Town Talks Trash, Dumpsters Causing 'Blight' on Front Lawns

SOUTHOLD, NY — The Southold Town board and members of the public talked trash Tuesday, as residents turned out for a hearing on a proposed amendment to the code restricting the placement of dumpsters on residential properties.

If given the green light, the amendment would mean that no dumpster would be permitted in the front or side yard of a residential property for more than two weeks, unless the property had an open and valid building permit.

With a building permit, the dumpster could stay on the front or side yard until the building permit expired or a certificate of occupancy and/or compliance was issued for the work described.

Properties used for agricultural production wouldn't be affected, the proposed code change said.

Konrad Klauer of Cutchogue asked if the dumpsters would be rolled out for collection day or kept in the backyard 24/7; he also asked how the changes to the code would be enforced.

Southold Town Supervisor Scott Russell said currently there is a one full-time and one part-time code enforcement officer in town with another full timer to be hired in the next few months.

Klauer asked if it would be "neighbor versus neighbor" with residents calling the town with complaints.

"Most successful code enforcement" comes from residents letting the town know about violations, Russell said. "It's a big town," with a small staff, he said.

Klauer also asked if yellow bags would be required in dumpsters, how many feet the dumpsters would be from the property line, how many permits a person could receive per year, the length of the permit and how to ensure residents would recycle.

Russell reminded that yellow bags and recycling are mandatory in Southold, regardless.

Klauer said he has a dumpster near his home that hasn't been picked up. "There are flies buzzing when it sits around for weeks and weeks on end."

In addition, small dumpsters can be an indicator of illegal crowding in a single family home.

Russell said he'd like to consider screening.

Resident William Schriever, who lives at Peconic Landing but has homes in Southold Town, said he found the proposed amendment "hostile" and said the people hurt would be those with smaller parcels of land.

Schriever maintained that dumpsters aren't "cheap," and residents wouldn't keep paying to have them on their land.

"I don't see the purpose to the amendment at all," he said. "It's ridiculous." He added, "You're attacking the poor."

If a family has only a quarter acre of property, with young children that play in the fenced backyard, "this law will force you to put the dumpster in the backyard. You don't want to do that, so in a sense, you can't have a dumpster."

Russell said residents could still use garbage cans and carters. "This addresses that are used for municipal solid waste, month after month, year after year."

Schriever said he believed the best place for the dumpster might be the side yard; he said he'd like to see "side yard" removed from the amendment.

"I just want to be clear that this law is designed to address dumpsters used for household garbage," the supervisor said.

Jon DiVello, owner of Mattituck Environmental Services, said the language was "a bit vague" between a dumpster at a residence and a rolloff container.

And, he said, if a resident has a flood at their house, they shouldn't need a building permit for a dumpster.

In addition, DiVello said, companies don't need to "police people" in regard to having dumpsters removed; Mattituck Environmental has a 10-day limit to dumpster rentals that "polices itself."

He added that a dumpster is the same amount as two totes used for residential garbage.

"If it's the same thing, then this shouldn't injure anyone," Russell said. "Moving from a dumpster to two totes is an easy transition."

DiVello asked who would benefit from the change to the code.

The benefit, Russell said, is removing the "blight" from residential communities, the sight of "dumpsters by the road, year in and year out."

Siting dumpsters in the side yards would be even worse, Russell said, because in some neighborhoods that would mean the dumpsters would be within a few feet of the property next door. "That's not fair to the neighbors," Russell said.

He added that he's had phone calls and letters for years from people asking the town to address the issue of dumpsters in residential communities.

The supervisor said the intent of the code revision needs to be clarified. "We should bring clarity to the code, that this is designed for dumpsters used for municipal waste."

Scott Schelin of North Fork Sanitation said that sometimes, when cleaning out a house — for example, if someone has passed away — the process can take longer. Ten days allows for two weekends, he said. While, hopefully, the aim is to get the clean-outs done in that time, weather, contractors, deliveries and other issues arise. He asked exemptions would be considered for certain situations.

Russell asked if 30 days would be more reasonable; Schelin said it would.

Russell said issues remained: He'd like to see dumpster and rolloff defined, with a discussion on setbacks and screening. In addition, the supervisor said, there are some restaurants in residential zones that could be impacted unfairly.

"We need to go back to the drawing board a little more," he said.

Russell said if substantial changes were made to the current proposed legislation, a new public hearing would be held.

Tuesday's hearing was closed, with the board set to discuss the issue further.