A presentation about the Comprehensive Plan Update has cued concerns about aspects of the process, the plan guidance, and a timeline that calls for adoption later this year.
But that’s to be expected as the complex project moves into the forefront and decision-making shifts away from the working group of Town officials and community volunteers who’ve been toiling at this over the past three years.
In many, many hours of generally respectful — if occasionally peevish — conversation, the Comprehensive Plan Update team has grappled with a range of inherently controversial topics relating to land use while attempting to find a consensus about the Island’s future.
At Tuesday’s Town Board work session, it was evident that not every member of the large team — or the group of Islanders who’ve been closely following their progress — is fully onboard.
This post is about the concerns expressed and other aspects of the meeting; to learn what’s being proposed, please read the companion post: “Comprehensive Plan Update preliminary findings, goals, recommendations.”
Who’s who
If you’re only now becoming aware of the Comprehensive Plan Update, it’ll help to know who’s who. (If you don’t need the background, please skip ahead.)
Relative newcomers hired in March to consult on the project for NYC-based BFJ Planning are architects Noah Levine and Susan Favate. On Tuesday, they briefed the Town Board at a work session in person and via Zoom, respectively.
Their presentation outlined findings, goals, and recommendations in an hour of bullet-pointed slides. It comes amid their firm’s ongoing revision of a lengthy document compiled by the Town’s CPU team.
That team comprises a task force of three Town officials and the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC), nine community volunteers from varied backgrounds appointed by the Town Board in October 2020.
Councilwomen BJ Ianfolla and Meg Larsen serve on the task force, along with Julia Weisenberg, representing the Planning Board. Former Councilman Albert Dickson served on the task force before retiring.
The nine citizen volunteers are Jay Card Jr., Sean Clark, Benjamin Dyett, Lily Hoffman, John Kerr, Rebecca Mundy, Jo-Ann Robotti, Petra Schmidt, and Wendy Turgeon. Kathleen DeRose and Peter Beardsley previously served but resigned.
Some attended Tuesday’s presentation; all have contributed in one way or another to the work under review.
The process to date
The CPU team has held dozens of meetings open to the public in person or online or available via recordings on the Town’s YouTube channel. During these meetings, they’ve reviewed available data, argued over findings, come together behind certain recommendations, and, at times, hotly disputed others.
All the while, they’ve created copious chapter notes — with Larsen updating them in real-time on a shared screen — that are posted publicly for all to read. And many Islanders have regularly followed their progress, reading and commenting on the team’s admittedly messy drafts.
You can read their draft plan chapters on the Town website and weigh in using the online comment feature. (Or, submit comments to the CPU Clerk Coco Lee Thuman at cthuman@shelterislandtown.gov or PO Box 1549, Shelter Island, NY 11964.)
The current update initiative began during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the task force and CPAC members seated widely apart in the Community Center to maintain social distancing. It faced a temporary disruption following the sudden departure in June 2021 of two of the three original Task Force members and the dismissal of the original consulting firms.
The Town Board reanimated the project in March 2022 with some seat shuffling. Larsen, formerly a member of CPAC, joined the task force following her election to Town Board. Ianfolla took over for Councilman Mike Bebon after he resigned, and she was appointed to serve the remainder of his Town Board term.
Earlier this year, Weisenberg joined the Planning Board and was appointed to the task force. When two of the original 12 CPAC members resigned, the group decided not to bring on any new volunteers.
In March, the Town hired BFJ to replace the original consulting team of Dodson & Flinker and Larissa Brown & Associates, Massachusetts-based firms.
Comprehensive planning
Additional opportunities are approaching for public input — an essential element of any well-vetted plan.
A comprehensive plan, state guidance says, is a way to assess often zealously guarded and competing property rights and develop an official land use policy that expresses a community’s shared vision for its future.
In NYS, there’s no requirement to have a comprehensive plan, but they’re highly recommended, especially as a backstop for a community’s zoning decisions. And once you’ve got one, it’s a good idea to review it periodically.
The Town of Shelter Island has been operating under a plan adopted in 1994 (you can read it here). In other words, decision-making regarding the direction of our community flows from a nearly 30-year-old plan.
But in the interim, Shelter Island has seen dramatic changes in demographics, lifestyles, and our collective understanding of our shared resources.
The Town Board has tweaked the Town Code to address issues barely on the radar in the 90s — transfer-tax-funded land preservation, internet-aided short-term rentals, and a growing appreciation for the long-term adverse ecological impacts of relying on traditional septics to manage human waste.
But there are demands of modern life that may require more, and by updating the plan, the Town may better position itself to address new challenges. Sussing out which bits need changing isn’t an easy task, especially given the sometimes conflicting views on the best path forward for the community.
And this isn’t the first update attempt; in 2008, the Town Board empaneled volunteers to review the 1994 plan but never formally adopted their recommendations.
Public input
At Tuesday’s presentation, Levine provided an overview of the process to date, upcoming steps, and a timeline for completion. Then, he and Favate presented bulleted summaries of findings, goals, and recommendations (see the BFJ slideshow here).
Levine described three phases:
- Phase One was the series of community and stakeholder meetings that followed the initial launch in 2020
- Phase Two saw the Town’s CPU team create draft chapters for public review since the reboot in 2021
- Phase Three, now underway, includes BFJ editing those chapters, public input forums for additional feedback, State Environmental Quality Review, and fine-tuning of the plan before adoption by the Town Board
BFJ plans to conduct two public workshops. The first is on Thursday, August 24, from 7 to 9 PM via Zoom (use this link for details on how to join). It will include a presentation followed by small group discussions moderated by a BFJ staffer or member of the CPU Task Force.
Then, BFJ’s revised chapters will be available for public review about a week before a second session on Saturday, September 23, in person at the Community Center; details TBD. Instead of break-out groups, organizers will man stations focused on various aspects of the plan, enabling participants to focus on the issues of most significant interest to them.
The firm will incorporate public feedback into a final draft submission sometime in October. The Town Board will schedule at least one public hearing for a last round of input before adoption in mid-December.
The team also seeks photo submissions of iconic Shelter Island locations or experiences; selected images will be incorporated into the plan. Please send yours to CPU Clerk Coco Lee Thuman at cthuman@shelterislandtown.gov.
State Environmental Quality Review
Adopting a comprehensive plan is subject to State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR), a process that may include additional public input.
First, the Town Board will declare its intent to act as the lead agency under SEQR. This notices other interested agencies, including the Town Planning Board and the Suffolk County Planning Commission. They’ll have opportunities to weigh in.
As the lead agency, the Town Board must assess the environmental ramifications of the plan. It may extend BFJ’s contract to assist with SEQR or hire another firm. Minimally, completion of a full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) is required, Favate said.
If the review determines that no adverse impacts will likely result from the plan, the Town Board will issue what’s known as a negative declaration.
Suppose the FEAF indicates that adverse impacts may result from adopting the plan. In that case, the board will pursue further study to determine the significance of those impacts and, where necessary, explore and present mitigations.
This more in-depth study could include developing a generic environmental impact statement (GEIS). Adoption of a GEIS would involve additional opportunities for public input.
Importantly, a GEIS can serve as a planning incentive, state guidance says. If a Town prepares a GEIS, no further SEQRA compliance is required when carrying out proposed actions so long as they conform with the GEIS. (Read NYS FAQs about SEQR for local officials.)
Concerns and other public comments
Following the BFJ presentation, some voiced concerns about the process, the plan guidance, and the timeline.
Two of the four current Town Councilors — Ianfolla and Jim Colligan — and Town Supervisor Gerry Siller conclude their service at the end of this year. Voters will select their replacements in November. The new officials take office in January.
On Tuesday, CPAC member Lily Hoffman, one of the most persistent and vocal critics of the Town’s approach to the project, said that she was “strongly, strongly upset and very, very hurt” that her views weren’t adequately reflected in the consultants’ presentation.
She criticized it for not including concerns about water quantity “and restraints that require conservation.” She also complained that accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are being “promoted up the kazoo.” And she accused the task force of pursuing “a political agenda by a lame duck administration.”
Her tone was in keeping with her often impassioned advocacy. Hoffman, a professor emerita at CCNY and the CUNY Graduate Center, also asserted, “Since the hiring of BFJ, we’ve had no contact with the firm; the entire conservation has taken place between the task force.”
In a follow-up conversation, Hoffman said that while she’d been present when Levine or other BFJ representatives attended meetings via Zoom, she had no direct contact with them. She said this was a departure from the working arrangement with the two original consulting firms, who were available via email or phone.
Hoffman also repeated her worry that ADUs will “double units on every property on the Island.” Currently, obstacles in the Town Code prevent the creation of accessory units across the Island’s largest zone — the Near Shore and Peninsular overlays districts.
While there’s been debate on whether it’s in the Island’s best interest to continue these ADU prohibitions, Tuesday’s presentation included only a simple call to establish code and policy for their development.
Go faster! Slow down!
Patricia Foulkrod, who owns Shelter Island Art House gallery, bemoaned the Town’s slow pace of decision-making, citing a lack of tree protection on private land that leaves neighbors feeling powerless when lots are cleared for development.
“You talk about October,” she said. “You know how many trees are going to be downed between now and October?”
But she also acknowledged the difficulty of balancing competing demands.
“What struck me was a lot of your recommendations are to protect the Island, and a lot of them are to expand it quite a lot,” she said. “That’s a juxtaposition that’s going to be difficult to manage.”
Anita Greenbaum-Brush, representing the Menantic Peninsula Association, supported the plan but asked, “What’s the rush?”
Even to people paying attention, the draft plan “will take a long time to digest,” she said.
“It’s just really starting to penetrate people’s consciousness now. And if you want Town input, which I think you do, it feels rushed to me.”
“I don’t think we are rushing,” Supervisor Siller said. “I think what we’re doing is putting together a plan for the public to address. I don’t think anything’s written in stone. It’s not code. It’s for the future Town Board to address in code.”
Siller said he didn’t feel the Town Board should halt the process “just because there’s going to be an election in November. We’re going to continue, and it gets as far as it gets.”
What about SEQR?
“Can we take the temperature down,” asked Bill Mastro, a Community Housing Board member. He gestured to the audience and then the Town Board dais, saying, “People here and up here care. So let’s accept that there’s caring.”
Describing the timeline as “a little presumptuous,” he said people critical of the schedule “aren’t necessarily acting in bad faith. They’re looking at the timeframe and saying October to December is kind of short.”
He noted that it may be particularly unrealistic to complete SEQR by year’s end.
“I would think you would give this Town Board enough credit to say we’re not going to rush it just to pass it,” Siller said.
“We’re going to follow through with the procedure, and if it’s not ready to pass in December, it won’t be passed.”
“Just looking at it preliminarily, I don’t think we’re looking at anything that’s going to result in a significant [adverse] environmental impact,” Levine said. “Mostly what we’re looking at is really preserving areas and safeguarding water quality.”
Favate said she agreed.
“I do think that many of the recommendations here would result in beneficial impacts to the environment,” she said.
Political winds
Councilman Colligan took umbrage at Hoffman’s characterization of the Town Board, saying he and others devote countless hours to their work.
“I didn’t say you didn’t do your work,” Hoffman said. Referencing the outcome of the June Democratic Primary, she said, “There was a different set of candidates that overwhelmingly won your places.”
Siller lost to Gordon Gooding in the primary. CPAC’s Ben Dyett was the top vote-getter, as he and former Councilman Albert Dickson became the party’s picks for Town Board.
In November, Gooding faces incumbent Deputy Supervisor Amber Brach-Williams for Supervisor; the Republican candidates for the two Town Board seats are Tom Cronin and Art Williams.
Gooding joined others on Tuesday in criticizing the Town Board for not releasing the presentation sooner (it was posted on the Town website Monday evening).
He said he believes “there’s a lot of work still to be done” and wants to “explore other avenues and get to all the solutions.”
The current Town Board may not end up adopting the plan, he said. “But it will be taken over the goal line in the future after this, in the near future.”
Larsen, who has two more years in her Town Board term, said the task force created a timeline in response to requests that it do so.
“People keep asking, ‘What’s the timeline, what’s the timeline?'”
If benchmarks arrive and it’s inappropriate to act, she said, “then we’ll push the timeline back.”
SIHPOC
Stella Lagudis, general manager of the Shelter Island Heights Property Owners Corporation, said she may need additional time to review the plan with the 200 or so Heights residents.
There are Town and SIHPOC overlaps on certain issues, including business activity within and bordering the Heights, the importance of North Ferry, and SIHPOC-owned roads and water and sewer infrastructure.
“We’re working very hard to get folks within the Heights to learn more about the plan and give us feedback,” Lagudis said.
“Before any planning that pertains to the Heights gets put into this particular comprehensive plan, we just need to scratch a bit deeper to see if it’s something we also think is reasonable.”
Shelter Island Association
Kim Noland is president of the Shelter Island Association, a supergroup with representatives from various homeowners associations. She closely follows CPAC, sometimes commenting during meetings.
Her exasperation was plain on Tuesday when she blasted the presentation as “pushing pieces of paper, PowerPoints, cartoons, etc., against an intelligent populace who can read documents and understand what you have in mind for the changes on this Island.”
Noland said she’d long been asking for a recommendation delivered only recently regarding a local waterfront plan. Among her other concerns was a bulleted finding under the Economy chapter, which reads, “Existing zoning does not match land use patterns.”
“Now, to me, that says, and we’re going to change that; at least we’re going to look at it and maybe try,” she said.
An attorney, Noland, said it was “absolutely disingenuous … to say that zoning doesn’t really happen in a comprehensive plan.”
Siller said while any zoning changes would stem from the plan, they’d be subject to further review; they won’t automatically occur upon its adoption.
Levine said the bulleted item represented a more extended conversation, fleshed out in the report, regarding “commercial areas that are zoned residential.”
Businesses in residential zones
Among what Levine called “mismatches” are places with uses that pre-date our zoning’s adoption in the 1950s.
Many business uses are “grandfathered,” particularly along the waterfront, and owners face steep hurdles when seeking to alter or expand their operations.
“That’s something you’d want to look at to make sure those businesses could continue,” he said.
Jan Sudol, whose presence lately at CPAC monthly meetings might lead observers to mistake him for a member, took exception to this recommendation.
“The fact that those businesses are operating as a pre-existing, non-conforming business in [the] residential zone provides some measure of protection for the residents that surround those areas,” Sudol said.
Lagudis also expressed unease about reconsidering such designations, citing it as an example of why the Town should slow the process.
“It’s better that we get it out now and talk about it and even determine if it still needs to be in there,” she told Levine.
“Because it might be fine for you as an urban developer to say this is best practice but these residents live there, and we need to be protective of [them].”
A ‘hoped-for result’
Stephen Jacobs, another follower of CPAC meetings, commended the task force and committee for their work.
“For the sake of the Island, it would obviously be good if it were a plan that could get broad if not universal support,” he said.
He repeated his longstanding call for what he described as “a meaningful study of the aquifer, including and particularly how much development will the aquifer support.”
Patrick Clifford, head of the Hay Beach Association, has also endorsed such a study.
Jacobs also implied the Town Board hopes to avoid a thorough SEQR process because BFJ’s contract with Town “assumes … there will be a negative declaration.”
Larsen explained that the contract covered a scope of work that didn’t include further SEQR analysis. This was not, as he’d described it, a “hoped-for result,” she said.
The Town could amend the scope of work and the contract if an expanded review is called for.
“But you don’t want to have a plan that creates a negative impact on the environment and your community,” Larsen said. “So, hopefully, the plan we develop is worthy of a negative declaration.”
A good discussion
Peter Grand, chair of the Water Advisory Committee, joined the meeting via Zoom.
“First of all, I want to congratulate everybody,” he said. “This was a good discussion, not a bad discussion.”
“I learned a lot and I just want us to say that the plan is important and however it works out on whatever timeline it works out, we actually do need to be taking action.”
“If the plan needs to be either vague enough to accommodate different interpretations or needs to take longer so that everybody can come on board, one way or another, we need it. We need this to happen and we need to then proceed onward with all these tasks.”
See the slideshow presentation on the Town website
