the Suffolk Times, I would ask you to
        check out their video. Kind of interesting. We had 50 there. Hundreds of people honking horns,
        all in favor of not having 7-11. So we did that. We have been to, gee, a couple, three, two
        Planning Board meetings, I think this is about our third Town Board meeting, all expressing t he
        same old stuff. All the arguments against 7-11. At the meeting last week, Scott, when Melanie
        was talking about how do we make our input known, is that correct, Melanie? In the new
        comprehensive plan. You listed a number of ways and you know, I have to say you have been
        open and trying to do a good job and one of those things you said was, well, you know, you elect
        your public officials. Well, it is an election year. The last time I was before you I told you, I
        thought when I went back to my Democratic party and I am the deputy town chairman, I said I
        think that my party would support a petition against the 7-11 in Mattituck. Well, I went back to
        my party and my party does support that. And it was unanimous. We had a lot of discussion.
        So the Democratic party is on record as not favoring the 7-11 in Mattituck. But they added
        something to that resolution. They said, in the interest of helping mom and pop businesses to
        survive, we are against it also. At that time, I challenged the Republican pa rty, you come up
        with a resolution too. I haven‟t heard the resolution. Where is it? I will throw it out again
        before the election and let you guys get on board. Republican party, I am challenging you, will
        you come up with a resolution, as the Democratic party did, against the 7-11 in Mattituck?
        Please. That is all I have to say, thank you.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Arthur, just so we don‟t try to exploit this too much for political
        gain, I am a Republican, I have been the most outspoken opponent of 7-11. you know that. I
        don‟t support it there. I asked this Board months ago when it looked like the definitions and the
        legislative would be very cumbersome and time consuming, I asked this Board is there a will to
        do something now to stop the process so we can at least get it right legislatively? In other words,
        even if a moratorium is necessary. And the answer was a resounding, bipartisan, no.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I don‟t think that is true. I think that we were unable to reach a
        consensus on the specifics of how to do it.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I asked you specifically and I e- mailed every Town Board member
        and I raised the specific issue of moratorium over there in the annex. Art, I think you were at
        that meeting.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: At least some of us worked sincerely and effectively to try to
        come up with something. It is true, we didn‟t find a consensus. We didn‟t find language we
        could all agree to but I never understood that we were, that there was a thumbs down, a no to the
        whole process.


Southold Town Board                                   Page 60                                      Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                       Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: There was no thumbs down but the, what the conclusion was, well,
        it is going to happen in Mattituck but we will get it right in the future. Which has been the
        conclusion every time it is proposed in Mattituck. And I don‟t want to seem overly sensitive to
        the issues of the west end of town but I graduated high school there, I used to live there. Look at
        it. I think that we need to, again, I asked this Board months ago, okay, the legal process is going
        to be very difficult. Is there a will to at least do something now to bring this to a stop, so that we
        can get this legislatively right and the answer at the time was it is probably not going to happen.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: We were looking for leadership and I think we are still looking
        for leadership on it and I think the Town, I at least and I think maybe other Board members
        would be quite willing to engage again on the subject in the coming weeks if we want.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Twenty years on the Town Board and he is looking for leadership.
        Art, you were at that meeting. You know the deal. I would support a moratorium for all site
        plan processes in the halo defined by our town code, in the Mattituck halo right now. Will the
        Board support me? And let‟s do a comprehensive review and listen to the stakeholders.

        MR. TILLMAN: I don‟t think we could ask for more than that now.
        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Put that on the agenda for next meeting.

        UNIDENTIFIED: comment from audience. Why don‟t you put that to a vote now?

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Because I want to…

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: You would have to notice that as a legal….

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: A moratorium needs to have a concept under it as to what
        direction are we going.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Adopt the recommendations of the Mattituck stakeholders. We
        asked them for input and vision, they gave it to us. One of that was to support locally owned,
        locally owned businesses. To stop the franchise template from encroaching even further into
        Mattituck. They outlined the vision, we need to act on that.

        COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Scott did say that that day at the code committee but we also said
        after that, let‟s keep going forward and finish these definitions. We wanted to keep going with
        the process.

        MR. TILLMAN: Oh, okay. I am assuming that you Republican councilmen up there have some
        influence with your party. I hope you would go back to your party as I went back to my party
        and let‟s get a consensus. This doesn‟t have to be a political thing. I think everybody agrees, we
        don‟t want a 7-11 in Mattituck. When they sign these petitions there were Republicans and
        Democrats and Independents and Conservatives. We don‟t want this thing.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. But let‟s not keep making these references to parties. You
        have got six people here voted on by the public, it should be the decision….

        MR. TILLMAN: Do what you have to do but stop this 7-11 and I think the moratorium is an
        excellent idea. Thank you.

Southold Town Board                                    Page 61                                        Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                    Minutes                                October 20, 2009

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Well, I think the Supervisor should put it, save your applause for
        Art, please. I am sorry. But I think the Supervisor should put it on the agenda for the next
        meeting. For the work session and with planning staff to discuss the implications and goals. I
        was involved in a couple of moratoriums, one as a Trustee that went for a year, alright? And
        then we were in the wireless code moratorium which went for 18 months. And you have to have
        a lot of commitment and a lot of dedication to your goal. Okay, you have to define your goal,
        agree on it as a Board and then pursue it and have the resources to pursue it. So just to say, I
        don‟t think you can say tonight let‟s have a moratorium on 7-11‟s. It is not that simple.

        MR. TILLMAN: I understand.

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: You have to really define it, you have to do the homework before
        you can act on it.

        MR. TILLMAN: What I am afraid of is your attorneys and their attorneys are going to tie
        everything up in knots. Everybody is afraid to do anything. Woohoo. What will the law yers
        say? You know what? Let them go to court. I don‟t….

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Let me just tell you…..

        MR. TILLMAN: I don‟t think a judge is going to rule in their favor.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: A moratorium, I am calling, I would suggest for the entire halo.
        That includes far more than just pending applications on Factory Avenue.

        MR. TILLMAN: Exactly.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Talks about everything. All the challenges, the unique challenges
        that Mattituck faces. They have been facing them every year and nickel and dime approach has
        eroded Mattituck to a town I don‟t recognize anymore.

        MR. TILLMAN: Right. And it is so logical in light of the fact that you are coming up with a
        new comprehensive plan.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Right.

        MR. TILLMAN: Thanks a lot.

        Benja Schwartz, Cutchogue
        BENJA SCHWARTZ: Good evening again. Benja Schwartz. Aren‟t you glad you only have
        two months to go, Tom?

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I hope I live longer than that.

        MR. SCHWARTZ: The subject of this hearing, the legislation which is the subject of this
        hearing applies to the entire Town of Southold, including the proposed 7-11. I am sensing a
        couple of things at this hearing, a confusion about government works, about how government is
        working and a confidence the government does work. I think that we may need to use the

Southold Town Board                                 Page 62                                      Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                        Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
        system to work within the system to change the system. The comprehensive plan of, is not
        proposed to be comprehensive. I was going to speak tonight but I think it is not specifically
        appropriate in this context but I think we need more than a comprehensive plan. We need a new
        plan for the government. There is a conflict between the roles that the Town Board is playing,
        the Planning Board is playing, the Planning Department etc.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Can I just remind you, we are in the middle of a public hearing?

        MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes and this is about….

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay, okay.

        MR. SCHWARTZ: This is about the Mattituck proposed 7-11 in Mattituck. But it is also about
        planning for the entire town. This is a public hearing before the Town Board on legislation
        which applies to Southold Town. If we need a moratorium, I think we have to have a clear
        vision of what that moratorium would be set out to accomplish in order to make it legally
        defensible and successful and that is what I am trying to get to here, which as, you know, I sense
        that that might not be specifically pertaining to this legislation but it certainly does pertain to this
        legislation and the proposed 7-11. Part of the problem too, is that the government of the Town of
        Southold is used to looking at things in very analytical, specific way. Whether we are talking
        about comprehensive planning or we are talking about the inter governmental planning.
        Defining the roles of the Town Board versus the Planning Board. I just, I don‟t want to go on
        more then I have to here but I just would like to include in this hearing that you know, tonight
        there were two resolutions on the agenda number 860 and 864. Both cases, the Town Board
        referred, referred subjects for planning to the Planning Board and one of them, the Northwind
        development, the annexation of land from the Town of Southold into the Village of Greenport,
        that applies to a specific proposal. If that annexation is defeated, that application will essentially
        come before the Planning Board and there is a conflict of interest for the Planning Board to be
        looking at that application in both a town wide sense and a specific sense. The other issue that
        was referred to the Planning Board is the comprehensive plan. With all due respect, I think the, I
        commend you for proposing the legislation and I support it but I think that what a lot of people
        are asking here is that you do more than that. And specifically what you could do is create a
        planning, a planning commission or a body that would be the equal of the Zoning Board of
        Appeals and the Planning Board. It would also work with the Planning department to not just
        create the planning, the comprehensive plan but to continue to apply it to specific projects. We
        don‟t have anything like that now, we need it.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I can appreciate everything you are saying, I am just trying to figure
        out how we are going to feather this back into a, you know, we are s till in the middle of a public
        hearing on proposed changes to the convenience store legislation, so can we wrap that up and we
        will go to the open mic portion of the meeting?

        MR. SCHWARTZ: I was trying to relate this to the….

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay, I was just to, okay.

        MR. SCHWARTZ: Subject on the table. Thank you.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Marie?

Southold Town Board                                     Page 63                                         Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
        Marie Dominici, Mattituck
        MARIE DOMINICI: I don‟t envy you your position guys, ladies. All day doing stuff like this
        and then you still have to listen to us whine, but I am going to continue to whine. I am…

        COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thanks for the warning.

        MS. DOMINICI: I am truly opposed to this and I don‟t care if it is a 7-11, McDonalds, I don‟t
        care what you call it. When you have 1,200 signatures where people are totally voicing their
        concerns, I mean, I don‟t know what else needs to be said in a community when that many
        people come forth and oppose. So and I understand that you are receptive to that but when you
        take a local business and you put it up against corporate America you really are putting your
        neighbors out of work. And I think it is unfair to put a mom and pop shop out of work. I mean,
        we are doing it with CVS, we are doing it with whatever else comes in here. And you heard me
        say this a thousand times, my one regret in life is not having been raised in this community. It is
        a beautiful community, it has pastoral views, it has the wineries and all of the things that bring
        tourism here and you have heard me say this in the past that once you start to make this last
        frontier look like any other town up-island, than there is no need for people to come here and
        spend their tourist dollars to go to the wineries or to go to the farm stands because we are going
        to look exactly like they do. So they can buy their wine at the local wine store up the street from
        them in Huntington or wherever else they live. So it has a tremendous impact when we make
        decisions like this that we are talking about keeping this Mayberry and I haven‟t lived here as
        long as many of you have, so you have seen it change certainly more than I have in the short
        time that I am here and I am proud to say I will be here almost eight years and where did the time
        go? So you know, when you say pastoral views and then you say 7-11, that is an oxymoron.
        There is no pastoral views with 7-11, okay? And the irony of all of this, in this day and age,
        when I spoke at the Planning Board meeting and I asked the 7-11 people if they would factor in
        any green technologies and it was not even a concept. So not a very user friendly company
        coming in here where they could have maybe factored in sometime of green thing, however
        small. The other thing that is very concerning or disconcerting is the traffic accidents that have
        taken place over, let‟s say the last two years, at that intersection, no one has a real number as to
        how many accidents have taken place. I was told that I could FOIL the information and come
        down and pick up the information but I work five days a week, I don‟t have the luxury to take off
        from my job in Southampton to come back here and FOIL information. Any one of you can get
        that information and share that information when people like myself would ask the question.
        The other concern that I have is the loitering that would take place there. Now, if this becomes a
        hangout for whomever, kids, whomever, my tax dollars then have to go to pay for the policing of
        that 7-11. I do not want to spend my tax dollars on policing the 7-11 and you have heard me say
        this in the past, I want to live here till I die but the way my taxes are going, I have to be dead in
        three weeks. And you can put that on my tombstone. So I don‟t think my tax dollars should go
        to fund any of the policing. The police have enough to do in this community and certainly I am
        not part of the police department but I am sure they have enough to manage in this town without
        having to go see if 7-11 has a loitering issue. And unless, well, you know, Mattituck seems to be
        the dumping grounds for you know, everything else that comes into this town and you know, we
        are really close to the Riverhead border and I certainly don‟t want Mattituck to look like
        Riverhead. Nothing against Riverhead, they are progressive but they choose to be, in that regard.
        They don‟t want to look like Mayberry. They don‟t consider themselves the last frontier. We
        are the last frontier. And I would hope that we could continue to keep it that way. And I really
        ask your indulgence for all the time that we are taking to have this discussion and also ask that
        you look at this in a very serious way because 1,200 signatures speak louder than my one voice.

Southold Town Board                                    Page 64                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
        Thank you for your time.

        Lynn Summe rs, Mattituck
        LYNN SUMMERS: Lynn Summers, a resident for over 41 years. In March of 1970, I arrived
        here from Philadelphia, PA. I was in a little bit of a culture shock but I learned very quickly to
        love this as much as if I had been born here. I am here to support all the neighbors, the people,
        Mr. Bremer is maybe not from out here but Advent Lutheran Church lived through the time
        when we had a wreck of a Hesperus of a burned down, gutted down thing and we got a good
        neighbor and I would like to support him and I would think that the community would want to
        support him. And it is shown in the 1,200 or so signatures. Also, that Factory Avenue I travel,
        so does our congregation, so do many of the congregants because it is the safest place to travel to
        make a left hand turn after you have done your shopping. Unity Baptist, that whole
        neighborhood, I have seen it grow and thrive as a good place, Scott, you understand about that
        community. Now the other thing is, I suddenly realized we are going to a Chase Manhattan
        bank, also we are going to have a Hudson City bank in and out on the south e nd plus this on the
        corner. No one has done a traffic impact study of that area. Mary Helen Crump from the Clergy
        Association, the Clergy Association met last Tuesday I believe, and five clergy sat down and
        they did not realize this was all happening to this community. And they are concerned. And they
        talk to people. And I think you need to know that. And I, I was shocked when I read in the
        Suffolk Times on line, I have really studied this for a long time. But Unity Baptist, with all they
        go through with the other stuff that has to do with Waldbaums is just one thing but just adding
        more fire to their whole thing is wrong. And the moratorium idea is the best thing I think
        anybody could come up to and I hope you support it and you believe in that. Because I was
        disillusioned, I thought many of you were completely honorable people but after sitting through
        that Planning Board, I thought people were going to throw money out. I thought I was in
        Chicago politics. Not on the north fork of Long Island. Thank you very much.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I don‟t want to be overly defensive of the Planning Board there are
        some members there I don‟t agree with their positions on but we do need to give them the tools
        to be able to affect fundamental changes to applications. So in their defense, the tools weren‟t
        there for them. I think they had more tools than they used but there is not a big box of tools for a
        situation like this.

        Dan Durrette, Greenport
        DAN DURRETTE: Hi, my name is Dan Durrette, I am from Greenport. And I think the first
        time I spoke to the Board I think I mentioned that I was the new kid on the block. Since that
        time I have grayed a little and aged a little, most notably because of attending meetings like this
        and Planning Board meetings. I do have to caution that the last time that I spoke at the Planning
        Board meeting, right before I spoke, that door opened and there was a big gush of wind. I think
        it is a little hot in here right now, I am almost asking that that wind come back and maybe cool us
        off. I would be remiss if I did not applaud the tremendous amount of work that has gone into
        this document. To try to define anything that meets municipal codes in a diverse and changing
        economic environment is difficult and I really applaud what I see in this document. I do have to
        also go on record as hoping for a different future for the town because like others, there are
        certain aspects of this town that attracted me to move here 2 ½ years ago. I ask that you go back
        to the future and by that I mean, let‟s pretend that it is 2087, what will this town look like? And I
        use the bench mark of 78 years because 78 years ago we had a small church in 1931 that was
        built and if you look at that church, you know what the character of this town was and that many
        of us are speaking about, trying to preserve. So here we are in 2009, with all the complexities of
Southold Town Board                                    Page 65                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
        budgets, with all the complexities of irate citizens. With all the complexities of political turmoil.
        What we are losing, I think, is the eye on the prize. How do we redress certain grievances and at
        the same time move forward so that that which we love, I haven‟t heard that word, that which we
        love and that which got us elected and that which keeps us here, remains. I applaud the idea of a
        moratorium, I will yield to counsel so that my remarks not set off any kind of legal storm. But I
        really think we have an opportunity to do something on a comprehensive basis but in terms of
        being transparent, I am against the 7-11 and also in terms of being transparent, I did take the
        opportunity after the Planning Board meeting to sit and talk to the real estate developer, to both
        voice my concerns specifically with that gentleman. But I think we are at a very pivotal tipping
        point and I just ask that perhaps we each take a deep breath and maybe we open up the doors a
        little more. Thank you very much.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Would anybody else like to address the Town Board?

        Henry Bre mer
        HENRY BREMER: I am Henry Bremer, I am from North Fork Market and Deli. When I built
        my store I had to put up a 25 foot buffer in front of the store and go through a variance. I wonder
        whether that applies to 7-11 and the Hess station?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I don‟t know what the underlying zoning to your property is versus
        theirs. I know they are general business. I don‟t know what yours is or what the issue is there. I
        can‟t answer….

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: That is a Planning Board matter, isn‟t it?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah, it would be a Planning Board, well, it is a code matter. The
        setback is established by town code. I would have to look at the zoning to answer pop quiz
        questions like that.

        MR. BREMER: I can call you later on that?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah, of course. Or go review the entire application at the Planning
        Board office. In fact, come to my office and I will take you over there.

        COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: There was a setback. I was on the Zoning Board then and we
        granted you the variance because unfortunately, the place burned down. It was a setback off the
        Main Road that you required.

        MR. BREMER: Don‟t they have to do the same thing?

        COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: I didn‟t see the plan, I don‟t know how far back….

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Their building is already built, so in terms of the setback on where
        the building structure is, the buildings are already built and located on site. So it is the
        occupancy of an existing structure. But I don‟t want to get too specific.

        MR. BREMER: Okay.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Why don‟t you come see me, we will go over the whole application.

Southold Town Board                                    Page 66                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                     Minutes                                  October 20, 2009

        MR. BREMER: Okay. Thank you.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I think there is interest, on the part of the Board, at our next town
        board meeting to take up the question of a moratorium and the underlying goals that we might
        put on it.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody else like to address the Town Board?

        Joseph St. Pierre, Southold
        JOSEPH ST. PIERRE: My name is Joe St. Pierre, I am a resident of Southold for 25 years.
        Could the Town Board tell me, we are of the understanding a lot of people in the town, that this
        is already a done deal. If you had a moratorium, would it affect this deal or are we talking about
        something in the future?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: The moratorium would pertain to any projects that have not
        completed the process. To my knowledge, they haven‟t completed the process. But again, I am
        going to be frank and many people aren‟t going to like this, I don‟t really have a problem per se
        with 7-11. I don‟t necessarily even have a problem with one in Mattituck. The location is
        dreadful, along that entire strip if you look at the collection of franchise footprint there is
        dreadful. And it is getting worse. Every couple of years it is the nickel and dime approach.

        MR. ST. PIERRE: Thank you.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody else like to address the Town Board?

        UNIDENTIFIED: I just have a question. Did I just hear that there was never a traffic study
        done over there? I wonder if they really studied the ingress and egress.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I don‟t know. I would certainly ask you to please take that concern
        to the Planning Board.

        UNIDENTIFIED: (comments from audience) It was pre Factory Avenue construction. The
        traffic study was three and a half years old.
        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That would be pre the building?

        UNIDENTIFIED: Pre the affordable housing.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: The affordable housing. Okay. Yeah, Jim.

        Jim Dinizio, Greenport
        JIM DINIZIO: Jim Dinizio, Greenport. There was a traffic study because they were before the
        ZBA and I heard the traffic study, okay, and I don‟t know, maybe it was three years ago. It is
        possible. Certainly was done by their people and so be it. Now I am not for or against 7-11, I
        think this convenience store law that you have here is a reaction to that 7-11 and I just would
        wonder that laws that are created in reaction to hastily don‟t turn out to be very good laws. I can
        point to you the law that we just commented on, certainly it was hastily 18 months in the making
        and you put it together and we are back here eight months later? I don‟t know how that was but
        there are certainly other laws that you created, the accessory law that was given a variance to
Southold Town Board                                   Page 67                                      Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
        almost 100 percent within a month. Because you didn‟t sit do wn and actually think about the
        repercussions of the law. And you know, this is the same thing. You know, I am business man
        in town, I compete against national you know, burglar alarm companies, ADT, Briggs, you
        know, Broadview, Bellringer and you know, every competition is good. It makes you work a
        little harder certainly but you know, I know I have something that those big companies can‟t give
        and that is service and I know that the delis that are affected are the same exact thing. You
        know, I can go in a get a bagel that is wrapped at 7-11, you know, it might have been wrapped
        five days ago, it is never good but people feed their kids those things. You know, that is their
        problem. But I just warn you that you know, I have seen it. And I think that if you are going to
        try to make a law and this one in particular, doing it hastily, it is going to come back to bite you.
        Thank you.

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you. But the legislation that we have tonight, it actually
        wasn‟t done hastily and it addresses size of, it does something that needs to be addressed which
        is the size of convenience stores as accessory to gas stations and the potential for putting in the
        Subways and the Dunkin Donuts and other franchises in those stores. That….

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Also this legislation started some years ago when Patricia Finnegan
        was still with us. We had worked on this together. This is the result, good or bad, this is the
        result of almost two years of trying to tackle this issue.

        COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: And this isn‟t driven from the Mattituck plan, it is driven from a
        Cutchogue site plan.

        MR. DINIZIO: I was referring to the audience insisting that you have a moratorium…

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: No, I brought that up.

        MR. DINIZIO: They don‟t want to stop at 7-11.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah, I, I ….

        MR. DINIZIO: You know what I mean?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I agree with that in that I think the public needs to understand that
        just because petitions get circulated, the law specifically doesn‟t let us react to public opposition
        to any specific application. But if you look at Mattituck as an entirety of the past, I had the same
        concerns when the CVS was there, in other words, the changing nature. We have a sewer study
        that is underway, although it is sub-regional and small, get all that stuff on the table. We asked
        people to volunteer their time as stakeholders. We need to start implementing some of those
        ideas.

        MR. DINIZIO: Well, I did hear you say, Scott, that you would adopt their suggestions. I don‟t
        know why you haven‟t done that yet.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Whose suggestions? Oh, yeah. Well, that is the underlying goal.

        MR. DINIZIO: I don‟t know why you haven‟t done that yet but my assumption is that they need
        to be looked at in the context of the law.

Southold Town Board                                    Page 68                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                   October 20, 2009

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is exactly right.

        MR. DINIZIO: Well, I thought I heard you say you were just going to adopt them.              I know
        these people are under that impression and quite honestly, that is hasty.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is the basis, that would be the basis of a moratorium, is to
        adopt their vision. To adopt their vision.

        MR. DINIZIO: Inaudible. Okay, that is what I am saying to you. I mean, I listened to the
        hearing for what they wanted to do which was originally a car wash, okay. And then they came
        back to us because they couldn‟t get the circulation on it. Then they came back to us, they
        wanted to increase the size of the building because they wanted to make it a large 7-11 like
        Greenport‟s. What they have there now is a smaller, there is like three different sizes. They fit
        in the smaller category. They wanted to make it larger, of course they have got plenty of land
        there, so you know, they want to maximize that. Fine, that is what a business does. And I
        listened to the traffic study and yes, I agree that you know, turning out on that particular piece of
        property is, there is no good way unless you build a ramp on the back. You know, go in the
        parking lot. I don‟t know how you do it without causing a ll sorts of trouble. With a guy with a
        cup of coffee in his hand pulling onto Factory Avenue or pulling out on the Main Road. That is
        going to be bad, I agree but you know, I heard some problems with the Planning Board, some
        suggestions that the Planning Board, you know, may not be doing what this group wants. Well,
        good for them. Because they are reading the code. They are doing exactly what is written in the
        code. And when Mr. Townsend says that he is reviewing the application, that is his job, okay?
        And what he is supposed to be doing at the Planning Board is implementing the code. That is all
        he is supposed to be doing. He is not supposed to be saying yes, you can have a 7-11, no you
        can‟t have a 7-11. Actually, the code says you can have a 7-11 at that spot. And that is what I
        imagine happened when they changed their mind. They read the code, they read the application
        and certainly that will change your mind. I believe it would. I commend them for that. It is a
        tough situation. I understand what these people want, quite honestly, I don‟t like the idea of
        adopting what the stakeholders did in toto just because you certainly want to stop one thing in
        this town. I understand…

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Change the direction of Mattituck and if you look at it and the
        application….

        MR. DINIZIO: I looked at it. I don‟t know.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: But I do have to tell you that I think it is simplistic to suggest that
        they are just reading the code. I would strongly recommend that you read the code and look at
        the amount, the degree of latitude that they are given in requiring buffers, not requiring buffers.
        You can‟t take and say well, the code has to be specifically applied when the code is so poorly
        written. It is not as finite as people like to, everybody likes to be dogmatic with the code but the
        code is so poorly and ambiguously written that you can‟t take it and I did tell the group in the
        defense of the Planning Board, is that they need tools. They don‟t have the tools. That is the
        problem. That is part of the problem.

        MR. DINIZIO: Okay. Then if you are going to say that, Scott, then I am going to say this.
        Every time someone in this town wants to do something, okay, that someone doesn‟t agree with,

Southold Town Board                                    Page 69                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                       Minutes                                  October 20, 2009
        suddenly it is the code. Suddenly it is kick your forefathers in the butt and not honor the written
        word. That is what it is. Now, I don‟t think that that is fair to anybody. I think that if someone
        comes to this town and they read the code and they see that they can do something, this shouldn‟t
        be anything more than going to the building department and getting a building permit and doing
        it. Now, all I was doing before was warning you that if you are going to adopt all of those
        stakeholder recommendations, I think you would have do ne that already if you didn‟t want take a
        look at those things first and see how they fit into our code so that a year from now we are not
        sitting here with another hearing on wireless towers. After we made a law, after we worked 18
        months on it. After we had a moratorium, after we made all of these companies wait to change
        the law. That is what I am asking you to do. Okay? And this particular law, in my opinion, is
        micromanaging. Because businesses are businesses and they belong in business districts. And
        the master plan right now, can be seen by anybody, just by looking at a zoning map. Because
        they will know exactly what businesses can go, they are all defined and then look at the codes
        and you can find out what is permitted and what is not permitted in those zones. It is not that
        difficult, okay? but it seems to me, Scott, every time that something happens in the town that
        somebody doesn‟t like, blame it on the code. Blame it because it is ambiguous. That is baloney.
        Read the code and go by the code. It is pretty well black and white, I can tell you. Now, about
        in 2006 you got, this Board received a letter from an environmental group here that asked this
        Town Board to uphold the law and hold people to the black letter of the law. That was I believe,
        Mr. Wills that wrote that. And guess what? I am standing here, I agree with him. That is what
        you should be doing. But it seems like every time that something happens, you want to change
        it, the law is not good, well, that is baloney. Read the law, I think you will find, yeah, buffers, of
        course, if they can‟t comply with the buffers, then they don‟t get it. But it is not, there is no
        rocket science here. It is either you have your buffers or you don‟t have buffers. Now I
        understand probably the buffers have to do with the back of that building, you are not going to
        get a buffer there. the building exists. That is a waiver. You should have a waiver for that
        because the building exists. The front, you want to have a 50 foot buffer, I don‟t care what you
        have, whatever the zone says. He has to do it. But the Planning Board doesn‟t have the option
        to say, no, you can‟t, you know, you can‟t, they do have the option of waivering buffers but they
        don‟t have the options to say, no, they don‟t apply in this case. They have to look at it, they have
        to have some reason for not saying buffers belong here. The lot is too small, yada, yada what, if
        they plant a tree it will, you know, cause problems. Trees on that corner, you know, whatever it
        is. I understand the code well enough to know that and I also understand the code well enough to
        know that every time something happens, they blame it on the code and it is just not so. Thank
        you.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: We have heard a lot of useful testimony tonight, I haven‟t heard
        anyone speak against the law that we proposed except to say that it doesn‟t go far enough. And I
        think I have heard among the Board a willingness to take up again where we left off a few weeks
        ago to look further into extending it beyond where we are and to consider a moratorium in that
        process.

        Pat Moore, Esq., Southold
        PATRICIA MOORE: I think that there is a lot of people that don‟t necessarily agree with this
        law that may not be here because they are young families, the y have children, they get up early,
        they stay out late. Many a times, I lived by 7-11 in Southold, many a times I have sent my
        husband out to get milk because we were out of milk. Standard, basic things. I have been, I was
        nine months pregnant out in Orient, I couldn‟t get a non-alcoholic drink at a party and I drove
        and drove until I got to Greenport to be able to get a non-alcoholic drink at a party.

Southold Town Board                                    Page 70                                        Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                     Minutes                                  October 20, 2009

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I am not sure I understand where you are going.

        MS. MOORE: What I am saying is, that there is a need for convenience stores. There is a need
        for places and a deli could stay open for 24 hours a day. They would be permitted to do it, there
        would be no impediment to doing it and I would even argue that reading the convenience store
        definition, there are lots of businesses that would fall under this convenience store definition. I
        have already stated to your town attorney and I will state on the record, this particular law is
        defective, it doesn‟t do what you say you want to do. there are technical failures with this law
        that have been pointed out by the Planning Board, I think as I, if you need me to state on the
        record that this law is defective, I hereby state on the record, this law is defective.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Well, what….

        MS. MOORE: It, I have already spoken to your town attorney with respect to it and you have
        already got comments from Planning Board with respect to technical problems with the way the
        code has been written. I actually am the attorney on the 7-11 in Mattituck and I can tell you that
        there has been a great deal of site plan. That there is, and in respect of all the opinions, it is
        subjective opinions on whether or not you like a 7-11 or don‟t like a 7-11, everybody is entitled
        to their opinion. I want you to know that with respect to that project that there have been many
        concessions, many issues that will improve the site. If this was any other tenant that did not have
        the pockets, the deep pockets and the owner that would have the deep pocket to fix traffic
        problems at that intersection. In fairness to Mr. Bremer, I love, I have gone to his deli many
        times, he is wonderful man. If he had have to go through what this particular site has to go
        through, he would be bankrupt before he even walked o ut the door.

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: No one, I am sorry, no one made this applicant go through the
        process.

        MS. MOORE: This applicant went through a process and there are proposals to make
        improvements to the road which are donations or easements that are at no cost to the state. There
        are lights, changes to the lights, changes to pedestrian crosswalks, changes to access easements,
        changes to the, changes to the driveways that are there. anybody in the, any business that would
        try to develop there that had to go through these things, would go bankrupt before they walked
        out the door. So I think that your commentary or the commentaries that I have heard that
        essentially bash a 7-11, let me tell you that we need a CVS, we may need a 7-11, there may be a
        need for applications that can correct years of zoning problems. CVS for example, took two
        pieces of property, merged them and took out non-conforming buildings. Whether you like the
        CVS or not and whether you think it changes that intersection, in the long run, it made
        improvements to that area of Mattituck. Long historic problems. You have the ice cream shop
        next door. That is a pre-existing use. Many of the problems are due to the ice cream shop.
        There is nothing that can be done with that. Some day down the line, I wish the ice cream shop
        luck in trying to get any improvements to that property because of the type of issues that
        everybody has to go through on redevelopment of any property. So for the record, this particular
        lot is defective, I, we, I know my client opposes it and I personally oppose reactionary zoning in
        any respect. I agree with Mr. Dinizio‟s commentary which is zoning laws, they shouldn‟t be
        guess work. People should be able to know that when they come to a piece of property and it is
        zoned business, that there are businesses that are permissible and that are appropriate. And you
        can disagree on whether this particular use is appropriate there but I think when you weigh the

Southold Town Board                                   Page 71                                      Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
        benefits versus the detriments, there will be a great deal more benefit to having that use go there
        and the improvements that are being made associated with that use than the detriments. So for
        the record, that is my position, is on behalf of my client (inaudible)

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I still, since this legislation fell so far short of what would affect
        your client, I still, I am trying to understand why this legislation is being referred to as
        reactionary. I mean, the first draft of this was done by Patricia Finnegan a long, long time ago. I
        still don‟t understand the reactionary component. What I understand is growing trends in
        convenience stores turning overnight into 2,500 square foot and that, the subject everybody is
        here to decide, growing trends because of a thing called a Mallin‟s decision that allows all these
        principal uses on one location whether it has the ability to handle those uses or not. I think this
        law was very thoughtful in trying to address some of that with the growth of convenience stores
        throughout this entire town. That is exactly what this law does. It basically starts to say, you
        know what? You have a property, you have a principal use, you want to have an accessory use,
        that is fine but you just can‟t have the accessory use and fill up the building with whatever you
        want, whenever you want without any review process because that site might not handle it. That
        is how we get convenience stores right next to residential communities throughout the entire
        community. And it has been a problem. How is that reactionary?

        MS. MOORE: Inaudible. Then I think you have to fix the code to make that…

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Well, I recognize that with the Planning Board input.

        MS. MOORE: Thank you.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Arthur?

        Art Tillman
        MR. TILLMAN: In response to the last comments, Ms. Moore would seem to have us believe
        that there are legions of people out here, if only they weren‟t working at home with their
        families, they would be here. Well, I would challenge you to do what we did. Would you please
        go back to Mattituck and see if you can top us with over 1,200 signatures favoring 7-11? Also,
        those of us that are here are not here for economic motivation. We are here for the love of our
        community, put it that way. Now when it comes to laws, to comment on what Jim said, there is
        two aspects of law, there is the letter of the law and there is the spirit of the law. My savior said
        love thy neighbor. That is pretty simple. But what exactly does that mean? I don‟t have to look
        down and see that codified. I have to try to live that every day. If there is a traffic problem, if
        there is other problems that are going to be associated with this 7-11 in this case, you know, we
        have to anticipate that. I am not here because I hate 7-11. I am here because I love my
        community. I am here to support my friend, Leroy Heyliger and his church and all the problems
        they face, I am not here to make money. And the changing situations necessitate changing laws.
        The founding fathers in no way could have anticipated what has happened to this country. Most
        recently with the abuses of corporate capitalism. It is capitalism run amuck. And we all believe
        in capitalism. So new laws have to be addressed and Congress is trying to address that right
        now. you can‟t just say, this was written and yeah, it may have been written 50 years ago, 20
        years ago, I mean maybe even 5 years ago but it is out of date and it is not addressing a current
        situation. Thank you.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anyone else like to comment on this public hear ing?

Southold Town Board                                    Page 72                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
        Margaret Lynaugh, Mattituck
        MARGARET LYNAUGH: Yes, I am Margaret Lynaugh, Mattituck. The way I saw it, is it true
        that all eastbound traffic has to enter and exit on Factory Avenue? In and out of 7-11?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I don‟t know what the site plan would have called for.

        UNIDENTIFIED: Yes.

        MS. LYNAUGH: That is right. That is crazy. With everything we have on Factory Avenue. I
        live on Sound Avenue and I pointed out to Ms. Evans yesterday what we deal with and if all east
        bound traffic has to turn on Factory and exit on Factory, it is going to be a mess.

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Well, if you look at the traffic flow there and I am not saying you
        are wrong, you are right, there is no, and I went to the Planning office and I did take a look at the
        plans. To let people come out onto the Main Road there would be really dangerous. Before we
        close the hearing…

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Can I just make sure anybody else would want to comment on the
        public hearing? Well, you want to comment on the larger…okay, I am going to close the hearing
        and then I am going to go to the….

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Can I just, on the public hearing, is there any consideration on the
        Board to act on this this evening and if there is, I would just like to address the Planning Board‟s
        concern that we received yesterday.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I would love to table it.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I think we would wait until we have a chance to discuss the
        broader questions.

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Alright. I just wanted to make sure that if we were going to in fact
        going to act, we should address these before we….

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Those are fundamental flaws that would need to be addressed.

        JUSTICE EVANS: Many of them have been incorporated in this version.

        COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I see some have but I don‟t know if number three or four have.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I don‟t sense a Board member is inclined to vote for this or against
        this tonight.

        COUNCILMAN RULAND: I would want to know for sure and I don‟t kno w that, that the
        Planning Board‟s recommendations are truly incorporated in the entire document and draft and I
        think they should appear in the draft form before we try to insert them piecemeal. So I think we
        should wait.

        Supervisor Russell
        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. Let me get a motion to close this hearing tonight.
Southold Town Board                                    Page 73                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                     Minutes                                  October 20, 2009
        Supervisor Rrussell
        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: These 7:30 meetings start to really wear on me. Would anybody
        like to now come up and address the Town Board on any issue of mutual interest?

        Dorothy Snyder
        DOROTHY SNYDER: My name is Dorothy Snyder and I am appearing before the Board and
        the people, the residents here in attendance to explain what has transpired since my last
        appearance. I would like to read to everyone what I spoke of the last time I was here. My name
        is Dorothy Snyder, I am the owner of a 56 acre parcel of property located on North Road,
        Albertson Road, Colony and Bayview. One facing the Sound and one facing Arshamomaque
        creek. When I first purchased the property, I went in for a change of zone for a subdivision. The
        Board refused my application saying it was because they had no water. When I asked when it
        would become available, they said they had no idea. I was told to withdraw my application.
        This cost me much money to prepare. I also got letters from DEC and consultants etc. pertaining
        to wetlands. In their opinion, the property had no wetlands. I then became instrumental with
        Suffolk County Water Authority buying out Greenport Water. As a result of this, proj ects
        including Peconic Landing were able to be built. Then came the moratorium and a new
        Supervisor, Scott Russell. I have put in over seven more years of hard work to pursue my
        project. I feel strongly about this because the project would bring jobs, people would spend
        money, including downtown, where there are many closed stores. And most important, almost
        $1,000,000 a year would be gained in taxes in the project. As I went along with this with my
        architect, who unfortunately is not able to be here this evening, changes were made to cluster the
        buildings, put in a beautiful clubhouse and reorganize the layout as suggested. There would be
        someone on the premises at all hours to drive the people into town, to spend money, visit doctors
        etc. which would help the economy and keep very satisfied renters. By bringing in the extra
        revenue from this property every year, you wouldn‟t have to layoff people including police
        officers who cover from Orient Point to I have since heard, Laurel. This is not only creating
        heartache for people who have been laid off in these hard times but also causing people to leave
        our beautiful island. I would like the Board to take my application, have time to explain my
        intentions to the people. So that a fair judgment of my project could be made. I have given my
        application to the Planning Board and received a letter back from them stating the application
        was incomplete because the green return receipts had not been handed in. I had the radius map
        made and had all the green cards filled out and ready for the mail but I could not mail them
        without a date for the hearing which I never received from the town. I thank the Board and all
        who have listened and once again, I ask for your consideration to rezone my property. Thank
        you. The people‟s reaction to what I spoke of was that they all applauded for it. I was sent a
        letter I would like to read. That was after that meeting. Iit came from the Town Attorney‟s
        office. „Dear Mrs. Snyder, Your letter July 2, 2009 has been directed to my office for a
        response. As you were previously advised by the Town Attorney‟s office dated March 20, 2009,
        the Town Board has declined to take any action on your application seeking a change of zone on
        your property from R-80 to HD. The Town Board is not obligated to hold a public hearing prior
        to making that determination. Please be advised that the Planning Department‟s review of the
        application and determination that the application was incomplete has no bearing on the Town
        Board‟s decision to take no action on the application. The Town Board considers this matter
        closed. Please be guided accordingly. Jennifer Andoloro‟ I am not trying to usurp the Board,
        and after hearing this all night, I truly mean that. But I once again ask that I be given a date to
        mail out those cards to allow the people to be given a chance to show how they feel about the
        project. Again, it is something every municipality should do, to give the people a chance to
        express their feelings, to save many, many dollars with a beautiful complex which is needed by
Southold Town Board                                   Page 74                                      Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                       Minutes                                  October 20, 2009
        the community. It would benefit the Village also with the revenue from the people in it. I have
        spent many years and much money to make this project possible to be able to get this change. So
        once again, please give me a date for all the people to hear this. Thank you for your time. That
        was going to be the ending but after hearing all the people here tonight and there are none now,
        so I am going to direct this to each of you personally. I understand that the purpose of a Town
        Board is to have the people have a time to voice their opinions of a project. Now this project is
        not saying to you, I am going to be a burden to you. This project is telling you I am going to put
        millions and millions and millions of dollars that I have worked all my life into it. But I know
        that I feel that it would be very much worthwhile. We do not have anything like that. I have 56
        acres that go four road frontages and there is water on the property now. We do not have a need
        for more homes, there is too many foreclosures now. But by doing this project, I would even
        donate five acres of land which I told Scott Russell a long time ago, to the people that needs
        housing. I even had gotten Habitat for Humanity to agree instead of giving one person a home
        where it would be a hardship to take, give them five, six in one place so that one person could
        have everybody paint the thing, cut the grass etc. Now, I really mean this, I am speaking as a
        business person, I kept money at almost zero percent for many years so that I wouldn‟t have to
        be a burden to bankers and say I need the money to do my (inaudible), I need the money for this.
        I now can prove, I am not trying to impress you with how much I had, I am trying to impress you
        with what I feel will truly go. I am in an area that said private homes. You know yourselves
        there is nothing more than a lot of done foreclosures. This is the place which would give our
        young people jobs, not to have a budget that you have to layoff people. You are still working
        back and forth with the police whether to dump them or not. That is a tragedy. I feel that way
        anyway. And what more important is, if I am willing to spend the money to give you something
        that the town needs, jobs, money, a beautiful place. Scott, you saw some of the designs, they
        were not little junky things. They were very beautiful, beautiful buildings with lots of clustering.
        I did everything possible to try to get it up to a point where it would go. Then the scenario
        changed. I don‟t know why the scenario changed. From something that could have been doable,
        all of a sudden, thumbs down went down on it. Did it hurt me? It hurt not only me, it hurt all
        you people. I live in a very gorgeous home, a very gorgeous estate. I could live there very
        nicely alone. I am doing this to help a town that I fell in love with. I fell in love with this place.
        Why would not at least allow me to go on the calendar to send those big radius maps and what
        my girl typed up those green cards. Send them to the people. What have you got to lose? If the
        people are not going to want it, ladies and gentlemen, they are going to come out strong and say
        we don‟t want her to have that. Why can‟t you give the people a chance? That is part of what I
        determine you are, while you are sitting there, that is what you are supposed to be doing. The
        right thing for the people. But not like god. There is no god except one god. You are supposed
        to sit there and say okay, you know what? Mrs. Snyder you spent a lot of money and you did
        this community good even before you moved into it and that is the truth. And Scott, you know
        that. I changed every possible way we could. Clustered, it is going to be the most beautiful
        project you ever saw. Southold would be proud of it. You would give your people jobs. You‟d
        make the town prosper. More important, you wouldn‟t have slips to hand out. You are fired,
        you are fired, you are fired. You would have plenty of money in your pockets and I like that
        idea. I am a business woman, too. You don‟t tell people no unless you give the people the right
        to say it. You people are withholding the right to give a date to let the people come to a meeting
        and say yes, we want it, no, we don‟t want it. I would respect you from the bottom of my heart
        and god would probably bless you, too because you would be doing what your duties are.
        Letting the people decide. I heard so much of it tonight, there is nobody left almost. We stood
        here for hours and listened to what these people want. And you listened to it. I give you credit
        to every single thing and you answered it as best you could. But now I am begging you, please

Southold Town Board                                    Page 75                                        Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
        give me a date so that I can have the people come and answer, we don‟t want it, we don‟t want it.
        All I want, I don‟t need your monies, believe me. But I feel this place is too beautiful, I call this
        god‟s country. This is god‟s country. Let our kids stay here. Let‟s give them a chance to work
        on those apartments. I am not taking out of state crews, I am going to start from within. Don‟t
        you understand that? You keep your people here. We don‟t have apartments like that. I am
        sorry, I am glad there is nobody here because I get emotional when I have such a passion for
        something. It is something that would be so good. One time I gave Scott a DVD with pictures
        of all different apartments and they had so many, some had 15, some had 20 to an acre. They all
        were very happy, good projects. You go back today, you knock on a door, they are very pleased.
        These we would only be getting four to an acre. You can hardly make any money, it would take
        years and years and years for me to get back any of my money. I want to help Southold, I really
        mean this. Scott, you know it. I gave you a DVD, I had hoped the whole Board would come,
        even by bus, to go look at these places. They are so safe, anybody gets hurt, bing, a light lights
        up. Immediately they have help. That is what this would be like. Please, I am still offering my
        five acres. I will give you free, five acres. And you will be able to use it for whatever people
        need it, that need it, low end, whatever you want to call it. I am not going to call it anything.
        But please, you are cheating your Southold people of good money, a beautiful thing. You will
        never be ashamed of it. I promise you, just put it on the board, give me a date so my secretary
        can send it out, let the people who you represent, you heard all of this tonight, hours and hours
        and hours and hours. And it was my pleasure to listen to it. But you gave them all a chance, you
        are denying me of the opportunity that I have asked for several years and I have made changes. I
        have never been disrespectful to anybody. All I want to do is help everybody. When I heard
        those officers were getting the slip, I went to Captain Flatley myself. I said that I am so sorry
        that this has happened. If there is anything that I can do, you had best believe I will. And when I
        say I will hire your local carpenters, I will put up a sign if I have to. If I am going to get fined,
        what can I tell you. I will just put local people, jobs. As long as they are qualified, because I am
        not building anything but the best. That is the only thing I know how to do, so I beg you, I
        implore you, you don‟t have to worry about a million people saying this to you but that truly is
        your job. Is to get the people to give them what they want. It isn‟t that much. Scott, you are the
        supervisor, it isn‟t that much to give me a date. Try it. What is going to happen? You are going
        to hear that people want it and we are going to have a project that all of you would be proud of, a
        million dollars a year taxes. Come on. You would never have to put a slip out again for as long
        as this project is there. Forever. When I can‟t do it, my kids will do it. I thank all of you, I
        know this was extra heavy because you had a very heavy night and I really have gained more
        respect for every one of you by the way you stood and you listened. And I appreciate you. I
        really do. I have much more, I have much, after tonight, I think I have much more, I won‟t say
        the word love, respect for everyone of you. Please give me the opportunity. Please put me on
        the board, give me a date. Let me send out those green cards. See what your people, who you
        represent have to say about it. If they tell me get out, I don‟t want it, I will walk out humbly.
        But give them the chance. I beg you. Thank you very much. There won‟t be clapping because
        nobody is here but I don‟t care. I wasn‟t doing it for the rest of people. Thank you very much. I
        don‟t know if I can ask you know like they said. Can you do this, can you do that? But the
        Board is here that is going to say yes or no. Can you please give me a date to represent the
        project I want that would help all of you so much. That is really, I am not 21 anymore so you
        had better not push me anymore. But please, I know the people are going to say yes. It is going
        to be nothing but good. You don‟t have to put anymore pink slips. You will ha ve money in your
        pockets. Remember I told you that once before. I said where you are a supervisor here and a
        businessman here and that project is gold. It is my money being used. not the banks flaky
        money but my hard earned money. Please give me a cha nce, will you? Can you answer or can‟t

Southold Town Board                                    Page 76                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                    Minutes                                 October 20, 2009
        they? Are they waiting for you, Scott?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: They haven‟t yet in the time they have been Town Board members.

        MS. SNYDER: Inaudible. Could you please tell me….

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I tell you what I would be willing to do, let your architect come with
        you to a work session and present exactly what you want to show us. Okay? To a work session.

        MS. SNYDER: Inaudible

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: But, I am telling you….

        MS. SNYDER: I guarantee you, when they see this project, they will say yes.

        COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: They said that about the Heritage, too.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Let me just tell you, though. We will let you come in, I would
        certainly be willing to let you come in with Jeff, I think his name is….

        MS. SNYDER: Steve

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Steve, that is right. I would let you come in and show the Town
        Board what you want to propose for that site so they have a real good understanding of it.

        MS. SNYDER: Fine.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: But you need to hopefully accept the fact that if the thumbs are
        down, it is over. We can‟t keep….

        MS. SNYDER: But wait, I don‟t really think that is fair because you have from now until then
        to shh, shh, shh, whatever you want. I am not saying you are going to do it but I have watched
        you approve this. I have watched you say that is a good idea.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Mrs. Snyder….
        MS. SNYDER: Inaudible.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: But we don‟t listen to him anyway.

        MS. SNYDER: No, I really mean it. It is a beautiful project. You would be very proud….

        JUSTICE EVANS: It is not about the project, it is about the zone.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Well, that is one of the problems. You asked for more density per
        acre than any zoning allows.

        MS. SNYDER: This is, here is what I am trying to tell you. I have already got the literature
        even. There are more children from private homes (inaudible) than there are from apartments.
        this is being very much clustered. They are beautiful and I am giving you five acres. Inaudible.

Southold Town Board                                  Page 77                                     Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                  October 20, 2009

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Mrs. Snyder, you have asked to be before us at the next meeting
        and I think…

        MS. SNYDER: Inaudible…if you would put on the calendar.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: And the Supervisor made a, I think, a very generous proposal.
        Do you have an attorney who is working with you?

        MS. SNYDER: Oh, I give up with attorneys.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I think it would convey more confidence to the Board if you had
        an attorney with you when you come. Not that it is a legal type of thing, I mean, not that you are
        not welcome on your own. But an attorney who…

        MS. SNYDER: Excuse me, (inaudible) they are going to tell you everything they want to hear.
        I am telling you me. I am doing this whole project. Inaudible.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Mrs. Snyder, I am just trying to tell you, if you do come with us
        and I think the Board would welcome it, I think it would convey greater confidence to us if you
        had a land use attorney with you, on your side, who can help reflect the specifics and the
        legalities we have to deal with as a Board and….

        MS. SNYDER: I was going to ask Mr. Cuddy. Mr. Cuddy is involved with another project. It
        isn‟t that I didn‟t try. I have confidence in just so many attorneys.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Fine.

        MS. SNYDER: He is a good one.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Yes, he is.

        MS. SNYDER: But he is involved with something else. My architect is the greatest, that DVD;
        he has done 25 minimum of them. He knows what he is talking about, if you want me to bring
        him along again, you met him.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes, I did.

        MS. SNYDER: Very nice gentleman, very intelligent. His designs are there. I will come to you
        but don‟t let it be too much longer. Don‟t let it be Christmas time, let‟s get ahe ad of it. Because
        the sooner you say yes, we can send those slips out. So when you say slips out and the people say
        yes, we can start our construction. Okay? Thank you, gentlemen. Very much.

        COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Thank you for being here.

        MS. SNYDER: I am proud of all of you. I really am. After tonight, you deserve a medal.
        Thank you very much.

        COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Jim, you had another last question?

Southold Town Board                                   Page 78                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                  October 20, 2009
        Jim Dinizio, Greenport
        MR. DINIZIO: Yes, can I speak?

        COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: You are up.

        MR. DINIZIO: Okay, it seems un-American that the woman can‟t get an application to let you
        hear what she wants to do with a change of zone but I am sure you have your reasons. I am here
        because of something I read in the paper. And I just want to start out with I was a member of the
        Zoning Board. Jim Dinizio, Greenport. And while I was on the Board, our Board heard an
        application concerning a windmill at a vineyard and we turned them down. I voted to allow
        them to do it but it was 4 to 1 against. Vinnie was on the Board then, too. Subsequently the
        Town, actually the Suffolk Times heard a letter, got a letter from one of the members of the
        Board basically saying, well, if it is not in the law, then we can‟t grant it. Which I disagree with
        wholeheartedly, that is why you have a zoning board as a relief valve. After that, you guys came
        up with a law. Well, not all of you but certainly the Town Board did and that law is, I don‟t
        know, how old? Five years? Four? Does anybody know?

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Not even, I have been here for four and it was probably passed
        towards my second year.

        MR. DINIZIO: Right. Right.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: About two and half years old.

        MR. DINIZIO: Three years, right, right. so now we have a law, it is two years old and I read in
        the paper not too long ago that it is a 3-3 vote that they want to change the law. And with a 3-3
        tie, you don‟t get to change the law you guys, you, indecision there. well, I don‟t know what the
        indecision was but it goes back to my comments before, you know, there is no respect for the
        law. There is no respect for what you write down it seems, lately. Okay? Because this is not the
        only law that this happened. Well, anyway, you set your parameters, what you did was the will
        of the people, maybe some people don‟t like it, probably nobody likes it but some people think
        some things are good and some people think some of the things are good and this is what you
        come up with, that is part of being a democracy, that is part of wha t our town is all about. That
        is part of what you guys are all about. Okay, you don‟t make anybody happy but you know, you
        have got a law and by the law, I think you should live by it.

        COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: By the way, that vineyard can put a wind turbine up now but it
        hasn‟t.

        MR. DINIZIO: Well, yeah, I agree with you. You know, I think that, you know, once you
        turned down a little bit, you get a little dishearted you know, because you thought maybe
        certainly after hearing a comment from one of our members that said I don‟t think he should
        have it because it will look ugly, I don‟t think your patrons will want to see it. I think you get a
        little dishearted after that, okay? But that is besides the point. The point is now, we have a law.
        I read the Suffolk Times now that someone wants to come before the law, before the ZBA with
        an application and basically decimate the law because the law is, among other things, that 300
        foot. That is the entire law. Okay? The rest of it is really not much. W hat you all agree to that
        300 feet and this guy, this gentleman wants to get a variance for 55 % of that. 55 %. Now the
        Zoning Board is supposed to be a relief valve. It is supposed to be for what you don‟t think

Southold Town Board                                   Page 79                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                      Minutes                                   October 20, 2009
        about, okay? Well, quite honestly, because it has got to be so far away and it is going to cost so
        much money to do, is not a reason that is specific to that person because everybody has to live by
        that law. Okay? Because it costs too much money isn‟t a reason. It certainly 55 % is not
        minimal. Now, I could see if there was a cesspool in the way, you know, some kind of, maybe a
        huge hill so he needs to move it over towards, I could see that. But I have seen the property, it is
        flat. It is vineyards. (Inaudible) easily replaceable. You can ditch between them and everything,
        so it is not a problem. In any case, so then I read in the paper and this will only take a couple of
        minutes, I just want to get to one point, that they are going to re-hear it. They are going to give
        him a second shot at it after you guys discussed and couldn‟t come to a conclusion that the law
        should be changed. And my specific thing is to Mr. Simon‟s statement that you know, what Mr.
        Page wants is good and I believe the Town is, I can‟t read it quite but is being foolish here.
        Okay? Quite honestly, a ZBA member is supposed to be a judge. I feel that that person isn‟t
        qualified to be at this hearing. Honestly, that statement would get him kicked off the Board if I
        had my vote. Now, I hope you are doing something about it. I hope I don‟t see him at that
        hearing because I intend to go. I don‟t believe he should be part of this hearing. Then we have
        Mr. Goerhinger basically, because Mr. Simon was on the right track, I mean, he was saying I
        thought, the right thing. You know. You know, not going to hold this guy up giving him false
        hope because we are not going to give him a variance for that amount. Mr. Goerhinger basically
        browbeat him into changing his mind and said he was living in a dream world if he thought the
        town was going to change the code. I have heard that before. I have heard Mr. Goerhinger
        intimate that before. You know what it gave us? The Walls decision. An increase in zoning
        variances of 1/3. Every third variance that that Board hears now is the result of a code and I
        know you heard me talk Walls, I am stuck on it. Sorry. You guys are going to hear it until you
        fix it. Now we are going to have Mr. Goerhinger fix the law. Well, I don‟t think Mr. Goerhinger
        should be on this hearing either. I think he is a detriment to the laws of our town in this instance.
        So I am asking you, somehow get a message to both those two, that they recuse themselves from
        this hearing. You could do it with three. You have got three good members there. They can
        make a decision. They shouldn‟t be making a decision. They shouldn‟t have voted to open it but
        I am sure that they thought perhaps that you guys might be doing something to help Mr. Page.
        Now I have my own reasons why certain members of this Board voted for Mr. Page or brought
        that up and why others didn‟t. And it has more to do with his yard signs than anything else. So
        what I would like to hear is that these two men are not fit to stand on this hearing and hear this
        hearing and make a decision based on this hearing based on their public comments. And that is
        all I have to say. thank you very kindly. I appreciate your standing up to me. This was really
        the only thing I was going to say all night but….

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Just so you know, I wrote to Mr. Simon asking him to recuse
        himself based on those comments and I cc‟d the assistant Town Attorney who serves as the
        counsel to….

        MR. DINIZIO: Well, I think Mr. Goerhinger has a problem.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: He chose a predisposition on an application, similar to what you
        were accused of some years ago with regard to your comments with regard to Cross Sound ferry.

        MR. DINIZIO: Right but it never came before, you don‟t know if I was going to recuse myself.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Well, that is right. but what happened was, I think the lady stood up
        and said if the application comes before you, you should recuse yourself. I agreed with her then

Southold Town Board                                    Page 80                                       Printed 11/18/2009
Regular Meeting                                                      Minutes                                          October 20, 2009
        and I agree with you know.

        MR. DINIZIO: And I agreed with her, too.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is right. There is no difference.

        MR. DINZIO: I mean, I would have recused myself.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is right. And it showed his predisposition on that case and he
        has no…

        MR. DINIZIO: Exactly. You know I wasn‟t going to argue that case and they shouldn‟t argue it
        either. But this is the way this Board has been going. Now you have an opportunity here, okay,
        to rebuild this Board to a real Board. Zoning Board. What it was meant to be. A very specific
        by state code, Zoning Board. Doing only variances. That is why my comment about the special
        exceptions, the bed and breakfasts, all of that should be out. Because they should be
        concentrating specifically on variances. That is what their job is. The rest of it, special
        exceptions can go someplace else. And so can permits for wineries and all of that stuff and
        checking for parking and for all of that, shouldn‟t be part of the Zoning Board. Because the
        Zoning Board is not for that. They are supposed to be judges. They are supposed to remain out
        of the fray. Okay? One of them put themselves into the IGA situation. I mean, it just goes on
        and on and on. And I think that you need to put your foot down and I hope that you do. Have a
        good evening.

        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you, Jim.

        COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thanks, Jim.

        Supervisorr Russell
        SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody else like to address the Town Board? (No response)

        Motion To:           Adjourn Town Board Meeting
        COMMENTS - Current Meeting:
        RESO LVED that this meeting of the Southold Town Board be and hereby is declared adjourned at 8:09 P.M.
                             *                    *                    *                    *                     *




                                                                            Elizabeth A. Neville
                                                                            Southold Town Clerk


          RESULT:                 ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
          MOVER:                  Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman
          SECONDER:               Louisa P. Evans, Justice
          AYES:                   Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell




Southold Town Board                                                     Page 81                                           Printed 11/18/2009

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Sams Club July 2009 Same Store Sales document sample