Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-02/04/1991PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD SCOTt L HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1991 Present were: Absent: Bennett Orlowski Jr., Chairman G. Richie Latham Richard Ward Mark McDonald Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Melissa Spiro, Planner Holly Perrone Jane Rousseau Kenneth Edwards Mr. Orlowski: First order of business is public hearings, Subdivision Finals, 7:30 p.m. Barbara Sowinski. This minor subdivision is for two lots on 4.3075 acres located at Cutchogue. SCTM ~1000-103-1-20.2. We have proof of publication in the local papers and at this time everything is in order for a final hearing. I'll ask if there are any objections to this subdivision? Hearing none, are there any endorsements of this subdivision? Hearing none, is there anyone out there who is neither pro nor con but may have information pertaining to this subdivision that could be interest to the Board? Hearing none, any questions from the board? None Mr. Orlowski: No further questions, I'll declare the hearing closed. This is for a two lot subdivision, does the Board have any pleasure? Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. PLANNING BOAR/) 2 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 WHEREAS, Barbara Sowinski is the owner of the property known and designated as SCTM ~1000-103-1-20.2, located at the west side of Harbor Lane in Cutchogue; and WHEREAS, this minor subdivision to be known as Minor Subdivision for Barbara Sowinski, is for two lots on 4.3075 acres; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8), part 617, declared itself Lead Agency and issued a Negative Declaration on December 18, 1989; and WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said subdivision application at the Town Hall, Southold, New York on February 4, 1991; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; and be it therefore, RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning approve and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final survey dated October 2, 1990, with the condition that prior to the Chairman's endorsement of the maps that street trees be planted, 40 foot on center, along Harbor Lane. This condition must be fulfilled within six (6) months of the date of this resolution, or the conditional approval will expire. Mr. McDonald: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Moving on to preliminary subdivision at 7:35 p.m. Summit Estates - This major subdivision is for thirty-five lots on 4.8223 acres located on the southwest corner of Main Road NYSRt. 25 and Shipyard Lane in East Marion. SCTM $ 1000-35-8-5.3. We have proof of pUblication in both the local papers. At this time everything is in order for a preliminary hearing. I'll ask if there are any objections to this subdivision? Hearing none, are there any endorsements of this subdivision? Hearing none, is there anyone out there neither pro nor con but may have information pertaining to this subdivision that may be of interest to the Board? PLANNING BOARD 3 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 Donna Geraghty: I had spoken to Melissa last week in reference to Lots number 6 and 7 for easement for a water main. Do you have any objection to that or is there anything that should be added or changed, lot lines or anything? Mr. Orlowski: Well, not right now. This is a preliminary hearing so we haven't made that decision yet. Any other comments? Sherry Johnson: Good evening. I am representing the North Fork Environmental Council. At this time, we don't really have any endorsement or objection to the subdivision and I almost feel badly coming into some of these projects so late being they are so far along. On August 13th, this project was determined an unlisted action and given a Negative Declaration. I believe that determination is wrong, pursuant to the Peconic Bay being designated a critical and environmental area. This project should become a type I action and probably should have gone for a full review. It didn't. I know that NFEC is going to do better in the future to keep track of these details and I hope that you will to. As for the project itself, next to the density, the thing that bothers me is the distribution of open space and I would really like to see a configuration that included connecting the small wetlands behind lots 14, 15, and 16 to the block left open along Route 25. This would save some habitat and provide a small buffer for the existing lots on Maple Lane. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments? Donna Geraghty - If I could just react to that. Did you actually physically walk the site? Sherry Johnson: No, I haven't. Donna Geraghy: O.K. your co~uLlents on Lots 14, 15 and 16 on the map it shows that there is a depression there. There is absolutely no real wetland there. If you walk the site; it is relatively dry and there is nothing more there so I would say probably it is one thing to be able to come in and look at the map and see depressions and whatnot, but it is another thing to physically go out there and inspect the site and realize that there really isn't any habitat or such there. Mro Orlowski: Any other comments? Hearing none, any questions from the Board? None. Mr. McDonald: I make a motion that we hold this open while we go back and check the SEQRA determination. Mr. Ward: Second. PLANNING BOARD 4 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: I have a motion made and seconded to hold this motion open. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: 7:40 p.m. Southold Villas - This subdivision is for seventeen affordable lots. The parcel is located on the west side of NYS 25 approximately 1,400 feet north of Ackerly Pond Lane in Southold. SCTM ~100-70-i-6. Are there any objections to this subdivision? Hearing none, are there any endorsements of this subdivision? Hearing none, is there anyone out there neither pro nor con but may have information pertaining to this subdivision that may be of interest to the Board? Hearing none, any questions from the Board? Board: No questions. Mr. Orlowski: Being there are no further questions, I'll declare this hearing closed. This is an affordable housing project and I'll ask if the Board has any pleasure. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant preliminary approval on the subdivision map dated January 16, t991, subject to the following condition. Review and acceptance by the Planning Board and the engineer, of the revised drainage plans dated January 16, 1991. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Subdivisions - State Environmental Quality Review Act Mr. Orlowski: 7:45 p.m. Angel Shores - Public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated December 1990. SCTM ~ 1000-88-1,4,5. This is open for public comments. This co~,~,ent period will be open to February 13th so there is still PLANNING BOARD 5 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 time to address any comments in writing. At this time I will ask if there are any comments on this Environment Impact Statement? Dorothy Phillips: I live in the Hog Neck area not far from the projected development and I spent some time looking at the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and I was very concerned with the traffic survey that was completed in this DEIS and I would like to co. utLent on that. Henderson and Bodwell conducted a traffic count along the Main Bayview Road on Friday, April 15th, 1988, at a point where the existing dirt road, Sunset Lane, entered the site. Now, this is the least populated area of Hog Neck. There is nothing on Angel Shores and there is nothing but a nursery across the way. Traffic would be limited. This is not the place to conduct a traffic count. I submit that traffic calculations of this site to be incorrect because the bulk of the population lives somewhere else. There were no weekend traffic volumes taken at that time. This was a weekday one; the first one that I spoke of. The study used to calculate weekend traffic was performed by Henderson -Bodwell in 1987, a date too long ago, given our increased traffic Pattern, to be helpful; and the traffic survey went into detail of the number of trips generated by people who would be living in Angel Shores; a~nd the projected number of trips generated by the Cove homeowner~ were not included in the count of the~e traffic projections. There are twenty unsold units there. There was no mention of traffic entering Hog Neck from entering from Oaklawn Avenue and Goose Creek Bridge either, since there are two roads for enteringHog Neck and for approaching Angel Shores it seems ~that both should have been included in the survey. I would also like to talk shout a well location map that was in the DEIS. It shows ten existing wells in the vicinity of the Angel Shores site. Now why these wells were selected is not clear, but evident the difference of the depth of these wells and the depth of the groundwater in feet was part of a velocity formula applied by the conSulting engineer. The map leads to misinformation because it just shows ten wells and there are 44 homes in the Bay Maven area, 54 homes in the Terry Waters development area and over 100 wells all pumping and I would like to know why such a small sampling is satisfactory for use in thiS formula? Another thing the DEIS says is that a portion of the private road, Little Peconic Bay Lane, runs through Section II from Cedar Point Road to the main entrance road. Thus a third access to the site is provided there for this connection to Cedar Point Road. I believe, also a private road and Cedar Beach Road. Now these are private roads and I'm sure the owners of Angel Shores have right of access, but I don't think the rights of people who live there should be pre-empted by the developer to meet the needs of the development; and there are questions of roads, maintenance, access to the beaches, road improvements that must be solved. Were they addressed at all in the DEIS because they should be included, I think, or some method of solving these problems should be included. I also looked at the revised water supply report, Angel Shores revised PLA/qNING BOARD 6 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 September 26th, and this report states that ductile iron pipes, cement lines and PVC pipe wer~ both acceptable to supply lines. It later states that the connecting water main between Angel Shore and the Cove will be constructed of ductile iron pipe, thickness class fifty-two cement lined, and I talked to the Greenport Utility Inspector who examined these lines and he said that PVC piping was used. Therefore if this is correct, your DEIS has some flaws in it. The other thing I would like to talk about is the analysis by botanist of the Angel Shores tract. We discovered a very rare and ecologically sensitive plant community covering almost 100% of site one of the proposed development site. It was called a Maritime Red Cedar Forest that was classified by the New York Natural Heritage Program as critically imperiled. Very few remaining acres occur in New York State and the community is extremely vulnerable to extinction. The DEIS mentions this. It mentions it in a way that suggests that the botanist word is really not good enough. The other thing it says is that part of this maritime red cedar forest will be eliminated in the process of setting up the lots. A more creative and probably sensitive solution would have been for the developer to decide to leave that area alone and make it a feature of the development: name it for his mother or his wife and provide a feature of this development which would be less greedy and less destructive of the environment. The other thing I would like to say is that I know very well that this is DEIS and we are well on the way through the process of the SEQRA process which we know is going to result in Angel Shores. This is very late in the game for public co~L~Lent and I don't know why this happens but it is almost as if we were providing the developer with the information he needs to clean up the DEIS and go ahead with his plan. I think probably it would much better if the opportunity for the public comment came earlier. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Thank you, any other comments? Cecilia Louckaand I represent Terry Waters Property Owners Association. I haven't seen the new DEIS cause I understand it is not open to public until it is approved by the Board is that correct? Board: No. Cecilia Loucka: In it the access to Angel Shores was to be through Terry Waters. Is that correct? Board: No. It is not on the recent map. Mr. Orlowski: The impact statement itself and all of the maps are in the office available for public review. Cecilia Loucka: The most recent map had Rambler Court extended through Angel Shores. I will also give you a letter from the Botanist, in case you haven't seen it. PLANNING BOARD 7 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments? Robert E. Mitchell: Am I correct that there will be another public hearing on this DEIS for some of us who have not had the opportunity to read it? Mr. Orlowski: On the final, there will be another one. Mr. Mitchell - No, I'm talking about the draft? Mr. Orlowski: make comment. address them. On the draft, you have until February 13th to You can do that in writing and the Board will Mr. Mitchell: Will there be another hearing on the draft? Mr. Orlowski: No. Mr. Mitchell: May I make a request that there be another hearing on the DEIS? Harvey Arnoff: I doubt another one will be permitted unless the applicant is willing to consent. Mr. Mitchell: Well, I would make a personal request that we have another hearing on the DEIS and if necessary, if the applicants have to consent then ask for their consent, I mean this is a December DEIS and a lot of us have not had the opportunity to read this or comment on it or bring our comments to the attention of this Board. Maybe you don't have to have a second hearing on it but you could adjourn this hearing. You could make that formal request that you adjourn this hearing. Mr. Orlowski: You have until February 13th, to make co~u~,ent. This is just a public comment period. Mr. Mitchell: I understand that. I think it is important to hear what the public has to say and a response to the public when you say it; so I make a formal request that you adjourn this hearing until after February 13th when you can have additional comments from the public. Mr. Arnoff: Sir, I don't believe the statute affords the Board the right to do that. Mr. Mitchell: You can adjourn any hearing at any time. You know that as well as I do. Mr. Arnoff: I don't believe that that is correct. Mr. Mitchell: Well, I would suggest that you ask the Town Attorney to consult on that. Mr. Arnoff: I am the Town Attorney. PLANNING BOARD 8 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 Mr. Mitchell: Oh, you are the Town Attorney. Mr. Arnoff: That is why I'm here. Mr. Mitchell: Well, then may I request that you again check the law and see if you can adjourn this meeting? Mr. Arnoff: We will take your request under advisement. Mr. Mitchell: Right, well I request that the Board agree to adjourn this hearing if the law permits the Board to do that. Mr. Arnoff: The Board will then make a determination based on that. Mr. Mitchell: How does the public know? I mean I'm asking you to make a decision right now. If the law permits you to adjourn this hearing until people who have not had a chance to read this DEIS will have a chance to read and co~ent on it, would you adjourn the hearing? This is a simple request. Mr. Orlowski: Well, you have until February 13th to make comment on this. Mr. Mitchell: Chairman Orlowski, you said that four times. I perfectly understand that. I do understand the Engiish language. What I'm asking is, "would you adjourn this meeting until after February 13th so that you can receive these comments and allow the public to sit here to hear these con~nents and make their comments to the co~m~nts?" Ms. Scopaz: Are you aware that the Board will be deciding whether to accept the DEIS. In other words the decision is not made behind closed doors. Mr. Mitchell: I'm just asking that you adjourn this public hearing until people who have not had the opportunity to read this DEIS will be able to do so. Ms. Scopaz: But you have until the 13th to come into the office and read it. Then you can read all the other comments. Mr. Mitchell: Yes, but I don't have the opportunity to appear before a public hearing and give my comments on it and that is why I am asking that this meeting be adjourned. Ms. Scopaz: Your comments can still be accepted after the public hearing. Mr. Mitchell: I want them during the public hearing. That is why I am asking that you adjourn this public hearing to get further comments on this. That you have the power to do. PLANNING BOARD 9 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: Yes, I know and we could have public hearings until the cows come home but this is why we scheduled the public hearing and this is the comment period on the Draft Impact Statement. Mr. Mitchell: Chairman Orlowski, you do have the authority to adjourn the public hearing and that is what I am asking you to do. Mr. McDonald: My questions would be simple. This has been in the paper, it has been listed in the paper. Every motion on this particular subdivision has been done in public. What overwhelming reason or criteria would you have for us to call for this? Simply because you haven't? Mr. Mitchell: I think a lot of people haven't sir, Mr. Edwards. Board: Mr. McDonald. Mr. Mitchell: Mr. McDonald, I'm sorry. Mr. McDonald: Stay at the microphone because they won't be able to pick you up for the tape and we won't get you in the minutes. Mr. Mitchell: O.K., sorry if people can't hear me when I talk. The drinking water problem is critical from this and I don't think there is any reason to rush into this. I mean the developers can't rush into it. I mean, you couldn't sell a house in Southold right now to a homeless man if he just won the lottery so, I mean, what is the rush on this? I mean I think we could adjourn this public hearing until these people have a chance to read this. Everybody doesn't sit there and read the legal notices, Mr. McDonald. What is the reason for not adjourning the public hearing so that people who have not had an opportunity to read this DEIS, to have a chance to comment on it? Mr. Moore: Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment or make a suggestion? Mr. Orlowski: Are you through with your comments sir? Mr. Mitchell: I would yield to my colleague here. Mr. Orlowski: I don't know if he is your colleague. Mr. Moore: Attorney for the applicant. I do not endorse the suggestion that we adjourn this hearing. It has occurred to me perhaps if I can make life easier, I could obtain an extra copy of this Impact Statement and place it, I would suggest~ in the public library that has hours that extend beyond Town Hall library hours of business and perhaps that can give them an opportunity to review this. If you can leave word at your PLANNING BOARD 10 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 office, I will see that the copy gets there. If that makes any sense to anyone. Mr. Mitchell: Well, that is a generous offer, but do I gather from that, that you object that the people who have not read it, having a chance to read it and having a chance to make comments on it at a public hearing. Mr. Moore: Well, as Mr. McDonald stated, this has gone through a full process and the fact that people do not read the legal notices that are there for them is not the applicants fault. That is why I offered to put the document out for public co~ent. Mr. Orlowski: Listen, this is a comment period and not a debating period. Mr. Mitchell: I leave on the table my formal request that this hearing be adjourned so I would hope you would vote on that. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Mr. Voorhis: Mr. Orlowski, written comments and comments at a public hearing do carry equal weight. They will all be responded to the satisfaction of the Board. It is just something that you should certainly be aware of. The fact that it is not brought up at the hearing, that it is in writing, it will be reviewed and all the co~,~ents and subsequent comments will be reviewed and subsequent comments must be addressed. Mr. Orlowski: This is Mr. Voorhis, our consultant on the Impact Statement. The only thing I can say, and I have been here for quite a few years, and we sit and listen to the public hearing and we listen to people's comments and sometimes it gets pretty emotional and pretty heavy and I find out later on when we go back and the rest of the comments that are sent in in writing that are put down on paper, we have a better chance of reviewing and getting a better look at and in making our decisions rather than having somebody stand up here yelling and screaming and fighting. I mean it detracts from the real point that everyone is t~ying to get to or what we are trying to find out. Any other comments? Charlie Michele: I am the president of the Cedar Beach Park Association and we have at least fifteen homes which are contiguous or somewhat contiguous to this Angel Shores Development and so I came out and I read the draft statement and I circularized our homeowners. Over half of them, I would say, don't live in Southold, so many of them are unable to attend this hearing, and several of them called me and put me in the position of trying to interpret that draft statement which I don't feel competent to do so I was wondering if you've representatives of the Henderson Bodwell, your consulting engineers here, and that way I wouldn't misinterpret what the draft says and even though I try to read carefully? PLANNING BOARD 11 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: Those are the applicant's engineers. Henderson and Bodwell put it together. Cramer and Voorhis are our consultants. Mr. Michele: For example, Mr. Mitchell's point was that a lot of these people haven't had the opportunity to read the draft statement and yet they are vitally concerned with several aspects of the statement, mainly any possible impact on the drinking water, any possible impact on the privacy of the road because we are a private landowners association on private roads and according to this map, if I read it right, it looks like some of these roads within the development will enter or will tie into our private roads. That means there are forty-nine homes in here. Does that mean we are going to have possibly forty-nine people traveling on our private roads down to our private beach because they don't know where their beach leaves off and ours begins. That is one point and I don't know how to answer that. The second point is another neighbor called me up the other night and her home is very close to the Angel Shores: caddycornered to the southeast corner of Angel Shores, and she said '~You know when I bought my home, the water the water wasn't potable. It had salt water intrusion because they use to pump to irrigate the farmland. They used to pump the water and suck the water in such a rapid rate, but now it is beautiful." I said "well, if you read the draft statement, and, here again, they are putting six inch wells and they ran it at 60 gallons a minute for, I don't know for how long maybe a day and the impact a hundred feet away was negligible and since you are a thousand feet away from the pump; you know, I tried to reassure her and who am I to reassure her that her water is going to be good? I don't want to be in that position. ~umber one, I would like to ask the engineer, alright, they pumped the water at sixty gallons a minute for, let us say, twenty-four hours. Is that an analysis in a situation where you have forty-nine homes in Angel Shores and you've got another thirty some odd in the Cove and who knows how many have swimming pools and they are all going full blast? Maybe this is twenty years in the future I don't know, and that is going continuously, not just for twenty four hours but day after day after day so is this test a valid test of what the situation would be if all of these things are up and running? I would like to ask the engineer. MY confusion goes back Mr. Mitchell. These people have questions that only they can satisfy themselves that if they come to this meeting they will have a chance to read the DEIS because it shouldn't be a layman trying to explain what is in the draft statement. Mr. Orlowski: Have you reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement? Mr. Michele: Yes, I spent a couple of hours looking at it but I'm not technically competent to co~L,~ent on their assurances that there won't be any impact on the water. That is a primary concern down there. You know it's going to be too late once these homes are in there to do anything about it. We're not PLANNING BOARD 12 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 going to have Union Carbide come in and take care of the salt water. They took care of the Temik so who comes in to,et the salt water out? That is the concern these people have ~nd I think either you should have an engineer come up and explain it in an open meeting why they shouldn't be concerned, that there is no chance of any impact on the water or if you're not prepared to have engineer, to state that, now then, you should reschedule a meeting in two weeks where you can have an engineer here explaining technically why there is no threat to our water supply down there. Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments? Cecilia Loucka: Terry Waters Property Owners Association - Who is now in charge of the water that is being pumped? Greenport water is no longer in charge. Mr. Orlowski: I have no idea. Cecilia Loucka: You don't? In the newspaper about a week or two ago there was an article that stated that because there is thirty thousand dollars in arrears in payments to the Greenport Water Authority that the Greenport Water Authority is no longer in charge or has jurisdiction? Mr. Arnoff: Maybe I can help you a little. This is a private matter. By a private matter, there is a private contract entered into between the developers of the Cove and the Greenport Water Authority. We, the Town of Southold, don't control either of them at this point. It is a private contractual agreement. It is my understanding that that private contractual agreement has been breached. We have not been brought into that nor have we been requested to enter into the dispute which may or may not exist. To my knowledge, basically, what is going on down there comes from homeowners I know personally as long as what I have had and what we have all read in the paper and from a practical point of view it is my understanding I think there has been some agreement that H2M is going to go in and manage the water and the water will continue to flow under some other agreement. I'm sorry, it's Gremler, not H2M. I forget the name of this company in Mattituck. Cecilia Loucka: Isn't the original agreement that Greenport would manage it? Mr. Arnoff: I believe so with the Cove. Whether or not there has been a breach? Cecilia Loucka: How can the Town say they have nothing to do with it? Mr. Arnoff: We're not privy to that contract. PLANNING BOARD 13 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 Cecilia Loucka: It's horrible to dig up our road and put in pipes along the public highway. Mr. Arnoff: Water is still being provided. Cecilia Loucka: If we wanted to tie into that do you know what it would cost us? Twenty-five hundred dollars. Mr. Arnoff: I am pretty much aware of that. Cecilia Loucka: It's our road and then you don't know anything about it. I think it is relevant. You don't know who is managing it and they are pulling all the water out of there. Mr. Orlowski: It is very relevant to the final approval. I can assure you of that. There will be no approvals made unless they have water. Cecilia Loucka: Yes, could you also tell me are they getting water on the second floor at the Cove? They weren't. No answer? O.K., and then we can't postpone it for another hearing and you don't have the answers? Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments? Charles Stenalsik: I am on Cedar Beach Point and my property is south southeast of this location. If we had one of our normal drought periods and they are pumping for this piece of property and getting plenty of fine water and I am getting sea water~ what recourse do I have? Can I sue them or can I come back here to the Board and ask for some action or do I get a free hook-up to my fresh water that they are pumping? Helga Michele: Cedar Beach Park - I am as selfish as the next person. Now, when I look at this map and I have a copy of it here, I want to know whether there are any of there roads, Angel Shore roads which are leading into private roads of Cedar Beach Park? It is hard to tell whether they would be or not. Anybody know anything about map reading? I'm confused. I can read where there is a cul-de-sac but I don't know what this broken line means. I know there is suppose to be three entrances Ms. Scopaz: Excuse me, what page is that? Ms. Michele: Page 138. There are no tie in's? Mr. Voorhis: These are the only two ways to get into the subdivision? Ms. Michele: There is no road that goes into Cedar Beach Park. This is Bayview, this is Sunset. This is the private road and there is no connection with the private road? Ms. Scopaz: They are showing a connection. PLANNING BOARD 14 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 Ms. Michele: They are showing a connection. Mr. Voorhis: You should come down to the Planning Board office and look at the map. Ms. Michele: Can I send you a letter? Mr. Voorhis: Yes. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., any other comments? I would just like to say that this is a comment period and the reason for having this public hearing is so you can make your comments and your questions. Mr. Voorhis is here as our reviewer and he will be addressing all these comments and questions and you still have until February the 13th to make these comments and make them in writing and they will be addressed. This is a comment period and not a question and answer period. I would like to sit here and talk to you all night long answering questions but Mr. Voohris will have to review all of these comments and you have until February 13th to still make these co~,~ents. Sherry Johnson: Representing the North Fork Environmental Council. I would like add the request that you keep this, hearing open. Sorry to do it but you just, the notice of this hearing was published on January 31st in the Watchman and according to SEQRA you are supposed to give fourteen days notice in advance to the hearing and I really think that the time was short to have access to the document and to review it. I know that I had difficulty and I'm glad that Mr. Moore did agree to come up with another copy because when I called him last week he couldn't find one and also a copy of SEQRA should be at the local public library. First I would like to thank the Planning Staff for their assistance when I visited the office to review the document because they are always pleasant and helpful. However, as this is my first experience regarding the review of the DEIS in Southold, I was disappointed to learn that it is the policy of the Board not to allows DEIS's to be taken from the office. This policy makes it difficult to prepare a statement, it is much easier to refer to the document as you work. I would ask that you consider requesting future applicants to provide you with enough copies so that several are available to be loaned out. In Brookhaven, copies of DEIS's are provided to anyone who requests one, in Riverhead a twenty-five dollar deposit is required. The twenty-five dollars ~s refunded when the document is returned. As your present policy almost totally eliminates the working public's ability to review a DEIS, I would also ask that you consider placing copies in the local libraries. For your information, I have copied the section of SEQRA that pertains to the distribution of DEIS's so that you might review it. I hope that you will consider changing your policy. PLANNING BOARD 15 FEBRUARY 4 ~ 1991 As for the "Angel Shores" DEIS, I have spent several hours in the Planning Department Office reviewing this document. I was only able to finish reading it today and in order to prepare co~,~,ents that at least make sense I will take advantage of the co~f~f, ent period that extends past tonight. I will submit mY full review later this week. Given the historical background of this project I suppose the information that wasn't in this DEIS could have been received at some other time. However, going by just what is contained in this draft it is deficient in several areas including: water consumption, solid waste disposal and sewerage disposal, particularly on the lots where there is as the site exists now, insufficient room above the water table, to place a conventional septic system. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments? Ms. Dorothy Phillips: I'll be very brief. I would like to comment on the DEIS from the point of view of an English teacher. It is not a very good document. It lacks clarity; for example, they use these words "using a formula from the Highway capacity manual of the Transportation Research Board, the consulting engineer's calculated the traffic impact on Main Bayview. I would like to know, there is no infozmation given abOut the TranspOrtation Research Board, what is it? Why is its formula applicable to Main Ba!rview and is it a governmental agency? This document continues to talk on about the fact that the water system is being managed by Greenport. Well, really you could have changed that. It wouldn't have taken a very short time to get rid of this outdated fact. I could go on but I won't. Mr. Orlowski: On the question of water, I just want to assure you before this subdivision is ever approved that that will have to be answered and the applicant and their engineers are going to have to answer that question. They have to produce potable water for the number of units in this subdivision and they are going to have to prove it. Mr. Stenalsik: To expend on your statement. It is potable water for them and also for ourselves. We're just as important, in fact we're more important then they are. We want our water taken care of if possible. r. John Mae: I am a property owner at Cedar Beaeh and I have a estion. A comment or a question. The comment is that the common sense or the practicality indicates that the real problem of traffic is in the summertime and you have got the cove now adding forty nine homes who are all going to access onto Main Bayview road I think could present a problem. It seems to me, practically speaking, that if you are going to base traffic concerns on a survey, it ought to be done in summer time because there is much more traffic in the s~]~t~er time. I don'tknow PLANNING BOAP~ 16 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 what the percentage is but an awful lot of the residents in that area are only there in the summer time. If the only survey was done sometime other than summer I think that is invalid. I don't know whether a summer time survey would show it was O.K. or no~ but could I ask the question of, is it true that the traffic impact survey that was referred to in April is the main one that is being used or was there a traffic impact study done anytime this s~,,er? Does anybody know? Mr. Voohris: I believe it is the April survey but you may wish to have a clarification from the engineer who prepared it. Mr. Mae: If it is, I would think it common sense that a traffic survey done on Friday, April 15th has almost no relationship to the traffic pattern that would take place in July and August and September. Mr. Arnoff: I would agree with you. Mr. Mae: I would think that if you are really trying to assess the traffic, you ought to assess it at a time when it would be severe. If it comes out that it is fine O.K.. The other comment I would like to make is that a number of us who have lived at Cedar Beach for a number of years have experienced brackish water. It does occur and has occurred in some years to all of us. I think a number of people can tell you that, and we are authorities on that because we drink the water. I share the feeling of a number of people here that as laymen, lay people we are not able to interpret that report and so we are concerned. My question is who can interpret whatever studies are done effectively to satisfy us or to satisfy you. We don't get any satisfaction from the environmental study because we are not engineers. Now, I guess we rely on you as our representatives to be satisfied. Is there some engineer not representing the applicant but representing the Board who can stand up to you or will or will not have water and that I think is the concern of some of us. If there could be an engineer representing the Board who would say yes, I read this report or I have made this report and this is what my basis is and have us question that engineer, tell us of our experience and have him comment that would be great. Otherwise, we sort of talk to each other. Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Voorhis is here tonight and they are our environmental engineers and our consultants on this. They do the review. As a matter of fact when it comes time for the final environmental impact statement they will do it. Mr. Mae: Could he make some corfu~ent to us and the public so we know what to base our further oral remarks or Written remarks on? Could he tell us why we should not be concerned about potable water. Mr. Voohris: We are in the process of reviewing the document at this time and we will supply out input to the Board relative PL~/qNING BOARD 17 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 to all our aspects to the DEIS. I think it is also important to note that there are other agencies which are responsible for water supply issues and they do have professional engineers on staff and the water supply report which is included in the EIS must satisfy those agencies. They will be approached and we will be sure put them in as well. My problem is and I think what a number of our problems is we are laymen and whoever is doing this with technical knowledge can say this is our report. We have reviewed this and here are our concerns or here are our non concerns and it gives us something to comment on, otherwise we have nothing to comment on. What you are saying you haven't completed your study yet and you are going to complete your study and give it to the Board after we have had our time to comment on it. Mr. Voorhis: I think if I could just direct it to your comment, I think what you are looking for is some independent party to assure you and the residents of your area that the water supply for this project is satisfactory. What I am saying and what I said before is that the Health Department reviews that and must issue approval for the water supply before permits to construct sanitary systems and buildings are approved. Mr. Mae: The Health Department issued a report as to whether these forty-nine homes can get good water or does the Health Department issue a report which includes the forty nine homes plus all the other homes that are south of the property. Mr. Voorhis: Presumably, the other homes in the area have already had that type of review. Mr. Mae: Yes. Mr. Voorhis: And have satisfied the requirements of the department. Mr. Mae: That's like the people in Los Angeles having enough water and when the people of Northern California divert the river the people of Los Angeles (inaudible). Mr. Voorhis: Maybe I misunderstood your question. The department will certainly consider the additional impact of this project in relation to the water supply situation in the area at this time. I mean it is an accUaUulative thing a/~d if there is a certain withdrawal from the aquifer they will certainly consider what is presently available and what is proposed as far as consumption for this project. That has got to be part of the consideration and before they will issue any permits they have to be satisfied with that. Let me just explain one other thing. This Board only has the approval power over the subdivision, naturally they are the lead agency and they have required a draft environmental impact statement. That EIS is the document of all of the involved agencies as well. This is the lead agency tonight and they look at road subdivision PLANNING BOARD 18 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 layouts, lot layouts and everything else and naturally they are on the front lines as far as gaining input from the p~hlic and they are the lead agency so all of this gets factored into their review of the project. However, each of the involved agencies is also responsible to make a findings statement after the completion of the process. Each of the other involved agencies is responsible or certainly obligated to provide input to the lead agency to extract through this subdivision review. You are not going to get all of the answers to all of your questions tonight. As I indicated, we are in the process of reviewing it and there are other agencies which are involved in other permit approvals other then the subdivision which also must make use of this document and the comment period which this process provides. Mr. Mae: Is there a time provided after all the agencies submit all of their findings and have all the answers to give so, is there a time for the residents to have this kind of a comment and answer period? Mr. Voorhis: I believe you have a final subdivision hearing? Do you have a hearing at the time of final? Mr. Orlowski: Yes. Mr. Voorhis: Let me just outline the process briefly. Tonight is a comment period on the DEIS. After the close of the col~,,ent period there is a ten day period for the written colL,~Lents to be provided to the Board and they will either direct our firm or review the comments themselves to determine the substance of issues and require that they be addressed. Those issues have to be addressed to the satisfaction of the Board and they are responsible for adopting what is known as a final environmental impact statement which essentially addresses all of the comments brought up. Once that is completed, the final EIS is subject to a minimum ten day review period. A hearing is optional because it is an option. Once that is completed, the Board is free to act after preparing a findings statement they are free to act on the subdivision. In this town, it is part of a final subdivision hearing process, again, at which time if there are issues that were not addressed in the document or issues which the Board is not aware of through the review process there are options to look at those issues. It is hoped that all of the issues are covered at this time and that is why we are here tOnight and are raising the questions. Mr. Mae: Then 1 can make my comments and I would ask, would you consider two factors in the review at this stage of the draft environmental impact statement and that is that the real concern or topic is that in the s~m~.er time they ought to be satisfied that you ought to know what the traffic situation is bY some sampling or whatever in the summer and secondly that you take into effeCt that a number of us can tell you actually that there is brackish water at times on the properties to the south of Angel Shores and that we are concerned and want to make sure PLANNING BOARD 19 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 that your impact studies take into consideration the drawing of the homes on the water; the effect not on those forty-nine homes but on the properties to the south of them. I think but we are not sure from what Mr. Voorhis has said that those concerns have fully have been addressed by the DEIS. Thank you. John Michele: Now I understand what you want. Mr. Orlowski: Before you start, I just want to say that your final comments were good ones and the Board gets the jest of most of the comments. It is traffic and water and they will be addressed and reviewed and on into the final impact statement which we have that option to hold another hearing and if the Board wants to we will, but we get the gest of the comments and these are the comments that we are looking for. John Michele: In your last statement on the section that has to be with water you state initially that the water for the forty nine homes and there are three well points located on the north side of the property so we are not concerned with them not having good water. You also state in the water section that hey, when there is a farm here and they fertilized it all the nitrogen ran into the ground and that is not happening anymore. There is no more Temik but then you go on to say we will urge the new home owners to only put a small portion of their lot in lawns. Now, that is just utterly ridiculous that sixty acres Section II or fifty acres is flat, treeless, shr~,hless and there is nothing there but goldenrod and rag weed and all kinds of weeds. Those homeowners don't have any choice but to put sod in and fertilize like crazy so why do you even put that in? Number one, it is impracticable. You can't control what someone is going to do with their property after you sell it to them, but the homeowners says hey why are they sending this, shouldn't we be concerned about all that fertilizer going onto all of that sod in addition to all of the cesspools cause the water does run off the sod. You know, those forty nine people, they are getting their water on the northside and the people south of the development their groundwater is coming right underneath all of this sod and cesspool soI would suggest you take that bit out. Mr. Voorhis: Just one additional piece of clarification. Our firm is retained by the Board to assist in reviewing the draft environmental impact statement. W~ do not prepare the document, my firm did not prepare the document~ An engineering firm by the name of Henderson and Bodwell which is also the firm that designed the subdivision, is retained by the applicant to prepare the document. The purpose of this Board is to determine obviously that it is objective and that it is complete and that is what my role; is to assist the Board in making those determinations. Again, I think we understand your comment but we don't want to get into a question and answer session, but I think that clarification is important. PLANNING BOARD 20 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 Dorothy Phillips: I would like to speak to the issue of summer traffic and this is a quote from Henderson and Bodwell the consulting engineers for the DEIS. The highway capacity manual by the Transportation Research Board that elusive, amorphic agency that we don't know anything about shows that summer traffic in areas with prevailing recreational traffic may be as much as one hundred and twenty eight percent higher than the average annual daily traffic and what Henderson and Bodwell did was calculate the annual average daily traffic and then use a formula to come up with the figure of the final figure which will be the percentage of increase in traffic along Main Bayview. They did not do a summer survey, they used a formula and I read this DEIS. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., any other co~L~,ents? Ernest Papas: I am a resident of Cedar Beach Park. I just want to concur with everything that has been said by everyone else in the community that is concerned. The fact that we are in the southerly drift of all this cesspool and negative water impact. I just want to know can we come back into you, Mr. Orlowski, and the rest of the Board later if we have a problem if you let this thing go through and tell you that we are not able to drink the water or live there anymore because of the situation that has resulted? Mr. Orlowski: As Mr. Voorhis said, the Planning Board is the lead agency. We approve the layout in the subdivision of the land. Other agencies are involved and when it comes to this sewer and water it is the Suffolk County Department of Health. They have not been known to be real easy on any developer. They have to provide water and they have to provide sewer and they have to make sure that it is not going to create a problem to the surrounding area and I have been here ten years and in all cases they take into consideration the area that they are in and the density around them to make sure there shouldn't be a problem there. In regards to coming back to us to say we were right or wrong, I think the H~alth Department would be the place to go. Joseph Spitalary: In regards to the Health Department as far as guarantees or whatever, I would just like to pass along something I have heard recently in regards to the Health Department and water particularly in this area. As of January 1st past, anyone installing a well will have to file a covenant with the County more or less holding the Board of Health holding them harmless. If the well, let's say two or three years later this well comes up dry, you can't turn to them. They become so aware of the situation that they are taking extra steps to protect themselves. Sophia Adler: I would just like to ask if whether the Health Department is concerned or is there any awareness now of salt intrusion for instance myself in the Cedar Beach park area from creeks and that occurs only periodically when there isn't any PLANNING BOARD 21 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 rain so that it can't be measured. For years we've had to buy our water. Now, we are very concerned and we hope the Health Department will take that into consideration and be aware of it. Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments? John Mae: Could I ask a question? I would like to ask Mr. Papas to comment because of where he lives. We have another problem and I am not sure it was addressed to the DEIS and that is at times there is a run-off where the mud from that farm goes across the road into our creeks particularly on Mr. Papas' property area. Could I as you to comment on it because I am not sure it's another factor and I think whatever is done if and I'm not sure why it happens but it happens when dirt is dug out and rain water expands it. It ought to be considered whatever is done there. I don't know why they are putting twenty nine homes on this. Ernest Papas: I just want to respond to that question. Going back to when the farm was being farmed, it was a constant problem of the top soil filtering across the road into the creek; the creek becoming dead and the shrimp turning belly up pink. No fish were alive in the creek at that time when he was using chemicals. We even had samples taken of the runoff and then we were requested to get the samples and give them to the Department of Health and suddenly the Department of Health said, we were mistaken we really aren't going to get into the middle of this, yes we've got a problem and you are going to have to address it another way. The town fathers shook their heads in this, nobody wanted to know anything about it. Water runs off that farm because we are lower. The topography over there is much higher. They are going to wash out that road and it is a private road and we've had a problem to begin with and I think it is just going to go on and on. But again, on this DEIS I really have to agree with the others that you either vote for a adjournment or more time for us to respond to this because a lot of us have been away and haven't had a chance to review it. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: As I said, it is available in the office and in regards to road runoff and and drainage in creating this subdivision the Board keeps a very watchful eye on this and I don't know if we can eliminate what problems are happening down there, but we dOn't want to see any runoff going off of this property onto someone else's or into the creeks. John Mae: Does this DEIS address this runoff problem? Mr. McDonald: They will have to now that they made the comment. John Mae: Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments? Hearing none, any questions from the Board? PLANNING BOARD 22 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 Board: No questions. Mr. Orlowski: Being no further comments, what is the Board's pleasure? Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we hold this hearing open and have another public hearing on this on February i2, 1991 at 7:30 p.m.. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Hearings Held Over From Previous Meetings: Mr. Orlowski: The North Forty - This major subdivision is for thirteen lots on 30.3565 acres on the south side of Oregon Road; 621 feet west of Depot Lane in Cutchogue. SCTM %1000-95-4-14.1. Mr. Pete Danowski: I know I have stood before you before and have asked you to approve a large lot concept on a cluster based on Number 281 of the Town Law that the large lot satisfies the cluster definition and I am well aware that both Mark and Dick were at the last meeting that I attended with us and the Town Board members where we discussed the possibl~ code revisions. However, I think there was a consensus at that meeting and it certainly the thing I took away from the meeting, that everyone felt that this Board was imperative that they saw fit, that they could, without any referral to the Town BOard grant the large lot subdivision that still places it into your discretion to approve it or not approve it. I would ask you now to approve the concept. My major concern with this subdivision and others that I have submitted to this Board, is I have gotten Health Department approval on many of the maps and as you know they expire in six months and to bring them back to the Health Department is not an automatic granting because of the variation in policy with the Health Department from map to map and time tO time; approvals are sometimes granted and sometimes they are not extended. Obviously, there is some unjustice to my Client going back before the Health Department again. I would like you to Close the meeting and approve the large lot concept and I am willing, as I have mentioned to you before, to file covenants with the County Clerk to not put any structures on the majority of that large lot and I have showed you the limited building envelope for that lot and I think you are also well aware that Walter Gatz, one of my friends and owner of this, or George McDowell, is a landscaper and may in fact put nursery stock on that large lot. Between his kids and the McDowell kids I PLANNING BOARD 23 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 think they can own up all of the lots and it may be a family enterprise. However, we would like to do the cluster and we would like to do the large lot basis and therefore I ask for that approval and ask you to close the hearing. Mr. Orlowski: Do you have a specific intent to use this if we were to approve it as a large lot? For what purpose do you have? Mr. Danowski: We use it for farming. We've been renting it to a farmer, and Walter had mentioned to me that he would like to continue to rent it to a farmer. We also discussed with both George McDowell and Walter as to which one of them might personally continue to use it. I can't promise you forever that it will be in farming but that was the original idea that even if they personally didn't do it that they would love to sell it to a farmer who will build a house on a limited building envelope and continue to farm it. Mr. Orlowski: Can you give us something in writing to that effect? Dick and Mark were to the meeting and the rest of the Board has not had a chance to sit down and talk about it. I would like to keep the hearing open if that is O.K. and just discuss it with the Board. I don't think the Board is ready to make their decision right this minute. Mr. Danowski: Yes, I certainly could do that, but what bothers me of course is the open end of this and perhaps what can happen between tonight's meeting and the next meeting is perhaps the Board members can discuss it so that if I came back at the next Board meeting perhaps by that time we could close the meeting and vote yes. Mr. Ortowski: I think we can do that. Mr. Ward: We would like that for the record though, a letter from the applicant or applicants both sign it if necessary, as to what their intent of the land is. Mr. Danowski: O.K., and I think what I will say to you will be the content of that letter I said it now and we understand we record covenants. There is no wise guy attitude here to restrict the majority of that lot so that no structures are placed on it. There is no question about that. Mr. Orlowski: We just haven't reviewed it totally as a Board and I think we would want to do that. Mr. Danowski: I understand. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., I'll entertain a motion to keep this hearing open. Mr. Latham: So moved. PLANNING BOARD 24 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. McDonald. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Eleanor $ievernich - This minor subdivision is for two lots on 3.7648 acres located on the east side of Cox Neck Lane in Mattituck. SCTM ~1000-113-8-5. We are still waiting for the response from the Board of Trustees. I will entertain a motion to keep this open. Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. McDonald. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. MAJOR AND MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, LOT LINE CHANGES AND SET OFF APPLICATIONS Final Determinations: Mr. Orlowski: Pugliese & Calabrese - This proposed subdivision is for two lots on 29.87 acres located on the north side of Route N.Y.S. 25; 853 feet west of Bridge Lane in Cutchogue. SCTM ~1000-97-1-P/O 12. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following motion. Be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board authorize the Chairman to endorse the final surveys dated June 22, 1990. Conditional final approval was granted on November 13, 1990. All conditions of approval have been fulfilled. Mr. Ward: Second. PLANNING BOARD 25 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Adam Associates - This minor subdivision is for four lots on 7.6797 acres located at Mattituck. SCTM 91000-113-12-10. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. Be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board authorize the Chairman to endorse the final surveys dated October 12, 1989. This subdivision received conditional final approval on February 13, 1990. All conditions of approval have been fulfilled. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Setting of Final Hearings: Mr. Orlowski: Wanat Set-Off This proposal is to set off a ten acre parcel from an existing 107.62 acre parcel located on the north side of Bergen Avenue in Mattituck. SCTM ~ 1000-112-1-16.1. Mr. Latham: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. Be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, February 25, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. for a final public hearing on the maps dated November 29, 1990. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski. PLANNING BOARD 26 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Goldman and Brice - This proposed lot-line change is to subtract a 11,000 square feet from a 55,000 square foot parcel to add it to a 21,000 square foot parcel in Laurel. SCTM # 1000-128-8-7 & 8.2. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, February 25, 1991 at 7:35 p.m. for a final public hearing on the maps dated August 2, 1990. Mr. McDonald: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Setting of Preliminary Hearings: Mr. Orlowski: Franklin Blachl¥ - This major subdivision is for nine lots on 20.4 acres located on the northeast side of Alvah~s Lane; 2,873 feet northwest of Rte. NYS25 in Cutchogue. SCTM ~ 1000-102-4-5. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. Be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, February 25, 1991, at 7:40 p.m. for a preliminary public hearing on the maps dated January 9, 1991. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. McDonald. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. PLANNING BOARD 27 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: Paul Matthews - This major subdivision is for thirty-five lots on 70 acres located in Mattituck. SCTM #1000-100-2-1. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. Be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, February 25, 1991 at 7:45 p.m. for a preliminary public hearing on the maps dated December 28, 1990. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Sketch Determinations: Mr. Orlowski: Donald Osani - This minor subdivision is for two lots on 68,604 square feet located at the northwest corner of North Bayview Road and Reydon Drive in Southold. SCTM ~ 1000-79-5-10 & 11. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. Be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant sketch approval on the map dated January 23, 1991, with the following conditions: 1. That there be no further subdivision, set-off or conveyance of land. 2. Set-backs applicable to the R-40 zone district must be used. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Sketch Extensions PLANNING BOARD 28 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: Jennie Harris Estate - This minor subdivision is for two lots on 49,453 square feet located on the northwest side of County Road 48, 918 feet northwest of Cox Lane in Cutchogue. SCTM 9 1000-96-1-18. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a six month extension of sketch approval from February 13, 1991, to August 13, 1991. This is the last extension that the Planning Board will be granting. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Review of Reports: Suffolk County Planning Co~t. uission Mr. Orlowski: John S. Guest & Margaret H. Guest - This minor subdivision is for three lots on 13.7 acres located on the west side of Crescent Avenue on Fishers Island. SCTM % 1000-6-1-5. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to adopt the following motion. Be it RESOLVED to adopt the January 10, 1991 Suffolk County Planning Commission report with the following amendments (numbers correspond to numbers in report): To be amended to read: No lot line shall be changed in any manner at any future date unless authorized by the Town of Southold Planning Board. 2 & 3. To remain as written. To remain as written with the addition that the Liber and page number of the filed document be stated on map. 5. To be omitted. 6 & 7. To remain as written. PLANNING BOARD 29 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 To be amended to read: All prospective owners of lots within this subdivision shall be advised that this subdivision is located within one mile of Elizabeth Airport and therefore, may be subjected to noise from aircraft flying overhead or nearby. Numbers 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, & 8 must be presented in a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions in proper legal form. A copy of the draft Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions must be submitted for review by the Planning Board and the Town Attorney. Once approved, the documents must be filed in the Office of the County Clerk. Number 4 must be shown on the final map. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. MAJOR AND MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, LOT LINE CHANGES, SET OFF APPLICATIONS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWACT Lead Agency Process: Mr. Orlowski: West Mill Road (formerly Paul Friedber9) - This major subdivision is for ten lots on 22.106 acres located on the west side of West Mill Road in Mattituck. SCTM $ 1000-106-9-4. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. Be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, assume lead agency status on this unlisted action. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. McDonald. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So moved. PLANNING BOARD 30 FEBRUARY 4 , 1991 Mr. Orlowski: Mr. McDonald: motion. John S. Guest & Margaret H. Guest - SCTM ~ 1000-6-1.5. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following Be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, assume lead agency status on this Type 1 action. The Board has received a report from their environmental consultant in reference to his review of the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). The Planning Board requests that you comply with all recommendations included in the report. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. McDonald, Mro Orlowskio Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Donald Osani - SCTM # 1000-79-5-10 & 11. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. Be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the Lead Agency coordination process on this unlisted action. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Determinations: Mr. Orlowski: Wanat Set-Off - SCTM ~ 1000-112-1-16.1. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. PLANNING BOARD 31 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 Be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, assume lead agency status on this unlisted action. In addition, the Board makes a determination of non-significance, and grants a Negative Declaration. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Site Plans - State Environmental Quality Review Act Determinations: Mr. Orlowski: McDonald's Corporation - This proposed site plan is for a restaurant on a three acre parcel, located in Mattituck. SCTM ~1000-122-7-3.2. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following motion. Be it RESOLVED that a conditional Negative Declaration be issued in this instance. In addition to the conditional Negative Declaration. The impacts that will result from the present lack of turning lanes shall be addressed by the installation of roadway modifications to State Route 25 to ensure that traffic safety is not compromised, and that road capacity does not fall below 1990 service levels. Reasons Supporting This Determination: This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I, II, and III, and the following specific reasons: S~bject property is zoned B {Business). The proposed use is consistent with this zoning district. The project has been compared to the bulk and dimensional requirements of the zoning district and is found to be in conformance with these requirements. 2. The proposed project has been reviewed by Suffolk County Department of Health Services, which has PLANNING BOARD 32 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 determined that the project will not discharge more than 300 gallons per day per acre, which is the sanitary discharge limitation in Groundwater Management Zone IV, when public water is not available. The scope of the project is consistent with groundwater management guidelines as outlined in the 208 study and Suffolk County's Sanitary Code (Article 6). The site is mostly devoid of native vegetation. It is being recolonized by herbaceous weed. The site was not found to contain anyunique species of vegetation or wildlife. e The applicant has supplied architectural elevations in order to identify the "style" of the structure. Review of these elevations finds that the project is in conformance with the general architectural style of the area. The applicant has completed a Traffic Impact Study which demonstrates that the project is not likely to have an undue burden on the road transporation system of the ~m~,ediate area. The quantified traffic impacts can be mitigated bythe installation of roadway modifications such as, but not limited to, turning lanes, strengthened shoulders, and a deceleration lane. The building has been set back 140 feet from the road. Further, the site design provides for "Iandhanking" of parking stalls in order to maintain natural areas. Landscaping has been proposed around the perimeter of the site in order to improve visual aesthetics, and provide a buffer for neighboring residentially zoned properties. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowsk. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. SETTING OF NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETING Board to set Monday, February 25, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold as the time and place for the next regular Planning Board Meeting. PLANNING BOARD 33 FEBRUARY 4, 1991 Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. McDonald: I make a motion that we set February 12th, 1991 for a special meeting of the Planning Board solely regarding comments with respect to the SEQRA process on Angel Shores. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Being there was no further business to come before the Board the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.. Be~neit orI6WSk~Jr., Ch '7 ' RECEIVED AND F/LED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN To{vn Clerk, Town of Sout~81d