Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-12/07/2020 OFFICE LOCATION: MAILING ADDRESS: Town Hall Annex q sour P.O.Box 1179 54375 State Route 25 ®�� y�1 Southold, NY 11971 (cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.) Q Southold NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 www.southoldtownny.gov Cn UN% RECEIVED PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD q 2 1 2022 09 � PUBLIC MEETING 1 MINUTES December 7, 2020 6:00 p.m. Present were: James H. Rich III, Vice-Chairman Pierce Rafferty, Member Martin Sidor, Member Mary Eisenstein, Member Heather Lanza, Planning Director Mark Terry, Assistant Planning Director Brian Cummings, Planner Jessica Michaelis, Office Assistant Vice-Chairman Rich: Good Evening and welcome'to the scheduled Public Meeting for Monday, December 7, 2020 for the Southold Town Planning Board. This meeting is public. The Planning Board may add or remove applications from the Agenda upon its discretion, without further notice. Applications may not be heard in the order they appear on this agenda. This public meeting will be held virtually via the Zoom online platform. Pursuant to Executive Order 202.1 of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in-person access by the public will not be permitted. SETTING ®F THE NEXT_P.LANNIING „BOARD MEETING E Vice-Chairman Rich: The first order of business is to set Monday, January 11, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. as the time for the next regular Planning Board Meeting. Martin Sidor: I make a motion. Mary Eisenstein: Second. Southold Town Planning Board Page 12 December 7, 2020 Vice-Chairman Rich: Motion made by Martin, seconded by Mary. Any discussion?All in favor? Ayes. Opposed? None. Motion carries. Bond Reductions: Vice-Chairman Rich: The Fields at Mattituck—This approved major subdivision is for the subdivision of a 60.42 acre parcel into 27 lots. The property is located at 2530 Stanley Road, Mattituck. SCTM#1000-113-2-1.1 Pierce Rafferty: WHEREAS, this Standard Subdivision divided 60 acres into 27 lots including a new road proposed to be dedicated to the Town of Southold as a public street; and WHEREAS, on September 14, 2004, the Southold Town Planning Board resolved to accept a Stipulation of Settlement to approve this subdivision, including a Bond Estimate in the amount of$588,343; and WHEREAS, on June 3, 2005, the Town of Southold received an Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit ("ISLC") in the amount of$588,343, dated May 18, 2005 from the North Fork Bank (aka Capital One) on behalf of the applicant Winhaven Associates LLC; and WHEREAS, much of the required public improvements were constructed in subsequent years, however they were never completed and were not maintained, causing the drainage system to fail; and WHEREAS, the current landowner, together with a contract vendee who has indicated interest in constructing homes'requested an updated bond estimate; and WHEREAS, on December 2, 2020, Michael Collins, Town Engineer, after inspecting the site and condition of the improvements, recommended an updated bond amount of $327,320; therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby accepts the Revised Bond Estimate for The Fields at Mattituck dated December 2, 2020, prepared by Michael Southold Town Planning Board Page 13 December 7, 2020 Collins, Town Engineer in the amount of$327,320, and recommends that the Town Board also accept the Revised Bond Estimate. Martin Sidor: Second. Vice-Chairman Rich: Motion made by Pierce, seconded by Martin. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Opposed? None. Motion carries. Vice-Chairman Rich: The Estates at Royalton - This approved standard subdivision is for the subdivision of a 36.9 acre parcel into 12 lots where Lots 1-11 equal 0.7 acres each, and Lot 12 equals 12 acres, located in the A-C Zoning District. This subdivision includes 15.2 acres of open space and 1.7 acres for a proposed road. The property is located at 55 Cox Neck Road, approximately 490 feet north of Sound Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#1000-113-7-19.23 Martin Sidor: WHEREAS, this Standard Subdivision divided 36.9 acres into 12 lots where Lots 1-11 equal 0.7 acres, and Lot 12 equals 12 acres, located in the A-C Zoning District. This subdivision includes 15.2 acres of open space and 1.7 acres for the road; and WHEREAS, on April 11, 2017 the Southold Town Planning Board accepted the Bond Estimate for The Estates at Royalton dated September 8, 2016 in the amount of $314,870.00; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 2017, the Town of Southold received an Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit ("ISLC") in the amount of three hundred fourteen thousand, eight hundred seventy dollars ($314,870.00) dated April 26, 2017 from Bank of America Merrill Lynch on behalf of the Applicant, 55 Cox Neck Road Realty, LLC; and WHEREAS, the ISLC expired on February 28, 2019; and WHEREAS, the property has transferred and the new landowner requested a reduction in the amount of the bond to account for the improvements that have been completed to date; and Southold Town Planning Board Page 14 December 7, 2020 WHEREAS, on November 13, 2020 Michael Collins, Town Engineer, after reviewing the work completed to date at the subject property, recommended a reduction in the Bond Estimate from ($314,870.00) to ($106,050.00); therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby accepts the Revised Bond Estimate for the Estates at Royalton Subdivision dated November 13, 2020 and prepared by Michael Collins, Town Engineer in the amount of one hundred six thousand and fifty dollars ($106,050.00) and recommends that the Town Board also accept the Revised Bond Estimate. Mary Eisenstein: Second. Vice-Chairman Rich: Motion made by Martin, seconded by Mary. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Opposed? None. Motion carries. SUBDIVISIONS u .. o �n Set Final Plat Hearing: Vice-Chairman Rich : Koehler Family Limited Partnership - This proposal is a Clustered Standard Subdivision of a 14.94 acre parcel into seven lots where Lot 1 equals 0.80 acres; Lot 2 equals 0.90 acres inclusive of 0.08 acres of unbuildable lands; Lot 3 equals 1.11 acres inclusive of 0.14 acres of unbuildable lands and .07 acres of easement area; Lot 4 equals 0.70 acres; Lot 5 equals 0.66 acres; Lot 6 equals 0.70 acres; Lot 7 equals 9.51 acres inclusive of 8.72 acre area of Open Space and a .05 right of way easement; located in the R-80 Zoning District. The property is located at 4180 New Suffolk Avenue, on the corner of Marratooka Road and New Suffolk Avenue, in Mattituck. SCTM#1000-115-10-1 Mary Eisenstein: WHEREAS, this proposal is for a Clustered Standard Subdivision of a 14.94 acre parcel into seven lots where Lot 1 equals 0.80 acres; Lot 2 equals 0.90 acres inclusive of 0.08 acres of unbuildable lands; Lot 3 equals 1.11 acres inclusive of 0.14 acres of unbuildable lands and .07 acres of easement area; Lot 4 equals 0.70 acres; Lot 5 equals 0.66 acres; Lot 6 equals 0.70 acres; Lot 7 equals 0.9.51 acres inclusive of 8.72 Southold Town Planning Board Page 15 December 7, 2,020 acre area of Open Space and a .05 right of way easement; located in the R-80 Zoning District; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 2017 the Southold Town Planning Board granted Conditional Preliminary Plat Approval upon the map entitled "Preliminary Plat Koehler Family Limited Partnership", dated June 30, 2014 and last revised April 15, 2017, prepared by Kenneth M. Woychuk Land Surveying, PLLC; and WHEREAS, on September 14, 2020 the Planning Board found the Final Plat Application complete; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board sets Monday, January 11, 2021 at 6:03 p.m. for a Public Hearing upon the map entitled Clustered Final Plat Prepared for Koehler Family Limited Partnership", dated June 30, 2014 and last revised July 12, 2019, prepared by Kenneth M. Woychuk Land Surveying, PLLC. Pierce Rafferty: Second. Vice-Chairman Rich: Motion made by Mary, seconded by Pierce. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Opposed? None. Motion carries. °a S'1,TEPLAN APPLI"'CATION�S ��� E STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Determinations: Vice-Chairman Rich : North Fork Self Storage #3 —This site plan is for the proposed construction of two (2) 2-story self-storage buildings at 53,800 sq. ft. and 37,750 sq. ft. which includes a 300 sq. ft. office; and 18 parking stalls on 3.7 acres in the Light Industrial Zoning District. The property is located at 65 Commerce Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-96-1-1.3 Pierce Rafferty: WHEREAS, this revised Site Plan is for the proposed construction of two (2) 2-story self-storage buildings at 53,800 sq. ft. and 37,750 sq. ft. which includes a 300 sq. ft. office; and 18 parking stalls on 3.7 acres in the Light Industrial Zoning District; and Southold Town Planning Board Page 16 December 7, 2020 WHEREAS, on August 10, 2020 the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) 6 NYCRR, Part 617, determined that the proposed action is an Unlisted Action as it does not meet any of the thresholds of a Type I Action, nor does it meet any of the criteria on the Type II list of actions; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board performed a coordinated review of this Unlisted Action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.7 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby declares Lead Agency status for the SEQRA review of this Unlisted Action; Martin Sidor: Second. Vice-Chairman Rich: Motion made by Pierce, seconded by Martin. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Opposed? None. Motion carries. Pierce Rafferty: And be it further RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board, as Lead Agency pursuant to SEQRA, hereby makes a determination of non-significance for the proposed action and grants a Negative Declaration. Martin Sidor: Second. Vice-Chairman Rich: Motion made by Pierce, seconded by Martin. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Opposed? None. Motion carries. Southold Town Planning Board Page 17 December 7, 2020 Vice-Chairman Rich: Fishers Island Airport Hangar—This Site Plan is for the proposed construction of a 4,200 sq. ft. aircraft hangar and ±13,830 sq. ft. of paved access and tarmac area at an existing airport on 192 acres in the R-400 Zoning District. The property is located on Whistler Avenue, Fishers Island. SCTM#1000-12-1-18 Martin Sidor: WHEREAS, this Site Plan is for the proposed construction of a 4,200 sq. ft. aircraft hangar and ±13,830 sq. ft. of paved access and tarmac area at an existing airport on 192 acres in the R-400 Zoning District; WHEREAS, on December 2, 2019 the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) 6 NYCRR, Part 617, determined that the proposed action is an Unlisted Action as it does not meet any of the thresholds of a Type I Action, nor does it meet any of the criteria on the Type II list of actions; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board performed a coordinated review of this Unlisted Action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.7 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby declares Lead Agency status for the SEQRA review of this Unlisted Action; Mary Eisenstein: Second. Vice-Chairman Rich: Motion made by Martin, seconded by Mary. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Opposed? None. Motion carries. Martin Sidor: And be it further RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board, as Lead Agency pursuant to SEQRA, hereby makes a determination of non-significance for the proposed action and grants a Negative Declaration. Mary Eisenstein: Second. Southold Town Planning Board Page 18 December 7, 2020 Vice-Chairman Rich: Motion made by Martin, seconded by Mary. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Opposed? None. Motion carries. Public Hearings Continued by Court Reporter Jessica DiLallo u z _ PUBLIC HEARINGS Vice-Chairman Rich: Due to timing, we are actually going to take the hearing that was scheduled for 6:02 first. Vice-Chairman Rich: 6:02 p.m. - 1750 Sterling Agricultural Barn —This agricultural site plan is proposed to demolish an existing 1,378 sq. ft. barn and construct a 4,826 sq. ft. barn for agricultural storage located within a 2.0 acre reserve area (SCTM#1000- 96.-3-2:1) where there exists a 2-story single family dwelling with garage and four (4) accessory storage buildings totaling ±3,754 sq. ft., the parcel is attached to ±16.8 acres of farmland (SCTM#1000-96.-3-2.2) with Development Rights held by Southold Town in the AC Zoning District. The property is located at 830 Sterling Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-96-3-2.1 6:01 p.m. -The Orchards Standard Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Statement- This proposal is for a Clustered Standard Subdivision to subdivide a 13.3 acre parcel into five lots where Lot 1 = 9.33 acres including a 1.35 acre building envelope and 7.98 acres of preserved Open Space, Lot 2 = 0.99 acres, Lot 3 = 1.14 acres, Lot 4 = 0.92 and Lot 5 = 0.92 acres in the R-80 Zoning District. The property.is located at 2595 Orchard Street, on the northeast side of Orchard Street, approximately 17' northwest of Platt Road, in Orient. SCTM#1000-27-1-3 HEARING HELD OVER k _. .r................�ci::,'^3.sW..... tied .,..,,..,s:..,..._.,, dL�..,.._.m;_.s...�_.. _.��c,.�.A..._. ��.,...uP.....v.._......._,...ss..�..k._.....m�..�,.aa�. wE...s..... .,n....�..,uM�:..-.µ Strong's Storage Buildings Draft Scope —This Site Plan is for the proposed construction of two (2) buildings for boat storage, one at 52,50.0 sq. ft. and the other at 49,000 sq. ft., located on 32.6 acres in the MII and R-80 Zoning Districts where there are 69,245 sq. ft. of existing boatyard buildings. The property is located at 3430 Mill Road, Mattituck. SCTM#1000-106-6-13.4 Southold Town Planning Board Page 19 December 7, 2020 Vice-Chairman Rich: Okay, with no other business, can I get a motion for adjournment? Pierce Rafferty: I'd like to make a motion for adjournment. Mary Eisenstein: Second. Vice-Chairman Rich: Motion made by Pierce, seconded by Mary. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Opposed? None. Motion.carries There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, P' Jessica Michaelis Transcribing Secretary Donald J. Wilcenski, Chairman 1 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK 2 ------------------------------------------- X 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD 4 5 ------------------------------------------- X 6 7 (Via Videoconference) 8 December 7 , 2020 6 : 00 P .M. 9 10 11 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT : �0 v� e8i 12 JAMES H . RICH, III , Vice-Chairman 13 MARTIN SIDOR, Board Member 14 PIERCE RAFFERTY, Board Member 15 MARY EISENSTEIN, Board Member 16 17 HEATHER LANZA, Planning Director 18 MARK TERRY, Assistant Planning Director 19 BRIAN CUMMINGS, Planner 20 JESSICA MICHAELIS, Assistant 21 22 23 24 25 December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 2 1 INDEX 2 3 NAME : PAGE : 4 5 1750 Sterling Agricultural Barn 3-15 6 The Orchards Standard Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Statement 15-36 7 8 Strong ' s Storage Buildings Draft Scope 36-60 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 3 1 1750 STERLING AGRICULTURAL BARN 2 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : We are going to 3 start with is 1750 Sterling Agricultural 4 Barn . This agricultural site is proposed 5 to demolish an existing 1 , 378 square foot 6 barn and construct a 4 , 826 square foot barn 7 for agricultural storage located within a 8 2 . 0 acre reserve area (SCTM#1000-96 . -3-2 . 1 ) 9 where there exists a 2-story single family 10 dwelling with garage and four (4 ) accessory 11 storage buildings totaling 3 , 754 square 12 feet . The parcel is attached to 16 . 8 acres 13 of farmland (SCTM#1000-96 . -3-2 . 2 ) with 14 Development Rights held by Southold Town in 15 the AC Zoning District . The property is 16 located at 830 Sterling Avenue, Cutchogue . 17 SCTM#1000-96-3-2 . 1 . Anyone wishing to 18 address the Southold Town Planning Board on 19 this issue, please raise your electric hand 20 and be sure to state your name and address . 21 Before we get started, I would ask -- Mike 22 Kimack, I believe is the representative, or 23 whoever is representing, will just want to 24 give a brief overview of the project as the 25 first speaker, if possible . December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 4 1 MR. KIMACK : Good evening everyone . 2 You did present the overview . It is what 3 you had laid out originally .. There is an 4 existing barn, which is in poor condition . 5 And there is a proposed barn, considerably 6 bigger, but essentially sized in order to 7 take into consideration the amount of 8 equipment that has to be stored in there . 9 He has about several pieces of property 10 around there that is going to require to 11 put that into storage . If you look at the 12 particular proposed barn that is on the 13 site plan or the site plan itself, if you 14 take a peak at the backside there, on the 15 north side of there, there is a big door 16 there . So the entrance is -- at that 17 particular location to load the equipment 18 from there . And also you will see that 12 19 foot line, that section that abuts out on 20 that one westerly side . There is a loading 21 platform on that side . So the trucks will 22 be able to pull in and back up to that 12 23 foot line and back up right into there . It 24 has been set where it is . Primarily 25 because we have to stay 10 feet from the December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 5 1 existing septic system. This particular 2 proposed barn does not have any there but 3 it does serve the other building, which is 4 a hanger for helicopters . Used for 5 agricultural purposes . They do spraying of 6 potato farms with those particular 7 helicopters there . There is an electric 8 line underground from the power pole . That 9 is essentially all that is going into the 10 building . 11 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Thank you, Mike . 12 Anyone from the public that would like to 13 address the Planning Board on the 1750 14 Sterling Agricultural Barn . Please raise 15 your electric hand and state your name and 16 address . 17 MS . MICHAELIS : I just let George 18 Starkey in . So you can speak . State your 19 name, please . 20 MR . STARKIE : Thank you very much . 21 George Starkey here . Thank you . I just 22 wanted to point out also (inaudible) that 23 this would cut in half . You can ' t really 24 make it out . And then the other building, 25 you can ' t -- south of the barn, that is December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 6 1 gone already . The survey needs to be 2 updated . This little one . I am using my 3 cursor . I can see it . The only barn that 4 is going to remain -- that ' s it . That is 5 coming down . On the survey you show an 6 existing structure that has come down 7 recently . So just that one in the middle . 8 Right there . That one is staying . The 9 helicopter company owner uses that for 10 storage . So we ' re keeping that one . And 11 then there is two existing ones that will 12 come down . Actually, the new barn will 13 take over not just the old barn, but the 14 one in front of it . So that is all about I 15 need to it . In the interim too, I closed 16 on the farm, Sacred Heart Parish . We 17 rented there cemetery piece due west . They 18 sold their development rights to the farm . 19 So we farm that now and will continue . And 20 we ' re in contract now to close the original 21 Durosky Farm, we are in contract there . So 22 between that and everything else, the barn 23 is -- we are servicing 86 acres now . So 24 there is a lot more involved that just that 25 one farm . We want to keep it on that -- December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 7 1 the piece that has the rights on it . That 2 was always my intention when I sold the 3 development rights back to -- to try and 4 keep any structures on that 2 acre piece . 5 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Thank you, 6 Mr . Starkie, very much for that . Anybody 7 from the public wish to comment on this 8 agricultural building? 9 MS . MICHAELIS : I have someone else 10 raising their hand . Jim, would you just 11 state your name for the record? 12 MR. GLOVER: Hi . Jim Glover . Owner 13 of Glover Perennials . We are Mr . Starkie ' s 14 immediate neighbor to the west of the 15 proposed barn . Anyway, I want to be clear 16 that we are very much in favor of 17 Mr . Starkie ' s barn and success of his 18 operations . We are a little concerned 19 about the closeness of the barn to the 20 right-of-way . It hasn ' t be stated so far 21 in this Public Hearing, but the barn 22 proposed -- sorry . In any event, looking 23 at this sketch, you can see where the 24 original barn to be removed is . And again, 25 got no issue with far greater expanded size December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 8 1 barn . I get it . He ' s got a lot of 2 property to maintain . So he should have as 3 big as barn as he ' s allowed to have . 4 However, if you look closely, it is 10 . 5 5 feet from the right-of-way hedge . The 6 extension of this new proposed barn to the 7 west, yeah . You can see that 12 foot 8 extension . That L-Shape piece . That 9 effectively moves the barn 12 feet closer 10 to the right-of-way than the existing barn 11 to be removed is . So I have a question for 12 the Planning Board . I am not aware of -- I 13 do not know the answers . So I am hoping to 14 be enlightened . With regard to setbacks 15 and you know, it can be argued apparently 16 both ways whether this is a side yard or a 17 front yard . But with regard to 18 right-of-way ' s , does the right-of-way 19 impact the setbacks footage? Can anyone 20 answer that for me? In other words, if a 21 front yard setback is 60 feet and there is 22 a right-of-way -- deeded right-of-way say 23 11 feet in this case, does that subtract 24 from the 60 foot or is the 60 foot to the 25 right-of-way? December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 9 1 MR. CUMMINGS : I can just clarify 2 this . Brian Cummings . This is before the 3 Zoning Board of Appeals for a front yard 4 setback area variance . And they ' re noting 5 that the proposed front yard setback is 6 21 . 6 feet . So as far as the Zoning Board 7 is concerned, that is measurement to the 8 property line and not to the edge of the 9 right-of-way. 10 MR. GLOVER: Thank you . That answers 11 my question . The right-of-way has no 12 bearing on the setback. So be that as it 13 is , it is my belief that the proximity that 14 what would be 10 1/2 feet from the 15 right-of-way may pose some issues for our 16 use of the right-of-way . It was just 17 measured a minute ago that the trucks are 18 going to be able to back up to the loading 19 dock or loading area . I am not clear as -- 20 okay . West elevation . Yes . The west 21 elevation indicates that there is a barn 22 door garage or whatever that is . If a 23 truck were to be backed up to that barn 24 door, there is only 10 feet separating that 25 door from the edge of the right-of-way . December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 10 1 The right-of-way extends another -- is 20 2 feet wide . A concern I have is, congestion 3 with vehicular truck congestion . If a 4 deliveries is being received or orders 5 being loaded from that western barn door, 6 it ' s certainly any truck of any size is 7 bigger than a pickup . It ' s going to be 8 jutting out into the right-of-way . There 9 is also a concern I have about snow drift . 10 We get very bad snow drifts in this area . 11 We ' re in the open farm belt at this point . 12 It ' s my belief that the bigger the 13 structure and the closer to the 14 right-of-way that it ' s going to be more 15 likely that the drifts will extend into the 16 right-of-way . Impacting our access during 17 snowstorms . Those were my two concerns . 18 Again, I am all in favor of his successful 19 use of his property, including putting up 20 this barn . There are -- there are other 21 locations for this barn . The variance that 22 is being requested is self created . The 23 barn can go on Dearest Lane or it can be 24 reconfigured as close to the right-of-way 25 as proposed . And with that, I have no more December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 11 1 comments . 2 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Thank you, 3 Mr . Glover . Anyone else wishing to address 4 the Southold Town Planning Board on this 5 agricultural barn building? 6 MS . MICHAELIS : Here is Mr . Starkie . 7 MR. STARKIE : Yes . Hi, again . Just 8 to address a couple of the comments, the 9 reason why we put that truck loading ramp 10 and the picture you showed was a great 11 graphic of the -- what is it when you show 12 the side of the building . Not the plot 13 land -- 14 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : The elevation? 15 MR . STARKIE : Thank you so much . 16 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : I think the 17 north elevation shows the loading dock 18 would be sort of parallel to that west 19 side . 20 MR . STARKIE : That was purposely done 21 so that there wouldn ' t have to be any 22 loading or unloading from the right-of-way . 23 It would just be an access door on the west 24 elevation . That is just an access and a 25 drive-thru on the side . So the -- we did December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 12 1 have our hearing with ZBA and they did ask 2 about flip-flopping that piece if we went 3 to the other side . The issue there is , it 4 would close off my access to any kind of 5 vehicles that 14/5 off the corner that I 6 was going to keep up for the helicopter 7 company . That was the whole idea of having 8 the loading docks . So that there would 9 never be any reason for the right-of-way to 10 be encroached on for any period of time . 11 Other that just going in and out . I also 12 want to point out that all of the -- 13 hindsight is always 20/20 . He wasn ' t 14 always my neighbor when I sold the 15 development rights and boy, I wish I could 16 reconfigure everything and life would be 17 great . Unfortunately, it doesn ' t work that 18 way . All the development right land around 19 these is all sold . There is not another 2 20 acre parcel back there . I have explained 21 to Mr . Glover that none of his neighbors 22 have gotten stuck back there, where I have 23 pay loaders and heavy equipment . I intend 24 on spending more time out there then I have 25 in the past, and that we would still get December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 13 1 along as neighbors and make it work . I can 2 see if there was a development down at the 3 end of the lane -- 4 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Mr . Starkie, 5 remember that you ' re addressing the 6 Planning Board and not any of your 7 neighbors at this point . 8 MR . STARKIE : Okay. Roger that . So 9 that was the reason for having the door put 10 on that west side . So no truck traffic 11 would impede the access . And we still have 12 11 feet from the property -- from the 13 right-of-way and 20 feet from the middle of 14 the road. So there is more than enough 15 room to get two vehicles . No problem. We 16 do it now . 17 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Thank you . 18 MS . MICHAELIS : I have Gail Wickham 19 with a question . 20 MS . WICKHAM : Okay . I don ' t have any 21 particular comments on the application . I 22 was just listening to the meeting in 23 general and I was curious about the comment 24 about the helicopters are used for potato 25 spraying and I didn ' t know how much that December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 14 1 was still active . Just a curiosity . 2 MS . MICHAELIS : Thank you, Gail . I 3 have Mr . Starkie . 4 MR . STARKIE : Yeah . It used to be a 5 lot of potato ' s . Right now its majority of 6 North Fork Helicopter business, Suffolk 7 County Vector Control for mosquitos . They 8 still do some Christmas tree spraying and 9 what not . Potato ' s are (inaudible) not 10 many farmers farm potato any more . 11 Mosquitos is what is keeping them going 12 now . 13 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Anyone else 14 wishing to address this application on 1750 15 Sterling Barn? 16 MEMBER SIDOR : I make a motion to 17 close the hearing . 18 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Motion made by 19 Martin to close the hearing . 20 MEMBER EISENSTEIN : Second . 21 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Second by Mary . 22 Any discussion? 23 (No Response . ) 24 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : All in favor? 25 MEMBER SIDOR: Aye . December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 15 1 MEMBER EISENSTEIN : Aye . 2 MEMBER RAFFERTY : Aye . 3 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Aye . 4 Anybody opposed? 5 (No Response . ) 6 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : So we closed the 7 hearing . I believe that the time for 8 written comments remains open for two 9 weeks . Is that not correct, Heather? 10 MS . LANZA: Not necessary for this 11 application . 12 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Not necessary . 13 A motion is made and passed to close the 14 hearing . Thank you . 15 * ***************************************** 16 THE ORCHARDS STANDARD SUBDIVISION 17 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 18 Next order of business , the Orchards 19 Standard Subdivision Draft Environmental 20 Impact Statement . This proposal is for a 21 Clustered Standard Subdivision to subdivide 22 a 13 . 3 acre parcel into five lots , where 23 Lot 1 equals 9 . 33 acres including a 1 . 35 24 acre building envelope and 7 . 98 acres of 25 preserved Open Space . Lot 2 equals 0 . 99 December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 16 1 acres , Lot 3 equals 1 . 14 acres , Lot 4 2 equals 0 . 92 and Lot 5 equals 0 . 92 acres in 3 the R-80 Zoning District . The property is 4 located at 2595 Orchard Street, on the 5 northeast side of Orchard Street, 6 approximately 17 feet northwest of Platt 7 Road, in Orient, with a SCTM#1000-27-1-3 . 8 Anyone wishing to address the Town 9 Planning Board on this issue, raise their 10 electric hand on Zoom, and state your name 11 and address . You are speaking to the 12 Planning Board . And if there is a 13 representative of the Orchards who would 14 like to give any information on this , we 15 would welcome their input their input 16 first . 17 MS . MICHAELIS : I have let Steve 18 Martocello . And I don ' t know if Steve 19 wants to speak or his attorney, Mr . Lotte . 20 MR. MARTOCELLO : This is Steve 21 Martocello . The description was fine . 22 This was the draft environmental impact 23 statement we are here for tonight . I would 24 like to introduce William Lotte . Bill is 25 our -- a professional engineer, as well as , December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 17 1 an environmental engineer . He has taken 2 center point in helping us prepare the 3 draft environmental impact . So by all 4 means -- he can probably answer any 5 questions the Board may ask or myself . 6 Thank you . 7 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Thank you . 8 Anyone wishing to address the Town Planning 9 Board on this Orchard application? 10 MS . MICHAELIS : I have Nancy Farrist . 11 MS . FARRIST : Hi . My name is Nancy 12 Farrist . I live at 3585 Orchard Street . 13 It ' s the corner property on Orchard and 14 Holly Oak . Directly opposite the 15 Orchard ' s/Holly Oak Avenue frontage . We 16 have been in the community for 25 years . I 17 along with others in the community 18 commented back in 2015 . And many of those 19 concerns are still relevant . The proposed 20 (inaudible) to the Orient community . And I 21 do not feel that these issues have been 22 adequately addressed by the applicants EIS, 23 nor the proposed preliminary plat 24 configuration of the five lots on this 25 subdivision . I have several major December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 18 1 concerns . The site is currently guided by 2 the area ' s R-80 zoning district . The 3 determination by the applicant to squeeze 4 five building lots using the smaller R-40 5 lot size and setback regulations within the 6 required clustered subdivision seems to 7 benefit only the developer, without 8 anything positive or favorable to the Town 9 and the community . Also Orient ' s fragile 10 water supply is totally overlooked . The 11 most critical in the DEIS is the 12 development, particularly it ' s density on 13 both water supply and quality . I don ' t 14 understand how the Suffolk County 15 Department of Health Services makes their 16 determinations . There were test results in 17 2016 in Appendix L, indicating restricting 18 the lot sizes to the R-80 two lot minimum . 19 And then in 2018 , there were test results 20 granting a waiver . That is in Appendix H . 21 We all know that the Orient aquifer is at 22 risk . My fear is that the open space 23 conservation easement will not contain 24 sufficient restrictions and limitations to 25 archive the goals inherit provisions and December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 19 1 the Town ' s Comprehensive Plan . A more 2 equitable and fair plan should be 3 considered with fewer building lots 4 reflective of the R-80 regulations , the 5 neighborhood character, which is very 6 important and guided by a true 7 environmental impact study . We as a 8 community rely on the Planning Board to 9 require the applicant to do better . The 10 developer should provide a better EIS and a 11 better alternative plan with less density, 12 that truly demonstrates the balance between 13 private profit and Town goals and to 14 preserve and protect the special character 15 of the historical Orient community . I 16 would like to introduce Barbara Cohen, who 17 has assisted me with my submission to 18 highlight a few other key points that the 19 Planning Board should consider . Thank you 20 very much . 21 MS . MICHAELIS : Thank you Nancy . 22 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : I would like to 23 keep these comment somewhat brief and not 24 overly redundant . Thank you . 25 MS . MICHAELIS : Barbara? December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 20 1 MS . COHEN : Yes, I am here . My name 2 is Barbara Cohen . I am a resident of 3 Peconic . What Nancy has laid out in her 4 submission, along with Barbara Freedman ' s 5 submission, I think is very specific and in 6 where the shortcomings of the EIS come into 7 play . And in reviewing a lot of the 8 documentation from the very beginning, the 9 Planning Board ' s comments about the 10 proposed plan are really very clear . And 11 the preliminary proposed -- the proposed 12 preliminary plat that is shown, which is 13 very different than the approved sketch, 14 does really nothing to do respond to so 15 many of the comments that were laid out . 16 And the other issue is , the reliance on the 17 Health Department ' s determination, which of 18 course are just very narrow and don ' t take 19 into broader context the Town ' s concerns . 20 That when you do make your column of 21 developer town, there are a lot more 22 benefits to the developer . The split 23 cluster in itself with that separate 24 building lot, is without it being clustered 25 is -- I think a little excessive . And it December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 21 1 really is kind of trying to shove a bunch 2 of stuff ina 5 pound bag . And there 3 definitely has to be a better balance 4 design wise . The other concern and maybe 5 half a question is , so as the effort to 6 squeeze everything in, led to adjusting 7 these setback requirements to go along with 8 the R-40, not the R-80 , when it ' s actually 9 sort -- when building does actually begin 10 to occur, does each lot follow the 11 R-80underlying zoning or the very specific 12 setbacks that are defined in these plans, 13 are they the sort of approved starting 14 point . I guess what my concern is when you 15 begin to look at those building lots and 16 they begin to narrow down and take, you 17 know, a different shape, then when a 18 homeowner begins to design their building 19 and try to fit it into the developable area 20 and then you begin to do the pool , the 21 tennis court and everything else, my sense 22 was that these -- it would be ending up at 23 the variance board seeking more waivers . 24 So I wasn ' t sure -- I live in a subdivision 25 and I am a nonconforming irregular shaped December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 22 1 lot . And any time I sneeze I have to go to 2 the variance board because it ' s R-80 . So I 3 wondered how that -- how those lots that 4 are being defined by the R-40 , do they 5 really get defined by R-80 later on? And 6 even the response in the letter and the 7 public comments folder, that again, this 8 idea that this preliminary plat was almost 9 approved by the Board and truthfully has 10 not even addressed a lot of the comments . 11 It just seemed a little premature to rely 12 on just the Suffolk County ' s Health 13 Department ' s findings . So one I would like 14 to get a confirmation from the Board that 15 this hearing is about EIS? Whether it ' s 16 good enough or not? Not the hearing to 17 approve the preliminary plat? Is that -- I 18 would like to get a sense of where we are 19 in the process? So we know what are those 20 next steps and how the public continues to 21 follow it through . 22 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Do you want me 23 to answer that or Mark? 24 MR . TERRY : So these comments are on 25 the draft environmental impact statement . December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 23 1 What will happen is, each substantiative 2 comment will be addressed in the final 3 environmental impact statement . That is 4 the next step . 5 MS . COHEN : And the preliminary plat, 6 that plan which is different than the 7 conditional approved sketch, which is a 8 totally different layout, how do those two 9 things come together? I couldn ' t quite 10 find how one became the other in the 11 materials? 12 MR . TERRY : So the applicant 13 submitted -- you saw earlier a sketch plan 14 and when this plan came in, we immediately 15 decided to start the SEQRA process on this 16 plan that you see before you because of the 17 potential significant adverse impacts . So 18 that is where we are . This is the plan 19 under review on the screen . And it will 20 continue under review until the end of the 21 process . And not to sat that things won ' t 22 change in the end because in the end point 23 of the SEQRA process , there is a finding 24 statement . And the finding statement is 25 where the' Planning Board as lead agency December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 24 1 will attempt to mitigate all the large 2 (inaudible) significant impacts or have a 3 no action determination or a modified 4 layout that you will see before you . There 5 is a lot of options . That -- 6 MS . COHEN : Yes, that I understand . 7 And there could be another draft from this 8 to the final EIS, more studies, I guess 9 potentially in terms of the water quality 10 and so on that is missing . And just to 11 answer the question when you go to build on 12 these lots , are they subject to the R-80 or 13 are they subject to R-40? How does someone 14 -- there is also certainly submitted in 15 Nancy ' s submission, there is the issue of 16 the Planning Board playing it out . You 17 know, in terms of the reality that you know 18 fills all these building lots . How does 19 the zoning apply here? 20 MS . LANZA : Excuse me . We will have 21 to say our name each time we begin 22 speaking . Thank you . 23 MR . TERRY : Mark Terry . The Zoning 24 applies as a starting point in the R-80 25 Zoning District . Mathematically you have December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 25 1 to cluster the parcels down to achieve 600 2 of buildable open space . Okay . The 3 cluster law also allows the Planning Board 4 to set setbacks on each lot as they move 5 forward . I can ' t answer you what the 6 setbacks will look like in the end, if this 7 is approved because it ' s going to go 8 through the process . And they could 9 change . They could remain as they are . 10 MS . COHEN : This is Barbara Cohen . 11 So just one last thing . So when the final, 12 final subdivision gets done, those setbacks 13 are sort of within that subdivision and 14 creation and definitions . So that when you 15 go to get a building permit, they ' re guided 16 by those specific setbacks and set within 17 the creation of the Zoning District? 18 MR . TERRY : Correct . The setbacks 19 will be (inaudible) . Sometimes building 20 develops are on the lot . Sometimes they 21 are not . It ' s really going to depend on 22 the Planning Board ' s evaluation of 23 whether or not those acts would mitigate 24 impacts . 25 MS . COHEN : Okay . December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 26 1 MS . LANZA : We have to remind 2 ourselves to say our name before we talk 3 because then transcription becomes very 4 difficult. Just reminding everyone . 5 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Thank you, 6 Heather . Ms . Cohen, are you done then? 7 MS . MICHAELIS : Sorry . I put her 8 back as an attendee . 9 MS . LANZA: I think she was done . We 10 have another person waiting . 11 MS . MICHAELIS : Erik Oderra . 12 MR. ODERRA: Hi . My name is Erik 13 Oderra and my family resides on 200 Old 14 Farm Road, and we are at the corner of 15 Orchard and Old Farm Road . Right at the 16 corner . And we have been here for 16 17 years . So I just wanted to express some of 18 the concerns that I have regarding this 19 project . So as I just stated, we are at 20 the corner of 200 Old Farm Road and 21 Orchard . And as it is , there is a lot of 22 traffic that prevents us from enjoying our 23 peace and quiet currently . This 24 intersection is busy . And adding more 25 driveways close to our driveway only December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 27 1 presents a safety risk to us . For example, 2 just driving out of my garage is a pain in 3 the neck because we have vehicles 4 approaching from Old Farm Road and both 5 vehicles approaching our driveway that is 6 from the left and right hand side . So 7 building more dwellings and entrances to 8 the proposed buildings will clearly 9 increase the multidirectional traffic flow 10 that we must bear when driving to and out 11 of our property . This congestion will only 12 increase the accidents right outside our 13 home and our neighbors . As it currently 14 stands Old Farm Road, Orchard Street, and 15 the road leading to our neighborhood, are 16 all narrowed . So you must move your 17 vehicle to the edge of the road while 18 driving when there is a car traveling on 19 the opposite side, direction . So what is 20 clear is that these roads are meant for 21 fewer cars , fewer pedestrians , walkers and 22 bikers . Adding four or five more houses 23 means that we ' re going to deal with 24 multiple construction vehicles . Multiple 25 vehicles going to and from the proposed December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 28 1 farm. And we already have a squeezed up 2 road . So to me, this project really does 3 not make sense . And then I was looking at 4 the report and the reports says there is 5 going to be six trips during the peak hour, 6 but when you think about it, the same 7 report mentions that there is going to be a 8 farm. And if you factor vehicles going to 9 and from the farm, deliveries by UPS, 10 FedEx, school bus drop-off ' s and pick-up ' s , 11 I don ' t think the number comes down to six . 12 I don ' t know how they arrived at this 13 number . And the other thing is, the houses 14 that are described as modestly sized, well, 15 the general character in our neighborhood 16 are not modest . Adding these four to five 17 houses with their modest size houses is a 18 mismatch . It disrupts and it distorts the 19 character of our neighborhood and the value 20 of our real estate . And then the report 21 also talks about their being minimal need 22 for community service . I don ' t know how 23 they arrived at this conclusion but I think 24 it ' s understated . We already have a 25 serious vehicular road width issue . There December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 29 1 is the Orient aquifer issue . And we also 2 have other issues such as the noise and 3 pollution that is going to be caused by 4 vehicles leaving and entering the proposed 5 area . You have noise pollution from farm 6 equipment . And you have fertilizer and 7 other farm inputs sipping into the water . 8 So I think you know, when the report states 9 there is going to be a minimal need for 10 community service, I just don ' t think it ' s 11 a rational conclusion given some of the 12 things that I have mentioned . And I want 13 to thank Nancy and Barbara for their very 14 thorough detailed presentation in regards 15 to this matter . Thank you . 16 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Thank you, Erik . 17 Next speaker? Jess , do we have anyone 18 else? 19 MS . MICHAELIS : Not at this time . If 20 you would like -- here we go . Stephan 21 Fairvent? 22 MR . FAIRVENT : Yes . This is Stephan 23 Fairvent . My wife and I own the property 24 that abuts the proposed development on 25 Holly Oak . I think it says on the property December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 30 1 map that it ' s Doris Morgan ' s property . We 2 have been there since 2011 . Sort of 3 followed the evolution of this possible 4 subdivision . And my biggest concerns with 5 this development are No . 1 , the impact on 6 the water supply . The four clustered homes 7 on the corner there are in the lowest 8 elevation on this property . And it just 9 seems logical that if you ' re going to be 10 clustering properties , you should cluster 11 them in either the highest elevation or 12 don ' t do any clustering which is my 13 preferred solution for this development . 14 And I am very concerned on the water supply 15 on our property will have permanent harm 16 and for the neighboring properties as well 17 because these four houses are being 18 clustered . So those are my concerns with 19 the development and the overall impact on 20 the feeling of the neighborhood . This is 21 definitely going to feel more like a suburb 22 than a rural area, and I am concerned about 23 how that will evolve . The question that I 24 have for the Board and I guess , Mr . Terry 25 knows the answer to this , is there a method December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 31 1 to which the clustering requirement can be 2 modified or waived by this body or some 3 other body? Is that even possible or 4 simply impossible? 5 MR . TERRY : Would you like me to 6 answer that? 7 MR. FAIRVENT : Yes, please . 8 MR. TERRY : Mr . Vice-Chairman? 9 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Yes . You can 10 answer that briefly . This is really a 11 hearing for input and not for education . 12 Why don ' t we have a real quick answer to 13 it, Mark, if you can? 14 MR . TERRY : So the answer to is , it ' s 15 mandatory clustering 7 acres and above 16 pursuant to Chapter 240 of the Southold 17 Town Code . There is no way around it . And 18 it has been applied consistently since the 19 code was rewritten in, I believe 2005 . 20 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Thank you, Mark . 21 Mr . Stephan, do you have any other comments 22 to the Planning Board? 23 MR . FAIRVENT : Thank you very much 24 for allowing me to speak . 25 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Thank you . December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 32 1 Jess, do we have anybody else that would 2 like to speak? 3 MS . MICHAELIS : At this time, I don ' t 4 have anybody else raising their hand . If 5 you would like to address the Board on a 6 telephone, you can hit * 9 or if you are in 7 the computer, there is a little toggle on 8 the bottom to "Raise your hand . " Here we 9 go . We have Ellen McNealy . 10 MS . MCNEALY : Hello . My name is 11 Ellen McNealy . I have been a 35 year 12 resident of Orient . When the site between 13 Plat Road and Narrow River Road was built 14 up considerably at one point, pursuant to 15 the possibility of a majore development 16 going into that point, part of the reason 17 that failed was because of the DEIS at that 18 point, relative to the impact on the water 19 and the water flow from Hallock ' s Bay back 20 towards the Town . I wonder if that has 21 been looked at and thought about in this 22 particular instance? And we ' re talking 23 about septic systems from the older type 24 from the looks of it, that may be really 25 problematic and how that will impact the December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 33 1 water . I know people are having 2 difficulties as it exist right now, water 3 infiltration into the basement areas, even 4 if they are allowed to have basements . 5 It ' s a concern that I thought needed to be 6 raised (inaudible) earlier issues that had 7 taken place . Thank you . 8 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Thank you . 9 Jess , do you have anyone else? 10 MS . MICHAELIS : I have Barbara . I am 11 not sure of her last name . Barbara? 12 MS . FRIEDMAN : Yes? 13 MS . MICHAELIS : Please state your 14 name? 15 MS . FRIEDMAN : Barbara Friedman . I 16 reviewed the DEIS quite thoroughly and I 17 just don ' t feel that it really brought up 18 any mitigating factors for this proposal . 19 It just stated and restated square footages 20 and various site considerations . They 21 weren ' t -- they didn ' t address the adverse 22 impacts of this fairly against cluster of 23 houses on this corner, which is in my view, 24 a very scenic corner of Orient . And you 25 know, it ' s part of a larger open space . December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 34 1 The conserved property, previously owned by 2 Patrick (inaudible) to the west . And it 3 extends, you know, even further -- almost 4 to the Historic District with the cemetery 5 and a few houses there . But the DEIS 6 states that the Suffolk County Department 7 of Health Services approved at all . And I 8 also wonder about the flag lots . The 9 Zoning Code calls for flag lots of usual 10 size and these are clearly not usual size . 11 I know that you can change from R-80 to 12 R-40 to allow for the clustering, but I 13 didn ' t see anything in the code that said 14 you could change the flag lot status . So 15 that ' s a question . This is also an older 16 site plan . The setbacks are different . It 17 says Platt Road here and it ' s actually 18 Holly Oak . The major point really is the 19 water . People have had salt water 20 intrusion into their wells in Orient . And 21 it ' s really only a matter of time -- if we 22 have a few drought years and people are 23 using water and (inaudible) calls for turf 24 lawns on these building lots , which 25 potentially have irrigation associated with December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 35 1 them. It just raises a lot of alarm bells 2 as far as water availability and the 3 quality of water for all the residents of 4 Orient . And that is all I have to say . 5 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Thank you very 6 much for your comments, Ms . Friedman . 7 Jess , anybody else? 8 MS . MICHAELIS : I don ' t see anybody . 9 There is a raise hand toggle at the bottom 10 of your screen or if you ' re on the phone, 11 you could hit * 9 . 12 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : If there is 13 nobody else -- 14 MS . MICHAELIS : I don ' t see anyone . 15 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Can we get a 16 motion to close the hearing? 17 MEMBER SIDOR: I will make a motion 18 to close the hearing to January 11th -- 19 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : I think we would 20 like to close the hearing and keep it open 21 for written comments until January 11th . 22 Is that what your motion is? 23 MEMBER SIDOR : That would be my 24 motion . Yes . 25 MEMBER EISENSTEIN : I will second it . December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 36 1 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Any discussion? 2 (No Response) . 3 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : All in favor? 4 MEMBER SIDOR: Aye . 5 MEMBER EISENSTEIN : Aye . 6 MEMBER RAFFERTY : Aye . 7 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Aye . g r****************************************** 9 STRONG ' S STORAGE BUILDINGS DRAFT SCOPE 10 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Our next Public 11 Hearing was held over . It ' s for Strong ' s 12 Storage Buildings Draft Scope . This Site 13 Plan is for the proposed construction of 14 two buildings for boat storage, one at 15 52 , 500 square feet, and the other at 49, 000 16 square feet, located on 32 . 6 acres in the 17 MII and R-80 Zoning Districts where there 18 are 69, 245 square feet of existing boatyard 19 buildings . The property is located at 20 3430 Mill Road, Mattituck . 21 SCTM#1000-106-6-13 . 4 . 22 Anybody that represents the Strong ' s 23 that would like to give an opening 24 statement, we will hear that first and then 25 reopen this hearing to the public . It ' s December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 37 1 actually a continued hearing . We will 2 start it again . And then anybody from the 3 public that wishes to speak, we would ask 4 that they remain very brief in their 5 comments but also, you know, not make same 6 ideas and concerns somewhat repeatedly . Do 7 that conservatively, we would appreciate 8 it . Thank you . 9 MS . MICHAELIS : I have Charles Cuddy 10 here . 11 MR . CUDDY : I think that we made an 12 opening statement earlier when we had the 13 former hearing or the earlier hearing, and 14 we stay with that . I think we are just 15 interested tonight if there are any 16 additional comments, so we can work on our 17 DEIS and get it completed . 18 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Thank you, 19 Charles . Anybody else from the public that 20 has any comments? This meeting is carried 21 over from the November meeting? 22 MS . MICHAELIS : I have let Louise 23 Harrison in . 24 MS . HARRISION : This is Louise 25 Harrison . Good evening Vice-Chair Rich and December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 38 1 members of the Planning Board . When I 2 spoke to last meeting, I was representing 3 myself as a member of Peconic . I am 4 speaking to you tonight as the New York 5 Natural Areas for Save the Sound. Save the 6 Sound works in a Long Island Sound region 7 to fight climate change, save endangered 8 lands , save the sound, rivers and restore 9 ecosystems . And you may have heard of us 10 in relation to our work to preserve Plum 11 Island . Staff members here in Southold and 12 New Haven (inaudible) coalition . We ' re 13 close with stakeholders and led about 116 14 organizations in the fight to save Plum 15 Island . So we have reviewed the online 16 file and the Planning Department ' s staff 17 reports . Thank you for the opportunity to 18 make some additional comments . We did 19 submit our comments to the Planning 20 Department today and hopefully you have 21 those . I am not going to go through them 22 all . But I would like to highlight a few 23 things . We are very concerned about a 24 project that requires level land . Along 25 the water way . Clearly needs to be along December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 39 1 the waterway to be a successful project . 2 But the site in particular is narrow . And 3 has steep terrain . Adjoins a significant 4 coastal wildlife and habitat on its eastern 5 border and a Town of Southold owned 6 preserve to its southwest . The project as 7 proposed is going to introduce a dramatic 8 change in use from a forest that is steeply 9 sloped land to an industrial style big 10 boxed boat storage facility . We do 11 congratulate the Planning Board requiring a 12 draft environmental impact statement . And 13 I will highlight some of our remarks today 14 regarding the scope of the draft 15 environmental impact statement . First, we 16 would like a complete comprehensive 17 analysis of a reasonable alternative for 18 the proposed storage building . And 19 especially with regard to that particular 20 property . We actually would rather if the 21 Planning Board should encourage the 22 applicant to withdraw this proposal and 23 submit a different project altogether for 24 this site . And work with the Town of 25 Southold ' s Land Preservation committee and December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 40 1 the Southold Town Board to preserve the 2 steep slopes and Mattituck inlet . With 3 regard to the scoping of the DEIS, we have 4 highlighted our concerns about the water 5 shed, about water quality in Mattituck 6 Creek, cultural resources , neighborhood 7 character . And I would like to be more 8 specific here to talk about potential for 9 catastrophic slope failure . The applicant 10 proposes to use existing soil information 11 (inaudible) . This is inadequate and could 12 put the site endanger and well as, 13 Mattituck Creek itself endangered. Without 14 specifically targeted and carefully 15 undertaking soil borings that would inform 16 an excavation plan, there is potential for 17 a catastrophic mass soil movement event 18 during or subsequent to the disturbance of 19 the steep soil by heavy equipment . If we 20 don ' t know whether there is layers in this 21 hillside, then we can ' t know whether a slip 22 face exist that could cause sudden mass 23 movement of soil when the trees are removed 24 and there is nothing to hold up the slope . 25 We are also concerned about the final angle December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 41 1 of the proposed for the newly established 2 slope that is supposedly going to be held 3 up by a concrete Evergreen retaining wall . 4 That slope must be less than 45 degrees in 5 its angle . Otherwise the slope will not be 6 stable and with precipitation, there is a 7 greater potential for more soil movement . 8 Now of course soil movement is a matter of 9 concern for anybody with a construction 10 project . But it ' s a great concern to water 11 quality in Mattituck Creek, potential 12 sedimentation and move down stream or up 13 stream with the tide and cause siltation 14 for which Mattituck Creek is known . So we 15 need to make sure that the DEIS pays close 16 attention to the excavated final slopes and 17 the potential for movement into the inlet . 18 And the slopes would need to be protecting 19 during that . We also sent along some very 20 specific requests for what we would like 21 the DEIS to examine with regard to the 22 forest being removed and its relationship 23 to forest in Southold altogether . In the 24 Town of Southold, in all of its 25 agricultural beauties and waterways and December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 42 1 wetlands, there is very few native forests 2 left . They exists as patches in the 3 landscape . Removal of 4 acres of forest 4 may not seem like much, but in the context 5 of the overall native forest covering the 6 Town, it ' s significant . We went into the 7 specific of these concerns more into our 8 written comments . Another thing that I 9 would like to discuss with you tonight for 10 your consideration, our potential adverse 11 impacts on the potential property . The 12 property and the members of the public have 13 purchased and now resides within the 14 ownership of the Town of Southold for 15 Southold residents . And that is the 16 preserve to the southwest . The comments 17 that we have submitted have gone into 18 detail with potential adverse impacts on 19 that preserve . And whereas it may look as 20 those the proposal is not directly 21 affecting the preserve, the removal of the 22 4 acres of forest at the boundary of that 23 preserve, does have an impact on the 24 preserve . It ' s going to open up the edge 25 of the preserve to a gaping hole during December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 43 1 construction . And post-construction, it ' s 2 going to open up a view of rooftops of 3 football field sized buildings , the backs 4 of those buildings , row of Evergreens that 5 are not natural - to the preserve and tarnish 6 the -- make unwelcome the experience of 7 people visiting that preserve who might 8 find their way to the boundary . Also the 9 impacts that are described in our letter, 10 on the forest ecosystem will be experienced 11 by visitors to the preserve because they 12 will have severe impacts on wildlife as 13 well as the forest ecosystem itself . I am 14 not going to go much further because our 15 letter is quite detailed. But I would like 16 to say two more things . First to please 17 have the DEIS do a careful review of the 18 Local Waterfront Revitalization Policies . 19 I would like to point out as you well know 20 but reiterate here, that the LWRP permits 21 the advancement of all of its policies at 22 once . We can ' t pick one policy over the 23 other . It ' s to advance all of thee coastal 24 policies that are relevant to the project . 25 And if any one of them cannot be advanced December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 44 1 by this project, then the project -- has to 2 be found inconsistent with that program. 3 Lastly, I would like to say that I 4 personally love living in Southold for 5 many reasons . One of the things that we 6 are all very admiring of, is the way that 7 Southold went to great lengths , all the 8 hard work in preventing the construction of 9 big box stores and the establishment of 10 national franchise store and such 11 businesses in the Town of Southold. It was 12 a hard won fight . There is great policies 13 in the Town and the code . We don ' t need 14 big box stores in the Town of Southold . We 15 hope that you similarly will consider the 16 appropriateness of allowing sensitive 17 ecological areas , such as Mattituck 18 (inaudible) boat storage facilities . We 19 submit that this is not the right site for 20 the Strong ' s storage . Thank you very much 21 for your time this evening . 22 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Thank you, 23 Ms . Harrison . Thank you . Jess , do you 24 have anyone else who wishes to speak? 25 MS . LANZA : Yes . This is Heather December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 45 1 Lanza . I am taking over for Jess . And 2 the next person I have is Denise Geist, who 3 I am allowing to talk. 4 MS . GEIST : Hi . How are you doing? 5 This is Denise Geist . I actually live on 6 Bigsby Road now, but I grew up on Bayview 7 Avenue, which backs up to this property, 8 North Drive and this property . And we did 9 just hear from Louise Harrison, which was 10 much more eloquent that I can be, but this 11 does not fit in this area . It will destroy 12 the rural character of this area, as well 13 as, our roadways . Those roadways are just 14 not going to support this kind of 15 construction or this kind of up and down 16 with the boats or the traffic . And I don ' t 17 even understand . I was over there the 18 other day, the erosion it has to affect all 19 the neighboring properties . And I know 20 that was something that you were looking 21 into, but growing up there, it just amazes 22 me this would even be a consideration . And 23 I understand the zoning, but it ' s just not 24 the proper place for it . Wildlife preserve 25 is back there . I walked there as a kid . I December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 46, 1 am 48 now . My entire life -- excuse me . 2 It ' s just not the place for it . Not only 3 to mention the water pollution, which is 4 inevitable . If a storm comes in, you can 5 watch the runoff from just naturally from 6 those cliffs . And you watch it go into the 7 water . And this would only make it worse . 8 And the biggest problem in my opinion is 9 the sand mining . There is no way this 10 couldn ' t be considered sand mining . All I 11 have heard is how much they are going to 12 get for selling the sand . And I think that 13 is one big reason this property is being 14 considered . And I just find that 15 horrifying that we would allow that -- that 16 we would allow this to happen right here in 17 Mattituck . It just drives me very insane 18 for this , but this is just not the place 19 for this . Just because of all the 20 different things that you mentioned . I 21 said to the applicant, which I know we are 22 not discussing the applicant, but I said, 23 if you ' re going to do it, why don ' t you 24 build it up top? At least the land is flat 25 and that way, it wouldn ' t be effected . You December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 47 1 wouldn ' t have to dig out all the sand . Oh, 2 no . It wouldn ' t fit up there . So I really, 3 really, really encourage everybody to look 4 into the fact that I think the sand mining 5 has a lot to do with this particular area 6 is being used . And that just should not be 7 allowed here in Mattituck . I thank you 8 very much for allowing me to speak . 9 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Thank you for 10 your comments . They will be very carefully 11 considered, as will the previous speakers . 12 Heather, do you have another speaker? 13 MS . LANZA: Yes . There are three 14 more people with their hands raised . Next 15 we have Steven Boscola . I will allow him 16 to talk . Please state your name . 17 MR . BOSCOLA : Hi . It ' s Steven 18 Boscola, 516 West Mill Road . First just on 19 behalf of our 60 plus members of Save the 20 Mattituck Inlet, I just want to thank Brian 21 for fielding the letters that have been 22 coming into his office . And I actually 23 wanted to bring up the Zoning of this 24 property . I spent a considerable amount of 25 time Looking through the files with the I December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 48 1 Town . And when was the last shed was put 2 up there by Mattituck Inlet by -- actually 3 built by my grandfather, Bill Boscola, that 4 zoning was still Light Industrial to about 5 30-40 feet or so . The shed of just west of 6 that red dot on the screen . And in looking 7 back under the pending section, there is a 8 proposed zoning change by the previous 9 owner . It got as far as a SEQRA review, 18 10 questions that needed to be answered in 11 2009 . And nothing ever became of it . And 12 then suddenly there are random site plans 13 in the Laserfiche as showing this R-80 and 14 then split to M-2 . And I just don ' t see 15 where there was ever a finalization of 16 that . So I believe that the Zoning of this 17 property is still actually R-80 . And I 18 just wanted to bring that to the Board ' s 19 attention . 20 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Thank you . We 21 will make notes of your comments and pass 22 to the Town Attorney, I am sure for 23 checking where it stands . Heather, do you 24 have anyone else? 25 MS . LANZA : Yes . I have next, Russ December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 49 1 Bates . Please state your name before you 2 begin speaking . Thank you . 3 MR. BATES : Good evening everyone . 4 My name is Russ Bates . And I am a 5 full-time resident of Mattituck . And I 6 appreciate the opportunity to be here to 7 express my opposition to this . I live on 8 the inlet . Catty-cornered to the proposed 9 site . And I am very concerned about what 10 is being proposed here . I wholeheartedly 11 endorse what Ms . Harrison ' s comments, to 12 save your evenings , I won ' t repeat 13 everything there, and instead, talk more of 14 a prospective from someone that lives on 15 the inlet . As you know, there is a unique 16 beauty there . And I can ' t think throughout 17 the North Fork, where we have any clusters 18 of 55 foot tall buildings . The concept of 19 what is being place here and the size of 20 the buildings , much less on the waterfront 21 with the ecological possibilities 22 associates with that . Despite my 23 opposition, I do believe that Strong ' s is a 24 very good corporate citizen . They have 25 done good work at their other facilities in December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 50 1 Town . And I hope that they will approach 2 the Planning Board to come up with 3 something that is more acceptable . I would 4 remind you that this is adjacent to the Old 5 Mill . The Old Mill is the gateway for 6 boaters coming into the community . It is 7 the most known landmark throughout the 8 tri-state area . And so, to have -- you 9 know, I drove past Port of Egypt today, 10 where you have all of the blight from two 11 and three story houses that make for a very 12 unattractive area . And to think that we '.re 13 going to take the pristine area of 14 Mattituck inlet, which -- you know, since 15 the 1640 ' s was founded it was a known area . 16 And since the 1840 ' s , the Old Mill has been 17 there . And to turn that into something 18 that is more industrial, to cause the 19 boating traffic to increase when the police 20 have already told us they cannot enforce 21 speeding on the waterway, that they don ' t 22 have enough people to handle that with 23 other demands to the police . To effect the 24 roadways when the City said that they are 25 not capable of dealing with road issues December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 51 1 when we already have with runoff from local 2 farms into the waterway . I think that the 3 entire plan is ill conceived and I am very 4 concerned about it . And at that the views 5 of the area will be destroyed and will have 6 direct impact on my housing value . I would 7 urge you to reject their proposal and that 8 they come back with something that is more 9 environmentally focused or that they go 10 elsewhere . I thank you all for the good 11 work that you do . 12 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Thank you, 13 Mr . Bates . Heather, next? 14 MS . LANZA : I have Eric Bressler . 15 MR . BRESSLER : Good evening, Members 16 of the Board, Vice-Chairman, members of 17 staff . As you recall, that we represent 18 Mr . Newman who live directly across the 19 creek from this particular application . If 20 you recall that I have spoken at each of 21 the prior sessions . The topic of my 22 comments tonight is the memo of 23 November 16, 2020 , prepared by Mark Terry, 24 with respect to the scoping document . 25 Although, it is rare for me to do so, I December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 52 1 offer Kudos to Mr . Terry for the 2 completeness of his report . And I think 3 that the matters mentioned therein, both 4 raised by staff and the public, most 5 certainly require inclusion in any scoping 6 document . We pulled the information that 7 had been filed with the Board yesterday 8 evening to review everything that had been 9 filed. Unfortunately, we did not get to 10 review apparently a point of detailed 11 submission by the lady who spoke earlier 12 about the inc inclusions that needed to be 13 made to the report . We will take the time 14 to go through that and comment on those 15 items without -- I dare say that they are 16 worthy and necessary to be included in the 17 proposed scoping document . I am also 18 extremely concerned about the memo of 19 November 16th prepared by Brian Cummings, 20 reflecting the results of the application 21 research update, particularly, the 22 discrepancies with respect to Town Code 23 280-9 and the Suffolk County Department of 24 Health Services . It would seem not to be 25 in the best interest of conversation of December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 53 1 time and effort to proceed with a matter 2 that may not meet the threshold issues that 3 were raised by Mr . Cummings . So I would 4 ask the Board to take appropriate action 5 with respect to this track until the 6 conditions precedent that Mr . Cummings 7 raised are satisfactorily addressed . I 8 thank the Board for its attention . 9 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Thank you, Eric . 10 Heather, do you have someone else? 11 MS . LANZA : Yes . Next we have 12 Catherine Kana . 13 MS . PANARELLO : Hi . This is actually 14 Lori Panarello . We live at 1065 West Mill 15 Road. So what I would like to address are 16 this evening the danger that we as a 17 community may face being surrounded by 18 8 , 000 gallons of propane and an additional 19 800 to 1 , 000 of fuel by 80 yachts that 20 would be stored in this facility . This is 21 just such a small space to have that much 22 propane and fuel . And I would just like 23 the make the Board aware of the recent 24 explosion in Michigan of a similar site 25 while workers were working inside doing December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 54 1 winter storage . Needless to say this could 2 be devastated to the areas and extremely 3 worrisome along with the multiple of other 4 problems that we see the community facing . 5 More appropriate definitely in an 6 industrial area . Thank you . 7 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Thank you for 8 your input . Heather, who do you have next? 9 MS . LANZA : Next we have Maureen 10 Fritch . 11 MS . FRITCH : Good evening, Board . My 12 name is Maureen Fritch . I reside at 975 13 West Hugh Drive in Mattituck . I am on the 14 inlet . My husband and I recently 15 purchased . So we ' re newcomers . We have 16 lived on the North Shore for 40 years . We 17 bought the home on the inlet because we 18 were looking to retire . We fell in love 19 with the charm, the tranquility, the 20 nature . The fact that the area is 21 protected and that it ' s charming and a 22 lovely place and a beautiful community with 23 lovely, lovely people in it . Mr . Strong is 24 my neighbor . I don ' t have anything against 25 anyone trying to advance their business . December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 55 1 We are small business owners ourselves . 2 However, I don ' t think that the inlet is a 3 place for the size of this project . And I 4 know you have heard that from others . And 5 I am sorry if I am repeating myself, 6 however, to me, it ' s a gigantic eyesore . 7 It ' s like building a tiny skyscraper in a 8 small town . Not to mention, the danger of 9 fires that the previous woman has just 10 announced to you . And the concern over 11 this quiet little inlet that has the beauty 12 of small boaters, some large, quietly 13 passing by, as opposed to turning it into 14 what I would say is going to turn into a 15 water highway . The traffic that is going 16 to go up and down . Absolutely is going to 17 have to have an impact on the environment 18 and wildlife, as well as, contaminating the 19 water . The amount of boats that are going 20 to be coming in and out of there is going 21 to extremely affect the inlet . And I am 22 really kind of stunned and shocked that 23 Mr . Strong would even approach this idea . 24 I thought there was a love of the 25 community . To deteriorate the many, many December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 56 1 hundreds of years that the inlet has been 2 there, I hope that the Board steps back and 3 really evaluates the impact that this is 4 going to have, as well as people of the 5 community that have invested their money . 6 I don ' t have to tell you that I paid well 7 over $1 . 5 million for our retirement home . 8 My taxes are well over $17 , 000 a year . And 9 that wasn ' t so I could look at an 10 industrial factory when I look across the 11 water . My husband and I are devastated as 12 well as the people in the community, my 13 neighbors . And I just hope that you take 14 everything into consideration, especially 15 the wildlife and impacting the concern and 16 making sure all stays safe and come up with 17 a new plan . And thank you for hearing me . 18 I appreciate your time . 19 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Thank you very 20 much, Ms . Fritch . Do we have anybody else, 21 Heather? 22 MS . LANZA : Yes . I am not sure how 23 to say the name M . Geiten . I have clicked 24 allowed to talk . 25 MS . GEITEN : Hi, Board . I am Mary December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 57 1 Geiten, and I live at 3331 Grand Avenue . A 2 property my family has loved since the 3 1930 ' s . It ' s directly across from the 4 proposed project . And as many people have 5 already stated, I am very concerned about 6 the environmental impact of this project . 7 So I am trying to understand how the Board 8 selects the group that will be conducting 9 the next phase of the environmental review? 10 And how do you ensure that is an impartial 11 body? Thank you very much . 12 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Again this is a 13 meeting or input . We ' re not here to 14 specifically ask questions . But I believe 15 our staff is going to produce and work on 16 this moving forward . And I think they ' re 17 pretty impartial on this . I really do . 18 Next? 19 MS . LANZA : I don ' t see anybody 20 else ' s hands raised . If anyone else like 21 to address the Board, if you ' re on the 22 telephone, you could hit * 9 . If you are on 23 the computer, you can look at the bottom of 24 your screen and press "raise hand . " 25 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Heather, if we December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 58 1 don ' t have anybody here -- 2 MS . LANZA : Here . Somebody -- this 3 is Jeff . I will let him say what his name 4 is? 5 MR. STRONG : Good evening, Board . 6 Jeff Strong here . Thank you for hearing 7 everybody as part of the process . I did 8 want to clarify, it has been stated 9 numerous times that the proposed building 10 heights are 55 feet . That the accurate 11 fact as per our submission that the 12 building requested height is 45 in height . 13 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Thank you for 14 that correction, Mr . Strong . 15 MS . LANZA: There are no other hands 16 raised at this time . 17 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : If Charles is 18 still there, Charles , we would like to 19 close this hearing and request an extension 20 of time to produce a final scope until -- 21 and try to have it ready by January 11th 22 our next public meeting with Christmas and 23 New Year ' s in between and all the other 24 related problems that are unique this year . 25 I just think that is the best we can do . December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 59 1 Are you acceptable with that, Charles? 2 MR . CUDDY : I think my client is also 3 available here to chime in, but we 4 certainly hope it could be done a little 5 bit earlier than six weeks from now, which 6 is what I think you are proposing . If it 7 is possible to do it earlier, I would 8 appreciate it? 9 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Frankly, I don ' t 10 think it ' s going to be possible to do it 11 earlier . Today is the 7th . I mean, one of 12 the weeks is between Christmas and New 13 Year ' s . We ' re losing a considerable amount 14 of work time . And I think some of the 15 staff also has vacation days . So I am 16 counting 5 weeks . I am not going to debate 17 it with you . It ' s a push to get something 18 like this sophisticated together . 19 MR . CUDDY : We don ' t want to make it 20 more difficult . We will consent to it . We 21 were just hoping to get it done earlier . 22 Thank you . 23 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : We appreciate 24 that . In conversation with the staff 25 earlier, they were pretty clear that it December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 60 1 would be very, very difficult . And I think 2 we owe it to both the pubic and to Strong 3 Marine to do the best job that we can . 4 MR. CUDDY : We agree . 5 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Thank you, 6 Charles . So can I get a motion to close 7 the hearing and try to have this done by 8 Monday, January 12th, as we discussed? 9 MEMBER SIDOR : So moved. 10 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Anybody second? 11 MEMBER EISENSTEIN : I ' ll second. 12 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Any discussion? 13 (No Response) . 14 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : All in favor? 15 MEMBER SIDOR : Aye . 16 MEMBER EISENSTEIN : Aye . 17 MEMBER RAFFERTY : Aye . 18 VICE CHAIRMAN RICH : Aye . 19 20 (Conclusion of Public Hearings . ) 21 22 23 24 25 December 7, 2020 Public Hearings 61 1 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 2 3 4 I , JESSICA DILALLO, a Court Reporter 5 and Notary Public, for and within the State 6 of New York, do hereby certify : 7 THAT the above and foregoing contains a 8 true and correct transcription of the 9 Public Hearing ' s held on December 7 , 2020 , 10 via videoconference, and were transcribed by 11 me . 12 I further certify that I am not 13 related to any of the parties to this 14 action by blood or by marriage and that I 15 am in no way interested in the outcome of 16 this matter . 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have 18 hereunto set my hand this 23rd day of 19 January, 2021 . 20 rg RECEIVE® 21 ---� : r� ------ .c 22 Jessica DiLallo M 2 1 2022 e $.aS 23 24 ®Uth® Town Clerk 25