Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-03/11/1991PLANNING 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 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road 'P.O. Box 1179 S0uthold, New York I 1971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Present were: SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 11, 1991 Bennett Orlowski Jr., Chairman G. Richie Latham, Member Richard Ward, Member Kenneth Edwards, Member Mark McDonald, Member Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Melissa Spiro, Planner Holly Perrone, Secretary Jane Rousseau, Secretary RECEIVED APR g 1991 Southold Town Clerk Mr. Orlowski: Good evening, I would like to call this meeting to order. First order of business at 7:30 p.m. Thomas W. Russell, Jr. - This minor subdivision is for two lots on 2.22 acres located on Heathulie Avenue and Beach Avenue on Fishers Island.~ SCTM ~ 1000-9-11-9.1. We have proof of publication in the local paper 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 anyone out there neither pro nor con but may have information pertaining to this subdivision that might be of interest to the Board? Hearing none, any questions from the Board? Board: No questions. Mr. Ortowski: Being no further questions, I'll declare this hearing closed. Does the Board have any pleasure? Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. WHEREAS, Thomas W. Russell, Jr. individually and as ancillary executor of the Estate of Dorothy M. Russell, Dorothy PLANNIN BOARD 2 MARCH 11, 1991 R. Chap propert at Heat nan and Judith R. Driscoll is the owner of the ~ known and designated as SCTM $ 1000-9-11-9.1, located 5ulie Avenue and Beach Avenue on Fishers Island; and WHEREAS, this minor subdivision, to be known as Minor SubdiviSion for Thomas W. Russell, Jr., is for two lots on 2.22 acres; and WHEREAS, a variance for insufficient lot area, depth and setbacks, was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 2, 1988; 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 March 5, 1990; and WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said subdivision application at the Town Hall, Southold, New York on March 11, 1991; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; and now therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant conditional final approval on the surveys last~dated December 28, 1990 and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final surveys subject to fulfillment of the following condition. ~This condition must be met within six (6) months of the date of this resolution. 1. Submission of one additional final map containing a valid stamp of Health Department approval. Mr. McDonald: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Hearings Held Over From Previous Meetings: Subdivisions - Final PLANNING BOARD 3 MARCH 11, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: The North Forty - This major subdivision is for thirteen lots on 30.3565 acres located on the south side of Oregon Road; 621 feet west of Depot Lane in Cutchogue. SCTM ~1000-95-4-14.1. This hearing has been held open due to the question on the open space and I will ask if anybody has any questions or comments on this right now? What is the pleasure of the Board? I don't think we have reached, any agreement on what we are going to do on this. Mr. Danowski has said this afternoon that he would go along with keeping the hearing open again° Mr. Ward: O.K., so moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. F~wards, Mr. McDonald, Mr~ Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Also, on the hearing held open we have EleanorSievernich - This minor subdivision is for two lots on 30.3565 acres located on the east side of Cox Neck Lane in Mattituck. SCTM $1000-113-8-5. Are there any comments on this application? The Planning Board is waiting for some written response. I think at this time we could still keep the hearing open. Mr. Edwards: I make a motion to keep the hearing open. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Preliminary Subdivision: 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 New York State Route 25 PLANNING BOARD 4 MARCH 11, 1991 in Cutchogue. SCTM $1000-102-4-5. pleasure on this application? Mr. McDonald: Fir. Edwards: Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. motion? All those in favor? Does the Board have any I make a motion we close the hearing. Second. Any questions on the Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. the preliminary? What is the pleasure on Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant preliminary approval on the maps dated March 11~ 1991 with the following modifications: The terms of the open space easement are to be determined at a later date. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. motion? All those in favor? Building envelopes are to be shown for all lots. Any questions on the Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. McDonald, Fir. Latham, Mr. Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Final Determinations: Mr. Orlowski: Thomas W. Russell, Jr. Has been done. Setting of Preliminary Hearings: Mr. Orlowski: Puritan Farms - This major subdivision is for eight lots on i7.551 acres located on the southwest side of Ackerly Pond Lane~ approximately 1040 feet northwest of Lower Pond Road in Southold. SCTM $ 1000-69-5-7. What is the pleasure of the Board? PLANNING BOARD 5 MARCH 11, 1991 Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following motion. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Tuesday, April 1, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. for a preliminary pu3olic hearing on the maps dated February 19, 199I, which will be revised, as follows, prior to the hearing. 1. The building envelope for Lot 1 shall be indicated. Front, rear and side yards should be indicated as such. 2. The total area of Lot 1 is to be shown. The area of the Building envelope should also be indicated. The area adjacent to Lot 8 shall be labeled as a conservation easement rather than as open space. This area shall be incorporated into Lot 8. 4. Building envelopes shall be shown for all lots. 5. Revised maps must be submitted prior to the date of the preliminary hearing. 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. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Review of Reports: Suffolk County Planning Commission Mr. Orlowski: Harry & Janet Hohn - This minor subdivision is for three lots on 7.368 acres located on the southwest corner of Aborn Lane and Nassau Point Road in Cutchogue. SCTM ~1000-118-6-1 & 3.1 Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED to adopt the February 7, 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. Is to remain as written. PLANNING BOARD 6 MARCH 11, i991 To be amended to read: Due to the minimum lot area requirement of the zoning classification of this property being considerably less than the area of Lots 1, 2 & 3, each lot shall be made subject to a covenant that will prohibit future subdivision in perpetuity. To be amended to read: No new sanitary disposal facility shall be constructed or otherwise located within 100 feet of existing bulkhead. 4(a)To be added: No new residential structure shall be constructed within 75 feet of existing bulkhead. 5&6 Are to remain as written. To be amended to read: These covenants and restrictions can be modified only at the request of the then owner of the premises with the approval of a majority plus one of the Planning Board of the Town of Southold after a publiC hearing. Adjoining propert~ owners shall be entitled to notice of such public hearing but their consent to such modification shall not be required. 8. To remain as written. This must include the Liber page number. The following items are also required: A. The non-use area is to be re-labeled as a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall r~main in its natural state. Maintenance of this natural vegetation shall be the only used allowed. Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 4a, 5, 6, 7 and B from above, must be presented in a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions in proper legal form. Item 8 and A from above, must be shown on the final map. Upon receipt of the Zoning Board of Appeal's decision in regard to the 280a access applications, the Planning Board may request additional covenants and restrictions. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski. PLANNING BOARD 7 MARCH 11, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: 7:45 p.m. Subdivisions - State Environmental Quality Review Act - Angel Shores- Public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated December 1990. This proposed subdivision is located in Southold. At this time I'll ask if there are any comments on this Draft Environmental Impact Statement? Mr. DeLuca: With your permission, I am going to try and set this up to show you a little site plan I have. I am here this evening on behalf of the Suffolk County Health Department Office of Ecology. For the sake of the record and for those who may not know, the Office of Ecology was created in 1986 to expand the Health Department's role beyond simply the sanitary code regulations Of water supply and sewage disposal, and to fill a void that existed within a copy with respect to review of environmental project's of Countywide significance. This is one such project and we have been involved since about 1988 in the review of this action through the numerous DEIS's and revisions and addendum's and so forth. As I reviewed the current document, two things came to mind, one was my continuing concerns about the various natural resources that exist on this site, which have been enumerated and which appear ~n the appendices of the document. I won't restate those in detail for the sake of time, but as all of you are well aware, there are numerous resources including fresh water wetlands, tidal wetlands, a very nice area of second growth woodland vegetation which provide a lot of habitat, for critters, as evidence I think in a lot of the information in the DEIS. We have a scenic issue which has been brought to my attention on several occasions. We have agricultural land and just a number of other resources that really make this the kind of project that has a lot of important concerns. As I said, rather than restating a lot of those for you, I thought what I would do this time around, is to address the second issue which has constantly been the focus of our comments and that is the issue of alternatives. In our opinion, the current document doesn't provide enough attention to alternative propoSals and we thought we would take a crack at giving you one that you might want to consider. I think I should point out that we're not saying this is the only alternative, it is simply one among many and based on our involvement with this project, we think it is a reasonable and responsible one. I would like to discuss with you a couple of major points of this but first, if I'm speaking loud enough and I come over here if it is alright I would just like to leave the microphone. PLANNING BOARD 8 MARCH 11, 1991 I think I should be able to get across to everybody and point at the same time here. One of the things that I wanted to do in looking at this map, and one of the things that concerned us was Section I, which clearly is an area that has the steepest slopes, those which are subject to the most amount of erosion in all likelihood. Two fresh water wetlands, tidal wetlands and down here we have an area within the coastal zone which is likely to be the subject of erosion as the result of the dynamic shoreline. As a result, we are left with Section II of the project which is reasonably flat, has been disturbed in the past, although it currently is in old field or early successful revegetation, but in any case it is an area where we don't have a lot of the same concerns. In general, what we did was to take some of the lots and I'll leave this with you because I don~t have to take this back with me, and I would also like to thank 'the applicant for providing the base map upon which ! could draw. You will notice here in these little white indications, areas where there were proposed lots and I will give you sort of a color scheme. What I have done, was to take these lots and see if I could fit them in, in an appropriate way on Section II. Here is how I did that. The pink lots that you see, represent clustered lots taken, I'm sorry I can't really show this perimeter, they are clustered lots that have been taken out of Section I and moved into Section II. In all cases, you can see wh~t I have done, I have created single flag lots, none of which are less than 21,000 square feet. I basically took lots that were larger than 40,000, cut them in half very simply and provided single flag extensions on to some of them. I also tried to disburses them throughout the site to try and create more of a community character, which if you look at historical subdivisions, the way areas used to be developed was a house here and house here, different sized lots in different areas. That kind of idea was running with us as we looked at this. It also helps us to protect the very nice natural resource and also according tothe archaeological report probably the most potential archaeological importance. A couple of other factors that are involved here include the lots down here on the shoreline. In our consideration of reasonable alternatives we recognize that it is extremely important to the appliCant to try and realize a return on the property. You have lots down near the water, which of course, are very large and, according to people who are developing coastal properties, what we tried to do was say, let's look at these properties and where is the area which is the most significant concern in terms of natural resources and what we tried to do was pull up most of the lots beyond that area where we can reasonably expect erosion in the short and in the long term. Why do we do that? Well, the reason we do that is because, what you find if you look just west of here and if you PLANNING BOARD 9 MARCH 11, 1991 look around Southold or just about anywhere else on the East End is that the first storm that comes along and chops off half of this guys property that he paid a lot for, goes into the DEC and says, Hey! I have got to have something to catch the sand because I am loosing my property with every storm, and we begin to get together structural stabilization measures along the dynamic shore that isn't the way that our office, and I believe the Department of State will probably bear me out on this, think of as a good way to try and manage that dynamic system. By providing these lots in this area, you are allowing again a waterview if you will. Something else that you would reco~m~,end in here would be the consideration of a combined access so that you don't get a whole bunch of staircases and clearing and so forth down into this area. These lots, if you combine their access, you've got access to the water, you've got a view of the water, they are down here and that is the applicant's concern, they are helping us to protect the natural resources which is really our concern. These areas up in here, the applicant has made an attempt, I think, probably because we have raised this concern before, to expand what is a natural corridor that exists between that area north of Bayview Road and a sort of continuous habitat that runs all the way down to these wetlands, and down to the tidal wetlands here. To the biologist, this type of thing is very exciting to me, or it is very important, because what it does is it provides for many different types of vegetation and provides for fresh water, and it provides for continuous_habitat, which is very important to those area sensitive species that while they may not be threatened or endangered, need large continuous tracks in order to breed or they're not going to be around. The point that I always try to make, in a situation like this, is that if there is other suitable habitat, that habitat is likely occupied in many, many cases. It is not that easy for critters on this site to go someplace else and occupy those sites. One of the things that was done as a mitigation measure on the applicants desired plan, I think, is a good effort to providS a wildlife cOnservation easement. In the lots that I c~eated, what you'll notice, is that I haven't 'really provided any of those easements, and while that might seem contrary to my general position here. Let me tell you why I did that. Conservation easements are something which as a municipality, you have to be worried about teChnicatIy, policing, and once you sell this lot and that individual has this forty or fifty foot easement along the property line, somebOdyis' responsible for its oversight and for its management technically. I know of many examples, and I can think of one in the Town of Southampton. I looked at a project several years down the road and half the time, you know you own a piece of property five, ten years later, and you go out and chop some trees down, I doubt anybody from the Town is going to drive by and say gee, I think there used to be something over there, and the intent you have really often times, in our experience, gets lost. It PLANNING BOARD 10 MARCH 11, 1991 has also been our experience when you preserve large continuous tracks of open space it is something that is manageable by either a homeowners association, which can be managed under Town jurisdiction and those areas tend to remain more intact. They tend to have less opportunity for this guy to come in and clear off his lot and then the next guy then says, gee, I guess that is where the lot boundary is, he clears his off, so that's why it is a concern for us and where you will notice in the lots that we put in here, we didn't include those. What we also did in Angel Shores II, was to take a little bit away from the conservation easement and move it outside the lot boundary so when a individual buys a piece of property that individual is aware basically, of where he is going to be operating and so forth, so those are some of the other things that we have done here. Just briefly, we have thirteen lots of one acre in size, the original one obviously, I believe was forty-nine. We have the rest of them being between 21,000 and 30,000 square feet, primarily these are around 30,000 and some of these other ones, again this is not something that we absolutely have to have but just to point out that these lots are of reasonable size and that you don't have to have that concern about the cluster being sort of a big apartment building in the middle of this otherwise country rural kind of atmosphere. Something else that we did was to relocate, the recharge basin, because of the concern that was brought to our attention on several occasions, which was that of the scenic vista which exists across here which we tried to maintain, by just moving back behind some of these lots, we thought that you could probably accommodate that if that was necessary, given the grade and given the amount of flow that could be expected from thoss different areas. I think you will find that this will probably work out. O.K., let's see what else we have here. Just a couple of other considerations. Not to sound of two minds here, but one of the things we are concerned about is we do have lots in this area, if its absolutely, the last alternative, we would encourage native vegetation and would encourage turf limitations. We also know that those kinds of things are not as easy to manage but are well intended, and I think that they are in harmony with what the law is out to here, trying to find something that will minimize or mitigate potential impacts to the greatest degree practicable. A couple of other things, the road that services these lots down in the southern portion here, because it only serves four lots, we would ask the Board whether or not it is appropriate to consider a impervious surface or a smaller road rather than a large paved surface which generates more runoff and could PLANNING BOARD 11 MARCH 11, 1991 potentially have more impacts to the i~m~ediate and to the wetlands areas here. Also, you will notice, that by eliminating a lot of these lots, what we have done is to eliminate the need for this whole access road in here, which again would make it cheaper to develop the site for the applicant and it would also help to preserve the integrity of the wildlife corridor. Two lots that are a little bit different from the others you will just notice up here. What we really did was to provide for a wider area of continuous habitat. We could take two lots off this road, and kind of just turn them and allow the access onto Main Bayview which is sort of a double flag this way. This one is one acre, and this one is a little bit less. One other thing that I wanted to bring to your attention was the issue of underground sprinkler systems. Because this is a community supply area, we have concern that water in that CO~LuLLunity supply be protected as best as possible, for drinking water purposes, and that the Board may wish to consider, within other alternatives, a covenant or some sort of restriction on the proliferation of underground irrigation systems as part of this. I think I would just like to leave you with the comments that I brought. I'll leave you with this map and just to point to something that I found in the DEIS this morning, which was a statement from the enabling legislation for the Peconic Bay CEA of which this is partially included, and therefore, involved in that designation. In accordance to~the.document, theenabling legislation said that the Peconic Bay and its immediate surrounding area contain natural resources requiring the most stringent steps to protect them as components of Suffolk County's unique environmental and fragile scenic beauty. I haven't, in all honesty, run across many sites that have as many different types of natural resources, concerns, features, values, aesthetic and visual concerns and that is one of the reasons that we have been so heavily involved in this project. I think that the SEQRA process allows the Board a great deal of flexibility in the kinds of alternatives that it can request, and we are hopeful that this alternative might be seen that is reasonable for the Board and reasonable for the applicant, and one which best protects this whole site given the fact that this site in all likelihood will be developed. With that, I thank you for your kind, courteous attention and I will be happy to answer any questions if you have them. Thank you~ Mr. Orlowski: O.K., any other comments? Michael J. Costello - I live at West Lake Drive. Has any study been made of the relationship of cesspools to the amount of water there? I've been out there for over twenty five years. When the Dickerson's farmed that area, and when they had the irrigation going, I live on the water, and I would get salt intrusion, so I was wondering if any study was made with relationship to that? The wauer is only ten feet down there. PLANNING BOARD 12 MARCH 11, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: I can't answer those questions right now, but we'll have to look into those. This is just a comment period. Mr. Costello: Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments? Sherry Johnson: I represent the North Fork Environmental Council. The North Fork Environmental Council strongly feels that the Angel Shores project site is very important and arguably critical to the continued well being of the wildlife populations on Hog Neck. As discussed in the documentation on the red cedar maritime forest co~u~nity in the draft EIS, and in the coastal habitat reports which I have included with my comments, much more work needs to be done to fully understand and identify all the species and plant communities found here and to adequately assess their habitat needs. Fragmentation of the Section I site will effectively end any chance of studying the site and interpreting its significance to the Hog Neck populations. Further, we feel that there is significant evidence questioning the availability of sufficient quantities of groundwater to fully serve this project as proposed and the existing homes already in the area. I hope that you will consider our attached comments and continue to give this project the careful review it deserves. I've included some extensive con~ents, in lieu of time, I won't go through and read them I will just hi-light some of them. I also took exceptiones to the fifty foot conservation easements because I felt it would be better to use that, some of that area, to reduce the size of the lots and possibly to concentrate more from Section I into the Section II site. Wildlife, we have also had comments on the wildlife. Topography in Section III. The DEIS states that a grading plan will be Submitted on each lot as they come in for building permits. This method doesn't allow the lead agency control over the steep slopes on the entire site, or allow for mztzgatlonmeasures ased on the entire project. Of partzcular concern to me is lot $5 in Section I. Building envelopes should be designated on other lots and strict measures outlined for protection against sedimentation and run-off entering wetlands on-site and off. We are also concerned about Sanitary Sewage, the DEI$ stated that it was anticipatedthat several lots were not going to meet Health Department requirements. We felt these lots should be recognized and identified and we thought that relocating these lots should be discussed so that they will meet sanitary health code standards. Groundwater, I thought that the section on groundwater was fairly inadequate. It did give estimates for household use and PLANNING BOARD 13 MARCH 11, 1991 theDEIS stated that the public water system would only be used for household consumption. The FEIS must discuss how it will enforce this claim. How watering lawns, landscape plantings and washing cars will be prevented. How the drilling of a second well by each future homeowner will be prevented. The FEIS should discuss the Department of Environmental Conservation's Groundwater Management Program's statements and recommendations on. groundwater quantity problems. I felt the section on Solid Waste Disposal was inadequate. The FEIS should discuss the amounts expected to be generated, and the cost if Southold has to ship the solid waste out of Town. There were some comments on schools. The school children estimated to come from the project were based on a mix of three and four bedroom houses. The worst case scenario should be discussed in the FEIS wherein using the formula in the DEIS fifty one children could be generated.. The FEIS should discuss the projected cost to educate each child. The last part was on alternatives. We felt that transferring three lots from Section I onto Section II was not representative of an honest attempt to preserve the more Sensitive of the two sections, which was Section I. The FEIS should fully discuss concentrating all the development onto Section II. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Are there any other comments? Mr. Robert Maus: I live at Cedar Beach. I am concerned with my drinking water. The DEIS for Angel Shores calculates that nitrates will be introduced into groundwater at the site. I am concerned that this will increase nitrate levels in my private well which is located near the site. It appears that the DEIS does not address two issues associated with this concern. The first issue is what will be the cumulative effect of adding nitrates to groundwaterwhich already has nitrates present in it, both on site and in my supply well? The second issue which I feel needs to be clarified to answer this questions is; is my supply well located~downgradiant of the site? My supply well currently contains 6.1 parts of nitrates. The DEIS calculates that'the project will add 6.8 nitrates. Simple math would indicate that my Supply well will exceed the 10 parts drinking water standard. I therefore, have the following questions regarding the completeness of the DEIS. Did the DEIS locate all of the supply wells surrounding the site and obtain water quality information to establish the current conditions? The DEIS is lacking the vast majority of the wells in the area. The assumption that all the private wells would be listed in public files is obviously wrong. Each house surrounding the site has a private supply well associated with it and there is no public water supply in the area. A side issue related to the on site well; did the DEIS establish the PLANNING BOARD 14 MARCH 11, 1991 level of nitrates on site to determine the cumulative effect of adding nitrates and what effect this would have upon the site water supply wells? Is my supply well located downgradiant of the site? My supply well and my neighbors supply wells contain nitrate and some contain temik which was applied to the former potato farm at the site. This is on Angel Shores II. Does this tell me anything about groundwater flow direction? I always thought that groundwater flowed from the land to the sea which, in this case flow would be to the south, southeast and east from the site and not j~st to the south as indicated in the DEIS. If the nitrates and temik that are in the above mentioned wells are from. the farm, will the nitrates that the project will add end up in my w~ll? I therefore, have the following questions regarding the ~ompleteness of the DEIS. The DEIS used water level data coi~ected from several wells over a period of years. Does using water leVels collected from different wells at ifferenttimes yield accurate information on groundwater flow irection? Were the private water supply wells, which were used to determine groundwater flow direction, surveyed and water levels obtained with the same accuracy that the Suffolk County Department of Health Services would utilize to determine groundwater flow direction? When my supply well was installed no one surveyed my well and took detailed water level measurements. Over the different years that the water levels were obtained did the levels fluctuate and the flow directions change resulting in erroneous flow determination? What is the present flow. directions? Wells were not used to determine ~roundwater flow direction between the Site and the sUpplY wells located to the south or east of the site. What is groundwater flow direction to the east and south of the site? My well is locatSd to the,east of the site and contains nitrates and my neighbors c°nt~in temik. If the temik is from the site and the DEIS states that groundwater flow is to the south how can this be? The DEIS references two reports that map groundwater flowing to the south. If the DEIS does not include wells between the Si~e and the south and eastern water supply wells, dO these reports? If these reports do reveal wells in the area to the east and south of the site why are they not included in the DEIS? TheDEIS references two reports that map ~roundwaterflOwing to the south. If the DEIS does not inclUdewells between the site and the South and eastern water supply wells, do these reports? If these reports do reveal wel~s in t~e area to the east and south of the site why are they not included in the DEIS? Do the two referenced reports contain enough data to accurately map groundwater flow at a level of detail needed to determine groundwater flow direction on the site? Will additional monitoring wells be installed in sufficient numbers to answer these questions? What will be the groundwater flow directions once the surface water runoff is directed to the central recharge basis? Will diverting surface runoff that contains nitrates to central locations introduce concentrations of nitrates above the 6.8 parts potentially into PLANNING BOARD 15 MARCH 11, 1991 a small area and increase nitrate levels in selected areas that could impact surrounding wells? Is this similarly true of each of the cesspool locations? Does the DEIS address salt water intrusion? Many of the wells in the area have experienced saltwater intrusion. A brief review of the well data in the DEIS indicates that the test wells installed encountered salt water only twenty six feet below grade. Therefore, I have the following questions; What will be the long term effect of pumping these wells on my well water quality and the project well? I see no mention of the long term effect of pumping. Will this well draw water up from depth and in from the shore line over time? What kind of evaluation if any did the DEIS make of this? Has the DEIS addressed present extent of saltwater intrusion in the area? If the present extent of salt water intrusion is known how will it change when the site wells are operating? The DEIS mentions a water level elevation of minus four feet below mean sea level in the area. Does this mean that the water is flowing from the bay into the area and bringing in salt water? Will the water levels decrease further with pumping and increase salt water flow inland? Historically, on Long Island, hasn't increased pumping of groundwater resulted in saltwater intrusion along the south shore and therefore, resulted in the installation of public water from west to east with population growth? If so, what information can be derived from this occurrenc~ and what plans are being implemented for this area should this project result in increased salt water intrusion in the area? Similarly hasn't nitrates also been a major reason for the installation of public water supply wells on most of Long Island? If so, what information can be learned historically and what contingencies if any has this DEIS evaluated? Has the DEIS evaluated the economic impact on surrounding residences that would occur if water quality degrades and public water supply is introduced. The majority of the surrounding residences are on fixed incomes and could potentially lose their homes if made to bear the cost of a public water supply system. Should the Town or Angel Shores be made to post a bond at this time in case the surrounding water supplies degrade or the project water supply fails? Lastly, I would like to know what the accuracy of the work completed in the DEIS is. I would like to know what are the qualifications of an engineering firm to conduct a DEIS in New York State. Does it require a trained and registered hydrogeologist? I understand, that New York State has no registration program for hydrogeologist and therefore, anyone can provide this service~ Does it require a New York registered P.E.? If so, does the New York P.E. certification require or have a testing or education requirement for groundwater supply work? If not, how can I be sure that the groundwater portions of the DEIS are done to any degree of accuracy? What are the PLANNING BOARD 16 MARCH 11, 1991 qualifications of the firm that prepared the DEIS? As you see, I am concerned with the water. I appreciate you considering it and furthermore, seeing this presentation and hearing the previous comments I think at this point we have more than enough homes projected for Angel Shores II. We have a two acre zoning in the area and we've already downgraded that with projected movements from one and I see no sense in putting in more than have been proposed up until now. Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments? Hearing none, any questions from the Board? Mr. Ward: The Planning Board does have a copy of their comments in the file which the applicants should receive. Mr. Orlowski: The Planning Board does have its own comments and they are on file. They are on record right now. Any other questions from the Board? Board: None. Mr. Orlowski: Hearing no further comments or questions, I will entertain a motion to close this hearing, but before I do I just want you to all know that the comment period runs until March the 21st, so you still have time to get comments in to us in writing. Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. McDonald: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Engineering Reports Mr. Orlowski: Cornfields - This major s~hdivision is for ten lots on 20.995 acres located on the east side of Youngs Avenue; approximately 500 feet north of Middle Road (C.R. 48) in Southold. SCTM ~1000-69'5-7. What is the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to adopt the following resolution. RESOLVED to adopt the engineer's report dated February 26, 1991. PLANNING BOARD 17 MARCH 11, 1991 Mr. McDonald: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Any questions on the Opposed? So ordered. Puritan Farms - SCTM %1000-69-5-7. Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED to adopt the engineer's report dated February 6, 1991. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. McDonald. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Bond Determinations: Mr. Orlowski: Cornfields - SCTM %1000-55-2-9.1. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED to adopt the bond estimate dated as revisedMarch 4, 1991, and to reco~mL~end same to the Town Board. The bond estimate is in the amount of $190,690.00, with an inspection fee in the amount of $11,441.00. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Ortowski: Opposed? So ordered. PLANNING BOARD 18 MARCH 11, 1991 MAJOR AND MINOR SUBDIVISIONS LOT LINE CF~ANGES, SET OFF APPLICATIONS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Determinations: Mr. Or lowski: 3.1. Mr. Edwards: resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, make determination of non-significance, and grant a Negative Declaration. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. McDonald. Mr. Orlowski: Harry & JanetHohn - SCTM 91000-118-6-1 & Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following Mr. Orlowski: 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. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, make a determination of non-significance, and grant a Negative Declaration. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Opposed? So ordered. Donald Osani - This minor subdivision is for Any questions on the PLANNING BOARD 19 MARCH 11, 1991 Mr. Ortowski: Porter and Mary Goss and Michael Laughlin - This lot line change is to subtract .66 of an acre from a 5.47 acre parcel and to add it to a 1.16 acre parcel on Fishers Island. SCTM ~ 1000-2-1-15.1 & 16. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, make a determination of non-significance, and grant a Negative Declaration. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowki: Porter and Mary Goss - This lot line change is to subtract .1 of an acre from a .74 acre parcel and add it to a .99 acre parcel on Fishers Island. SCTM ~ 1000-2-1-13 & 14. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, make a determination of non-significance, and grant a Negative Declaration. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Carolyn Haman - This proposed lot line change is to subtract 10,890 square feet from a 10,391 acre parcel and add it to a 12,523 square foot parcel in Southold. SCTM ~ 1000-55-1-6. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. PLANNING BOARD 20 MARCH 11, 1991 RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, do an uncoordinated review of this unlisted action. The Planning Board established itself as Lead Agency, and as Lead Agency makes a determination of non-significance and grants a Negative Declaration. 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. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. LOCAL LAW PROPOSALS Mr. Orlowski: A Local Law in Relation to Zoning Use Regulations (Home Occupations). Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to m~ke a motion. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board has no objection to the Three proposed amendments to change sections of the Zoning Code governing the Home Occupation use by rewording the following sections of the Zoning Code 13; 3t(c) (2); i91(Q) (1) (a); and 236(A). The Board understands that the purpose of the changes is to allow baymen to operate their businesses out of their homes. And the proposed amendments appear to accomplish this purpose. For the record, we note that the proposed change in the definition (100-13A.) will revise the distinct, and separate, status that Home Occupations and Home Professional offices have been accorded up to now. For all practical purposes, the revised Home Occupation definition will include the Home Professional Office definition, whereas now there is a distinct separation between the two. The proposed amendment to the definition of home occupation, specifically sub-definition A., opens the door to include many other kinds of businesses which are not addressed by the Code. When this new definition is read in conjunction with the listing of prohibited uses, a question arises as to whether the following businesses would be pezmitted to operate as either home occupations or home professional offices: Consulting firms in such diverse fields as computers, science, financial services and other professional PLANNING BOARD 21 MARCH 11, 1991 services Day Care by a Homemaker Appliance repair shop. Catering Arts and Crafts Furniture Repair or Restoration Some of these businesses are allowed under the current code. Their status under the proposed amendments is not clear. Accordingly the Planning Board feels that the Home Occupation Section of the Zoning Code needs further review and amendment. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Latham: I have a question on the Home Occupation by Baymen. They are subject to the Suffolk County Board of Health rules aren't they? Mr. Orlowski: On processing. Mr. Latham: On processing of the opening of shell fish. Mr. McDonald: It doesn't relieve them from the requirements of the Health Department. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ortowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a further motion. BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board has no objection to, the proposed addition of Section 100-235.C. 1. and 2. on Fire Lane Standards for residential lots to the Town Code. It should be noted, however, that the amendment is silent on lane widths for commercial and industrial structures. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. PLANNING BOARD 22 MARCH 11, 1991 SETTING OF THE NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETING Mr. Orlowski: Board to set Monday April 1, 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. 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. Edwards, Mr. Ortowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: I'll make a motion to approve the Planning Board minutes of February 12, 1991. Mr. McDonald: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Being as I have nothing left on my agenda. I see Mr. Steiferis here, would you like to address the Board? Joe Steifer: Mattituck. When I spoke to the Board the last time I was here, the request was for C.O.'s on the back properties which, I believe, were taken care of. There were C.O.'s available. I guess that was the raising of the question, I believe, by you Mr. McDonald. Mr. McDonald.: No, I can guarantee you that I did not raise that question. However, I am interested, did you supply C.O.'s to us? Vacant land C.O.'s? Mr. Steifer: No, in other words I was under the impression that you people had gotten them from the Building Department. McDonald: You can no longer get a vacant land C.O.. Mr. Steifer: I am talking about a building C.O. and you can't get a building C.O. without access. PLANNING BOARD 23 MARCH 11, 1991 Mr. McDonald: Well, that is what I am wondering, how would you prove that you can get a C.O. until you go to put up a building? Mr. Steifer: But the C.O.'s are all available now. Mr. McDonald: Where are they then? Mr. Steifer: In other words, I would have to furnish them to the Board? That was actually the question, and all of the back three lots do have availability for a building C.O. on it, which means there is an access route to it. This road was'improved by us. Even though we do not use it, because according to the Planning Board and the Building Department, we weren't to use that road so we formed our own road on the east side of the property which this new piece will come off of. Mr. McDonald: You formed a driveway? Mr. Steifer: Yes. 800 feet and the only difference would be, that it is the one split, with no future subdivision on it, because that will be retained as a farm and the new house will be built off that driveway which I have furnished the plans for. Mr. McDonald: What have we determined about those back lots? What do we know? Ms. Spiro: I have nothing from the Building Department. Mr. McDonald: So we have nothing from the Building Department. And was a 280A ever done on it? Or was that part of the subdivision? Mr. Orlowski: It is part of the subdivision. The road that he improved was out of the subdivision. Mr. McDonald: Well, it needs a 280A. You can't do a road outside a subdivision without a 280A so there should be a 280A on this somewhere right? You need an approval from the ZBA for improvement on the road. Mr. Steifer: That was ~lready done. Mr. McDonald: A 280A exists? Mr. Steifer: It does exist, otherwise there would not b~ building permits available on the back lots. Mr. McDonald: We don't even know that though. Mr. Orlowski: There are no building permits, we have nothing. Mr. Steifer: O.K., so I would have to furnish you with the building permits? PLANNING BOARD 24 MARCH 11, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: Qr the Building Department. Mr. Steifer: I'm sorry, I assumed that this was taken care of. I had spoken to the Building Department and they said it was taken care of. I will follow up on it. Mr. McDonald: While this is certainly important, I don't want to mislead you, but if you supply these it doesn't necessarily mean, and I don't speak for the rest of the Board, but even if you supplied these it doesn't necessarily mean that I would say O.K., go ahead and put the road on the east side of the property. Mr. Steifer: The road is already there. Mr. McDonald: No, there is a driveway, there is no road. There is a driveway that services a single and separate lot. You are talking about turning it into several lots. Mr. Steifer: No, I am talking about only adding one lot. Mr. McDonald: O.K., you are going to create two lots? Mr. Steifer: Yes. Mr. McDonald: There is one and you want two? Mr. Steifer: The front one will be off Sound Avenue. Mr. McDonald: So a road could conceivably be necessary. You could call it a driveway but it would still be considered a road, and I don't want to mislead you simple because you supply that. I might not necessarily, and again I am not speaking for the rest of the Board, and I haventt decided yet either. But, simply supplying them doesn't necessarily mean I am going to say that no, there is no road needed. Mr. Steifer: What would be the purpose of the road? Mr. McDonald: Well, that remains to be seen. That is one of the reasons I am saying that I haven't decided yet because I have to look at the whole layout. You had a previous minor subdivision? Mr. Steifer: Yes sir. Mr. McDonald: With a road with a 280A access over this rather than actually a road, and I've got to be honest (stopped talking). Mr. Orlowski: No, the subdivision originally granted was approved with a road on Mr. Steifer'sproperty. The map was signed showing the road on his property, and that is all we can address. When it was done and approved the people or the person buying a lot, in the back, came to this Board and said "I have PLANNING BOARD 25 MARCH 11, 1991 no access to my property". The Board says, "Mr. Steifer, in this subdivision it shows that there is a road on this property that has to be improved by somebody", she says, I cannot get to my property, I am involved in litigation. I cannot get building permits, I cannot get anything. In effect, I have bought a land locked piece of property. We assured her that it is not because she has access over to the property, that is suppose to have been built but was never built on your property because you improved the access road or right-of-way, which is not in the subdivision. That is out of our jurisdiction completely. Mr. Steifer: We improved the road that the Town Board requested us to improve on the property now. Mr. McDonald: On your property? Mr. Steifer: It was on the map. We improved the road that the Town Board had requested us to improve on the map. It was part of the property on the map and the Town Board says, you will have to improve it, otherwise, no subdivision would be put and there was a vast amount of money spent on this road. Mr. McDonald: And that is the road that presently exists and leads into Laurel Lake? Mr. Steifer: Yes sir. Mr. McDonald: How many lots are there in the first subdivision? Mr. Steifer: Four, an average of twenty- eight acres. Mr. McDonald: So an additional lot, would make you a major? Mr. Steifer: Yes sir. Mr. McDonald: Usually, at that point, we would insist on improving it to the road standards. Mr. Steifer: But, we are not allowed to travel that road. Mr. McDonald: Why not? Mr. Steifer: According to the Town and the Building Department, we have no access on that road and we have to stay off. That is why a driveway was put on each side of the property. Mr. McDonald: You don't own that property? Mr. Steifer: Whether I own it or not, I was not permitted access on it by the Town Board or the Building Department. Mr. McDonald: Do you know if you own it? PLANNING BOARD 26 MARCH 11, 1991 Mr. Steifer: According to my map that I just furnished, yes and this was not done byDanok, this was done by a second surveyor. As a matter of fact, I believe that the mortgage company also got a surveyor and I believe their findings were the same. Mr. Orlowski: So everything that was approved, is on your property. Mr. Steifer: As far as the map, yes. Mr. McDonald: I am a little concerned, confused rather. I am looking at this, and even this shows the road moving on and off of your property. It doesn't even show it entirely within the property. Mr. Steifer: Well, this is the road that we had to improve it so we improved it. Mr. McDonald: I see it showing a twenty-five foot right of way, but it shows the travel road moving in and out of it. Mr. Steifer: Well, this was the road we were told to improve and we improved it, and we wouldn't want to say that the Town Board made us improve somebody else's road. We've improved the one that was there. Mr. Orlowski: Are you sure the Town Board asked you to improve this? Mr. Steifer: The Planning Board, I am sorry. Mr. McDonald: But, you see it showed a twenty-five foot right-of-way and no~mally, that is an indication that that is where you put the road. Mr. Steifer: No, there was an additional twenty-five foot right- of- way given in case that road was ever to expand, which the Planning Board also asked for. Mr. McDonald: It's very confusing, because the road is outside the property in several spots. Mr. Orlowski: You see, the thing was, we made you put the right-of-way on that side just in case something did happen, and it appears something did happen, as far as access, you have to prove access on that right-of-way. That is out of the subdivision and I don't know if that is still in court, or what happened, but for some reason, the person in the back did not build on that property. Mr. Steifer: Well, from what I understand now, C.O.'s are available. PLANNING BOARD 27 MARCH 11, 1991 Mr. McDonald: Were you in court on this? Mr. Steifer: They didn't go to court yet on that. Mr. McDonald: You have to bring us up to date, who is they? Mr. Steifer: On the far corner, I don't even know the name, on the westbound side. Mr. Orlowski: Sayer? Mr. Steifer: Not Sayer, in front of Sayer. Mr. Orlowski: Mets? Mr. Steifer: No Metts, no longer, Donte, Donte had claimed that what he wanted to do was to move some LILCO poles and that is where the whole story started. He wanted to push them on the otherside of the road so he would have more property on his side, and apparently it was stopped there because of the Planning maps, and now it is in court. Mr. McDonald: Presently, this matter is in court? Mr. Steifer: Right now, it is now in court. Mr. McDonald: Are you one of the people involved in the court action? Mr. Steifer: Yes, I am. Mr. McDonald: What is the purpose of that court action? To determine what? Mr. Steifer: Well, they had claimed that my piece of property was overlapping theirs. Mr. McDonald: How long has this been in litigation? Mr. Steifer: Approximately about a year. Mr. McDonald: The lines that we're looking at on this survey are under litigation. Mr. Steifer: Yes, this survey and there is another one following it. Mr. McDonald: That kind of causes a problem there itself because we are going to do a subdivision based on lines, property lines, ~nich are under litigation? You know, you can sit there and show the map to us, and in all honesty, and I am sure you are being honest about it. (Stopped talking) i Mr. Steifer: It's got an approval on it. PLANNING BOARD 28 MARCH 11, 1991 Mr. McDonald: I know, but somebody else somewhere, obviously has a map that shows something different, that is why you are in litigation, there should be another map. Why are you in court? Mr. Steifer: Well, that is what they are waiting to resolve now. Mr. McDonald: But that is my point, until that is resolved, how do we even know where the lines are. Mr. Arnoff: Excuse me Mark, who is your attorney handling this. Mr. Steifer: Mr. Price. Mr. Arnoff: Bill Price? Mr. Steifer: Yes. Mr. Arnoff: Maybe if you ask Bill Price to contact me, I'm the Town Attorney. Have Bill call me, maybe I can make some kind of objective, legal analysis, so the Board can determine whether it wishes to act, or not, based upon the present dispute. I offer that as a suggestion to end this because I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. I think we are going around in a circle. I seem to get that feeling. Mr. Orlowski: Alright. Is that O.K.. Mr. Steifer: Yes, great. Mr. Arnoff: Have Mr. Price get in touch with me. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., that is what we will do then. Mr. Steifer: Alright, thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Any other questions? Being no further questions or comments, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonaldr Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Being there was no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.. PLANNING BOARD 29 MARCH 11, 1991 Bennett Oz~lo~ki Jr., ehrman Respeetful~~, Ja e~Rousseau