HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix A1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------- - - - - -- X
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
PLANNING BOARD
------------------------------------- - - - - -- X
(Via Videoconference)
December 7, 2020
6:00 P.M.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
JAMES H. RICH, III, Vice - Chairman
MARTIN SIDOR, Board Member
PIERCE RAFFERTY, Board Member
MARY EISENSTEIN, Board Member
HEATHER LANZA, Planning Director
MARK TERRY, Assistant Planning Director
BRIAN CUMMINGS, Planner
JESSICA MICHAELIS, Assistant
A -4
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
December 7, 2020 Public Hearings
INDEX
NAME:
1750 Sterling Agricultural Barn
The Orchards Standard Subdivision Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
Strong's Storage Buildings Draft Scope
PAGE:
3 -15
15 -36
36 -60
A -5
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
WN
December 7, 2020 Public Hearings
MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Aye.
MEMBER RAFFERTY: Aye.
VICE CHAIRMAN RICH: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No Response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN RICH: So we closed the
hearing. I believe that the time for
written comments remains open for two
weeks. Is that not correct, Heather?
MS. LANZA: Not necessary for this
application.
VICE CHAIRMAN RICH: Not necessary.
A motion is made and passed to close the
hearing. Thank you.
THE ORCHARDS STANDARD SUBDIVISION
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Next order of business, 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 equals 9.33 acres including a 1.35
acre building envelope and 7.98 acres of
preserved Open Space. Lot 2 equals 0.99
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
December 7, 2020 Public Hearings
acres, Lot 3 equals 1.14 acres, Lot 4
equals 0.92 and Lot 5 equals 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 feet northwest of Platt
Road, in Orient, with a SCTM #1000- 27 -1 -3.
Anyone wishing to address the Town
Planning Board on this issue, raise their
electric hand on Zoom, and state your name
and address. You are speaking to the
Planning Board. And if there is a
representative of the Orchards who would
like to give any information on this, we
would welcome their input their input
first.
MS. MICHAELIS: I have let Steve
Martocello. And I don't know if Steve
wants to speak or his attorney, Mr. Lotte.
MR. MARTOCELLO: This is Steve
Martocello. The description was fine.
This was the draft environmental impact
statement we are here for tonight. I would
like to introduce William Lotte. Bill is
our -- a professional engineer, as well as,
A -7
N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A -8
December 7, 2020 Public Hearings
an environmental engineer. He has taken
center point in helping us prepare the
draft environmental impact. So by all
means -- he can probably answer any
questions the Board may ask or myself.
Thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN RICH: Thank you.
Anyone wishing to address the Town Planning
Board on this Orchard application?
MS. MICHAELIS: I have Nancy Farrist.
MS. FARRIST: Hi. My name is Nancy
Farrist. I live at 3585 Orchard Street.
It's the corner property on Orchard and
Holly Oak. Directly opposite the
Orchard's /Holly Oak Avenue frontage. We
have been in the community for 25 years. I
along with others in the community
commented back in 2015. And many of those
concerns are still relevant. The proposed
(inaudible) to the Orient community. And I
do not feel that these issues have been
adequately addressed by the applicants EIS,
nor the proposed preliminary plat
configuration of the five lots on this
subdivision. I have several major
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
December 7, 2020 Public Hearings
concerns. The site is currently guided by
the area's R -80 zoning district. The
determination by the applicant to squeeze
five building lots using the smaller R -40
lot size and setback regulations within the
required clustered subdivision seems to
benefit only the developer, without
anything positive or favorable to the Town
and the community. Also Orient's fragile
water supply is totally overlooked. The
most critical in the DEIS is the
development, particularly it's density on
both water supply and quality. I don't
understand how the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services makes their
determinations. There were test results in
2016 in Appendix L, indicating restricting
the lot sizes to the R -80 two lot minimum.
And then in 2018, there were test results
granting a waiver. That is in Appendix H.
We all know that the Orient aquifer is at
risk. My fear is that the open space
conservation easement will not contain
sufficient restrictions and limitations to
archive the goals inherit provisions and
A -9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A -10
December 7, 2020 Public Hearings
the Town's Comprehensive Plan. A more
equitable and fair plan should be
considered with fewer building lots
reflective of the R -80 regulations, the
neighborhood character, which is very
important and guided by a true
environmental impact study. We as a
community rely on the Planning Board to
require the applicant to do better. The
developer should provide a better EIS and a
better alternative plan with less density,
that truly demonstrates the balance between
private profit and Town goals and to
preserve and protect the special character
of the historical Orient community. I
would like to introduce Barbara Cohen, who
has assisted me with my submission to
highlight a few other key points that the
Planning Board should consider. Thank you
very much.
MS. MICHAELIS: Thank you Nancy.
VICE CHAIRMAN RICH: I would like to
keep these comment somewhat brief and not
overly redundant. Thank you.
MS. MICHAELIS: Barbara?
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A -11
December 7, 2020 Public Hearings
MS. COHEN: Yes, I am here. My name
is Barbara Cohen. I am a resident of
Peconic. What Nancy has laid out in her
submission, along with Barbara Freedman's
submission, I think is very specific and in
where the shortcomings of the EIS come into
play. And in reviewing a lot of the
documentation from the very beginning, the
Planning Board's comments about the
proposed plan are really very clear. And
the preliminary proposed -- the proposed
preliminary plat that is shown, which is
very different than the approved sketch,
does really nothing to do respond to so
many of the comments that were laid out.
And the other issue is, the reliance on the
Health Department's determination, which of
course are just very narrow and don't take
into broader context the Town's concerns.
That when you do make your column of
developer town, there are a lot more
benefits to the developer. The split
cluster in itself with that separate
building lot, is without it being clustered
is -- I think a little excessive. And it
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A -12
December 7, 2020 Public Hearings
really is kind of trying to shove a bunch
of stuff ina 5 pound bag. And there
definitely has to be a better balance
design wise. The other concern and maybe
half a question is, so as the effort to
squeeze everything in, led to adjusting
these setback requirements to go along with
the R -40, not the R -80, when it's actually
sort -- when building does actually begin
to occur, does each lot follow the
R- 80underlying zoning or the very specific
setbacks that are defined in these plans,
are they the sort of approved starting
point. I guess what my concern is when you
begin to look at those building lots and
they begin to narrow down and take, you
know, a different shape, then when a
homeowner begins to design their building
and try to fit it into the developable area
and then you begin to do the pool, the
tennis court and everything else, my sense
was that these -- it would be ending up at
the variance board seeking more waivers.
So I wasn't sure -- I live in a subdivision
and I am a nonconforming irregular shaped
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A -13
December 7, 2020 Public Hearings
lot. And any time I sneeze I have to go to
the variance board because it's R -80. So I
wondered how that -- how those lots that
are being defined by the R -40, do they
really get defined by R -80 later on? And
even the response in the letter and the
public comments folder, that again, this
idea that this preliminary plat was almost
approved by the Board and truthfully has
not even addressed a lot of the comments.
It just seemed a little premature to rely
on just the Suffolk County's Health
Department's findings. So one I would like
to get a confirmation from the Board that
this hearing is about EIS? Whether it's
good enough or not? Not the hearing to
approve the preliminary plat? Is that -- I
would like to get a sense of where we are
in the process? So we know what are those
next steps and how the public continues to
follow it through.
VICE CHAIRMAN RICH: Do you want me
to answer that or Mark?
MR. TERRY: So these comments are on
the draft environmental impact statement.
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A -14
December 7, 2020 Public Hearings
What will happen is, each substantiative
comment will be addressed in the final
environmental impact statement. That is
the next step.
MS. COHEN: And the preliminary plat,
that plan which is different than the
conditional approved sketch, which is a
totally different layout, how do those two
things come together? I couldn't quite
find how one became the other in the
materials?
MR. TERRY: So the applicant
submitted -- you saw earlier a sketch plan
and when this plan came in, we immediately
decided to start the SEQRA process on this
plan that you see before you because of the
potential significant adverse impacts. So
that is where we are. This is the plan
under review on the screen. And it will
continue under review until the end of the
process. And not to sat that things won't
change in the end because in the end point
of the SEQRA process, there is a finding
statement. And the finding statement is
where the Planning Board as lead agency
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A -15
December 7, 2020 Public Hearings
will attempt to mitigate all the large
(inaudible) significant impacts or have a
no action determination or a modified
layout that you will see before you. There
is a lot of options. That --
MS. COHEN: Yes, that I understand.
And there could be another draft from this
to the final EIS, more studies, I guess
potentially in terms of the water quality
and so on that is missing. And just to
answer the question when you go to build on
these lots, are they subject to the R -80 or
are they subject to R -40? How does someone
-- there is also certainly submitted in
Nancy's submission, there is the issue of
the Planning Board playing it out. You
know, in terms of the reality that you know
fills all these building lots. How does
the zoning apply here?
MS. LANZA: Excuse me. We will have
to say our name each time we begin
speaking. Thank you.
MR. TERRY: Mark Terry. The Zoning
applies as a starting point in the R -80
Zoning District. Mathematically you have
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A -16
December 7, 2020 Public Hearings
to cluster the parcels down to achieve 600
of buildable open space. Okay. The
cluster law also allows the Planning Board
to set setbacks on each lot as they move
forward. I can't answer you what the
setbacks will look like in the end, if this
is approved because it's going to go
through the process. And they could
change. They could remain as they are.
MS. COHEN: This is Barbara Cohen.
So just one last thing. So when the final,
final subdivision gets done, those setbacks
are sort of within that subdivision and
creation and definitions. So that when you
go to get a building permit, they're guided
by those specific setbacks and set within
the creation of the Zoning District?
MR. TERRY: Correct. The setbacks
will be (inaudible). Sometimes building
develops are on the lot. Sometimes they
are not. It's really going to depend on
the Planning Board's evaluation of
whether or not those acts would mitigate
impacts.
MS. COHEN: Okay.
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
December 7, 2020 Public Hearings
MS. LANZA: We have to remind
ourselves to say our name before we talk
because then transcription becomes very
difficult. Just reminding everyone.
VICE CHAIRMAN RICH: Thank you,
Heather. Ms. Cohen, are you done then?
MS. MICHAELIS: Sorry. I put her
back as an attendee.
MS. LANZA: I think she was done. We
have another person waiting.
MS. MICHAELIS: Erik Oderra.
MR. ODERRA: Hi. My name is Erik
Oderra and my family resides on 200 Old
Farm Road, and we are at the corner of
Orchard and Old Farm Road. Right at the
corner. And we have been here for 16
years. So I just wanted to express some of
the concerns that I have regarding this
project. So as I just stated, we are at
the corner of 200 Old Farm Road and
Orchard. And as it is, there is a lot of
traffic that prevents us from enjoying our
peace and quiet currently. This
intersection is busy. And adding more
driveways close to our driveway only
A -17
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
December 7, 2020 Public Hearings
presents a safety risk to us. For example,
just driving out of my garage is a pain in
the neck because we have vehicles
approaching from Old Farm Road and both
vehicles approaching our driveway that is
from the left and right hand side. So
building more dwellings and entrances to
the proposed buildings will clearly
increase the multidirectional traffic flow
that we must bear when driving to and out
of our property. This congestion will only
increase the accidents right outside our
home and our neighbors. As it currently
stands Old Farm Road, Orchard Street, and
the road leading to our neighborhood, are
all narrowed. So you must move your
vehicle to the edge of the road while
driving when there is a car traveling on
the opposite side, direction. So what is
clear is that these roads are meant for
fewer cars, fewer pedestrians, walkers and
bikers. Adding four or five more houses
means that we're going to deal with
multiple construction vehicles. Multiple
vehicles going to and from the proposed
A -18
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
December 7, 2020 Public Hearings
farm. And we already have a squeezed up
road. So to me, this project really does
not make sense. And then I was looking at
the report and the reports says there is
going to be six trips during the peak hour,
but when you think about it, the same
report mentions that there is going to be a
farm. And if you factor vehicles going to
and from the farm, deliveries by UPS,
FedEx, school bus drop -off's and pick -up's,
I don't think the number comes down to six.
I don't know how they arrived at this
number. And the other thing is, the houses
that are described as modestly sized, well,
the general character in our neighborhood
are not modest. Adding these four to five
houses with their modest size houses is a
mismatch. It disrupts and it distorts the
character of our neighborhood and the value
of our real estate. And then the report
also talks about their being minimal need
for community service. I don't know how
they arrived at this conclusion but I think
it's understated. We already have a
serious vehicular road width issue. There
A -19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A -20
December 7, 2020 Public Hearings
is the Orient aquifer issue. And we also
have other issues such as the noise and
pollution that is going to be caused by
vehicles leaving and entering the proposed
area. You have noise pollution from farm
equipment. And you have fertilizer and
other farm inputs sipping into the water.
So I think you know, when the report states
there is going to be a minimal need for
community service, I just don't think it's
a rational conclusion given some of the
things that I have mentioned. And I want
to thank Nancy and Barbara for their very
thorough detailed presentation in regards
to this matter. Thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN RICH: Thank you, Erik.
Next speaker? Jess, do we have anyone
else?
MS. MICHAELIS: Not at this time. If
you would like -- here we go. Stephan
Fairvent?
MR. FAIRVENT: Yes. This is Stephan
Fairvent. My wife and I own the property
that abuts the proposed development on
Holly Oak. I think it says on the property
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A -21
December 7, 2020 Public Hearings
map that it's Doris Morgan's property. We
have been there since 2011. Sort of
followed the evolution of this possible
subdivision. And my biggest concerns with
this development are No. 1, the impact on
the water supply. The four clustered homes
on the corner there are in the lowest
elevation on this property. And it just
seems logical that if you're going to be
clustering properties, you should cluster
them in either the highest elevation or
don't do any clustering which is my
preferred solution for this development.
And I am very concerned on the water supply
on our property will have permanent harm
and for the neighboring properties as well
because these four houses are being
clustered. So those are my concerns with
the development and the overall impact on
the feeling of the neighborhood. This is
definitely going to feel more like a suburb
than a rural area, and I am concerned about
how that will evolve. The question that I
have for the Board and I guess, Mr. Terry
knows the answer to this, is there a method
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
December 7, 2020 Public Hearings
to which the clustering requirement can be
modified or waived by this body or some
other body? Is that even possible or
simply impossible?
MR. TERRY: Would you like me to
answer that?
MR. FAIRVENT: Yes, please.
MR. TERRY: Mr. Vice - Chairman?
VICE CHAIRMAN RICH: Yes. You can
answer that briefly. This is really a
hearing for input and not for education.
Why don't we have a real quick answer to
it, Mark, if you can?
MR. TERRY: So the answer to is, it's
mandatory clustering 7 acres and above
pursuant to Chapter 240 of the Southold
Town Code. There is no way around it. And
it has been applied consistently since the
code was rewritten in, I believe 2005.
VICE CHAIRMAN RICH: Thank you, Mark.
Mr. Stephan, do you have any other comments
to the Planning Board?
MR. FAIRVENT: Thank you very much
for allowing me to speak.
VICE CHAIRMAN RICH: Thank you.
A -22
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A -23
December 7, 2020 Public Hearings
Jess, do we have anybody else that would
like to speak?
MS. MICHAELIS: At this time, I don't
have anybody else raising their hand. If
you would like to address the Board on a
telephone, you can hit *9 or if you are in
the computer, there is a little toggle on
the bottom to "Raise your hand." Here we
go. We have Ellen McNealy.
MS. MCNEALY: Hello. My name is
Ellen McNealy. I have been a 35 year
resident of Orient. When the site between
Plat Road and Narrow River Road was built
up considerably at one point, pursuant to
the possibility of a majore development
going into that point, part of the reason
that failed was because of the DEIS at that
point, relative to the impact on the water
and the water flow from Hallock's Bay back
towards the Town. I wonder if that has
been looked at and thought about in this
particular instance? And we're talking
about septic systems from the older type
from the looks of it, that may be really
problematic and how that will impact the
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A -24
December 7, 2020 Public Hearings
water. I know people are having
difficulties as it exist right now, water
infiltration into the basement areas, even
if they are allowed to have basements.
It's a concern that I thought needed to be
raised (inaudible) earlier issues that had
taken place. Thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN RICH: Thank you.
Jess, do you have anyone else?
MS. MICHAELIS: I have Barbara. I am
not sure of her last name. Barbara?
MS. FRIEDMAN: Yes?
MS. MICHAELIS: Please state your
name?
MS. FRIEDMAN: Barbara Friedman. I
reviewed the DEIS quite thoroughly and I
just don't feel that it really brought up
any mitigating factors for this proposal.
It just stated and restated square footages
and various site considerations. They
weren't -- they didn't address the adverse
impacts of this fairly against cluster of
houses on this corner, which is in my view,
a very scenic corner of Orient. And you
know, it's part of a larger open space.
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A -25
December 7, 2020 Public Hearings
The conserved property, previously owned by
Patrick (inaudible) to the west. And it
extends, you know, even further -- almost
to the Historic District with the cemetery
and a few houses there. But the DEIS
states that the Suffolk County Department
of Health Services approved at all. And I
also wonder about the flag lots. The
Zoning Code calls for flag lots of usual
size and these are clearly not usual size.
I know that you can change from R -80 to
R -40 to allow for the clustering, but I
didn't see anything in the code that said
you could change the flag lot status. So
that's a question. This is also an older
site plan. The setbacks are different. It
says Platt Road here and it's actually
Holly Oak. The major point really is the
water. People have had salt water
intrusion into their wells in Orient. And
it's really only a matter of time -- if we
have a few drought years and people are
using water and (inaudible) calls for turf
lawns on these building lots, which
potentially have irrigation associated with
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
/M:1
December 7, 2020 Public Hearings
them. It just raises a lot of alarm bells
as far as water availability and the
quality of water for all the residents of
Orient. And that is all I have to say.
VICE CHAIRMAN RICH: Thank you very
much for your comments, Ms. Friedman.
Jess, anybody else?
MS. MICHAELIS: I don't see anybody.
There is a raise hand toggle at the bottom
of your screen or if you're on the phone,
you could hit *9.
VICE CHAIRMAN RICH: If there is
nobody else --
MS. MICHAELIS: I don't see anyone.
VICE CHAIRMAN RICH: Can we get a
motion to close the hearing?
MEMBER SIDOR: I will make a motion
to close the hearing to January 11th --
VICE CHAIRMAN RICH: I think we would
like to close the hearing and keep it open
for written comments until January 11th.
Is that what your motion is?
MEMBER SIDOR: That would be my
motion. Yes.
MEMBER EISENSTEIN: I will second it.
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A -27
December 7, 2020 Public Hearings
VICE CHAIRMAN RICH: Any discussion?
(No Response).
VICE CHAIRMAN RICH: All in favor?
MEMBER SIDOR: Aye.
MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Aye.
MEMBER RAFFERTY: Aye.
VICE CHAIRMAN RICH: Aye.
************ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
STRONG'S STORAGE BUILDINGS DRAFT SCOPE
VICE CHAIRMAN RICH: Our next Public
Hearing was held over. It's for Strong's
Storage Buildings Draft Scope. This Site
Plan is for the proposed construction of
two buildings for boat storage, one at
52,500 square feet, and the other at 49,000
square feet, located on 32.6 acres in the
MII and R -80 Zoning Districts where there
are 69,245 square feet of existing boatyard
buildings. The property is located at
3430 Mill Road, Mattituck.
SCTM #1000- 106 -6 -13.4.
Anybody that represents the Strong's
that would like to give an opening
statement, we will hear that first and then
reopen this hearing to the public. It's
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A -28
December 7, 2020 Public Hearings
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I, JESSICA DILALLO, a Court Reporter
and Notary Public, for and within the State
of New York, do hereby certify:
THAT the above and foregoing contains a
true and correct transcription of the
Public Hearing's held on December 7, 2020,
via videoconference, and were transcribed by
me.
I further certify that I am not
related to any of the parties to this
action by blood or by marriage and that I
am in no way interested in the outcome of
this matter.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have
hereunto set my hand this 23rd day of
January, 2021.
Jessica DiLallo
61