Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-11/24/1997PLANNING BOARD MEMBEH~q BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. I~ICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES November 24. '1997 Present were: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Richard O. Ward G. Ritchie Latham Kenneth Edwards William Gremers Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Melissa Spiro, Planner Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer Martha Jones, Secretary Mr. Orlowskh Good evening. I'd like to call this meeting to order. The first order of business, Board to set Monday, December 15, 1997 at 6:00 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. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. Hearings Held Over From Previous Meetings: Mr. Orlowski: BrOadwaters Cove - This site plan is for the expansion of a concrete block tool shed at an existing marina located on Skunk Lane (Bay Ave.) in Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104,8-2.5. Southold Town Planning Board 2 November 24, 1997 Mr. Cremers: Mr. Chairman, I'll offer the following resolution. Be it resolved that the Southold Town Planning Board hold the hearing open pending a cope interpretation by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion, we're still holding this hearing open? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ware, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried MAJOR AND MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, LOT LINE CHANGES AND SET OFF APPLICATIONS Preliminary Extensions: Mr. Orlowski: Wildberry Fields - This proposed major subdivision is for 10 ors on 22.3886 acres located on the south side of Sound View Ave.; 28g feet west of Clark Road and the north side of C.R. 48; 320 feet west of Clark Road, in Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-3-12.2 7 12.4. Mr. Latham: Mr. Chairman, I'll offer this. Be it resolved that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a retroactive extension of preliminary approval to expire on April 10, 1998. Preliminary approval was granted on April 10, 1995 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. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. Mr. Orlowski: Rockcove Estates - This proposed major subdivision is for 23 lots on 28.315 acres located on the south side of Middle Road (C.R. 48); approximately 500 feet west of McCann Lane, n Greenport. SCTM# ~ 000- 33-3-19. Southold Town Piadning Board 3 November 24, 1997 Mr. Cremers: Mr. Chairman, I'll offer the following resolution. Be it resolved that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a six month extension of preliminary approval from October 2, 1997 to April 2, 1998. Preliminary approval was granted on October 2, 1995. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. Sketch Extensions: Mr. Orlowski: - William J. Baxter - This minor subdivision is for 4 lots on 2.78 acres located on the northeast side of Griffing St. and the southeast side of Schoolhouse Rd. in Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-102-5-9.3. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer the following resolution. Be it resolved that the Southold Town Planning Board grant an additional six month extension of sketch approval from November 16, 1997 to May 16, 1998. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconaed. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. SITE PLANS Waivers: Southold Town Planning Board 4 November 24, '1997 Mr. Orlowski: Douglas Murphy - This proposed waiver of site plan is for a retail ice cream establishment, in an existing building on Main Rd, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-7-I. Mr. Cremers: Mr. Chairman, I'll offer the following resolution WHEREAS, Douglas Murphy is the lease holder of the property known and designated as SCTM# 1000-70-7-I located at 49295 Main Rd. in Southold, and; WHEREAS, a retail store is a permitted use in this Genera Business (B) zone., and WHEREAS, an examination has been made of all uses and the existing parking was determined to ~)e adequate for all uses; and WHEREAS, the proposed change from a former use as an ice cream store will not be a more intensive use of this property; and WHEREAS, any violation of the conditions of this resolution may be grounds for rescinding this waiver; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a waiver of site plan requirements. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr Orlowskh Motion made and seconded Any questions on the motion? Al those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Odowski: Opposed? Motion carried. Review of Reports: Mr. Orlowski: Peconic Landing at Southold, Inc. -This application is to amend an approvec~ site plan for construction of 118 single family detached cottages; 132 apartment units; 24 unit assisted living center; and 32 bed skilled care center with supporting amenities. SCTM# I000-35-1-25. Southold Town Planning Board 5 November 24, 1997 Mr. Cremers: Mr. Chairman, i'll offer the following resolution Be it resolved that the Southold Town Planning Board accept the report of it's environmental consultant, Charles Voorhis, dated November 14, 1997 Mr. Edwards: Second the motion Mr. Odowskh Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward~ Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried SITE PLANS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Draft Environmental Impact Status: Mr. Orlowski: Cross Sound Ferry - This proposed site plan is to add additional parking to a previously approved ferry terminal on Rt. 25 in Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-10.1, 11.1, 15.1 & 3.5. At this time I'd like to make a motion. WHEREAS, this Board on July 14, 1995 determined that the applicant, Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. was required to seek revised site plan review for its ferry termina operation at Orient; and WHEREAS, an action was commenced to enforce this Board's resolution to such effect., and WHEREAS, the applicant, upon direction of the Court and this Board, prepared and filed a site plan on April 11, 1996 which was deemed incomplete in that, among other things, the applicant had not included the entire site in its site plan; and WHEREAS, this Board required that the applicant submit a site plan encompassing the entire ferry terminal site; and WHEREAS, the applicant thereupon represented to the Court and this Board that "an all-encompassing site plan" would be prepared and submitted on July 29, 1996; and did submit such a site plan on July 29, 1996; and WHEREAS, upon the submission of said comprehensive site plan this Board Southold Town Planning Board 6 November 24, 1997 commenced the SEQRA review process, determined that this was a Type I action, issUed a Positive Declaration, and ultimately adopted a Scope Outline on the 16th day of December, 1996; and WHEREAS, applicant has submitted a Draft Environmental Impact Statement purporting to be in compliance with the Scope Outline; and WHEREAS, this Board and its environmental consultants have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Cross Sound Fern/Services, InC. on the 15th day of October, 1997, be and hereby is deemed incomplete; and This Board finds, among other things, that the site plan submitted with the DEIS is a plan which has never been submitted to this Board and which plan, if it had been submitted to this Board, would not have been accepted; and is not a site plan which encompasses the entire ferry terminal site; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is hereby directed to complete the DEIS in accord with the adopted Scope Outline and which revised DEIS must consider and answer the concerns raised in the report of this Board's consultants, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC, which report is dated the 24th day of November, 1997. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Mr. Orlowskh Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? Thor Hansen: Are we open for comment and questions here, or is that for you? Mr. Orlowski: That,s just for us. Mr. Hansen: We'l.I haVe a chance though to talk, wOn,t we? Mr. Latham: One question from me. It says on our program, "the proposed site plan is to add additional parking to a Previously approved fern/terminal". What does that mean? Mr. Kassner: Well, we have a previously approved site Plan. Mr. Latham: We didn't approve the ferry terminal. Southold Town Planning Board 7 November 24, 1997 Mr. Edwards: That was for the employee parking site. Mr. Latham: Well, it doesn't say that. We didn't approve the whole terminal. I just want to go on record saying that. Mr. Orlowskh The records will note that that is not exactly what we're discussing. We're actually discussing the whole site and the total site plan. Mr. Latham: We did approve part of it, not the whole thing. Go ahead Ben. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. OrloWski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Ward: abstain. Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Ward abstained Motion carried. Mr. Hansen: Do we nave a chance to ask a question or two or make a comment? Mr. Orlowski: You can ask a question, What would the comments be? If it's anything about the DEIS, that is still being reviewed and we haven't deemed it complete Mr. Hansen: Well that I understood, think, from when you read your piece there. But I did read the Voorhis report to you and I do have a question or Two on that but.. Mr. Orlowski: We have a new report from Mr. Voorhis that came in this afternoon, and it's an updated report and you can get a copy of that tomorrow morning, probably after 10 o'clock. Mr. Hansen: Wel that's perhaps why your "Whereases" are different then they would ever have been from the Voorhis report I've seen. Mr. Orlowski: Yes, we changed it to... Mr. Hansen: This new one is saying, what, I don't understand. Because the thing that I wanted to ask about is that the first Voorhis report, as I've read it... Mr. Orlowski: You'll have to starid up to the microphone. Sour:hold Town Planning Board 8 November 24, '1997 Thor Hansen: My name is Thor Hansen, and I'm the President of SCSR. As I read it, said that the ferry would only have to submit a comprehensive site plan on all four of the properties, all four parcels, as an alternative but not as the principle, or whatever you call it, the principle submission. And does this new one change that and make it stronger, because I'm worded if it doesn't make it stronger that they must do that. t would think we might fall into the same trap that it seemed to me was set and the Planning Board fell into back in 1996, at the 29th of July meeting, of accepting a not complete site plan. You've accepted a very small part of the site plan and said you would get it worked out in SEQRA, and that hasn't happened. But is this new Voorhis report stronger? Mr. Orlowski: Well, I think the resolution in itself states that there was a complete site plan at one time and now it does not seem to exist. The Voorhis report, I think will show and make reference that that's what we're looking for. Mr. Hansen: I don't know what you're...what was the complete site plan that night of the 29th? There were three of them sitting back here. The one in the middle was the one that you had rejected three weeks before. And the one on this side was a concept, it wasn't a site plan, and it was quite clear that it wasn't. And the other one, that was as a sort of as is. And as I recall, you accepted the one, I'm quite sure, the one in the middle, that was only on the parking lot, not on the whole operation. Mr. Orlowski: We never accepted. Mr. Hansen: Well, you took it for putting into SEQRA. And the words were "SEQRA, it will all come out in the SEQRA, don't worry about it", and the ferry has fought that ever s~nce. Mr. Orlowski: It would come out in the alternatives. Mr. Hansen: Yes, now all 'm wondering ~s, is it sti To be an alternative that the ferry must submit only as an alternative a complete site plan on all four lots? Mr. Hansen: Well, an alternative to us could be thesite plan. It depends on the decision that we make as lead agency. But they have to submit this alternative, think if you go back and recall, they didn't want to do any of that. Mr. Hansen: I've got a letter from their lawyer, Mr. Whelan, to Mr. Yakaboski, Southold Town Planning Board 9 November 24, 1997 dated October 2, 1997 in which it says in particular ...this is to Frank Yakaboski," Cross Sound objects to any assertion that it submitted a comprehensive, integrated site plan on July 29, f1996." They say they didn't. They did not. Mr. Orlowski: Well, our resolution is pretty specific and we say that they did. And that was a site plan. Mr. Hansen: Which? Mr. Orlowski: That one that was submitted on July 29, 1996. Mr. Hansen: But there were three. Mr. Orlowski: That's right. Mr. Hansen: Which one are we talking about? The one in the middle? Mr. Orlowski: The one that encompassed...I don't know which side it was on. It encompassed the whole site. Mr. Hansen: (inaudible) and it was very clear that night that it wasn't a complete site plan It was a concept. And as I recall, the Planning Board accepted, really, the site plan that was on two lots and you sent all three of those out to all the State agencies and interested parties. But, the one that was accepted, and that again is right in this letter, as I'm sure the Planning Board minutes for that day will reveal, the Planning Board explained to the public that the concept plan was just that, a concept and not an official site plan since it was missing all of the necessary elements for a site plan and that the Planning Board was going to start the lead agency process based upon Cross Sound's submission and not the concept plan. Their submission I would offer, was on parking lot only; the new parking tot and the snack bar lot. Now, they have never, ever - and since that time they've sued the Town in fact, saying that you don't have the authority to make them do a comprehensive site plan. My question to you is, how when you send this back, are you going to make that clear so they will submit a complete site plan, a comprehensive on all four' lots, because they've never done it yet. Mr. Orlowski: Wel, we're before the judge right now to find this out. The judge is reviewing the DEIS personally. He will be reviewing Mr. Voorhis report and the alternatives in this DEIS could be viable documents later on. Southold Town Planning Board I 0 November 24, 1997 Mr. Hansen: I don't quite understand how the judge - it's not my understanding that he is reviewing the DEIS, maybe he is - but I understood that your action in sending it back meant that it is not ready, the DEIS is not ready for public comment. Why would the judge be reviewing it if it isn't even accepted yet? That l don't understand. You did have a hearing tomorrow, but he's canceled that. Mr. Orlowski: Yes, he has, and I don't know why, but I was told it was because he wants to review the DEIS personally. Mr. Hansen: And he has a copy of this? Mr. Orlowski: Yes Mr. Hansen: Well, that's interesting. I know it's a public document, we asked it to be one. But as I understood it, from the Voorhis report I've seen, it said in there that it is not ready for public review. But you're telling me that he's reviewing that site plan, that foot thick document... Mr. Orlowski: He's the judge. Mr. Hansen: ...which is very incomplete, as you know. You're going to be sending it back. Mr. Orlowski: That's right. And we're going before thejudge to say that it is incomplete. We've adopted this resolution basically stating what our problems are with it, which will go along with Mr. Voorhis new report that you can pick up tomorrow morning, and hopefully we'll get his attention to understand these matters a whole lot better. But he is the.udge and if he's reviewing it, and he wants to review it, he can do that Mr. Hansen: Well, that's the first I've heard that he's rewew~ng it. Mr. Orlowskh Yes, I heard it myself this morning. Mr. Hansen: Can you tell me who you heard it from? Mr. Orlowski: From our attorney. Mr. Hansen: Well, I talked to ours this morning and he knew nothing about that. Maybe he is. Mr. Orlowski: Well, that's what our attorney told us so 'm sure he must have Southo[d Town Planning Board November 24, 1997 told yours the same thing unless the judge is telling two different stories. Mr. Hansen: Wel, he hadn't as of this afternoon. Well, this is very interesting. I'm just very worried - the thing that has really worried our group and a lot of us that up to now the ferry has absolutely refused, it stated right in this letter too, they refuse to say that they ever submitted a comprehensive site plan. They deny that they did And it certainly wasn't comprehensive, the one that you accepted that n ght as a Planning Board on the 29th of July. It was only on two lots and that was it. That other was a concept and the ferry is denying that it was a site plan. In fact, Mr. Esseks stood up that night and said, "we can't submit that as a site plan, it includes Rt. 25. We don't own that. Mr. Orlowski: Well, I think that this all encompassing site plan, we were told would be prepared and submitted - all encompassing. Mr. Hansen: When? Mr. Orlowski: On July 29, 1996. Mr. Hansen: I don't think so. The one you accepted was not al encompassing. It was on two lots. Mr. Orlowski: Well, I don't know if you want to tell the judge that, but I think the jUdge is going to have to look at and believe what we tell him. We have accepted that as an alternative and we want to see it as an alternative. We've asked for it as an all encompassing, and they're going to have to produce it. Mr. Hansen: Well, that was my real question. Why did you accept it as an alternative and not demand to get the real one? Mr. Orlowskh Well, to be p.erfectly honest, they might have just said forget about it. Mr. Flansen: Well then what would you do, go back... Mr. Orlowski: Well then we'd have another action - I think there's seven or nine legal actions involved already on this one application. Mr. Hansen: Well, I'm basically confused right now about what's going on, having not seen the new Voorhis report. As I said before, I came in here So.hold Town Planning Board 12 November 24, 1997 (inaudible), because of reading the first Voorhis report that you we're going to be accepting something that seemed to me not very strong. Has he changed such things as the first one when it says, it doesn't say you must submit a complete site plan, it says... Mr. Orlowski: I would suggest that you pick it up tomorrow and review that. Mr. Hansen: Alright. Mr. Orlowski: 1 don't even have it here with us right now. Mr. Hansen: The way this old one was written is "it should have" "we recommend". But it doesn't ever say "you must" and it has to be resolved. It was very weak. Mr. Orlowski: Well, this process right here is between the Planning Board and Mr. Voorhis and Associates to produce a document that is a viable document. Something that we would like to see, including the alternatives in this DEIS. Being lead agency, we have every right to ask for it. It was, as it clearly states here, was presented to us and as it was presented to us I don't care if it was an alternative or a composite drawing, or whatever you want to call it, it was put in front of us. And I think we have every right to ask for that again, so that's what we're going to ask for. Mr. Hansen: Well, I'm sure you do. And you got the second Voorhis report that you asked him to do it and make it stronger, is that it? Mr. Orlowski: Yes. Mr. Hansen: OK, well the one thing, I was looking at this now, I don't think, I know they never submitted a comprehensive site plan that night. It just wasn't done. it was a concept and it was sitting over there and they denied it was submitted and some of us stood up and said that isn't complete, sorry, don't take it. It's the same one you turned down (inaudible) weeks ago, the one in the (inaudible). And they wouldn't ...the ferry submitted that (inaudible). That was not comprehensive, if that says in here, n one of these "Whereas'es", would submit to you that that's wrong. Mr. Orlowski: Well, you wouldn't want us to have a comprehensive site plan? rvlr. Hansen: want it, very much. Ii just want to make sure that... Mr. Orlowski: OK, I would probably suggest that we not fight this issue Southold Town Planning Board November 24, 1997 because I think we're on the same track together and I believe that in doing it this way, in asking for it as an alternative, we have every right to do in the SEQRA process and like I told you in the very, very beginning, the SEQRA process in a process that we've all been through, and myself many, many times, and sometimes to get where you want to go you've got to go in a different direction than straight ahead. And this is probably the best way to do it. And this resolution - I guess you can have a copy of this tomorrow too - pretty well states thatl And Chic's report follows it up and before the judge is finished reading this DEIS he'll have both of them in front of him tomorrow morning. Mr. Hansen: Well, I hope you're right because my feeling is that if this Planning Board does not demand and receive a comprehensive site plan on all four parcels and have an environmental impact statement done on all four parcels, you will be violating SEQRA and you will be violating the trust of the Town. And so I hope that's what you're aiming for and I hope that you're able to get it, but so far we've gotten nothing out of Cross Sound Fern/but a very, very incomplete site plan, or you wouldn't be sending it back. Mr. Orlowski: That's right. And if we can prove that to the judge the next time we all sit down together, we might have a lot of support with the judge sitting there, and that's our intent. Mr. Hansen: OK, well, thank you very much. OTHER Recommendations on Business Uses Legislation Mr. OrloWski: Moving on. Recommendations on business uses legislation. Does anybody have a comment here? Mr. Cremers: We strongly recommend after this law is adopted that re, Consideration be given to revising the format in which the proposed Local Law is written. To wit,. the references to other sections of the Zoning Code either should be eliminated and substituted with the actual text, or should be made more specific by referring to the applicable sub-sections, e:g .... as set forth and restricted by Sec. 100-31 A. (I) or Sec. 100-31 C. (5) instead of just Sec. 100- 31 A. The Board prefers the inclusion of the actual text over a reference in order to make the Zoning Code more "user-friendly" to the general public. Southold Town PLanning 8oard 44 November 24, 1997 Mr. Orlowski: OK, we'll send this letter over to the Town Board. Do you want to make that in the form of a motion? Mr. Cremers: Yes. Mr. Ward: Second Mr. Odowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those ~n favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Odowski: Opposed? Motion carried APPROVAL OF PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Mr. OrlowskJ: Board to approve the October 6, 1997 minutes. Mr. Edwards: So moved. Mr. Cremers: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Al those ~n favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. The November 3, 1997 minutes. Mr. Edwards: So moved. Mr. Cremers: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Al those ~n favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. I have nothing left on my agenda. Does anyone have anything they'd like to put on the minutes tonight? Mr. Hansen: I would like to add one other thing. I read this a little closer and I would submit that your fifth "Whereas' is inaccurate. You don't want to go to press with something like this or you're going tO be embarrassed. It says here, Whereas, the applicant thereupon represented to the court and this Southold Town Planning Board 15 November 24, 1997 Board that an all encompassing site plan would be prepared and submitted on July 29, 1996 and did submit such a site plan on July 29, 1996. They did not. The site plan that they submitted and you accepted was incomplete. Mr. Orlowski: Bob, do we have a letter on that? Mr. Kassner: A letter on what? Mr. Orlowski: On submitting that? Mr. Kassner: He did not submit a complete site plan, obviously. Mr. Hansen: It was a concept. And that's a mistake and you shouldn't go out with something that's a mistake, Benny. That's wrong. And swear to you they did not submit a site plan that was comprehensive and complete. And you better not say that or you're going To be in trouble. Not with us, but it isn't rigl%. Mr. Orlowski: Well, if 'm not in trouble with you, 'm half way there, right? Mr. Hansen: You ought to be accurate, that's all I'm saying. This was not a complete site plan. And the thing I just read your from Cross Sound says it wasn't either. They say it was not. They deny that it was complete. Comprehensive. They object to any assertion that it was comprehensive and complete. So that's just wrong, you can't send something like that. And then the next one follows right after, "...whereas upon submission of said correspondence comprehensive site plan the Board commenced SEQRA and determined this was a Type I ." You didn't commence SEQRA on that site plan That wasn't a site plan, that was a concept. You commenced it on an incomplete site plan on two lots, that's it. And Bob Kassner is nodding his head. Mr. Kassner: i'm not nodding my head. Mr. Hansen: I just wanted to make sure you understand that that shouldn't go that way, it's wrong. (change Tape) Mr. Orlowski: I'll have to discuss it with our attorney in the morning. appreciate your comments ~3ut like I said I'll Rave to discuss that with our attorney. Mr. Hansen: Well, good luck. But that think is true Benny, that is not Southold ToWn Planning Board November 24, 1997 accurate, it is inaccurate. Down the line, inaccurate. Ms. Scopaz: Can I make an observation? Mr. Orlowskl: Yes. Ms. Scopaz: The use of the term all encompassing site plan should not be interpreted as being a complete site plan. It shouldn't assume that one means the other. The term, all encompassing site plan, was deliberately put in quotes so it must be in reference to a statement that was made either before the court or in a letter, and that's not the same thing saying that it was a complete site plan. Mr. Hansen: Well, if you make that before a court, i wil guarantee you that the ferry's lawyers will stand up and say the same thing they say in this letter from Mr. Whelan to Mr. Orlowski, "...in particular Cross Sound objects to any assertion that it submitted a comprehensive, integrated site plan on July 29, 1996. They deny that they did. And I was sitting here and I deny that they did too. But they're going to stand up in court...Esseks will say you didn't do it. Ms. Scopaz: It's possible that they will. What are you suggesting that we go along with every (inaudible)? Mr. Hansen: I'm saying that this ought to be accurate. It wasn't a comprehensive, complete site plan. Unknown: What if you were to add "concept"? Mr. Hansen: It was a concept but it wasn't a site plan. Mr. Orlowski: You're going to have to allow us to talk to our attorney. I have gone over this with our attorney today, before we made this resolution. He felt at that time very confidence going before the judge with it. 'm surprised that you would be against it, or bringing this out... Mr. Hansen: I'm tn/lng to tel you that it's.inaccurate. You'll have trouble if it's inaccurate. Mr. Orlowski: I think you're looking at it as verbatim and word for word. We're looking at it just like we've always stated. We want a comprehensive site plan, alright? We felt we've seen a comprehensive site plan and one was presented and put before us. Now, he can say whatever he wants, but once Southold Town Planning Board 17 November 24, 1997 a document is put in front of us, we feel that it's a document that we want to see again. Mr. Hansen: But everybody stood up that night and said that is not a site plan, that's a concept. And everybody agreed. Mr. Orlowski: Maybe a concept could be reality. Mr. Hansen: Well, I'm sorry but that's not what ...you accepted the one in the middle that was an ncomplete site plan Mr. Orlowski: We didn't accept anything. We put something in a document that at that time we had to put in the document, but alternatives, we can ask for any alternative, including that comprehensive site plan, or what he called a comprehensive site plan the last time around. Being lead agency we have the ability to ask for a lot of things in this process IDefore we even deem it complete And hopefully with the judges support and knowing that with our attorney telling him that this is what we're looking for, we'll be able to get that.' He knows we wanted it all the time. To Joe honest, it's funny he didn't just turn around and say, well forget it I just won't do anything. Then what do you do? Mr. Hansen: Who are you talking about, the judge? Mr. Orlowski: No, Cross Sound. Ms. Wachsberger: We go for an injunction if i~e does that. Mr. Orlowski: We tried that the first time. Mr. Hansen: inaudible Mr. Orlowski: Well, maybe this will put us on good ground for one. Mr. Hansen: don't know. It feels to me like we're walking on eggs here. Freddie Wachsberger: If I could put in just (inaudible), maybe it would just be to word it to say that you're asking for the comprehensive site plan, rather than to say that you're going back to one you got because I think we all stood up at that meeting and said don't accept this, it isn't complete. It isn't a complete site plan. So maybe wording could say flesh out the concept site plan, or something like that. Mr. Orlowski: I think we're fleshing it out right here. Southold Town Planning Board 18 November 24, 1997 Ms. Wachsberger: I think Thor's questions it because one knows that Esseks will jump on it. The one (inaudible) that I wanted to put in on why this is so important is that in fact there never has been a SEQRA done on that site at all. I mean, here we have one of the largest operations in Southold Town in one of the most sensitive places in Southold Town where we have the potential of it at any one time, 700 or so cars sitting on a piece of property where the aquifer is only about 7 feet below ground level and where there well is already polluted on the terminal. And this is such a sensitive ares, and I think nobody understood at the scoping session, from outside, that there never had been any SEQRA review on that property before at all As a matter of fact it was one of the things they asked for at the scoping session was the history on the environmental reviews on that property. There is no history. So not only is it important because it is Southold Town wanted to ask for it but it's crucial because it's the first environmental review that's ever been done on that property, which I think would startle a lot of people. Harold Watson: I hesitate to open my mouth, but I am Harold Watson, also from SCSR. I came here tonight to say think that you're trying very hard to do a good job for us and I think that we want to support what you're doing very much. Reading through that hideous document, I found that there was a lot of attention g~ven to points that I had raised a year and a half ago. There was a lot of attention refuting a lot of points, but I do not think that the ElS had anything to do with the site. It really had to do with refuting the points that we've been raising. And I think that whatever you do, do not accept that document as ~s or any revision of it until you make sure that the inaccuracies and the fibs and everything else tha¢c are involved in that document are taken out of it because that will become a record for the future in 20 years when we have to do another SEQRA on that site and there are so many inaccuracies that have been established in that document that you shouldn't even talk about accepting a partial form of that document. You should say that you've got to make this document honest. There are absolute dishonesties in that document that are so clearly visible to my reading of it - and I haven't sat down and analyzed it in any kind of technical way - that you are right in taking the action that you're taking. I think that we all have fears because we know that you're dealing with a huge opponent and someone who will fight you as much as you can fight them, Southold Town Planning Board 19 November 24, 1997 But I say what I said a year ago that if you make it a full complete site plan, you have a state and federal government who will become supportive of you. If you accept it in any kind of segmented form, as their own indication, it says they only need Southold Town, Trustees, and DEC permits, then you are going to have to live by their word, which is the way we've been having to do up until now, Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Any comments from the Board? I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Mr. Edwards: So moved. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m: er~net( Ofl6ws~ld, }r., ~Chair/~ Respectfully submitted Martha A. Jones Secretary