Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-03/10/1997PLANNING BOARD MEMBEI~S BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. Ct~EMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATttAM, JR. RICHARD G. WAP~D Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southo]d, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES March 10, 1997 Present were: Absent: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Richard O. Ward Kenneth Edwards William Cremers Vaierie Scopaz, Town Planner Melissa Spiro, Planner Robert O. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer Martha Jones, Secretary O. Ritchie Latham Mr. Orlowski: Good evening. I'd like to call this meeting to order. It's a very nice turnout here tonight. 'd like to thank you alt for coming down. First order or business, Board to set Monday, March 31, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. at Southold Town Hall, Main Rd., Southold, as the time and place for the next regular Planning Board meeting. Mr. Cremers: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowskh Opposed? Motion carried. Southold Town Planning Board 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS SEQRA: Draf'c Environmental Impact Statement March 10, 1997 Mr. Orlowski: Indian Shores - This major subdivision is for t7 lots on 105.6 acres located on the south side of Main Rd. and the north side of New Suffolk Ave. in Cutchogue. This public hearing is on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated January 1997. SCTM# 1000-116-I-3. At this time I'll entertain your comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Would anyone like to start? Joe Gold: Good evening. I'm Joe Gold from Cutchogue and I'm speaking as Chairman of the Southold Land Preservation Committee. I just want to state the position of the committee. In late 1994 the committee passed a unanimous resolution recommending to the Town Board that the Town purchase the 37 acre wooded parcel that goes from the road south to the wetlands and includes the fort site. That recommendation was based on a survey of the property, establishing the value. That survey has been checked and re-validated since then and is currently still an accurate...l'm sorry, I mean appraisal, not survey. The appraisa is still an accurate representation of the value of the property. The goal that the committee was achieving at that time was the preservation of the fort. And the fort is on that wooded parcel and therefore that goal is still achieved I'm sure that everybody in the room shares a greater goa and that is to preserve the entire property in some way. However, the Town's step is a necessary step in any plan that preserves the property, and the recommendation of the Land Preservation Committee still stands - that the Town purchase that 37 acre parcel Obviously, there are all kinds of could of, should of, would of's, but we have enough money to purchase that parcel, and not much more than that parcel So that's the current position of the Land Preservation Committee. Thank you. Charles Cuddy: I'm Charles Cuddy. I just wanted to make a statement on behalf of the applicant because I wasn't sure that everybody here realized exactly what the layout of our proposal is. The maps are outside, i3ut for those who haven't really taken a look at them, what Mr. Baxter and his family propose for this property is relatively simple. There's a 37 acre parcel which borders on the Main Rd. which would be the parcel that Mr. Gold was talking about, that would be sold to the Town. There are two parcels that are across from Pelligrini Vineyards running north Southold Town Planni~ g BoarG March 10, '1997 to south, so they go all the way back, virtually from New Suffolk Ave. Those parcels total about 30 acres, a little more. And those two are to be vineyards. There's a single parcel of about 5 % acres which borders New SuffOlk Ave which would be an equestrian or horse area And then there are 13 single family lots which total about 32 acres. Half of those lots are along Down's Creek and half of them are interior on the parcel. So that's how it lays out. There are tonight for those who are interested, who appears on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Roberts is the Archeologist, he's to my left. Mr. Seeman is the Environmental Consultant, Mr. Abruzzo is the Surveyor and Engineer from Young and Young, and in the back is Tim Caufield and he's from Peconic Land Trust. These are the people who have gotten together to do this map which we Delieve is a mitigation map actually because it certainly isn't using up all of the property for single family residences. Thank you. Ronrtie Wacker: Good evening. My name is Ronnie Wacker and I'm Co- chairman of the Committee to save Fort Corchaug and I want to address my rema~rks tonight to the DEIS. We are very concerned that this archeological treasure in our own backyard not be lost to future scholars. We also recognize that Bill Baxter has been a patient man to have sat through so many negotiations over what he can do with his property. We owe him a debt of gratitude. He and his family have been guardians of this historic Native American site since~ his father bought it in 1959, and he has left it totally in its original state~, not touching a leaf or'a tree. In fact. Dr. Ralph Solecki, an internationally renowned Archeologist, who by the way comes from Cutclqogue, says it is the best preserved Indian site on the entire Atlantic seacoast. But, it's time now to make hard decisions on how to keep this historic area intact. These decisions must be made very carefully. This subdivision is unlike any other we have ever had to consider in this town. The land underneath it is of more importance than what's above it. And we have an obligation to preserve this evidence of a pre-historic civilization for future scholars. While we try to obtain the best use of this site, without placing an unfair burden, economic burden that is on Bill Baxter, we must also keep in mind that once an archeological site is gone, it is gone forever. That's why we question some of the work presented in the DEIS. Some of the statements we find confusing. For instance, on page 16 of their results, the Greenhouse Southold Town Planning Board 4 March 10, 1997 Consultants say that the Fort Corchaug site is located primarily in the proposed Town Park, in lots 9 and 10. Then on page 18 of their conclusions ana recommendations they say the Fort Corchaug site is located primarily in the Town Park, but probably also in lot 10. They don't include lot 9. Well, which is it - 9 and 10, or just '107 And why is any development proposed for either of the lots if the stated purpose of the DEIS is to "protect the cultural resources of the fort site." Also in their conclusions they locate a pre-historic site, the rail fence well site within lots 2 through 10 and lot 16 of the proposed subdivision. To determine the exact boundaries of this ancient site that may go back as far as 3500 years, they recommend a Phase II Archeological survey. But they didn't do such a survey themselves. They suggest instead that someone else, perhaps the people who buy these lots do it. Can you magine the delight of a new lot owner on finding that in addition to all his closing costs and fees, he has to pay for an archeological survey? Sound a little bizarre? The New York Archeological Council has set guidelines. It's kind of like the ten commandments for archeological consultants in New York State. One of these calls for doing shovel tests every 50 feet. You're required to dig holes 50 feet apart searching for significant material. The Greenhouse Consultants dug their holes I00 feet apart. How much more information might have been unearthed if the testing had followed the official guidelines. Another disturbing aspect of the DEIS is that no shovel tests at all were performed in the area where we believe the mos[ important relics are ikely to be found. This is the creek front. The most attractive property to a new home buyer today, just as it was to Indian settlers thousands of years ago. And finally, the alternatives that they offer to the proposed development are no alternatives at all They advise changing the size and shapes of a few lots within the same parcel, which incidentally is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. That archeological area most in need of preservation. Now, these alternatives offer no change from the original proposal. They simply re-shuffle the same lots around within the same dimensions. What kind of alternative is that? suggest we really must go back to the drawing board. Thank you. Henry Moeller: My name is Henry Moeller and I'm here this evening representing the Suffolk County Archeological Association (SCAA). The SCAA Southold Town Planning Boarcl 5 March 'I0, 4997 wishes to support the acquisition of the entire Fort Corchaug site by the Town and other supplementary agencies and.requests that development of the parcel not take place. The entire peninsula where Fort Corchaug was located was a habitation zone for the native people. The Indian Shores subdivision, particularly the Waterfront area, is a major portion of this peninsula rich in cultural resources. We cannot overemphasize the importance of this evidence of the contact period between the native people and the colonial settlers. The part of the subdivision known as Fort Corchaug is of national as wel as local significance as it is the only undisturbed native fort site in the northeast. Scientific excavation of the fort by Dr. Ralph Solecki and Dr. Lorraine Williams has interpreted less than 10% of the fort site area. Since no evidence of habitation was found within the fort, a living site should be located nearby. Possibly it could be the Baxter site south of the fort which was only minimally tested by the New York State Archeologist Dr. Ritchie, as well as Dr. Carlyle Smith, Dr. Burr Salwen and Dr. Solecki. Possibly it is another site Ralph Solecki feels that there may be also burial sites nearby. The large number of artifacts collected from the site over the years by local people also attests to the extensive native use of the area. Besides the inadequate archeological survey done for the ElS the submitted site plan does not provide an adequate buffer zone, especially to the south and west of the fort. If developed, neighborhood children would soon be exploring and would rapidly destroy the integrity of the sites. Evidence of the mportance of this site is that there are three major archeological reports on the fort site by Dr. Ralph Solecki and Dr. Lorraine Williams will be the centerpiece of volume 8 of a book entitled "The Native and Historic Forts of Long Island" of our series, "Readings in Long Island and A~cheology & Ethnohistory", to be published later this year. We ask that local government protect this jewel of its cultural resources, which if preserved can become an educational and economic resource for the Town. Thank you very much. Bill Peters: My name is William Peters, a resident of Cutchogue. I am a Trustee of the Cutchogue-New Suffolk Historical Council and a member of the Suffolk County Historical Society Board of Directors. I have read the DEIS and am very interested in the protection and preservation of the entire 105.6 acres encompassing the Fort Corchaug site. Southold Town Planning Board 6 Ma~h I0,1997 I understand and appreciate the fact that the Baxter family would like to ensure preservation of the pre-historic heritage of Southold, but they do not want to assume the entire financial burden to assure this. t wish to specifically address Section VI, Part D, titled "Expanded Fort Corchaug Alternatives" in the DEIS. The four options presented therein deal primarily with minor reconfigurations of the lot lines of lot I0, the lot 50 feet from the approximate location of the fort site. These four options are a cosmetic treatment of the fact that the entire 105.6 acres have archeological significance I would like to present for your consideration a fifth option which consists of a north-south building lot swap. This north-south swap will provide a reasonable protection of the most critical areas of the site namely the creek front from the fort to the rail fence wel site. Option 5 proposed involves: The separation of 5 acres of the fort site from the 37.47 northerly parcel (the Town Park). Subdivision of the remaining 32.47 northerly acres into 14 building lots. I'm taking the 37 acres, that's the Town Park, breaking 5 acres of the fort site away from it and having the other 32 acres be divided into 14 building lots. Town purchase of the southerly section consisting of the 12 archeologically sensitive lots and the 5 acre Fort Corchaug site for the S900,000.00. I tested the market value of this option against 1. The market value of the subdivision, as presented in the DEIS The DEIS plan including the Town purchase of 37.47 acres of the 105.6 acres for a Town Park. But suppose the Town didn't buy the 37 acres, now much is the whole thing worth, that's number I And then I cranked in how much the Town would pay for their 37 acres. To establish a basis for comparison I first generated an estimate of what the subdivided property in its entirety would be worth on the open market. I Southold Town Planning Board 7 March 10, '1997 used the Indian Shores subdivision map as presented, assessed values of equivalent properties as give to me by the Board of Assessors and a 2.75% equalization rate. This equated to 2.53 million for the market value of the entire subdivision as presented. I then applied these same factors to the plan presented in the DEIS in which the Town would purchase the 37.47 northerly acres including the Fort Corchaug site for approximately ~;900,000.00. Including this $900,000.00, the value of the properb/then equated to 2.88 million. We've gone from 2.53 to 2.88. The option 5 which recommended studying here priced out competitively to a value of 2.84 million.. Not considered in these cost estimates is the cost of doin[t a Stage II Archeological Survey estimated by Mr. A. Camisa to be in excess of S~2,000.00 for 40 acres of this site. Mr. Camisa was the contract archeologist involved in the original site survey. Option 5 can truly be considered a viable alternative which should be considered. Presented for your consideration are this transcript, the letter from the Board of Assessors, upon which based my estimates, a table presenting the three estimates and a revised subdivision plan I have a number of copies available for people who would like them. John Strong: My name Js John Strong from Southampton College, and I just finished a book on the Algonquin peoples of Long Island as published by (inaudible) University (inaudible) Studies Institute. And 1 want to address a couple of things. First the archeological work, I'd like to ask perhaps a representative here why wasn't...the phase report that's in your DEIS for IA recommends that shovel testing be done at 50 foot intervals, and yet when we come to the IB, also by Greenhouse, the test squares are 100 foot. Why was the decision made to expand it and again as others have pointed out here, this certainly increases the possibility of not finding anything. And also I would express concern that the State II. that was recommended for sites 6 through 10, roughly something like $6,000 per ot if you ask those individuals who you're going to sell it to to pay for the cost, which could be very awkward. It should be done at one time by an Archeologist rather than by six different owners or however that breaks down. It seems a little bit awkward to me. Southold Town Planning Board 8 March '10, 1997 But the other point that's related to that is that the work that has been done in village sites as Ralph Solecki himself indicated, particularly during the late woodland period reveals burials. The late woodland period burials were usually by the villages. You look at the Sebonic site that was excavated by Mark Harrington around the turn of the century, they found several 13urials. The same with Port Washington, so there's a great deal of precedent to suggest that there are undoubtedly going to be some burial sites that will be unearthed in this process. Because we also know from the building patterns that native peoples live primarily along the banks of creeks, particularly where fresh water was flowing into salt water because there are two eco-systems that intersect there and it makes a lucrative place for food resources and so forth. And so we can expect that there will be settlements found along this area. Indeed Ralph Solecki and others have indicated that they were there at the Baxter site as well. So, it seems very likely that if they do a responsible Phase II they will be forced to go to Phase III. Now Phase II, and again if you look at the SEQRA regulations it's quite clear, they figure Phase II is going to cost S32,000. Stage I1 now means that you look at the places where they shovel test is where they found artifacts and they put trenches and test squares in those areas and if they find something they keep following it out. So the stage I could be at some point call for a stage III. Stage III means a complete excavation of the whole site which costs much more than S32,000,00, YOU're talking a great deal of increase in expenses there. Another point again, to come back to the burials, federal law requires that burial sites if they are discovered must involve the living descendants of the native peoples that were being excavated at sites that were being interl:eFed with here, We have considerable evidence that the Montauketts were closely related to the CoFchaugs and moved back and forth - intermarriage - and so think they would meet the federal guidelines in terms of living descendants. This means in effect that they have to be involved with this process, particularly when you begin to dig in these sensitive areas. So it means that the situation is much more complicated than I think some would have them. Another point is that the area on the map that we're talking about here is also the area - I think it was lot 6 through 10 as well as the fort site - that are on the federal registry. The federal government recommended in the national landmarks decision .there that this site should be preserved. We in effect are violating that. So think it's very important to take a close look at all this in terms of all these kinds of possibilities as well. SoUthold Town Planning Board 9 March 10, 1997 And we have here tonight the Chief of the Montauketts, Robert Pharaoh who may want to address the burial issue. Robert Pharaoh: Good evening. My name is Chief Robert Pharaoh of Sag Harbor, Chief of the Montauk nation. From our standpoint, any type of development where there could be the interment of Indian remains, to desecrate a burial site, one thing you have to keep in mind is years ago native people did not necessarily have one specific place to bury the dead. At a similar situation out in Montauk they found numerous burials in very wide spread areas. To find just one grave in an area of this size, you will more than likely find many more. There are certain tribal ceremonies that we hold for burial and on certain sites that have been disturbed either through archeological digs or whatever, we really feel that we should be involved in this type of project. The Montauketts, as Dr. Strong said are related to the Corchaugs. We intermarried (CHANGE TAPE). We just feel that any type of development on a ;)arcel on this is not what we would want to see. That's about it. Ann Lowry: My name is Ann Lowry and I'm speaking for the North Fork Environmental Council While we appreciate all the reasons for preserving the entire site, we are only going :o address some of the environmental aspects that came up in the DEIS. We are concerned primarily with groundwater and surface wa~er, creeks and drinking wa~er, The DEIS makes some assumptions which if the outcomes Of the assumptions were different from what they say, it would have significant effects. For instance, they seem to throughout make the assumption that the agricultural land will be vineyards. This has the effect of providing less nitrogen loading in the ground and also requiring less water for irrigation. I get into nitrogen, and I'll say this right now, that this nitrogen part of the DEIS is very user unfriendly. It gives figures, it doesn't tell what they mean, it doesn't give the significance and it's very hard to make any assessment about, in very specifics how much ~s acceptable or 13etter or worse. However, we know that less in general is better. The DEIS also speaks of conservation measures and seems to make the assumption how the less use of water, the conservation of water, is going to happen. It states for instance that the impacts to goundwater quantities from the proposed action are assessed to ~)e acce ;)table providing that the recommendations outlined in the North (inaudible) Water Supply Plan and voluntary efforts to conserve water are met. Using the word voluntary seems a little chancy to us and particularly in a sensitive area like this. Southold Town Planning Board '10 March '10, '1997 The DEIS takes pains to point out that a marine surface water system is not very sensitive to changes in groundwater quality. That is if that I~ecame contaminated it wouldn't affect the creek very much. Groundwater quality does not in fact significantly alter marine surface water systems. The findings of the DEIS later state that reducing groundwater contamination will reduce the projects impacts to Down's Creek. Finally, if the vineyard scenario and the conservation easements on the Peconic Land Trust do not materialize, these agricultural parcels could eventually be developed themselves. There are some problems with the mitigation measures. For one thing in the residential, the to be residential parcel, the 75 foot setback is given as a mitigation measure. How can that be a mitigation measure when it's required legally. It does also address that the 100 foot setback as compared to the 75, that will be a voluntary choice, does not result in an obvious or greater benefit while further on in the same paragraph in the DEIS the following statement appears: "it is impossible to qualify or quantify the benefit". If it's impossible to evaluate the benefit of a 100 foot setback, then how can the DEIS state that it would not result in a greater benefit. The question of the impact of a Town Park is somewhat confusing also. There is an area in the DEIS that talks about a common ownership of parcel 5 through I0 and talking about the potential for development of a trail or boardwalk as an extension of a trail system. And the DEIS says that this would in all probability have quite an unfortunate impact on the creek. However, in the Town parcel where there would be possibly upset with terrestrial wildlife and everything there are several statements made regarding the probability...l'm sorry, I'm reading the wrong part. There is no addressing that same issue in the Town parcel, that is if there were to be visitors and if there were to be trails and boardwalks it simply isn't addressed as to whether that would impact the creek or not on the Town parcel. So you have to wonder why it is on the private property to be (inaudible) and I think we all know why. The sanitary systems, it says that the soils at the site appear to be acceptable for sanitary disposal purposes. When will that determination be made? One would hope that that would be pretty clear before any digging started. There is something to be considered also that there is a golf course on the east side of the creek. Now presumably, I think it's stated in the DEIS that that does not have an unfortunate impact at this time, on the creek. I don't Southold Town Planning Board 11 Ma~h 10, 1997 know the practices of that golf course, but I wonder about the cumulative impact of homes on the other side, the west side of the creek. And if we can really count on education and voluntary efforts to be ecologically aware of what they put on the lawns ancl all that sort of thing. I guess that's all David Martine: I'd like to ask Dr. John Strong to turn the machine on. Could he put on the slide just for a few moments please? My name is David Martine and I'm from the Shinnecock Reservation in Southampton. I was going to bring a painting this evening but I wasn't able to buy it to bring it. So, I brought the slide because I wanted to give everyone an impression as to what the site with the fort on it could have looked like about 300 and some years ago. As you can see, it's a double palisaded structure and it was made of young trees that would have been placed in the ground, side by side, close enough so that you couldn't get through it and it was a place of refuge as well as a ceremonial center and it was also a place perhaps where wampum was manufactured. And those of you may not know that wampum had a lot of spiritual significance to it. It wasn't just Indian money as they talk about in schools but it had a great deal of religious significance to it. Also the land adjacent to the fort, probably there were villages there and quite correctly was stated there probably are burials there and so forth. So wanted to give you all an impression of what the fort would have looked like. It's' used as a ceremonial center. We also have a detail of it. Here's somewhat more of a detail. You can see the ceremonial dance taking place. Those of you who are interested can see this at White Farm Park in Commack and this is a museum that's being operated by the Suffolk County Archeological Association. So, it was a protective enclosure for my ancestors who lived in this area. And of course it's not just the fort we're talking about, it's the adjacent areas as well. I'm concerned that the parties involved in the siting of'this position of this archeological site be made aware that if the proposed area for preservation was not enlarged, is destroyed or altered, then part of my heritage, and the heritage of all Native Americans of Long Island and in fact a significant piece of the heritage of this country will be destroyed forever. And I think Native Americans have lost quite enough of their heritage already. We've already lost all of Long Island for which we were never compensated. And now the most visible evidence of that which remains seems to be unfortunately a few scattered archeological sites which are still being found $outhold Town Planning Board 12 March 10, Ig97 here and there, n Southampton a few years ago, I'm trying to put this into perspective a little bit, we lost an ancient sacred burial site located on Sugar Loaf Hill to a developer who was not concerned with the spiritual, cultural or even scientific issues involved, with destroying forever that which is irreplaceable. Now, I'm saddened that something of a similar nature is occurnng again to a place of a similar magnitude. Chief Pharaoh mentioned a little while ago about a situation in Montauk Point in which graves were located in a place that was up for development. On that particular occasion there was supposedly archeological work done. This is another situation where they went every 100 feet, 50 feet or whatever and that was claimed to be an adequate study done for archeological purposes, and it isn't. In my opinion it isn't because it was proven so by another archeologist that came in with the best scientific techniques available and was proven that you just can't fool yourselves into thinking that by doing these little spot checks that you're finding something that may be there because it's not true. So my concern again is that burials could be discovered in these areas that have not been studied properly, or not been studied thoroughly. To go back to the Sugar Loaf Hill thing, I was going to make mention that unfortunately the guy that built the house there, he leveled 20 feet off the top of the sacred site. And there were religious principals involved, religious freedom issues. It was Kind of swept under the carpet and it wasn't discussed that much. Also there's a situation by a hotel on the south fork at which a camp site was also discovered. Things were stopped at that site because they didn't want to get into the idea of trying to deal with where the burials were discovered. in that situation we proposed some steps that the Town Planning Board could take, if they found things that were located in the area that was of a sensitive nature, whether they be grave goods, burial remains or associated grave goods or ceremonial items. So there is, at least in the Town of Southampton, in place a series of steps that can be taken if things of a sensitive nature are discovered I would recommend that you get a hold of those items because they're still in place and of course that was after the fact of losing this one particular site, but at least if subsequent sites are discovered then these stipulations can be followed and the local Native American population can be made aware and be part of the process because I think that's very important. Lots of times history, especially in the archeological area or the museum area, Native Americans have been considered somewhat less than human. We've Southold Town Planning Board March 10, 1997 supposedly been specimens that could be studied under the microscope or could be exhibited, but we're still around today. We sti have a right to be consulted. This is a part of our heritage as well. So the spiritual nature of places is an important thing to consider. All religions, cultures and peoples involved in special places and certain places not in others. That's why the importance of place is very important in this issue. My ancestors were related to the people who built the structures which existed on this site. This place was of singular importance It was a place of refuge, a place of creative expression and a place of ceremonial importance. It was active at the contact period of civilization. This is when the Europeans first came here and started to build their little towns and they started applying all this pressure in order to develop all this inter-tribal conflict and so my people found it necessary, or the Native American people of this area, found it necessary to construct something to protect themselves because they were not inherently warlike or aggressive so they were forced to build this structure. So I am concerned that this place be preserved to its fullest extent possible and it should be venerated even because it is of a singular importance. I ask that you do not permit this site to be destroyed or compromised in any way. Do not allow what happened in Southampton to be repeated here in SOuthold. Please put your heads together and piece together a strategy that will spare this area from disturbance at the widest possible perimeter. Show that you have respect for peoples heritage that is not really your own. Can you withstand the pressure to do otherwise? Let Southold set an example as a place which will stand up for the preservation for generations to come of a place which brings to mind for today's society the significance of a deep past, the past which speaks to us of the men, women and children who laughed and lived and died nght here, generations before the first Englishman Set foot on this portion of Mother Earth. Deb Winsor: My name is Deb Winsor. I'm here representing the Southold Town Landmark Preservation Commission. The Landmark Preservation Commission was created for the purpose of conserving, protecting and perpetuating historic landmarks and districts in accordance with Chapter 56 of the Southold Town Code. I'd first like to say that very much appreciate that representatives of the Native American community made it here this evening to speak for the Corchaug community which unfortunately disappeared qdietly and quickly around 1658 from diseases that were brought by the colonists. In lieu of no direct Corchaug descendants, again I Southold Town Planning Board 14 very much appreciate your being here tonight. Ma~h 10,1997 Before I get into a preliminary response, the Southold Landmark Preservation Commission would like to tonight present our preliminary response to the DEIS that's been submitted. I would like to offer a copy of a letter that you have on file. It was sent to the Planning Board on July 27, 1996. I brought it sort of accidentally. It does build on the concerns that the Native American community have about burial sites in the vicinity of the fort. Again, we re- state that the fort was from what we Know of forts of the contact period, it was a refuge, not a residence. And it's ~mportant to make note of that because the applicant has gone to great lengths to accommodate the fort site in the plan that you have before you. However, it does not accommodate consideration for the area around the fort site, especially between the well to the south of it and the fort. That's why that area was included in the National Register designation as a historic site. Preliminary to that though I would like to just offer this letter to the Board from Dr. Solecki, and I'1 read just one sentence out of it. The former owner of the property, Mr. Downs told me in the 1930's, his thesis was written in 1949, that they had found an Indian burial near the junction of his farm road and the Peconic Bay Blvd. south of the fort site. It is quite likely that other burials may be found at that area or elsewhere on the property. Future work at Corchaug would involve additional investigations on the Palisade perimeter ~n order to obtain a fuller assessment of the fortification than I have been able to present, which he later presented in his thesis. I think the paintings were wondeFful It would be great if we could actually begin to, by archeological evidence, support the paintings that we've seen tonight. Again, these are renderings based on conjecture. We'd like to see what was there and what was going on. We'll offer a copy of this, and I have copies of this for the Board. It is in your files, it was sent to you last summer. Additionally for all of you who haven't had a chance to do a little fun reading, this is the bulletin of the Archeological Society of Connecticut, No. 24 published June 1950. UnfOrtunately, this is the primary document that we can base most of our comment on tonight. It's Dr. Solecki's thesis which everyone hears a lot about. It was his masters thesis that he did, the title of which is The Archeological Position of Historic Fort Corchaug and it's relation to contemporary forts. You can all sort of wade through it at your convenience. It does mention a few precedents that I think are worth mentioning and were mentioned by representatives of the Native American tribes this evening. The first is that in 1949, I read, the Manhasset Fort located somewhere on Sachem's Neck on the south side of Shelter Island at that time the site had Southold Town Planning Board 15 March 10, 1997 not been found or known The Shinnecock Fort in a surface survey of the region, 1946 investigated a hilltop and, I read, unfortunately there is a large dwelling on the hill at present, a construction of which has apparently obliterated all surface of aboriginal evidence. The Montauk Fort, writing in 1841 a Mr. Tooker found the outline of a perfect square of 180 feet. And then I read again in 1949, at present there is no trace of the fort. There is a large hotel situated where it had been. No evidence could be.found nearby in a short survey by the author. This is writing in 1947. Again, we have a precedent in this area of disrespecting these finds. So as I introduce our preliminary response to this, I'd like the Board and the community to just remember that it would be nice if we could set a standard and a precedent with this site which would serve actually to be a precedent on the eastern seaboard. This is a pristine opportunity. (CHANGE TAPE) The first concern that We have is that the proposed subdivision shall compromise the New York State and Federal designations~ of portions of the parcel as historic sites As such, the applicant does not address the following consequences. Again, the nationa register designation as a historic site extends from the fort going south through severa of the proposed lots. If as delineated in this those parcels are sold perhaps one to the Town, but the other to private residences, if a National Register site is broken up like that, it's our understanding the National Register designation is either canceled or there's a lot of work that has to go into redesignating the individual sites by the owners. If the current designated area is divided into separate ownersh p modified by earth moving equipment or otherwise disturbed prior to completion of archeological assessment, the National Register design ation may be canceled. If that's not true, it has not been clarified to the opposite by the applicant the expectation of the proposed lots would be 'ndividually redesignated as very Iow; Again, that could and should be addressed in the DEIS. So long as the property is held privately as parcels or as a whole, the cultural resource recovery is not eligible for public grants. If the National Register listing is lifted the property's eligibility for grants and funding is compromised, especially g rants and funding that target 13rojects that forward the recovery preservation and exhibit of artifacts that further our understanding of the cultural history of Native Americans. The second point that is of concern to us is that the DEIS is ambiguous as to Southold Town Planning Board 16 March 10, 1997 how the applicant proposes to implement the conclusions from the Stage I archeological research. The Stage I research concludes and their own consultant concludes that the property merits a Stage II survey. The archeological work should be completed prior to approval of the proposed subdivision as opposed to prior to developed as its worded in the DEIS. Implied in a Stage II survey is a requirement for uniformity of work and competent professional methodology and review. The DEIS suggests, and it's not exactly clear that it's being suggested, I might be misreading it, that the responsibility for a Stage II archeological research will be transferred to the new owners conveyed by some sort of covenant. The DEIS does not address how the proposed covenants will be enforced nor who will be the monitoring agent. The Town by accepting the current proposa as it's drafted now, of partition prior to exploration and research will thereby become the agency responsible for the proper conduct of cultural assessment. Is the Town qualified and prepared to assume fiscal and professional responsibility for archeological review. Again, there may be a different intent but it's not clarified in the DEIS. The applicant should clarify who will be responsible for covering the costs and defining and enforcing standards if the archeological review is to be conducted by disparate owners. The DEIS should specify a time period for archeological review as there is no representation as to when the last parcel may be conveyed. And again, I underscore what Dr. Strong spoke of earlier that the research on this site, the very nominal research that's been done considering the significance of it has been episodic. There has not been a continuum of research building upon research. It's been masters thesis aside masters thesis. The Phase IA and IB hasn't necessarily built on that. It was just an assessment of potential. The DEIS does not present viable alternative plans for the site as outlined in SEQRA. An alternative should be presented with consideration given to National Register delineation of cultural resources. There were alternatives given. One was a 42 lot plan. We have already visited that and found it not acceptable. And the other is no action at all. The DEIS extends responsibilities for currently uncontracted owners parcels. The DEIS makes several references to future contracts for ownership and or stewardship with Southold Town, Suffolk County and the Peconic Land Trust. We support those efforts, can't understate enough. We support those efforts but for the purposes of the application before you, the DEIS should Southold Town Planning Board 17 March 10, 1997 ClaFify what wi happen ii: these contracts are not executed. That's our preliminary response'to the DEIS that you have before you presents a final review later during the public comment period for this project. Walter Smith: I'm Walter Smith. I'm President ot: the Indian Museum. About 10 years ago I started to sit in these meetings to save Fort Corchaug. Fort Corchaug is something that must 0e saved. It isn't something that we should argue about. It's perhaps the most important archeological site on the east coast at present. Each time we get to a stage where we're going to get somewhere, some politica maneuver fouls it up. Now I don't know where we sit on this one but looking at the map as it's laid out, I can't see how we can protect the i:oFc site from pot hunters and other people who are going to go in and destroy what's there. Because the one site is so close, they'll go right across the fence with a rake and get things out. So this is the thing we have to consider. The best thing we can do is perhaps save the entire site, but where's the money going to come from for doing that, that I don't know. But I think the Town and the County and perhaps the State should all get involved to get the money to save the site because it is of great importance. A lot of material from that site has passed through the Indian Museum as it was excavated, Lorraine Williams, Dr. Solecki and others, and then all gone out of town. I think we have three artifacts from Fort Corchaug (inaudible), that's it. All the rest are scattered, they're at Yale, they're at the Smithsonian, at the Hide Foundation and a lot of basements and on a lot of shelves in the area and in other areas. So one of the major things is to preserve the site. And it's going to be up to the people, the Town, the State, to figure out how to 'save the whole site. Now, the Indian Museum had a similar situation in upstate New York with a flint mine. No one wanted to take it on. We owned a small piece of it. So we put our own money up and we now control the entire flint mine. And that site is of very great importance to the Native Americans living in the middle of New York State and it's preserved and it's preserved forever. And this is what we have to think about doing. Maybe we have to start some private fundraising, I don't Know. But I know the site must be preserved and there's no argument about that. And if we try this piecemeal thing, it's just going to destroy it the same as Fort Massapequa was destroyed, the Orient Focus on Sugar Loaf in Southampton was destroyed and the Orient Focus on Brown's Hill was destroyed primarily because of shortsightedness. But I think we have to, somehow or other, come up with the money to Southold Town Planning Board 18 March '10, 1997 preserve this site. I look in our governor's new budget with how we're spending the environmental money. I think most of it has gone to the other part of Suffolk County. Very little has come here. Somehow or other we were hornswoggled out of that money. So someway or other it's going to be absolutely necessary for the politicians and the other people in town to figure out how to raise the money. I don't think we should figure out new plans or new ideas. Let's get down to the nitty gritty which is the money. I've got to give Mr. Baxter a lot of credit for being a tremendously patient man. Because this thing has gone on for as far as I know about ten years, I remember by County Boards. Another thing that's happening there at the Baxter site which was at the end is now under water, at every high tide. What is happening, we are getting sea level rise and no matter how you want to argue about it, it's there. I've lived here for many many years and I can see the evidence of it, and that's going to ~ave an impact So al these things adding up means we must act and we have to act now in order to preserve the fort and to prevent any further looting of that area. I thank you very much. Cliff Benfield: My name ~s Cliff Benfield and I'm Chairman of the Southold Landmark Preservation Commission. And I want to thank Debbie Winsor for the job she did. I don't want to repeat much that she had said or others have said. The Landmark Commission wrote a letter to the Board members August 15 stating our position and it hasn't changed. We would be remiss in our responsibilities as working for the Town...the Town recognizes a landmark as any place or site which has i~istorical value, aesthetic interest by reason of its antiquity or as a part of development heritage or cultural characteristics of the town, country or nation. In other words, we are committed to protect landmarks that have been designated at every level of government. In Southold, our code provides that we can only encou rage preservation of landmarks through education and to promote and encourage historical awareness and judicious concern for designated landmarks. And that is what we are trying to do. As designated as a landmark, 25 acres are included in that square that is the national site of the 106 acres. Of that 25 acres less than 20% nas been allotted to a Town Park and contains the footprint of the fort which is very nice that we could have a footprint of the fort in a Town Park. However, you have the other 80% of a national landmark destroyed if this plan goes through. Steve Wick gave a talk at the historical society yesterday which is very interesting and I know that wampum has religious significance but we all Southold Town Planning Board 19 March 10, 1997 know wampum has other significance too. The site at Fort Corchaug by Dr. Solecki was sited as one of the earliest mints in North America And they manufactured wampum as Steve Wick said yesterday, the wampum of Corchaug bought the beaver fur for the Dutch and for the English that made New York State and developed our country. So we owe a lot to that little site. It ~s important to our country and it is significant. I think that you can probably hear a lot of people say the same thing and as far as what Walter has said about finding ways and means to preserve the land. I think we should do everything we can to do that. And I think there are public funds and private funds that could be available if someone had leadership on it and I believe the Town, or the people should be responsible for that leadership The significance of the report itself I think has been brought out by many people and it does have some deficiencies as far as I'm concerned. No where in this DEIS does it show the coordinates on a map that show where the actua shovel digs were made and that is usually standard in such a preparation of document. There is either intentionally or sins of omission or comission, but on the map where the digs were made according to the notes of the archeologists themselves they did not indicate the dates where it was indicated they had found material. So, by looking at the map and the filled in holes on the map it is deceptive. As I say, probably unintentional, but nevertheless this is an mperfect document. And what I think is important as has been proven on the south fork is that when something happens like this and the Town goes ahead with it, they become liable from any group that wishes to sue and pursue test 2 and 3 And that becomes very very expensive and I think the Town should probably consider that there's a confl [ct of interest with a rcheologists that work for developers and the Town itself may well consider having an independent archeologist of their own to monitor what is done by archeologists for developers and that might be a practice that would be well advised for the rest of our history. Thank you very much. Rob White: Good evening. My name is Rob White. I didn't have any intention of speaking here tonight. I come as a private citizen. I'm quite concerned about this issue. I was trained at Cornell University as a landscape architect and land planner. I graduated back in the late 60's and I worked for a fellow who taught me a hell of a lot more than Cornell University ever could nave. One of the things that was his mainstays was that change is inevitable. Southold Town Planning Board 20 March 10,1997 Change is always going to happen. Its now we manage that change that matters Another thing that this fellow always had, was something in his refrigerator called forever soup. And what he and his wife would do was they'd have dinner every night and no matter what it was, whether it was pork or chicken or whatever and they'd get done and whatever was left over went into this big pot in the refrigerator and each day they would put different spices in of this, that and the other thing and keep this thing going and they always had forever soup. You're probably trying to figure out what that has to do with what we're talking about here. I consider what we're talking about here, forever soup. The North Fork is changing. It has changed tremendously in the 25 years I've been here. My family grew up here. I myself have been here for 25 years and I've seen a tremendous amount of change. What we have to do I think is maintain some flavor in that forever sou p that is the North Fork. 100 acres of one of the most important archeological sites that this area has to offer is not, I think, too much to ask for us to do our utmost to maintain as flavor for this forever soup that is the North Fork. The Baxters have been absolutely wonderful in trying to help and work with the Town in making sure, or doing what they can to make this happen and I would just ask that we keep in mind that these treasures, little by little by little, not for now but for tomorrow, for 10 years from now, for 20 years from now that we still have this forever soup going with a lot of flavor to it. Did I make my point? Elizabeth Hale: Good evening. My name is Elizabeth Hale.' I'm ~rom the Shinnecock Indian Reservation and I'd like to bring greetings from Shinnecock Nation Cultural Center and Museum, We wanted to be sure that you knew that native people, descendants of all those 13 tribes are here. Mr. David Martine whose paintings you saw is alsoon our Board. Marjorie Martinez is here today and Chief Bob Pharaoh, and we are just ~ few who are saying remember the past and from where all of us came. OUr people are watching how things come and how they are handled in, these days and I think that many contributions that we have made in the past have been appreciated but have been forgotten and we don't want you to forget us, We are standing right here watching now Fort Corchaug is handled I also belong to the New York State Museum at Albany Education Committee on Down State which is a new exhibit which is being opened during the 1990's and to the year 2000 we will see a full exhibit of New York State history. I would hope that this piece would be highly recommended there. Dr. George Hamil is the director there and he is the president of the Re- patriation Committee, national. And we don't want to get the Re-Patriation Southold Town Planning Board 21 Ma~h 10,1gg7 Committee upset around here. We have a lot of things that we want to contribute and so that our descendants, your children and mine will know much more about our history and treasure it as we all do. Thank you Robert Pharaoh: I'd just like to formerly request on behalf of the Montauk Nation that the Town of Southold keep us informed on the developments and this property, because it is very important to us. Mr. Orlowski: OK. Speaking for the Board I'd like to thank you all very much for coming out tonight. It was a very good hearing. I thank you for your comments, for your questions. Tonight we will end this public hearing and that the comment period will stay open until March 20. So between now and then if you have any other comments, anything you'd like to get to the Board that we could review before we pass it on to the applicant, we would appreciate it. Any questions from the Board? Mr. Ward: I'd just like to thank you all for coming and I'd just like to see by a raise of hands of how many would like to see the whole fort preserved, the whole site. OK, it's everybody in this room. Basically, I'd like you to ask since this is the first time that I've seen a group together of everybody that's pro save the entire site, is that I'd like to make an appeal to you to do some homework. One would be to write to Suffolk County. The Town already has committed up to a million dollars to help purchase this property. Let me tell you that this Planning Board and your Town Board is actively pursuing the County and the State to get some money to help pull this off. But hearing from a few politicians and Planning Board members is not enough. What we need for you to do is to write to Bob Oaffney, Suffolk County Executive, cc: Michael Frank who is the Commissioner of ParKs and Recreation, cc: Stephen Jones who is the Commissioner of Planning. The State has come through with S200,000.O0 to this project from the 1993 bond issue which.was an Enwronmental Bond Act. I personally made a trip to Albany to talk 'to Winthrop Aldrich who is the head of the Environmental Protection Historic Preservation for the State, Deputy Commissioner and their attitude right now is, they don't know what's happening with the bond issue money for 1996. We al voted for that bond issue. We need you to write to Governor Pataki. We need you to write to Bernadette Castro, Commissioner of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. And her Deputy who is Wint Aldrich in Albany. If you need help on those names, the Planning office will help you. Please everyone that's i~ere tonight, write those letters and let's have our voice heard. There's no reason that we can't Southoid Town Planning Board 22 March 10, 1997 get additional funds. Mr. Orlowski: Anyone else nave a comment? Mr. Edwards: You might even go a little further to the federal end of it because it ~s a national site, part of it and if we can get the word out some of the federal people might help. Mr. Ward: Believe me, they'll listen to this group better than they will us, so please help us out. Mr. Orlowski: Now that we've given everybody all that homework, I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Cremers: So moved. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. Hearings Held Over From Previous Meetings: Mr. Orlowski: Estate of Andrew Cassidy - Section I - This major subdivision is for 5 lots on 58 acres. Lot #I is a non-buildable wetland area of 25.24 acres; Lot #2 is a 52.98 acre area on which the development rights have been sold and lot #5 is an 80,000 square foot residential lot. The parcel is located on the south side of Albertson's Lane in 0reenport. Section I is for 2 lots; a 25.24 acre non-buildable wetland lot and a 34.8258 acre lot of which the development rights have been sold on 52.98 acres. SCTM# 1000-52-5-59.6. Mr. Cremers: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer the following resolution. Be it resolved that the Southold Town Planning Board hold the hearing open pending receipt of the final maps with Health Department approval. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Mr, Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? Soul:hold Town Planning Board 23 All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried March 10, 1997 MAJOR AND MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, LOT LINE CHANGES AND SET OFF APPLICATIONS Setting of Final Hearings: Mr. Orlowski: Ann Marie Nelson - This minor subdivision is for 4 lots on 12.1 acres located on the west side of North St. in Greenport. SCTM# 1000-45-6- 9 Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer the following resolution. Be it resolved that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, March 3~, ~ 997 at 7:35 p.m. for a final public hearing on the maps dated August 26, 1996. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. M'r. Orlowski: Walter Oaipa - This lot line change is to subtract 0.59 acres from a 16.16 acre parcel and to add it to a 0.358 acre parcel. SCTM# 1000- 31-2-22.1 & 32.2. Mr. Cremers: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer the following resolution Be it resolved that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, establishes itself as lead agency, and as lead agency makes a determination of non-significance, and grants a Negative Declaration. Southold Town Planning Board 24 Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded All those in favor? March 10, ']997 Any questions on the motion? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. Mr. Cremers: Be it further resolved that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, March 31, 1997 at 7:40 p.m. for a final public hearing on the maps dated March 3, 1997. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. Setting of Preliminary Hearings: Mr. Orlowski: Perino, Connelly and Nastasi - This major subdivision is for 7 lots on 20.8211 acres located on the south side of Main Road in Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-7-9 Mr. Cremers: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer the following resolution. Be it resolved that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, March 31, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. for a preliminary public hearing on the maps dated February 10, 1997. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. Southold Town Planning Board 25 March 10, 1997 Bond Determinations: Mr. Orlowskh An.qel Shores - This approved major subdivision is for 49 lots on 92.74 acres located off Main Bayview Rd. in Southold. SCTM# I000-88-6-1, 4 &5. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to entertain the following resolution. Be it resolved that the Planning Board recommend to the Town Board that the performance bond in the amount of $20,000.00 for the Angel Shores subdivision be released All improvements have been completed in a satisfactory manner. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowskh Opposed? Motion carried. SkeLch ExLensions: Mr. Orlowski: Russell Pellicano - This m~nor subdivision is for 4 lots on fl 8.54 acres on the south side of North Bayview Rd in Southold. SCTM# 1000-79- 8-13. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer the following resolution. Be it resolved that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a six month extension of sketch approval from January 29, 1997 to July 29, 1997. Conditional sketch approval was granted on January 29, 1996. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those ~n favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? $o ordered. Southold Town Planning Board 26 March 10, 1997 MAJOR AND MINOR SUBDIVISIONS. LOT LINE CHANGES. SET OFF APPLICATIONS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT SITE PLANS Final Determinations: Mr. 0rlowski: Stron.q's Marina - This site plan is for the construction of a 5,3:56 square foot sales office and shop; 2,400 square foot show room and a 2,22:5 square foot boat storage rack, located at Camp Mineola Rd. in Mattituck. SCTM# '1000-'122-4-44.2 and '122-9-:5 & 6.'1. We've kept the hearing open and first I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Cremers: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer the following resolution. Whereas, Jeffrey L. Strong is the owner of the property known and designated as Strong's Marina, located on Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, SCTM# I000- 122-4-44.2 & '122-9-:5 & 6.1; and WHEREAS, a formal application for the approval of this site plan was submitted on April 10, '1996; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8), Part 617, declared itself lead agency and issued a Negative Declaration on September 30, 1996; and WHEREAS, this site plan was certified by Gary Fish, Building Inspector, on March 7, 1997; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore Soul:hold Town Planning Board 27 March 10, 1997 RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board approve and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final survey dated December 12, 1996, subject to a one year review from date of building permit. (Chairman endorsed surveys,) Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those ~n favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. Request for Site Plan: Mr. Orlowski: Hardy Plumbin,ct and Heatin,q - This proposed site plan is for additional parking area, transition buffer, signage, and landscaping on a 21,906 square foot site located on Rt. 25 in Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-114-11- 5. Mr. Cremers: Mr. Chairman, I'll offer the following resolution Whereas, the Southold Town Planning Board granted a waiver of site plan requirements to Angelo Toscano, owner of Mattituck Pizza, tenant of Joseph and Betty Hardy, for an expansion of restaurant dining area, on February 6, 1996; and WHEREAS, the conditions of this waiver were: Installation of rear parking area, placement of two information signs directing customers to the rear parking area and the provision for a rear entrance for customer access to the restaurant; and WHEREAS, the two information signs directing customers to the rear parking area have not been placed; and WHEREAS, the rear customer entrance has not been properly lighted and cleared of debris and is not used by the public due to the poor conditions existing at this ocation; be it therefore RESOLVED, to withdraw the waiver of the site plan; and be it further resolved that Southold Town Planning Board 28 March ']0, 1997 WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the body charged by law with requiring, reviewing and approving site plans; and WHEREAS, Article XXV, Section 250 of the Southold Town Zoning Code grants the Planning Board the authority to require site plan approval when there is any change of use or intensity of use which will affect the characteristics of the site in terms of parking, access, drainage, open space or utilities; and WHEREAS, a site plan application was requested by the Planning Board and a site plan was filed on June 23, 1988 by Hardy Plumbing for additional on site parking, transition buffer, signs and other site plan elements; and WHEREAS, this application has not been diligently pursued for the past seven years. The Planning Board has written nine letters requesting that the site plan be completed, and to date has not received a response; and WHEREAS, that the original reasons for requesting a site plan such as parking calculations and paved parking I~ehind rear storage building, landscaped i3uffer area between the Hamlet Business zone and the Residential zone to the south, signs showing customer parking in the rear including a nandica pped parking space still exist; and WHEREAS, due to the passage of time and change of use at the site, the 1988 site plan application is rejected as untimely, null and void; be it therefore RESOLVED, that a new site plan is requJreC for the commercial uses at this site. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion Mr. Ortowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowsld, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. SITE PLANS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Lead Agency Coordination: Southold Town Planning Board 29 March 10, 1997 Mr. Orlowski: Jimbo Realty Corp. - This proposed site plan is for a 34,200 square foot self service dry storage building, a 1,750 square foot residence, and a 1,575 square foot office building on a 2.9 acre site located on Middle Road in Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-4-8 & 9. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Southold Town Planning Board start the coordination process on this unlisted action. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. APPROVAL OF PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Mr. 0rlowski: Board to approve the February I0, 1997 minutes. Mr. Edwards: So moved. Mr. Cremers: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowsld: Opposed? So ordered Mr. Orlowski: There's nothing left on this agenda. Does anyone have any comments they'd like to put on the public record? OK, we're going to adjourn to a work session and we can talk about anything there. Mr. Ward: I make a motion to adjourn. Southold Town Planning Board 30 March 10, 'i997 Mr. Cremers: Second Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowsld: Opposed? Motion carried. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted,