Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-11/09/1987Southold, N.Y. ~1971 ~516] 765q9~ Planning Board Minutes November 9, 19~7 The Southold Town Planning Board held~'~egular meeting on Monday, November 9, 1987 at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold at 7:30 p.m. Present were: Chairman Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Member William F. Mullen,Jr. Member G. Ritchie Latham, Jr. Member Richard G. Ward Member Kenneth Edwards Town Planner Valerie Scopaz Executive Administrator Victor Lessard Administrative Assistant Diane M. Schultze 7:30 p.m. Public hearing for public comment on the Draft Envirenmental Impact Statement for the site plan for Marina Bay Club located at New Suffolk, SCTM ~ 1000-117-8-18. Mr. Orlowski: Good evening, I would like to call this hearing to order. First order of business is a public hearing. We have proof of publication in the Long Island Traveler Watchman, we have proof of publication in the Suffolk Times signed by Christina Contento and notorized by Mary Degnan. We have a complete Draft Environmental Impact Statement and we are here tonight to hear comments for this. Please step up and give your name for the Secretary. Jack Fisher: My name is Jack Fisher and I live in New Suffolk. We have a number of things that we were concerned about and we have discussed it with Mr. Carr and his experts and he is attempting to address these concerns as the project develops. We will submit a written memorandum within the 10 commitment per~od. Once we have an opportunity to study the comments fo the various agencies. Firstly, as I said we are concerned with the size of the project the 450 seat restaurant. The traffic problems and parking problems that may adversaly effect the community. Raising the height of the site by three fee and affecting the surrounding property especially during the flooding period. WE feel that we have enough problems Planning Board Page 2 11/9/87 now, but if they raise that another three feet they will create more of a problem. We are a little concerned about exceeding the NY State Grant boundary. The reverse osmosis water system and by products and the other problems that may be entailed with that. The location of the sewage treatment system as well as the potential noise and light pollution. Tonight, Pat~Calahan, who is also on our committee is here and he can comment with respect to more of the technical aspects of these problems. However, before Pat, I think Linda Fletcher who is president of the New Suffolk Civic Association has a few words. Linda Fletcher: Yes, my name is Linda Fletcher and I reside in New Suffolk and I'am president of the New Suffolk Civic Association. I concur with the remarks made by Jack who is a member of the monitering committee of the New Suffolk Civic Association. I would also like to add the following comments. In my study of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, I learned that the main purpose of any 'Draft Environmental Impact Statement is to' investigate and then mitigate. When I compared these principals to the DEIS presentation of the Marina Bay Club, I find that the mitigation section of the document is inadequate. In my opinion, this · na~equacy is caused by failure to thouroughly investigate possible problems in the preceeding sections. Particularly · n regard to traffic, parking and scraping of the grade level, and the water supply and sewage treatment. In none of these areas have-a worst case scenerio presented, thus reliving the applicant of any reason to mitigate. I would ask you to request a worst case scenerio for the areas and for the mitigating measures. Lastely, in the alternative section of the document there is no presentation of an alternative based upon reduced size and scope. In my opinion these alternative, this alternative should be given much consideration. Members of the New Sufolk Civic Association trust that you will give your best efforts in the review of this proposal. Thank you. Pat Calahan: Im Pat Calahan of New Suffolk. Over the past, actually three years, Mr. Cart has made an effort to keep the community very posted on his activities and plans. We had an opportunity to sit down with him some time ago, gave him some preliminary comments and then more recently over the past month we have sat with him and attended our most recent Civic Association and most comments I would say are on the way to resolution. And, as Jack Fisher pointed out there are still some open issues. I would however like to bring out the items we have discussed to give you a sense of where we are with him. And, maybe add a little more perspective and dimension to our involvements on the report. One of our initial concerns in reading the DEIS was the magnitude of the materials to be removed. I think it talked~about 27,000 cubic yards for the dredging and we weren't sure if that was dredging or mining. We explored that further with Mr. Carr's engineers who explained to us in terms of the grading Planning Board Page 3 11/9/87 plan. The grading and the quantity was reduced to about 18,000 yards after their refinement. But it still left us concern with respect raising the site. The site, which is currently at elevation 5 and 6 would be going up to elevation 8 and 9 and higher depending upon other needs. So, that continues an area of concern with us. It is a fairly large area of 3½ acres to be raised that amount, visually, we thought it would have impact, also from the point of view of flooding. A few other details, not details, comments. We talked with Mr. Carr concerning the boat~storage building and the fact of would it be used for on-call.use of boats. Which would, of course, impact on the traffic generation. I believe the folks who did the traffic study had indicated no generation due to the boat storage facility. Mr. Carr reaffirmed that with us that it is not going to be an on call facility and with respect to that building .comment that came up as a result our Civic Association meetins was that if some effort could be made to move the building further inside the property too, we would appreciate that you take a look at it. I realize it probably fits the footprint of the earlier two buildings that were there, but if possible it would be a very positive thing to do. With respect to water supply and proposed waste system, we have brought to Mr. Carr's attention the fact that we thought that the RO system that he is proposing is probably going Col'be a large cost to him and probably a lot of headaches as he goes along with that type of system. And, suggested that he contact or perhaps review further some of the suggestions made by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services on the earlier condo proposals because we believe they either directly or alluded to going off_site. Now, that may sound like an unusual comment to receive from a Civic Group usually, in essence, we normally have that other position. However, we see in that case, there will be a balance interms of meeting his needs and perhaps meeting the needs of the community since ~irtually all the property on First Street and maybe a portion of Second Street are in the flood zone and many, many people have brackish water so we will ask Mr. Carr if he will look at going off site in conjuncition with the County Health Services to see if in fact that will be feasible and if in fact there could be potable water supply made available to others in the community who might need it. Regarding the wastewater systems and again that relates to the surface elevations which was proposed, the property was proposed to be raised to we understand that a package treatment plant is recommended by the Health Department, Department of Health Services and of course, attended to . . that the problem is in ~rderLto get sufficient areas for the leaching fields. We have a concern there, I think it may beamixed blessing, but we are concerned with dealing with a high water table, tidal influence, I am personally familiar with the fact of the existence of a meadow matter of bog a few feet from the surface. The fact that it had been prior landfilled. Another words, we are concerned with th~adequa¢~ of even developing a system for sufficient perculation. Perhaps, some alternative approaches could be looked at. Dependent with that waste system would be a building to house Planing Board Page 4 11/9/87 the treatment plant. We were concerned with its proximity to First Street and appreciate his immediately recognizing that as a problem. He indicated to us that'he would be looking at that to see if it could be moved further on the site, perhaps integrated with his building for boat storage. In other words, get away from the street recognizing that notwithstanding the purported high technilogy that will be employed in the system that there can be problems. He also assured that he would be putting emergency generators should there be power failures,~obviously theiproblems that that wo~Id cause. We talked, Jack mentioned in passing, regarding noise and lights. We think the development is kind a challenge to his architects and designers to recognize our sensativity and our needs. I personally live rather close and many other of us do. New Suffolk is virtually at night, there is no light and.no noise. So the thresholds are very low. So we again appreciate his giving alot of consideration to that in design, keeping the lights very subdued and to the maximum extent possible insulating the mechanical systems. Just two other points with respect to the overall site and its extent. The outer easterly boundary of the site would be roughly, like twice, as far to the east as what it is today, so you measure from the high water mark. We are uncertain as to what his rights are to these lands and as this whole process would progress which we could prove to him as a result of that, we would look forward to having similar restrictive covenants as what was placed in the original grant in order to insure that the next generation should they be faced with the same generation that they would have assurance that the property remain in the constant use. Lastly, I would just like to comment on we have cooperation we had recommendation that-perhaps some folks from the community could work with him and his architects and other people from the historic point of view. We kind of felt that there was not enough attention as could be given to that But, he was most a~reeable to do that. I. think that would be all the comments I have and I do hope that other folks and Mr. Carr would continue to offer their comments this evening. Thank you. John Hart: Mr. Chairman, I am John Hart of Pelletreau and P~lletreau of Patchogue. We are the attorneys for Mr. Carr. What I would like to indicate to is what has already b~en indicated by Mr. Fisher; Ms. Fletcher and Mr. Calahan and that is that there has been a real spirit of cooperation here between Mr. Carr and the members of the community And, we are amenable to and continue to be amenable to the requests and issues of the community and will continue to work with them. There has been a spirit of cooperation and we hope that this spirit will continue. Planning Board Page 5 11/9/87 Tom Lowry: My name is Tom Lowry, I live in New Suffolk. I am going to key my comments to the DEIS pages for your convenIence. C.hapter One, page one, Mr. Carr, in his DEIS claims to own six acres more or less. That seems to indicate that there is no questaon an his mind concerning the validity of the Town or the State Grants. The late Town Attorney was uncertain as to the validity of the Town Grant and I have a letter from the NY State Department of State saying that the validity of that grant as far as he is concerned also is in question. I would say, also that on page Al5 of the DEIS and this is a quote" there is apparent appropriation of public bottom for private use". I guess that is Mr. Emlita's comment, it is not attributed, but I believe that to be the case. Chapter One, page two, the number of slips proposed in phase two is given as 137. That seems to me to be very high and I would be more than happy if Mr. Carr would just be pleased with the number of slips that he is asking for in phase one which is, I think, 84. Chapter One, page six, one of the three access~points to the project is directly North of the Town property at that point, by that I mean the launching ramp. .It seems to me that an exit from the project at that point, coming out almost next to the launching ramp, which is right next to the entrance and exit to the public parking lot for the beach means that there will be a hell of alot of traffic at the corner of Jackson and First and I would like to see some attention paid to redesigning that part of it. Chapter One, page seven, says that the choice of type of sewage is left open. I can Understand thereason for that I don't think that anything ought to be considered as approved in any final way until a final choice of the type of plant is made. Chapter One, page eight, there is a mention of a minimal increase in traffic, that is a quote. Whereas on pages nine and ten of that Chapter One the figures are sited that amount to saying that really the increase an traffic is something on the order of 400%. That doesn't seem to me to be minimal. Page A4, there is no mention of the DEIS of the Trustees' question of commercial fisherman using the facility. I would like to raise~the question of the pcssiblity if perhaps the bayman might get a preferential rate on the use of the facility. Page A!5, I am sorry, I am wron~ on that. Page Al2, the developer mentioned the removal of 150 truckloads of topsoil from the site. I would like to think that he would consider, if possible, that with a little informal survey be made of New Suffolk's own needs perhaps some of those 150 truckloads might be well used in the hamlet itself. Thank you. Ronnie Wacker: My name is Ronnie Wacker and I represent the North Fork Environmental Council. I want to thank you for the opportunity to present our views on the Draft Environmental IMpact statement of the proposed Marina Bay Club in New Suffolk. There can certainly be no argument.that the present marina facility in New Suffolk can be improved. We have a few concerns, however, that the scale proposed may overwhelm this tiny Planning Board Page 6 11/9/87 fishing village. When the applicant states that the building height will be 28' will this be 28' above sea level or 28' added to the 10' elevation at first floor level proposed in,compliance with flood plain regulations. If the latter, than residents who chose their homes for the superb view of the Bay there will face instead a 38' obstruction over 500' long. And, I wonder whether any thought has been given to what this three and a half story wall will look like from the water. We would like to see more analysis of the traffic impact on Saturday mornings between 8 and 10 when boatmen are heading to their boats and other people are heading out to yardsales or on errands. The same problem, if there is one, can be expected to arrise on Sunday, when people are going to church. Also, in the evening on Sunday, you have boatmen returning from the sail, people going out to dinner or coming home from the beach or starting a long drive back to the city. Weekend traffic problems, we feel, are not realistically addressed. The weekend traffic survey was limited to one Saturday this summer between 11 a.m. and 6 p.m. We feel this deserves more extensive study. How effective will the 39 leaching pools be in the recharge of stormwater into the ground. Have soil perculation tests be made to establish this. The applicant states that when storms produce more than 2" of water per hour the excess runoff will be directed into the Bay. Now, road runoff has been determined to be the single most important contributor to pollution of our creeks and bays. This will bring additional nutrients into a Bay which is already suffering the effects of excessive nutrients which has experienced an algea bloom which has killed off the scallop crop for the last three years. Also, the reverse osmosis will pipe rejected water to an outfall nozzle 500' inthe bay, the DEIS says the increased salinity will have no impact on the Bay. The shell fish and fin fish are very sensative to even a slight change in water conditions. This deserves further study, in our opinion. In considering reverse osmosis, we would also like to be assured that the operators will be highly trained in this innovative system. Has it been used before in Peconic Bay waters. And, what has its performance been. In the matter of water pollution, what will be the effect of treatment of bulkhead timber with 20 pounds of creaso of 2.5 pounds of preservative salt per cubic foot. Our last concern might be seen as biting ~the hand of a benefactor. The applicant suggests that the marina complex~ after construction has been completed, will bring an average of 45 permanant jobs in phase one and as many as 65 - 70 jobs in phase two. This may normally be considered a boom to the area, but have you tried to hire people for non-skilled jobs recently. Other than boat mechanic, chef, engineers, the bulk of these jobs waiters, cleaners, maintenance workers wilt be filled by people without specific training. There isn't a supermarket, restaurant, or vineyard that isn't experiencing a problem with personal now. To some it would seem that the area would welcome an expanded marina project, but worries about being crushed to death in the embrace commercial octopus. Certainly, the project needs a more Planning Board Page 7 11/9/87 researched Environmental Impact Statement. Joan Robbins: My name is Joan Robbins, my husband, and I live in New Suffolk, our home is on the northeast corner of Third and Main Street. We would like to add our voices to the concerns that have already expressed. One of our major concerns is of course the fresh water supply. That our supply not be diminished either in quantity or quality either by the water supply system of Marina Bay Club or by the waste disposal system, whatever choice is made in that area. Another one of our major concerns is the quality of the bay water, whatever quality is left. That that not be diminished by this project and thirdlyr the traffic. Even now, with~the marina operating in a very limited way, the Galley Ho in its present capacity King Street is not Main Street. There are individual drivers now who leave the vicinity of the Galley Ho and seem to be inclined to reach 9G miles an hour by the time they get to the Fifth Street light. Which is five very short blocks. With an expansion of this size, I think at the very least, the Town will be hearing from a lot more of us a lot more frequently. The size is unimaginable, but we hope some accomodation can be made in that regard. We hope to be able to get out of our driveway which entrances and exits on Main Street. And, we hope that New Suffolk remains New Suffolk. Steve Latson:~ My name is Steve Latson and I am secretary of the bayman's association. One of the things we are opposed to in this~project is that it seems that it is going to confiscate three acres of State 'bay bottom. If you figure out the numbers it comes out to a little over three acres. This area also · s always a prime scallop area. Beyond that the dredging of 27,000 cubic yards is stated to be not significant but we do consider this significant. If you went into one of our local creeks and started dredging a channel you could dredge a channel 500 by 50 by 3 feet deep, that is quite a channel. The other question ~s suitability of the heavy metals for fill~that this spoil ~s supposed to go for. When you read the heavy metal numbers you really have to question, they are pretty high, we think and we asked a consultant and he thought they were quite questionable. So, if you use it as fill, you are~going to be jeopardizing the water table and also you are going to be saturating that ground with these metals, copper, arsenic, mercury, tin and they go on and on. The other thing is when you are dredging, you will be creating silt in the water and of course this will go out into the other parts of the Bay and this is not a good feature also. Another question is the 39 leaching pools. Gradually, if you have 85% coverage of the area and you have these enormous parking area, it seems that you will have an inordinate amount of hydrocarbon pollutant accumulating in the leaching pool area. In con]unction with the 17,000 gallons of treated wastewater, it seems like this area is going to be taking a really heavy dose of water, especially if you have some heavy rains. And, if the calculated perculation of half a foot to two feet, if it islonly half a foot, I can really see some serious backing up of water in this area. Planning Board Page 8 11/9/ 87 If we have a wet season. As far as underground fuel storage goes, Port of ~Egypt and the Greenport Shipyard have just recently installed above ground diked fuel tanks. I have a fe~ling you are probably not alt0wed in next to a marine area to put underground tanks because if you do have a breach in the tanks, you will never known it until it is too late. The idea obviously is to contain it above ground and clean it up before it gets into the marine habitat. As far-as the reverse osmosis goes, roughly if you use the system to its full capacity you will be pumping 1.4 times the normal base salinity ba~k~'into the Bay, you will be pumping about 100,000 gallons a day and it comes out to somewhere about 37 million gallons a year. This is a real question mark, how fast does it disperse etc. and so forth. I don't think the report has adequately covered how fast it disperses. But, increased salinity basically increases, will bring an increase in preditors. If you go through the Peconic System, you get to Gardiner's Bay, the preditors jump up enormously because the salinity jumps enormously. Quite possiblity due to the lack of flushing in the Peconics you may end up haveing excess salt in the Cutchogue Harbor area which is part of the critical habitat area hopefully. The last thing that I want to say, is as far as their citing 44 NY State Coastal Zone Management Policies, they did cite 7 of them, I can cite 7 of them which would probably go against what they are saying. The real intent of these 44 policies and I'll read it briefly: It is the intention of the legislature that the preservation, enhancement and utilization of natural and manmade resources of the State'~ unique coastal area take place in a coordinated and comprehensive manner to.insure the proper balance of natural resources to accomodate the needs of population growth and economic development. Accordingly it is the intention of this part of achieve a balance between economic development and preservation that will permit the beneficial use of coastal resources while preventing the loss of living marine resources to the water and wildlife, dimunition.~of~open spaces or public access to waterfront, shoreline erosion, impairment of scenic beauty or permanent adverse changes to ecological systems. I think finally, what we feel is that the size and scope of this marina is way beyond something that won't permanently adverse, make adverse changes to the~ecological system. Thank you. Bill Yetter: My name is Bill Yetter. I am a member of the ~New Suffolk CiVic Association and I have my business in North Fork Shipyard which will be the Marina Bay Club. I am a ~yacht broker, I have been a yacht broker for 15 years, member of the association of marina industries and am familiar with and have visited everyother marina on Peconic Bay, many of the~ ~n Conecticut, Rhode Island, and up as far as Newrport. I~ha~e boated and traveled as a boatman. Thinking about the size of this project, I am thinking recently that~ I can't recall the name, but Mr. Tooker has a marina up in Riverhead, which exits right into the To~n of Riverhead~ Planning Board Page 9 11/9/87 with well over 100 slips. Larry's Lighthouse Marina a little further East, has 170 slips in Aquebogue and 120 in South Jamesport with a total of 270. Coming along further I think that Brewer's who used to be Pierce has grown by quite some number~ coming out further and further into Sterling Harbor. Corrigan's in Hampton Bays has 120 some odd slips, they have just enlarged on.the canal. Star Marina has 127 on Lake Montauk coming out in to the lake. And, as far as I am concerned the size of this marina coming out into t'he Bay, not on creeks or canals or inland waters poses~no hazards to navigation. And as far as the shell life, I really can't say, but it seems to be no more crucial there than in the creeks and inland waters of this part of the Bay and area. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Okay, are there any other commen~s. Mr. John Hart: Mr. Orlowski, and members of the Board. I think that basically there is no dispute between Mr. Carr and the members of the community. There is an economic engine that drives us and there is a certain size ~hat will make it work. And, there is an identity of interest between the community and Mr. Carr. Mr. Carr wants to make it work, the community wants to make it work. We are interested in preserving the water supply and we are willing to talk to the community about that and about moving the source of water supply to the point that will use a rev~rse~.osmosis system to a point at some other location. We have a real~identity of interest. There is an economic benefit that will accrue to the community. There is an economic'benefit that will work for both parties. There will be an increase in jobs, and I think that working together we can have something that New Suffolk and the Town of Southold will be proud of and so far we have had a dialoge, I think, that has been effective. We hope to continue this dialogue and working together I think we can make it work. Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments. Patsy Rogers: My name is Patsey Rogers, I live in New Suffolk ahd teach in the ~cho61 there. I would, I've heard alot of talk in New Suffolk in the last few days about we must never be confrontational and how we. must all cooperate, and~So on. And, I would only like to say that not all of use agree that this is a good project for New Sufolk. Not just because of the size, but at all. And, there are some people who strongly disagree. I feel that the committee has worked very hard to be fair and no confrontational and so on and that is marvelous but I don't think it is right to represent that all people in New Suffolk approve of this project and think it is a good idea, I am one who does not. Mr. Orlowski: Thank you any other comments? Hearing none. Any questions from the Board? Mr. Mullen? Mr. Mullen: I just have a comment. I would like to see the applicant and the Civic Association and the Environmental Planning Board Page 10 11/9/87 Council and any one else get together and sit down and clarify some of these problems such as the parking, the lights, the water , the traffic and so~.on~~ It appears to me that you people want to work together and if you sit~ down and come up with some of these answers it is going to make it much clearer and beneficial to everybody concerned~in the future. And, that frankly, is what I am most concerned with, the future. Mr. Orlowski: Okay, Mr. Latham. Mr. Latham: I would echo Bill's statement that we can all work together on this. Mr. Orlwoski: Okay, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: I have a question. There was a comment made early on about a restaurant for 450. Is that a number that we heard. Because I don't see that anywhere on the plan and I would like a ~lazificiation on that. Mr. Hart: That is the second phase, Mr. Ward. And, I think that Mr. Carr has already agreed to diminish in size. Mr. Ward: What would that be diminished to? Mr. Hart: It would be reduced by 150. Mr. Ward: For a total of 300. Mr. Hart: Yes, but I mean that is using outsidein~the summer time to increase it to that amount. Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Edwards? Mr. Edwards: No, just that I think the points brought up will be well taken by this Board. Mr. Orlowski: I think there were some very good comments made here tonight. You have until November 19 to get any comments to the Boazd to be~reviewed. Dave Emilita has been reviewing this DEIS and his comments will be forthcoming. And, I can tell you that we~will take everything into consideration. Thank you for coming down and good night. I will declare this hearing closed. Planning Board Page 11 12/9/87 Mr. Orlowski: Mr. James Gray has scheduled an appointment to discuss teh pending change of zone before the Town Board for his property at County Route 48, Cutchogue, from A~R to C. Mr. Mullen: Mr. Chairman, I must refrain from participating in this application because I am involved with~.~he~ppticant. Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Gray, if you would like to come forward, the Board is looking for a brief explanation of your intended use and future use for this property and the reason~ your reasons for applying for the change. Mr. Orlowski: Do you have any particular use intended for this property at this time. Mr. Gray: Yes, I will put industrial buildngs on it for contractor's that have to move out of their houses and need small shops. I intend to put one large multiple type building, 1500 to 2000 square feet. Mr. Orlowski: Could you please use the microphone because there are people back there who would like to hear you. Mr. Gray: I am sorry. Can you'~hear me know? My name is Jim Gray, I live in Cutchogue. This property we intend to develop and put a building up that will be a multiple type building and it will be for the purpose of individual type Contractors~.such as electricans, plumbers, carpenters, landscapers and lawnmower repair men. Any type of business that has to have a shop but cannot operate out of his house anymore. We are going to do a n~ice job on the buildings, we haven't~' designed the buildings yet, but they will meet all the specifications, I am sure. Mr. Orl~wski : Okay, any questions from the Board? Mr. Latham? Mr. Latham: This is next door to the one we just acted on. Junge. Mr. Orlowski: The use would go along with~the?,LI0 which was recommended on the proposed Master Plan. Mr. Ward: How man~ acres for this new zone? Mr. Or~owski: It was one acre on L~and LI0 was~three acres. It was recommended for LI which was one acre~ Mr. Latham: It is going to b~ kind of tight isn't it? Mr. Ward: We are proposing that this use ~o for commercial and it wouldcseem appropriate that we direct the same response to the Zonign Board of Appeals~ My only concern that I have is that as this develops with the small individual lots, Planning Board Page 12 11/9/87 each lot is going to have a separate driveway onto County Route 48, so that is all. I am having concern over the continuationof having 40 or 50 driveways with the use rather than our original thought that it would be larger spaces and there would be a larger common road system to the area. Mr. Orlowski: I think at the time we address the site plan the comments might be leading towards that with one ingress and egress onto County Route 48, but that would be at a latter point in time. The only other point I see is even if it would be a C zone, it would be non-conforming because it is undersized so that would probably send you back to the ZBA. But, I don't have any problem with it since it is consistent with the proposed Master Plan that we worked on for the last five years. And, which I think is a pretty good plan~ so I have no problem with that. Knowing what the use will be. Mr. Gray: In response to Mr. Ward's question on the curb cut, the County will not give us a curb cut for each individual parcel, we will have to inside driveways run completely from the first parcel which is Mr. Junges, past my parcel to the other one to Cox Lane, so there may be only two curb cuts. It must be 1000' feet between so about every 400' you will have a curb cut. I went through it, they made me do that on the South by Horton's and onthe North Road there. Mr. Orlowski: Well, we assumed that was what they were going to do and we just wanted to let you know. Mr. Gray: No question about it. Mr. Orlowski: Well, other than that, I have no problem and I'll take a mo~ion to send a recommendation to the Town Board. On a motion made by Mr. Edwards, seconded by Mr. Ward, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board recommend to the Town Board that the change of zone request for Mr. James Gray located at Cutchogue be approved since it is in conformance with the Master Plan and proposed Zoning Map. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Latham, Ward, Edwards Abstained: Mullen On a motion made by Mr. Edwards, seconded by Mr. Ward, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the minutes of the regular meeting of Monday, Qctober 19, 1987. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, ward, Edwards Planning Board Pag 15 11/9/87 Mr. Raynor: The understanding that the applicant has received with regard to this, and I have had discussions with Ms. Scopaz with regard to this and if you put a condition for approval that it will be developed as a major it is going to be perceived that it should be developed as a major. That is not their intention o~ their wish. Mr. Orlowski: Well, let me put it this way, the rules that you will be conforming to will be of major subdivision specifications. If it is up to this Board we will let you know upfront that we want it. Mr. Raynor: What would be, explain to me what the differential would be, maybe I am a little thick tonight; I .don't know. Mr. Orlowski: In case you came back for three lots, we will ask for the major subdivision road, period. Mr. Raynor: You have that in your specifications anyhow. Mr. Orlowski: Well, we are going to leave that in the approval too, I am sure. Mr Raynor: But, by putting it in the approval what I mean is the applicant perceives it that if somebody buys it, they must develop it to the full potential. Mr. Orlowski: Not at all. Mr. Raynor: Well, will you stipulate that so the applicant is aware of what the Board is meaning. Mr. Orlowski: Okay, I think you are familiar with the problems we have had in the past in leaving that out has left an open door to people thinking that four lots automatically gives them another subdivision. Mr. Raynor: There is no p~oblems with saying that the development of the remaining parcel would be as per Town specifications. It is up to the Board whatever specifications they want to place on it. But if you put major subdivision specifications on it, they are going to perceive it that it has %o be built on the maximnm. Mr. Orlowski: I see where you are coming from and we will clarify that. Mr. Raynor: You understand their question. Their question is if we encumber the property to the effect that if the Board resolution of approval is that it must be a major, if anybody buys this, they have to develope it in four lots. We don't want that. Mr. Orlowski: Well, I think you have been here alot many more years than I have and you have known that we have done that alot. Mr. Raynor: You are more pleasant than I am. Mr. Orlowski: Sure I am sure you can explain it to your client. Planning Board Page 14 11/9/87 Mr. Orlowski: Okay, I think the only t~ing we would like to see the rest of it on the map itself as Lo~ No. 4. Mr. Raynor: Lot 4 okay. We are alSo in the process, the County doesn't have all the records with regard to the cUrrent status of the property, we are revamping~those s~ we will give them the entire.., what it was carved out of es~aet of 28 acres. And, I will see that the Board gets a copy.~of those also. Mr. Orlowski: Okay, I think on Lot No_ 4, as you know we have done lnthe past is asked that any further s~bdivision be a major subdivision. The County may look at it as a major now, I am not sure. Mr. Ward: Are there prior subdivisions? Mr. Orlowski: Prior set off. Mr. Raynor: There is a set off to the east that was done inthe 70's. With regard to your comment, is it a comment or is it going placed on as part of the resolution. Mr. Orlowski: It will be part of the approval. Mr. Raynor: The clients have problems with that because, let me ask you this, if it is going to be made, if a prospective purchaser of the 9 acres want to put one home on him to build town spec roads. Mr. Orlowski: Not, with just one lot. Mr. Raynor: Well, than I don't unders Or, rather the conditions of the resol Mr. Orlowski: If he is going to subdi~ Mr. Raynor: The applicant is not goin Mr. Orlowski: No, but if lot 4 is eve that covenant that it will be done as anyway. Mr. Raynor: When you say done as a ma understand. Are you saying that the yield "x" number of lots. Mr. Orlowski: No, it can yield two lo But, the County will look at it as a ~ now, for a major or minor are the same down to 22 by approval by the Board. know and telling him that if there is of that 9 acres and most likely the or used if it is going to get past two mc lots you are going to have to get acce it are you going to force zand part of the resolution. ution. ide that lot 4. g to,subdivide that lot 4. r subdivided, we-woutd like a major. It's going to be or, that is what I don't emaining nine acres must s, it can yield one forever. ajor subdivision, road specs · W~dth..may be adjusted We are letting the applicant going to be a subdivision ly time a road would be re lots, if you go to three ss. And, one lot you are not going to be buitdig a road to the house. Planning Board Page 13 11/9/87 On a motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Ward, it was R~SOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, November 23, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold as the time and place for the~next regular Board meeting. Vote of the Board; Ayes; Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards John Sepenoski: (SCTM ~ 1000-69-4-9) Mr. Orlowski: Next, we have John Sepenoski Board to review the resolution of the Suffolk County Commission and the correspondence from the attorey for the applicant requesting the Planning Board override the County. Well, the County, after due study and deliberation resolved to disapprove because it will create a landlocked parcel and the ususal, standard comments. One way to eliminate that or answer these~comments is to do it with a flag lot instead of putting the road to one lot which appears will go nowhere from there becuase there is a railroad track. We went through this with the County before and we have basically been opposed to it, but at times we find it is a lot easier to qo along with a flag lot. Would the Board like to propose this to the applicant. On a motion made by Mr. Ward, seconded by Mr. Mullen, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board request that the set off survey for John Sepenoski be amended to reflect a flag lot rather than a riqht-of-wa¥ in order to comply with the County Planning Commission. This proposal is located at Southold, SCM ~ 1000-69-4-9. Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards ---3_ Frank Sawicki SCTM ~ 1000-51-6-3.1 Mr. Orlowski: Next, we have Walter and Frank Sawicki. Board to take action on the sketch map for 3 lots on 12.1 acres located at Southold. Mr. Raynor, are we creating three lots here or is it four lots? Mr. Raynor (agent for the applicant): I would presume that it would be three lots, the last lot remainig you could declare either a fourth lot or a second section. However, it is the intent of the applicant not to develop the remainder of the property. I would imagine in the future, the applicant and his wife are elderly, so it could be put on the market. But there is no intent whatsoever to develop the remaining 9 acres. Planning Board Page 16 11/9/87 Mr. Raynor: Mr. Orlowski: help you out. Mr. Raynor: I will try, thank you gentlemen. Well, we will word it in a little different way to Thankyou. On a motion made by Mr. Ward, seconded by Mr. Latham, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the sketch map for the minor subdivision.of Frank-~ - Sawicki for 4 lots on 12.1 acres located at Sound View Avenue and North Road, Southold, survey to be amended to include all 12.-1 acres. SCTM ~ 1000-51-6-3.1. Vote of the Board; Ayes; Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards On a motion made by Mr. Ward, seconded by Mr. Mullen, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the lot line change for Walter and Marilyn~Gatz located at Mattituck, survey dated June 25,1987. SCTM # 1000-121-1-4.1. Vote of the Board: Ayes; Orlowski, Mullen, latham, Ward, Edwards On a motion made by Mr. Mullsn, seconded by Mr. Edwards, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board authorize the Chairman to endorse the lot line change for Code and Nelson 10~ated at Southotd, SCTM ~ 1000-76-2,3, and 4. Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards Mr. Orlowski: Next, we have Charles Acres. Board to grant an extension on the filing of'the final maps of this major subdivision located at Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM ~ 1000-86-1-10.3. What is the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Latham: How long of an extension. Mr. Orlowski: It does not state, but you can put that in the resolution. They are having trouble with the County, the applicant did call me and they are d.ealing with test wells and eveything for the water so On a motion made by Mr. Latham, seconded by Mr. Ward, it was Planning Board Page 17 11/9/87 RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a 90-day extension for filinq the final maps for the major subdivision of Charles Acres located at Wells Road, Peconic, ~CTM # 1000-86-1-10.3. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards ON a motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Latham, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, November 23, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall as the time and place for the p~btic.hearinqi~on.~he~question of approval of the preliminary maps for this major subdivision located at Southold, f~r~ Henry~>Arb~eny3~ SCTM ~ 1000-59-7~31. Vote of the~Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Zatham, Ward, Edwards On a motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Ward, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, November 23, 1987 at 7:45 p.m. at~the Southold Town Hall, as the time and place for.,_the public hearinq on the question of approval of the minor subdivision~or Golf ~iew Estames located at East Marion, SCTM #1000-35-2-p/o16. Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski,Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards On a motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Ward, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board accept ~he engineers report for the-final inspection on the access road for~3the~minor subdivision of MacKenzie, Peluso, Ram Realty, et~]. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski,Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards Mr. Latham: The Building Department had a qqestion before, that is only the road report. Mr. Lessard: You are telling me known that you have accepted a road in the middle of a one lot subdivision. Is that correct. Mr. Latham: Yes. Mr. Orlowski: Just one lot. Mr. Lessa~d: Okay, we are looking at one lot that is what the certificate of occupancy will read at the moment if it ever gets to that point. Mr. Orlowski: Right. Mr. Latham:~ The road originally went up the east/west property Planning Board Page 18 11/9/87 line but because of a proposed east/west road which was knocked out so the road only goes~a few feet Short~. Mr. Orlowski: It is~still'-o~e-16t~now-Vic. Mr. latham: Is that okay for us to do that? Mr. Orlowski: Yes, it is only one lot, there are no more building permits, to be issued there, unless the subdivision is approved. Mr. Lessard: That is what i wanted to make clear, we are looking at a one lot subdivision at the moment. Mr. Orlowski: Okay, I would, watch the setbacks though. Mr. Lessard: I am watching the set backs. Hillcrest Estates Section I (SCTM # 1000-13-2-1,3",8 Mr. Orlowski: Next, we have Hillcrest Estates. In Hillcrest, we have another inspection report. The inspection disclosed that the grading and shoulder area behind the curb has not been completed to date but the curbing, drainage and roadway paving has been completed as per the specifications and we recommend acceptance of this portion. I believe the applicant is asking if he can ~et building permits in this subdivis~ion since ~he roads are complete, the only thing left is the seeding° The question to the Board is, do you want to recommend to the Building Department that ~ give out the building permits as he finishes out the seeding. Mr. Ward: Did anybody from the Board 100k at this? Mr. Mullen: Yes, we did this morning. Mr. Edwards: He won't be able to do any seeding this time of year. ~r. Latham~ The seeding is not all of it, there were alot of things not eompleted. Mr. Mul~en: ~ don~t understand why we accept portions of a subdivision work. For, example this~-one, the three of us went out ~his morning. The drainage is not to grade, in other wo~ds, if we feel that there is going to be another level of road way put down the ~ain is at least 2 sometimes 3" above the paving. And, the paving is faulty in many areas if they are not£going to put it down, no way could we ever accept that road. There was one pplace in particular where it was 4~of 5 inches d~ep where there was nothing at all but sand. Mr. Wa~d: Why don't we show that in our memorandum. Mr. Orlowski: Valerie, you had some comments here also too from your inspection. Do you wan~ me to go over them. ~s. Scopaz: Yes. Planning Board Page 19 11/9/87 Mr. Orlwoski: Valerie also noted that there was onl~ one leaching pool where four were required. Segeral catch basins were above grade: 9, 10, 11, 12, 13~14, 15. Grading and seeding of the land within and around the drainage area have not been completed in accord&nce to the ptan~ The fill within the park area should be graded and seeded. The fire well has not been put in. Eighty street trees have not been installed a~d street signs are not in place. Mr. Ward: Therefore. Mr. Orlowski: Therefore, it is not complete. The applicant said that since the road is done, those other things ~hould be done laterr What is the Board's pleasure? Mr. Lessard: I don't want to comment pro or con, but I had a problem today on Harbor Lights 4 that was developed in the last 70's. The drainage was never finished. The lots were dumped eff to individuals. The developer really don't give a fiddler's damn anymore. I can not release any building permits on this since it has not been accpted and I ~hink I agree with Mr. Mullen, a parti&l.~.is nonsense, really. Mr. Orlowski: I think the Board's pot~y is finish it and then get your building permits. Because we are getting stuck too many times too often,and I believe this is another on~ of his subdivisions where you are having the problem. Mr. Lessard: It is. Mr. Mullen: Finish the Whole thing. Mr. Latham: The base coat, I don't know h~w thick it is supposed to be but the base blacktop coat looked awfully thin. Mr. Lessard: W~ll, the engineer should check the base, because if the base isn't proper'~, the rest of it will n~er stay there. That is an engineering aspect. Mr. O~16wski: W~lt, the enqineer says the job is not"fini~hed and I<~don't think the board is in any position to recommend any t~pe of approval for a building permit at %his poin~ in time, un[il the job is finished. Mr. Ward: I think our leter to him ought to itemize those other items. Mr. Orlowski: Yes, from Mr. Latham and Mr. Mullen and Ms. Scopaz's report which our engineer must have missed. Planning Board Page 20~ 11/9/87 Samuel and Eliza Kopper SCTM ~ 1000-86-4-1~2 Mr. Orlowski; Next, we have Samuel Kopper. Mr. Mullen: Mr. Chairman, I have to abstain because my daugher is involved with the applicant under contract. Mr. Orlowski: We have a report, the construc%ion~ha~-.been completed as required and it is finished and recommend acceptance. This one is a finished job. You can authorize me to sign the maps but the covenants have not been fi~ed yet, as soon as they are, I will do so, it you want to make.a motion. On a motion made by Mr. Latha~, seconded by Mr. Edwards, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board authorizetthe Chairman to ~ndorse the minor subdivision map fox Samuel K.C. and Eliza Kopper subject to receipt of the covenants and restrictions signed and filed with~the Suffolk County Clerk's Office. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski,Latham, Ward, Edwards Abstained: Mullen On a motion made by Mr. Latham, seconded byMr. Hdwards, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board accept the enginners report with regard to the final inspectionon the access road within the minor subdivision for S~muel K. C. Kopper and Eliza Kopper located at Peconic. SCTM # 1000-86-4-1.2 Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Latham, Ward, Edwards Abstained: Mullen Laurel Aake Way: Mr. Orto~ski: Laurel Lake Way, Board to accept the engineers report on the final inspection of the access raod, located at L~urel. Inspection was conduct~d~by Mr. Dean and Mr. Heffernan. In our letter of August we indicated the first t50'~lfnear feet of Sound avenue be reconstructed to obtain~an acceptable right-of-way_and surface. We find the corrections outlined in th~s report have been made and recommend acceptance. Mr. Scopaz: Has anybgdy on the Board looked at it. Mr. Orlowski: I have not looked~at. That is an existing right-of,way tha~ was pretty well brought up t~ snuff six months ago wasn't it Victor. Planning Board Page 21 11/9/87 Mr. Lessard: That was the one when we came out, that was the one we came down when we went to look at Adam and we came around and we came out, that was what we were talking about. · think that probably, and again maybe I am over reacting we should accept the condition of the road that the road where~it is. If that makes sense. Accepting the condition of the road itself and not where.~the placement of the road is. Mr. Orlowski: We do~kno~that they do have access over this road? Mr. Lessard: Yes. Mr. Orlowski: For a fact it is the adjoining parcel which does not have access over this road which is in litigation. Which, would like to get to the lot across the street but can't. So, I am sure this will make everybody happy on the other side of the ro6d but won't do anything for the issuance of a building?permit because they can't use that road. Am I right? Mr. Lessard: Yes, everything to the East. I think that probably and again it is only a suggestion that.when we accept something like this it should be a clause put in there to be continually maintained as such from the point of acceptance because we have a tendancy to let it go to hell the minute we get what we want. You run a fire truck or ambulance theresa year from now and you look like you are inca war zoRe. Mr. Orlowski: I think ~hat for our own, and following up on something that Mr. Lessard has brought out stated i~'~the motion subject to the applicant providing us proof that he has access to said property over this right of way. We don't have it in this file right now. I am sure that%Mr. Lessard will make sure that they have it when they go for their building permit, but we should have it for our files also just in case. Mr. Lessard: It is in litigation because strange as it may seem Chicago Title guaranteed both~sides of the fence. How'they are going to pro~e it , I don't kn~w. Mr. Orlowski: Well, that part we can't worry about and we still can't approve that part. Mr. Lessard: No%.~ Mr. ©~lowski:But, if they have use o~er that right-of-way, I don't think this Board can hold it up. Mr. Lessard: Well, the placement, when Sundown Farms applied for it, they had the ~$~ht-of-way on his property to the West. Mr. Orlowski: And nobody wantS~to build that right~of-way. Mr. Lessard: Well, he claims to have a title guarantee that the right-of-way is on~i~his property. Mr. Ortowski: W~ll, at this point we~are goin~ to move on. Planning Board Page 22 11/9/87 On~a mOtion:.made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Latham, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board accept the engineers report for the'~final inspection of the access road at Laurel to be known as "Laurel Lake Way" subject to the applicant (Gatz) submitting proof of the right-of-way over the access road. Vote of the~Board; Ayes; Ortowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards Walsh Park Benevlant Association Fishers Island Mr. Orlowski: Next, we have Walsh Park Benevolant Association. Board to take action on this set off located at Fishers Island.' Mr. Edwards, do you want to make any comments at this time? Mr. Edwards: Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Edwards: No, I think everything is in order for this first phase. Is this 80,000 square fee%? Well, it is going to be merged with that other piece of property next to it, it will not be a separate building lot. I think it is stated right on the map. No separate building lot to be created. To be conveyed to Grebe. Mr. Lessard: Is that part of FIDCO? Mr. Edwards: No, this is outside of it. This is for the piece that is going to be year round affordable housing. Mr. Orlowski: So, we are not going to be gcreating another separate building~ot? Mr. Ward: No, it is going to be merged. Mr. Orlowski: Okay, do you want to just put that in the resolution so that i~ is there. ©n.a motin made by Mr. Edwardsr seconded by Mr~ Ward, it was RESOVLED that the~Southold Town Planning/-Boa~d approve the set off for Annette Zabohonski located at Fishers Island to convey property to Grebe, subject'to-~said property conveyance to merge land with existing house lot of Grebe. Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards Nicholas Schick SCTM ~ 1000-15-9-2.6 Mr. Orlowski: Next, Nicholas Schick, Board to provide comment to the NYS Department of Environmenta~ Conservation_within the comment period to expire on November 20, 1987 with regard to the application Planning Board Page 23 11/9/87 pending with~>that agency. Major subdivisionlocated at Orient. In talking with Mr. Yakaboski, E~q. this evening before the Board meeting and Mr. Emilita the other day, we will hold this until they get together and find out exactly what they can do. Mr. Emitita has a few comments that we will have to run by Mr. Yakaboski to make sure that we 'can proceed that way. And; we~have enough~time to wait for the next Friday. Mr. Emiti~a~will be responding within the comments period and we can do this at the next public m~et~ng. Mr. Lessard: I do't ~hink that you need a public meeting for this you can respond at one of the_-afternoon sessions. Mr. Orlowski: Well, going over it with David, I think we will be looking for reversal of our decision. But, we don't have his comments, and our Town attorney can not make a~resotution until we have those comments. So, we probably will have to have a special meeting. We will do~i~.~on Friday, unless you ~ould j~st like take his comments and send them over, would that be alright. Mr. Latham: Let's wait. Mr. Ward: We can have a special meeting on F~iday. Mr. Orlowski: Okay, this F~iday at 3:30 we will have a special meeting. Sal Prato SCTM # 1000-53-2-6 Mr. Orlowsi: Okay, Sal Prato, Board to take final action and authorize the Chairman to~,~endorse the site plan for construction of an electrical contractors shop located at Greenport. We did not get the revised plans submitted. So, therefore, we can not act on it. Mr. Ward: What are we missing? Mr. Orlowski: We are asking that th~ stamp be put on the map and not on the copy. Mr. Wiggons stated to~me that he would have it in. Was there something else on Prato? Ms. Scopaz: He was supposed to show the street trees. He had agreed to that but now shown on the map and we asked him s~mply to show that. Mr. Ward: Why don't we approve it subject to. On a motion made by Mr. Ward, seconded by Mr. Latham, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Plannings,Board approve the autho~ize the Chairman to endorse the site plan for Sal Prato for construction of an electrical contractors shop located at Greenport, SCTM ~ 1000 53-2-6 subject to receipt of amended surveys showing street trees as well as a stamp and signature of a licensed surveyor~or engineer on the survey. Vote of the~Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards Planning Board Page 24 11/19/87 Southold Tennis Club¥ SCTM ~ 1000-59-3-32.1 Mr. Orlowski: Southold Tennis Club. Board to take action on the amended site ptan for a tennis club located at Sou%hold. I think everything is in order to refer this to the Building Department for certification. Mr. Ward: Why don't we approve it subject to? Mr. Orlow~ki: Okay, On a motion~made by Mr. Ward, seconded by Mr. Mullen, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the amended site plan for Southold Tennis Club located at Southold, survey dated as~ecei~ed Oct. 30~ 1987 subject to certification by the Building Department as well as including perimeter landscaping as per the previous app~ou~d-~site plan. Vote of the Board: Ayes; Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Wa~d, Edwards Mrs. Alice Hussie was present and questioned the Board's resolution with regard to the request for screening and landscaping. It was explained that all landscaping as per the approved site plan must be shown on the amended site plan proposal. St~awherr~F~etds!-_ Eugene and Julian Davision SCTM ~ 1000-121-3-5 On a motion made by Mr. Ward, seconded by Mr. ~atham, ~following action was taken: WHEREAS, a formal application for the~-,approval of a subdivision plat, entitled "Strawberry Fields" for Eugene and Juliana Dav~son was submitted to thecPlanning Board on August 26, 1983 and filing fee was paidn, and WHEREAS, a final public hearing was held on said ~division and plat at the Southold Town Hall, Main Raod, Southold, N~w YOrk on Monday, October 19, 1987 at 7:30 p.m., and WHEREAS, the requierm~nts of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Southold have ben met by said subdivision plat and application, NOW, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the application of Eugene and Juliana Davison for approval of said subdivision plat prepared by Rod Van TuyI and dated January 7, 198~ be approved and the Chairman be authorized to endorse approval on said subdivision plat. Vote of tbs Board: Ayes; Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards Planning Board Page 25 11/9/87 Being no further business to come before, the Board, on a motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Wa~d, and~'¢arried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. R~spectfully submitted, ennett Orlo~ski, Jr. an / ~L.~.=,.,tgIVED AND FILED BY ~i:~ SOD~HOLD TOWN CLERK DATE 7/~7 HOUR~qA;D;q~ Town Cl,rk, Town of 8o~ld