Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-12/19/1988Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE (5161 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 19, 1988 The Southold Town Planning Board held a regular meeting on Monday, December 19, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, SOuthold. PRESENT WERE: Chairman Bennett Orlowski,Jr. Member G. Ritchie Latham,Jr. Member William F. Mullen,Jr. Member Richard G. Ward Member Kenneth Edwards Town Planner Valerie Scopaz Secretary Jill Thorp Absent: Melissa Spiro (Vacation) Mr. Orlowski: Good evening. I would like to call this meeting to order. The first order of business is the Marina Bay Club. SCTM $1000-1!7-8-18. This is a public hearing on Supplement Number Two of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. This is a site plan located in New Suffolk. At this time we have proof of publication in the Long Island Traveler/Watchmen and also in the Suffolk Times. Everything is in order ~or this hearing. We will start out by asking if there are any c~muents. We will start on my left, this side. Please step up to the microphone and state your name. Mr. Fenton: If it pleases the Board, my name is Joseph Fenton. live on Jackson Street, in New Suffolk. I'm an attorney and I was elected Chairman of a committee that was formed by the community almost six years ago. When the previous owners of the property petitioned the Town Board to rezone so that condominiums could be built, the New Suffolk Community met at the school and voted 168 to 10 to oppose that petition. I have been selected to act as the Committee's spokesperson. We do represent the bulk of the community here. The other members of the committee would like any time they might be entitled to at this hearing allocated to me so that we can speak with one Planning Board Page 2 December 19, 1988 voice. Our stated goal at the rezoning hearing was to retain the character of the community and encourage continuance of what had existed at the site during the last century and a half, mainly a restaurant, boatyard and marina - environmentally and aesthetically sound. The co~Lu~ittee has continued to operate for the purpose of monitoring progress of the Marina Bay Club's plans. We believe that co~ttee is representative of the community, was selected at co~u~Lunity meetings and was voted in by the Civic Association's membership to represent it with respect to this proposed project. The co~miittee has unanimously concluded that the proposed project is too ambitious, and is too big for New Suffolk. The co~,m,ittee represents to your Board that this is also the view of the overwhelming bulk of the co~u~unity and that this project, if carried out as proposed, it will adversely affect the quality of life we enjoy. It would have certain adverse impacts on the environment and materially change the unique character of New Suffolk and its charm. We also believe and will demonstrate that certain aspects of the plan exceed the rights of the developer to accomplish them and impact on the environment in unacceptable ways. Both the developer and the community find themselves in positions each feels unable to modify. Richard Cart and his representatives have been approachable. He has provided us with a general store next to the Post Office for newspapers, milk, bread and other necessaries. He has agreed to continue to lease the existing space to the post office which is important to us, although it could be relocated. If the Town approves the site plan, Marina Bay Club has entered into a covenant which would prohibit building of a structure for residential proposes; or prohibit the ~e of boats moored at the site for residential purposes, except that sleeping aboard overnight would be permitted to transients provided their use was occasional and not regular. Something we requested and something that the Town could copy in other situations, without the need to resort to difficult legislation. Since this covenant has not yet surfaced in any submission to date, I submit a copy for your information. While we would like to accommodate the developer's needs to show our appreciation, what he is asking for can be summed up in two simple words. TOO BIG! What can be done about it is another matter. Originally Galley Ho restaurant's capacity was 50 seats. The first talk of enlarging the capacity to of 150 seats - triple the number. Now 300 are prepared -six times the original number, although the existing restaurant has since increased its capacity somewhat with the addition of a terrace. I will talk about parking when we get to the marina, but because the parking for the restaurant and marina are interrelated it is obvious Planning Board Page 3 December 19, 1988 that there is inadequate parking in one and it will impact on the other. We recognize restaurant use is one we asked for and what it is zoned for, but a six fold increase is in our view impractical and unworkable. Richard Carr has assured us that his experts insist that this size restaurant, in this location will work, on a year round basis. The Association, in a letter to you dated November 18, 1987, favored reasonable efforts to minimize the size of this project. That is still our request. Since you exist to serve the community, perhaps you can help. Experts help sell projects to investors, but are nowhere to be found when feasibility fails. The size of the marina is another matter. Here, Mr. Carr is electing to ignore a century and a half of conduct by the original grantee of a New York State Underwater Grant and by all subsequent grantees by attmmpting to go outside the confines of the grant. ~e DEIS Cites an important case and asserts that the grant is irrelevant, despite the fact that our case, is distinguishable from the Hempstead c~e cited. In that case the Town was the grant's owner looking to collect rent for the use of its underwater land, while in our case the owner is the beneficiary of the grant which was designed to measure how far out he could go. We believe that a century and a half of conduct speaks louder than any other concept in establishing how far he can penetrate the bay. The case cited and the thrust of this comment is that he is entitled to reasonable use of adjacent underwater land. Should the grant be ignored~when he himself chooses to rely on i~ in asserting a six acre site in these documents and by citing the handwritten reference to it in a November 10, 1987 deed. Despite ~he fact that the upland site is only three and a half acres. What better test can there be of what is reasonable than what the State considered reasoDahle in making the grant? What his predecessor in interest is considered reasonable in requesting it and accepting it and which all s~hsequent owners recognize during the past one hundred and fifty years in enjoying its u~e and staying within its confines? Certainly the State must have considered the effect on navigation. The developer proposes to go out one hundred and fifty feet beyond the grant. This will bring him too close to the three to four foot deep water gap, iwhich sits out in front of the Southern side of the site, and will narrow or substantially eliminate the relatively deep water gap which permits keeled boats to pass east of the site, particularly at low tide. If this path is eliminated or narrowed, it will be difficult or impossible for a keeled boat to tack past the site against the wind. There will be insufficient width to be ~hle to zig zag into Cutchogue Harbor or reach a way point to make the turn east toward Nassau Point. In heading into the wind, a sailing vessel needs sufficient width to make enough headway on each tack to have enough momentum to be able to come about into the wind for the next tack. Establishing the breakwater as far out as is proposed Planning Board Page 4 December 19, 1989 will impede navigation and enable further build up of sand against the breakwater when it is established, thereby further impeding navigation. We have not yet questioned the right of the owner to the existing grant lines but call your attention to the fact that the grant required that the unappropriated and the unapplied portion of the grant reverted to the State if it was not appropriated and applied within two years of the 1838 granting. There was evidence that only steamboat wharf was then constructed, so that we now face the prospect that if what is reasonable from a navigation standpoint is something less than the eastern grant line. And perhaps if the developer is relinquishing any claim to the grant area, or that area is less than originally made because of the two year requirement, then the one hundred and fifty foot incursion past the Eastern grant line will not only have to be eliminated but an additinnal distance, perhaps to the existing use will become what is reasonable in the circumstances. We would welcome your determination that the developer is bound by the grant's boundaries, or in the alternative that reasonable use would either coincide with or comprise less than such boundaries, perhaps present use. As an alternative, and perhaps you will consider this as means of resolving the matter, and we would have no problem with it since it offers both sides the-opportunity to assert our respective positions in a public forum. There is nothing to prevent the developer from applying to the General Services administration of New York State, whose jurisdiction includes the bay bottom which is owned by the State for an additional grant to accomplish what he proposes. There will then be notice and hearing as part of that process, and the developer's rights will be preserved as will ours and you will not be making a decision with respect to which another agency may have greater or concurrent jurisdiction. A few additional items. Parking spaces are a function of use and size. The plan appears to provideone hundred ~nd seventy seven spaces and requires one hundred and fifty six, an average of twenty one. More careful scrutiny discloses that sixty six boat slips are permanent requiring eighty three spaces for cars, and that seventy one slips are transient requiring no spaces for cars. Earmarking slips as transient or permanent enables the developer to meet whatever code requirements are involved. We believe the ratio of slips between pezmanent and transient is unrealistic and when the real world imposes itself on this plan, and transient slips are rented or used by seasonal boaters, the parking requirements will have been circumvented. The same is true for a number of slips designated for use by one hundred foot, eighty foot and sixty foot boats. Obviously slips for two hundred foot boats can be u~ed by six - thirty foot boats; several eighty foot slips can accommodate eighty - twenty foot boats and so on. This can make a mockery of any limitations Planning Board Page 5 December 19, 1988 you propose, so that it is obvious that the plan requires more leeway than the reported twenty one. The developer proposes room for close to one hundred and fifty boats - again six time the present capacity of twenty five. It should be obvious to you that the marina, post office, store and restaurant complex requires at least two hundred and fifty parking spaces. If he proposes to provide one hundred and seventy seven. Something has to give. We do prefer off site water to reverse osmosis. We are pleased that only one stage of the development is planned, we remain concerned about raising the height of the site and ask you again that by installing shallower cesspools, but more of them. The same volume of effluent can be processed, but the height of the project can be reduced. On page forty four the DEIS asks the question, "Will the project impact the scallop beds?" and unequivocally states "The answer is no". This is completely untrue as any one who has dredged for scallops in the area knows. I know this of my own knowledge as does everyone else who scalloped. The western side of Cutchogue Harbor along the shore from one hundred feet to one thousand feet out all the way to Southold past the site along the western side of Robins Island has always been an excellent spot for scallops. Brown tide affected them in recent years but with its disappearance and reseeding effects, this should once again bec~me a fertile area. On Friday, a week ago, I met with Richard Carr and his attorney, Jack Hart, at his request. The purpose was to edible us to explain our respective positions. It was a pleasant meeting without outward rancor or any sign of disagreeableness. We have no interest crucifying him. I explained our position to him in the two words - TOO BIG. He explained that the project's size was dictated bywhat was needed to finance it, attract investors and meet resulting carryLng charges and return on investment. He advised me that if going forWard was met with continuing delay, he would opt for selling the property, probably to a restaurateur who might not provide the kind of quality establishment he proposes and who would probably not enlarge the marina capacity or establish a needed boat yard. I informed the committee of his stated intent. The reaction was that of the alternatives, the community would prefer that if he is unwilling or unable to downsize the project that we would prefer a less ambitious restaurant and marina, more in keeping with the unpretentiousness of the area and its people. Richard Carr has since advised me that he may be prepared to scale back the marina by sixty feet, which we feel is inadequate but a step in the right direction. We would like to see the process proceed since we have no control over it. In the correspondence ~nd the additional information section on page Al7 the deed description is entitled Rider to Deed from Marine Associates,Inc. to James Arthur Kenniff and Jonathan Rosin, dated November 10, 1987. But the Insurance Planning Board Page 6 December 19, 1988 policy refers to a deed dated that day from Marine Associates,Inc. to Shamrock Properties Corp. NO such deed exists or was ever recorded. Probably a mistake has be~nmade. Until this is resolved, the impact, if any, of the inclusion of these documents in the DEIS should be ignored. Furthermore, no one other than the-title company is bound bM any position it takes or the DEIS purports it takes. The DEIS, on page 15 asserts that the salient point is found in the legal description of the property which includes all lands under water, but fails to point out that the title company's exception number 5 which excepts rights of the State of New York or any department or agency to regulate and control the use of the piers, bulkheads or land underwater and and land adjacent there to. While the title company recognizes the State's possible jurisdiction, the DEIS selectively adopts what appears to serve its purpose and ignores what it does not. As I have already pointed out the deed description in the covenants I have s~mitted to you does not include any reference to the underwater grant which we have been discussing. On page twenty four of the supplement to the DEIS the statement is made that the site has been raised an average of four feet. On page thirty eight of the same document in response number thirty one the statement is made that the site been raised three feet. Which is correct? In response number forty there isa skatement that filling in is not an appropriation. We disagree and call your attention to the fact the owner had two years to fill in the area. That time period having expired in 1840, we challenge the conclusion that the owner still has this right. To conclude, we feel that most of the problems we face are in here, in the site and the fact that the developer is attempting to construct a marina in an exposed bay area rather then in a creek, inlet, a cove or another protected area where most marinas locate. The cost to build the marine structures needed here in fifteen feet of water are tremendous. These costs create the catch twenty two situation that makes ~he project grow further to justify the huge cost and to help defray it. The developer's problems and-costs in aquiring title, create the same pressure. But who is to bear the cost. The developer? or the people of the State of New York by providing excessive bay bottom or the co~m~unity by having imposed on it a project whose size is dict&tedby costs ste~,,ing flrom unwanted assumptions, questionable judgement and dubious site selection? Electric utilities are precluded from incluS~ng them in such cost as their rate base. Perhaps it's time Planning Boards take them into account in approving site plans. Now you have a sense of where we are coming from and the basis for our objections. We don't believe the huge armada of boats the plan contemplates is permissible, reasonable, Planning Board Page 7 Decen~er 19, 1988 environmentally sound or does not impede navigation. As that wonderful Fats Waller song goes- and perhaps only we old timers remember it and you youngsters don't remember it, Richard - "Can't love you cause your fleets too big." Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments from my left here. Mr. Holzapfel: (CAC) I just have a few questions, environmentally in terms of this particular project. First and foremost I am mostly concerned with this reverse osmosis and the salinity change that is going to occir. If you read through the plan, it is quite obvious that they are putting water back that is much more salty and, in turn, much more dense, That water is going' to settle at the bottom. There will be some mixing, but it will still be settling on the bottom. That is going to increase the salinity, I don't know how much. I had asked the question originally. I wanted to have it answered much clearer, but it didn't seemed to be answered. That salinity along the bottom could layer and be a much mo~e dense and continuous layer of high salinity water. You heard earlier that the brown tide caused the scallops to disappear and a lot of other things. The main theory proposed of the brown tide h~s been an increase of salinity in the bays. Three s~L~ers ago or four summers ago was the third driest summer in the last forty five years. The wheather patterns produced a condition that changed the salinity of the bays dramatically. The water became much more salty. The co~,~.on theory today is, one of the most co~f~fion theories, is that it could be an oceanic species that came into the bay. In other words, it is a salt water species that came into the bay because of the higher salinity. That is how it came in and that is how it developed. Perhaps that is why it flourished because it did not have any competitors that it has out in the ocean. Now we are going to influence that salinity. I ask you to think about that carefully. That salinity might be changing. That answer, as far as I was concerned, the answer to the fact whether that salinity is going to layer out on the bottom is not sufficiently 'answered. A second point again, that has already been mentioned but I bring it back, is that there is a scallop bed area there, it is well known and that area is being taken away from the people of Southold. It is s~,ething to be concerned with. Something to be at least thoughtful about in your considerations. Another point that I would like to bring up is that, the answer to one of the questions dealing with heavy metals from boats, in terms of cleanup. I think the people that prepared the particular environmental impact statement did not understand the question that was asked. Because it asked "will there be an increase in heavy metals due to the maintenance of the boats?" I think most people are familiar that bottom paint is definitly something that kills off marine organisms. That is what it is designed to do. When you pull your boat out of the water and you scrap the bottom and sand the bottom, you are cleaning the bottom. All of that goes into the land or the ramp where you are doing it. If Planning Board Page 8 December 19, 1988 they are going to be doing the boat maintenance right there, that is going to come back into the bay. The question was asked and it was dismissed, rather clearly, that there wasn't any problem. I don't think that was the case. It has been the policy of the Trustees to have that incl~d~d in most marinas that are undergoing any permitting now. They ask for a catch basin so that toxic bottom scraping can be collected and not be distributed right on the bottom, right in the marina. So again, that is something that you might want to consider in your deliberation. I believe it is something that should be included in the plan. As it is now, it is not. Another thing that was brought up early and I will mention is just the possibility that, again it is something to think about, the existence of house boats in that area. I don't know what you can do about it but it is something to be considered. If they put in one hundred boats and those people move out on those boats and spend everyday of the whole summer you've now got one hundred condominiums , but they are floating. I know there is not any real law on the books, but it is something to be considered and something that you should at least weigh in your decisions. The house boat situation should at .least be addressed. Also in terms of boats, I am not saying that boaters are polluters, but when you have lots of boats you have some pollution. You can go through any of the marina's that are here. The waters are closed in a number of them simply because there are a large number of boats. Usually there are only a couple of people or a few people who will address that problem. The problem is with lots of boats, you get pollution. That has to be, I don't know what to do. The project in m3/ estimation is a little bit too large and that if you brake it down, the possibility of damage to the environment would be decreased. So that is another thing that you should at least consider. Two other points that I would mention is the ~noff. Again, it's talked about a two inch maximum as being what is planned for. The question is asked what if there is more tb~n two inches? There is a number of answers there and that is something to be considered. I think that the an~er to the response was ten percent of storms or greater than two inches of rain fall. what is going to happen when that runoff goes into the bay? I am sure, again, that you are all familiar that ninety or ninety two percent of the bacteria ~h~t ends up in the bay comes from road runoff. Are we going to permit or are you going to permit in that particular design of this project that to happened ten percent of the storms? A number of creeks are already closed du~ to the large bacteria counts or are we j~t going to add to the problem? Finally, just one point, I am not sure if it is a major point but something to at least think ~hout. The boat basin itself is going to be a ten foot dredging. On both sides of that the water is relatively shallow. Is it going to create a hole there? Tides go up and down, water moves back and forth. Is that water sitting on the bottom going to sit there all the time? The flushing rate in that hole will be much lowered. It is something, again, to consider. One end is open, ~nd I understand Planning Board page 9 December 19, 1988 that. I think that it might be considered and might be looked into. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Any other co~ents from this side? Joe Fenton that t little in saying reasons for me. I submarine. It was the Holland torpe loading potatoes talk, however, br reverse osmosis p no question about said, it is possi salty. But to do obviously less sa Mr. Wickham: My name is John Wickham, from Wickbam Fruit Fa~, in Cutchogue. We happen to own almost half the land in New Suffolk School District iF you discount Robins ~slandl I have spoken befOre in this connection and I will try not to repeat myself. I have basically two concerns, first I will say that I agree with Lis plan is a little much. I want to go back a £ do favor a marina there and some very real recall playing on the hull of the old on the first set of weighs there soon after ~o boat people left. I also took part in Dn ships at Goldsmith/Tuthill Dock's. I want to Lefly about reverse osmosis. I visited a Lant in Florida. They are effective, there is that. In spite of what the previous speaker ~le to return to the sea water that is less ghat you have to have a supply, which is kty. tn other words, a reverse osmosis plant might use salt water for a supply which is anticipating. You could also put a well in, say ten feet inland, and presumably discharge water slightly less salty than the salt. Or you could go further inland and return discharge water substantially less salty. The problem with both of these second cases is that you would have to take sufficient volume to seriously impact the wells of a large part of that east facing slop of New Suffolk. in other words the neighbors will bare the brunt of it. This is a thing where there are too many variables to really put an answer down in black ~nd white. I want the Planning Board to be aware of some legal action that was put on the books some years, ago, where pez~it or permits were given by municipalities under the assumption ~h~t there will be adequate water. Through factors not of their own making, the developer determine that they did not, in fact, have enough water and took the cases to court.. The court found that the municipality must make water available. That is a position I do not want the Town of Southold To get into. I do not know quite how it can be handled. Perhaps a covenant, that under no possible circumstar~es would the developer ever come back to the Town of Southold or the County of Suffolk to make water available. I want to make very sure that this question is addressed. I want to address, that has been mentioned twice. That is the under water grant line. To me somewhat of an historical buff. Our people came herefrom England and other European nations where the landlord owned the game, the fish and the water. When our people came to the new world they said it is not going to be that way. The game, the fish, the water is going to belong to everyone. I uphold that tradition and I say to you I will use every effort in mypower to make sure that what belongs Plannzng Board Page 10 December 19, 1988 to all of us is not taken over by someone or some agency for private use. Thank you very much. Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments from my left? Hearing none, any comments from the center section? Mr. Bluid: My name is John Bluid, I live on Old Harbor Road in New Suffolk. This is a small co~mL~ent about a statement in the supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement about water wells, page thirteen under comment number ten. About twelve lines down from the top there is a statement that seems to me to be somewhat naive. They say there is obvious test well work that all wells will all be about forty feet when actually anybody with experience with water wells close to the shore knows that less shallower water will also be salty as soon as they start to draw up very much water out of it. However, the important question is about, the well supply will be constructed below the confining pad. The depth's probahty about one hundred and twenty two feet. This is a very unpredictable operation. I have some experience with a well drilled on the southshore of Long Island, on the Great South Bay where the underground situation is very similar to what it is here. My well driller suggested that I should find water one hundred feet down below the clay. Actually, the well finding came four hundred feet down. I raise that question. Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments from the center section? Mrs. Wacker: My name is Ronnie Wacker and I am with the North Fork Environmental Council and thank you for the opportunity for me to address this Board on the Impact Statement for the Marina Bay Cl~h. The Planning Board's decision will affect what the developer Richard Carr and his associates can make on the proposed shipyard complex. That money will soon be spent or invested in other areas, far from here perhaps. We may or may not see Mr. Carr and his associates again. Your decision will also have a far more lasting impact on several hundred people who live in this quiet fishing hamlet and want to stay here. It could turn the little co~m~unity upside down. The Carr complex as proposed would outdazzle anything ever seen in this tiny hamlet. The plans include slips for one hundred and thirty seven boats, a three hundred seat restaurant, more than three times the size of the Galley-ho and a parking lot for a hundred and fifty six cars. All this on three plus acres. Everything is jumbo scale. The impact on this quiet fishing center, if you decide to approve such amount of scheme, is easily imagined. Noise, lights, traffic, congestion. Perhaps rowdyism. Night time will never be dark in New Suffolk again. But there are other problems attacking many more of us than in New Suffolk. Because there is so little drinking water on fit of glaciar morain the developer proposes to take bay water, strain the salt from it and serve up what is left as drinking water, returning the unwanted salt to the bay. This will increase the salinity of Peconic Bay water. As we already know, the smallest change in salinity can have Planning Board Page 11 December 19, 1988 disastrous impact on shellfish, which have been severely impacted by other environmental salt already. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services has expressed deep concern over this desaliniation process which has not been used on anything like the scale proposed here anywhere on Long Island. Then, also what happens when the desaliniation pumps fail. We all know that they will at some time or another. The proposal as presently offered will reach out five ~mdred ~nd twenty feet into the Bay: about fifty further than the developer has rights to from a New York State grant. This will also make a difference to people in this area who sail their boats into and out of Cutchogue Harbor. All this adds up to, gentlemen, is that this proposal is just too darn big. The very charm of a hamlet, and Mr. Carr expects to attract visitors to, will be destroyed by the size of this project. Up Island people can find the same tawdry glider, noise and carbon monoxide closer to home. You know Port Jefferson~ Coney Island. We are not saying that Mr. Cart should not be allowed build something out here. I think in general people in New Suffolk welcome a good construction along their water front. But, please make it something reasonable. Something whose size will not overcrowd a small community. We are asking you, the members of the Planning Board, simply to trim this project down to size. To stop Mr. Carr and his frien8~ from the killing the goose that they hope will get them a crate of golden eggs. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Any one else from the center section? Mrs. Larsen: Ellen Larsen. Good evening Gentlemen. Following the obvious that there is .no portable water supply and a proposed sewage t~eatment. Which suggest you are in one h~ndred feet of the Peconic Bay and Cutchogue Harbor. Which I find almost laughable to a certain extent considering that this is the nineteen nineties and we have a system call SEQRA. I raise the following~questions with regard to the DEIS. Through m~ review I really found no significant changes since the public hearing from November of 1987. The numbers have bemn shuffled somewhat but the results are basically the same proposal. I would suggest or hope that the draft as it proposes of the Marina Bay Club realize that a more formal review, of the environmental review is required pursuant to SEQRA to satisfactorily meet the standards required by the Town of Southold Planning Board. And raised at the public haa~ing of 1987. Specifically in regards to dredging water supply, sewage treatment, marine h~bitat and riparian rights. There is no potable drinking water at the site hence the RO unit. Evidence contrary to the proposal has been documented stating areas with moderate iron concentration can cause filter problems with these systems. This needs to be addressed further. Pretreatment would obviously be necessary before the water can enter a RO unit effectively. Effects on the fresh water land through the primary pumping have not been discussed. Liz Casper from SUNY at Stony Brook and Robert Nuzzi of the Suffolk County Planning Board Page 12 December 19, 1988 Department of Public Health have stated repeatedly that increased salinity enhances the brown tide bloom - awrocoxins anorixefeuris~ A diffusion system would be an absolute necessity. A direct influence on increased salinity increases the brown tide, which we are just beginning to understand. Significant eel grass beds are established offshore at the site of question of the of the riparian rights. Eel grass be8~, beside functioning as a nursery to scallop spawn, seed and mature - alalquipectin and eradiance- enable the sediments to gently settle rather than plop to down to the bottom. Totally and I repeat totally protected measures would have to be insured to insure the survival of these limited beds. Coliform counts can go right through the roof during major holidays. The consequence of repeated high counts cause increased shellfish area closures. How will this be addressed with the amounts of boats? TBT paints are antifouling and kill marine organisms in minute concentrations and ~hey are directly released into the water column. The sewage treatment plant within one hundred feet needs fail safe measure to act for malf~nction. In lieu of the Town of Riverhead's experience with the denitrification sewage plant it is your obligation to review thoroughly and hard the proposed measures. Keep in mind that the developers must bear the cost of any additional and environmental review you justify feasible. My final point deals with the proposed riparian rights. What are the riparian rights of bhe people of the State of New York and the loss of public bottom to private enterprise through an expired eighteen thirty eight grant. This in essence is a chaltengable assumption made by the drafte~s of the proposed Marina Bay Club. Five hundred and eighteen feet into Peconic Bay could mean one thousand five hundred and eighteen feet in the future for a future developer. The confiscation of p~hlic bottom is not allowed by law. Obviously the land they have purchased is not enough. Seemingly at the bargain price of seven thousand two hundred and eighty one dollars in tax revenue to the Town of Southotd. They are hungry confiscating additional public lands at no additional cost to them. I ask you at what future price to the Town of Southold and the Peconic system. You cannot give away what does not rightfully belong to you. As officials of the Town please do not succumb to the assumption that the Sl~bmission of a DEIS mean~ the ultimate approval of an over zealous and detrimental plan. In retrospect imagine the proposal either on Fishers Island or in Orient themselves. Traffic flows and air pollution are in themselves are grounds to significantly mitigate the proposed scope of this project. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments from anyone in the middle? Planning Board Page 13 December 19, 1988 Mr. lowery: My name is Tom lowery. I live on Jackson Street in New Suffolk just like Joe Fenton, but I live at the low scale end. Which means I live at the very near of the proposed development. I feel that I have a special interest in what will happen here. The marina, the restaurant, by the way nobody so far has mentioned the dry storage facility. Any dry storage facility requires a fork lift truck and they are industrious and noisy. Me~n~ that if Mr. Carr w~nts to go out a tenth of mile into Cutchogue Harbor. That is a long way. I went out five hundred and twenty feet last s~L,er in my small boat. I felt that I was dam near out of site of land. That one hundred and fifty additional feet amounts to one and a third additional acres. It seems to me that Mr. Cart's need to use that additional part of the bay bottom, which he clams is reasonable, is reasonable only by virtue of the fact that he needs to do it, he says. It worries me. The project as planned will also use as much spoke of R.O. plant. Similarly hightech sewage plant both of which will require extensive and constant maintenance. If Marina Bay succeeds in selling the developement as it has already tried to do, it has put ads in the papers for property for two and half million dollars. There is no insurance of any new owner would be as responsible as Mr. Carr promises he will be. Ail this hightech stuff raises disagreeable smells from the denitrification plant harm to the shellfish in the bay and additional strains are proposed on our already fragile water tables. Four years ago my house burned and shortly after that there was a big northeaster. The northeaster was of such consequence that our well water shortly after the storm began to effervese. It was effervesecing with marshgas. The northeaster screwed up the water table so much that it was several years before we could use our well again. Mr. Carr has some what of an unusual point of view in the underwater land grant. He says that he can do what ever is reasonable. The situations which he gives in the DEIS seem to this laymen at least to be quite irrelevant. The findings of what the Marina Bay Club comes down to is this, one man wants to develop a very small portion of New Suffolk so more people would be attracted to it then live in all of New Suffolk. It would be a giant wort on the east shore of New Suffolk. What we would like him to do is build handsome new marina that would allow us to continue in our small town ways without overwhelming us with the swales, the lights, the noises, the automobiles and the crowds of a major production. Thsn~ you. Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments from this section? Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman, I will reserve mine until the end if I might. Mr. Orlowski: Alright. Any comments to the section to my right? Planning Board Page 14 December 19, Mr. Latson: My name is Steve Latson, I am secretary to the Baymens Association. I thought it was uD~rstood at one point that before the brown tide the area in front of the Galley Ho was a scallop bed. This seems to have been lost maybe to the brown tide. I think the problem is that they can't defend that if scallops do come back they will be taking one of the most productive scallop beds on all of the North Fork. Year after yea~ that area always has scallops, not because of the eel grass beds but because of codium beds. The Codium serves as excellent site for the scallops to set. The only other thought that I had on this whole thing was, well I have had a lot of thoughts on it, I just think that people just don't w~nt the project. It is way to big. Everything that.has been expressed is correct, essentially. On important aspects. Riparian rights already exist. You have access to navigable water right this minute. Certainly I don't see why you have to go any further. Also I did read that deed of 1838 a couple of months ago. I actually have it here. It says, "If our said grantees and our heirs on assigned shall not within two years from said date actually appropriate and apply all and every part of the bolk described land for the purposes of the province by erecting doCk and wharfs there are and filling in the same. Then these presents here in contained shall seize and determine so far as he lays any part of the granted premises that have not have been so appropriated or apply. I think that is it. It is a scallop bed, people don't want it, the project is way too big. If Mr. Cart is trying to set up Dick's Boat Yard or Shipyard maybe expanded from twenty four slips, or to forty five slips. I think people would think it was a good idea. I said instead of going in and knocking down a hole facility that was there already, why don't they just fix it up. That is what I would have done if I bought it. Maybe fix up the restaurant a little, put in a few more seats. Not all of this R.O. which was mentioned, salt water is heavier then fresh, the saltier the water the heavier it is. It will settle down were the scallops spawn. They do need a certain amount of fresh water. The best years for scallops are when it rains a lot. There is jus one thing after another. It is New York City, not Southold. Th~nk you. Mr. Orlowski: Any other co~mLlents from this side? Mrs. Robins: My name is Joan Robins. My husband and I live in New Suffolk on Main Street the north east corner sf third and Main. Too Big. My living room is thirteen feet long. My property is one hundred feet. Five times that must be going up Pike Street all the waY over to Cleave. I couldn't egen see that far. Beyond that when you start messing around with our water you are tampering with o~r lives. And when you fool around with the very water you are tampering with as things that live in the water that is important to us. My husband and I would like to see a marina. We would like to see a small good resturuant. But we think it is too big. Planning Board Page 15 December 19, 1988 Mr. Orlowski: Any other co~L,Llents from this side? Are there any other comments? Mr. Hart: Mm. Chairman and members of the Board, I am John Hart of the firm of Pelletreau and Pelletreau in Patchogue, representing Mr. Carr. We started in July of 1987 with the first draft of the Environmental Impact statement. There have been a supplement and a second supplement since that time. The developer is not asking for anything more then he is entitled to under the zoning ordinance of the Town of Southold and of the law of the State of New York and the United States. We would submit that questions which have been raised here this evening are answered in the documents which you now have and we would ask that the Board prepare the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments? Mr. Lowery: Did I understand Mr. Hart to say that you were going to prepare the Final Environmental Impact Statement? Mr. Orlowski: I believe he said that, yes. Any other comments? Co~,~ents from the Board? Mr. Mullen? Mr. Mullen: No. Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Latham? Mr. Latham: No comments. Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Ward? Mr. Ward: No. Mr. Ortowski: Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards: No, not at this time. Mr. Orlowski: Ms. Scopaz. Ms. Scopaz: No, not at this time. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. I will declare this hearing closed. Mr. Fenton: One comment. I understand that the time to file written c~,~ent is open till_January sometime. Mr. Orlowski: Yes, it is January 4th. Mr. Hart: If I am correct and I would have to check my dates, I am not sure that is the correct dete. Whatever time it is, it is fixed by law and of course that is a matter of record. Assuming that there is that goes beyond the date we would object to it. Planning Board Page 16 December 19, 1988 Mr~ Fenton: I don~t want to make a legal argument out of this but I don't think you are in a position until he has asked that you make some determination until the time has expired. Mr. Orlowski: Right. Mr. Hart: Again, M~. Fenton and I have gone back and forth and all I can say is whatever the law is Joe, that is the law and we are all bound by it. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. I will declare this hearing closed and thank you for coming. Mr. Orlowski: Board to keep the public hearing open from October 14, 1988 open, pending receipt of revised prelimiD~ry maps. This affordable housing project is located on Fishers Island. SCTM ~1000-6-2-3.1. Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mutlen, Latham, Ward, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Board to set Monday, January 9, 1989 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. Edwards: So moved. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Subdivisions-final: Peter Blank- Board to make a determination on the final maps ~ted as amended October 4, 1988. This minor subdivision is on 160,000. sq.ft, located at Orient. SCTM $1000-27-4-p/o 10.1. Everything is in order to approve and endorse. Planning Board Page 17 December 19, 1988 Mr. Ward: Approve subject to the C & R's whereas no further subdivision. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? Mr. Latham: Abstain. Mr. Orlowski: All those in Favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards. Abstain: Latham Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Latham abstained. Mr. Orlowski: Onto preliminary. Long Meadow- Board to make a determination on the preliminary maps, dated as amended June 7, 1988, for this major subdivision on 36.9636 acres located at Mattituck. SCTM ~1000-113-7-19.2. The forty five days are up. Everything is O.K. for preliminary approval. I would recommend doing it subject to the final map showin~ revised drainage and grading as per Sidney Bowne's report of October 19, 1988 and review of the November 4, test hole data. Also to show the realignment of Melissa Lane to the South be addressed. Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? Ms. Scopaz: One thing Mr. Chairman, I would reco~m,end that those conditions be placed on the map so that the applicant is aware that this has to be included on the final map. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. We will put that in the motion. Motionmade and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latb~m, Ward, Edwards. Mr. Ortowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Farmveu Associates- Board to make a determination on the preliminary maps dated as amended October 5, 1988, for this major subdivision on 111.672 acres located at ~attituck. SCTM 91000-121-3-2. Forty five days are up on this. Recommend to approve it showing the revised drainage and grading plans and Planning Board Page 18 DEcember 19, 1988 addressing the shallow stormwater runoff retention areas. Either eliminating it or indicating the depth of the pan. Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made ~nd second. Any question on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Next we have the Norris/Carr/Wanat- At this time the Board is ready to close the public comment period for the Environmental Impact Statement. I will entertain that motion. There will be no action taken tonight, until we meet with the Town Board. We have been advised by ou~ Town Attorney, since we are co-lead agents, to meet with them, which we will do at their earliest convenience and discuss it with them before we make any determination. Mr. ~art: The only thing, Mr. Chairman, that we ask you to do is that, with respect to that meeting, make your reco~muendation to the Town Board so that they can schedule a hearing on the result. Mr. Orlowski: I will 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? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Ortowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Cove Beach Estate- Board to review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for completeness. This major subdivision is located at East ~arion. SCTM $1000-22-3-15.1 & 18.3. Mr. Emilita has reviewed it and says it is O.K. to deem it complete. There are co~m~ents from the Board of Health and the Ecology department. I would rec~nd that we send on to the applicant so that the~ can be addressed. At this time I think we can deem this complete. Mr. Lathsm: So moved. Planning Board Page 19 December 19, 1988 Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made ~nd seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor~ Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards. Mr. Ortowski: Opposed? So Qrdered. Mr. Orlowski: Angel Shores- Environmental Impact Stat~ subdivision is located at ~ Emilita, our reviewer, has said he will have his comm~ recommendation to extend i~ Also~ we have comments fro~ will have comments by then. Mr. Edwards: Move we extend. Mr. Latham: Second. · Board to review the Draft ~ent for completeness. This major ;outhold. SCTM ~1000-88-6-1,4,5. Mr. not had a chance to complete it. He nts in by January 2nd an~ makes a to our next meeting, J~nuary 9th. the Department of State that they Mr. Orlowski: Motion made ~nd seconded. Any questions on the motion? Ail those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: O~towski, Mutlen, Latham, Ward, Edwards. Mr. Ortowski: Opposed? So Ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Tim Gray- Board to make a determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. This minor s~bd~vision is on 9.1568 acres located at Southold. SCTM ~t000-58-t-2. Everything is in order for a negative dec. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman~ I offer that we negative dec. this application. The applicant has addressed our concerns and revised the map accordingly. Mr. Latham: I'll second the motion. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: John Beebe- Board to make a determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. This minor subdivision is on 97~035. sq.ft, located at Cutchogue. It got an Planning Board Page 20 December 19, 1988 approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals and everything is in order for a negative dec. SCTM ~1000-103-3-5. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Ward: second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Cofam Realty- Board to review the Suffolk County Planning Commission report dated December 8, 1988. This minor subdivision is on 4.178 acres located at Mattituck. SCTM $1000-122-7-3. I will entertain a motion to accept and request compliance. Mr. Edwards: I move we accept the report and request c~liance. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Harbor View- Board to review the bond estimate for this major subdivision located at Southold~ SCTM $1000-115~17-17. The applicant has asked that we reduce the bond. What is the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Multen: On what basis? Mr. Ward: We are going to need a report from the Engineer in order to reduce it. Mr. ~ullen: There is a current report, 8~ted December 8th. I think we should go alon~ with the Engineer, they're the professionals. Mr. Orlowski: They find approximately thirty percent of the work has been addressed at this time. Mr. Ward: What is the date of the Bond? Mr. Mullen: There have been three inspections and they have not been complimentry. Planning Board Page 21 December 19, 1988 Mr. Orlowski: In reading the report I don't think there is any reason to. We would have to hold a public hea~ing and I think we should just move on. Mr. Latham: They would have to wait till spring to do anything now. Mr. Orlowski: Can we have a motion to deny that? Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made ~nd seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Golf View- Board to review ~he bond for this major subdivision located at East Marion. SCTM $1~00-35-2-p/0 16. I think we can make a recommendation to the Town Board to approve the amount of $5,000.00. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Anybody want to be Chairman? Mr. Mullen: I make the reconwaendation that we continue to suffer with Mr. Orlowski as Chairman for another year. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: You guys are terrible. Any question on tha't? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Planning Board Page 22 December 19, 1988 Mr. Orlowski: I have nothing left on my agenda. Does anyone have anything to say. Mr. Mullen: Just one thing. I have an year end report here, dated December 12, it reflects that fact that we handled a considerable amount of applications this year and have received an excess of $200,000. for the Town. We have taken care of thirty two applications. We have, unfortunately, seventy to go. I think that we are overworked and underpaid. I am very happy to see the tremendous increment on the income for the Town. I hope it will continue. Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments. Mr. Edwards: I just like to wish everybody, members of the Board and their families, a healthy happy holiday season. Mr. Latbam: Same to you. Mr. Orlowski: I would like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year and we will see you on January 9, 1989. I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Latham: Motion made and seconded. Ail those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Meeting adjourned at 8:50. BENNETT ORLOWSKI , JR. , CH~t~MtAN / / Respectfully submitted, · r Southold Town Plann±ng Board RECEIVED AND FILED BY T~ SOUTH©LD TO~N CLERK To~m Clerk, To~ of Southold