Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-02/12/1991-SPLANNING 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 $OUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING - ANGEL SHORES PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 1991 Present were: Bennett Orlowski Jr., Chairman G. Richie Latham Richard Ward Mark McDonald Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Melissa Spiro, Planner Jane Rousseau, Secretary Mr. Orlowski: Good evening, I would like to call this meeting to order. This meeting is for the pnhtic hearing on the DEIS for Angel Shores. I will open the hearing again. This has remained open from our last meeting. I thought I would just like to let you know before we get started that we wilt be conducting another public meeting and we will advertise for March llth, we will advertise fourteen days prior to the meeting so we are in conformance with the SEQRA regulations. would also like to state at this time that if you have any comments that you try to give us new ones and not repeat the same ones as last time if possible. You will have until March the 21st to make all of your comments which is even after the March llth meeting. This will give you more time to review the document which is in three libraries, Southold, Mattituck and Cutchogue and here at Town Hall. I will ask if there are any comments? I Mr. Ernest H. Pappas: 75 Cedar Point Drive East~ Southold, NY. My comments concerning the DEIS for Angel Shores are as follows: Referring to the Introduction~ page V, I find it questionable that the Town has agreed upon one acre zoning in an area that has been deemed in print and verbal language to be a very fragile environmental space even as the wording in the third paragraph states that the "project lies within the Peconic 'PLANNING BOARD 2 FEBRUARY 12, 1991 Bay and Environs Critical Environmental Area (CEA) as designated by the Suffolk County Legislature." I direct my co~,t~ents to the Planning Board and ask you all, as Lead Agency and the people whom we, as taxpayers and la!rpeople in these matters look to for guidance and protection of our already fragile water system, to be steadfast in your difficult task and to not rubber stamp, be cajoled, intimidated or rushed by any pressures and to look upon this project as though each one of you lived in the immediate area, and that this project might impact upon you as it certainly will adversely affect us if this project goes through and is developed. The Introduction of the DEIS further states that preserving this area will constitute a benefit to public health. I would like to think this suggests a call for more than a one acre density, to in fact insure the public health referred to in the Introduction. Item ~3, page 6, states that any development of this land might adversely affect the drinking water supply and constitute a threat to public safety. I respectfully submit, that the very inclusion of this statement is clear evidence of the concerns we all have been voicing here and ask you, the Planning Board, to please address these items fully. Item 95 on this same page, also goes into the hydrological sensitivity and aquifer, which could be adversely affected by change, and change is exactly what the developer has in mind. What is important here is that this area has been critically affected in the past by self-serving commercial interests, who without doing their homework and carefully checking the type of aquifer that exists here in this fragile area, caused Temik to pollute our ground water and required us to have filters located at great distances from the plowed land. As food for thought, I might hasten to add, potential and future medical problems and complications are still an unknown concern, as the saying goes; all the reports are not in as yet! In a letter dated 3/1/89, and contained in the DES, there appears the following statement and I quote;" .... in the opinion of the Town Attorney, new zoning amendments establish a two acre zoning on the entire parcel...", unquote. I would like to state that I couldn't agree more. On page 1-30, the DEIS avers that the developer wants to maximize the towns natural assets including its local and agricultural base. Is that accomplished by covering the land PLANNING BOARD 3 FEBRUARY 12, 1991 with roads and homes and despoiling the land and water supply and its quality? How does he propose to do this? The writer of the DEIS states that land use patterns are sensitive to the limited indigenous water supply and will not degrade subsurface water quality. Those are the words in the DEIS, not mine. I am not sure what that means except he admits to the limited water but still wants to over develop and would he post a bond to insure our pure water and its limited supply if he is so sure? Further, on page 1-30, there is written the intent to preserve and enhance the towns natural environment including waterways, wetlands, tidal marshes, etc. I view that with great reservation being in the construction industry for forty years. How this can even be stated, when we have seen what non-construction runoff has done to our creeks in the adjacent areas just from agriculture. There are continuous references to water quality and surface water quality; all purporting to not harm anyone. Who will step forward and guarantee this, knowing what has been documented. The DEIS contains a letter dated 11/30/83, which states there is only limited water available to shallow wells; most of my neighbors and I have shallow wells! The DEIS claims that the Agricultural-Conservation status of this area would be maintained. Actually, the opposite would ocour. This projected development would not contribute towards retaining the agricultural and rural environment. On the contrary, it would create another tract development, rushing us all headlong into overpopulation and the inability of this area to support the kind of growth that this developer envisions. I shall now address my comments to the roadways. The DEIS talks about access roads. On 2/27/89, there was a written request from Valerie Scopaz for clear proof showing what roads would be used and the effects on the neighboring associations private roads. I am requesting a mueh more definitive explanation, so that it would be clear to the general public what is actually proposed. In addition, I feel that the traffic survey was inconclusive, insufficient, flawed, and prejudiced. A one day test is a non-test. At least, let it be conducted during the summer months, or more than one day, plus a holiday weekend to at least approach some realistic numbers. I also noticed that the "Drainage Shed Map" Figure $6, clearly shows that the general flow is East and South predominantly towards the Cedar Beach Park Association in addition to the majority of the surface runoff which in the past has inundated Cedar Beach Road, contaminated the creek causing ecological damage, and put tons of silt into the creek bottom seriously affecting the biological balance and the food chain in our creeks and estuaries. PLANNING BOARD 4 FEBRUARY 12 , 1991 To sum up my comments, I recognize that the Planning Board is not the CIA, but I would hope that the board would accept the responsibility of being the standard bearer in the effort to preserve our water supply and its quality, that there are mitigating measures such, as runoff into our creeks, and to protect our way of life. I also hope that all agencies and the people whose duty is to look after the greater common good, do not abrogate their responsibility to the present or to the future. Thank you for the opportunity to present my comments and I would ask you in closing to put yourselves in our position. Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments? Cecilia Loucka: I represent Terry Waters Property Owners Association. It is well known that everyone living in the area around Angel Shores has a legitimate concern about the drinking water. As stated on page 2-46 of the current DEIS the five test wells that were placed on Section I of Angle Shores showed very poor results, thereby necessitating the Suffolk County Health Department to require a central water supply. Further, in reference to page 2-64 it states that according to the Long Island 208 study, saltwater intrusion has been found where intensive pumping has occurred in concentrated areas. I have questions concerning the drinking water: When the testing was done on the present water system, downdraw tests were conducted which showed minimal downdraw, but is there a way to test if there was intrusion of salt water that displaced the fresh water that was pumped out during the test? Who is going to enforce the NYS DEC rule, page 2-57, that there will be no irrigating with the water from the Angel Shores well? We have already observed irrigation in operation at the Cove during the summer of 1990. Who investigates the source of this water? I understand that Mr. Laoudis has a right to supply water for the proposed development Angel Shores. However, I do not see his right to supply water to the Cove development. This additional demand for thirty-three units may very well cause adjacent homeowners problems with their existing wells. Over 40% of the water from this system will be pumped out of the area almost a mile away to the Cove. Who is going to manage the well system now that the Greenport Utility Department has terminated its contract to supply maintenance and operational support for the water plant, as per recent newspaper articles? As per special condition ~10 of the NYS DEC well permit, page 2-53, "provisions shall be made to provide an adequate supply of PLANNING BOARD 5 FEBRUARY 12, 1991 water to those residents whose private well water systems are diminished or rendered nonproductive by the use of the wells developed by the permittee". That is an exact quote. What provisions have been made to comply with this provision? Is it possible to require a surety bond to cover any future problems? Will the permit be cancelled or restricted if problems develop? It is of utmost importance that these questions be answered satisfactorily before final approval is given to this project. You are the lead agency. The DEC can pull that permit. Robert E. Mitchell: Chairman Orlowski, I want to thank you and the gentlemen and the ladies up there for giving us this opportunity to have another public hearing on this. We did finally come and read the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and so not to waste this Board's time, I want to thank you very much for coming again to do this. You would all rather be home I am sure. It is an interesting document and the one thing I found that was most interesting was is why we would have it at all? One of the things they said was that Southold could use a decreased tax base and I think that is wonderful. The tax on that propertY is farmland but once this DEIS Impact Statement is accepted, you can all tax it as forty-nine building lots. There are many of us here that will see that is done. Well, anyway, I want to thank you all for hearing us again tonight. Mr. Francea will give our comments so we don't all do the same thing four times over. Mr. Frank Francea: I would like to apologize for the fact that we are going to be redundant in some of these things because some people have made independent statements and of course, if you read the sameDEIS, and of course you come up with the same questions. I'll read it as we put it together for those of us of the Cedar Beach Park Association have met several times during the week. The Cedar Beach Park Association (CBPA) represents 60 homeowners, and therefore is concerned about the impact of the Angel Shores development on our properties and the area's environment. We have read the DEIS and find it deficient in several areas. We need to be assured that these areas are addressed by the Planning Board before it accepts the DEIS. These areas, including water supply, roads and traffic, and layout of the subdivision are defined in the following statements: WATER SUPPLY: A-1 letter from Suffolk County Board of Health, dated 11/30/83. This letter specifies that water for Angel Shores must be provided from a central water supply and not from individual home wells. PLANNING BOARD 6 FEBRUARY 12, 1991 e The DEIS should specifically acknowledge this statement and stipulate clearly that individual wells would be prohibited. In a clear statement. The DEIS states that water from the central supply could not be used for "unnecessary purposes... including lawn watering". This statement exists in the DEIS. It should be clearly stated that homeowners would be prohibited from any such unnecessary use of water and there should be a covenant and restriction to cover that point probably even in the deed. We believe that the DEIS should specifically acknowledge that the developer understands these restrictions and that prospective property buyers will be prohibited from the unnecessary use of water and from drilling individual wells, and this fact should be disclosed to the buyers. It should also be acknowledged that water from this central supply can only be used by the forty-nine owners in Angel Shores and the thirty-three units in The Cove. The DEIS should contain assurances that the Board of Health has certified adequate water supply for both projects: Angel Shores and The Cove which of course add up to a total of eight-two units. Not the forty-nine. The DEIS states that the Greenport Water District has assumed operation of the central water supply. I understand now from tonights comment that that might not be true anymore. The DEIS should specify who owns the supply, whether the Greenport Water District will continue with the operating agreement and is it tied to a similar agreement with The Cove, and what would happen if the agreement with the Greenport Water District is cancelled for any reason on both sides? We request that the DEIS guarantee that if the water supply or water quality of Cedar Beach Park Association residents is impacted as a result of the Angel Shores project, that the Greenport Water District would be obligated to extend their services of potable water to impacted residents. That would be Cedar Beach Park Association. We further request that Greenport Water District shall not be allowed to just spot zone areas of service which can impact adjoining areas. I would like to digress a moment from reading my statement. A while back, ebout PLANNING BOARD 7 FEBRUARY 12, 1991 a year and one-half ago, some developers came along and wanted to do some developing at the foot of Jacobs Lane and he asked the Greenport Water District to go in there and put in a central supply. The whole of Hogs Neck is part of the Greenport's Water District and I don't believe that the water district should be allowed to spot zone the individual for central supply. If you are going to do an area you should have to do the whole area because the whole area is fed from the same aquifer. e Reference 321 in the DEIS refers to a design report of a test of forty-eight hours of continues drawdown at the rate of sixty gallons a minute produced ~negligible impact up to one-hundred feet away. Although this test is the basis for concluding that there is an adequate water supply, and the DEIS states that it includes this copy of the report, we found no such copy. Couldn't find it in the report. It should be included. 10. Item 2-55: The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation permit specified special conditions. We request that the Planning Board certify that all of these conditions have been met for this Particular project. That covers the water. Now the Roads and Access: I refer you to map 90 which is the original subdivision map of Cedar Beach Park Association. There should be in the DEI$ an absolute guarantee that neither Sections I nor II of the Angel Shores plan has any rights to use Cedar Point Rd. West or Cedar Beach Roads. These are roads privately maintained by the Cedar Beach Point Association. The page 1-3 reference to "Title Insurance Guarantee" should specifically apply to Little Peconic Bay Road, only. Which is also on map 90. This restriction of course, also applies to Cedar Beach Park Association residents' private beaches at the foot of Inlet Way and at the foot of Cedar Point Drive East should not go down to the private beaches. The DEIS bases the conditions relative to traffic on Main Bayview Road on a single survey done on April 15, 1987 and a formula extrapolating summer and weekend traffic as a percentage of this number. We find this method faulty and question the conclusion and methodology. The calculation of determining traffic congestion should include an actual survey taken on a representative summer day. There was and still is PLANNING BOARD 8 FEBRUARY 12, 1991 ample time to take such a survey and include it in a DEIS submitted for approval to the Planning Board.. As for the layout of the subdivision, the Board must assure that the subdivision remain inviolate after approval; that is there can be no future application to use any of the buffer zones presently shown. Thank you for your time. Charlie Michele: I live in Cedar Beach Park. At the risk of a slight overlap because I want to talk about the water too but perhaps I can add a new dimension to it. The Angel Shores DEIS includes several ambiguous points which may lead to future controversy and litigation unless clarified now; to wit: 1. Ref. Pg. A-1 Suffolk County Department of Health letter dated 11-30-83 states (re: the applicants re~est for development) and I quote "since wells located on each individual lot would of necessity be very shallow and there would be a limited amount of quality water, this application will be approved only if a central water supply is provided." Does this mean that individual lot wells are forbidden or does it mean that the developer must only provide a central water supply of quality water and that individual lot owners are free to put down wells for so-called non-essential lower quality water? If the intent was to forbid individual lot wells does the Suffolk County Department of Health Services have the means to enforce the restriction or is this dependent upon the Building Department's interpretation of the subject clause since they are responsible for controlling the related permits? 2. Next reference page 2-57 special condition ~9 attaching to the DEC permit to construct a central water supply installation states that "steps should be taken via covenants or use restrictions to prohibit use of the water supply system for non-essential purposes such as lawn irrigation". 3. Given that the homeowner is apparently precluded from putting down his own well and from using his source of essential water for non-essential purposes, how do you square the statements included in the "mitigating factors section of the DEIS (pages A-8/9) wherein the developer proposes to limit the amount of fertilizer used for plants and lawn and to limit the amount of total lot area given over the lawns? The disconnect here is that no homeowner would invest in landscaping without possessing the means to protect his investment, i.e. ability to sprinkle. Does the developer anticipate that (a) each lot owner will put down his own PLANNING BOARD 9 FEBRUARY 12, 1991 irrigation well point so that eventually there might be as many as forty-nine additional wells tapping into the aquifer or (b) each lot owner will ignore the DEC prohibition against using house water for sprinkling (not to mention swimming pools)? Clearly, the only alternative would be for each homeowner to collect rain water in a system but this is not suggested in the DEIS. Unless these points are resolved before approval of the DEIS, a not far fetched scenario might find a drought situation, say five to ten years from now, with the Angel Shores homeowners attempting to save their landscaping investment by the use of sprinklers while some surrounding area homeowners are experiencing a deterioration of their drinking water. Will the homeowners hunting for essential water blame their problem on the drought or will they seek injunctions, damages and/or other legal remedies from the Angel Shores people and the Town of Southold. This is precisely the sort of problem the Planning Board was established to prevent. Sophia Adler: I appreciate the remarks by the Chairman of our Homeowners Association in Cedar Beach where I live but I have a few remarks that I would like to say even thought they might be poorly arranged. I have only come to grips with the situation within the last few days, within this last week really. We have lived in Cedar Beach for over twenty years, all year round. This is where we are and during this time we have experienced the character of the water table and that is what I want to talk about. The fluctuations in the quality of the water have sensitized us to its shallow vulnerable character and changeable character from which our private well draws the water for our home use. We know for instance that for quite a few years in a row the Health Department warned us that salt intrusion made our water unpotable but later we needed no warning an~ we became aware and watched for the changes both in rain and in weather and how it affected this shallow water aquifer under us from which all of us drew our water. Now, for the past year, for instance, following the end of a long drought when we lived with salt water and we went to Greenport or the Town of Southold to get our drinking water. In the last year, the water has become sweet and we have enjoyed coffee and tea and watering our house plants all year round but, we know only too well that this water table is vulnerable to Changes which we may or may not understand but they happen. When I discovered this portion of the environmental, the Department of Environmental Conservation in Section II of page 57 and I know this is repetitious, the DEC lists these special conditions on which a permit will be granted to Angel Shores and in the face of what we have experienced, I recognize that the DEC, in spelling out these kind of conditions, the ninth point in section II page 57, which if I repeat again, stepsshould be taken, the use restriction to prohibit the use of the water system for non-essential purposes, such as lawn irrigation, and the lawn irrigation is the only point that they make in this Draft Environmental Statement but PLANNING BOARD 10 FEBRUARY 12, 1991 yOU know people like to put in swimming pools too and people want to water their gardens too and people want to live here the way everyone else does. I don't know what kind of people would want to come out here, there might be people desperate enough that would want to live in a place where they can't even take care of their lawns or their surroundings when it needs water but I do understand it is possible for a developer to be satisfied to claim to fulfill such conditions in their covenants and deeds and perhaps the homeowner won't notice it and buy anyway or perhaps the homeowner will think why worry about it, Southold isn't going to provide policemen all year round and all night and all day to watch so that they don't water during a drought. I can understand the developer who wants to get his money out of the situation but I can not understand that the Southold Planning Board with their eyes open can agree to such a kind of a community in the midst of Southold. The co~t,~unity which is called Angel Shores and it is my private opinion that this restriction could be better called. It is a scandalous and a syntonic restriction. If we expect to live and have a co~m~unitybuilt with that kind of a restriction it is going to impact terribly on Southold. Not only on the surrounding homes but on the reputation of a community that would allow that kind of a disaster. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Any other co~.L~ents? Mr. Robert E. Mitchell: Just one last conu.ent, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this second hearing on this subject. I assume you will either accept or not accept the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and I guess it is actually called a final Environmental Impact Statement which you have the option to have a hearing on or not. In considering the comments you heard on it tonight, it probably would be a good idea to have a hearing on it. Winston Churchill said was (inaudible). I know the town attorney is not here but could you give us the rest of the process for Angel Shores? I am sure the DEIS has a preliminary hearing on a site plan and a final hearing on the site plan which is fully engineered and so forth. Could I ask you to comment on what the rest of the process is? Mr. Orlowski: Well, we will either accept or reject after the next hearing. Actually, after March 21st, after all the comments are made. Mr. Mitchel: That will be the draft, right? Mr. Orlowski: Yes, and then at that time the Board would have the option to move on to the final and we'll probably do the final ourselves, in house and if the Board wishes, we will hold another public hearing on that. Mr. Mitchel: Do you then have to have a preliminary site plan proceeding? PLANNING BOARD 11 FEBRUARY 12, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: Yes, There will be a preliminary subdivision hearing on the subdivision. After preliminary there will be a final hearing in the final subdivision. Mr. Mitchel: Well, can I ask this? I know people look at the draft site plan. Do you have to have a hearing on preliminary site plan and then you have to have it fully engineered? Mr. Orlowski: Yes. Preliminary is basically the layout and then the final is drawn up with all the road specifications and gradings. That will be in the final hearing. Mr. Mitchel: Is there any chance that they may change what we've seen in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement? Mr. Orlowski: It could, yes. Mr. Mitchel: What would you say the time table would be? Mr. Orlowski: I couldn't say. Mr. Mitchel: O.K., thank you. Gee Gee Spates - Excuse me, I would like to speak. I didn't realize we were at the end. Valerie Scopaz: I just would like to make one thing clear. If you have any questions during any stage of the process of the review, feel free to come into the office and the staff will explain where we are in the process as we go along. The files are open to the public at any time. The office is open from 9 to 5. If you want to come in and just keep track of where the project is, feel free to do that. Mr. Mitchel: Well, you are very kind. Thank you very much. Gee Gee Spates: I live at Main Bayview Road in Southold. You are familiar faces to me over the years dealing with this development. I would like to speak on something that I don't think has been spoken on before by anyone including' the developer and his staff and that is concern about PUblic access to the pond to What some of us in the local community consider a ice skating pond. About three years ago I was talking to my own child and a couple of her friends and they, all teenages, developed what I would call sort of an informal petition and I have been holding it all these years for tonight I guess. What it says very briefly is, to the Southold Town Government: This is a letter we want to send to you about the ice Skating pond in our neighborhood. It is on Main Bayview Road in Southold four streets past the triangle at Jacobs Lane, then down the hill across from the old Archdavis House where they want to put the Angel Shores development. The ice skating pond provides a good place for both ice hockey and figure skating. It is a good size pond that freezes easily for ice skating without plants sticking PLANNING BOARD 12 FEBRUARY 12, 1991 up. The pond is a very convenient place for kids who don't drive and for parents so they don't have to schlep their kids all over. The pond is close to the street but not close enough to cause an accident. It is a beautiful place where you can see wildlife like deer. Considering all the people that use the pond for ice skating, the area stays pretty clean. It is bad enough taking away the land where we take nature walks but please, don't take away our only good ice skating pond. As I said, that was written by three pre-teen and teenagers and was later signed by approximately, mostly kids, a couple of adult kids but mostly kid kids from the neighborhood. I would like to submit this now and as final proof as this could only be done by children, this last page has everything on it. This was in a teenagers car for many weeks and he kept saying to me Mrs. Spates, I have that and I will get it to you sooner or later. So just to sum up for them, my concern about having continued public access to the fresh water pond that is up by Main Bayview, it has been used by more than just ice skaters, people go there and bird watch and just sit by the shore and meditate or whatever. It is an aesthetic use and I hope this will be taken into consideration as to any other public access that is aestmetic to the whole Angel Shores site. That would include the swiimuing down at the beach and so forth but I especially wanted to talk about the pond and that is all I want to say about that. Just briefly, because so many people tonight have addressed the water use and restriction of the non-essential water use, I wanted to comment that, and I'm kind of reiterating their concern that this is a very difficult thing to police after people move in and I think Sophia Adler sort of adequately stated how much people do want to sprinkle themselves in hot water or whatever. I think it is very important that the Planning Board address this issue in a more thorough way and how that might be done might be through either restricted lawn size or, going a little further, it might mean that the lot size itself would actually be diminished and whatever one is calling it the buffer zone, the wildlife corridor might be expanded into the person's so that the person really wouldn't be allowed, I guess because he really wouldn't own that property. That part of his parcel would really become part of the communal buffer or whatever it is called. I think that would be the better way of handling it. Myself being in involved in the buffer zone alongside of the Quogue Wildlife Refuge down in Quogue, and it is very difficult for homeowners to continueto remember that they are not suppose to tear apart theirwoods in the back or develope into the back area that is suppose to be buffered, so I hope the Planning Board will take that very seriously. Thank yOU. Donald Spates: I live on Main Bayview Road. I have only had a chance to briefly run down to the Southold Library to verify that indeed the telephone book size DEIS is there. Two things I want to say, first of all, on a specific nature I did peek at the map. There were a few maps and I was a little bit confused by what your talking about, I guess what you guys call building PLANNING BOARD 13 FEBRUARY 12, 1991 envelopes I would like you to also consider the possibility of doing a similar type of restriction on the Peconic Bay front lots, most of which lie on the wrong side of the FEMA one hundred year flood line that has been drawn through the map at least according to the way I read it. It seems to me that if there were such a restriction on the area on the lot that the owner could build on then that would cut down on the possibility for bulkheading or jetty or whatever might develop sometime in the future. Really, what I wanted to briefly say was that I hope that you will consider the concept of total planning, basically your jobs here as planners in a more overall or generic sort of a way. Many people here have commented upon Hog Neck as being an entity, which it is. We like to consider it to be a fairly fragile entity and I think that my neighbors here are expressing their concerns about it. You, as the Planning Board are intimately familiar not only with the Angel Shores development but up the road the connected Cove development which has an inordinate amount of density in there. Recently we had occasion to come down to Town Hall here and discuss the Bayview Woods development, the Fuchs and Fischetti development, which is also, why for some reason, zoned to higher than usual density. I guess what I would like to say is that I would like to hOpe that the Board would be reminded to look at a lot of the overall planning that is taking place. The development on Hog Neck and make whatever necessary reco~m~lendations they feel to take all of these developments into consideration in dealing with the Angel Shores application. Thank you. Robert Morse: I live in Cedar Beach also. I don't have the reference on the DEIS but there was a chart showing some type of test well mostly in the Southwest corner of the plot and I don't understand how any conclusion can be made from that limited amount. One well tested in Cedar Beach but nothing to the east at all and there are many wells over there. Many of them were impacted with the Temik at the time they had the problem and there is no reference to that at all in the DEIS. I don't understand how that can be excepted in that condition. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to close this hearing. Mr. McDonald: I make a motion we close this hearing. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on this motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. PLANNING BOARD 14 FEBRUARY 12, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: I will also entertain a motion to set Monday, March 1i, 1991 at 7:45 p.m. for a p~blic hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated December, 1990. Fir. Latham: Move it. 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. Mr. Orlowski: I think it is explanatory where we are going from here to everybody that is here. I explained it before the meeting started so there will be another hearing on the llth and you still have until March the 21st to put all your comments in writing to the office. Thank you for coming. I would like to make a motion that we adjourn. Mr. McDonald: I move we adjourn. Cecelia Louka: Can I ask a question? want reiteration of tonights co~muents? cotm,ents ? The next hearing, you Do you want new Mr. Orlowski: We would always like to have new comments. We see the major problems but ---. Cecelia Loucka: Can you explain why you are having another hearing because the notice in the newspaper was not fourteen days in advance of the first hearing? Mr. Orlowski: Yes. Ail those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Being there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.. nett Orlowski Jr., ~an