Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-07/29/1996PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS RICtLa. RD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS 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 JULY 29, 1996 Present were: RicharC 0 Ward, Chairman Bennett Orlowski, Jr. O. Ritchie Latham I(enneth Edwards William Cremers Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer Absent: Melissa Spiro, Planner Martha Jones, Secretary Mr. Ward: Good evening. 'd like to welcome you to the July 29, 1996 Southold Town Planning Board meeting. The first order of business is the setting of the next Planning Board meeting. Board to set Monday, August 26, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, as the time and place for the next regular Planning Board meeting. Mr. Edwards: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second Mr. Ward: Moved and seconded All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Mr. Ward: 7:00 p.m. - San Simeon by the Sound - This proposed site plan is for the construction of a 13,650 square foot parking lot. SCTM# 1000-45-2- Southold Town Planning Board 2 July 29, 1996 p/o 10.3. Is the applicant here that would like to adCress the Board? If not, is there anybody here that would like to address the Board on this application? What's the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Cremers: Mr. Chairman, I offer the following resolution. Be it resolved that the Southold Town Planning Board hold the hearing open pending receipt of merged deeds. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried HEARINGS HELD OVER FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS: Mr. Ward: Robert & Christa Brown - This site plan is for the construction of a 1800 sq. ft. office building located on Rt. 25 in Greenport. SCTM# 1000-45- 4-6.1 All is in order to close the hearing. Mr. Orlowski: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. What's the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Ward: I'd like to offer the following resolution. Whereas, Robert W. and Christa Brown are l~he owners of the property known and designated as Sunrise Coach, located at Main Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-45-4 & 6.1; and Whereas, a formal application for the approval of this site plan was submitted on September 9, 1994; and Whereas, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Southold Town Planning Board :~ July 29, 1996 Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8), Part 6'17, declared itself lead agency and issued a Negative Declaration on July '10, '1995; and Whereas, this site plan was certified by Thomas Fisher, Senior Building inspector on May '16, '1996; and Whereas, all the requirements of the Site Plan I~egulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant conditional final approval on the surveys dated May '16, '1996, subject to a one year review from date of building permit, and authorize the Chairman to endorse the fina surveys subject to a fulfillment of the following conditions. All conditions must be met within six (6) months of the date of this resolution: '1. Installation of cedar shakes on front and two sides of the building. 2. Conformance to drainage recommendations of the Town Engineering nspector. 3. Landscape review at completion of building. Mr. Cremers: Second, Mr Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. MAJOR AND MINOI~ SUBDIVISIONS, LOT U NE CHANGES AND SET OFF APPLICATIONS Sketch Determinations: Mr. Ward: John & Patricia McCarvill - This proposed major subdivision is for 3 lots on '1'18,795 sq. ft. in Southold SCTM# '1000-78-7-32.7. The first order would be that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, assumes lead agency, and as lead agency makes a determination of non-sig nificance and grants a Negative Declaration. Is there a second? Southold Town Planning Board Mr. Orlowski: Second. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. 4 July 29, 1996 All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. What's the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that whereas, since the subject property was involved in prior land divisions and the current proposal involves creating an overall tota of more than 5 lots, this proposal ~s classified as a major subdivision; and Whereas, the Zoning Board of Appeals, in Appeal Number 4391, granted approval of proposed Lot #3 to be a total of 38,795 sq. ft. including the flag portion of the lot, and approval of a front yard setback for proposed Lot #3 of the existing building at 30 feet from its closest setback to the property line; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southotd Town Planning Board grant sketch approval on the map dated May 8, 1996. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Ward: Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Mr. Ward: Rockcove Estates - This proposed major subdivision is for 23 lots on 28.315 acres ocated on the north side of Middle Road (C.R. 48) approximately 500 feet west of McCann Lane in Greenport. SCTM# 1000-33- 3-19. Mr. Latham: Mr. Chairman, I'll offer this resolution. Be it resolved to adopt the Engineering Inspector's report dated July 17; 1996. Mr. Cremers: Second. Mr. Ward: Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. Ail in favor? Southold Town Planning Board 5 July 29, '1996 Ayes: Mr. Odowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. SITE PLANS Extensions: Mr. Ward: Brewer Yacht Yard - This approved site plan is for the addition of a maintenance and storage building, a pool and a club house with snack bar and rest room facilities at an existing marina and yacht yard. Clubhouse to be relocated to pool area, located on Manhaset Ave. and Beach Rd. in Green port. SCTM# 1000-43-3-2. What's the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that Whereas, the Brewer Yacht Yard at Greenport, nc is the owner of the property known and designated as Brewer Yacht Yard at the S/~//c of Manhaset Ave. and Beach Rd.; and Whereas, this site plan was approved by the Planning Board on January 11, 1993; and Whereas, the property owner is still implementing aspects of the approved plan, in accordance with that plan; and Whereas, the site plan expired on January 11, 1996, and; Whereas, a six month extension was granted, to expire on July 11, 1996; and Whereas, the Board finds that this plan is still in compliance with the Zoning Code; be it therefore Resolved that the Planning Board extends its site plan approval for a period of 12 months [o expire on July 11, 1997. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Ward: Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward. $outhold Town Planning Board 6 Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. July 29, 1996 Bond Determinations: Mr. Ward: Henry Appel - This approved cluster subdivision contains 7 lots on 15.3573 acres on the east side of Old Jule Lane, in Mattituck. SCTM# 1000- 114-12-14. What's the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Cremers: Mr. Chairman, I'll offer the following resolution. Be it resolved that the Southold Town Planning Board recommend that the Town Board release the Performance Bond Number SU1430996 for S58,750.00 for the above mentioned subdivision. All required improvements have been completed Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Mr. Ward: Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. SITE PLANS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Lead Agency Coordination: Mr. Ward: Laurel Lake Vineyard - This proposed site plan is for the construction of a 5,999 square foot w~nery at an existing vineyard, located on Rt. 25 in Laurel SCTM# 1000-t25-1-2.26, 2.27. What's the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Southold Town Planning Board start the lead agency coordination process on this unlisted action. Mr. Cremers: Second. Mr. Ward: Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Southold Town Planning Board 7 July 29, 1996 Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Mr. Ward: A.qricultural Equipment Repair Shop - This proposed site plan is for a 5,000 square foot agricultural equipment repair building, located on Rt. 48 in Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-12-10.4. What's the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Cremers: Mr. Chairman I offer the following resolution. Be it resolved that the Southold Town Planning Board start the coordination process on this unlisted action. Mr. Orlowsld: Second. Mr. Ward: Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried Mr. Ward: Cross Sound Ferry - This site plan is to add additional parking to a previously approved ferry terminal on Rt. 25 in Orient. SCTM#I000- 15-10.1, 11.1, 15.1 & 3.5. What we would like to do, this is the start of the process of getting into the SEQRA review for environmental concerns of the project. At this time what I'd like to have us do would be to first have the applicant's engineer who is here tonight to make a formal presentation [o the Board, of which the public would also be invited to slay and see, of the plan that they've prepared and are submitting to the Planning Board. Secondly, our attorney Mr. Yakaboski is here who is handling the action of behalf of the Town in our legal endeavors involving Cross Sound Ferry and I .wi nex~ ask him to talk a little bit about the process and where we're at. Thirdly, I'm going to ask Valerie Scopaz, our Town Planner to give us a little bit of overview of what the scop~ng session and what will be involved in the SEQRA review. And then fourthly 'd like to open it up for any comments that we would Southold Town Planning Board have from you that are here. in kind of an orderly fashion. be on first. 8 July 29, 1996 So I think that would keep the process moving So starting with that, Mr. Raynor I guess you'd John Raynor: In an attempt to enable everyone to hear, VII stand here and not get in front of things and I'll do my best to describe what I'm talking about rather than pointing. To begin, my name is John J Raynor. I'm a professional engineer and [and surveyor and my office s in Water Mill on the south fork. I was approached by Cross Sound Ferry in connection with the legal endeavors that the Chairman referred to before and we have been asked to assist them in preparing a site plan application to expand existing parking facilities. For purposes of tonight's discussion I've prepared three exhibits and they begin on the left as we are all viewing them from the audience, with a representation of the existing conditions at the property. The middle drawing is the site plan which we prepared and submitted to the Board for expansion and re-orientation of parking on what is sometimes known as the snack bar parcel, which is to the east of the state route. The third drawing which is to the right of that, the last drawing on the right, is a conceptual drawing of an overall coordinated site plan which the Planning Board has asked us to prepare for discussion purposes in connection with the entire environmental quality review process. So ill may, I '11 go back to the one on the left and remind everyone that the area that's colored in grey is the paved portion of the site that in the center of that paved portion you can see the existing terminal building to the right of that or to the east as we think of it. There is the snack bar which is colored in a light tan color and the snack bar parcel ~s a somewhat V-shaped parcel that runs from State Rt. 25 down to Gardiner's Bay. To the east of that parcel is another parcel of land which Cross Sound Ferry has the ability to use which is sometimes referred to as the trust parcel. It's held in trust for one of the individuals who is associated with Cross Sound. Our proposal to the Planning Board which is represented by the center drawing was to re-orient the arrangement of parking in that space from its current orientation which is north and south. Which is to say that cars entering the parking area would travel in a north and south direction anc~ park in stalls that are oriented east and west. We propose to re-orient that so that the traveling into that property ~s in an east-west direction and the cars park north and south. And part of the reason for that is that there is no formal provision there for Southold Town Planning Boarc~ 9 July 29, 1996 pedestrian movements and as you Know it is unpaved and it is my understanding that the sentiment in this part of the world is not to pave this area. It was a temporary parking facility and we'd like not to increase the amount of stormwater runoff going into the acljacent surface waters. Consequently, we're trying to set up a pattern that wil induce those who leave their cars to move to the west, which is the natural place for them to go to the terminal building to purchase their tickets, and then to walk to the south down to the ferry ctocks themselves There ~s provided on that plan an appropriate amount of landscaped area, according to your code. There are several islands in the parking area both for landscape purposes and for lighting purposes. And underlying all of this is a complete set of drainage proposals for this installation. In the coarse of several meetings with the Board, I have heard from the Chairman and from other members that you wanted us to Ioot( at the hypothetical situation that we might consider all of the land from the Plum Island Animal Disease Laboratories property on the west to the end of any property controlled by Cross Sound on the east, including that north-south portion of Rt. 25 And to look at that entire tract as a potentia opportunity to improve the circulation both vehicular and pedestrian on the site, and to hopefully provide sufficient parking so that we can obviate any of the problems that the Town has experienced in the past. So, we set to work on doing that and work both with the Cross Sound people in New London and those who are more familiar with the operation here at the Orient property. And we have established on that plan a suggestion for a counter clockwise circulation of vehicular traffic. And I will try to describe it in terms of those who might approach the property from Rt. 25 As you know, at the present time as you come to the Cross Sound Ferry property you have the option of turning in to the ferry staging area going past the terminal building or continuing on Rt. 25 down to the old tiCket I~uilding close to the water. In fact, that is obliterated by this proposal and all of the traffic that's approaching has the option of either coming in to the ferry property or would have the option of going around the small traffic circle so that they can return to Rt. 25 and head in a westerly direction. There are a number of subtleties to that traffic movement. For example, we have to provide for access to those who live to the north of the ferry property and we have provided for that. There is an existing driveway there that's an easement over the Cross Sound Ferry property and that would be Southold Town Planning Board preserved. 10 July 29, 1996 Those who would be approaching this area would see a sign initially that would indicate they would stay to the left if they were returning to Rt. 25; stay to the right if they were approaching ferry property. And as they get into the lane for the fern/property, there would be signs indicating that they have several options as they proceed. One would be to go into either short term parking and drop off or ferry staging and long term parking. And both of those traffic streams would pass to the west of the terminal building and the most recently established parking area which is on the west of the terminal building would become a short term parking area and drop off area. And (inaudible) would be in that area would then pass to the south of the terminal building and over into an express exit lane that leads them back out to that traffic circle. Those who are taking their vehicles on the fern/would pass the ticket booths at the termina building and depending upon the volume of traffic at the time, would either stop there and purchase their ticket or be directed to the appropriate staging lanes, return to the termina building and purchase their tickets. Those who are moving to long term parking would pass there, make a left turn and go over into the long term parking which is all of that area off at the east. Now, once you've entered the property and perhaps gone off to New England and returned, you'd be coming off the ferries and I'd like to describe the traffic movement from that direction. When one leaves the ferry the options are to go up the center of the property between two of the pink lanes which are pedestrian lanes, and what call the express exit lane. Those who would be leaving the boats and have all their passengers already in the car would naturally go in that direction. But as we al know; there are times when you pull off the ferry when those who perhaps have been outside the care and had not yet gotten back in the vehicle. So those people would be directed to the east at the southerly end of the long term parking area where we have an arriving passenger pick up area. And they could stop there and wait for their passengers to get into the cars and then would proceed around the outside along the back side of an area that's colored n orange and is marked "dune". And then up to the north and out through the two pink lines that you see on there that are a queuing lane for that exit. Southold Town Planning Board 11 July 29, 1996 I'm doing the best I can without going over there and getting in everybody's way and pointing to it, but if you follow what I'm describing, we have two lanes of traffic coming from the ferry. One that comes up to the center of the property and one that goes around through the long term parking, and they will merge just to the northeast of the terminal building. Part of the purpose for doing that is to establish sufficient stacking area or queuing lanes, if you will, so that we can establish a traffic control device just before traffic from this site exits onto Rt. 25 and you probably can't see it from here but jus~ at the south easterly corner of that traffic circle, there is a stop line and at that point we would propose [o provide a stop light which would normally be green and after a certain number of vehicles have passed in a relatively restricted period of time, it would turn red and remain red long enough to establish gaps in the traffic as it proceeds westerly on Rt. 25. Now, all of what I have described is our attempt at interpreting what the Planning Board was suggesting to us ought ~o be done. I don't suggest that it's a perfect solution. It is offered as the initial step in the SEQRA process where the public, your professional staff, and perhaps the staff of other agencies involved would comment and make suggestions so that if it is the Planning Board's ultimate determination that a coordinated site plan rather than just the expansion of the existing facilities should be considered and pursued, that this might become the beginning of that discussion. I could probably go on for a while, but I don't think I should. If you have questions, I'm here to try to answer them. I'm sure I can answer all of them. One that comes to mind would be the number of parking spaces, I don't recall offhand what it is t~ut on the middle plan there is a notation in the lower level of what the number of parking spaces would de on that consolidated expanded parking facility and I can walk over there and read it to you if you like. And I recall that the number of spaces in the existing westerly parking area, that was approved by this Board previously, is 69 spaces. So the total of those two numbers ~s what is associated with that. The hypothetical coordinated plan shows a total of 579 spaces in long term parking and short term parking drop off. And it does have some stand by staging area which I'd like to describe as well. Mr. Chairman, I'll sit down and you can call on me whenever you think it's appropriate. Mr. Ward: Thank you. At this time I'd like to call upon our counsel, Mr. Yakaboski to give us a little bit of a status report as to where we're at and what we are :rying to accomplish here this evening. $outhold Town Planning Board '12 July 29, '1996 Frank Yakaboski: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Basically, ladles and gentlemen the point we are at this evening is that where the Board is about to adopt a resolution, and I'm speaking slightly out of turn but I'm trying to answer perhaps questions that might be in your minds before it's necessary to speak openly about them or to have you address them and answer some of the concerns we know you have. We're about to start the SEQRA process and to begin the coordinated review. It is the intention of the Board this evening to adopt a resolution wherein all interested agencies are provided with the plan presented by Cross Sound and to solicit comments which would be arriving by the end of the month of August, we would hope, thirty days, at which point this Board would adopt lead agency status to begin the full SEQRA process which Ms. Scopaz will get into in a moment, to describe the nature of what will take place. The action at this point, of this Board, doesn't signify or indicate approval or disapproval of anything. It starts the process wherein the entire site application will I~e subject to full review by all interested public agencies and also to seek and receive appropriate comment from the community and others who are interested in making comment regarding the site application. Those comments wil be received and will be considered So that in terms of where we are, we're at the point where Cross Sound has submitted, after some time and again as you've heard from Mr. Raynor, they were prepared to gO forward previously. We asked, that is the Planning Board asked for additional submissions which they've cooperated and submitted to us regarding the incorporation of existing Rt. 25 as it runs north and south between the Cross Sound (CHANGE TAPE) properties to attempt in their view at this point to propose to us a concept for utilizing the entire premises owned or controlled by Cross Sound as well as that portion of Rt. 25 running north and south as it makes a hook, as it reaches its easterly terminus. don't have any further comment at this moment regarding that but that's where we are and I'll turn the meeting over at this point briefly to Ms. Scopaz, the Town's Planner to give you a rundown regarding what will be taking place from this point forward regarding the SEQRA process. Mr. Ward: Just one injection Frank would be that simultaneously with this, really at this point we're acting like an agent for the Zoning Board because that's where the initial action has started in terms of a request by Cross Sound to utilize the residentially zoned properW. They have also filed with us Southold Town Planning Board '13 July 29, 1996 s~multaneously a request for site plan So before this site plan could be considered by this Board other than for the environmental review and looking at all the alternatives that would come out of an environmental review, the Zoning Board would have to take action on that particular piece of property that's residentially zoned. So this Board at the present time doesn't have permission to use that, or the Town doesn't have permission to use that particular piece of property for parking until it is resolved at the Zoning Board of Appeals. But what would like to do now is turn this over to Valerie Scopaz to just give a brief outline for all of you that are here as to some of the essence of what would go into the scoping session and environmental review. Valerie Scopaz: Just to set the stage for exactly what we do as we lead into the scoping session, I just want to reiterate what was mentioned by Frank Yakaboski. First off, the review of the application will consist of an evaluation by all coordinating or involved agencies of all the environmental factors that may be impacted by the project. And the list of agencies that we will coordinated with include the following Town, County, State and Federal agencies, and I will list them in that order. The Town Board, the Building Department, the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Board of Trustees, the County Department of Health Services, the County Department of Transportation, the Department of Planning, the Department of Public Works, and the Department of Parks. The State Department of State, the Department of Environmental Conservation, the Department of Transportation and the Department of State Parks. Finally, the Federal Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. At the moment that's the list of all agencies that might have an interest in this project. And we're going to send the coordination notice out to each of them along with a copy of the proposed plan, a copy of the EAF, a copy of all the supporting documentation that the applicant has Prought in in support of his application. And all of that will 13e sent out to the coordinating agencies. Now what that means is that the coordinating agencies, we' hear back from them within thirty days as to whether they have an interest in being involved in the review process. At that point, in thirty days, the Planning Board will make a determination as to whether the project will impact the environment. And if there is a positive finding of enwronmental impact, meaning that the project is likely [o nave an impact, the applicant will be Southold Town Planning Boarc~ July 29, 1996 informed of these concerns through a scoping session This session is open to representatives of all the coordinating agencies with whom we will have sent copies of this application - I just read you that list - and members of the public who wish to attend the scoping session, that includes yourselves. The applicant will then prepare a Draft Environmental Im pact Statement subsequent to that scoping session which will be reviewed by the Planning Board for adequacy and completeness. Now what I'd like to do is just briefly mention to you what's involved in the scoping outline. The scoping outline is basical y a table of contents for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and it lists all the items of information that the applicant must provide so that all the agencies that are rewewing this application will have the necessary in front of them. The outline is about six pages long but I'm going to ~live you an abbreviated version of it. Basically what the applicant will do s provide a description of the proposed action He will describe the project purpose, its needs and benefits. He will describe the location of the proposed action. He will describe in narrative and in map format the design and layout of what he proposes to do. And then he will give an indication of the construction and operation plan, the time period during which the construction can be expected to take place, and [qow the operation of the site will be taking place, how they 13ropose to do that. And finally a listing of all approvals from other agencies that they may need, for instance Health Department approval or whatever. The next part of the session ~s to give a description of the environmental setting of the project, and there are several sections to that. Basically, they have to discuss the natural resources and the human resources that may be impacted by this proposed project. And just to give you a brief listing of the items which they must address within the description of natural resources, they must discuss the geology, the water resources and that includes ground water as well as surface water, and a discussion of the proposed drainage of the site. This also, geology, water resources, terrestrial and aquatic ecology, they must discuss the vegetation, the wildlife and the wetlands that exist on the site and could possibly be impacted by the proposed action. Under human resources that might be impacted by this project, they are required to discuss transportation, land use and zoning impacts, community Southold Town Planning Board 15 July 29, 1996 service impacts and cultural resource impacts And included in cultural resources is a discussion of visual resources that may be impacted. The fourth aspect of this project is that they are required in this document to discuss the s~gnificant environmental impacts of the project for the application that they're proposing. And in that description they must indicate those aspects of the environmental setting that may be adversely or beneficially effected by the proposed action. The nex~ chapter in this report is a discussion of mitigation measures to minimize the environmental impacts that have been described and identified in the prior section. And in that section the applicant will describe what measures he is going to suggest to minimize the identified environmental impacts. And again, those mitigation measures will be discussed in the same format as the description of the environmental resources that I listed earlier and that is geology, water resources, terrestrial and aquatic ecology, transportation, land use and zoning, community serwces and cultural resources. So there will be a description of the project and its proposed impact and then a discussion of the mitigation measures that they're going to incorporate into their proposal. The next section of the report must discuss adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the project is implemented. That means that regardless of whatever mitigation measures may be adopted and implemented, there may be some aaverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided. And if that is the case, in that section of the report this wi be discussed. The next section will deal with alternatives. SEQRA law requires that the applicant not only discuss the proposals that he puts before an agency; they must discuss other alternatives. One of which is to. do nothing alternative and another which is an alternative type of layout or design or proposal and that encompasses a wide range of proposals. It can be the size of the proposal, it can be just the way it's configured within its boundaries. The next section of the document is a listing of irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. That is basically those natural and human resources that would be consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use. And again, this is a listing of, in the same oraer as the listing that I mentioned to you earlier. Southold Town Planning Board 16 July 29, 1996 The last two sections of the report are basically a list of references utilizing the preparation of the report and finally, appendices; technical reports, documentation, relevant correspondence, site plans, maps, studies, reports, whatever technical data the applicant feels is necessary to explain and give the background material for the information they've presented in their report Mr. Ward: Thank you Valerie. I'd just like to make mention before I forget about it is that there was an announcement by Superwsor Jean Cochran that tomorrow evening at 7:30 p.m. here, the remaining Boards in the Town will be present to field any other questions regarding the process and where we're at in terms of the Town of Southold. So you're welcome to come to that meeting to talk a little further about it. I'd like to just make a statement before we go any further as to the reasons that I'll 13e abstaining from any of the actions taken by this Board. I'd like to just briefly read a statement here. Sometime after a site plan was approved by the Planning Board in 1984 Cross Sound Ferry received a grant from New York State for improvements to the ferry terminal at Orient Point. Upon receipt of the grant notice by Cross Sound Ferry a condition of the grant was that Cross Sound Fern/retain an independent engineer to inspect the dolphin and piling portion of the proJect. Cross Sound Ferry contacted an engineering partner of mine who has the civil and marine engineering expertise and engaged our firm to provide these engineering services. Cross Sound Ferry, upon learning of our architectural capabilities also engaged our firm to file plans for the ferry terminal building that you see there. Prior to and subsequent to twelve years ago, I had no relationship with Cross Sound Ferry other than as an independent consulting professional firm, providing inspection and design services related to the New York State grant. Since this professional involvement with Cross Sound Ferry some twelve years ago I've had no further professional or personal relationship with Cross Sound Ferry. Since my prior involvement with Cross Sound Ferry could be looked upon as being conflict, I will abstain from voting on any and all actions brought by Cross Sound Ferry before this Board. just wanted to make that statement clear because there was some question about my prior ~nvolvement with Cross Sound Ferry. At this time I would like to open it up for anyone that's here to address the Southold Town Planning Board 17 July 29, 1996 Board on the environmental process that we're into. Thor Hansen: I'm the President of Southold Citizens for Safe Roads (SCSR). just had a couple of brief comments First I think that's a ve~ interesting concept, the drawing. It seems to me that it's very nice that the drawing and the concept is addressing some Town concerns such as staggenng the traffic and all that. But to me it seems anything but a site plan. It has so much less detail even when the preliminary site plan that was sent in some months ago and was sent back, rejected. He just talked a little bit, Mr. Raynor, about the numbers of cars although I guess he did give us those numbers But there's nothing about drainage which previous plans have addressed it seems to me. Lighting, Distances that cars would be from the wetlands, from the bay. Many things that it seems to me would be very important when you send this out, or whatever is sent, to that long list of agencies that Ms. Scopaz addressed to see if they're interested. I don't know now they'll be able to tell if they've got an interest if that's the sort of thing they get because it really lacks tremendous detail and I can't understand how a Draft ElS can come out of something that is that much a concept and not a plan. Those are the comments I really wanted to make. Kevin McLaughlin: 'm at attorney here in Southold. I appear before you tonight on behalf of Doug and Monique Morris who are the property owners of a residential parcel directly east of that residential parcel controlled by the ferry which they would like to convert into a very substantial parking lot. 'Obviously I'm here vehemently opposed and will appear before all of the various Boards in opposition to any use of that residential parcel for parking purposes. But understand what the function is of this Board this evening. would agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Hansen's comments that if the plan or the conceptual drawing or whatever you wish to call it, furthest to the right, is what this Board intends to submit to other agencies, I don't understand how they can have meaningful input into the environmental review process. They will be lacking in any meaningful details what plan it is that the ferry has to coordinate all of these parcels and to vastly expand their parking ca pabilities. I'm really frankly at a loss to understand how this Board could send out a plan like that and expect to get back any kind of meaningful input from all of those agencies that were listed and I'd be interested if the Board could respond to that Southoid Town Planning Board '18 July 29, 1996 · Eric Bressler: I'm speaking on behalf of Thor Hansen's group. I have a direct question for the Board and I think it's one that was eluded to by Mr. McLaughlin. What is it exactly that's going to be sent out to all the other agencies? Is it the one in the middle only? Mr. Ward: No, it would be all of the plans. Eric Eiressler: All three of these? Mr. Ward: Yes. Eric Bressler: If that's the case, then I must echo what Mr. McLaughlin said. fail to see how, we'll call it number three to the extreme right, gives anybody any meaningful notice of anything. Even a cursory review in companson of numbers two in the middle and three on the right, reveals that drawing number three shows - as conceded by the applicant - increased parking on the eastern poFcion and diminished parking on the western part of that combined parcel. Well 'how do we get there? It seems clear since they're both I to 20 scale that we are substantially closer to the water. How much closer, I don't know. There are no distances up there. I don't know how anybody is going to be able to give any sort of input with respect to that sort of a plan. Now, since the Board has indicated that number two and number three are both going up there, and one of them isn't a site plan, again i'm not sure what sort of input you're going to get back. Now harkening back to what we said at the last meeting, it seems to me that the Board has done something very positive here and that is that they have addressed the concern that this project be dealt with on a unified basis. I don't need to go back over again and again what happened the last time with that other parcel to the west. And we don't want that to happen again and think the Board is to be commended for bringing drawing number three forward. However, in the same breath that commendation has to be tempered by the fact that these folks didn't go far enough and they didn't give you what ought to be there and I think what's going to come back from the agencies is just what Mr. McLaughlin said, gee we don't know, do you think you could give us a little bit more information? And I don't think that a consideration of site plan number two is legally permissible to go forward. I said it before and I'll say it again, I don't think so and think this Board will lay itself open for challenge if it proceeds on number two, defacto, which is Southold Town Planning Board ']9 July 29, ']996 what it is doing by accepting two and three in the state that it's in. So, I would respectfully suggest that what ~De done is that number two be discarded, number three be upgraded to the status at least in detail of number two and if that's the way you want to go, think it's the way we ought to go, one integrated plan down there for the first time in I don't know how many years. Then let's go forward on that basis, there are some positive things in that plan. Some of ~he concerns of Mr. Hansen's group have been addressed at least in part Other quesUons are raised by it, questions concerning what appears to be an abanddnment of State Rt. 25 and the public's access toper to the water, need to be addressed. The number of spaces of parking, th~ proximity to the water, the lighting, the drainage, the height of the duneS, al of these things are going to come back to haunt us. And again I don't want to see th s th ng done piecemeal. In closing, I would like to reiterate just one more time what I said the last time which is SCSR is not here to kill the ferry. What we are here to do is make sure that there ~s a responsible site plan put into place, one site plar that reflects the needs of the Town, the needs of it's citizens, while at the same time attempting to dca with what we believe to be a self created difficulty. What we believe to be a, gee we increased our business and nc you guys have to help us and we know we came to you last year and we you we were just going to do this little parking Jot over here anc~ all of a sudden the ferries came in. W Be that as it may, that's what this Board has in front of it and you've got to deal with it. And we think the way you've got to deal with it is door number three over there and we think you've got to deal with it and you've got to make it right and then you've got to send it around. I've never seen anything like this. In all the years 've been doing this I've never seen anything like two and like three go out there. And I dare say, I don't think the Board has either. So, let's take care of numger three, let's send it out, let's not send an ambiguous message and let's deal with the issues. Thank you. Stanley Shiller: My name is Stanley Shiller of Mattituck, In listening to Mr. Raynor give us a hopeful suggestion to address our concerns, which is traffic. Now this business of having a stop light there with an intermittent stal the flow of the traffic every few minutes, that traffic is going to stack up within two or three miles. That plan has been tried on the VanWyck Expressway and other highways. You (inaudible) intermittent traffic by putting a stop light and a stop light would have to be longer than a minute Southold Town Planning Board 20 July 29, 1996 or so to give us a break on the (inaudible). So I think that's an inadequate addressing of the problems we have and that's traffic. Thank you. Mr. Ward: Anyone else like to address the Board this evening? Bruce Carr: I'm with SCSR (CHANGE TAPE) I think another zoning issue has I~een raised. There's a building shown on board number two which shows property that used to be owned by a family named Blauvelt. As I understand the conceptual drawing board number three, this ~s now to be converted to a snack bar, from what I would consider a commercial use, from residential. So, that's a question 1 have. I believe also that this may constitute a segmented review although we have seen larger area covered then before for board number three, there's still a parcel of underwater land which has not been addressed in this drawing and has not been talked about by anyone and has deeded rights attached to the property of the Blauvelt house for ferry use, for possible future construction of additional docks, piers, whatever. A general comment also is that would have liked to have heard some commentary on thresholds in terms of number of parking spaces, amount of traffic in this area, number of people, number of boats, size of boats Ali of these things I know will come up in a SEQRA process but I feel that they should somehow be accommodated at this time with site plan, a fuller site plan than what we see. Another point is the designation of lead agency status to the Planning Board. As I understand it has taken one year for Cross Sound Ferry to arrive with something resembling a fuller plan without at all suggesting blame at this point, wonder why the Planning Board has allowed so much time to pass. I hear today that the Chairman has excused himself from decision making on this matter. I wonder, I'll simply put it out as a question, that if a State agency perhaps the Department of State or another agency might essentially have a larger perspective and perhaps less inherently, localized perspective of what (inaudible) should be reached on this issue. My last comment is that Harold Watson had prepared a quite detailed package on (inaudible) concerns of the use of this area around the water and had forwarded copies of it to the Planning Board among many other people and I hope you all get a chance to read that. Thank you for your time. Mr. Ward: Is there anybody else that would like to address the Board this Southold Town Planning Board 2t July 29, 1996 evening? Gertrude Reeves: I'm from Orient. I've lived at the Point for sixty some years of my life. worked for the ferry previous to these (inaudible) for 13 years. I would like you to understand, looking at number three where the first orange par[ of the drawing is, I have seen people come off of the fern/not only when I worked there but many times since, have to take their shoes off and walk in water halfway up ~he calf of their legs. I hope that's going to be addressed. You have a berm there and I think that berm would probably hold the water in instead of letting it out on the beach. I wonder when the Cross Sound Ferry obtained the State road? Mr. Ward: I'm sorry, what was that? Ms. Reeves: I wonder when Cross Sound Ferry bought or got the State road down to the ferry? Local people and people coming down to the end of Long Island go all the way to the end of Rt. 25. They get there, they can't turn around. There is no where to turn .around. But it is the State road and they're making use of it, both sides of it, walking across it. The other thing ~s you have a traffic circle. Is that also part of Rt. 25? Mr. Ward: Yes. Ms. Reeves: The circle will be on Rt. 25? Absolutely no. Frank Yakaboskh Just a couple of comments before the Board proceeds. Mr. Carr you raised a number of very appropriate points regarding the issues that you feel are important to be dealt with, the traffic, the flow, but candidly and not looking to put you off at all the SEQRA process, and you know it but I know you're looking for more, but our site plan application does not envision the provision of this type of information as designed to come forth from the SEQRA process. So that your issues will be addressed, and will be considered in the SEQRA process. Ms. Reeves, your issue regarding the traffic or the configuration of Rt. 25, if you will, please don't pick on Cross Sound for that, and I know you're not, but that was something the Board asked Cross Sound to do. In fact, you may be aware perhaps you're not, and I'll make you aware if you're not, and I don't mean to be condescending. Some time ago the State DOT officials met here with Town officials and Southold Town Planning Board 22 July 29, '1996 indicated that if the Planning Board thought it appropriate, the State DOT would like it if that segment of Rt. 25 which you see on the far right plan there were incorporated as an overall parc of the Cross Sound Ferry site, assuming that provision could then be made for access To the bayt:ront, Gardiner's bayfront to t.he general public. These discussions were had here at Town Hall I believe, some months ago. So in working this us, this Board has been working with Cross Sound and considering it's proposals for some months now. And this concept was presented to them and it was asked that they present this to us in the form of an integrated plan. This doesn't mean that this is going to be the plan. It certainly doesn't. But it's going to be considered as part of the overall process. Ms. Reeves: Then I would like to know where Rt. 25 will end? What will be (inaudible) people up in front of that circle, so that they can't even turn the car around? That they will be involved in going down through the ferry line and out through the other side? Mr. Yakaboski: I know what you're saying, I don't purport to know the answer to that as we stand here I don't Know whether the applicant wants to address that at this point or we wait for the process. In terms of, you mean if you want to go fishing, let's say? Right? Or you want to go to the beach? Ms. Reeves: Well, where are they getting the beach? is the Cross Sound Ferry going to donate it? Mr. Yakaboski: Well, Cross Sound Ferry owns to the high tide mark. Ms. Reeves: Absolutely. That whole section, all that you have there on the map. Mr. Yakaboski: Right. And I believe because I was here for the work session and I'll ask Mr. Raynor to correct me if I'm incorrect, that that portion designated dune on that far right plan was something that the DEC in consulting with Mr. Raynor proposed be included as part of this plan. So I'm presuming that in terms of distances and the like that the DEC has already had some look at this. Is that correct Mr. Raynor? Mr. Raynor: I did not participate in that meeting, but believe you're correct ~n your representation of it. There is some space between what we have shown as a proposed dune location on the edge of the water so that there is..,excuse me, there's space between that and the high water mark which Southold Town Planning Board 23 July 29, 1996 would not normally be available for people, but would be in this case. Ms. Reeves: I'1 add to that then. Where would they put their cars in order to go to the beach? Mr. Yakaboski: How would a member of the general public who can now park at the end of Rt. 25, albeit for 10 seconds, I don't know if that's been considered. Mr. Raynor? Mr. Raynor: think there's a fairly complex process that still has to be carried out here to make determinations like that. We do expect, for example that Cross Sound Ferry will incur some expense in securing the use of that property and there's a relatively small number of spaces available to people in the Rt. 25 property now to get to... Mr. Yakaboski: 15 or so. Mr. Raynor: 15 or so, maybe 20 as a maximum shown on the original site plan (inaudible) I presume that after we have some comments from Town Planning Board and the other agencies that there will be some changes in the circulation patterns reflected in the overall site plan. And 1 think that we can ~ncorporate solutions to the problem that this lady ~as raised tonight, in that. The opportunity is certainly there because there is a much greater number of parking spaces provided under this plan then under the current situation, so there shouldn't be any reason why that can't be found here. Mr. Yakaboski: Thank you. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Ward: if there are no further comments? Yes? Freddie Wachsburger: Vice President of SCSR. I must say it comes as kind of a shock to realize that they suggested to give away that part of Rt. 25 and public access to the beach which is a historic one. A historic public access that we have on many early records which you would see if you did read Mr. Watson's presentation that he made to all of you. That that suggestion to give that away to Cross Sound actually came from a Board of the Town government. Mr. Yakaboski: That's not so, Ms Wachsburger. Ms Wachsburger: I thought that was what you just said. Mr. Yakaboski: No, what I said was that in discussion with the State Department of Transportation with various Town officials, it was the DOT who Southold Town Planning Board 24 July 29, 1996 had suggested that it would be amenable to the concept of incorporating that portion of Rt. 25 which Funs north and south as part of the overall plan of Cross Sound in dealing with its traffic, parking, pedestrian flow, etc. n considering the site plan application of the Cross Sound people at its last meeting, the Board felt that it would request that Cross Sound's engineers, as part of an integrated plan, design and present to it a concept for consideration for as part of the overall SEQRA process. And this is what we have. We're making no proposal to give away public access or public rigl~ts to gain access to the beach. Ms. Wachsburger: I'm sorry, that seems to me you're saying two different things. And I don't see any indication on here where the public access to the beach would be. My question really is only having heard what both attorneys presented nere and not seeing any response from any of you, obviously there is a time consideration here, I understand it's 30 days, by which all of these possibly interested agencies have to respond. If you trigger that with this conceptual plan which does not give them any indication of the relationship of any of this to the coastal zone, to where the (inaudible) or high water mark, to any of the features, but just exists there in a conceptual way that is tied to no particular landscape. How can they respond? I'm not seeing any response from any of you to this essential question that if we're going to have adequate involvement of all of these deeply concerned agencies, and by the way I didn't hear any reference in nere to the coastal zone management either, but if we're going to have the essential participation of these agencies, how can you start the clock rolling with something that is incomplete, really feel that we, the public, need an answer to that right now because obviously what you do tonight is going to have an impact on that. Mr. Ward: We're going to ask Ms. Scopaz to respond. Ms. Scopaz: I just would like to clarifl/something. When I said the 30 day period within which agencies have.to respond, I should have clarified it by saying that they must indicate within that period of time whether they would like to be part of the ongoing review. The scoping session does not take place within that 30 day period. The scoping session will take place after that period. Ms. Wachsburger: But they've stil decided whether they want to be involved on the basis of... Southold Town Planning Board 25 July 29, 1996 Ms. Scopaz: Let me finish. At the scoping session we will go through the table of contents as it were, for the draft ElS and we will go into a great level of detail as to exactly what type of information must be included within the DEIS. When that impact statement comes in, it is going to include all the details of which you spoke, because in order for them to provide the information that the State requires be in that document, they're going to have to go to that level of detail, and that will be part and partial of the document. When the document comes in, if it deems to have all the information that it's supposed to have, it will then be released to the public and you will have at least 30 days to read and pore over this document to make any kind of comments that you wish to make, before we'll be holding a public hearing on that. And in addition to that you can submit anything you want, in writing. And that information will be sent back to the applicant The applicant will be asked to respond to concerns that come up at that time. The level of detail will be there within which we can have the discussion that... Ms Wachsburger: I don't think I made myself clear. I'm still not getting an answer to the specific point of how will these agencies that you send this out to be able to make a determination whether or not they feel it appropriate to De involved if they don't have more information than this to base that on. I'm talking about this 30 days that starts now and the sending this stuff out to these agencies who then have to decide whether they want to be involved or not. How can they decide on the basis of this? Ms. Scopaz: As I said earlier, this will be sent out with the total information packet, the environmental impact statement that they submitted, the assessment form They also submitted a document, John Raynor put together a document that has additional technical information that will explain what the proposal is. I think your question deals with you feel that the agencies in question will need a greater level of detail than is shown on the plan. I would counter by saying that the agencies involved are very used to doing the SEQRA process and they know that what comes in is not necessarily what will end up being approved and their basic function is to review it and see if any portion of the project would be within their jurisdiction And at that point you then invite them to come to the scoping session to bring their concerns about the type of information that they will need. And this is a very important part of the thing, sometimes agencies will be very specific. They mig ht ask for an application to be made or for specific types of Southold Town Planning Board 26 July 29, 1996 information so they can make that determination. Charles Mearn: I'm also with SCSR We've seen what is more or less a blank comprehensive site plan for all four lots but the supplementa information that you referred to, does that also include data on all four lots or just on the proposed new parking lots? Ms. Scopaz: My understanding is that the applicant is going to be submitting additional information, correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Raynor, but the information pertains to basically the two lots on the east. Mr. Mearn: Well that's not really a comprehensive site plan then, so all they get is a comprehensive picture of a piece of space out on Orient Point, but no details on what is on the comprehensive four lot site plan. Ms. Scopaz: Well again, I think the Board made it clear that when the package goes out, that in the letter to the coordinating agencies it will be stated very clearly that we are looking at the entire project not just portions of it. Mr. Mearn: Just one last comment, it seems to me you're leaving an awful lot of imagination up to these, reviewing agencies. Tom Murray: i'm with the group SCSR also and I'm having a problem in trying to understand., First is that it has taken a year to get to this point Where we are now. Number two is that our attorney and another attorney and many members of the audience have asked a direct or a number of direct questions to the Board, to you. The second, number two, was discussed and thought that possibly that that should not be sent. I haven't heard,, any kind of response, maybe you're going to respqnc~ to us before you make...what l'm afraid of is that you're just going to make a reso ution and I wou d prefer that not to happen. I would prefer that our comments would be at'least responded to Aga n, s number two going to be in or out? And more important than numl~er two is number three. That is just a lot of bunk, and what I'm deeply concerned with is that we will go back to this stalling tactic that we've had from the ferry and from the attorneys that many issues and many things will be submitted, some in subterfuge, where we may not be able ~o see these documents, 'that there will be letters going back and forth from this agency to that agency, to this, to that and to you. And there will be responses to these letters. Some of these responses may not necessarily be correct and I'm concerned that a lot of issues may continue to be unresolved and determinations may be made Southold Town Planning Board 27 without certain information being fully discussed, July 29, 1996 So I think at the most basic sense at this meeting tonight, and I really plead with you not to make a blanket resolution until you at least respond to some of our questions. I think we have the right to be concerned about sending number three to 57 agencies. And God only knows what they're going to say to us. And God only knows what these people are go~ng to respond to those particular agencies. So if maybe we could just get the basics of this taken care of now so at least we would feel a little bit of comfort before we take the next step. Thank you. Mr. Ward: Just in general, in terms of correspondence and what's going to go and come from all the agencies, it's a full and open file in the Planning Board office. There are no secret documents. This is something that's a process that's in the public realm. It's not something that's done in a closet some place. The other issues, there are many ssues that have been addressed tonight. Many, many and many more that will be addressed as the process progresses. I don't think anybody on the Planning Board tonight is even in a position to say this is the plan we should have or will ever have. And certainly one of the alternates that has to be looked at in the process ~s that if they don't get the variance on the residential lot, what happens then? So there are a lot of issues that are out there that have to be looked at. And the only way we're going to get a full look at them is to get into the process. We don't Know truthfully any other way because there are so many questions to be answered that the environmental review is pretty much the way it's going [o go about, but let's open up here, we've got some more that would like [o address the Board. Charlotte Hansen: I'm also with SCSR I just have a couple of very simple questions. One is that in the interim, and I'm naive to the SEQRA process i'm new to it all, but in the interim while all of this work is going on, the 30 days, 40 days and so on, what kind of restrictions would be on Cross Sound to do or not to do anything until the process is over? Mr. Ward: Well there is nothing that can be done until there is an approved site plan and we're quite a ways from having that. Ms. Hansen: The reason I asked of course is whether it's true or false, there's been lots of speculation in the population about what is happening while the process is still in abeyance and maybe the Board could speak to what is legitimate or possibly illegitimate concerns on our part. That would be Southold Town Planning Board 28 July 29, 'ig96 helpful. Than you. Mr. Ward: Well I know that there were some concerns in terms of use of the residential property by Cross Sound. I believe that the Town code enforcement has been keeping an eye out, Ithink they have addressed some of the issues on that. The Planning Board is not involved with code enforcement so it's difficult for us to respond to it in total. Tomorrow n~ght it would be a good question to raise if there are some problems that you see out there for the Town Board to know about and also for code enforcement to know about. Kevin McLaughlin: Maybe just because it's late at night and my brain is not working very well, but I'm still at a total loss as to how you can send out all three of these sketches, site plans or whatever and expect to get back any meaningful reply from any agency. Are they replying to what exists? Are they going to reply as to what would appear to at least have most of or some of the elements of a site plan, or are they responding to this rendering, this conceptual plan They're not the same plan You're going to be receiving back comments of confusion I would assume. What is the application here? What map, what drawing? (CHANGE TAPE) What are we supposed to be reviewing as part of determining whether we want to get our agency involved further in the SEQRA process? Frankly, if I walked into your office in behalf of an applicant and handed you number three, you would rightfully laugh me out of your office and say you've got to be kidding me. You've got no detail here. There's nothing. But you're expecting agencies to get all three of these with whatever other package of information they may receive from you, sort this all out and give you back meaningful comment. And I think you're asking much too much of people. If this was handed to me I would have no way of being able to interpret what plan is presently before this Board as far as a site plan. John Raynor: Mr. Chairman, I think I can clarify and probably answer a portion of Mr. McLaughlin's question. The 30 day period that has been referred to several times tonight is the initial stage of the SEQRA procedure. And rather than being an invitation to comment, it is really an inquiry to other involved agencies as to whether or not any of those agencies wish to stand as the lead agency. That is the sole substance of your referral to them for the coming 30 days. You provide them with sufficient information to at least know where the property is located and generally what is being proposed, but the issues of presentation of facts and the alternatives all fall under the purview of the Southold Town Planning Board 29 Ju1¥29,1996 preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. And the comments from all of those agencies properly must await the completion of that draft statement because that is what they are to examine. So the only issue before them at this point will be should they stand and ask to be the lead agency, don't believe that you need any of the information on any of those three drawings to raise that question. This site is well Known to all of those agencies Eric Bressler: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, t share Mr. McLaughlin's frustration. I think that Mr. Raynor's comment points up one of the serious difficulties facing the Board l~ere. He used the word alternative and I think that's an appropriate use of the term. But I think it begs a question An alternative to what? How many parking spaces are on number three? Is it more or is it less than on number two, plus the western parcel. How many feet closer to the water is number three than number two Well maybe we should have an alternative to that. Well what could that alternative possibly 13e? We don't even know what it is. Maybe I'm missing something here but I listened to everything that these folks said and if you're going to have alternatives and if some agency is going to decide whether it's going to be the lead agency or not, it seems to me that it ought to have the basics in front of it so that it can determine whether it wants to be lead agency. Now, you may hear them say well OK, we're going to explore al of that in the SEQRA process. Well where is the starting point? Aren't we going to have a starting point? Is this going to be a new type of DEIS based on number three where we're going to fill in the blanks at the last minute? I don't understand how that works and I think what Kevin said is so. If anybody else had brought this into the office and said, look at this and start the SEQRA process you would have said no, we need a starting point. And I think we need a starting point here and I think you have to insist on one so that people can evaluate it and decide what they're going to do about it. EIfreida VonNodroff: I'm from Orient. I just have one question and that is, haven't been to these meetings before. I'm sympathetic with people who have spoken, I agree with them. But sitting here as fairly much of a new person in this room, I can't help but ask why isn't Cross Sound Ferry giving the information people are asking for? Why are they so reluctant to say how many parking places or how many feet from the ocean or all of these things. They must be taking this into consideration. They're a business corporation. Why can't they provide us, or you, with that information? Thank you. William Esseks: I'm the attorney for the applicant. I can understand how the public doesn't understand the complexities and ambiguities of the SEQRA Southold Town Planning Board $0 July 29, 1996 process. I can't understand the purposeful ignorance of the counsel who have addressed you maliciously and in a somewhat amusing fashion. A month ago I was here, we submitted this application in the spring, we were here a month ago and we asked you to vote to start the coordination for lead agency determination, the very basic first ste;). And pursuant to Part 6'17 of the (inaudible) CRR, we have given you and you have received dramatically more information than is necessary to start the lead agency determination. I know that, counsel knows that, the Board knows that, the Board's consultant Knows that. Now, la? month the Chairman said to us would we give you additional information for a conceptual plan. It involves property that we don't own, it involves property that we don't control. We have no ability to make an application to somebody elses property. Notwithstanding that and knowing of the state's interest... Unknown: Why are you doing it? Mr. Esseks: Because we were asked to do it last month and people here are carping and complaining, now you're doing it, do more of it. We don't have to do that. We did that t3ecause we were asked to do that and we presented those papers and I ~)elieve that at some point in the process, one of the alternatives to be considered will be an overall site plan application including a property that we don't own But we're not going to submit an application for property that we don't own because that would be inappropriate. You don't nave jurisdiction over property that we don't own. And we can't ask for it. Now, our application is the one in the middle. We ask you to start the process of coordinated review, which is the process whereby you people end 'up screaming and shouting and fighting in the future about what this process is going to be, [}ut you can't really start the screaming and shouting until we have a lead agency and you can't have a lead agency until they adopt a resolution to start the lead agency process. You want to fight even before it starts. Now I most respectfully suggest that you pass a resolution to direct the secretary to send out the notices and our application to all the agencies that might be involved. And then a month from now you can decide you want to be the lead agency or some other agency can say they want to be lead agency. And then they can have a scoping session and people can come and say they want this addressed or they want that addressed. They want the State Highway to be included or not included. They want to have access to the ocean or not, to the bay. Any of those things are perfectly proper, but Southold Town Planning Board July 29, 1996 you can't do it until you start the process. Now, we shouldn't be beaten for bringing you the paperwork that you asked for, in the same way that we shouldn't be punished, maybe we should be rewarded. We need to move ahead. The Board is well aware of how to start the process. The lawyers who have spoken know exactly how to start the process, so why don't we do it. And I hope we don't have to have the same conversation again. We should get on to dealing with the merits of the application. Ed Halpert: I'm a resident of Southold. That's the most absurd argument. You say that you're putting forward plan two, when we've just been told it's plan three. Then you're saying you don't need to put forward any plans because you don't own the property. Now it's utterly confusing to someone who simply wants to Know what you want to do. Mr. Esseks: That will come in the process. (Everyone talking) Mr. Halpert: If we had a basis of trust in what your lead is we might very well say, fine we'll wait for the process to spin out. But, obviOusly there are a great many people in this room who feel very strongly that they are suspicious of the intent of the ferry company. Now, we were brought to that, out of the clear blue we were brought to it because of time delays and precipitous action on the part of the ferry company without approval and plan. And if we want safeguards in knowing what your intention is, it's insulting to us to say, no we're going with the second plan here, when your planner has said no it's the plan on the far right. Maybe other people are as confused as am. Mr. Esseks: That's a purposeful statement, that's not correct. Mr. Halpert: Well please answer my point. What are you saying is the specific F31an that you're going with or is it your intention to say you don't have to be specific, which is what you said. Mr. Esseks: We submitted an application to the Town. There are copies with the clerk of the Town. If you wish a copy, if you wish to have it, come to my office tomorrow, we'll make a xerox copy of it an give it to you Mr. Halpert: Is it two or three Mr. Esseks? Mr1 Esseks: It's two. No one's ever said to the contrary. Southold Town Planning Board 32 July 29, 1996 Mr. Halpert: Should we pay any attention to number three? Mr, Esseks: I don't care whether you do. The application is for number two, (Everyone talking) Mr. Halpert: 'm totally bewildered. I've been before Planning Board's before, but I know that I've been pinned down in terms of what the submission is that is going forward to the Planning Board. And if you're telling us no, ignore three, it's two that is the real plan, is the Board as confused as l am? Thankyou. Mr. Ward: The alternative plan which is showing up as panel three was requested by the Board to show the potential of an integrated plan The panel in the middle is the site plan that they have submitted which indicates the expansion of parking to the east, and showing the existing conditions that occur on the west. It's our intent to submit the plans as they are shown here with a narrative that would go with them to the various agencies to show that the site plan that's before us has some options that we're going to be looking at and this happens to be one of the options. Freddie Wachsburger: Do I understand rightly then that we're at the same place that we were last month and that what you are in fact submitting as a site plan is not a comprehensive site plan which you've been asking for for a year, but is the :same piece of a site plan that was submitted last month and that's what you're accepting now? Mr. Ward: What we asked for was a coordinated plan. Cross Sound Ferry is correct in stating that they cannot submit a plan which includes them owning the State right-of-way. We didn't see how this plan was going to operate and coordinate between an east and west side of the Rt. 25 extension to the water without some consideration of what could be done with that and how that would integrate with an integrated site plan. And that's the purpose ... ( TAPE MALFUNCTIONED) Unknown: ..where do the citizens of the town inhabitants fit into this expansion program? Nothing is mentioned as to how it will adversely effect them. We have traffic problems as it is and nothing is spoken about. Mr. Ward: We're trying to explain that the process of the SEQRA process, the environmental review that we're trying to get involved with at this time is the process which will review all of these questions and other questions that anybody raises. That's the purpose. Southolcl Town Planning Board July 29, '1996 Unknown: Why isn't it reviewed now. I can't,.. Mr. Ward: Because we have to start the process by asking for lead agency status. We have to start the process. Unknown: An agency? Mr. Ward: The lead agency. look at the whole process. for tonight. Who is going to be the coordinating agency to And that's what the purpose of the resolution is Unknown: Well what happens tomorrow night? Mr. Ward: Tomorrow night is an informational meeting called by the Town Board to talk not only with the Planning Board but other boards in the Town that would nave some impact on this application. Unknown: But what about the impact on the environment, about the people who live here? Mr. Ward: I'm trying to say that that's the whole purpose of what we're trying to get involved with right now. Unknown: But no mention has been made of it this evening. No one has brought it up. At the A&P you can't get out. Can you magine if this passes what's going to happen at that end, and all the way down the line? It's a big problem as it is right now. The traffic is unbearable. You can't get out of your driveway here. Thank you. Saul Mildem I just wonder if you could please clarify what is the status of the ownership of the property in question? What is the status of the Zoning Board right now, the application on that, and if they don't own the property, who is applying for the zoning? Mr. Yakaboski: Just quickly Mr. Milden, and again, I'm going to try to tone things down a little bit. It's just that sometimes we are familiar with the process and we're familiar with the paperwork that's filed, so perhaps sometimes sitting here we tend to think that perhaps the questions are directed more to create an argument as opposed to seeking real information, but you have a sincere question, I'll answer it The premises that Mr. Essek's referred to as not being owned by Cross Sound is the road bed of Rt. 25. Cross Sound owns all of the existing premises right Southold Town Planning Board 34 July 29, 1996 now and has control of, that is the parcel all the way to the east, the 2.5 acre parcel which is the new addition if you will to the proposed site, is owned by the Woronski family, which is the controlling interest of Cross Sound Ferry. As part of their application, they have stated that if approved that parcel would be merged with and Drought under the Cross Sound site. Now, as far as the Zoning Board goes. What is before that Zoning Board is the status of that most easterly 2.5 acre parcel which Mr. Raynor referred to as the trust parcel. Everything else owned by Cross Sound is zoned M-2 which permits the ferry use. The easternmost parcel, the 2.5 acres, is zoned R-80. It is residential. It is not ferry use zoned property. In order to ultimately be able to use that parcel as part of its overall business operation for parking or otherwise, it must obtain approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, which application is and has been pending for sometime, awaiting the outcome of the SEORA process before that Board can meet and hold hearings and render its determination. That's why we want to get going. What we do here this evening starts the process, t doesn't end the process. That's why I know, and I'm toning down, and I'm not going to ask my colleague Mr. Esseks to speak again. He is getting slightly hot under the collar because he knows that the arguments, if you will, or the fights if you will, are yet to come. That it shouldn't be at this stage. He knows that the hard work for his client applicant lies before him, in going through the entire SEQRA process. And then getting to the Board of Appeals and conducting those hearings and seeking a favorable outcome at that point. Unknown: Needless to say, if the zoning is not approved then this is all irrelevant? Mr. Yakaboski: That's right. Except that, and this is why, not to De facetious, this is why we're saying to some of you, let's not be playing games here. If they don't receive zoning approval, neither one, two or three is any good. They're back to deleting that easternmost parcel and coming back or doing something else to deal with their overall site problem. Freddie Wachsburger: I hope the Board will understand our frustration in this. As you know, we've put a great deal of time into analyzing and in fact understanding a lot of this. At the moment it looks like a big pea soup in front of us because all of our understanding was that the Town had asked for, under the laws of the Town which is when a business appreciably changes or increases the use of the property, they come in for a new corn prehensive site plan, and the request was for a comprehensive site plan Southold Town Planning Board $5 July 29, 1996 which would include al of the properties that the ferry intended to use and any future use they intended to make of it. We still don't understand why that hasn't happened after all this time. The Cross Sound has certainly had the time. They have the information. They presumably know what they're going to do. The know Bow much traffic they are planning to bring in through Orient Point. They Know whether all of the traffic generated by two casinos and Six Flags is going to come in through Orient Point. The question that they can't create a unified site plan I~ecause they don't own Rt. 25, I mean that's a smoke screen. Why don't they do it without Rt, 25? Why don't we have a comprehensive site plan with all these p~eces? ( CHANGE TAPE) ...after all this time, why have you not asked the cour[ as was your opportunity, to compel Cross Sound ~o come in with the comprehensive site plan that you asked for last year? Why are you still willing to sit back and take whatever you get? I don't get it. Mr. Ward: I'd ike to ask at this time if somebody has not addressed the Board would like to address the Board, you'd be welcome to do it. I think we've heard from a number of you tonight. We understand and are concerned about the process that we're getting into. Is there anybody that hasn't spoken tonight that would like to speak? Cynthia Beer: live in Orient and I'm a member of SCSR. The last meeting that we attended on this topic, we were addressed by Mr. Esseks at some length as to our rights under the Constitution of the United States. I would like to refer to that constitution by saying that we the people are here tonight and over many days and many nights, because we have serious concerns about what's happening here. We donor understand. We feel that we are being given double-speak in lots of instances and I don't understand at all why this whole process cannot be made clear to us so that we understand what's going on and that we have some voice which is represented by our own elected and serving officials. Mr. Ward: Well, in continuance, tomorrow evening there is a meeting at 7:30 to continue discussion on it and please go to that because there wil be some other Boards that you can address some questions to. Ms. Beer: It's a question of trust and it does not exist here and that's clear. Mr Ward: Anybody that hasn't addressed the Board tonight that would like to address the Board? Southold Town Planning Board 36 July 29, 1996 Gordon Price: Of Orient. My concern s that I'm really b)asic about this I don't know the three site plans from the lawyers, or whatever, and I know there's a lot of legal stuff going on here that I'm not quite clear on. But what I am clear on is the fact that when I moved here in 1984, Cross Sound Ferry had, say 69 parking spaces. Now Cross Sound Ferry, by need, has to have 570 or more or whatever. This is the thing that bothers me because it's changing the whole community. And as this lady over here says, we have a constitutional right to be recognized as citizens. We're all up here. This thing is going to change our community drastically. And we're allowing it to happen. Now if I were up there on the Board or maybe I should reserve this little speech for the Town meeting tomorrow night, but what I see here, everyone is saying well, let 1;hese guys come in and have their 570 parking spaces. What's going to happen in 5 years says Ann Hopkins or 3 years? Maybe it's going to be 1000. And then where are we? We're the victims of progress, and gambling casinos and big bucks over there in Connecticut, and we're sucking bee-bee's here because we're the funnel through which all this garbage goes. What can we do about it to prevent the garbage from going through? That's my question. Janet Douglas: I live in Orient. I've been there al my life. Yeah, there's change going on. It's just not because of the casino. There are kids going to colleges, there are boy scouts going to jamborees. And you have to look at that. When things happen they happen for a reason I know I couldn't go to college if it wasn't for the ferry. There's no way I could drive around to Rhode Island. And I just think that should be taken into consideration also. Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Board I would just like to say a few words. Number one, it was this Board that realized the problem and instigated the litigation that we're in right now. I don't think there is anyone on this Board that doesn't wane to answer to each and every question that was brought up tonight, from each and everyone of you. I've been here a long time, longer than anybody here, and I've been through litigation, rve been there when the judge has said, that's enough, I'll sign the plan. I think that for us to proceed, we have to get into the SEQRA process. We want those answers That's the way we're going to get them. You'll have your chance to ask all these questions again, to get all that information that you want to nave and we want to have. I don't think there's anybody sitting up here that doesn't want this information. I'd like to see this get started. I sit here even/week and I think it looks to me like it's cheaper for Cross Sound to hire their attorney and come in every week then to solve this problem that's going on and on and on and on and on. Southold Town Planning Board $7 July 29, 1996 We want to solve the problem, that's why we're here. I'd like to make a motion now to start the process. Mr. Latham: I'll second the motion. Mr. Ortowski: Mr. Chairman, be it resolved that the Southold Town Planning Board start the coordination process on this Type 1 action. Mr. Ward: Is there a second? Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Ward: All in favor? Ayes: Mr, Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr, Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Ward: I abstain. Motion carried. The Board has decided to move ahead with the process To check into the lead agency coordination. There will be a meeting tomorrow evening that you've been invited to that will involve the other agencies in the Town. This is the start of the process, it will be a lengthy process, so we'll at least get started. We thank you all for coming. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at approximately 8:15 p.m. Richard G. Ward, Chairman Respectfully submitted, Martha A. Jones Secretary ;~C~VED AND FILED BY Town Clerk, Town of Sout~old