Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-02/27/1989Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (5161 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD FEBRUARY 27, 1989 The Southold Town Planning Board held a regular meeting on Monday, February 27, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold. Present were: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Member William Mullen Member G. Richie Latham Member Richard Ward Member Kenneth Edwards Town Planner Valerie Scopaz Planner Melissa Spiro Jane Rousseau, Temporary Secretary Mr. Orlowski: Good evening, I would like to call this meeting to order. Firstorder of business is 7:30 p.m. E!ijah's Lane Affordable Housing- Board to make a determination under the State Enviornomental Quality Review Act. Everything is in order for a negative declaration. I'll entertain that motion. Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards~ Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: I'll also open up the public hearing on question of the final approval for this Affordable Housing Projed¥ owned by the town. This minor subdivision is located on 2.962 acres at Mattituck. SCTM ~1000-108-4-7.2. We have proof of publication in the Suffolk Times and also the Long Island Traveler Watchman. At this time everything is in order for a SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 FEBRUARY 27, 1989 public hearing and I'll ask if there are any endorsements of this subdivision? Hearing none, are there any objections to this subdivision? Hearing none, any questions from the board? Being no further questions, I'll declare this hearing closed. Thank you for coming. Mr. Orlowski: Melissa has just informed me I am going to have to leave this hearing open because Suffolk County Planning Review has not yet been received and Suffolk County now wants to review and give comment before preliminary approval. We will leave this hearing open until we get their comments. Mr. Orlowski: Board to set March 13th, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, $outhold, as the time and place for the next regular Planning Board Meeting. Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded° Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Walsh Park - Board to keep the public hearing open from October 14, 1988 pending receipt of revised preliminary maps. This affordable housing project is located on Fishers Island. SCTM ~1000-6-2-3.1. Mr. Orlowski: We have received the maps, we will now send them to the Suffolk County Planning so we will keep this hearing open until we receive their comments back. Mr. Orlowski: North Road Associates- Board to keep the public hearing open from February 6, 1989 pending receipt of Suffolk County Planning Co~m,~ission comments. This minor subdivision is on 16.886 acres located at Orient. SC~/~ 91000-18-4-1. Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Board to approve the minutes of the regular meetings of May 23, 1988, December 19, 1988 and February 6, 1989. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3 FEBRUARY 27, 1989 Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Mutlen, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: On Subdivision Finals - the Woods at Cutchoque - Board to make a determination on the final maps dated as amended September 19th, 1988. This major subdivision is on 29.54 acres located at Cutchogue. SCTM ~1000-t02-1-4. Mr. Orlowski: Dedication of open space is on the next Town Board meeting where they wll review adopting these changes into the Master Plan. We have an option to do one or two things, one is to grant a 45 day extension or approval subject to the Town Board a~opting the local law which allows for the dedication of open space. Lynn Gordon: of Scheinberg, Schnips, DePetris and ~ePetris, attorneys fo~ the applicant. We would request that you grant it subject to the enactment of the legislation by the Town Board, that's our client's request if that has any input towards your decision on this. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., I do know that all the dedication papers are in order they just need the Town Board to adoPt the local law to amend the new Master Plan. I think it would be the simplest to approve it subject to. -The adoption by the Town Board of the Local Law to dedicate open space to the Town. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on this motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mutlen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Next we have East Marion Wood's - Board to review the granting of a 90 day extension on conditional final approval from February 15, 1989 to May 16, 1989. This major subdivision is on 59.827 acres located at East Marion. SCTM ~1000-30-1-15.1. Everything is in order to grant the extension since we have a letter asking for such in the file from the applicant. Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4 FEBRUARY 27, 1989 Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Preliminary - Calvin Rasweiler- Board to make a determination on the preliminary maps dated as amended April 21, 1988. This major subdivision is on 55.4896 acres located at Laurel. SCTM~91000-129-1-1. Everything is in order for preliminary approval, it should be subject to the drainage review which we have talked about and extension of Railroad Drive for emergency access to be shown on the final maps. Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Any questions on the motion? Ail those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Gatz & McDowell - Board to make a determination on the preliminary maps dated as amended June t, 1988. This major subdivision is on 30.3565 acres located at Cutchogue. SCTM $1000-95-4-7 & 14. This is O.K. to approve the preliminary, also this should be subject to the drainage review. Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Next we have the DBM Cluster Plan - Board to make a determination on the granting of a six month extension on preliminary approval from February 15, 1989 to August 15, 1989. This major subdivision is on 37.762 acres located at Southold. SCTM ~1000-55-6-t5.1. Mr. Ward: So moved. SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PAGE 5 FEBRUARY 27, 1989 Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Multen, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. SEQRA DETERMINATIONS: Mr. Orlowski: Rita Cushman - Board to make a determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Board to review the Suffolk County Planning Commission report dated February 2, 1989. This lot line change is located on Fishers Island. SCTM ~1000-8-1-6.3. I would like to entertain a motion for a negative declaration, everything is in order. Mr. Edwards: This is a simple lot line change, thus there is no further impact on the area. Mr. Edwards: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? $o ordered. Mr. Orlowski: On the Suffolk County Planning Commission report dated February 2, 1989. What is the pleasure of the board? Mr. Edwards: I would like to move that we adopt the County's conditions one through five and number eight with amendments to condition one and four . The amendment should read for number one, there should be no further subdivision because of the fact that it is on the FIDCO map and FIDCO has endorsed no further subdivision. Number four should be changed to one hundred feet rather than fifty feet from the bluff. Mr. Orlowski: Do I have a motion? Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Mullen: Second. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD PAGE 6 FEBRUARY 6, 1989 Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Angel Shores - Board to review the Revised Environmental Impact Statement for completeness. This major subdivision is located at Southold. SCTM 91000-8-1-6.3 & 6.4. We have gotten a response from the Department of State and the Health Department and both have asked for alternatives to be described in the DEIS before it is complete. Ms. Scopaz do you have any comments you would like to make at this time? Ms. Scopaz: I just want to bring the board's attention to the fact we received correspondence from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services and the Department Of State. Both have done two things in their response, they've made some comments on the draft as it is written now and also made the suggestion that it not be deemed complete. It seems that both of them feel that the Planning Board should require the inclusion of one additional alternative in the set of alternatives and that the alternative be the clustering of all the lots away from the sensitive areas on the property, which includes the waterfront and the wetland area. If the board deems that alternative of something that should be considered in the DEIS then it should take those agencies comments into consideration and ask the applicant to include that additional alternative into the drafted document before it is deemed complete. If you don't consider that an alternative that you want to consider, then you can go ahead an deem it complete. Both of these agencies have written rather strongly worded letters in that direction and what the board needs to determine is whether it wishes to consider that. All the evidence seems to point to that we're dealing with a very sensitive site and I would rec~Lm~nd taking their comments into consideration. Mr. Ward: I move that this alternative be addressed and that the DEIS not be deemed complete until such time as we do receive that alternative. We did discuss this with the applicant originally as a possibility, although he wasn't really that interested in it. I think that in terms of an overall review its a must that it be addressed. Mr. Moore: From Moore and Moore, for the applicant. I am physically, literally pulling my hair out in this process. You don't seem to want to believe that when it. comes to SEQRA and getting it right that I am on the same side of the table that you are. It is in the applicants best interest that this project gets reviewedunder SEQRA properly. I suggested back in February that it was being done wrong. Everybody smiled because I was kind of acting out wrong, wrong, wrong. I still think its wrong. You are doing it incorrectly. If you want alternate four, which I'll tell you right now the applicant doesn't like one bit, who is going to determine that the layout of alternate four is appropriate. Should we send it back up to the Department of State to see if we comply with them AGAIN. Do we SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PAGE 7 FEBRUARY 27, 1989 go back to the Health Department again to see if there is anthing else by the way guys? We're making up reasons to reject the document and keep bouncing us back mhd forth, back and forth. You're the lead agent, the bulk of the co~m,ents that have been addressed here can be addressed and should have been addressed in a public comment period. So far the only group of people that have been kept out of this process is the public. We have been going back and forth from agency to agency and at some point if we keep this up long enough, I submit the documents to you. The documents are going to be prett~ close to perfect. Mr. Orlowski: That's what we're looking for. Mr. Moore: Well, at that point if we want to acknowledge perfect document of a Draft Impact Statement, that mitagates all possible impacts, guess what? There is no need for a public hearing and I submit to you, you have no intention of foregoing and avoiding a public hearing on that, and I don't blame you. The public has every right to be heard and have their comments included here. What you are doing is you're passing the buck. Off to the Health Department, you tell the applicant to respond, pass the buck off to the Department of State, and the applicant response. We've had to go directly to agency to agency rather than deal with you to address the adequacy of our responses to their c~L~uents to our document. We have to avoid you to do that. We have to go in direct contact with them. That is not how the process works. Now tonight you .come up with a February 24th letter from the Department of State and now a new fellow is rewLewing it. Mr. Corey is no longer there. The new guy is looking at it. We have got to convience him that alternate four is a good one. Now, if you guys sit here after acceptance of the document and the public comment process and we begin to look at the layouts and preliminary plats and say, these comments can be respended to by swinging this road here, cutting that road out there, changing that layout, we'll say my goodness what were we doing sitting here locking ourselves into four alternative plans pre- acceptance. I don't think What you intend to do is lock yourselves into alternates one, two, three or four when you accept the impact statement whenever that might be and then say that one of those four layouts is going to be the one. Now those three layouts did'nt come out of the blue. They came out of discussions with the Planning Board staff. Now if the thinking is changing and we want to redraw them, and we've got other concerns and the involved agencies that have coa.~ented have raised concerns which include Rambler Road and tying into Terry Waters. That comment came from the Planning Board. We tied in there. All other agencies said it is not a good idea. Let's talk about layout as the process continues, but to sit here and tell us that we're going to have twenty-seven alternatives, and one of those twenty seven or one of those four or one of those ten is going to be the one, well the impact process is almost co~L~pleted because you have defied it ahead of time. The two processes meld, you play with your layout, you SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PAGE 8 FEBRUARY 27, 1989 make it work, based upon what you learn through the review process. You don't sit here and say, well, we can't deem it complete because somebody else has another idea. If the public is out there and we've got someone with a land plan wha has been precluded from commenting, who comes up with a great layout that satisfies everyone, what do we do now? Wait or let them come in and say I've got a great idea for you now, why don't you to it pre acceptance to the impact statement. This is never going to end. I'm at a loss to tell you how to go. You can't believe that we're working to the same end here which is to make the review process work properly to be sure that the hard look is given to all possible alternatives. If we sit here and say alternate four is the one we've got to have now, are we precluding ourselves laying out something differently based upon public co~m.ent review period. I don't think so. When they cume lay the things out in front of you, you're going to say we've read this impact statement and you guys were right. Rambler Road, maybe that doesn't make sense under this particular subdivision, maybe comment number thirty-seven, the Department of State makes sense and we ought to consider changes to that. You're not locking yourselves in tonight, I guarantee you by telling me to come back with alternate four. I would he very surprised if you told me that one of those four would be the one we're going to pick as we go down the road. I don't think so. Finally, draft impact statements are not intended to be perfect documents. If you look in the regulations and the DEC's own Final Environmental Impact Statement, let me say that again, the DEC's Final Impact Statement that the DEC~ prepared'to explain their regulations, they said, hey, you have to recognize the preliminary state at which the draft is submitted. It doesn't address all the questions, that's what the review process is all about. Well that got all banged up and screwed up because the document got sent out for review before it was deemed complete so you've got all kinds of input that your sitting there muddling around with and we're muddling with. trying to respond to and you're going to get a whole bunch more. I would suggest to you that any number of alternatives that's going to be discussed to the review process which includes the subdivision layout and approval of a preliminary plat With you gentlemen. There is no need at this point to go back and say give us alternate four while you're at it to deem the document complete because at that point you may say none of those are the four we want so let's go with alternate 6A or 7 or 10. Two months from now as we begin to address the various cua~ents the public may have.. Having said all that I would request that you not follow the motion as it was made, that you accept the document as complete, mo~e it forward, get the p~hlic involved and we'll begin to discuss with the Planning Board, and by the way you have the offer of the Health Department's Department of Ecology to sit down with you and put their input into layouts so you can listen to what they've got to say. At a nice large meeting we can get the Department of State here, whatever you want to dh, I mean we are very willing to do that, but you are just bouncing us back and forth now and I hope sincerely that you do not SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PAGE 9 FEBRUARY 27, 1989 intend to do foot dragging. I think you're attempts arc faith and good effort but the practical problem is we're getting anywhere, we're going back and forth, and back a and haven't gotten to subdivision layout which is truly job. You can take this input from the Departments, you this input from the Health Department but, subdivision ] your job. I will sit and meet with you and discuss layc That's where we're at. Thank you. in good not nd forth your can take ayout is ut. Concerned citizen of Hog Neck: Equal time please. Mr. Orlowski: This is not a public hearing and we're talking about a document that they are putting together for their application. Concerned citizen of Hog Neck: Well~ he's wrong, because on August 15th, the Department of Ecology did address those very sensitive areas. This is not something you are bringing up now. This has been dealth with. Mr. Orlowski: I do not want to get into any of hearing of c~,m,ents tonight. I think it's up to the Planning Board that when we make this document open to the public that it is as perfect a document that we can get, addressing all alternatives. This alternative happens to be a recommendation made by the Planning Board to the applicant which was rejected, which is now brought up in the Environmental Impact process here so I believe we should see it addressed~since we have two other agencies looking for it and we would like to see a document that when we do open it up to the public it is as perfect as we can possibly get it. I have a motion on the floor? Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Orlowski: Was there a second on that? Mr. Moore: Mr. Chairman, with that in mind then and telling us their document is again incomplete, would you please state forth in your resolutionspecifically what you are asking for from us, not just a reference to a Health Department letter which we got the last time, but please specify where we are deficient so we can have this document Mr. Orlowski: O.K., I think Mr. Ward did that, but do you want to do your motion again Mr. Ward? Mr. Ward: I make a motion that an alternative be provided in the layout for a cluster whereby the natural areas and wetlands and major woodlands be preserved and the farmland be addressed as the subdivision and that actn~lly it would be providing all of it on the upland side of it, off t~e slopes and the existing woodland. That would be the alternative. SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PAGE 10 PEBRUARY 27, 1989 Mr. Moore: Would that all be in section 2 Mr. Ward? We're going to change the one acre zoning over to section 2? Mr. Ward: I'm not sure where your section lines are but it probably is. Are the upper areas all section? Mr. Moore: The section 1 and the section 2 are divided by Sunset Lane, generally. Mr. Orlowski: Could be a question there too. The master plan is adoped, it's all two acres down there. Just something for you to think about. O.K., I have a motion made. Mr. Latham: I'll second it. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Cove Beach Estates - Board to review the granting of a sixty three day extension, from April 2, 1989 to June 5, 1989 for the preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement by David E~glita for this major subdivision located at East Marion. SCTM~-$1000-22-3-15.1 & 18.3. Mr. Orlowski: What is the pleasure of the board? Mr. Ward: When is it up? Ms. Spiro: It's up April 2. You don't have to give the extension tonight if you don't want to. Mr. Ward: I would rather get back to Mr. Emilita, I just feel it's an unreasonable length of time. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., then we will wait until the next meeting.? Mr. Ward: Yes. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Ctiffside/Tidemark - Board to review the Final Impact Statement. SCTM ~1000-45-1-1. Mr. Henry Raynor: I understand this is the end of the public comment period. On behalf of the applicant I have some comments with regard to the FEIS prepared by Szepatowski Associatres~ The board is well aware that the application in its present form has already been in in, excess of four years. This project SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PAGE 11 FEBRUARY 27, 1989 should express the need demonstrated by the township. At the suggestion of the Planning Board, this project is reverted from a condominium proposal to now the existing resort residential. Time elements involved already have become something of a financial hardship to the applicant. In reviewing the FEIS there appears there has been no inclusion of the engineering and traffic study updates prepared by Henderson and Bodwell. These include many mitigating measures that they have addressed. Quitehonestly the preparation of this FEIS by Szepatowski Associates, at the applicants expense, is something like shooting yourself in the head, after you've got the gun and ammunition paid for. However, I wouldlike to address specifically my comments to an undated m~mo by the Town Planner to the Zoning Board of Appeals and they are specific and they wouldhave reference with the final co~m,ents that are in the document itself. The heading under traffic while the left hand turn design revisions are addressed to mitigate traffic concerns, the comments in the FEIS do not state whether or not these are adequate. The traffic study update by Henderson and Bodwell has not been commented on and these further mitigating concerns with regard to traffic. Under visual impact any direct proposal for further plantings within a reasonable manner, will be adhered to. We find no problem with that at all. The trees in question are already standing, they exist on site, and will not require the creation of a separate irrigation system. Water contracts already exist on the property with the Village of Greenport with the reference to the stressed system certainly is not within findings of FEIS. It could be construed to be injurious to the applicant's submission. As stated before in co~m,e~t four on a planting schedule, we would be happy to accomedate. Reduction in size and the number of units can be partially accomodated. The proposed ordinance unbar residential resort calls for 250 square feet per u~_it. The project could be sized closer to this. The reduction in the number cannot be justified under the economic projections of this project and is "as of right", under the town ordinance. The surrounding building which were questioned as thes~ are to be two story buildings and it says that it is not within keeping of the neighborhood. This is incorrect. You have to the East which is the Sunset Motel, which is a ~lti-stoz]fbuilding, you have to the South, San Simeon Nursing Home, which is also multi-story building. Item seven goes back to planning again, we would be happy to accomoSate this. Buffering the vegetation again and I remain for it exists and we would stipulate that the finished product in th~ job will certainly adhere to the 100 ft. setback that is requested. The question of the disturbance of residence on southwest of the property cannot be adversely affected. You have a provision on the 100-132 that prohibites this. Under the category of water supply and sewerage, more recharge will be retained on site as presently exists because the run off of the slopes. We're well aware that this has to be held on site. There has been discussion on this on-site ground water, this is irrelevant, there will be no withdrawal as there is no proposal for such. Under the subject of recharge, the installation of SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PAGE 12 FEBRUARY 27, 1989 drainage pools will greatly enhance the total recharge of the area and this will be done by holding the run- off that presently goes into the sound. By the increase in the buffer area which you've already discussed the recharge area will be greatly increased assuring an extra safety factor with regard to drainage. The suggestion construction of a wood walkway is an excellent idea, I'm glad somebody came up with it. I'll be happy to incorporate it in future submission. Under the development alternatives number one, a traffic impact update information whoutd be restudied, especially with reference to Henderson and Bodwell updated study. Reduce building and lot coverage can be achieved if this is proposed in a reasonable manner. The reduction of unit size can be achieved, but again the question of numbers makes the project what is is. The water and sewage alternatives are somewhat invalid, because this project in itself alread~ complies with the Village of Greenport contracts. The applicant would be willing to install any water saving devices that would be availabe for installation. There has been no consideration or information requested by the Szepatowski Associates with regard to the economic concerns, with regard to unit density. Szepatowski~s report proposes a reduction to 450 sq.ft, per unit, this is 400 sq. ft. below what's acceptable under the resort residential desiqnation, which is 850 sq. ft.. Mr. Orlowski: These are only motel units though. Mr. Raynor: We're talking about resort residential. That's what it's zoned for. We're looking to devise a resort that is just that, a resort, a' suite type of resort, where 450 ft. as proposed by Szepatowski just won't cut it. Mr. Orlowski: You're not looking to make this a condominium later and just sell it off as a single and separate .... . Mr. Raynor: Ail I can tell you is, I can represent .... I've been given a design to be a residential resort and one of the examples was given to me by the attorney today who just came back from Mt. Snow, up skiing where the~ have a bedroom suite combination with a large off-set bathroom and these run anywhere from 600 to 900 sq. ft.. The traffic update as submitted and reviewed under the FEIS, is not fully done because I do not feel that they have taken into consideration the supplement given by Henderson and Bodwell. I will be happy to accomodate the visual impact as discussed. Again, the size of the units can be accomodated this in turn creates a small footprint with regard to the size of the building envelopes. Density is a result of econ~,,ic considerations and should be adhered to amd we would ask the board to seriously considmr adhering to what is the applicants as of right. We don't feel that this has been the least bit considered in a set FEIS. The shortened FEIS should be designed for environmental SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PAGE 13 FEBRUARY 27, 1989 considerations not a whipping board to reduce the density as permitted under the Town ordinance.' Any reference to size or density is unwarranted, it's already spelled out by the Town Code. Prior to accepting this FEIS by Szepatowski, I would urge the Board to study the mitigating measure submitted. Thank you for your time. Mr. Ward: Mr. Raynor, you had mentioned in your discussion of 250 sq. ft.. What is that a reduction per unit you were talking about? Mr. Raynor: No. 450 sq. ft.. Mr. Ward: No, you had said earlier, I wrote it down, you said the units could be something to 250 sq. ft.? Mr. Ra!rnor: One of the site plans that was discussed and unfortunately not the most current that was reviewed in this document goes back to prior 1985, when this was considered as a condominium development and the sizing of these units was in excess of 1000 ft. to probably 1100 sq. ft.~ that would be the reason. The ordinance brings it down to the 150 sq. ft. as a minimum, and we're happy to adhere to that. Does that answer your question? I think somewhere in the transition between the condominium proposal and its reversion to a resort residential proposal something has been lost in the FEIS. Thank you for your consideration. Mr. Orlowski: What is the pleasure of the board in regards to this Final Environmental Impact Statement? Do you have any co~mL~ents on that Ms. Scopaz? Ms. Scopaz: No. Mr. Ward: I make a motion that we accept the findings. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Long Pond Estates, Section II - Board to make a determination on the Suffolk County Planning Cu~m~,ission report dated February 2, 1989. This major subdivision is on 29.87 acres located at Southold. SCTM ~1000-56-1-p/02. Mr. Orlowski: What's the pleasure of the board? Mr. Mullen: Recommend adoption. SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PAGE 14 FEBRUARY 27, 1989 Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Changes of Zone - James L. Gray, Sr. - Board to make a reco~mL~ednatiOn to the Town Board on the Change of Zone from "A-C" Agricultural-Conservation District to "L-I" Light Industrial District. This parcel is on 7.067 acres located on the northeasterly corner of County Route 48 and Cox Lane at Cutchoque. SCTM ~1000-84-1-25.1. Mr. Mullen: I would like the record to note that I refrain from commenting as a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Orlowski: O.K.. What is the recommendation to the Town Board? Mr. Ward: I propose a resolution that we recommend denial basically, for two reasons, one is because it is not in conformance with the currently adopted Master Plan, and, besides, in the vacinity, the Master Plan did identify a large area for this particular use which is presently vacant. I think that until there is a major impact on the present vacantly Light Industrial Zoned District that additional districts should not be created. Mr. Latham: I would second the motion. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded to make that recommendation to the Town Board. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Local Law in Relation to Zoning - Board to make a recommendation to the Town Board in regard to propoSed amendments to the Zoning Code to replace certain sections deleted by adoption of comprehenmive zoning amendment, Local Law No. 1 - 1989. Mr. Mullen: Motion made. Mr. Latham: Second. SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PAGE 15 FEBRUARY 27, 1989 Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Mullen. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Next we have The Cove at Southold- Board to discuss this proposal with the applicant. Bill Klatsky - Gentlemen this is an application that has been pending before the Planning Board for over one year, and mm you recall this application was generated by an action~ by the Board of Trustees to look for the application to develop a mitigation program which it did and the mitigation program was adopted by the Trustees some six months ago and then turned o~er to the Zoning Board of Appeals which n~w does not have juristiction in this matter. We are now back before the Planning Board where we had started with an application fora location based on the Board of Trustees request of a pool, a tennis court as well as a site plan that was temented some time ago showing a relocation of some units which you have had before you for some period of time. The Planning Board responded with a request for us to take a look at some of our engineering aspects which incedently were submitted by the Planning Board to the Planning Board engineer, Bowne Associates, almost a year ago which were approved as estmhlished at that point. We. would like to find out that we did do some testing for the water table within that area and found the water table at roughly on a data schedule of two. In order to address the issue of starting with elevation E, for the swimming pool we would tend to be in ground water which I think is something that we probably both prefer not to deal with. We would just like to have you look at that issue again concerning that and we think that we're now in a better situation working with elevation ten. Charlie Beckert would like to respond about the use of the plant material that was suggested. Charlie would you like to talk about this issue? Charlie Beckert: O.K., there was a request that Japanese Black Pines'that were shown be substituted with White Pines. While it istrue that the White Pines would probably offer a better screening for the tennis court and pool area, generally the White Pines do poorly in a location that close to salt spray and saltwater. That is the reason that Japanese Black Pines which are quite adaptable to those conditions were used in the first place so-I would submit and like the board to consider leaving the Japanese Black Pines in those locations that are highly suseptable to the salt air. The question of the size, that is really up to the board and the project sponsers, but I feel fairly strongly that the White Pines would not be appropriate in that area. SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PAGE 16 FEBRUARY 27, 1989 Dick Ward: Maybe there is a possibility of leaving the White's up there in Main Bayview. Our concern with the Black's is that we have been losing so many of them out here. Why go through that, let's use another species. Charlie Beckert: The ones between Main Bayview would probably be far enough away, but in the other areas we would really recommend ........ Dick Ward: Well down here it is the lower section of your street between yourself and the pool. Richie Latham: What about Hemlocks? Chartie Beckert: Hemlocks don't do well even though ...... They make a fine screen, probably the best but they don't hold up under the salt conditions. Red Cedars would probably be appropriate hut they are fairly difficult to obtain from nurseries. I'm not sure at this point, what the availability is of the Cedars, but I could check into that. Bill Klatsky: Are we sort of satisfied that we can stick with the White Pine along Main Bayview and then we can work out with you concerning the side work. Dick Ward: The other question we had was on the fence screen provided, it was only being provided at four foot. Can that come up some? Bill Klatsky: I think we've agreed to go six on that. Is the Planning Board in a Position this evening to take any action on not only the pool and fence but the entire application as presented some eight months ago with the unit changes, particularly the Board of Trustees action? Mr. Orlowski: Well, it hasn't been certified by the Building Department yet. Do you agree on all those changes we just talked about? Mr. Klatsky: Yes. Mr. Orlowski: Well, we could send it to the Building Department for certifcation subject to those changes. Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Multen, Fir. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowskio SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PAGE 17 FEBRUARY 27, 1989 Mr. Or lowski: Opposed? So ordered. Donald Spates - I would like to address the board on a general item with some specifics with regard to the Angel Shores development - I recently had the opportunity to meet with the developer Mr. Theodore Laoudis at his home on Watersedge in Southold. As one of the members of the group which call itself the Concerned Citizens of Hog Neck; I thought that we should hear from the developer himself and so I wrote to Mr. Laoudis, who then invited me to his home. Ted, as he introduced himself is a loud and friendly person who explained his project and philosophy over coffee. The man seemed articulate and we managed to agree on several points. This in spite of our being adversaries. The important thing is that we had dialogue and through dialogue are born the compromises which make up an agreement. This experience was quite different from the forced separation which has characterized the balance of my experiences in investigating this development. No dialogue is encouraged anywhere in this process and stalling and bitterness are the natural by product of two adversaries in this theater. Isn't there some way that the Planning Board can ask for some discussion, some dialogue, some compromises which would then lead to some action agreeable to all parties, without the agony of having the parties in this discussion have to address each other out of earshot of the others. The board talks to the developer but not to the neighbors, the neighbors talk to the board but not to-the developer, and the towns politicians talk to everyone but have nothing to say. Where does this all end? It ends when the Planning Board looks at its procedures and decides that efficiency would best be served with some changes. I suggest that those changes incorporate the voices of the corm,unity in a more thorough and serious fashion. A process designed for success. It seems to a novice such as I, that the process of review of applications before the Planning Board is wrought with inadequacies, which tend to produce frustration. Although some rules are set forth from "higher" government such as the SEQRA process; there are many rules either left to local decision or at least left to the local interpretation. I believe that our local government can better reflect the needs of its local population, to reduce the anxiety and friction which are products of the current situation. History has shown that public awareness of the projects which will directly affect them, often can produce both questions and answers which can be of significant input towards a resolution of the problems which we face. Early identification of the problems can only lead to early resolution, certainly a benefit for all concerned parties. Exclusion seems to be the order of the day; where participation would be a better idea. Do not exclude the community the people, the neighbors, from a section of the planning for a development which will have profound affect on their everyday lives. Do not patronize us with a 30 day public comment period, placed after the important decisions have been SOUTt{0LD TOWN PLAN~IING BOARD PAGE 18 FEBRUARY 27, 1989 made, particularly when the decisions have been shown to be incomplete. Request and encourage the participation of the community during allphases of the application. With the vocal nature of the concerned citizens group no one can claim that the neighbors do not want to baa part of this process. The information and suggestions which have been made to you have been both intelligent and respectful in their concern over this development. They show a knowledge and sincerity which has not been approached by any other party in this process. This should become an intregal part of the entire procedure not treated as an after thought. But exclusion is more than not being recognized as part of this process; exclusion includes the inability to review the complete file concerning this development. It seems a miracle that so many individuals have been able to make so many informed comments without access to the entire fund of information generated by this procedure. In particular, the DEIS is not made available to the general public, we are treated like ignorant second class citizens by the Planning Board; in their refusal to allow the citizenry who are concerned and affected to be able to follow the procedure and changes to the DEIS. We are privy to one sided conversations and allusions made in correspondence as part of the file which si open to the public, but we are not allowed to read the parts which concern these comments. We are asked to either proceed half blind or on blind faith that our voices will be heard by an agency that has no faith in our ability to read a document in its entirity. Does the Planning Board realize that I. have no ability to even look at a current map of the project? Does that seem to be fair to you? Does the Planning Board realize that I have no ability to even look at a current map of the project? I am aware, as aware that I have just repeated myself; but somethings need to be repeated. I ask the Planning Board to not continue to foster exclusion. Because this system, I don't feel is fair. Thank you very much. Mr. Orlowski: You know all our records are open in our office. Everything is there to be looked at. Mr. Spates: We're not allowed to see the DEIS sir. Mr. Orlowski: The DEIS is a documentmade up by the applicant. It has agencies that are involved in it that we sent out as lead agencies to coordinate this process to come up with the document. These are professional agencies which have input that we would like to see in this document before this doCument is allowed to be put before the public. We're not going to give you a document that is half complete, that does not have alternatives in it. We realize that the area down there is a fragile one, we have been working on this for many years as you can see. The file itself is open, the document itself is prepared by the applicant so it's their document until we deem it complete, then it is open to the public. At that time we'll take comment on the impact statement. Unless the applicant SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PAGE 19 FEBRUARY 27, 1989 wants to work with you on putting together his document, this board is not about to be referee in some boxing ring between you and the applicant. We cannot do that. Mr. Spates: I'm not asking you to be a referee, but you must understand the frustration of the neighbors ~how a project on going for years and not having access to the information, yet being tantalized with half of the information in the forms of the letters that are part of the public files. In addition to that, if we were part of the entire process and we will become part of the process somewhere along the line, we would be able to put input in during the process. I think that you can recognize already that we have had significant input and I don't mean in a stalling detremental way, I mean an informative way in this thing already. We have found many items that needed to be addressed in this DEIS, that weren't addressed by the so called professionals. In addition to that, one last co~Lm~ent, I haven't seen the DEIS but I have spoken to Ms. Scopaz about it and she characterizes it as being a monster volumn. To expect the co~m~nity to be able to puruse this document that is going to be two inches thick in the space of thirty days, I don't think is a possibility~ and if we have the opportunity to look into it ahead of time, we wouldn't have to try to compress everything into that inadequate time frame. Mr. Orlowski: Well, we can always grant a~extension on that time frame, with good reason and we have done that and I think you have seen us do that tonight. Whenlthis document is a public document. The process you are having a problem with is the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and it is not here that you should get it changed, it is with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. This is the way it goes. This Planning Board is not holding back anything. What ever information we can give you through this process is in the file to be looked at. The rest of it is just their document. It is not ours, and we will not accept it until we feel it is complete and then at through review, if there is more time needed, you will see that we grant extension with good reason. Mrs. Spates: I hope you are beginning to recognize our names and that we have not only submitted our own-information to you in the forms of a wildlife diary from this woman and other observations of wildlife that also I was instrumental in getting Eric Lamot'sletter to you about the maritime red cedar forest that you should have gotten last week. I am not bragging, I'm meerly saying that ali of us are intelligent citizens and we can go out and do some of the ground work. We know all of you are over worked, we see the bulletin board out here is stufled with applications. We know everybody has more to do than they can handle. The same with DEC andSuffolk County but given the freedom the citizenry can come behind all of you and even come behind the developer. What my husband read, he was stating, it means we can come together and work together rather than be adversaries, but because we are excluded up until our thirty day SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PAGE 20 FEBRUARY 27, 1989 period, we've become adversaries when we really shouldn't be or need not be, let's put it that way. Mr. Orlowski: Well, we don't want to become adversaries, and we're not looking to. We're just following the SEQRA process. Mrs. Spates: You do it different than Southampton. There is a certain dundee within any law that an interpertation by various boards of different towns and I don't honestly know if you're bending more or less than another town but, I mean, maybe your pressure with the SEQRA law as well as our own is the way to go, but it's extremely frustrating at this point. Mr. Orlowski: It depends on who you talk to. If you talk to the developer, where we're being very unfair, and if we talk to you we're being very unfair. I guess we are not up here to make friends, we're up here to interpete the law as its written and make it fair and allow everybody to have their comments at such a time they are allowed. You will be able to make your con~£,ents and we will listen. Mrs. Spates: O.K., I would like to say that you're not excluding us and you say you're not excluding us but we get no feedback at all. No response to our letters, no response to requests, even if they are in writing. Nothing. Mr. Orlowski: We're not even in a position to review it yet. Mrs. Luca: We're not talking about reviewing it, we're talking about letters that are in your files asking for information. Asking for feedback and we get nothing. Mr. Orlowski: Ail the information is in the file and you are entitled to go through the file and look through that infozmation. Mrs. Luca: I'm talking about I requested to be put on your agenda for the last meeting, I requested confirmation, I requested early on to be notified of any meeting that the public was allowed to attend regarding Angel Shores and I've never received a thing. Mr. Orlowski: It is almost impossible for us to notify everybody that would like to be notified. Mrs. Luca: How many people do you have on your fil~ asking for notification? Mr. Orlowski: We have had requests verbally and in writing and this is it, you're looking at the whole office here. We've got 268 applications this being one of them and this is it. I am going to cut this short for now because we have to move on but when the public comment is open we will take everything into consideration and all your comments. SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PAGE 21 FEBRUARY 27, 1989 Mrs. Luca: O.k., but in the meantime we ask that you give us the backing as the public to follow all the various things. I'm pleased that you spoke up about Suffolk County Health Services Department letter and the State Department letter, those letters are the only way right now we can express ourselves. In a way they are our expressions and we really ask that you will take into consideration all the various things that are being talked about. Mr. Orlowski: I think this application has been here since 1984 and we haven't given anything away yet and we are very concerned and I want you to know that. This board and every member has been down there at least five times and looking at a lot of different alternatives. Tonight we threw another one at them. I just want you to know that. Ms. Scopaz: Mr. Chairman if I may make a suggestion. It is very difficult for the planning staff to notify every person who wants to be notified when something is coming up on the project they are interested in. It's impossible for us, we can barely keep up with the paper work. I would strongly suggest that you call on the Monday mornings of our meetings, we meet two Mondays a month. We try to have the agenda ready the week before. Sometimes things come up at the last minute and they are added on. It's really the only sure fire way that we have to keep track. Once we get out of the SEQRA process, and we're into the review process, the public notices appear in the loCal newspapers advertising those hearing dates. That's another thing you can do to keep checking those every week. We give approximately two weeks notice. Mr. Mullen: May I make a suggestion, we will be here all evening. Have you folks ever come down to the Planning Board office and not been ~hle to get input or look at any files? Mrs. Luca: The files we want to look at we can't look at. Mr. Mullen: Have you ever been down here and been denied access to our files. Mrs. Luca: No. Mr. Mullen: How many timeshave you been down here? Mrs. Luca: I can't count. Mr. Mullen: What I am saying to you is that you should come down here other than when you have something involving your particular area. Not just tonight. Come down here once a month and see what the process is, you will be surprised, you will learn an awful lot. It's quite an education and I don't think we have ever locked the door on anybody, at least as far as I know we haven't. I'm going to make a recommendation to the Planning Board after this meeting that we make an endeavor to SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PAGE 22 FEBRUARY 27, 1989 post the program up of t~e meeting at least twenty four hours in advance. Therefore, you can come down here and check and see what is on there. If you have any reco~lendation, give me a call, these people just can't handle it anymore they have close to 300 applications and you ought to take a look at the files in there. I not trying to make excuses, I'm just trying to say we want to help you and work with you and that's why we're here. Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments? Mr. Danowski: Macari Subdivision - I~know Melissa and I have spoken and I'll continue to supply some more infoxmation with regard to the possibilities of moving forward on this project. I also spoke to Mr. Raynor and I'm aware tonight that he handed a letter into the Planning Board addressing the Horton Brothers application. I know Mr. Ahlers represents Jacobi. The Clover Corp has already provided the part three with our original application. We will supplement that with some traffic information. I would just like to have the opportunity'before any final decision is made by this board as to whether to request an absolute positive declaration or not to gain that imput from us. I also don't know specifiCally, and I cannot represent, but I do not know whether AT Holding, which I believe is represented by Bill Esseks, is moving forward with their project or not, that might be of some benefit to you if your considering what to do if they are not moving forward. On that particular point and just to rehash one more last thing, I keep pushing this other idea of open space to be owned in large lot ownership with restricted covenance to be filed with the County Clerk. I would like to just keep that idea moving forward and I would like to just have this board, Melissa, Valerie, Rob, Jay and the Town Board trying to at least discuss and hopefully pass that discretionary power with this Planning Board to create an alternate way of owning the open space. With that said Good Night. Mr. Ward: With that last comment, where else is that being done? Mr. Danowski: Ri~erhead does it ~ud Southampton does it and I will defintely get you a copy. I'll have it hand delivered tomorrow morning. Mr. Mullen: I'm going to have to ask to be excused. Dan Ross: Baxtersite plan approval. We were told that we would not be on the calendar tonight, I would just ask if the board would hear a few comments? Mr. Orlowski: I don't think so because the maps that we received we haven't even looked at yet. Dan Ross: O.K., may I hand you the letter that you asked and we'll leave it at that? SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PAGE 23 FEBRUARY 27, 1989 Mr. Orlowski: O.K.. Mr. Orlowski: Any other questions or comments from the audience? Merle Wiggins: Port of Egypt - We signed a process in November of 1987, and the thing has kind of gotten confused and dragged on. As far as we know we had submitted and responded to all the comments on the site plan as of September. The other question is we star~ed the SEQRA process in May of 1988 and this went to the Planning Board, DEC, Trustees, Board of Appeals, Coastal Zone Management and the Board of Appeals and Trustees are waiting for expeCtation of the phase of lead agency. The NYS Coastal Zone is prepared that it is in compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Plan and DEC has already issued the permits last November. There is only one question about the site plan that is the ownership and use of the portion across the road on the North side of 25. We would like to ask one thing, if we work out the final details when we know what they require we will be happy to do so ~muediately. We would like to see the SEQRA process ongoing since the DEC permit soon going to be six months old. Bill Leiblein: Port of Egypt Enterprises owns land on both sides of the Main Road and it was my feeling that the North side of the road should not enter into the situation at all, it isn't required for parking and if some day in the future we wanted to sell that property, I wouldn't want to h~e it tied up with the South side of the property. Port of EgYPt Enterprises owns land in Orient in the subdivision Orient By The Sea and of course that is a lot further away, this is across the highway but I would like to see this thing considered o~ its merit on just the one side of the highway as opposed to both sides. Sometim~ ba~k about five years ago, we wanted to build a motel on this site, we went to the Town Board and they said, no I'm sorr~y we went to the Planning Board and they said go to the Town Board and the ToWn Board said to go to the Zoning Board of Appe~ts and the Zoning Board said go to the Planning Board so we were back to square One. We came back the second time and there was so much opposition to the project of building a motel that we withdrew and didn't do anything. We decided that the beSt use fort_his property, water related, providing access to the water is to increase our ability to take care of the boats that we have there now. We used to run a boat rental office which provided access to the water by 120 rental boats and that died because of increased insurance costs and brown tide killed all the local fish and so we're left with this to make this property financially viable. Also, we wanted access to the water for additional personel. As was pointed out by Merle, we started on this a year and a half ago and I realize that.is not very long ago when you look at the length of some of the other projects but hopefully, this is not offensive to anyone so anything you can do to move it along will be appreciated. SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PAGE 24 FEBRUARY 27, 1989 Mr. Orlowski: O.K., Mr. Leibtein: Any comment on the other side of the road? Does it have to be included? Is there any reason why it's being asked. Mr. Ward: I think that the only comment that might come up is if there wasn't sufficient parking. Mr. Leiblein: I believe there is sufficient parking. I meant to bring up when we were proposing the motel because of the density that we had wanted to put in at that time, we had suggested that we would give up the building rights across the highway in order to get the permit to build the motel on the southside of the highway. Since we have changed that completely, I would like to see that. There is only 300 feet that actually belongs to Enterprises across the highway. Mr. Orlowski: Anyone else have any cox~ents or questions? Hearing none, I entertain a motion to adjourn. Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded, any questions on that motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.. -~TT 0 LO SKI, JR., C~RMAN Respectfully submitted, Jane Rousseau Temporary Secretary Southold Town Planning Board