Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-07/16/2001PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR, Chairman RICHARD CAGGIANO WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN SIDOR P.O. Box 1179 Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1938 Fax (631) 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES July 16, 2001 6:00 p.m. Present were: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Richard Caggiano William J. Cremers Kenneth L. Edwards George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer Carol Kalin, Secretary Chairman Orlowski: Good evening. I'd like to call this meeting to order. The first order of business is for the Board to set Monday, August 13, 2001, at 6:00 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, as the time and place for the next regular P!anning Board Meeting. Mr. Latham: Second the motion. Chairman Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham. Chairman Orlowski: Opposed? The motion carries. PUBLIC HEARINGS Subdivisions Chairman Odowski: 6:00 P.M. Island Health Project, Inc. - This proposed lot line change is to merge a 10,890 sq. ft. parcel, SCTM#1000-9-2-6.2, with a 12,565 sq. ft. Southold Town Plannin.q Board Page Two July 16, 2001 parcel, SCTM#1000-9-2-8, creating a 23,455 sq. ft. parcel. The properties are located at the north corner of Oriental Avenue and Crescent Avenue on Fishers Island. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board: As previously stated, I would like to excuse myself for the next two items on the agenda because I am on both boards. Chairman Orlowski: O.K. to Mr. Edwards request. Any comments? Patricia Moore, Esq., Main Road, Southold: I have the Affidavit of Posting for your clerk and I also have a Memorandum of Facts for the Board so that you can make it part of your record. I presented one to Mr. Matthews who represents the Anthoine Family. To begin with, this is a very simple simplistic application of a lot line change. A lot - in law school - we use to call them red herrings because there are false issues that are meant to distract you from the issue before you. The objectants have raised several false issues that we wish to clarify and correct. I have put the Memorandum together which deals with some of those issues and gives you the law, as I understand it, and the procedures that the Planning Board followed in 1978 when all of this took place. And on Fishers Island, nothing is ever simple so we hope that it will clarify some of the points that were raised of which I would imagine you are going to incorporate into the record since today is the official start of the public hearing process. So I will ask that any comments that were made - I am sure that Mr. Matthews will ask that they be incorporated - and I, too, would like to incorporate any comments that were brought up at that time. Very briefly, the Chairman was certainly on the Board and many of you were on the Board in 1978 and, really, in 1978, there was no provision for lot line changes. It was for the most part major subdivisions, minor subdivisions. And, in fact, in 1980 when I went back in the resolutions of the Planning Board minutes and the procedures that you followed, you only began - in 1980 you codified the procedures and I should clarify for the Board and to the Town Board - because these were all ratified by the Town Board that even set-offs were - there was a quick procedure before the Planning Board; there were certain issues that you might consider on the set-off that was to split a property and set off - to take a portion of another piece of property and be able to then develop it separately. That is not the case here. The Fishers Island Utilities Company merely transferred to adjacent owners that piece of property that they owned and had as surplus. They offered it to the Anthoine Family for that portion of the land that abutted their property and to what they perceived was the owner of the health clinic which was believed to be Island Health Project but, in fact, had been retained by the Civic Association because that's just how things sometimes work on Fishers Island. Sometimes the paperwork just does not get wrapped up. Certainly the intention appears, from everything that we have reviewed in the record, that the intention would have been to convey it to that adjacent property owner - that is Fishers Island Civic Association. So now we are before you - at this point, the objectants claim that somehow they have some interest beyond what would be a normal adjacent property owner's right to object Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Three July 16, 2001 or right to make comments to this Board. They claim some kind of ownership interest. That is completely false and just uncredible and I would hope that you would look at the facts, look at the memorandum and agree with me. In addition, some of the fights that have occurred to try to interfere with the development of this property has been a filing of the Attorney General's Office. I don't want go into all of the details with respect to that. That is being dealt with at the Attorney General's Office but I thought that you should have, for your benefit and for the record, the response to certain claims that were being made to the Attorney General's Office and I think that the Memorandum that was prepared in response, in a sense an answer, to the complaint filed with the Attorney General's Office deals in great detail, and very eloquently, the history of the Island Health Project, the history of health care on Fishers Island, and the need for this project. So I would hope that you would please review everything in your file and certainly approve the application that has been submitted to you. Do you have any questions? Chairman Orlowski: They purchased this property? Patricia Moore, Esq.: They being? Chairman Orlowski: The Island Health Project. Patrica Moore, Esq.: The whole piece? No, well right now, the deed has not been transferred. Island Health Project owns 6.2; Fishers Island Civic Association still owns the doctor's office. What they are going to be dealing with at the Attorney General's Office and corporate counsel will be deciding whether or not one can transfer - either Island Health can transfer it to Civic, Civic can transfer it to Island Health. If it works, it cannot be for corporate reasons or State Law reasons - it cannot be transferred - then it will be down as a joint project. It's clear that Civic Association has been the owner of this property since its inception in the 50's and the Island Health Project has been since about this time - in '77, '78 they were incorporated and started the management and control and contracting for the medical services. So, that issue really is not relevant to this Board. You can have two property owners - that if they choose to put their property together and develop it as one, that's not your decision to make. If that is how they want to do it, that's fine. If they choose to transfer it all into one name, so be it. But that issue really - you have to deal with the lot line modification to determine whether or not the Town - it would be in the best interest of the Town to treat this as one piece of property in order to accomplish the goals of an expansion and modification to the existing doctor's office. Chairman Orlowski: Is it one piece of property with two owners? Patricia Moore: Technically, it still has a separate tax map number and it is still under separate title. But the application before your Board was made by both entities seeking to put the two properties together either defacto, by title putting a meets and bounds description around the whole thing or together they jointly develop the property. That's certainly something that can be done. It won't interfere, in a sense, with the expansion of the project or addition that is being proposed. At this point now, everybody has their own deeds. Nothing has been formally done. Southold Town Planninq Board Page Four July 16, 2001 Chairman OrloWSki: O.K. Would anyone else like to make a comment? Richard Mathew, Esq., Main Street, Bridgehampton, on behalf of Windham Resources, LLC, owner of the property adjoining the FICA and IHP property and also representing Nina Leth, Edith Anthoine and Nelson Anthoine, principals of the Windam Resources. I would also join in Ms. Moore's request that the comments made at the last time we were here back in June or May be incorporated into this matter and, for the record, I handed you another copy of the Memorandum and I have also distributed one to Counsel for the proponent. Our objection is grounded in jurisdictional issues. In the first instance as was previously communicated with you, we don't believe that a defactive subdivision creates a subdivision. We think it is an illegal subdivision, and as such, we do not believe that the owners of a portion of illegally subdivided land can act upon the half of that land which respect to merging it, selling it - selling it perhaps but merging it or having other legal treatment of it applies. We don't believe that that gives you jurisdiction - the mere fact that there is a tax map number or a piece of property, particularly where Counsel has agreed that it was subdivided without benefit of any approvals or any applications whatsoever. So, we feel that it is an undivided lot - both of those tiny little strips - one of which is owned by my client and the other of which is owned by IHP - and since my clients have not and will not join in the application without proof of who has jurisdiction. There are other issues that are involved here. Counsel for the proponents has spoken about the complaints of the Attorney General's Office that were filed by one of my clients in connection with this matter, and as I previously pointed out to you and I believe I have given you documents, if you have not made a copy of the complaint part of your record, I would like an opportunity to do so. One of the issues that was raised in that complaint is that the Certificate of Incorporation of Island Health Project specifically states that it may not operate a health clinic. Moreover, clinic as it is defined in the Zoning Code, is not a permitted use so I think that when we ask ourselves why this application is here - what's the purpose of it, there's a question mark that seems to be unsolvable at least in my mind - how can you approve an action that you don't have jurisdiction to approve for a project that is not permitted under your Zoning Code? I am a little bit stumped by that. There is a case on this and I cited that in my memo - Fullum (sp.?) against Prognent (sp.?), an Appellate Division, Second Department case which is still good law. The Court was asked to consider whether a subdivision sponsor was required to join in the petition to the Village of Ladingtown (sp.?) Planning Board to partition a lot that was physically separated from a larger area of land owned by the divider, the developer. The application was submitted solely by the contract vendee of a portion of the lot proposed to be partitioned. In holding as a sponsor, who also owned the lot that was the subject of application with the indispensable party to the application, the Court said the owner and subdivider did not join in the petition or appear at the public hearing nor was any authority from the owner alleged or provided by petitioner. Hence, no jurisdiction could be exercised over it by the Planning Board. The regulations of the Planning Board provide that no person from a corporation proposing to make, or have made a subdivision, shall proceed with any development until he or she has obtained from the Planning Board approval of the proposed subdivision or development proceedings to the procedure outlined in the regulation. What the courts says is that if it Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Five July 16, 2001 doesn't have your approval to be a subdivided lot, you can't merge it with something and that, again, is still with law. I think that is really the big issue. In your Zoning Code, Section 100-13 says that the application form for an application for development of property and all accompanying documents and exhibits required of an applicant by approving authority for development must be supplied and signed by all owners. Now, we believe that we are an owner of that property since it has not been legally divided and we have not joined with the application, again, nor do we propose to. Applicant is further defined in 100-13 as the landowner or agent optioning as that purchaser or other person authorized to write in fact for the landowner. We have not nor will we join in the application. Substintively, I think that this presents a problem for you because since not all of the owners have joined in the application, and your Code requires the landowner to join in the application, I think the lack of jurisdiction - you take both your Code and the case that I cited and I will be happy to send a copy of it to Counsel to your Board so that they will have it in front of them to refer to. Beyond the jurisdictional defect in the application, my clients object to IHP's plan for the property. It is, as the Chairman has pointed out, if you were to grant the merger, the consolidation of these two parcels - you would have a 23;000 and odd square foot parcel in a Residential Zoning District that requires a minimum of 40,000 square feet. There is a structure on the property and what is proposed is to more than double the existing structure. Now that is a Zoning Board issue. I understand that, but I think you need to take a look at that as part of your thinking about this. If you are assuming argumendo that I am correct, that you don't have the jurisdiction, well, we all go home. Assuming I am wrong, and you do have the jurisdiction, what do you do? You are putting together some parcels that then require a trip to the Zoning Board for a use variance and then a trip back to you for your site plan on this. I think that that, when you take a look at the nuts and bolts of what is going on for a corporation that doesn't own the land, to enter into a contract, build a facility that is legally not permitted to build or operate on land that is owned by a civic association that does not have the Attorney General's authority to convey that property, you have to ask yourself what is this all about and why really are we here? Counsel has made a very outstanding presentation to you. She has prepared a memo which I have not obviously had a chance to read and which I would respectfully request an opportunity, not only to read but to respond to before you made any decision. I still just don't get it. I mean we are going around and around. There may be insufficient legal justification for us to be here. There certainly is a question as to whether IHP has the authority to act on this thing. There is a question in from of the Attorney General as to whether the Fishers Island Civic Association can transfer its' property without the vote of all of the members of the Civic Association of which the Anthoines are members. So you know, as a practical matter, where are we going with this thing? Again, it is a prohibited use, so I would respectfully ask you to take all of those things into consideration. I would also state that I don't believe that those are red herrings. I think that those are really serious legal impediments not only to your acting on the application but to the application going anywhere, except away. If FICA has transferred the lot to IHP, it is in violation of its' charter. If IHP operates a clinic, it is in violation of its' charter. If they go to Zoning Board and get a use variance which, as a Southold Town Planninq Board Page Six July 16, 2001 former chairman of a zoning board, I can tell you is almost a legal impossibility - you know what the standard on that is, that there is other possible use for that property which I think we can all assume that, safely, it can be sold as a residence. So, I mean I think that that could be so what are you going to do about this thing? I mean that as a rhetorical question - think about this: illegal, immoral probably fattening and I think that, you know, what we are doing here is just buying into a larger lawsuit a larger set of criterias and difficulties between the parties for something that - I don't mean to say the inhabitants of Fishers Island don't have a right to have health care but I mean I think that this is going way above and beyond what their needs are. There is a practicing doctor there and not getting into the bone and findings of it, I mean, if you take a look at documents that have been submitted to you, there are some serious legal issues here but not red herrings and I don't want to belabor this. I would respectfully again ask that we have an opportunity to review and respond to Counsel's memo and I ask that you put this over any further determination, keep it open for all purposes until the next meeting. If you have any questions, I would be delighted to answer them. Chairman Orlowski: You say your client was a member of FIDCO at the time this was transferred from FIDCO. to - Richard Matthews, Esq.: No, they were not a member of FtDCO; they are members of FICA. Chairman Orlowski: FICA. O.K.. Mr. Matthews: Thank you. Patricia Moore, Esq.: I would like to briefly respond. The Anthoine Family somehow or another claims ownership after they benefited, enjoyed, paid taxes on and used a property that was split in 1978. We are not here before you for a lot line change or a subdivision application between Anthoine and Fishers Island Health Project. We are here between Fishers Island Health Project and the Civic Association. The Anthoine lot line change, as I said, occurred in 1978. If they had objections, they could have objected at that time. They could have come in and done whatever they felt was appropriate in 1978. I think they would have found that in 1978 this Planning Board would have looked at them and said well, what do you want - you have a lot line change even if presumably they wanted to develop it as a separate parcel, they could have gone through what would be a set-off, a lesser subdivision procedure. It is not a subdivision - what he is using are subdivision definitions of today for an action that was done in 1978. What is appropriate is to look at what the definition of a subdivision was in 1978. Was the action that was taken in 1978 between Anthoine and presumably the Fishers Island Utility Company, the utility company that transferred to Anthoine and to Island Health Project - was that a legal action? Was that something that this Board should be concerned about? I say no. That occurred statue of limitations, arguments, equity, they are going to be hard pressed, I think, to convince a judge that the action in '78 somehow or another gives them - is nullified and that they have some ownership interest in the property that they have no relationship to at this point. Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Seven July 16, 2001 As far as the Zoning Board issues, we are going to be dealing with - we have an existing doctor's office; it is known as the clinic, health clinic. It is an existing doctor's office with all of the - that is the health care on the island. We merely want to expand it. The degree that we expand it will be the subject of the Zoning Board application. We have a pre-existing use there which we are entitled to extend if we want. We are also entitled to seek variances. That, again, will be before the Zoning Board of Appeals; it's not before this Board and this Board has no say about it. The lot that we are expanding or that we are seeking to enlarge is a Fishers Island Civic Association property by the use of the Island Health Project property. You are taking a half acre and adding to it another half acre. You are going to enlarge so you're reducing the nonconformity. So, again, all these arguments that he is raising - first he has to use 1978 law and other issues are before the Zoning Board. They have no standing here as a co-owner. Chairman Orlowski: O.K. Any other comments? I really don't want to make it a debate. Do you have something new that you want to say? Richard Matthews, Esq.: Yes, ldo. Richard Mathews, Main Street, Bridgehampton, on behalf of the opposition. The transfer of 1978 was incorrectly done. I think that any benefit, any boot-strapping, that one could attempt to take from that action is nullified by the fact that it was deeded to the wrong property owner - to the wrong entity, so I think that what you are faced with is looking at it in today's law because it was not accomplished in 1978. The deed to IHP is ineffective because the owner of the main parcel - the dominant tenement is FICA. There is not an identity of character. I think that belies on Mrs. Moore's argument. The second issue is that the transfer of $700.00 ~ there was never any kind of representation on a seven hundred dollar transfer that was a buildable parcel that could be used. The Anthoines certainly never assumed that there was any buildability issue on it. It is a strip that is actually mostly encumbered by caping on Main Street. I think that the quarter acre lot was never intended to be built upon and that was the impression that my clients have from that transaction. Again, I don't want to take all your time. There are other people here with other matters. I respectfully request that this be held open for all purposes until the next meeting so that we can respond to Counsel's memo. Chairman Orlowski: All right, there have been a lot of good questions brought up tonight. We are going to have to talk with Counsel and find out where we go from here. We will take all the information that you both brought in and review it with Counsel. We are going to entertain a motion to leave this hearing open. Mr. Cremers: Second. Chairman Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Latham. (Mr. Edwards abstained.) Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Eight July 16, 2001 Chairman Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. Site Plans Chairman Orlowski: 6:05 p.m. - Ferquson Museum - This proposed site plan is for a 4,036 sq. ft. expansion of the existing museum. The property is located on Equestrian Avenue on Fishers Island. SCTM#1000-9-4-11.1 Mr. Edwards has recused himself and left the room. Is there anyone here who has any comments on this site plan? Hearing none, any questions from the Board? (There were Bone.) Chairman Orlowski: Hearing no questions, I will entertain a motion to close the hearing. (The hearing was closed at 6:29 p.m.) Mr. Ca.q.qiano: So moved. Ritchie Latham: Second. Chairman Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Latham. Chairman Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. Does the Board have any pleasure? Mr. Cremers: Mr. Chairman, 1'11 offer the following: WHEREAS, this proposed site plan, to be known as site plan for the Ferguson Museum, is to construct a 4,036 square foot expansion to the existing museum; and WHEREAS, the Henry L. Ferguson Museum, Inc. is the owner of the property known and designated as the Ferguson Museum, Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island, SCTM#1000-9-4-11.1; and WHEREAS, a formal application for the approval of this site plan was submitted on April 4, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board has determined that this action is a Type II Action and not subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8), Part 617; and WHEREAS, this site plan, last revised June 26, 2001, was certified by the Building Inspector on July 16, 2001; and Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Nine July 16, 2001 WHEREAS, a variance was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 7, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Committee has reviewed the elevation drawings and the Planning Board has accepted their recommendation for approval on April 5, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Chapter 58, Notice of Public Hearing, has received affidavits that the applicant has complied with the notification provisions; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant final approval on the surveys, dated March 6, 2001, and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final surveys subject to a one year review from the date of building permit. Mr. Latham: Second. Chairman Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Latham. Chairman Orlowski: Opposed? The motion carries. Chairman Orlowski: 6:10 p.m. - Penny Lumber - This proposed site plan is for a 5,400 sq. ft. private warehouse and a future 5,400 sq. ft. private warehouse. The property is located on the corner of Main Road and Kerwin Boulevard in Greenport. SCTM#1000- 53-2-21,25, 25.1 & 27.1 Does anyone here wish to make any comment on this site plan? George Penny: Good evening, my name is George Penny and I am here to answer any questions that the Board or anyone else may have at this time. Chairman Orlowski: Does the Board have any questions? (There were none.) Anyone else like to make a comment? Robert Kassner: Mr. Chairman, the modifying of one of the whereas would indicate that the black top would not be placed in the proximity of the new warehouse? George Penny: The black top? Southold Town Planninq Board Page Ten July 16, 2001 Robert Kassner: The site plan shows black top but Mr. Latham informed me that maybe perhaps you won't have time to do that in that area? George Penny: If there was anything in the area of the new warehouse which is not in my immediate plans - it is just a future warehouse then, obviously, the black top would be removed. Robert Kassner: I think the black top I am referring to is at the existing warehouse - you're planning to build on Kerwin? Georqe Penny: Yes. Robert Kassner: It shows on the site plan black top area directly to the north of that building. I believe Mr. Latham, when he talked to you, indicated that maybe you weren't going to replace that black top in front of that building? George Penny: The black top will be everywhere except for the swale areas. Robert Kassner: Oh, then we misunderstood. O.K. Chairman Orlowski: Any other comments? (There were none.) Then, I would like to entertain a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Ca.q.qiano: So moved. Mr. Cremers: Second. Chairman Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham. Chairman Orlowski: Opposed? The motion carries. (The hearing was closed at 6:32 p.m.) Does the Board have any pleasure? Mr. Latham: Mr. Chairman, Ill offer this: WHEREAS, this proposed site plan, to be known as site plan for Penny Lumber, is for a 5,400 square foot private warehouse and a future 5,400 square foot private warehouse; and WHEREAS, George L. Penny, Inc. is the owner of the property known and designated as Penny Lumber, Main Road, Greenport, SCTM#1000-53-2-21,25, 25.1 & 27.1; and Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Eleven July 16, 2001 WHEREAS, a formal application for the approval of this site plan was submitted on January 25, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (6NYCRR), Part 617, makes a determination that this project is a Type II Action and not subject to the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); and WHEREAS, a front and side yard setback variance was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 7, 2001; and WHEREAS, this site plan, last revised March 27, 2001, was certified by the Building Inspector on July 16, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Committee has approved the elevation drawings on June 26, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Chapter 58, Notice of Public Hearing, has received affidavits that the applicant has complied with the notification provisions; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board authorize the Chairman to endorse the final survey, dated July 14, 2001, subject to a one year review from date of building permit. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Chairman Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham. Chairman Orlowski: Opposed? The motion carries. Hearings Held Over From Previous Meeting Mr. Orlowski: Cross Sound Ferry - This proposed new site plan is to amend the June 6, 1995 site plan for the Cross Sound Ferry Company Terminal. The subject site encompasses three parcels located on the west and east sides of SR 25 at its eastern- most terminus in Orient. SCTM#1000-15-9-10.1, 11.1 and 15.1 Southold Town Planninq Board Page Twelve July 16, 2001 We're also here to review the Environmental Assessment Form, Part 3, and addressing the revised site plan application. It's in; it's been deemed complete by this Board. It's been out for public review. We will not make a decision tonight because this is the comment period and we'll also have the next meeting for any other comments that are being brought up - new comments. Right now, I'll ask for any comments on the site plan or the Environmental Assessment Form. Thor Hanson, President, Southold Citizens for Safe Roads: We, of Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, hope that all of you on the Planning Board understand that we're spending this time - and a lot of our supporters are here tonight - in this effort with one basic purpose and that's to try to get you, the Planning Board, and also the Town Board and the ZBA, if necessary, to stand up for the citizens and residents of Southold Town by getting some control over what we feel is an unstinted growth of Cross Sound Ferry which is a Connecticut company which we don't believe has a lot of interest in the welfare of our citizens over here as they continue to expand in their business. We're very disappointed to having read the Consultant's report - your Consultant's report - to see that he's recommending, as far as we can see, that you - the Planning Board - accept Cross Sound's submission without the proper environmental review, the SEQR. Why is that disappointing to us? We've got quite a few reasons. One is that it's perhaps the biggest and the most disruptive commercial operation in Southold and it's never been through any environmental review. Ever. And your Consultant - the same Consultant- back in 1996 said that the project is located adjacent to the surface waters in Gardiner's Bay which comprises a portion of Peconic Bay Estuary, and thus, within the Orient Point critical environmental area. And that's the key point and I don't think you really believe that the withdrawal of the Trust Property, as it was in it before, changes any one word of that finding that your Consultant found in '96. Cross Sound's own site description for this site plan states that the site is located in or substantially contiguous to a critical environmental area and I just want to emphasize that. The second point - the third point, actually - is that we believe that you are allowing Cross Sound to piecemeal their various applications: '95 the West Lot that you approved - the Planning Board approved that without any environmental look and ......... (tape disturbance) false pretenses because it was put in for it to be for employees and overflow and now they want to get the - you approved it at that time - and now they're asking to put the Snack Bar Lot and get that in an approved site plan - it's never had a site plan before, as you know, and SEQRA prohibits that kind of piecemeal which is still going on, it would appear to us. Actually, the status of the Snack Bar Lot itself is still in dispute. We, at SCSR, appealed through the ZBA the August 14, 2000 memo you got, Benny. It was to you, personally, from the Building Department ........ (tape disturbance) pre-existing parking right - claim - on affidavits and aerial photos showing various cars parked, as a matter of fact, prior to the enactment of the Zoning Code in 1957. This past week, when I checked that file, that action has not been taken. No action has been taken by the ZBA on that appeal and my question here is how can you allow Cross Sound Ferry to include - or your Consultant - allow them in his Southold Town Planninq Board Page Thirteen July 16, 2001 recommendation to you - to include that Snack Bar Lot in its plan when the ZBA - because they have a stow on this, as I understand - they have not taken any action on that item. Another point - your Consultant keeps relating today's operations out there, that are going on all the time, to those in 1996 which is when he made his recommendations before. I say that's an invalid contrast comparison because what really should be looked at now when we're talking about is there an increase in traffic, is there an increase in parking. We should be talking about not '96 but '95 before Cross Sound came to get that approval on the West Lot for 69 cars. It should be before that and if you will recall, if you were ever out there at that time - in '95 - before the high speed started, which was introduced about two weeks later, there weren't cars parked up and down the Main Road, often as far as the State Park. There weren't any and, interestingly enough, just yesterday when I was out there with our Consultant about noon, there were 40 or 50 cars out on the Main Road. Obviously, for the ferry. If you'd gone out on Saturday, the day before when the high speed was down for maintenance and was not operating, there weren't any cars parked out on the Main Road. None. It was kind of like back in '95 before the - there were a couple left over who had probably been over there gambling a couple - three days and hadn't got back to get them off there. They didn't need it. That's the point. The point is that Cross Sound keeps trying to tell us that the high speed passenger boat isn't an addition; it's only taking people that could be well taken on the other ferry. They keep saying that and that there has been no parking increase or no traffic volumes increased and your Consultant seems to be buying that but he's looking back at '96. I ask you to look at '95 before all this started. There's a big increase and nobody can kid you that there isn't. But, the most striking observation we find in this, your Consultant's report, is Cross Sound's own Environmental Assessment Form which they are required to make and which they have in there -it's an annex in that Consultant's report. You'll notice there is no number stipulated where it's supposed to be stipulated for the number of off-street parking spaces existing now or the number proposed by the action - blank. There's an asterisk that says refer to the traffic and parking section of the addendum to this. I'll tell you, we studied it; our Traffic Consultant is going to talk after me - he studied it. You can look at that until you're blue in the face and there's no way you can find numbers to put in those slots that should have numbers. Why are those slots left blank? And my question is, how can you determine and how can your Consultant determine that it isn't requiring a Type I Action when he doesn't have the number? It's not there. And another question is: then, why didn't this Board, on the recommendation of your Consultant, send that site plan application back and say it's incomplete. You did it before two or three times for Cross Sound Ferry - sent it back and said incomplete, please resubmit. You should have, I would say, on this one because that's a key, key number missing. It's being finessed because SEQRA says if it's an Unlimited Action - excuse me, Unlisted Action - which your Consultant says it is, not a Type I, not a Type il, but Unlisted - it says it specifies the specific numbers of parking spaces are not to be exceeded if it's unlisted. Now, our Traffic Consultant is here and you've met him before. He's visited that site as recently, as I say, as yesterday and he will tell you tonight that the numbers of cars that he's found out there - and we have noticed along with him - Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Fourteen July 16, 2001 far exceed SEQRA's requirements for a Type I Environmental Review - the ones that are doing it right now, that were parked there yesterday and before. He's got the numbers; I'm not going to go into that. I really would like to know (tape change) - could you answer and say why didn't they go back to make it complete? Mr. Orlowski: I'm here to listen to you tonight, Thor, to gather this information. Mr. Hanson: Alright, I'll talk to that later because these are open hearings. We've been pleading these points over and over again. Our Consultant has too, both written and spoken - and from anything you hear later, it's as if we never said anything - going into a black hole - and your Consultant's report would indicate, this last one we just read, no knowledge or mention of anything that's gone before, we believe, that we've been saying. It just seems to go into this hole and get ignored, as best we can tell. That's why I'm trying to get an answer on some of these things. The other thing is, if you approve this plan, you will be allowing Cross Sound to continue directing their off-loading cars - the ones coming here from New London - to go out on SR 25 Extension, which they're doing now, in violation of the present site plan. Absolutely violating it. They're supposed to be going out on a road to the west that they put in part of the site plan and is supposed to be the access and that's being violated. If this plan is approved, it will legalize it and we don't believe you should do that. You've been tolerating, I guess, not you - the Town - illegal use of that site plan and now you're going to legitimize it. And if you accept the recommendations of your Consultant, you will ....... (tape disturbance) site plan. Long term Cross Sound parking on those spaces at the end of Route 25, the southern end of it - they don't belong to Cross Sound; they belong to the State. They really were put there - seven or eight - for local people who may want to stop there, pick somebody up, drop somebody off or go walk on the beach. That's what they're for. It's not your jurisdiction but those should really have Southold Town Permits and a couple hour limits. That's what they're really there for but if this site plan is approved as it is, those will be gone forever and they'll be pad: of Cross Sound's domain, it would seem to us. The fact seems to us is that Cross Sound is trying, with this site plan, to legitimize what we ...... (tape disturbance) put ten pounds in a five pound bag. They're trying to legalize their present illegal uses of this site by adding a few bushes and a painted crosswalk and, you know, the problem is they're caught between a rock and a hard place, in my opinion, because if they put in those numbers that they're supposed to put, realistically, the numbers of cars that are parking out there now, it would automatically trigger SEQRA, just trigger. And if they put in lower numbers that don't, it would not only look ridiculous because it's so many fewer than they are parking now all the time, they wouldn't want to live with that. That's why they don't want to put them in. They're left blank on purpose because they don't want to treat that and I don't believe this Planning Board should allow that to happen without an environmental review. The SEQRA says that if there's any doubt at all about whether something is going to be an environmental problem, you should lean toward looking at that and have an evaluation. Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Fifteen July 16, 2001 I mentioned before that your Consultant's report praises the Planning Board for having these open hearings and gathering information. Well, up until now, we've put in a lot but it never seems to have any effect. That's why I'm asking to get some feedback sometime. We don't get any feedback. We hope that each of you on this Planning Board, and particularly you, Benny, will take these points seriously so that you won't accept this recommendation of your Consultant to approve this submitted site plan without the thorough environmental review that SEQRA offers that stipulates - and that's so necessary - to establish a base line for any future applications. And without even knowing how many cars CSF intends to cram into this five pound bag. There's only shown 69. That's the only one that's ever been approved that we can find for that area out there and those are the ones in the West Lot that they put through knowing full well they were going to start the high speed ferry. Thank you. I'd like to have now our Consultant, Steve Schneider, talk in a little more detail about what he has found in his visits there. I'd like to submit this to you. This is basically what I just said, Steven Schneider, Schneider Enqineerinq, 356 Old Country Road, Coram, NY: I have been at one previous hearing that you had on this subject. I would like to basically summarize my findings to date based on the documents I was able to review. I do have a report prepared which will help you so you won't take a lot of notes, including a drawing we had done as well and I'll just hand them out to you now and I will go through them and, hopefully, you can listen to what I have to say about this subject. I have quite a bit to say. I'll try to say it as slow as I can and I'll try to say it so that the audience can also understand what I'm saying and why I am saying it. I will start off by saying that I have reviewed the documents that are at hand - the Dunn Engineering reports, the EAF, etc. They're all listed at the beginning of my report. I will not go into those. I'm sure you've seen those documents before. Basically, the Board should look at these documents to determine the impacts of the proposed project, basically traffic safety - traffic volumes, level of service and parking. Dunn Engineering, in their 1997 and 1999 studies, underestimated the impacts of traffic generated by the ferry on the local volumes. Dunn claims that, compared to the total background traffic, that the traffic prior to - the ferry traffic is minimal. Dunn Engineering report uses charts in this report that says that the ferry traffic can be as high as 50% of the background traffic and is regularly in excess of 20% of the background traffic - background traffic again is traffic without the ferry in place. In Table 12 of Dunn Engineering 1997 report, it shows that the background traffic is 30% on weekdays, 20% on Saturdays and 18% on Sundays. These percentages are not minimal - in fact, are critical - are the critical part of the volume on State Route 25 east of Greenport ....... (tape disturbance) attention must be given to any increases to either the background volume traffic or ferry traffic volumes when analyzing the level of service impacts in terms of pure traffic volumes and level of service, the anticipated increase in traffic, based on the data reviewed, has little negative effect on the state roadway as they are in access capacity on the roadway. This does not preclude the future reductions to the capacity of State Route 25, any significant increases in the demand for service with a negative impact on the local traffic. In both the 1997 and 1999 reports by Dunn Engineering, analyzing accident data for State Route 25 east of Greenport, he indicated that in 1994 and 1995 the State DOT completed a widening and repaving project designed to improve safety along the Southold Town Plannin.q Board Pa.qe Sixteen July 16, 2001 roadways. This program included a shoulder improvement to allow for bicycle traffic, which has been steadily increasing. In 1996, the rate of accidents fell dramatically which had been steadily increasing. He does show that, in is 1999 report on Table Number 3, since that year in 1996 and 1997 the accident rate has increased, especially east of Greenport where the accidents were must higher than the State average for two lane rural highways, greater than the State average. This rise in accident rates coincides with the start up of the high-speed ferry. There was more cars on the road. No question. As stated previously, any increase in traffic east of Greenport must be analyzed carefully as this case when the rise in ferry demand following the addition of passengers only ferry service coincide with the accident rates. The bottom line, I feel, is that there had been an increase in accidents due to ferry traffic - they were substantial. The final part of our analysis - and the most critical - is the on-site parking. Dunn's report of 1997 does not look at on-site parking that was mentioned earlier, while the 1999 report has a section dedicated to "parking considerations" in addition to the full EAF prepared by Interscience Research which states that on-site parking will be listed in the narrative - please see the narrative - after reviewing that particular document, there was no mention of on-site parking in terms of quantity or location. Personally, I could not believe that but, there was nothing there. According to Dunn Engineering, 345 vehicles can be parked on the site. During the course of our research, we found a plan that was prepared by Interscience which is part of their project narrative for Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part One called...(tape disturbance) Unassisted Parking Plan. On this plan, provided by their consultant, they showed 147 parking spaces on the west side - on the west lot - and 235 parking spaces on the snack bar lot for a total of 382 parking spaces. Just try to keep those numbers in mind. On Friday, July 6, which was just a few weeks ago, we did a field investigation at the ferry terminal. It was found that there were 307 vehicles parked on lands owned by Cross Sound Ferry. In addition, there were 36 vehicles parked on the street - on 25. These vehicles were most likely parked for the ferry as there was sufficient excess parking in the Plum Island lot, Orient State Park lot - parking area and the County Park. Both the snack bar lot and the west lot were basically filled to capacity. This is on a Friday. I would like to submit some photos we have taken along - photos we have taken that will actually show the parking situation and what had occurred on that specific day. It basically shows the amount of parking that is occurring throughout the site and on the street - on 25 - on a Friday. I would also like to note that occurring to, I believe it was Dunn Engineering's report, they indicated that during the week there was more demand for parking than on the weekend. I tend to disagree with them. I will go into that in a second. We also took those I mentioned earlier of some additional analysis of parking yesterday; Sunday, July 15th. It was found that there were 363 vehicles parked on lands owned by Cross Sound Ferry - 363. In addition, there were 71 vehicles parked on State Route 25. These vehicles were, again, most likely parked for the ferry as there was sufficient parking on Plum Island, Orient State Park and well as the County Park. Both the snack bar lot and west lot were filled to capacity again. I also have some photos, which I will pass on to you, showing you the parking situation and what was going on. It was also very interesting because they even had the police officers take - give out parking tickets to the illegal parkers on the street. Yesterday was a really interesting day because there was also - there seem to be a Boy Scouts - I guess, group that was Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Seventeen July 16, 2001 leaving the Island going to New England somewhere for a week's camp and I guess the ferry knew that there were going to be all these additional kids and or cars where the parents were actually dropping the kids off. Even though the kids were walking on, they still had to be dropped off and there still had to be parking available for them. What I will say is that the parking counts that I had taken do not take into account the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts were smart enough to speak to the Federal people next door to the west of the site and get permission to park their vehicles temporarily so that the kids could be dropped off at the ferry. I counted over 50 cars in that parking lot due just to the Boy Scouts, now yesterday may have not been a typical day for Boy Scouts or there may have been some other function, my point to you is that there is a tremendous demand for parking in that area and there are many cars as you can see there as well~ as - I think there are about two dozen cars that I would count that were actually parked illegally in and around the site which included on 25. What it shows me as a professional, and I am hoping will show you, that there is a larger demand there that anyone ever thought at least from my standpoint and possibly from your standpoint. Our research of the data shows that the west lot has been approved for sixty-nine parking spaces as we mentioned earlier. In 1995, prior to the introduction of the high-speed ferry service, there does not appear to be any approvals for parking on the Snack Bar Lot. It is the position of the applicant that the Snack Bar Lot has been used as parking since the early 50's. Regardless of whether the Snack Bar pre-dated the zoning, there have been several renovations of the ferry terminal and surrounding area where a site plan should have been submitted, without a doubt, to the Planning Board for their approval. This does not appear to be the case based on our review of the records. Based on the ...... (tape disturbance) there is no approval showing any additional parking on the Snack Bar Lot. In our opinion, there are only 69 approved parking spaces on that lot. According to Dunn Engineering, his 1999 report, there is a capacity of 345 spaces. Based on Dunn Engineering data alone, there is an increase of 276 parking spaces. Interscience prepared a plan that shows the site has the capacity to accommodate 382 parking spaces - an increase of 313 spaces from what has been previously approved. So both of their consultants show 345 spaces or an additional 276 - the other 382 parking spaces or an additional 313. According to Chapter 100 of the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold, there are standards for construction of parking facilities. These standards describe the size of spaces, aisle widths, and the number required for use. In addition, the amount and type of landscaping is also included in the requirements. This includes ...... (tape disturbance) and location of buffers and set- backs. Section 100- 191C describes the aisles "the aisles between roads of parking spaces shall not be less than 22 feet" also "the minimum parking stall width shall be nine feet and the minimum length shall be 19 feet" Section 100-212 describes the front yard ...... (tape disturbance) along the roadways. Section 100-212B states that MI or Mil Zones - a landscape buffer of fifteen feet in depth is required along all street frontages. All street frontages - the Snack Bar Lot has almost it entire western property along the street - right on 25. Section 100-213 pertains to transition buffers along roadways and adjacent lots of different zones. SectiOn 100-213B2 states that the required buffer between a lot of the zones I just mentioned and a building residential lot, such as the Trust Parcel, requires a 20 foot buffer. Based on these Town zone requirements alone a plan showing the parking in the Snack Bar was prepared - we prepared a plan because no one else had a plan. It shows only 72 parking spaces can be placed on the Snack Southold Town Planning Board Pa.qe Eighteen July 16, 2001 Bar alone complying with the zoning requirements. This brings the total of the on-site, or possible on-sight, parking spaces at 141 - the 69 plus the 72. In Dunn Engineering's 1999 report - and I will quote his report - he states the OPE Handbook - the engineering handbook- "commercial parking attendants can park cars in stalls less than 8 feet wide". What he is trying to say here is that we are going to try to come up with some way of having a smaller space for the cars. That was just me throwing a few words in but let me continue the quote - "with some parking stall widths that will accommodate most passenger cars and light range cars between 8.3 and 8.8 feet depending on anticipated parking activity where parking turn-over is expected to be Iow and for all day parking narrower stall widths are usually acceptable". He then stops there. He missed the next paragraph, which is critical. He has taken everything in this case out of context. Next paragraph of the same document states the following: "substandard stall and aisle widths prove to be false economy although this permits the marketing of more stalls per given lot. Vehicles tend to encroach upon adjacent stalls so that one or more spaces are unavailable for use. The end result is no gain in actually space usage but a parking condition surrounded by confusion". Interscience Research prepared a plan entitled "Maximum Unassisted Parking Plan" in the ...... (tape disturbance) of the plan they describe the aisle widths used as 12 feet minimum and 15 feet average. Aisle widths 12 feet minimum and 15 feet average. Neither Dunn Engineering nor Interscience explains the relationship between stall width and aisle width. The premise is the narrower the stall width, the wider the aisles required. You need more room to back out. Period. In this case all plans show 90 degree parking. Table 21-2 states that a stall width of 8 and ½ feet has a aisle width of 28 feet. That's recommended. I would like to note to you, in case you don't know, that even if they are having one-way directional traffic, you still need that amount of aisle width to back the car out. If you have one way or two way, it is insignificant. You still need that one aisle width of 23, 24, 25, 28 feet depending on the width of the stall. That is required. The aisle widths described by Interscience are for one-way traffic, which is not even mentioned, and angle parking. The use of one-way aisles and angle parking significantly reduced the number of parking spaces that can be placed on the site. It should be noted that plans did not indicate one-way parking but that they could indicate dead ends. When you have a dead end, you have to have two- way parking. According to 6 NYCRR, Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review - SEQRA - Section 617.4B "the following options are Type I if they are to be directly undertaken, funded or approved by an agency. Number 10: "Any unlisted aisle width that exceed 25% of any threshold in this section occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any publicly owned or operated parkland, recreation area or designated open space, including any ...... (tape disturbance) on the Register of National Natural Landmarks pursuant to 36CFR Part 62, 1994. In our opinion, the site is substantially contiguous to County parkland. The Type 1 threshold exceeded in this case is parking since the construction of 1000 parking spaces is automatically listed in Type I. In this case, there is a request to increase the improved parking on a site from 69 spaces that had been approved previously to - if you want to use Dunn Engineering's 345 spaces to Interscience' 382 spaces and both cases the increase is more than 25% or more than 250 spaces of the parking threshold. Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Nineteen July 16, 2001 I would like to show you an aerial that was taken yesterday. It was taken at 10:30 a.m. I am sure you guys and girls are all familiar with the site. Basically, you can see that this particular lot by the Snack Bar, 10:30 in the morning, is full. I don't really think that that many people are going to the Snack Bar at 10:30 in the morning. But, in either case, you will also see that their parking lot on the west side - the West Lot as we call it - is full around the perimeter and then they then come up later on, which I do have the photos from when I had taken yesterday as well as two weeks ago, showing parking right down the center of the aisle so that it wilt be hard for cars eventually to back out and to make the turn. There will be not enough, an insufficient amount, of width for that aisle as I mentioned earlier. But there is also something very interesting that I noticed on this drawing. Not on this drawing but on this plan and that is - aerial - I am sorry. In their survey, they showed on the south side of their property - the south end of the property - 55 feet of width. Now, if you look very carefully here, they are using today, in my mind illegally, one, two, three, four rows and two aisles. Assuming that you have four rows at fifteen feet per row - it should be more than that, of course, based on your own code - you are talking about 60 feet worth of cars parked plus about fifteen feet or twenty feet, depending on what they are using, in between - you're talking about a hundred feet is being used versus the fifty-five feet that they actually have. So, what they have done here, is that they have encroached on somebody else's property. I am not saying whose this property is; I am really not sure but it is not on their property. Maybe it is the County's property, but they are currently performing all of their parking illegally. I want to show you that. Do you want to pass this down? You can also see on that aerial that cars already started to park on 25 even at 10:30 in the morning. You will also notice on that aerial that there are no cars shown in the adjacent lot to the west of the "West Lot" because the Boy Scouts didn't start 'til about 11:30 - 12:00. Therefore, none of the cars that are there were for the Boy Scouts. I counted about 50 or so cars that were for the Boy Scouts at any specific time - there were more coming in even afterwards - in that lot adjacent and there are none shown at that spot at 10:30 in the morning. In conclusion, it is clear that this application will have a major traffic safety impact on the property. The requested increase in approved parking spaces, in and of itself, is a Type 1 action by definitions. The accident rate along 25, east of Greenport, has been increased since the introduction of the high-speed ferry service. The vehicles currently parking along 25 are forcing bicyclists to use the main travel ways, versus the shoulder lanes, creating a potential for more collisions. The fact is the current volumes of traffic on State Route 25 do not cause any serious derogation of the level of service; that the percentage of traffic created by the ferry has been significantly understated by the applicant and his engineers. The proposed Snack Bar Lot parking does not meet the standards of the Town or any ...... (tape disturbance) standards. In reality, the traffic safety issues take precedence over all the issues described above - traffic safety is Number One in my mind. Simply said, from a traffic safety perspective, the cramming of the cars in undersized spaces, undersized aisle widths, no painted parking stalls, all create an unsafe condition and many possible legal issues that may develop with respect to accidents. The Town may be held libel for allowing the parking of vehicles in substandard spaces and could very easily be brought in as responsible for the parking approvals. Four of these items show an impact on the area that require a more in-depth $outhold Town Planning Board Page Twenty July 16, 2001 review and appropriate site plans showing the proposed parking spaces. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to answer them. Chairman Odowski: Anyone else like to make a comment? Fred Sharman: I live in Orient along 25 and I honestly don't know any folks so I don't know if you live on 25 or where you live and perhaps unlike the other two speakers, I don't care about parking lots doWn there one way or another; I care big time about the traffic in front of my house. It is getting unbearable and I am sure you have heard this before but I have never had a chance to tell you so I am going to sleep tonight knowing I could tell you that. I am reminded of a movie a long time ago. I think it was call a "Field of_Dreams" - a baseball movie and, in it, I remember one line - it was "let them and they will come" and I guess maybe that's why I don't like those parking lots because if you folks let more parking lots down there, they are going to come. We're going to get more traffic and my kids are in danger and anybody along that Route 25 is in danger. So my concern is the traffic and if you let that thing become gargantuan thing down, we are in trouble; we are in big trouble in Orient - so thank you very much. Richard Warren: Good evening. I am Richard Warren, the President of Interscience Reseach Associates. We have prepared the Environmental Assessment Form. We have been working on this application for a number of years. I think all of you up there know me. I have been involved in many, many, many meetings with you and discussions with you in regard to this project. I am going to try to respond briefly to some of the things that have been said here tonight. Obviously, Mr. Schnieder makes some bold statements and speaks in absolutes. I guess he feels passionately about what he has to say. Well, so do we. We have been honest with you. We have provided information to this Board throughout the entire time. You have asked us for different permutations of maps. Mr. Schnieder indicates that we didn't have any information for him in the EAF but he could find the information in the file - in terms of the number of parking spaces that could be put on this piece of property. Because you asked for it. You asked us to provide it and we provided it. You asked us for assistant parking plans, unassisted parking plans, conforming parking plans, and they were provided to you. It is not as though the applicant hasn't tried to respond to you. They have been patient and they have been fair. We have not been doing anything with the slight of hand. We haven't been trying to hide any numbers. We just have a different position than they migh. This parking has been there. You saw it before. It is pre-existing and nonconforming in terms of the space. It does not have dimensional parking. It does not have striped lines and they park a lot of cars in the parking lot. It is not like the 7/11 parking or the parking lot right out here where you can go out and tape measure parking. The number of cars that fit on a space depends upon how the people park; depends upon the season; it depends upon whether or not they are attendants there - whether or not they get the cars a little tighter. The numbers we provided to you and the some of the documents submitted over the course of this many year endeavor come from measurements and calculations taken from the site matter going out and actually counting cars that are parked on the site. We didn't draw up engineering drawings and say that is the number but you asked for those as well. But we also gave you information from on site. Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Twenty-One July 16, 2001 The parking that we have before you - the site plan that we have before you - does not expand the parking. It is not new parking. It is to improve the existing parking of the Snack Bar Parcel. You all know that. The application that was before you before was an expansion of parking. It involved an additional parcel that was going to be turned into additional parking but the public came out and said they did not want that. And after a lot of backing and forthing, including an ElS and lots of discussion, it was withdrawn and a different application was put in to regularize and try to improve some of the concerns and some of the conditions that have been raised on the other parking lot. There will be controls in that parking lot in terms of fencing, curb stops, things that we have worked out with you - lighting, landscaping, drainage, surfacing of parking lots - trying to improve it. The applicant does not get additional park fund. The application we submitted to you originally on this plan was on October of 1999. I have spent many, many nights having discussions and meetings with people - (tape change) - we have had a lot of meetings, trying to respond, trying to be honest, trying to deal with the questions that you as a board have had. With respect to the SEQRA evaluations you have been dealing with, this is a Type I Action you must pos. dec. it. I think if you look at your own Consultant's report, we did not write it - your Consultant did. It indicates and acknowledges that this might even be classified as a Type II Action. Section 617.5C2 of the State SEQRA Regulations classifies this type of project as a Type II Action. If you also look at 617.4A2, no agency can designate, as a Type 1, any action listed as Type II. These are in the State Regulations. Because of public controversy, they have decided to provide some additional information. Your own consultant acknowledges this might be a Type II, may not have to even go through the SEQRA process. We have been trying to respond to you fairly. Patience with the applicant grows thin - I know that it grows thin on all sides of the table here. We ask you to move forward and try to get this thing resolved. Thank you. Chairman Orlowski: Any other comments on this site plan? Freddie Wachsberqer: Hello again. Freddie Wachsberger, SCSR. Benny, I remember being in this room about ten years ago and the Town Board that was sitting at that time was trying to fire you and I was carrying a sign that said "Save the Planners - Dump the Town Board". Of course, I was very impressed with the way the Planners had stood up to attempts to ride roughshod over Town zoning at that time. However, the last six years or so I have lost any confidence because of your apparent unwillingness to use your planning powers to address the explosion of ferry traffic. Because you failed to take steps to enforce the site plan that you approved. Because you permitted the introduction of the Sea Jet ferry with no prior planning for parking and no establishment of perimeters for growth. Because you permitted it to run for more than five years without an analysis of the negative impacts identified by your Consultants as a potential result of the increase of vehicle traffic. And because you (...inaudible) Bennie, when Thor asked you at a previous hearing, what you were waiting for from your Consultants and you said you just wanted to clear up a few details when it was already clear to me, from my conversation with your Consultants previously, that you were hoping for traffic figures which would help them reverse their previous conclusions. But, in fact, the traffic figures don't support any reversal of their conclusions. So, they are forced to pretend, for one example, that no expanded parking is proposed although the increase is actually Southold Town Planning Board Pa.qe Twenty-Two July 16, 2001 about 500% of the pre-Sea Jet approved number of cars, which is the only relevant number here because this site plan is added as an amendment to your 1995 site plan. In fact all of the ten pounds of potential negative impact are based on the increase vehicle traffic due to the Sea Jet. And the removal of the Trust Parcel has absolutely no impact on that - this Consultant's report strikes me as a shameless document - an Alice in Wonderland fantasy document and appears designed solely to give you an opportunity to weasel out of your responsibility as Planners, to insist on public scrutiny for the environmental impact of the Sea Jet and to establish guidelines and parameters for any further expansion because, without those, we have no way of controlling this expansion which has gone on for years, exponentially, as we know. I had a brief glance at the draft of the Waterfront Revitalization Program which is obviously an enormous and very impressive document and which merits a much closer review but, I did find, under areas of special concern, reference to Cross Sound Ferry in the brief time that I gave myself to look at it - which is described as "expanding, all be it, without site plan approval required by Town Zoning Regulations" the draft also stresses the need for mitigation of the impact of region-wide transportation services on the whole community and refers to the escalating volume and speaking of traffic. Again, I quote: "The Town faces key obstacles to managing the traffic and maintaining its' quality of life". I would suggest that if you fail to make a Positive Declaration of this application, you, the Planning Board, are the key obstacle. Chairman Orlowski: Any other comments? William Esseks, Esq.: The approach is: gotcha, with a half-loaded revolver and I am approaching being embarrassed by the hypocrisy being shoveled out here. I have been coming to these meetings since 1996 - I think the first one was in '96 - and the purpose has been - I think interesting is the best word. I kept track and I don't believe anyone has said shut down the ferry. Several people who are against the high-speed have said we are not against the ferry; we want the ferry and the reasons are logical why they want the ferry. The public policy of the Federal Government is if people walk the roads and have ferries, the public policy of the State, public policy of the County - I don't know whether the Town has a public policy on this subject - and if you are in the eastern part of Long Island, the eastern part of Suffolk County, and you want to go to New England, considering the traffic to the west, you have to be a fool to want to go anyway other than the ferry. So, a group of people - most of them are sitting in this room tonight - have announced that they will tell you and they will tell Cross Sound who will use those ferries. Now, you should have some understanding of what is being talked about. I believe you have seen this before but I would like you to see it again. The advertisement in last week's paper says there must be a Full Environmental Review of the impact of the casino passenger ferry on our environment and quality of our life. The schedule that I have given you shows that Cross Sound can, and did, operate all the people that have wanted to go to Boston, Canada, Rhode Island or Connecticut or the casinos without the necessity of the high-speed boat. The capacity of the existing ferries - the Henelopen, John H., Susan Anne, New London, Caribbean and North Star- has an $outhold Town Planning Board Page Twenty-Three July 16, 2001 excess capacity over passengers - over the two and a half people per car - of nine thousand and thirty-five per day during the maximum time and the Sea Jet, if it is full, has a maximum of twenty-four hundred. If John were to testify today, he would tell you that the sixty-five hundred extra capacity per day is a Iow number because they don't get to the high excess that is described here. That sixty-five hundred is like eight or nine thousand per day that the ferry could absorb without the high-speed ferry - like just people driving down the State Highway and choosing they want to take that boat. So, the game - the emotional aim - of saying that this deals with the high-speed ferry is false. I know it is false; they know it is false and I suspect that you know it is false. At least thru the advise of your Consultants. What the high-speed ferry does fortuitously is it runs in between the regular ferry and it cuts forty minutes off the trip. If all the people were to go on the regular ferry, not ever use the high-speed you would have a greater concentration of traffic, a greater concentration of people coming into the parking lots. We came here in '95 and '96 saying innocently that we thought that there was concern of parking and the Town Board, the Planning Board and you who are sitting on my right said we don't want any more parking spaces; we don't want them - raised the devil with us. So, we licked our wounds and came back and said we can have the cars in there 98% of the year. Boy Scouts have a separate arrangement next door. We come back saying we won't ask for a change of zone. We won't use our own property next door that looks, smells and barks like a parking lot because the people don't want it. That got us nowhere. We have a year of hearings - the same complaints every meeting. The engineer didn't notice, or he chose not to understand, that where your Code says that, for parking, ferries are not listed, therefore, you get to choose. None of the requirements with depth, aisles - any of that stuff - has anything to do with the Code. You get to make it up. That is said so specifically. There is nothing to talk about on that issue. And this is not a situation like a 7/11 or an A&P where people come and go during the day. They come in once; they leave once. This is not - so you don't need a great deal of traffic there. They show up once and leave. There is also an understatement here. It is very interesting - the latest understatement - that says that Cross Sound should not be allowed to manage its own affairs. We can do a better job. We, the citizens who are saving the roads - citizens' roads - are going to convince the Town that the Town can come up with a program of ordering Cross Sound to provide service but we will tell them whose is going to go on the boat. I assume that the local people who want to go to New England will get the first dibs on that and then we will find some way of figuring out who the others should be. However, it is a State road. Nobody can say who is going on the State road. We have a duty as an interstate carrier to take everybody who wants to go - and it's a very interesting issue as to who is going to pay for it. It cost a million and half dollars per year to maintain the Henelopen. It costs for the John H. fifteen billion dollars to buy one, let alone to insure, to maintain it. It cost fifteen or twenty million for the Susan Anne. I don't have the numbers for the other ships, but is the Town going to subsidize this? Is the Planning Board going to take upon itself or is the admiral and his cohorts - his crew - are they going to ante up ten or twenty or thirty million dollars to run the ferry? I don't think so. We are dealing with a situation of a private enterprise which is providing an interstate service and have been using this property for twenty-five or thirty years and everyone knows it. They chose to Southold Town Planninq Board Pa,qe Twenty-Four July 16, 2001 look the other way and we believe that we have appropriately dealt with this matter, submitted all the forms. I believe we have satisfied your Consultant. We believe that we are entitled to either a Negative Dec. or a determination that it is a Type II Action. And we believe that we should be allowed to proceed with this and that the attempt by some people to say that they are better able or the Town is better able to run the ferry service and the people living there to provide the service is false. Whenever you have that kind of socialization, it has been a failure. Our country has turned away from that. It is no time to start in Southold with the people here or you trying to decide how this should be run. Now I ask you to accept our environmental submission, to close the hearings, to vote. I thank you for your patience and fortitudinous. Thank you. Chairman Orlowski: Thank you. Any other comments? (There were none.) Hearing none, I want to entertain a motion to keep this hearing open. Jim? James Dinizio, Jr., 39 Sound Road, Greenport, New York: Someone just before me brought up the ad that was in the paper that probably brought most of these people here. I am going to ask you some questions that I don't think you have to answer. One is when did you guys decide that this was a fait accompli, say you have made your decision? You haven't; you are here; you are listening to people. And I find that a misrepresentation like that, that someone could put an ad like that, says something about that person or that group of people and I think the thing is, what it says about them, is that they don't have a case; they have to resort to this type of stuff- I mean, they are saying that the Town does not want to listen to the people yet, here we are and you are up there representing the Town and you are listening. Concentrate on what an application is - it has not go much to do on traffic on 25; it has to do with parking at a business facility - an expanded facility - a facility that has been there for I don't know how many years. I know that it was there before I was born - 47 years - and you have to make your decision based on that - in my opinion, their Consultant proves the Cross Sound's point: they need parking; they need safe parking. That's the duty of Southold Town - to insure the health, welfare and well-being of its' citizens - that if we are going into a parking lot and we are going to have an accident, this is what you are here for - to standardize these things and, in my opinion, if they need to build a garage three stories high in order to accommodate that, my personal opinion is yes, let's do it. Now, you know full well what you have to do. Don't let these people use SEQRA as a hammer because it is not fair to anybody. You make the decision to use basis on your Class One. You are going to have to do it further down the road. This is going to affect plenty of other businesses that if you subvert to, what I see it, a dwindling number of people who oppose this, you are subverting your own reason for being in the Town which is to help us with health, welfare and safety. The traffic on 25, you know 5 or 6 years ago, you know, those accidents, I say, could probably be directly proportional to yard sales - because I am going to tell you there is plenty of yard sales out there and the State Park - same thing. They just improved that and there are a lot of people going down there. So, let's make it safe for people; let's get those cars off the road. They should be off the road and Cross Sound is doing a responsible thing insuring that they are. Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Twenty-Five July 16, 2001 Now, I know you have not made you mind up yet and I am going to encourage you to make you mind up to the affirmative so that Cross Sound can get on with the business of being Cross Sound and perhaps they need to come in later on as, I believe their Consultant has proven, to possibly expand it further. Thank you very much. Mr. Kruszeski: Good evening, Ben. I am Ed Kruszeski of Greenport. Here we go again. We are going to attempt to run the operation of Cross Sound Ferry Company by other than the Ferry Company itself. Like I say, I am Captain Ed Kruszeski. I was born in Orient. I lived about a mile from where the ferry slip is and I guess I could call myself a native. I can remember when the old dock use to run out right where the ferry slip is now and the Orient Inn, which was there run by a man named Ambrose - and I believe there was somebody named Terry - but it goes way back to the 1700's when the inn was there and the ferry came in there. It was, at the time I believe, the Montauk Steamship Company that use to land right where the dock was. It was the old carriage trade when people use to come by ferry or they'd come by train to Greenport and then they took a carriage to Orient; then they would get on the ferry and go to Connecticut, Boston - wherever they wanted to go. So, this ferry has been in existence there for a good number of years. I can remember when the concrete highway was put in down there. That was added to bring more traffic on these roads. I will never forget it - running barefooted on it, skinned my toes up. They looked like raw hamburger. Young kid - I didn't know any better. Now, I am going to continue on. I am going to make a stow. I always listen to everybody else talking so I have a stow to tell. The Plum Island and the Orient by the Sea complex is built on a swamp and meadowland. A lot of people did not know that. There used to be a gas station right where the entrance to the State park is now. The State Park land was given, or sold, cheap to the State by a group of people in Orient - one was a farmer, Owen Moystrovic ? He told me, at one time, that the State owed him more money on interest than it did on the principle. So, that was an operation - anyhow, there were stipulations in the agreement - in the deal - that the Boy Scouts and the local people would be able to use the park, which now they can't use. You have to pay to get in there like anybody else. So, they lost out there. Now, instead of growing potatoes down there, houses are being built. Progress: yes. Traffic: yes. The traffic is not caused by the ferry company the ...(tape disturbance) the traffic. The people who live out in Orient, they have to travel either west to add to the congestion or go east by the ferry, which they are condemning. The Plum Island workers coming and going all week to work - they are always in a hurry. There is your traffic there. The marina and the restaurant - they are either going fishing or going down to eat. Once they get done eating, they are traveling back on the road. That's why some of the accidents happen - because the elbow was not coinciding with the steering wheel. The Orient State Park - this all ends up to traffic. The simple solution is to put in traffic control lights. Nobody has ever thought of that. I believe just some local guy around here - put in some lights that will stop these damn cars so they don't speed down the roads. Stop them every five minutes and make them wait. If they are in that much of a hurry, they will wait. But the main topic here is the site plan for the parking of the ferry. The ferry owns the land - what is the problem? Let them use it. Keep parked cars off the highway like Mr. Dinizio just stated. Keep them off the road. Let them use their parking. You can only put so Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Twenty-Six July 16, 2001 many cars in a parking area and when it is full, it is full so you can't get any more in. It makes no difference how many cars. When it is full, it is full - you can't get any more in there. And that will keep them off the highway. Years ago there was a blind man, Mr. Swede - he owned the Swede Trucking Company. He had a vision - he was blind. He purchased the three LST's that were used - there was the Orient, the Plum Island and the Gay Head for this ferry run which has later turned into the Orient Ferry Company that runs it now. They ran from Orient to Saybrook and then they later changed and changed and ran through New London. Now we have the Cross Sound Ferry. This ferry company is a good business neighbor. They have, over the years, helped to improve the community by donating the vessel, fuel, crew and everything else the fireworks, the up-sail, lighthouses, Christmas tree moving in New York. The veterans use it, which I am a veteran - that is why I am stating this - because I am a maritime veteran - for memorials at sea which is great. I myself, as a old native here, I see nothing bad or wrong with this plan. They own the land. My vote is yes, give them the permit to use it to the fullest. Also, you know, you people come out here and see what we have; you like what we have, or had, so you decide to live here. Now mind you, we kept it this way before you decided to move out here. Now it is being changed - not by us natives - by the new homeowners who decide to come out here to live. One by one as you came out here, you added to this problem of traffic. You are progress and part of the problem. Let the ferry company run their own operation. If they needed you, they would put you on their payroll. Thank you. Chairman Orlowski: Anyone else? (No one else wished to speak.) I am going to entertain a motion to keep this hearing open. We will entertain any comments in writing. As a matter of fact, in writing, we will guarantee that they will be read and the Board will review all of them seriously. We have nobody on this Board, to my knowledge, that has made up their mind as to what they are going to do. This ~s a very tough decision and I think that you all can see that. 1 thank you for coming now and I guess I will see you all next month. I will entertain a motion to keep the hearing open. Mr. Latham: BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board hold the hearing for Cross Sound Ferry open. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Chairman Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? The motion carries. Southold Town Planninq Board Page Twenty-Seven July 16, 2001 MAJOR AND MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, LOT LINE CHANGES AND SET OFF APPLICATIONS Determinations Chairman Orlowski: Lighthouse Road 26, LLC - This minor subdivision is for 4 lots on 10.651 acres. The property is located on the west side of Lighthouse Road, 560.66 feet north of Old North Road in Southold. SCTM#1000-54-3-26.1 What is the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Ca.q.qiano: Mr. Chairman, I'll offer the following: WHEREAS, this minor subdivision received conditional final approval from the Planning Board on June 11, 2001; and WHEREAS, all of the conditions have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board authorize the Chairman to endorse the final surveys dated April 24, 2001. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Chairman Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? The motion carries. Chairman Orlowskh Manzi Homes at Southold - This minor subdivision is for a cluster subdivision of 2 lots on 2.863 acres. The property is located within a R-40 Zoning District and is located on the east side of Horton's Lane, approximately 848' south of the intersection with CR 48. SCTM#1000-63-1-13 Mr. Cremers: Mr. Chairman, I'll offer the following: WHEREAS, this minor subdivision received conditional final approval from the Planning Board on June 11,2001; and WHEREAS, all of the conditions have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board authorize the Chairman to endorse the final surveys dated February 17, 2000. t Southold Town Planninq Board Page Twenty-Eight July 16, 2001 Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Chairman Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? The motion carries. Setting of Final Hearings Chairman Orlowski: LIPA/Manor Grove - This proposed lot line change is to subtract 15,059 square feet from a 19.8 acre parcel and add it to a 6.1 acre parcel. The property is located on Route 25 in Greenport. SCTM#1000-45-1-11 & 53-1-1.1 Mr. Cremers: Mr. Chairman, I'll offer the following: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, establishes itself as lead agency, and as lead agency, makes a determination of non-significance and grants a Negative Declaration. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Chairman Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? The motion carries. Mr. Cremers: In addition: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, August 13, 2001 at 6:05 p.m. for a final public hearing on the maps dated March 15, 2000. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Chairman Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? The motion carries. Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Twenty-Nine July 16, 2001 MAJOR AND MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, LOT LINE CHANGES, SET OFF APPLICATIONS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Determinations Chairman Orlowski: Serge J. Doyen, Jr. - This proposal is to set off a 1.61 acre parcel from an existing 2.94 acre parcel. SCTM#1000-6-6-1 This is a formality since it was approved back in 1984 but somewhere we lost the determination. I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Latham: Mr. Chairman, I'll offer this: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, do an uncoordinated review of this unlisted action. The Planning Board establishes itself as lead agency, and as lead agency, makes a determination of non-significance and grants a Negative Declaration. Mr. Ca.q.qiano: Second the motion. Chairman Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? The motion carries. SITE PLANS Final Determinations Chairman Orlowski: Gulf Service Station - This proposed site plan is for a 135 sq. ft. addition to an existing service station. The property is located on the Main Road in Southold. SCTM#1000-70-7-4 Mr. Caq.qiano: Mr. Chairman, I'll offer the following: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board authorize the Chairman to endorse the final surveys, revised January 31,2001 and last revised April 4, 2001. Conditional final approval was granted on February 12, 2001. All conditions have been fulfilled. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Southold Town Panning Board Pa.qe Thirty July 16, 2001 Chairman Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggian0, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? The motion carries. Set Hearings Chairman Orlowski: KeySpan Southold Compressor Station - This proposed site plan is for a natural gas compressor station. The property is located on Route 25 in Southold. SCTM#1000-70-7-5 Mr. Cremers: Mr. Chairman, I11 offer the following: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, August 13, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. for a final public hearing on the maps dated June 10, 2001. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Chairman Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? The motion carries. Chairman Orlowski: Bedell Cellars - This proposed site plan is for the renovation of an existing farm building for wine storage. The property is located at 36225 Main Road in Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-85-2-10.2 & 10.3 & SCTM#1000-97-1-25.1 Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, 1'11 offer the following: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, August 13, 2001 at 6:10 p.m. for a final public hearing on the maps dated June 11, 2001. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Chairman Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor?. Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham. Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Thirty-One July 16, 2001 Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? The motion carries. APPROVAL OF PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Chairman Orlowski: Board to approve the March 12, 2001 Mr. Caq.qiano: So move. Mr. Cremers: Second. Chairman Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? The motion carries. Chairman Orlowski: If anyone would like to put anything on the minutes, I will entertain any questions or comments. Otherwise, we will adjourn and go into a Work Session. Hearing no questions or comments, i'll entertain a motion. Mr. Edwards: So move. Mr. Cremers: Second. Chairman Orlowsk'i: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr; Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? The motion carries. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Ben-'nett OrlCwsk~Jr, Chair4~an Respectfully submitted, Carol Kalin Barbara Rudder