Planning Board: Planners wish for a house-free causeway

Members of Town Planning Board took some time out to vent at their meeting last week, telling Town Councilman Glenn Waddington they don’t want to see any development on the causeways, even as they work on zoning recommendations for the proposed causeway overlay district.

Laws to create the proposed district, and impose a permit requirement for construction there, will be the subject of a public hearing before the Town Board this Friday shortly before 5 p.m.

Mr. Waddington, the Town Board’s liaison to the planners, urged the planners to let him know how they felt, not officially as a board, but as individuals.

“Philosophically, where do you all individually come from as far as what you want to see done on the causeway? Would you like to see three to four houses?”

Planning Board Chair Paul Mobius answered, “I would like to see no houses.”

“How do you go about achieving that?” Mr. Waddington asked.

“There is only one way,” Mr. Mobius replied. “You have to buy it.”

Planning Board member Emory Breiner said he’d been saying for more than a year that the town should try to buy any private lots on the causeway that might be developed.

The board members agreed the public also probably wants no development on the causeway but might resist the cost of acquiring the parcels there, even if they were for sale.

Mr. Breiner seemed to suggest the proposed new rules for the causeway were more a mechanism to guide development rather than control or limit it. “You’ve had preservation efforts all along,” he said, “and now you’re stopping that.”

Board member Ian McDonald agreed that the town should have purchased the vacant and private lots on the causeway. “I am not against the COD zoning,“ he said, referring to the proposed Causeway Overlay District. He also said several minor discrepancies in the legislation needed clarification.

The board moved on to its recommendations for setting up regulations for the use of reverse osmosis water filtering systems, which homeowners on the causeway might use to filter the salt from their groundwater wells. The board members discussed whether not to require any extracted brine to be shipped off Island, rather than poured into the bay.

Mr. Mobius suggested that the board recommend further research on the effect of the brine discharge, and how its flow might be engineered. Board member John D’Amato agreed. “We should get an opinion from someone with the proper credentials,” he said.

Another topic was regulations for accessory structures. Mr. McDonald said a separate building or shed for bikes and kayaks would look better than leaving them scattered on lawns. He said a shed would better protect them in the event of a flood. Another option would be for the house to be raised 12 feet, keeping a space underneath for storage of recreational items. But Mr. Waddington warned, “Scenic vista also comes into this. You want to keep these structures as low as you possibly can.”

The board also discussed whether or not a causeway permit should be required for repairs, or even painting a house, as Mr. Mobius put it. The board’s position was that a permit should be required only if there were an expansion to the footprint of the house.

Asked for his opinion, Mr. D’Amato offered a broad view of all potential causeway construction. “I think the whole thing is a folly. We are going to try to fix something, and we’re going to make it worse than it ever was… We looked at those properties and thought that there was no way anyone could build on them. That’s my opinion.”

Docks and bulkheads were the board’s last topic for discussion. Both would be barred under the current causeway proposal. Mr. Breiner suggested that because of rising  sea levels, bulkheads may be necessary one day, not to mention a raised roadway.

Board members agreed Friday’s hearing before the Town Board would be interesting and that more chairs should be set up in Town Hall.

In other business from the May 31 meeting, the board held a public hearing for a minor subdivision planned by Sam Case for his North Ferry Road property. Mr. Case wishes to separate a two-acre parcel into two one-acre parcels, in order to build a house.

Next door neighbor Gregory Cranford raised issues at the hearing. “I am only objecting in terms of a cumulative impact,” he said.

Mr. Cranford’s fear was that more houses could eventually be built on a neighboring property that neither of the two neighbors owned, and that the existing right of way to the property Mr. Case was subdividing would become a busy driveway.

“My request is that the right of way be moved to a line along the north” he said.

Mr. D’Amato empathized with Mr. Cranford, “Personally, I understand your concern,” he said.

The hearing will be held open for a required Suffolk County Planning Commission report, and the Planning Board will attempt to come up with a solution to satisfy both neighbors, whose dialogue with each other was polite and respectful. Mr. Cranford said that he suspected Mr. Case didn’t want a house built on the property but figured he was going through with it for financial reasons. Mr. Case agreed and said he’d attempted to have the property’s development rights purchased for preservation with no success.

Asked by board member John Kerr how Mr. Cranford would feel about angling the “road,” Mr. Cranford said,  “I would not support that. The beauty of Shelter Island is in the spaces in between. When you start putting a road through, you lose the aspect of the field.”