HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-07/09/2018 OFFICE LOCATION: ®� S®� MAILING ADDRESS:
Town Hall Annex �� ��® P.O.Box 1179
54375 State Route 25 ,�® �® Southold, NY 11971
(cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.) s2 s z
Southold, NY `� �' `�' Telephone: 631765-1938
-� www.southoldtownny.gov
Cou
PZECEIV"D
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Ti (,eg
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SEP 1 3 2018 e12'-9 p�j
PUBLIC MEETING
MINUTES
Sethwn rler
July 9, 2018
6:00 p.m.
Present were: Donald J. Wilcenski, Chairman
James H. Rich III, Vice-Chairman
Martin Sidor, Member
Pierce Rafferty, Member
Mary Eisenstein, Member
Heather Lanza, Planning Director
Mark Terry, Assistant Planning Director
Brian Cummings, Planner
Jessica Michaelis, Clerk Typist
SETTING OF THE NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETING
Chairman Wilcenski: Good afternoon and welcome to the July 9, 2018 Planning Board
meeting. The first order of business is for the Board to set Monday, August 6, 2018 at
6:00 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, as the time and place for
the next regular Planning Board Meeting.
James H. Rich III: So moved.
Martin Sidor: Second.
Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Jim, seconded by Martin. Any discussion? All in
favor?
Ayes.
Opposed?
None.
Southold Town Planning Board Page 12 July 9, 2018
Motion carries.
SUBDIVISIONS
Conditional Sketch Plat Determinations:
Chairman Wilcenski: Duffy Standard Subdivision —This proposal is for a Standard
Subdivision of a 3.02 acre parcel into two lots where Lot 1 is 1.69 acres and Lot 2 is
1.33 acres located in the R-40 Zoning District. The property is located at 3360
Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-111-11-26.1
Pierce Rafferty:
WHEREAS, this proposal is for a Standard Subdivision of a 3.02 acre parcel into two
lots, where Lot 1 is 1.69 acres and Lot 2 is 1.33 acres, located at 3360 Wunneweta
Road, northwest of the intersection of Little Peconic Bay Road and Wunneweta Road,
in the R-40 Zoning; and
WHEREAS, on February 2, 2018, the agent submitted a Sketch Plan Application and
fee; and
WHEREAS, on March 27, 2018, the Planning Board notified the applicant by letter that
the application did not comply with the minimum requirements of subdivision set forth in
§240-B Yield Plan; and
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2018, the agent met with Planning staff to discuss alternate lot
design options; and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2018, the applicant submitted a Yield Plan compliant with the
minimum requirements of subdivision set forth in §240-8 Yield Plan; and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2018, the applicant submitted revised application forms to
reflect the newly proposed design; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2018, at their Work Session, the Planning Board found the
Sketch Plan application complete upon submittal of a revised Sketch Plan; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2018, the Sketch Plan application was found complete; and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2018, at their Work Session, the Planning Board found that
the application fulfilled all requirements of§240-Article V Sketch Plan Review; therefore
be it
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby grants Conditional
Sketch Plan Approval upon the map entitled "Sketch Plan of Duffy at Nassau Point",
Southold Town Planning Board Page 13 July 9, 2018
dated August 1, 2015 and last revised June 10, 2018, prepared by Kenneth M.
Woychuk, Land Surveyor, with the following conditions:
1. Submit a Preliminary Plat application and map inclusive of the following:
a. Add a notation that innovative/alternative on-site wastewater treatment
systems (I/A OWTS) are required, and provide a typical plot plan;
b. Title the plat "Preliminary Plat of Duffy at Nassau Point";
Identify significant trees with a,diameter breast height (dbh) in excess of 18 inches
pursuant to 240-10 Technical requirements on the property and provide a notation for
the size and species of each.
James H. Rich III: Second.
Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Pierce, seconded by Jim. Any discussion? All in
favor?
Ayes.
Opposed?
None.
Motion carries.
Set Final Plat Hearings:
Chairman Wilcenski: Chloem, Patterson and Tuccio Resubdivision - This
resubdivision proposes to transfer 0.46 acres, from SCTM#1000-56.-4-24 to
SCTM#1000-56.4-22. Lot 24 will decrease from 27.84 acres to 27.38 acres and Lot 22
will increase from 1.06 acres to 1.53 acres in the MII Zoning District, Southold. See ZBA
file 7166 for the area variance to provide relief of the non-conforming lot size.
SCTM#1000-56-4-22 & 24
James H. Rich III:
WHEREAS, this Resubdivision proposes to transfer 0.46 acres from SCTM#1000-56.-
4-24 to SCTM#1000-56.4-22. Lot 24 will decrease from 27.84 acres to 27.38 acres and
Lot 22 will increase from 1.06 acres to 1.53 acres in the MII Zoning District, Southold;
and
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2018, the applicant submitted a Resubdivision application
for review by the Planning Board; and
Southold Town Planning Board Page 14 July 9, 2018
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2018, the Planning Board found the application incomplete
and required revisions to the map and the applicant to apply to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for relief of the non-conforming lot size; and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2018, the Planning Board found the application complete upon
submission of a decision by the Zoning Board of Appeals in file #7166; and
WHEREAS, on June 22, 2018, the Zoning Board of Appeals, in file #7166, granted an
area variance to allow the creation of a non-conforming lot, which made the application
complete, with the following conditions:
1. The applicant must comply with the conditions of Special Exception Permit
#6608SE that limits the seating in the eat-in/take-out interior area to four
tables with 16 seats.
2. The applicant must apply to the Southold Town Planning Board for a lot line
change approval; and
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to State Environmental
Quality Review Act (SEQRA) 6 NYCRR, Part 617, has determined that the proposed
action is an Unlisted Action as it does not meet any of the thresholds of a Type I Action,
nor does it meet any of the criteria on the Type II list of actions; be it therefore
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board has determined that this proposed
action is an Unlisted Action under SEQRA as described above.
Pierce Rafferty: Second.
Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Jim, seconded by Pierce. Any discussion? All in
favor?
Ayes.
Opposed?
None.
Motion carries.
James H. Rich III: And be it further
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board sets Monday, August 6, 2018 at
6:01 p.m. for a Public Hearing upon the map entitled "Resubdivision for Chloem, LLC,
situate Arshamomoque", prepared by Nathan Taft Corwin III, Land Surveyor, dated
October 19, 2002, last revised June 26, 2018.
Pierce Rafferty: Second.
Southold Town Planning Board Page 15 July 9, 2018
Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Jim, seconded by Pierce. Any discussion? All in
favor?
Ayes.
Opposed?
None.
Motion carries.
SITE PLANS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT
SEQRA Type Classifications/ Set Hearings:
Chairman Wilcenski: Latin Fuzion —This Site Plan Application is for the proposed
conversion of an existing 1,113 sq. ft. retail store to a sixteen (16) seat restaurant and
installation of a new sanitary system on 3.14 acres in the Hamlet Business Zoning
District. The property is located at 620 Traveler Street, Southold. SCTM#1000-61-1-
13.1
Mary Eisenstein:
WHEREAS, this Amended Site Plan Application is for the proposed conversion of an
existing 1,113 sq. ft. retail store to a sixteen (16) seat restaurant and installation of a
new sanitary system on 3.14 acres in the Hamlet Business Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to State Environmental
Quality Review Act (SEQRA) 6 NYCRR, Part 617.5 (c), determined that the proposed
action is a Type II Action as it falls within the following description for 6 NYCRR, Part
617.5(c)(7) construction or expansion of a primary or accessory/appurtenant, non-
residential structure or facility involving less than 4,000 square feet of gross floor area
and not involving a change in zoning or a use variance and consistent with local land
use controls, but not radio communication or microwave transmission facilities; be it
therefore
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board has determined that this proposed
action is a Type II Action under SEQRA as described above.
James H. Rich III: Second.
Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Mary, seconded by Jim. Any discussion? All in
favor?
Ayes.
Opposed?
Southold Town Planning Board Page 16 July 9, 2018
None.
Motion carries.
Mary Eisenstein:
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board sets Monday, August 6, 2018 at
6:02 p.m. for a Public Hearing regarding the Amended Site Plan entitled "Latin
Fuzion: Feather Hill Commons" prepared by John T. Metzger dated May 25, 2018.
James H. Rich III: Second.
Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Mary, seconded by Jim. Any discussion? All in
favor?
Ayes.
Opposed?
None.
Motion carries.
SEQRA Determinations:
Chairman Wilcenski: North Fork Recycling (NF Sanitation) —This Site Plan is for
the proposed construction of a 1-story 960 sq. ft. building for office use attached to a 1
Y2-story 6,000 sq. ft. building for warehouse space and no basement with 16 parking
stalls on 5 acres in the Light Industrial Zoning District. The property is located at 8475
Cox Lane, in Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-83-3-4.7
Pierce Rafferty:
WHEREAS, this Site Plan is for the proposed construction of a 1-story 960 sq. ft.
building for office use attached to a 1 Y-story 6,000 sq. ft. building for warehouse space
and no basement with 16 parking stalls on 5 acres in the Light Industrial Zoning District,
Cutchogue; and
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to State Environmental
Quality Review Act (SEQRA) 6 NYCRR, Part 617, has determined that the proposed
action is an Unlisted Action as it does not meet any of the thresholds of a Type I Action,
nor does it meet any of the criteria on the Type II list of actions; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board performed a coordinated review of this Unlisted Action
pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.7 of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act (SEQRA); be it therefore
Southold Town Planning Board Page 17 July 9, 2018
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby declares Lead Agency
status for the SEQRA review of this Unlisted Action.
James H. Rich III: Second.
Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Pierce, seconded by Jim. Any discussion? All in
favor?
Ayes.
Opposed?
None.
Motion carries.
Pierce Rafferty: And be it further
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board, as Lead Agency pursuant to
SEQRA, hereby makes a determination of non-significance for the proposed action and
grants a Negative Declaration.
James H. Rich III: Second.
Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Pierce, seconded by Jim. Any discussion? All in
favor?
Ayes.
Opposed?
None.
Motion carries.
SEQRA Final Environmental Impact Statement:
Chairman Wilcenski: Southold Gas Station & Convenience Store - This amended
Site Plan is for the proposed conversion of an existing 3,476 sq. ft. building (formerly for
vehicle detailing, RV sales and servicing) to a convenience store and vehicle fuel sales
with: 6 fuel pumps (12 fueling stations), two canopies, one at 50' x 24' (1,200 sq. ft.)
and the other at 50' x 50' (2,500 sq. ft.) and 29 parking spaces on 1.46 acres in the
General Business (B) Zoning District. The property is located at 45450 CR 48, on the
southwest corner of CR 48 and Youngs Avenue, Southold. SCTM#1000-55.-5-2.2
Southold Town Planning Board Page 18 July 9, 2018
Mary Eisenstein:
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency and pursuant to the
State Environmental Quality Review Act, found the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the application referenced above to be adequate and acceptable for
public review on July 10, 2017, held the requisite public hearing and public comment
period, reviewed all comments and completed a Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS); and
WHEREAS, upon review of the FEIS, the Southold Town Planning Board finds that it
adequately responds to the comments and will facilitate the preparation of findings;
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board finds the Final Environmental
Impact Statement to be complete and hereby authorizes and directs the Planning Board
Chairman to submit the Notice of Completion pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law within five
business days of this resolution.
Martin Sidor: Second.
Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Mary, seconded by Marty. Any discussion? All
in favor?
Ayes.
Opposed?
None.
Motion carries.
Mary Eisenstein: And be it further
RESOLVED, that the public consideration period for the FEIS will begin upon the filing
of the Notice of Completion and continue for 14 days.
Martin Sidor: Second.
Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Mary, seconded by Marty. Any discussion? All
in favor?
Ayes.
Opposed?
Southold Town Planning Board Page 19 July 9, 2018
None.
Motion carries.
SITE PLANS
Chairman Wilcenski: Nicolette's For The Home —This Site Plan is for the proposed
conversion of an existing 2 Y2 story dwelling to retail (home showroom) with a 1,422 sq.
ft. first floor for retail, a 1,258 sq. ft. second floor, with a 164 sq. ft. office and 1,094 sq.
ft. for storage, a 1,292 sq. ft. basement and a 1,068 sq. ft. attic for accessory storage
and a detached 432 sq. ft. cottage (pursuant to ZBA File 2430) with fourteen (14)
parking stalls on 0.54 acres in the Hamlet Business Zoning District. The property is
located at 53245 Route 25, Southold. SCTM#1000-61-1-8.1
James H. Rich III:
WHEREAS, this Site Plan is for the proposed conversion of an existing 2 % story
dwelling to retail (home showroom) with a 1,422 sq. ft. first floor for retail, a 1,258 sq. ft.
second floor, with a 164 sq. ft. office and 1,094 sq. ft. for storage, a 1,292 sq. ft.
basement and a 1,068 sq. ft. attic for accessory storage and a detached 432 sq. ft.
cottage (pursuant to ZBA File 2430) with fourteen (14) parking stalls on 0.54 acres in
the Hamlet Business Zoning District, Southold; and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2018, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) 6 NYCRR, Part 617, determined that the
proposed action is an Unlisted Action as it does not meet any of the thresholds of a
Type I Action, nor does it meet any of the criteria on the Type II list of actions; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has recognized that due to this site being located
within a National Historic District, the action must be re-classified as a Type I action;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board performed a coordinated review of this action pursuant
to 6 NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.7 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA); be it therefore
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby re-classifies this action as
a Type I action.
Pierce Rafferty: Second.
Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Jim, seconded by Pierce. Any discussion? All in
favor?
Ayes.
Southold Town Planning Board Page 110 July 9, 2018
Opposed?
None.
Motion carries.
James H. Rich III: And be it further
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby declares Lead Agency
status for the SEQRA review of this action.
Pierce Rafferty: Second.
Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Jim, seconded by Pierce. Any discussion? All in
favor?
Ayes.
Opposed?
None.
Motion carries.
James H. Rich III: And be it further
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board, as Lead Agency pursuant to
SEQRA, hereby makes a determination of non-significance for the proposed action and
grants a Negative Declaration.
Pierce Rafferty: Second.
Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Jim, seconded by Pierce. Any discussion? All in
favor?
Ayes.
Opposed?
None.
Motion carries.
Southold Town Planning Board Page 111 July 9, 2018
Set Hearings:
Chairman Wilcenski: Vineyard View—This proposed Residential Site Plan is for 50
multiple dwelling units in seven buildings. All units are proposed to be offered for rent at
rates set by the federal government for affordability for the next 50 years. The plan
includes 14 one-bedroom units, 22 two-bedroom units and 14 three-bedroom units, a
2,649 sq. ft. community center, 104 parking spaces; and various other associated site
improvements, on a vacant 17.19-acre parcel of which 10 acres will be preserved as
open space (6.3 acres upland and 3.7 acres wetlands), in the Hamlet Density (HD)
Zoning District located on the s/s of County Road 48 ±1,600' n/e/o Chapel Lane ,
Greenport.. SCTM#1000-40-3-1
Pierce Rafferty:
WHEREAS, this proposed Residential Site Plan is for 50 multiple dwelling units in
seven buildings. All units are proposed to be offered for rent at rates set by the federal
government for affordability for the next 50 years. The plan includes 14 one-bedroom
units, 22 two-bedroom units and 14 three-bedroom units, a 2,649 sq. ft. community
center, 104 parking spaces; and various other associated site improvements, on a
vacant 17.19-acre parcel of which 10 acres will be preserved as open space (6.3 acres
upland and 3.7 acres wetlands), in the Hamlet Density (HD) Zoning District located on
the s/s of County Road 48 ±1,600' n/e/o Chapel Lane, Greenport; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to §280-137(D) the Southold Town Planning Board held and
closed a preliminary Public Hearing on May 7, 2018; be it further
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board sets Monday, August 6, 2018 at
6:03 p.m. for a Public Hearing regarding the Residential Site Plan entitled "Vineyard
View" prepared by Raymond G. DiBiase, P.E., dated February 23, 2018 and last
revised March 5, 2018.
James H. Rich III: Second.
Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Pierce, seconded by Jim. Any discussion? All in
favor?
Ayes.
Opposed?
None.
Motion carries.
Public Hearings Continued by Court Reporter Jessica DiLallo
Southold Town Planning Board Page 112 July 9, 2018
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6:01 p.m. — DiVello Resubdivision —This proposed resubdivision will transfer 0.85
acres from SCTM#1000-140-2-32 to SCTM#1000-140-2-30. Lot 30 located in the LI
Zoning District will increase from 0.47 acres to 1.37 acres and Lot 32 located in the RO
Zoning District will decrease from 1.43 acres to 0.52 acres. The property is located at
800 Wickham Avenue & 305 Hill Street, in Mattituck. SCTM#1000-140-2-30 & 32
6:02 p.m. — Nicolefte's For The Home—This Site Plan is for the proposed conversion
of an existing 2 '/Z story dwelling to retail (home showroom) with a 1,422 sq. ft. first floor
for retail, a 1,258 sq. ft. second floor, with a 164 sq. ft. office and 1,094 sq. ft. for
storage, a 1,292 sq. ft. basement and a 1,068 sq. ft. attic for accessory storage and a
detached 432 sq. ft. cottage (pursuant to ZBA File 2430) with fourteen (14) parking
stalls on 0.54 acres in the Hamlet Business Zoning District. The property is located at
53245 Route 25, Southold. SCTM#1000-61-1-8.1
6:03 p.m. — Peconic Landing Duplex—This Site Plan is for the proposed conversion
of one existing 1-story 2,987 sq. ft. single family dwelling to a two family dwelling with
no expansion of living area and no basement, 4 parking stalls on a Hamlet Density (HD)
and R-80 split zoned parcel totaling 143 acres. The property is located at 1205 Route
25, #107 Thompson Boulevard, ±75' n/o Chickadee Lane & Thompson Boulevard,
Greenport. SCTM#1000-35-1-25
6:04 p.m. —Verizon Wireless at Laurel Stone —This proposed Site Plan is for a 120'
tall wireless telecommunications facility monopole for one Verizon section 110' -120'
a.g.l. and two AT&T antenna sections 90' - 11 0' a.g.l. and three (3) empty 10' sections
for possible future co-location (all concealed within the pole), along with a 2,500 sq. ft.
area for proposed associated ground equipment. There are ±5,078 sq. ft. of existing
buildings including a stone supply yard and associated accessory structures, all on 1.6
acres in the General Business Zoning District. The property is located at 7055 Route
25, Mattituck. SCTM#1000-122-6-35.4
6:05 p.m. — Mazzoni Subdivision —This proposal is for a Standard Subdivision of a
22.94 acre parcel into 5 lots where Lot 1 = 2.34 acres, Lot 2 = 1.78 acres, Lot 3 = 2.18
acres, Lot 4 = 0.56 acres, Lot 5 = 16.06 acres inclusive of a .97 acre right-of-way, 8.58
acres of Open Space and 6 acres of a Conservation Easement held by the Peconic
Land Trust (PLT) located in the R-80 Zoning District. The property is located at 500
Soundview Drive, approximately 782' to the north of NYS Route 25 and 256' to the east
of Sound View Drive, Orient. SCTM#1000-13-2-8.2
6:06 p.m. —Tenedios Agricultural Barn —This Agricultural Site Plan is for a proposed
one story 8,664 sq. ft. building to house livestock and store feed, supplies and farm
equipment on a 34.5 acre farm, of which 29.5 acres have development rights held by
Southold Town and 5 acres have development rights intact in the R-200 Zoning District.
The property is located at 28410 Route 25, Orient. SCTM#1000-19-1-1.4 & 1.3
Southold Town Planning Board Page 113 July 9, 2018
APPROVAL OF PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Chairman Wilcenski: We need a motion to approve the Planning Board minutes from:
June 4, 2018
James H. Rich III: So moved.
Pierce Rafferty: Second.
Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Jim, seconded by Pierce. Any discussion? All in
favor?
Ayes.
Opposed?
None.
Motion carries.
Chairman Wilcenski: We need a motion for adjournment.
Martin Sidor: So moved.
James H. Rich III: Second.
Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Martin, seconded by Jim. Any discussion? All in
favor?
Ayes.
Opposed?
None.
Motion carries.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Jessica Michaelis
s Transcribing Secretary
Donald J. Wilcenski, Chairman
1
1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
2 ------------------------------------------- X
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
3 PLANNING BOARD MEETING
4 ------------------------------------------- X
5
6
Southold, New York
7 July 9, 2018
6:00 P.M.
8
9
10
11-
12
13 Board Members Present:
14
15 DONALD WILCENSKI, Chairman
16 JAMES H. RICH, III, Board Member
17 PIERCE RAFFERTY, Board Member
18 MARTIN H. SIDOR, Board Member
19 MARY EISENSTEIN, Board Member
20
21 HEATHER LANZA, Planning Director
22 Mark Terry, Assistant Planning Director
23 Brian Cummings, Planner
24 Jessica Michaelis, Typist
25 William Duffy, Town Attorney
2
1
2 INDEX
3
4 NAME PAGE
5
6 PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7
8 DiVELLO RESUBDIVISION 3-5
9 NICOLETTE'S FOR THE HOME 5-7
10 PECONIC LANDING DUPLEX 15-18
11 VERIZON WIRELESS AT LAUREL STONE 18-51
12 MAZZONI SUBDIVISION 51-73
13 TENEDIOS AGRICULTURAL BARN 73-149
14
15 RESOLUTIONS:
16 NICOLETTE'S FOR THE HOME 7-15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 9, 2018 3
1 DIVELLO RESUBDIVISION
2 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: The first
3 public hearing is for DiVello
4 Re-subdivision. This proposed
5 re-subdivision will transfer 0.85
6 acres from SCTM#1000-140-2-32 to
7 SCTM#1000-140-2-30. Lot 30 located
8 in the LI Zoning District will
9 increase from 0.47 acres to 1.37
10 acres and Lot 32 located in the
11 RO Zoning District will decrease from
12 1.43 acres to 0.52 acres. The
13 property is located at 800 Wickham
14 Avenue and 305 Hill Street in
15 Mattituck. SCTM#1000-140-2-30
16 and 32.
17 At this time, I would like to ask
18 anyone from the audience if they would
19 like to address the Board. Please step
20 to one of the microphones. State your
21 name and write your name for the record.
22 Please address all your comments to the
23 Board.
24 MR. CUDDY: Good evening. Charles
25 Cuddy for the applicant's. This is
July 9, 2018 4
1 simply a lot line determination which
2 will allow the Zoning and the use of
3 these parcels to coincide. So the
4 1 1/2 acres will be the commercial.
5 That will be in the Industrial Zone.
6 The 1/2 acre will be in a Residential
7 Zone. That's all that is being done.
8 And I would ask the Board to approve
9 that.
10 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
11 Would anyone else like to address the
12 Board on the DiVello Re-subdivision in
13 Mattituck?
14 (No Response. )
15 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Anyone?
16 (No Response. )
17 MEMBER SIDOR: Motion to close the
18 hearing.
19 MEMBER RICH: Second.
20 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Motion made by
21 Martin and Seconded by Jim to close the
22 hearing.
23 Any discussion?
24 (No Response. )
25 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: All in favor?
July 9, 2018 5
1 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Aye.
2 MEMBER RICH: Aye.
3 MEMBER RAFFERTY: Aye.
4 MEMBER SIDOR: Aye.
5 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Aye.
6 Motion carries.
7 ****************************************
8 NICOLETTE'S FOR THE HOME
9 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Our second
10 public hearing this evening is for
11 Nicolette's For The Home.
12 This site plan is for the proposed
13 conversion of an existing two and a half
14 story dwelling to retail, home showroom,
15 with 1, 422 square feet first floor for
16 retail. A 1,258 square feet second floor,
17 with 164 square feet office and 1, 094
18 square feet for storage. A 1,292 square
19 foot basement and a 1, 068 square foot
20 attic for accessory storage and a
21 detached 432 square feet cottage,
22 pursuant to ZBA File 2430, with 14
23 parking stalls on 0.54 acres in the
24 Hamlet Business Zoning District. The
25 property is located at 53245 Route 25 in
July 9, 2018 6
1 Southold. SCTM#1000-61-1-8.1.
2 At this time, I would ask anyone who
3 would like to address the Board on
4 Nicolette's for the Home to step to one
5 of the podiums. State your name, write
6 your name and address the Board. Thank
7 you.
8 MR. NICOLETTI: Good evening. My
9 name is John Nicoletti. I am the
10 applicant. We're just here to get
11 approval from this community to open
12 up our business and you know,
13 hopefully be here for many, many
14 years to come.
15 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
16 Would anyone else from the audience
17 tonight like to address the Board on
18 Nicolette's For The Home?
19 (No Response. )
20 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Seeing none.
21 MEMBER RICH: Make a motion that
22 we close the hearing.
23 MEMBER SIDOR: Second.
24 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Motion made by
25 Jim. Seconded by Martin.
July 9, 2018 7
1 Any discussion?
2 (No Response. )
3 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: All in favor?
4 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Aye.
5 MEMBER RICH: Aye.
6 MEMBER RAFFERTY: Aye.
7 MEMBER SIDOR: Aye.
8 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Aye.
9 Motion carries.
10 ******************************************
11 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: We have a
12 Resolution for the Nicolette's for the
13 Home that we will read now.
14 MEMBER RICH: Mr. Chairman,
15 WHEREAS, this Site Plan is for the
16 proposed conversion of an existing two
17 and a half story dwelling to retail (home
18 showroom) with a 1, 422 square foot.
19 First floor for retail, a 1,258 square
20 feet. Second floor, with a 164 square
21 feet office and 1, 094 square feet for
22 storage, a 1,292 square feet basement and
23 a 1, 068 square foot attic for accessory
24 storage and a detached 432 square feet
25 cottage (pursuant to ZBA File 2430) with
July 9, 2018 8
1 fourteen parking stalls on 0.54 acres in
2 the Hamlet Business Zoning District,
3 Southold; and
4 WHEREAS, on April 25, 2018; the ZBA
5 granted an Area Variance as requested
6 pursuant to ZBA file #7147; and
7 WHEREAS, on May 8, 2018, John
8 Nicoletti, applicant, submitted a Site
9 Plan Application for review; and
10 WHEREAS, on May 23, 2018, the Planning
11 Board accepted the application as
12 complete for review with certain
13 information to be provided no later than
14 June 1, 2018; and
15 WHEREAS, on May 29, 2018, John
16 Nicoletti, applicant, submitted revised
17 Site Plans and additional information as
18 required for review; and
19 WHEREAS, on June 4, 2018, the Southold
20 Town Planning Board, pursuant to State
21 Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)
22 6 NYCRR, Part 617, determined that the
23 proposed action is an Unlisted Action as
24 it does not meet any of the thresholds of
25 a Type I Action, nor does it meet any of
July 9, 2018 9
1 the criteria on the Type II list of
2 actions; and
3 WHEREAS, on June 7, 2018, the Planning
4 Board, pursuant to Southold Town Code
5 '280-131 C. , distributed the application
6 to the required agencies for their
7 comments; and
8 WHEREAS, the proposed action is a
9 matter for local determination by the
10 Suffolk County Planning Commission
11 (SCPC) ; and
12 WHEREAS, on June 8, 2018, the Southold
13 Town Engineer reviewed the application
14 and provided comments to be considered by
15 the Planning Board and confirmed the site
16 plan meets the minimum requirements of
17 Chapter 236 for Storm Water Management;
18 and
19 WHEREAS, on June 13, 2018, the
20 Southold Town Fire Inspector reviewed and
21 determined that there was adequate fire
22 protection and emergency access for the
23 site; and
24 WHEREAS, on June 22, 2018, the
25 Architectural Review Committee (ARC)
July 9, 2018 10
1 approved the proposed action as
2 submitted; and
3 WHEREAS, on June 26, 2018, the
4 Southold Fire District determined there
5 was adequate fire protection for the
6 site; and
7 WHEREAS, on July 5, 2018, the Town of
8 Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization
9 Program Coordinator reviewed the proposed
10 project and determined the project to be
11 consistent with Southold Town LWRP
12 policies with recommendations to the
13 Planning Board; and
14 WHEREAS, on July 6, 2018, the
15 Southold Town Chief Building Inspector
16 reviewed and certified the proposed
17 retail use as a permitted use in the
18 Hamlet Business (HB) Zoning District
19 pursuant to ZBA file #7147; and
20 WHEREAS, on July 9, 2018, a Public
21 Hearing was held and closed; and
22 WHEREAS, on July 9, 2018, the Southold
23 Town Planning Board determined that all
24 applicable requirements of the Site Plan
25 Regulations, Article XXIV, '280 - Site
July 9, 2018 11
1 Plan Approval of the Town of Southold,
2 were met; and
3 WHEREAS, on July 9, 2018, the Southold
4 Town Planning Board, as Lead Agency
5 pursuant to SEQRA, reclassified the
6 action as a Type I due to it being
7 located in a national historic district,
8 and made a determination of
9 non-significance for the proposed action
10 and granted a Negative Declaration;
11 therefore be it
12 RESOLVED, that the Southold Town
13 Planning Board has determined that this
14 proposed action is consistent with the
15 policies of the Town of Southold Local
16 Waterfront Revitalization Program.
17 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Motion made by
18 Jim.
19 MEMBER SIDOR: Second.
20 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Seconded by
21 Martin.
22 Any discussion?
23 (No Response. )
24 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: All in favor?
25 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Aye.
July 9, 2018 12
1 MEMBER RICH: Aye.
2 MEMBER RAFFERTY: Aye.
3 MEMBER SIDOR: Aye.
4 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Aye.
5 Motion carries.
6 MEMBER RICH: And be it further
7 RESOLVED, that the Southold Town
8 Planning Board approves the Site Plan
9 with four (4) conditions, as shown on the
10 site plan entitled "Nicolette's for the
11 Home" for SCTM#1000-61.-1-8.1 prepared by
12 the applicant and dated July 13, 2018
13 with the following two pages:
14 Site Plan
15 Alternate Parking Plan
16 Conditions
17 1. The Applicant, within 60 days of
18 receiving written notice from the
19 Planning Department that the parking
20 requirements for subject premises are not
21 being met by the available parking on
22 site, shall make an application to the
23 Planning Board to amend the approved site
24 plan to construct the land-bank parking
25 stalls and/or the alternate parking plan
July 9, 2018 13
1 as shown on the approved site plan, as
2 determined by the Planning Board;
3 2. In addition to receiving approval
4 from the Planning Board, prior to
5 construction of the land-bank parking
6 stalls, the Applicant must receive
7 approval from the Town Board of the Town
8 of Southold to access the site over the
9 Town's driveway. The Town may terminate
10 such right to access for any reason at
11 its sole discretion. If approved, the
12 rear entrance to the site over the Town's
13 driveway must be for ingress only. Until
14 such time as the land-bank parking is
15 approved, access to and from the site
16 shall be from State Route 25 only;
17 3. If the Town Board of the Town of
18 Southold terminates any previously
19 granted rights of the Applicant to access
20 the site over Town owned property, the
21 Applicant shall take the necessary steps
22 to construct the alternate parking plan
23 as depicted on the approved site plan.
24 The Applicant shall make any and all
25 applications to government agencies with
July 9, 2018 14
1 jurisdiction over the proposed
2 construction. Construction of the
3 alternate parking plan must be commenced
4 within 60 days of receiving a notice of
5 termination or receiving any necessary
6 approvals, whichever is later;
7 4 . Any proposed change of use of the
8 site must be submitted to the Planning
9 Board for review. The Planning Board,
10 based upon its review, may require the
11 Applicant to submit an application to
12 amend the site plan.
13 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Motion made by
14 Jim.
15 MEMBER SIDOR: Second.
16 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Seconded by
17 Martin.
18 Any discussion?
19 (No Response. )
20 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: All in favor?
21 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Aye.
22 MEMBER RICH: Aye.
23 MEMBER RAFFERTY: Aye.
24 MEMBER SIDOR: Aye.
25 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Aye.
July 9, 2018 15
1 Motion carries.
2 ****************************************
3 PECONIC LANDING DUPLEX
4 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Okay. The
5 third public hearing that we have for
6 tonight is for Peconic Landing Duplex.
7 This site plan is for the proposed
8 conversion of an existing one-story 2, 987
9 square feet single family dwelling to a
10 two family dwelling with no expansion of
11 living area and no basement, 4 parking
12 stalls on a Hamlet Density and R-80 split
13 zoned parcel totalling 143 acres. The
14 property is located at 1205 Route 25,
15 #107 Thompson Boulevard, plus or minus,
16 north of Chickadee Lane and Thompson
17 Boulevard in Greenport,
18 SCTM41000-35-1-25.
19 Anyone who would like to address the
20 Board on Peconic Landing Duplex,
21 please step to one of the podiums, write
22 your name and state your name for the
23 record and address your comments to the
24 Board.
25 MR. CUDDY: Good evening. Charles
July 9, 2018 16
1 Cuddy for the applicants. With me is
2 Robert Siren, who is the President
3 and CEO of Peconic Landing and also
4 Darryl Dubonski, who is the Director
5 of Environmental Planning. This is
6 an entirely interior type of
7 operation. There is nothing that is
8 going to be changed on the outside of
9 this building. The building will be
10 divided in half. It will have two
11 parking area. Two garages. It's
12 going to be done in hopefully an
13 expeditious manner, so if we can find
14 out if we can offer this for sale.
15 We have many people that like
16 apartments, but more cottages. So
17 we're trying to make smaller units of
18 the cottages, which are large. it
19 would be very helpful if this Board
20 could see fit, and have a Special
21 Meeting, so that we could get
22 approval. Because at this time of
23 year, we can not only fix it up, but
24 we have people that come out to buy
25 the units. So this is the time of
July 9, 2018 17
1 year where we can actually get
2 people to look at this and do
3 something with it. So it would be
4 helpful if you can consider that. We
5 would appreciate it.
6 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Okay. We will
7 consider it. Would anybody else like to
8 address the Board on Peconic Landing
9 Duplex? Anyone?
10 (No Response. )
11 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Seeing none.
12 MEMBER SIDOR: Motion to close the
13 hearing.
14 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Motion made by
15 Martin.
16 MEMBER RICH: Second.
17 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Seconded by Jim.
18 Any discussion?
19 (No Response. )
20 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: All in favor?
21 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Aye.
22 MEMBER RICH: Aye.
23 MEMBER RAFFERTY: Aye.
24 MEMBER SIDOR: Aye.
25 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Aye.
July 9, 2018 18
1 Motion carries.
2 ****************************************
3 VERIZON WIRELESS AT LAUREL STONE
4 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: The fourth
5 public hearing that we have is for
6 Verizon Wireless at Laurel Stone.
7 This proposed site plan is for a
8 120 foot tall wireless telecommunications
9 facility monopole for Verizon section
10 110'-120' a.g.l. and two AT&T antennas
11 sections, 90'-1101 , a.g.l. and three
12 empty 10 foot sections for possible
13 future co-location, all concealed within
14 the pole, along with a 2, 500 square feet
15 area for proposed associated ground
16 equipment. There are plus or minus
17 5, 078 square feet of existing buildings
18 including a stone supply yard and
19 associated structures, all on 1. 6 acres
20 in the General Business Zoning District.
21 The property is located at 7055 Route 25,
22 in Mattituck. SCTM#1000-122-6-35.4 .
23 At this time, I would like to ask
24 anyone if they would like to address the
25 Board on Verizon Wireless
July 9, 2018 19
1 Telecommunications Tower at Laurel Stone,
2 please step to one of the podiums. State
3 your name and write your name for the
4 record.
5 MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you,
6 Mr. Chairman. John Coughlin on
7 behalf of Re' , Nielsen, Huber and
8 Coughlin, 775 Park Avenue,
9 Huntington, New York. For the
10 record, I have a couple of additional
11 Green Cards that I would like to
12 submit to the Board for Notices that
13 were received subsequent to our
14 submission on Friday. I would just
15 note and I know the Board is aware,
16 but for any interested constituents
17 that the application is not just
18 Verizon Wireless. Mattituck Fire
19 District is to be the top operator
20 above the top of this 120 foot pole.
21 And we have a representative here
22 this evening from the Mattituck Fire
23 District's communication consultant
24 to speak about the need for that
25 entity. And in addition, AT&T is
July 9, 2018 20
1 proposing to locate its antennas down
2 below the Verizon antennas. You're
3 correct, Verizon, will be the top
4 operator inside the pole itself. As
5 to the fire district, I have a letter
6 that we submitted to CityScape, the
7 Board's wireless consultant. I just
8 received it last week, but we sent it
9 over by Friday. It's a letter from
10 John Harrison who is the Fire
11 District Manager, talking about not
12 only the Fire District's need for
13 improved communications on the
14 western part of the District, but the
15 goal for the fire district to be in
16 the west district as possible and
17 improve communications to Jamesport
18 and Peconic Bay Medical Center. So I
19 have the original letter from John
20 and some copies as well. That is all
21 by way of introduction. The Board
22 knows there has been a volume of
23 materials submitted. I have a team
24 of experts here. Since you have a
25 full house. And each of them has a
July 9, 2018 21
1 certain area of expertise that
2 they're able to present to you. I
3 think it makes most sense next to
4 have Greg Dubonski to come up next
5 and this is the engineering plans. I
6 see Bryan or Heather already have
7 them up already. So we may not even
8 need the easel.
9 So Greg, if you would come up and
10 introduce yourself and if you can
11 walk the Board and interested
12 neighbors through the Board, that
13 would be great.
14 MR. DUBONSKI: Greg Dubonski with
15 (Inaudible) Engineers, Inc, . We are
16 the engineering firm on the project.
17 A brief description of the project
18 here. We're proposing a 120 foot
19 concealment pole. That at the top
20 sector, I will be concealing 3
21 Verizon Wireless antennas. 10 feet
22 below that, 3 AT&T antennas, and then
23 another 10 feet below that, another
24 3 AT&T antennas. All 9 antennas will
25 be concealed within the pole. All
July 9, 2018 22
1 cabling and co-axles, etceteras, will
2 also be concealed within the pole
3 itself. At the top of the 120 foot
4 pole, there is a 12 foot whip
5 antenna, which will be mounted on the
6 exterior of the pole itself.
7 Situated at grade behind the existing
8 1 to 2 story structure, is a 50 foot
9 fenced area with a 6 foot tall chain
10 linked fence. The entire area will
11 be gravel. And then within that
12 fenced area, we have a 12x30 concrete
13 pad for Verizon Wireless. The
14 concrete pad will carry the generator
15 and canopy over the equipment. Also
16 at grade, is the 10x20 AT&T concrete
17 pad, which will carry their generator
18 and equipment. And then the 4x7
19 concrete pad for the fire department
20 equipment. We also have associated
21 cable bridges routed about. The are
22 installed 9 to 10 feet above grade
23 that carries to the tower itself.
24 Then we also have a cabinet, which
25 deals with bringing Telco (phonetic)
July 9, 2018 23
1 and fiber into the sites and the fire
2 department. Then we have a
3 transformer, protected by bollards at
4 the front main gate. That is really
5 the installation. There is no
6 proposed grading at this location, as
7 its level. Power and teleco and
8 fiber, will be brought in by the
9 telephone pole from that street.
10 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Does any Board
11 members have any questions?
12 (No Response. )
13 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: No. Thank you.
14 MR. COUGHLIN: Mike Lynch is a
15 licensed real estate appraiser. He
16 has testified previously before this
17 Board. I have copies of Mr. Lynch's
18 report --
19 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: John, you're
20 going to have to speak into the
21 microphone. This is being recorded.
22 MR. COUGHLIN: My apologies.
23 MR. LYNCH: Good evening,
24 Mr. Chairman and Members of the
25 Board. My name is Michael Lynch and
July 9, 2018 24
1 I am a licensed real estate appraiser
2 with offices in Huntington. I have
3 testified before this Board numerous
4 times in the past. I have prepared a
5 report as Mr. Coughlin has indicated
6 with my findings of this proposed
7 site. Just briefly, this would be a
8 120 foot stealth pole with Verizon
9 and AT&T panels located within the
10 structure. On top of that will be a
11 12 foot whip antennas by the
12 Mattituck Fire Department. There is
13 a sales office on the property and a
14 barn that will be located directly to
15 the south of the communications
16 facility, which will shield the
17 compound itself and the base of the
18 tower along Main Road. To the north
19 of the property, abutting to the
20 north is the Long Island railroad.
21 To the west of the site is additional
22 storage yard and fencing company. To
23 the southwest of the site along Main
24 Road is bicycle shop. To the east of
25 the property is an auto body shop.
July 9, 2018 25
1 Suffolk County Water Authority
2 easement that leads to the Water
3 Authority. A complex north of the
4 site, as you can see in the aerial.
5 And then to the northeast of this
6 property is additional storage areas
7 that the stone yard uses for their
8 operation. To the south of the
9 property along the south side of Main
10 Road is a single family residence.
11 And to the southeast is a real estate
12 offices. The site is -- again panel
13 antennas are completely concealed. I
14 think it's an appropriate site for
15 this stricture, given it's location
16 to the railroad and the industrial
17 like use. Shielded from view from
18 Main Road due to the barn placement
19 on the property. I think that should
20 this be approved, it will not result
21 in any deleterious effect by property
22 values or to the essential character
23 of the area. I have looked at other
24 type of monopole and stealth like
25 structures across Suffolk County and
July 9, 2018 26
1 Nassau County and the east end of
2 Long Island. Those are outlined in
3 my report. Again, I feel that should
4 this facility be approved, it will
5 not have any adverse affect on the
6 community.
7 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Does the Board
8 have any questions?
9 MR. LYNCH: Thank you.
10 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
11 MR. COUGHLIN: Now, I am going to ask
12 Dennis Kemper to come up and speak about
13 the fire district's supportive need of
14 the facility.
15 MR. KENTER: Good evening. My
16 name is Dennis Kenter. I am the
17 owner of Long Island
18 Telecommunications. We're the radio
19 company that maintains the critical
20 communications for the Mattituck Fire
21 District. We're looking to co-locate
22 on top of the monopole so we can
23 clear the topography and trees in the
24 area, so we can use for
25 communications. We can only have a
July 9, 2018 27
1 monopoly at our Headquarter's. It's
2 working well since it went up. The
3 problem is, it improved our
4 communications but it did not solve
5 all of our west-end communication
6 issues. We're looking to be on this
7 monopole so we can have coverage with
8 the emphasis going to Peconic Bay
9 Medical Center, as well as, portable
10 coverage for the west-end of the fire
11 department coverage. By being on top
12 of the monopole, we will clear the
13 trees. We have tested the use of a
14 ladder truck. We tested with
15 different antennas, and we found that
16 the height that we're requesting is
17 what we need in order for this to
18 work properly. Any questions?
19 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Does any Board
20 members have any questions for
21 Mr. Kenter?
22 (No Response. )
23 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: No. Thank
24 you.
25 MR. KENTER: Thank you very much.
July 9, 2018 28
1 MR. COUGHLIN: If the Board would
2 like, I also have the radio frequency
3 experts from both Verizon and AT&T. You
4 have the volume of material from each of
5 them. I can have them come up or I can
6 wait until the Board or the neighbors
7 have any questions?
8 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: I think that we
9 have enough information from previous
10 applications --
11 MR. COUGHLIN: Understood. If
12 anything comes up to that degree, I will
13 have them on standby. With that said,
14 John Ellsworth, if you might come up.
15 Mr. Ellsworth❑s company is the one that
16 prepared the simulations and the study
17 that the Board already has in the
18 packet. He has done a supplemental
19 report that I will hand up and he can
20 scribble in.
21 MR. ELLSWORTH: Good evening,
22 Mr. Chairman and Members of the
23 Board. My name is John Ellsworth. I
24 am Chief environmental Planner for
25 VHB, 100 Motor Parkway, Hauppauge.
July 9, 2018 29
1 My testimony tonight highlights two
2 reports that we prepared. A one mile
3 visibility study dated from May of
4 2017. And the report that was just
5 handed up, a Planning, Zoning Impact
6 Analysis dated July 2018. I am going
7 to start with the Visibility Study
8 that was previously submitted. VHB
9 study involved a visual field survey
10 of public roadways within a one mild
11 radius of the subject facility
12 location. A crane was positioned at
13 that site, 120 feet with a red flag
14 on top. And we literally drove all
15 the public roadways within a one mild
16 radius area to see where the crane
17 was visible from, and that is where
18 the pole would be visible from. And
19 we created a map. I don't know if it
20 was -- I think that is it. And this
21 map shows the faint one mile radius
22 area. The red lines are locations on
23 public roadways where the pole was
24 visible. Where you could see the
25 crane. And the blue is where you
July 9, 2018 30
1 could see the crane through trees,
2 and things like that. In general,
3 except to the northeast Main Road,
4 the visibility was limited to about a
5 1/2 mild give or take. As part of
6 the visibility study, we also did
7 photo simulations that were prepared
8 by Creative Visuals. And we add them
9 to the corresponding photographs of
10 existing conditions to evaluate the
11 visual impacts of the proposed
12 facility. Generally you will see as
13 we go through -- these are the photos
14 of the crane. That is the existing
15 condition and then the next photo
16 will show the simulation. It's at a
17 good distance and you will really
18 have to strain a good much. The
19 survey was done in March. So that
20 when the leaves grow in at this time
21 of year, you won't really be able to
22 see the horizon there. Next photo is
23 from the ball field. Again at a
24 pretty good distance. Again, the
25 pole is hidden within the trees and
July 9, 2018 31
1 wouldn't be visible at this time of
2 year. The next photo is on Route 25
3 with approaching Laurel and Trail --
4 the entrance to the golf course.
5 Again, after the trees are grown in,
6 you wouldn't be able to see it. Then
7 the next one, here is where you can
8 start seeing the pole. The pole is
9 going to be a sky color and intended
10 to blend in. Doesn't have the
11 antennas hanging off. That is the
12 existing condition. This is from
13 Park District Beach. Again, the pole
14 is in the distance and difficult to
15 see. As you proceed, this is No. 6,
16 again -- you're a little closer and
17 looking through the trees. Again,
18 going to be very difficult to see.
19 Photo 47 is one of the few locations
20 where you really have a clear view.
21 Looking down Old Main Road. Down at
22 the site. And then the next one,
23 it's hidden in the trees. And then
24 the last one is right on the site.
25 Just shows if you were on the site
July 9, 2018 32
1 what it would look like. The
2 second report that was just handed
3 in, was a Planning Report. As you're
4 aware, the proposed action requires
5 the issuance by the Planning Board, a
6 Special Exception, and waivers from
7 certain standards. As part of the
8 Planning analysis, we reviewed
9 private plans and did a field
10 inspection at the same time we did
11 the visibility study. Reviewed
12 aerial photographs of the surrounding
13 community. And the Town Code with
14 the standards. And based upon our
15 analysis and what we concluded this
16 would be consistency with the
17 criteria in the code. We went
18 standard by standard and examined
19 each one that was applicable and
20 accordingly, we concluded that the
21 proposed action would not result in
22 significantly adverse impacts at the
23 subject location or surrounding area
24 with respect to land use zoning and
25 community character. In addition to
July 9, 2018 33
1 visuals resources which I discussed
2 previously. The proposed facility
3 would be situated in the General
4 Business Zoning District which is
5 Light Industrial and land uses. It's
6 also a small business area that is
7 surrounded by residential zoning.
8 The viable options for citing a
9 facility like this are very limited.
10 The applicants as mentioned
11 previously, shows that there is no
12 existing structures which are
13 appropriate for co-location in the
14 area where there is a service
15 deficiency. The proposed facility
16 would not be cited in a (Inaudible)
17 according to the code, which includes
18 wetlands, lands purposed by community
19 preservation funds. Coastal erosion
20 or hazard area or designated park
21 land. The analysis shows that the
22 proposed monopole have been designed
23 and constructed in the manner
24 appropriate and safe. The proposed
25 monopole does not pose a hazard to
July 9, 2018 34
1 aviation and there is a memorandum
2 from the Federal Aviation to that
3 effect. The proposed concealment
4 pole would be able to accommodate up
5 to two additional carriers in the
6 future providing co-location in the
7 future. It complies with the
8 standards. In order to minimize the
9 obtrusiveness, as mentioned
10 previously, the pole is painted sky
11 gray and it has a very narrow
12 profile. So it makes it less
13 obtrusiveness. And that is all I
14 have.
15 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
16 Does anyone have any questions for
17 Mr. Ellsworth?
18 (No Response. )
19 MR. COUGHLIN: The Board also has in
20 the application the FCC study that was
21 prepared by the company Sionetics. I
22 have two representatives from the
23 company Sionetics to speak to the
24 calculations and the analysis done, but
25 as the Board is aware, so long as the
July 9, 2018 35
1 applicants can demonstrate compliance
2 with the Federal Standards, that really
3 stalls the Board from investigating
4 further in terms of evaluating whether
5 the site is proper. I would just like to
6 emphasize for the record that the
7 calculation -- it's a very conservative
8 calculation. That if we assume all these
9 (Inaudible) o to 100, this proposed
10 facility would emit 1. 680 of that 100%
11 possible total. So if the Board would
12 like to hear from the experts, I could
13 have them come up. You do have that
14 report in the application materials.
15 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Okay. I think
16 we have enough paperwork to go through as
17 it is.
18 MR. COUGHLIN: Then I only have one
19 more to give then. The Board's
20 consultant, Cityscape did inquire about
21 three other parcels and whether they were
22 evaluated as part of the site selection
23 process. This was another emailed on
24 Friday. I have the original affidavit
25 and copies here that I would like to
July 9, 2018 36
1 submit up to the Board and it speaks
2 for itself. Obviously, you're just
3 getting this today. That is the
4 presentation and chief. As I mentioned,
5 all the experts that you have heard from
6 and more are here. If there are any
7 questions from the audience as the night
8 progresses.
9 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you. Would
10 anyone else in the audience like to
11 address the Board on the Verizon Wireless
12 Tower at Laurel Stone?
13 (No Response. )
14 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: If not, we have
15 our consultant that the Town hired from
16 CityScape, Jon Edwards. Jon, do you just
17 want to make a few comments? And also,
18 as an FYI, this meeting will be adjourned
19 and held over to August 6th because of
20 the notification issues that you had
21 with the neighbors. That's understood,
22 Jon?
23 MR. EDWARDS: Yes, sir.
24 Mr. Chairman, fellow Board Members.
25 My name is Jon Edwards. The address is
July 9, 2018 37
1 (Inaudible) Canterbury Lane, Georgia. We
2 have prepared an analysis of the proposed
3 tower on behalf of the Town based on the
4 information provided. It's been going
5 back and forth for quite a bit as we
6 requested this information. The concern
7 that CityScape has when comparing this to
8 the ordinates, are the needed waiver with
9 respect -- actually three waivers in
10 concern here. The first waiver being the
11 separation requirement to residential
12 dwellings of 500 feet. CityScape has
13 shown or expressed concern that the
14 proposed tower or pole, will require
15 waiver of that setback. And the concern
16 to that is the residential properties. I
17 believe there are four -- four locations.
18 Four residential properties that will
19 need setbacks. So any use of this
20 parcel, actual plat, will require a
21 waiver of that setback because there is
22 no location on the parcel to meet those.
23 So as it was mentioned from Mr. Coughlin
24 about -- that we had also -- with input
25 from the Board, asked for three
July 9, 2018 38
1 additional parcels to see if they were
2 available, and that they would meet the
3 setbacks. One was ruled out due to
4 wetlands, which we agree which is
5 probably not one that should be used.
6 The other is adjacent to the property.
7 One does have a still -- still have a
8 setback requirement from one home, but
9 would be better shielded from the road
10 itself. If you saw from the photos, the
11 fencing itself is going to be somewhat
12 visible from Main Road. And I believe
13 one of the homes in question and that was
14 a concern of CityScape's. The other
15 parcel was somewhat further to the east
16 and identified 122-6-35.10 and its a
17 medical office building that has a few
18 buildings there with some trees. That
19 can be used as a potential location to
20 locate the site. We didn't -- our
21 response was not whether these sites are
22 available but more so the two in question
23 that they would require some tree
24 removal. There wasn't really any answers
25 to the question about whether they were
July 9, 2018 39
1 available or not as to the landlord or
2 the owner of the parcel. So that in and
3 of itself is a concern and actually
4 trying to find out if the property is
5 available and to require this waiver,
6 because as you know, when you grant a
7 waiver of this type, you have to consider
8 everything from this point forward in a
9 similar case. In addition to the waiver
10 of the residential setback, the applicant
11 is also asking for a waiver of the
12 landscaping, which was going to use a
13 fence instead of a landscaping about the
14 compound. And there is also a section of
15 the code, 280-72, Section 9, further
16 gives more detail about this section
17 because it is adjacent or across the
18 street from residential properties and
19 further limits the height of the
20 structure. And goes into detail about
21 requiring additional details at two
22 different levels. The third, the
23 landscaping and the (Inaudible) is the
24 height. The Town Code limits heights
25 of communication towers of 80 feet. It
July 9, 2018 40
1 does allow up to 120 feet if justified.
2 In the case of the ordinance and to give
3 a little quick background here. There
4 is difference in ordinances around the
5 country. The Town of Southold ordinances
6 is quite restrictive of a height of 80
7 feet. The trade-off for that is, when
8 you have a limited of height of that,
9 you're going to see a larger number of
10 structures to be able to accommodate the
11 needs of wireless telecommunications,
12 such as AT&T and Verizon and such not.
13 It's kind of like a puzzle. If you have
14 shorter tower requirements, you're going
15 to have shorter pieces of puzzle to put
16 together. So CityScape does not see the
17 justification to go to the higher height
18 of 120 feet. If you look at the coverage
19 maps that were provided, they still show
20 poles and lack of coverage is East
21 Mattituck. Even with the higher height,
22 80 foot tower will improve service of
23 AT&T and Verizon. It's not something
24 that will be of finite solution to meet
25 their needs. In other words, while 120
July 9, 2018 41
1 foot tower might be something that would
2 benefit them, it doesn't justify them
3 having one tower at its location, as
4 opposed to being able to fill in
5 throughout the County itself require or
6 the maximum heights that the County is
7 limited. There is no special
8 circumstances here that requires the
9 tower to be taller. Just another piece
10 of the puzzle. And their needs can be
11 met. If they're not able to meet the
12 hand-off to their other locations, it
13 doesn't mean that they can't have another
14 site to bridge that gap and comply with
15 the ordinance. And the last comment that
16 we have is in reference to the fire
17 district. We understand that the fire
18 district is definitely in need of some
19 additional coverage. Some of the
20 information provided was a little bit
21 unclear because originally it was a
22 received site and now it's a transmit
23 site. So there was confusion there as
24 far as what the actual goal is. Since
25 we didn't see the need or the
July 9, 2018 42
1 justification to -- again breach the
2 height of the ordinance for the fire
3 district to be able to require a tower in
4 this location, with their antenna at the
5 top, which would be approximately 90 feet
6 above ground, it still would be able to
7 improve their site significantly. And
8 there are other options in the County. I
9 note that there is actually a 450 foot
10 tower on Sound Avenue that is existing
11 that would be another option if they
12 needed something higher. But I know
13 there was some concerns about the areas
14 near the bluffs. And you know, there is
15 not going to be a difference in the two
16 heights of 80 feet versus 120 feet. It's
17 not going to make a difference in that
18 and getting over the bluff. So the
19 location of the tower in the southern
20 part of the district would benefit them
21 whether it be at 80 feet or 120 feet.
22 But again, in closing, CityScape
23 understands that the need is there for a
24 structure and there is definitely service
25 holes, but did not see justification for
July 9, 2018 43
1 the 120 foot height for this tower. And
2 in addition to the height, was very
3 concerned about the waiver of the
4 setbacks at the present location, without
5 understanding that is the only site
6 available.
7 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
8 Does anybody have any questions for
9 Mr. Edwards? Staff? Board Members?
10 (No Response. )
11 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
12 Would anyone else like to address the
13 Board? Yes.
14 MS. MCNEELY: Hello. My name is
15 Ellen McNeely and I live in Orient.
16 And my information may be slightly
17 ancient because I was involved in the
18 Orient Fire Department cell tower
19 question that came up several years
20 ago. At that time, my understanding
21 was the reason the poles got to the
22 height that they were, was because
23 each company needed a 10 foot section
24 in order to have their signal not
25 interfere with an adjacent or another
July 9, 2018 44
1 renter on the pole. So that
2 basically you have -- at that point,
3 there were several other companies
4 besides AT&T and Verizon that were
5 involved in it. At this point, the
6 playing field has narrowed down to
7 two major carriers, which is
8 basically Verizon and AT&T. And
9 they're bringing in other companies
10 under their umbrella at this point.
11 So the possibility -- at that
12 particular time was renting the other
13 10 foot segments to other companies
14 has become less of an issue at this
15 point. So if the question remains is
16 there a difference between 120 feet
17 and 80 feet or even 100 feet, which
18 would take out other two sections of
19 possible rental income for the tower
20 erector being possibly passed onto
21 the fire district or not, that then
22 remains the question that I would
23 like to have them answer or you may
24 be interested in having an answer to
25 that question. As it impacts the
July 9, 2018 45
1 height of the tower only. Not the
2 technology. Is the technology at
3 this point mainly two different
4 companies? Verizon and AT&T, those
5 are the two remaining transmission
6 technologies that are used. So if
7 another smaller company comes along
8 to piggyback on one of those
9 technologies, that would be
10 effectively what it is.
11 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you. Can
12 you please write your name for the
13 record?
14 MS. MCNEELY: Yes.
15 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Would anyone
16 else like to address the Board on the
17 Verizon Wireless Cell tower at Laurel
18 Stone?
19 (No Response. )
20 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Again, this
21 public hearing is going to be adjourned
22 to the August 6th date.
23 MR. COUGHLIN: Understood
24 Mr. Chairman, and we appreciate having
25 that time to contact the other three
July 9, 2018 46
1 property owners. That initial effort has
2 been made and I hope this month will
3 allow us to fully close out. I
4 appreciate Mr. Edward's comment about
5 the one parcel and the wetlands and other
6 issues that do make that site
7 inappropriate. The one to the east, the
8 Suffolk County Water easement, again, you
9 just got the affidavit. Jon just got it
10 Friday. Mr. Coughlin -- from Elite
11 Towers knows that is subject to a long
12 term lease and not available. We have
13 reached out. Again, to develop a site on
14 that parcel would require a substantial
15 amount of clearing of the vegetation to
16 the north and northeast to get such a way
17 we don't need that same 500 feet from
18 residences that we need in the current
19 location. And I would just note again,
20 although waivers are required, these
21 sites are all the same priority under the
22 code. They're all General Business B.
23 But again, this month we will endeavor to
24 communicate and get a final answer from
25 each of those owners. I am going to
July 9, 2018 47
1 briefly address Ellen's point. T-Mobile
2 and Sprint Nextel, they're combined and
3 still exists. And Elite Towers is in
4 contact with them, as to whether they
5 would like to co-locate with them on
6 that pole. As the Board knows,
7 co-location is encouraged. And the
8 Town is interested in minimizing the
9 number of sites. I think you heard that.
10 I do believe Dennis Kenter would like to
11 speak to the fire districts need at this
12 proposed height as opposed to a lower
13 height. And I do understand that we will
14 be back next month but I would just like
15 to have that point made.
16 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Okay.
17 MR. KENTER: Dennis Kenter, Long
18 Island Telecommunications. In
19 reference to the fire district having
20 an opportunity to locate an antenna
21 on the National Grid Tower in
22 Jamesport, that would not be viable
23 for us based on the FCC license that
24 is granted to the district. We have
25 to maintain the same service and
July 9, 2018 48
1 interference contour. And by going
2 to the National Grid tower, it would
3 offer increase height but would not
4 be available for the fire district.
5 So we have to stay within a similar
6 footprint that we are now. At the
7 120 foot level, that can be
8 maintained with the proper licensing
9 by the FCC that we can accomplish the
10 needs of Peconic Bay Medical Center,
11 reaching the west end of our
12 district. And that can be done by
13 FCC license modification. Also, to
14 ask National Grid to go on the top of
15 their tower, one the space is not
16 available. In our last project, it
17 involved the Southold Police
18 Department going to the next plat
19 below the 275 foot level. So we're
20 not able to get an antenna up there
21 and licensed by the FCC. We have to
22 stay within the district --
23 Mattituck's Fire District. We just
24 want to stay within that area so we
25 can reach Peconic Bay Medical Center.
July 9, 2018 49
1 That is our biggest concern. We just
2 don't have the communications en
3 route to the medical center and once
4 we get to the medical center. Thank
5 you.
6 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Mr. Chairman,
7 may I ask a question?
8 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Sure.
9 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Dennis, is
10 that your name?
11 MR. KENTER: Yes.
12 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: How tall is
13 the tower at Mattituck Fire House and
14 how long is the distance from that
15 tower to this proposed tower?
16 MR. KENTER: That tower was also
17 120 feet. Similar monopole. And the
18 disturbance between that tower and
19 the proposed tower was either 1.3.
20 Or 1.5 miles. Puts us where we need
21 to be to get that additional that we
22 need to get to Peconic Bay Medical
23 Center. It also provides mutual aid
24 to the Town of Riverhead. So when
25 they were in the Town of Riverhead,
July 9, 2018 50
1 they didn't even have the ability to
2 talk to their dispatcher on the
3 radio. So that is another reason why
4 we're looking for this.
5 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
6 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Thank you.
7 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Would anyone
8 else like to address the Board on the
9 Verizon Wireless Tower at Laurel
10 Stone?
11 Again, it will be back on the
12 agenda on August 6th. So I am looking
13 for a motion to hold open the public
14 hearing?
15 MEMBER RICH: I make a motion to
16 hold open the public hearing until
17 August 6th.
18 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Motion made by
19 Jim.
20 MEMBER RAFFERTY: Second.
21 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Seconded by
22 Pierce.
23 Any discussion?
24 (No Response. )
25 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: All in favor?
July 9, 2018 51
1 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Aye.
2 MEMBER RICH: Aye.
3 MEMBER RAFFERTY: Aye.
4 MEMBER SIDOR: Aye.
5 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Aye.
6 Motion carries.
7 ****************************************
8 MAZZONI SUBDIVISION
9 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Okay. The next
10 public hearing that we have is for
11 Mazzoni subdivision.
12 This proposal is for a standard
13 subdivision of a 22.94 acre parcel into
14 5 lots where Lot 1 equal 2.34 acres.
15 Lot 2 equals 1.78 acres. Lot 3 equals
16 2.18 acres of open space and 6 acres of
17 a Conservation Easement held by Peconic
18 Land Trust located in the R-80 Zoning
19 District. The property is located at
20 500 Soundview Drive, approximately 782
21 feet to the north of New York State
22 Route 25 and 256 feet to the east of
23 Sound View Drive in Orient.
24 SCTM#1000-13-2-8 .2.
25 At this point, I would like to ask
July 9, 2018 52
1 anyone from the audience if they would
2 like to address the Board? Please
3 direct your comments and questions to
4 the Board and this is regarding the
5 Mazzoni Subdivision.
6 MS. HOEG: Good evening, Members
7 of the Board. Karen Hogue, Twomey,
8 Latham, Shea, on behalf of the
9 applicant. These are some certified
10 receipts that we got in. Mr. Mazzoni
11 acquired the parcel, which is just
12 over 22 acres in 2014 with the hopes
13 of maintaining the existing farm
14 vineyard and building a home for
15 himself and the houses for his
16 family members. The proposed
17 subdivision is a reasonable layout of
18 lots made to preserve the agriculture
19 use and the extent of existing
20 landscaping. The layout of the
21 subdivision is to ensure that we're
22 in compliance with the 100 foot bluff
23 setback, landward of the sea lot line
24 and in conformance with dimensional
25 setbacks. The lots have been
July 9, 2018 53
1 carefully laid out so there is
2 sufficient area for modest size homes
3 while avoiding slopes and maintaining
4 existing landscaping and farming
5 operations. We have received letters
6 in support from some neighbors on
7 Hillcrest Drive, which I would like
8 to submit to the Board for the
9 record. I have also had some
10 conversations with neighbors
11 regarding the farm structure and
12 buildable area of Lot 5. Some
13 neighbors are under the
14 misunderstanding that we're
15 seeking to build a tasting room. I
16 want to make it clear that we have
17 not made any formal application to
18 the Town for a winery or tasting
19 room, and any discussion on a winery
20 is not the discussion of the
21 subdivision application, but the
22 subject of a separate formal site
23 plan application. Members of the
24 public and the Board will have an
25 opportunity to weigh on any
July 9, 2018 54
1 concerns regarding the site plan
2 review stage. Our focus right now
3 is on the residential lots. It's
4 also important to know that the
5 reason for the building envelope on
6 Lot 5 is that we were required to do
7 so. So that we could have potential
8 farm structures. Currently right now
9 there are no farm structures on the
10 property. We're also aware that the
11 neighbor directly to the east has
12 concerns for the building slopes and
13 the setbacks from his property line.
14 I have contacted Pat Moore the
15 neighbors attorney, and have provided
16 her with the preliminary plat and
17 proposed location for conceptual
18 house addressing their request for
19 information. This evening, I was
20 handed an extensive report prepared
21 by Land Use, which I have not yet had
22 the opportunity to review. I would
23 like to request some additional time
24 to take a look at that and respond.
25 And we also have made good faith
July 9, 2018 55
1 efforts to the Board that was raised
2 at various work sessions that have
3 been addressed. We're interested in
4 hearing public comment, and I would
5 like to turn over the mic to anyone
6 who has comments in the public.
7 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you,
8 Karen.
9 Would anyone else like to address the
10 Board on the Mazzoni Subdivision?
11 Please step to either microphone --
12 MS. MOORE: Good evening.
13 Patricia Moore on behalf of the
14 Mr. And Mrs. Bellage, who are the
15 direct neighbors on the east side of
16 the proposed subdivision. We
17 retained the services of Land Use
18 Ecological Services. I have Chuck
19 Boman here who will present our
20 analysis of the subdivision. I go
21 back because I represented Alba
22 Benjamin who was the prior owner to
23 the Mr. Mazzoni. And at the time,
24 Mr. Benjamin had wanted to come in
25 and seek a subdivision and my
July 9, 2018 56
1 recollection is two lots. And at the
2 time, we met in the field with Mark
3 Terry and Howard Young, and we got
4 really string opinion from Mark, and
5 with his expertise and identifying
6 where the bluff line was. And that
7 the proposal that Dr. Benjamin was
8 making was not a reasonable request.
9 He went back to the drawing board,
10 and I guess thereafter, chose not to
11 proceed. And what we're facing now
12 is that the Mazzoni Subdivision is a
13 significant increase from that what
14 Alba Benjamin was asking for. And it
15 is really is inconsistent with the
16 subdivision regulations, including
17 the analysis of slopes and primary
18 and secondary features. So I am
19 going to turn it over to our expert
20 and I have for you -- we did provide
21 to the attorney a report and have it
22 in advance. I am sure she would
23 reasonably want to respond to it. I
24 will present this to the Board.
25 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: If you can
July 9, 2018 57
1 state your name and get started --
2 MR. BOMAN: Good evening,
3 Mr. Chairman. My name is Charles
4 Boman, president of Land Use
5 Ecological Services, for the
6 adjoining neighbor to the east. I
7 think it's important if you can refer
8 to the packet that was handed to you.
9 What we did was take the
10 application that was submitted and
11 analyzed it for Chapter 240 of the
12 Town Code, which I think is very
13 important in this particular
14 instance. Chapter 240 of the Town
15 Code actually designates slope areas,
16 15% to 20% and over as primary
17 conservation areas. It also
18 designates areas on the bluff and
19 beach as primary conservation areas.
20 And it goes on to say that those
21 areas should be protected. Why
22 should they be protected? Because
23 especially on the bluff line, it's
24 very important that those soils are
25 not disturbed. Now this particular
July 9, 2018 58
1 site and if you look at the figures
2 that were provided for you, back in
3 the 70's it was completely wooded.
4 In 2004 it was completely wooded.
5 Somewhere between 2004 and 2007, was
6 denuded. There is not a tree on it.
7 And one would say, why is this
8 important? Those soils and in our
9 report, we have indicated that they
10 are part of the Montauk Home Series.
11 They're highly erodible. And by
12 that, it should be maintained by
13 heavy vegetation. I am sure all of
14 you are familiar with the bluffs.
15 Those bluffs, once they become bare
16 sand and have erosion especially on
17 the south side, that is how we feed
18 the beaches. It erodes from the toe
19 to the top falls down. And to
20 stabilize them, it's the vegetation
21 that does that. One of the other
22 problems with those soils, is that
23 there are layers of clay. We
24 reviewed the Young & Young map
25 because on north shore bluff's, there
July 9, 2018 59
1 are clay holes. So what happens is,
2 drainage structures have been placed
3 in those areas that even maybe 15 to ,
4 20 feet below the surface, as that
5 water hits the clay layer and will
6 head out to the north -- in this case
7 to the east of the adjoining property
8 owner. And it has the potential to
9 really -- you can see, blow out the
10 front of the bluffs when it's not
11 properly maintained. So I think it's
12 important for the Board to look at
13 those bluff's and refer back to
14 Chapter 240. So if you take 100 foot
15 setback from -- and if you can refer
16 to the figures listed there, the
17 primary conservation areas, there
18 should be 100 foot setback to any
19 house structures from that area. The
20 proposed site development on Lot 3,
21 in this case, actually encroaches
22 into the primary conservation areas.
23 It doesn't have a 100 foot setback.
24 Doesn't even have a 0 foot setback.
25 It has a minus setback. One of the
July 9, 2018 60
1 other questions that was brought up
2 and I think the Town Engineer
3 brought it up, was the location of
4 the crest of bluff line. The Town
5 Engineer indicated that it should be
6 shown on Lot 3 as the 82 foot line,
7 which we agree with. And again, this
8 is all based on topography that was
9 submitted by the applicant. We
10 didn't try and do their own. We took
11 their data and assuming it's correct.
12 But certainly the 82 foot line is a
13 more accurate portrayal of a crest of
14 bluff that would have existed before
15 it was cleared then what is shown on
16 that subdivision map. Then when you
17 take the crest and bluff line, as is
18 the Town Engineer's recommendation
19 and our recommendation, and now take
20 100 foot setback from the primary
21 conservation areas, which are in the
22 Town Code, I think you will find that
23 Lot 3 and a good part of Lot 2 should
24 not be developed. That gets us
25 back to a question of when it was
July 9, 2018 61
1 cleared. Again, you look at those
2 visual photographs that I gave you.
3 It was a heavily wooded site. I have
4 photographs, which I will hand into
5 you to look at from 2004. That show
6 what it did look at. I don't know
7 whether or not whether that clearing
8 was approved by the Town or whether
9 it was a violation of the Town. I
10 think that is something that the
11 Board should also look into because
12 if it was not approved, there
13 certainly should be some
14 re-vegetation involved in there. The
15 last point that I wanted to make is
16 certainly drainage. If you look at
17 the site analysis, again that we had
18 indicated. Any house that is on the
19 Lot 2 and Lot 3 is going to have roof
20 runoff, pool discharge, driveway
21 discharge. And via a denuded site,
22 during the winter time, you get a
23 tremendous wind storm, snow melt,
24 where is that runoff going to go?
25 It's actually going to go onto that
July 9, 2018 62
1 property on the east and of the south
2 and to the north, which will pose a
3 huge problem to the adjoining
4 neighbor, to the roadways to the
5 south and especially to the existing
6 bluff to the north. There is no
7 vegetation to break up that velocity
8 of runoff. And I think have already
9 spoke to the fact that there is a
10 layer of clay. So even if it
11 permeates down and hits the layer of
12 clay, that is a problem in and of
13 itself. So I would like to hand up
14 the photographs of the 2004 . I think
15 you should really look at the
16 exhibits. We try and deal with facts
17 and use the applicants own
18 information to try and analyze where
19 the primary conservation areas. And
20 I must say that the Town's Code in
21 this regard- is terrific. I wish it
22 was all over Long Island because it's
23 very specific on a 100 foot setback
24 from the steep slope areas,
25 maintaining vegetation. And I think
July 9, 2018 63
1 the Board if it approves something
2 like this, giving a variance to those
3 criteria, you're really setting a
4 precedent and not good. So I would
5 be happy to answer your questions and
6 I would like to hand up those
7 photographs if you don't mind?
8 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Sure. Would
9 anyone else like to address the Board
10 on the Mazzoni subdivision?
11 MR. COSTA: My name is Thomas
12 Costa from Orient. I assume we're
13 talking about the Mazzoni. property?
14 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Yes. Mazzoni
15 property.
16 MR. COSTA: Good. I looked at the
17 plan outside and I really -- I am not
18 an architect. So I can't really
19 understand most of it. I know there
20 is about 4 lots and I assume they
21 will have upscale homes built on
22 them. It doesn't tell you anything
23 or what exactly is going to be done.
24 I know that when this man purchased
25 the property, he had said that he was
July 9, 2018 64
1 going to have tour buses coming to
2 that thing and have a winery and
3 tasting room and the whole routine.
4 Of course, I don't approve of that.
5 That is just me.
6 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Excuse me,
7 we're talking about Mazzoni; correct?
8 MR. COSTA: Yes. Did I say
9 something out of line?
10 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: No. You can
11 continue.
12 MR. COSTA: Okay. In any case, I
13 am jumping around a lot now.
14 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: You got
15 distracted with the crowd.
16 MR. COSTA: The thing is, I got
17 this piece of paper here that I got
18 when I bought my property. It was
19 the covenants and the restrictions
20 for Hillcrest Estates Section 1. And
21 I know you're not talking about
22 that; however, there is an indenture
23 that -- declaration of covenants.
24 And "it says that there has to be
25 three roads running from the James
July 9, 2018 65
1 (Inaudible) property from Main Road.
2 Those three roads are Hillcrest
3 Drive, Hillcrest Drive North an Heath
4 Drive. So Heath Drive has to be open
5 forever according to this indenture.
6 And when Benjamin bought that
7 property, he put a wrought iron gate
8 across Heath Drive. People that
9 lived here for many people and born
10 here, came down Heath Drive and it
11 turns out that my driveway is right
12 there. And they stopped me and
13 wanted to know what this gate was. I
14 told them, I don't know. It's not my
15 gate. They told me that they had
16 been going down there for years to
17 look at the Sound. Said, "well,
18 nothing that I can do about it. "
19 It's not mine. So someone told Vallo
20 Benjamin that it was his property and
21 he could do whatever he wanted to do
22 with it. Which is a statement that I
23 have heard a number of times. Of
24 course, it doesn't pertain to me
25 because I am sure I can't open a gas
July 9, 2018 66
1 station on my property. I can do so
2 much. So I am sure he had some
3 restrictions and this is one of them.
4 This is an easement and he cannot put
5 a gate across there and just close it
6 off. Now this drawing that you have
7 outside doesn't specify whether this
8 is a gate or not. It just shows a
9 black line. I would like to know
10 what is the plan? There is. also
11 mention of a 4 foot wide pedestrian
12 path. Doesn't say who the path is
13 for. Is it for the residents of that
14 development? Or prepared for the
15 residents for Section 1 and 2 or is
16 it prepared for anybody? And if it's
17 for anybody, then I understand why
18 they made a 4 foot wide path, because
19 then that way you can't get a car
20 down there. I assumed that. And if
21 that is so, then when the people
22 start coming down from the Bronx and
23 want to use that 4 foot wide path,
24 they're going to park their car on my
25 property. So I don't think that is a
July 9, 2018 67
1 good idea. I am losing track on what
2 I wanted to say. I hope I am
3 speaking loud enough --
4 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: You're speaking
5 loud enough --
6 MR. COSTA: Because I have a
7 hearing aide. So I have a problem of
8 speaking, what, what and what. So if
9 you don't hear me, just say what to
10 me.
11 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: You can make
12 copies of that and drop it off at the
13 Planning Department. Everything that is
14 being said here and the testimony is
15 being recorded. And everything that
16 you just said about the declarations of
17 the right-of-way will all be looked into.
18 And made -- it will be thoroughly gone
19 through before this project begins to
20 move.
21 MR. COSTA: Well, and you don't
22 have a copy machine here; correct? I
23 have it here, if it's something that
24 you want.
25 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Listen, if you
July 9, 2018 68
1 want to submit it, you can submit it
2 here.
3 MR. COSTA: No, I want to drop it
4 off.
5 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Make a copy of
6 it and drop it off at the Planning
7 Department.
8 MR. COSTA: The original, I
9 one-finger typed it here.
10 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Well, you better
11 hold onto it.
12 MR. COSTA: Okay. I will hold
13 onto it.
14 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
15 Would anyone else --
16 MR. COSTA: You didn't answer any
17 of my questions like the 4 foot wide
18 path? Who is that for?
19 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: That would be
20 for the homeowners.
21 MR. COSTA: Which homeowners.
22 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Of the new
23 subdivision.
24 MR. COSTA: So I am in the old
25 subdivision. So I can't go in there.
July 9, 2018 69
1 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: No.
2 MR. COSTA: Very interesting. So
3 nobody can go in there. So they have
4 like this little Garden of Eden there
5 that nobody enters. That's what it is?
6 In other words, it's only if you want
7 to buy wine or drink wine? That is what
8 it's all about?
9 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: There is no
10 winery on the application.
11 MR. COSTA: Not yet. This is only
12 Step 1. So am I on the right track?
13 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Everybody has
14 an opinion.
15 MR. COSTA: If I get a chance, I will
16 try and make copies. I don't have a
17 copy machine.
18 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: If you come to
19 the Planning Department, they can make a
20 copy of it and put it in the file for
21 us.
22 MR. COSTA: All right.
23 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
24 Would anyone else like to address the
25 Board on Mazzoni?
July 9, 2018 70
1 MS. SPEZIO: My name is Clare
2 Spezio. I live in Greenport. I rent
3 in Greenport. I never speak.
4 Development is knocking at the door
5 in orient. And if you put your hand
6 on that doorknob, it's over. There
7 is no more room. And there is big
8 houses that people live in for a
9 couple of weeks or a couple of months
10 and the land is going. The trees are
11 gone. All of tonight is all about
12 that. So I ask you don't answer that
13 door and try and conserve what we
14 have. It's so beautiful out here. I
15 volunteer at Orient State Park. I
16 pick up the trash. I water the
17 plants. I weed. I run the little
18 concession stand for the park. I
19 have been coming out here since I was
20 5 years old. Don't let this happen.
21 That is all I have to say. Thank you
22 very much.
23 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
24 Would anyone else like to address the
25 Board on Mazzoni? Karen?
July 9, 2018 71
1 MS. HOEG: I would just like to
2 followup and request that the record
3 be held open for two weeks for
4 written submittal so that I can
5 respond to Mr. Boman's letter.
6 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Sure. Okay.
7 MS. HOEG: Thank you.
8 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: So I need a
9 motion to close the hearing but leave a
10 two week period open for written
11 comments?
12 MEMBER RICH: I make a motion to
13 close the public hearing and leave a
14 two week period for written comment.
15 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Motion made by
16 Jim.
17 MEMBER SIDOR: Second.
18 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Seconded by
19 Martin.
20 MS. MOORE: She asked for two
21 weeks and you are about to close the
22 hearing. So we won't have an
23 opportunity to respond to whatever
24 comments she proposes in regards to
25 our report. So depending on what
July 9, 2018 72
1 her comments are, I want to give
2 Chuck a chance to review them.
3 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Are you in
4 contact with Karen?
5 MS. MOORE: We can be. It's up to
6 her to get it to me.
7 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: So what we will
8 do is leave it open for four weeks for
9 written comments. How does the Board
10 feel?
11 MS. MOORE: Thank you. That's
12 fine.
13 MS. HOEG: That's fine.
14 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: So we need a new
15 motion.
16 MEMBER RICH: I make a motion to
17 close the hearing but leave the
18 comment period open for four weeks.
19 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Motion made by
20 Jim.
21 MEMBER SIDOR: Second.
22 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Seconded by
23 Martin.
24 Any discussion?
25 (No Response. )
July 9, 2018 73
1 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: All in favor?
2 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Aye.
3 MEMBER RICH: Aye.
4 MEMBER RAFFERTY: Aye.
5 MEMBER SIDOR: Aye.
6 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Aye.
7 Motion carries.
g ****************************************
9 TENEDIOS AGRICULTURAL BARN
10 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: The last public
11 hearing that we have is for Tenedios
12 Agricultural Barn. This public hearing
13 was adjourned to be reopened now. Just to
14 -- a couple of notes that everyone
15 should be aware of. That everything that
16 was said at the last public hearing has
17 been recorded and the staff is going
18 through all the comments and gathering
19 information. We did ask the applicant to
20 produce several different documents and
21 some visual photos and simulations,
22 which we have also gotten. We also got
23 two letters. One from the Land
24 Preservation Committee and one from the
25 Trustees that are in the file as well.
July 9, 2018 74
1 That we will also be going over and
2 reviewing. So with that, I need to read
3 this.
4 This agricultural site plan is for a
5 proposed one-story 8, 664 square foot
6 building to house livestock and store
7 feed, supplies and farm equipment on a
8 34.5 acre farm, of which 29.5 acres have
9 development rights held by the Southold
10 Town and 5 acres have development rights
11 intact in the R-200 Zoning District. The
12 property is located at 28410 Route 25 in
13 Orient, SCTM#1000-19-1-1.4 and 1.3.
14 At this time I will open the floor
15 up to anyone that would like to address
16 the Board on Tenedios Agricultural
17 Barn?
18 MS. MOORE: Thank you. Patricia
19 Moore on behalf of Mr. Tenedios and
20 this is Fresh and Company, the
21 applicant. As you have pointed out,
22 there has been continuing dialogue
23 and continuing information that has
24 been provided in response to the
25 Planning Board's request. It's in
July 9, 2018 75
1 your file. I don't want to rehash
2 everything. We're here if there are
3 any additional comments. I would
4 like to point out that with respect
5 to the proposed building, this is a
6 site plan for the building. It's not
7 site planning for the animals. It's
8 not site planning pens. It's site
9 planning the building. With respect
10 to the building, it's agricultural
11 purposes only. It is a storage
12 building. 1/3 of the building will
13 house livestock. Winter time housing
14 in particular. That's about 3200
15 square feet with all of the animals.
16 During the winter in particular. 1/3
17 of the building is the center and
18 that is the equipment for the
19 animals. Then the other wing of the
20 building which is a 1/3 is for all of
21 the equipment. It has been provided
22 in the past. The details of the type
23 of equipment that is there.
24 Presently the farm, 20 acres of the
25 farm is being tilled by Dan Latham.
July 9, 2018 76
1 A lot of his own equipment is used.
2 But down the line, should Dan Latham
3 retire and somebody wants to continue
4 the rental, then it would be my
5 client to use the equipment and to
6 till. So again, this is the -- it's
7 a standard agricultural building.
8 Nothing more. We have provided -- we
9 want to make sure that it's
10 understood that whatever the
11 newspaper might have reported in the
12 past, if my client said anything
13 that made the community believe that
14 it was anything other than the
15 storage building, he has made it very
16 clear this is a storage building. It
17 is subject to the sale of development
18 rights. Therefore, we cannot do any
19 kind of merchandising or events. And
20 that is well understood. And
21 certainly that is what the
22 application has been. So I want to
23 make that very clear. So that there
24 is no misunderstanding. With respect
25 to the animals that are there, my
July 9, 2018 77
1 client has horses and chicken that
2 produce egg. He's raising New
3 Zealand goats. The goats, the sheep.
4 He has one cow there, a few pigs and
5 most recently a llama. A baby llama.
6 The commercial part of this property
7 is Dan Latham to grow crops. The
8 farm right now is for family and
9 friends consumption. So it is for
10 the most part a family farm in the
11 true sense of the word. It is not
12 the only sales to my clients
13 business. The city is from Latham's
14 farm stand products. So I am hoping
15 to dispel the rumors that have been
16 in the past. I want to point out
17 that we have numerous places
18 throughout the code, that this
19 community values agriculture. This
20 is property that was provided for
21 future and agriculture imperpituity.
22 This is what my intends to do and
23 continues to do. And at this point
24 he spends many hours there. So
25 essentially his time is working or
July 9, 2018 78
1 his economic employment and spending
2 all of his money at the farm. So
3 that is how we wishes to continue.
4 We're here to answer questions but
5 this really is a site plan for a
6 standard farm agricultural building.
7 Thank you.
8 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
9 Bob, you can come up to this podium
10 next.
11 MR. HANLON: I am Robert Hanlon.
12 I am a member of the Board of the
13 Orient Association. The Orient
14 Association does not support or
15 oppose this project. What the
16 Association does support is the
17 provision of accurate and sufficient
18 information and to the Town
19 Officials, so a sound decision can be
20 made. We want to foster the health
21 of farms, farmers and bay men. We do
22 believe that certain steps need to be
23 taken to care for all of our lands
24 and our waters. The previous
25 hearings, submissions by community
July 9, 2018 79
1 residents and other groups and
2 comments of various organizations,
3 three main issues were raised about
4 this project. One, the scale of the
5 building. Does it comply with the
6 requirements and the deed to protect
7 the scenic vista? Two, the plan to
8 raise live herd animals on the
9 property. Will the waste from this
10 operation threaten the water quality
11 of Narrow River and Hallocks Bay?
12 And three, the owner has stated that
13 he plans to hold events, classes and
14 other non-agricultural activities on
15 the property. Does this violate the
16 usage restrictions on preserved land?
17 Since the hearing, there has been
18 substantial communication between the
19 Town's agencies and the applicant.
20 The Planning Department staff has
21 asked for an arrangement of
22 information including the numbers and
23 types of animals to be raised on the
24. property and a farm management plan.
25 The applicant has refused to provide
July 9, 2018 80
1 such information. The Local
2 Waterfront Revitalization Program
3 also known as the LWRP, noted a
4 number of areas where this was
5 inconsistent with LWRP policy, and
6 several other areas of concern,
7 including animals, and crops and a
8 flood plain could lead to poor
9 quality and impairments. Animal
10 waste near wetlands and surface areas
11 could pollute wetland areas. And
12 Narrow River has already been closed
13 to shellfishing and animal pathogens
14 may worsen that situation. LWRP
15 indicated that it could support the
16 project only if a number of steps
17 were taken to address these concerns,
18 including Nutrient Management Plan to
19 protect surface and groundwater. A
20 storm water runoff analysis to
21 determine if there is a danger to
22 Narrow River and Hallocks Bay, a
23 collaboration of the County Water and
24 Soil Conservation, to determine if
25 the proposed buffers are sufficient
July 9, 2018 81
1 to protect local waters, and a
2 covenants to maintain and protect
3 buffers. The elected Town Trustees
4 who are responsible for protecting
5 our Town waters and the Shellfishing
6 Advisory Committee have expressed
7 extreme concern about the raising of
8 animals so close to the wetlands and
9 the waters of Narrow River and
10 Hallocks Bay because of the threat it
11 imposes to shellfishing in those
12 waters. They have conducted dye
13 tests to measure the pollution. They
14 found that it poses a serious risk
15 ever after minor rainfall that could
16 lead to fecal chloroform levels that
17 could force closing of shellfish
18 beds. They urged consideration of
19 approval of the site would require
20 extensive measures beyond stormwater
21 control to prevent such water runoff
22 and pollution. The Trustees has also
23 noted that the location has already
24 placed animal bedding and manure to
25 close to those sensitive areas and
July 9, 2018 82
1 insisted that they be removed. The
2 owner said that he would remove the
3 materials. He said he was dismissive
4 of the problem and questioned the
5 appropriateness of Trustees and
6 questioned the residents that
7 expressed concerned as clueless.
8 Under Town Law, the Planning Board is
9 required to do site plan approvals.
10 One of the stated purpose of this
11 review is "mitigate the environmental
12 impacts of new developments on land
13 and air, water resources. " I will
14 spare you the code references in the
15 body. The code goes on to require,
16 "the Planning Board should take into
17 consideration public health, safety
18 and welfare. The economic impact in
19 the comfort and convenience of the
20 public in general and the residents
21 of the immediate (Inaudible)
22 appropriate conditions and
23 safeguards. In particular, the
24 Planning Board is required to give
25 high priority to "the conservation of
July 9, 2018 83
1 all natural features on or adjacent
2 to the site, including but not
3 limited to natural drain courses,
4 fresh and saltwater wetlands and
5 marshes. Flood hazardous areas and
6 wildlife breeding areas. " And the
7 Board is charged with "protection of
8 groundwater and surface water from
9 contamination by pollution. " The
10 Board is empowered to examine site
11 plans and determine whether they're
12 meeting those goals and
13 obligations. The question before you
14 is, has the applicant provided
15 sufficient persuasive information to
16 the Board about these key issues? He
17 has provided a visual impact analysis
18 and we appreciate that information.
19 The Board will have to decide after
20 listening to various parties whether
21 the proposal is in keeping with the
22 restrictions of this property under
23 the deed and the needs of the
24 community. The property owner has
25 insisted that he has no obligation to
July 9, 2018 84
1 provide the information such
2 information and we disagree.
3 Finally, the owner has issued several
4 public statements and advertisements
5 of events, classes and other
6 non-permitted uses on preserved land.
7 While these do not appear in his
8 actual application, it's appropriate
9 for any consideration of site
10 approval. As I stated earlier, we do
11 not endorse or oppose the project.
12 We do have serious concerns that
13 there is not enough information to
14 give the community and the Town
15 sufficient assurances that the
16 project will address these critical
17 issues. We urge the Board to require
18 the necessary information and
19 assurances. If the Board eventually
20 does proceed to give site plan
21 approval, we urge that it impose
22 sufficient conditions to safeguard
23 the overall community interest with
24 regards to vista, water quality and
25 protection of preserved lands. Thank
July 9, 2018 85
1 you.
2 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
3 Would anybody else like to address
4 the Board?
5 (No Response. )
6 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: And my comment to
7 that is, that is what we're doing. We're
8 gathering information and continuing to
9 listen tonight. Sir?
10 MR. SUPER: Good evening. My name
11 is Reed Super. I am from the Law
12 Firm Super Law Group and we represent
13 a group of concerned citizens who
14 live near the property. We have
15 submitted two letters. First on
16 April 16th, regarding the Planning
17 Board's substantial authority under
18 the Town Code to request and review
19 information about the project and to
20 impose conditions to protect
21 community character and the
22 environment. As explained in both of
23 our letters, that authority does not
24 have to yield to any right to farm.
25 The Town Code and State law. authorize
July 9, 2018 1 86
1 you to harmonize environmental
2 protection, with promotion of
3 agriculture through reasonable common
4 sense conditions. We're not
5 anti-agriculture. It just has to be
6 done safely. And we do not read
7 contrarily to the applicant's
8 statement a few minutes ago, we do
9 not (Inaudible) your authority under
10 the site plan rules to be limited to
11 the four corners of the proposed
12 barn. The barn is for animal,
13 agriculture and other purposes. We
14 believe your authority extends to the
15 uses on the site in order to protect
16 the neighborhood, the environment,
17 the public. Not what just goes on
18 inside and visibly apparent from the
19 outside of that barn. Our second
20 letter on July 6th, I have hardcopies
21 for you which I will hand up when I
22 am done speaking. States a list of
23 conditions that we recommend that you
24 include in any approval of the site
25 plan application. I will highlight a
July 9, 2018 87
1 few of those recommended conditions
2 for you tonight. They fall under
3 three categories. Special events,
4 scenic impacts and water quality.
5 And our agricultural water quality
6 conditions are based upon a report
7 that we commissioned from an
8 environmental scientist, Donald
9 Yields, who is a nationally
10 recommended expert in agricultural
11 non-point source water pollution.
12 His report is attached to our letter
13 that I will hand up in a few minutes.
14 Let me first say that the property in
15 question has scenic value and
16 important water resources, for fresh
17 and tidal wetlands and the tidal
18 wetlands drain south under Narrow
19 River Road into the Narrow River and
20 Hallocks Bay and its shellfish beds.
21 The recent dye test by the Trustees
22 and Advisory Committee, show that
23 pollutants get there in one tidal,
24 while pathogens are still there.
25 This is a site where animal
July 9, 2018 88
1 agriculture is done and it should be
2 done very carefully and deliberately.
3 I would also like to note that the
4 application that you have before you
5 appears not up to date. The site
6 plan does now show existing
7 structures including out building and
8 fences. The fences around the
9 livestock's are in different
10 locations then shown on the site
11 plan. This may have been to fence
12 off 100 foot buffers around the
13 wetlands. And if so, that's a good
14 start but we don't know where the
15 fences are relative to the wetlands
16 and the buffers until they're shown
17 on a plan. All proposed structures
18 in addition to existing structures
19 should be on the plan. And the
20 culverts draining the property under
21 Narrow River Road should be shown on
22 the plan and drainage areas
23 delineated. The staff made a
24 referral to the Town's Architectural
25 Review Committee in September of last
July 9, 2018 89
1 year and they deferred the
2 recommendation. They said that they
3 were going to wait until the State
4 DEC issues a permit. Not sure why
5 they wanted to wail until then. We
6 think that this Board should have
7 their input and perhaps staff could
8 reach out to the Architectural Review
9 Committee again and see whether they
10 want to be in before this Board moves
11 forward with the application. Let me
12 also mention that the applicant was
13 originally an individual Steve
14 Tenedios and then in a resubmitted
15 application changed to Fresh & Co
16 Farm, LLC by Steve Tenedios -- if I
17 am pronouncing his name correctly.
18 This is not just a formality. This
19 Board should keep in mind the dual
20 roles here. In light of the proposed
21 uses of the property and where crops
22 are grown on the northern side of the
23 property for use of Fresh & Co
24 Restaurants. And animals in the
25 southern portion for what
July 9, 2018 90
1 Mr. Tenedios for his own personal
2 pleasure and consumption by family
3 and friends. Any condition should be
4 clear, andranatomy and enforceable.
5 That is always the best way to draft
6 conditions. Especially so with the
7 roles of the entity and they shift
8 and blur. And whereas the Trustee's
9 recent letter to this Board stated
10 that there are alleged wetlands
11 violations by the same applicant, the
12 individual. Now to my conditions.
13 The reasonable conditions that the
14 neighbors of the property are
15 proposing. Many of these are based
16 on offers by the applicant or
17 suggestions by the Land Preservation
18 Committee, the Trustees, the LWRP
19 Coordinator, as well as, our
20 environmental scientist. First, the
21 deed restrictions limited use of the
22 property to agricultural production
23 only. As the Land Preservation
24 Committee has stated. This
25 prevents use of the property from
July 9, 2018 91
1 public events. And the applicants
2 attorney just said that they have no
3 intention of conducting any public
4 events. The Board should include in
5 explicit conditions and any site plan
6 approval, prohibiting any and all
7 public events. So that it's clear
8 and one does not have to pull up the
9 deed and each one refers to the
10 definition of agricultural production
11 in the Town Code to know what is
12 allowed. It should be clear on the
13 face of the approval. Secondly, with
14 respect to visual and scenic impacts.
15 As the land preservation commission
16 has also stated and recommended on
17 its review of the visual renderings,
18 there should be changes made to the
19 barn location and appearance to
20 reduce scenic impacts and render
21 consistent with the scenic impact and
22 restrictions. The barn should be
23 moved 200 feet to the west. This is
24 what the Land Preservation Committee
25 recommended. This is to preserve
July 9, 2018 92
1 views across the property to the open
2 space beyond and the color scheme
3 should be changed from the proposed
4 bright green, white contrasting color
5 scheme to something more harmonious
6 with its environment. It should
7 blend into the landscaped better.
8 And it should not be an advertisement
9 for the Fresh & Co Restaurant chain.
10 It should not have any advertising
11 signs. No signage. And we have
12 submitted proposed conditions along
13 those lines. In our comments, we
14 submitted a couple of photographs of
15 barns in the area that do blend into
16 the landscape. Third, we have
17 submitted a list of conditions
18 relating to environmental protection.
19 The first of these is a requirement
20 that the applicant maintain and
21 establish 100 foot vegetated buffers
22 around all wetlands and water
23 courses. No livestock's, structures
24 or any activity should be permitted
25 in those buffers. As the LWRP
July 9, 2018 93
1 suggested, the landowner should enter
2 into a convent that runs with the
3 land that requires those buffers to
4 be maintained. Next there should be
5 a plan developed and implemented by
6 the applicant after approval by this
7 Board and advice from the Town
8 Engineer and members on how to
9 prevent pollinates from washing off
10 the site and into storm water runoff
11 through the culverts and into Narrow
12 River and Hallocks Bay. It appears
13 that from the photographs that
14 ditches were cut into this property.
15 Probably not by the applicant and
16 long ago, but ditches were cut into
17 those wetlands to drain stormwater
18 into the property. So that should be
19 remedied. This might be require an
20 engineer berm. The recent letter
21 from the Trustees made a similar
22 point. If not, they will end up into
23 the river and into the bay. Third,
24 there should be a condition
25 prohibiting the application from
July 9, 2018 94
1 animal manure to land or to crops on
2 this site. This site is not suitable
3 for land application of animal waste
4 given the close proximity of
5 wetlands. This can also contaminate
6 the food supply. The applicant has
7 said that all animal wastes and
8 bedding is put into a dumpster for
9 off site disposal. This should be
10 continued and required as a
11 condition. Related to that, the
12 collection and temporary storage of
13 animal wastes and bedding needs to be
14 improved as there has already been
15 one recent incident of waste being
16 piled up in or near the wetlands.
17 Further, commercial animal farming
18 should not be allowed on the site and
19 the number of animals should be
20 limited to personal consumption. As
21 the numbers of animals increase, so
22 to with the volume of waste and land
23 applied manure, which is simply not
24 appropriate here. Our expert has a
25 photograph of at least 25 goats on
July 9, 2018 95
1 this site. The applicant has not
2 told you how many animals he tends to
3 maintain. What he has said, they're
4 not for personal consumption and he
5 has no intention on farming animals
6 commercially. The Planning Board
7 should hold him to his word for
8 environmental protection purposes.
9 Next the applicant should be required
10 to develop and implement a farm
11 conservation plan with the assistance
12 of the National Resource Conservation
13 Service. Further the applicant
14 should collect and divert runoff from
15 the barn roof and other pervious
16 sources and away from sources of
17 agricultural pollutants. Drywell's
18 have been mentioned and this is a
19 good solution. Should be another
20 condition. Finally, portable
21 bathrooms should be placed on the
22 location away from the property line
23 as approved by the Board. The
24 applicant has shown a willingness to
25 do this. The applicants attorney
July 9, 2018 96
1 offered to install a nitrogen free
2 system. The only truly nitrogen free
3 system that I am aware of is a
4 (Inaudible) tank, where the waste is
5 pumped out and hauled off site and
6 not discharged to groundwater at all.
7 If they will commit to that and that
8 should be required or the most
9 effective state of the art nitrogen
10 reduction system commercially
11 available in Suffolk County. At the
12 back of our July 6th letter, there is
13 a full list of our proposed
14 conditions and I thank you for your
15 time, and attention. I would be
16 happy to answer any questions and I
17 will hand up the letter and report at
18 this time.
19 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
20 Just as a note, I would say probably --
21 almost all of your comments we have heard
22 and are addressing. Just so you know and
23 for the record. I didn't hear anything
24 that was in your letter that you spoke
25 about that we have not -- it's not on
July 9, 2018 97
1 the table and that we're discussing.
2 MR. SUPER: And we appreciate
3 that. We discussed it in the letter
4 and we did take the time out now. We
5 laid out the proposed conditions, the
6 specific language, that the Board and
7 the Town Attorney could use in
8 drafting a determination.
9 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Yes, it would be
10 helpful. Yes, Mr. Kelly.
11 MR. KELLY: Bill Kelly, I am an
12 authorized agent for the owner. And
13 just to reiterate what Don just said.
14 We have had these conservation's and
15 the comments that were just made
16 we're not opposed to a lot of them.
17 In reference to deed restrictions,
18 those are already written into the
19 covenants. And Mr. Tenedios has been
20 made very well aware of the fact of
21 what he can and can't do on the
22 property. At one point in time, he
23 spoke out of term and he has been
24 informed. As far as, you know,
25 location and color of the building,
July 9, 2018 98
1 that is a decision that Mr. Tenedios
2 has to make. I can't make that for
3 him. That's a (Inaudible) that we
4 can certainty have. The discussion
5 was made about the 100 foot buffer
6 area and keeping the livestock out of
7 the 100 foot buffer area. All the --
8 there is a 100 foot buffer around all
9 of the wetlands. So we designed the
10 project to accommodate that. We also
11 designed -- and you have to remember,
12 this is about the building. It's not
13 necessarily about the livestock. If
14 it wasn't for the application for the
15 building, we wouldn't even be having
16 a conversation about livestock right
17 now. Because there would be no
18 reason to. It would not be before
19 the Board. Anyhow, that is just a
20 point of fact. It's not meant to be
21 any other way. As far as engineering
22 and the design of the building
23 project, that has been handled. We
24 have designed it in accordance with
25 the code requirements. As far as
July 9, 2018 99
1 roof water runoff. So we have the
2 requirements for that. As far as
3 waste water management and control,
4 if there were to be bathrooms placed
5 in that facility, chances are -- the
6 Health Department would require what
7 they are calling the Nitrogen Free
8 System. That would just be a
9 requirement of the Health Department.
10 So he would have no choice in putting
11 that system in. In controlling the
12 water runoff from the property
13 itself and the livestock, that is an
14 ongoing farm management item. I
15 don't know that I want to get into
16 that too deeply. However, we have
17 provided you with things. Currently,
18 there is nothing in the Town Code
19 that controls anything about
20 livestock. However, good farming
21 practice would be to keep the stock
22 range for free range farming and
23 that is what he intends to do. It's
24 free range farming. It's not a
25 slaughter house type application.
July 9, 2018 100
1 You're not going to have that. The
2 other part is, at the end of the day,
3 you have best police force in the
4 industry in Orient. So Mr. Tenedios
5 would probably be on the closest
6 watched person that any other
7 property out there. And if somebody
8 wanted to go on a witch hunt for
9 others, there could be a lot found
10 out there going on that Mr. Tenedios
11 won't be doing. So that's pretty
12 much all I have to say. The point of
13 the whole conversation with the
14 Board, we have had this conservation.
15 We have already talked about these
16 items. And it's on the table. That
17 is a conversation that is going to
18 take place between Mr. Tenedios,
19 myself and Pat Moore and the Board,
20 of course, with respect to everyone
21 in the room. Thank you.
22 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
23 Yes, ma'am.
24 MS. LATHAM: Hi. My name is
25 Barbara Latham from Orient. I have
July 9, 2018 101
1 already submitted a letter from my
2 husband and myself. But this is what
3 it basically says. My husband and I
4 protest the animals and the barn from
5 going forth on the Tenedios property.
6 First, because of the environmental
7 impact in Hallocks Bay and our
8 waters. Secondly, we believe that
9 Mr. Tenedios is not being truthful.
10 Why would he need an 8, 664 barn for
11 his animals that he claims is for his
12 pleasure and personal use? Why don't
13 we call a spade a spade? This man
14 wants to create another business in
15 addition to his 16 Fresh & Company
16 Restaurants in the city. He intends
17 to have festivals, bonfire's, petting
18 zoo, cooking classes and cook-outs.
19 And what will that do to our
20 community? There will be bus loads
21 of people, parking, people, trash.
22 He was caught last year planing a
23 cookout and bonfire, which we found
24 on his website. He was immediately
25 shutdown because he never applied for
July 9, 2018 102
1 a permit. This is what we're dealing
2 with. Does anybody actually believe
3 that his 8, 664 barn is to protect
4 equipment and animals from weather?
5 Come on. It's for ag-entertainment.
6 Period. The end. If we let him go
7 forth, we will regret it.
8 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
9 Yes, sir? Please state your name?
10 MR. BURGOLAW: My name is Barry
11 Burgolaw. I am a resident of Orient.
12 A part-time resident for over 20
13 years in Orient. And over the last
14 10 a registered voter in this Town
15 and Suffolk County. I want to add my
16 voice to those concerns of concerned
17 citizens of Southold Town about the
18 proposed addition of a large scale
19 building for the parcels zoned open
20 land and agricultural use at the
21 intersection of Narrow River and Main
22 Road. My concern comes not from the
23 agricultural use of the land
24 (Inaudible) and such was the transfer
25 of the development rights of the
July 9, 2018 103
1 previous owner. The size of the
2 building is so out of proportion to
3 the stage of use of modest livestock
4 development as well as the recent
5 violations on the property. All
6 given little confidence that this
7 proposal can go forward as requested
8 without the most careful
9 environmental site plan as we have
10 heard, continue monitoring.
11 (Inaudible) the owners statements
12 stated in the press and the
13 violations already mentioned here
14 this evening on the site, already
15 raise red flags. There is little
16 suggestion of little regard and
17 respect on this sensitive and fragile
18 site. The owner seems unwilling to
19 accept the fact that even if a road
20 separates most of the property
21 visually, much of the land is in fact
22 wetlands and drains into the estuary.
23 In addition there is to be a bate and
24 switch approach here with an advert
25 lack of interest for the property.
July 9, 2018 104
1 The recent addition of a monumental
2 -- the proposed roof is already
3 indicative of a lawful disrespect for
4 the scenic byway character of the
5 site. Visually aside, as we have
6 heard, recent violations, gives cause
7 to great alarm. The unimaginable
8 situation at Lavender Farm in East
9 Marion which causes yearly traffic
10 jams and prevents emergency vehicles
11 and fire trucks and EMS ambulances is
12 indicative of the risks of commercial
13 agriculture. The East End, beyond
14 Greenport where there is a single
15 access road and no alternative
16 routes. This past weekend alone, it
17 took me over 50 minutes to get from
18 Long Island Hospital to the East
19 Marion General Store because of
20 bumper to bumper traffic. Even that
21 with the dispatching of two Town
22 policemen. I wonder who pays for
23 that. The main road cannot sustain
24 any more commercial uses or parking
25 facilities are out of the question on
July 9, 2018 105
1 this Orient site adjacent to
2 wetlands. Thank you.
3 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
4 Yes, sir. You're up.
5 MR. GIANELLI: Thank you. My name
6 is Frank Gianelli. I am a licensed
7 architect in the State of New York
8 for probably abut close to 30 years.
9 And the first thing that I do want to
10 say and I want to say it to the Board
11 directly. You guys are doing an
12 outstanding job. Everything that I
13 have seen that has come out of the
14 Board, you have not only kind of
15 acknowledged what Robert has said and
16 Don had said, but you also are
17 sensitive to the environment,
18 sensitive to the things that we're
19 doing. As a licensed architect, I
20 look at the plans outside. And the
21 first thing that jumps out of me, is
22 this structure. This is going to be
23 5 feet above the site elevation. So
24 it's going to be standing above and
25 looking out to the world, 50x200 feet
July 9, 2018 106
1 long. It's not a simple barn guys.
2 I think the intent was to make it a
3 village. A agricultural center. Not
4 to raise animals. They already have
5 5 or 6 structures. A couple of them
6 are 700 square feet already. They
7 have horses. They have chickens. So
8 this year, I know that they're --
9 they don't have to plan on telling us
10 what they're doing, what this 8, 000
11 square foot barn, but I leave to you,
12 because you guys do this for a
13 living, and I thank you for what you
14 do. I leave to you to do the right
15 thing. Patricia is right. Right now
16 this is about the structure, but more
17 is to come. And I hope that you will
18 find what that more is. And make
19 sure that it's done per code and as
20 of right and not because somebody has
21 a lot of energy and money to throw at
22 it. So thank you for all that you
23 do.
24 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: I would just
25 like to add one comment to your comment.
July 9, 2018 107
1 Our staff -- we have a great wonderful
2 staff here too. It's not just the Board.
3 Next up?
4 MS. HANDS: I am Venetia Hands.
5 Thank you Board, all of you. And I
6 certainly don't want to reiterate
7 what you're hearing and have heard
8 several times. I will say I have no
9 idea how you sit here all evening and
10 listen to all of this and then make
11 any sense of it and retaining of it.
12 But that is not my problem. I also
13 want to say how much I love Orient
14 and the residents of Orient. I am
15 always so impressed with how many
16 Orient people show up when they're
17 concerned. And it's because we have
18 -- I am not going to say (Inaudible)
19 but people have tried to bulldoze
20 their way into Orient. You know,
21 many of us in this room were alive
22 when somebody in Southold wanted -- a
23 developer wanted to build 50 colonial
24 Williamsburg houses on the edge of
25 Hallocks Bay. Now owned by the DEC.
July 9, 2018 108
1 Thanks to the vigilance of my
2 predecessors in Orient. Many of us
3 were here in this room when the
4 Suffolk County Water Authority
5 specifically said in this room, we're
6 going to throw a grenade into Orient.
7 We're going to put public water and
8 you guys are all going to love it.
9 No, because that is the one thing
10 that is killing development out of
11 Orient. And we fought it and we won.
12 So when you see us here and we're
13 mostly here for this topic, this is
14 government in action. This is
15 democracy. This is how it is
16 supposed to work and really
17 appreciate that you do this. And
18 that you just don't dust go through
19 the form of it. That you really do
20 it. I have a couple of things that I
21 would like to say. One is, I think
22 in these deliberations the tone and
23 the manner on how we address each
24 other is important. And I say that
25 to both of us. To both sides. When
July 9, 2018 109
1 Mr. Tenedios said every early on that
2 he was not going to be a commercial
3 farmer. He was going to be a
4 gentleman farmer. And some how the
5 inclination was that, that was better
6 than commercial farmers. And Maureen
7 Cunningham, the owner of the land
8 before him, was a commercial farmer.
9 Raising and selling eggs for profit.
10 We want commercial farmers. We don't
11 always agree with the agricultural
12 border, but we want commercial
13 farming to succeed here. We love it.
14 The other thing that I wanted to
15 point is, and is the recent letter
16 that Mr. Tenedios sent to you
17 regarding the photographer who took
18 the photos of the dye tests or
19 whatever it was. And he apparently
20 doesn't understand the word
21 contiguous. And I know I am being
22 pretty cunning here, but you know
23 what, if that man is who I think he
24 is, is a very, very, very smart man
25 who knows huge amounts about water
July 9, 2018 110
1 and cleanliness. And it's possible
2 that Mr. Tenedios did not know at the
3 time, that there are indeed culverts
4 to connect to little puddles on his
5 side of the road to the Narrow River
6 on the other side. It is contiguous.
7 And I have seen that mentioned now
8 several times it being picked up.
9 There is no Narrow Road barrier
10 there. It's open. And in that same
11 letter, Mr. Tenedios pointed out that
12 perhaps the photographer should pay
13 more attention to his own piece of
14 land and his own personal waste that
15 is going into the ground there, and
16 in fact if all of us in this room
17 paid more attention to that and
18 stopped paying attention to the
19 (Inaudible) the farm, all would be
20 good. He also doesn't know that
21 there is a zip code on Long Island
22 that knows more about wastewater and
23 waste water remediation. We have the
24 experts of Nitrogen in our community.
25 We're working on this. Having that
July 9, 2018 111
1 problem in our community does not
2 mean that we should allow open
3 animals. So, when you have digested
4 all of this and you have some work to
5 do and I know you have been talking
6 about it and maybe you're ready to
7 go, but when you have, I have heard
8 several people talk about tonight the
9 size of this barn. And I have not
10 heard about that before. My last
11 point, before you come down to the
12 end of your deliberations, please
13 think very carefully of just how
14 large of a barn he needs to do what
15 he says he wants to do and you're
16 willing to give him permission to. I
17 think maybe 4, 000 square feet would
18 be plenty. Please think about that.
19 Thank you.
20 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
21 MR. BAIZ: Chris Baiz, Southold.
22 Chair of the Agricultural Advisory
23 Committee to Southold. If we were to
24 apply all of what we're hearing here
25 tonight to when my great-grandmother
July 9, 2018 112
1 first arrived here in 1918, and
2 having her mandate to use her
3 farmland only for personal
4 consumption, we would not be
5 celebrating our 100th year in
6 agricultural production. This takes
7 a lot of work. It takes a lot of
8 know how. What we're talking about
9 tonight is a barn building. 8600
10 square feet is not unreasonable. In
11 fact it's very reasonable.
12 Especially on the size of the
13 property. He's got 35 acres. I have
14 8500 square feet of agricultural
15 buildings on my 22 acres and I am in
16 discussion with my daughter to put up
17 an 80, 000 square feet of hot house.
18 So that she can make a living for the
19 future for her own family who also
20 live and work on the farm. Whether
21 you all know it, I am sure some of
22 you on the Board do, the US
23 Department of Agriculture, it's
24 secretariat level in Washington
25 watches and studies what we're trying
July 9, 2018 113
1 to do out here in the North Fork and
2 the South Fork of Long Island because
3 as they say, we don't know if anybody
4 else who is farming on expensive
5 farmland or in as high cost of a
6 structure as anybody on Long Island,
7 except -- and this has probingly
8 changed since then, a few places in
9 the Hawaiian places but I think the
10 volcano has "X" out some of the
11 macadamia nut tree farms out there.
12 So we have an excessively high cost
13 structure here. We're an industry
14 that must have multiple specialty
15 crops. We can't just grow potatoes
16 or broccoli anymore. The myth with
17 the farmland preservation program is
18 that you're only allowed to grow row
19 crops. You plant a row crop $5, 000
20 per acre, per year and you reap
21 $4, 000.00 an acre per year. Do you
22 think you're going to stay in
23 business? The supervisor just
24 commented to me several days ago that
25 he was concerned about the amount of
July 9, 2018 114
1 phallo agricultural land in the Town
2 of Southold. And I replied Scott,
3 that's because nobody can make any
4 money based on the raw crop returns.
5 We must be specialty crop on farm
6 processing to highly valued crops and
7 end products so that our lands can
8 produce enough revenue for us to
9 survive here. And I am not talking
10 about four or five thousand dollars
11 an acre. I am talking about in the
12 range of $50,000.00 per acre in
13 agricultural operation. Just to buy
14 an acre of land out here
15 unrestricted, $100,000.00 or
16 whatever. It's $8,000.00 a year on
17 principle and interest alone. How do
18 you farm a $4, 000.00 crop when you
19 can't even make your principle and
20 interest payment. So while all of
21 this stuff is great and hearing about
22 the environmental stuff, we're all in
23 an environmental sensitive area. My
24 farm has a stream through it running
25 through (Inaudible) Pond. My
July 9, 2018 115
1 grandparents used to maintain a herd
2 or whatever you have in sheep in 50
3 or more head. They were moved twice
4 a year from the south side of Main
5 Road to the north side of the Main
6 Road. Very interesting. I am sure
7 today it would be very difficult to
8 run those 50 to 100 head of sheep
9 across the Main Road and stop all the
10 traffic. Everybody might laugh a
11 little bit but you would have to run
12 down 300 foot of the main road before
13 you got to the other property. So I
14 did a little more research based on
15 the letter that came out on Friday.
16 Or at least was received at the end
17 of last week. And I have gotten some
18 responses from Ag & Market in Albany
19 already. And one comment is, I
20 cannot believe that this all stems
21 from the landowners wish to construct
22 a barn. This is really overboard is
23 Ag & Market's response. And since
24 the property is in the Ag District, I
25 recommend to the land owner and to
July 9, 2018 116
1 his legal counsel, that Ag & Market's
2 at the commissioner's level is
3 looking for an invitation to respond
4 to all of this. Simply because this
5 is agricultural. This is not -- you
6 know, if I could put in for my choice
7 of color for the barn, my grandmother
8 loved green. Every room in the
9 house, which is the house that I live
10 in right now, is green. Isn't it
11 great? For my color, I would like
12 Lime Green and if we could just top
13 it off with a sprig of orange, it
14 would be great. Give it that
15 tropical island feel. So the other
16 issue that I think is most paramount
17 here is the issue of hither this is
18 going to be for commercial.
19 Agriculture is always commercial. If
20 agriculture doesn't carry its weight,
21 then just like we have for the last
22 100 years, just like the schools, the
23 reason why they were combined is
24 because all the guys that went into
25 the mines were farmers and couldn't
July 9, 2018 117
1 make enough money on the farm. So
2 they went to work in the mines in the
3 winter time to make a living or at
4 least put food on the table. The key
5 thing here, so much for using
6 easement land for production of crops
7 and livestock as a commercial
8 enterprise, referring to the personal
9 consumption issue, i.e. , the intent
10 of the development rights program is
11 for the commercial use of these
12 agricultural use of these lands,
13 which is exactly what we're talking
14 about this property. The building is
15 not unreasonable. 8500-8600 square
16 feet, it's less than 1/2 of 1% lot
17 coverage. The agricultural lands are
18 entitled to up to 20% lot coverage.
19 You can have a nice greenhouse
20 operation there. Supplying food
21 year-round. Not one crop once a year
22 off the land. There are some growers
23 who are getting smart out of here.
24 There is one operation who harvested
25 a crop every 7 days in a greenhouse
July 9, 2018 118
1 of 40, 000 square feet and that
2 revenue per week is over $50, 000.00
3 so he can stay in business. And it
4 all goes to the New York City
5 restaurant. This is the kind of
6 agriculture that if you want
7 agriculture out here and not twenty
8 more houses on the ten thousand acres
9 of farmland, then for God's sake,
10 let's get right on the ball. Let's
11 get to your 280-131H. Let's get this
12 barn approved so the man can get on
13 -- this is our problem. None of the
14 local farmers are going to be buying
15 up land that is for sale because we
16 just can't afford it anymore. So
17 your new buyers -- if you want to
18 include bacon in that from the 90's
19 and the early 2000's. These out of
20 town folks are going to be the people
21 that owning our farmland because we
22 can't make a living on it because all
23 of this. And we have to be able to
24 make that living. If you want to
25 have open farmlands here. We're a
July 9, 2018 119
1 third of the acreage of the Town of
2 Southold in agriculture. It used to
3 be two-thirds. Orient used to be
4 wall to wall fields. Plowed fields.
5 And now it's whatever it is. But the
6 point is, that if you want to have
7 agriculture be the buffer in your
8 community, you have to go way
9 overboard to make sure that it can
10 stay there. And that is what the
11 development rights program was for.
12 It was to keep that -- that land at
13 those lower values, you can't just
14 grow $1, 000.00 an acre crop. You
15 still have to grow a much higher _
16 revenue string per year, per acre in
17 order for those people to maintain
18 and stay on the land. Farm families
19 are unique. The children watch their
20 parent work. In the bad times, the
21 children say, "why in the hell do I
22 ever want to follow my parents
23 footsteps. " But when the parents can
24 show them the good times, they sit
25 there and perk up and say, geez, we
July 9, 2018 120
1 can stay here too. And maybe our
2 children can stay here as well. And
3 so, all of this wrapped together, if
4 we do it to one barn and try to screw
5 it over, what is the next to stop the
6 next one? You're buyers are going to
7 be more and more people from
8 Manhattan, New York City. They're
9 going to be the one's --
10 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Excuse me. He
11 has the dais please. Have respect for
12 who is speaking. Everyone else had the
13 opportunity to speak.
14 MR. BAIZ: So again, our future
15 landowners are not going to be from
16 here if we keep going down this path.
17 If we keep making it more and more
18 difficult for our local agriculture.
19 And this is a perfect example why
20 local agriculture is saying why do I
21 want to be here anymore? So all of
22 the -- all the you should do this and
23 you should do that, that is all it
24 is. That is what you should think
25 about. And you can sit down with the
July 9, 2018 121
1 applicant and you can engage the
2 applicant with a one on one
3 discussion with how we should handle
4 this. You have seen over the
5 interplay. How would you like to
6 handle this or our suggestions from
7 the Planning Board are what about A,
8 B and C. Don't pick all three. What
9 can we do to make this work for you
10 and the Board. That is the way that
11 this should come down. This should
12 not be a every body free for all and
13 take in all my ideas and I demand
14 that they all be incorporated into
15 your document. Thanks guys. I
16 appreciate it.
17 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
18 Okay.
19 MR. KELLY: I just want to say one
20 last thing. I hope that we did not
21 lose track of what the objective or
22 the application that we have here.
23 It's the application for the barn.
24 And that is the most important thing.
25 I have been before this Board before
July 9, 2018 122
1 and I have always played by the
2 rules. We followed the code. The
3 site plan was developed around the
4 current code. The code, as everyone
5 has said, has been developed to
6 protect the Town of Southold and the
7 Village of Orient. And under the
8 current code, just sometimes you have
9 to put things in perspective. Under
10 the current code, if the Village of
11 Orient didn't exist, it wouldn't.
12 That is all I have to say. Under the
13 current code with all the
14 restrictions that are under the
15 current code, you could not build the
16 Village of Orient today because of
17 the lot size, because of the Suffolk
18 County restrictions as far as the
19 Health Department goes. So you start
20 looking at the Village and you start
21 looking at the lot size of the houses
22 and everything in the Village. You
23 couldn't do that today. That is a
24 valid point.
25 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: I am sorry, he
July 9, 2018 123
1 was up first.
2 MR. MILLER: Hi. My name is Dave
3 Miller and I am resident of Orient.
4 There is a voice missing here tonight
5 and that is the voice of Maureen
6 Cunningham. A friendly neighbor who
7 deeded ownership. We're not talking
8 about a question of land (Inaudible) .
9 We're talking about who owns what.
10 The Town of Southold owns interest in
11 that land. We're not regulating the
12 use that is wholly owned by the
13 applicant here. We're talking about
14 finding who owns what. And in my
15 mind -- I know in Maureen's mind,
16 there was no thought about what she
17 was doing and the Town of Southold
18 and did not include the development
19 that is being contemplated here. I
20 don't have a lot of confidence in the
21 future compliance of any conditions.
22 He's made it quite clear on where he
23 stands on this. His attitude towards
24 the community from the get-go, has
25 been one of the -- not a typical
July 9, 2018 124
1 business man from New York. It has
2 been something of -- to have gotten
3 around and overcome and ignore it if
4 you can, waive it away, if possible.
5 Starting with the application. All
6 those not applicable. You can recall
7 them. Everything was not applicable.
8 Things were applicable. One thing
9 that I wanted to say about the
10 conveyance. One of the things that
11 was critically conveyed to the Town,
12 was that the Town owns -- there is an
13 easement that distinguishes this farm
14 from other farms. One of the things
15 that was conveyed was a scenic
16 easement. And I am nor even sure
17 what the legal significance is, it's
18 designated as critically scenic. Not
19 that has a meaning. And that meaning
20 goes to this barn to me. And that
21 does not include a bright green barn
22 with Fresh & Co plastered across it
23 in big bright white letters. Most
24 people -- maybe some people would
25 like lime green and an orange flower
July 9, 2018 125
1 on top. I think those people would
2 think that is not consistent with the
3 preservation of the nature of this
4 particular lot. I guess the main
5 point that I wanted to make is what I
6 have already done. We're talking
7 about a specific property where the
8 Town has got specific rights that go
9 beyond those of a regulatory body.
10 And what you all are going to be
11 doing is defining -- at least in the
12 first instance, how far the Town is
13 going to go in assuring its ownership
14 rights. We're talking about what
15 you're going to do as an owner in
16 rights to that land. Thank you.
17 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
18 MS. SOTO: My name is Patty
19 Soto. I live in Orient. I love
20 Narrow River Road. I love our local
21 farms. No one loves fresh produce
22 more than I do. That is not the
23 point that we're making. A barn and
24 -- the barn size can be discussed by
25 people who know what they're
July 9, 2018 126
1 discussing. I am not discussing barn
2 size. I am discussing all the
3 animals that I see when I either,
4 one, ride my bike or two, walk down
5 Narrow River Road. And that is what
6 I see that I do down there. And I
7 seem to see more and more animals.
8 That seems to me, has nothing to do
9 with a farm, planting, vegetables or
10 herding our agricultural business.
11 Somebody needs those cows and those
12 lambs for their dinner. I just
13 question how many lambs, cows,
14 chickens and goats one family will
15 need. That is all I have to say.
16 Thank you.
17 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
18 Would anyone else like to address the
19 Board?
20 LESLIE: I am Leslie (Inaudible)
21 and I am also a part-time Orient
22 resident and I am a former public
23 official. So I have deep sympathy
24 for all of you this evening. You're
25 hearing from a lot of people in
July 9, 2018 127
1 Orient and you have a lot of
2 experience with all of your projects
3 hearing from neighbors. I think what
4 people are trying to say here and
5 what I hear from friends of Southold
6 and Orient and what is unique about
7 Hallocks Bay as an ecosystem. As
8 something that is treasured. When I
9 am at Narrow River, I always ask
10 people where they're from. And most
11 of the time, they're not from Orient.
12 They are from Southold. They're from
13 Greenport. And the amount of work
14 that went into preserving that
15 ecosystem in the last few decades,
16 that is what I think people are
17 concerned about here. This is a
18 particular location that is next to
19 and part of a particular wetland
20 system. That belongs to everyone in
21 Southold and is enjoyed by everyone
22 in Southold. It's a piece of nature.
23 And we all support agriculture and
24 the people who practice agriculture
25 in our community, but you have the
July 9, 2018 128
1 unique responsibility of balancing
2 neighbors, agriculture and nature and
3 what remains of nature in this very,
4 very unique part of the world. That
5 some people have been lucky enough to
6 live here for generations. Others of
7 us have discovered more recently.
8 But I think, you know, Orient is very
9 organized and we're very happy to be
10 here. And glad that you're listening
11 to us, but I think this is a Town
12 question bout this very unique piece
13 of nature in the Town of Southold.
14 Thank you.
15 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Would anyone else
16 like to address the Board?
17 MR. SUPER: Mr. Chairman, can I
18 make a couple of quick points?
19 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Yes.
20 MR. SUPER: Something that Mr. Kelly
21 said and the gentleman from the
22 agriculture -- Reed Super, representing
23 the neighbors. First with respect to
24 stocking rates, Mr. Kelly submitted some
25 hand information. Basically photocopies
July 9, 2018 129
1 of information about stocking rates of
2 land. And we showed that to our expert,
3 who says that goes to how many animals
4 the land could carry if you weren't
5 importing feed. If you want to raise
6 the food on the same site. It doesn't
7 speak to how much capacity the land has
8 to absorb the waste from those animals.
9 Stocking is not environmental -- you
10 know, waste volumes or anything like
11 that. So it's really not key to the
12 issue of water quality. Secondly, we
13 also had our agricultural expert look at
14 the claims by the applicant, that they
15 cannot tell you how many animals they're
16 going to have or how they're going to use
17 the barn or where the sheds are going to
18 go because farming practice has changed.
19 And he said, that's really not making
20 sense. Farms all over and across the
21 east, when they're being regulated, they
22 say, they're going to do show many
23 animals. They give that information.
24 Sure, things changed. It can be updated
25 and is. regularly provided. The
July 9, 2018 130
1 gentleman from the Agricultural Review
2 Committee. He made a lot of
3 interesting points. Sort of a broader
4 argument about preserving agriculture.
5 Particularly commercial agriculture in
6 Southold. Most of what he said really
7 didn't speak to this property with the
8 deed restrictions and scenic easement.
9 And with an applicant saying that the
10 barn, most of it is going to be used for
11 noncommercial farming. So having
12 commercial supported in the Town is a
13 worthy goal and most should do that.
14 That is not the issues here when you have
15 an applicant says that he's not doing
16 that. And then relatedly, personal
17 consumption, it's how many animals will
18 be there? How much waste? Not who is
19 going to consume the animals. The
20 reason why we have said limited to
21 personal consumption only because you
22 have an applicant who refuses to tell
23 you how many animals are going to be
24 there. He said he's not going to be a
25 commercial farmer. So we said, hold
July 9, 2018 131
1 him to his word. And keep the numbers
2 of animals low enough to fulfill the
3 purposes that he's asking to the land
4 here. Personal consumption to friends
5 and family. So that the waste is small
6 enough for an off site dumpster and
7 there isn't the pressure to do land
8 application. The other way to go about
9 it, is to not put restrictions on
10 commercial farming but to simply limit
11 the number of animals and the waste
12 disposal practices. Then the animals
13 could be used for whatever, as long as
14 this water is protected. This Board
15 needs to decide whether they have enough
16 information to continue. And requesting
17 specific numbers and practices with
18 respect to how many animals and where
19 they're going to be is certainly within
20 your authority and you can certainly do
21 before moving forward. Thank you.
22 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
23 Would anyone else like to address the
24 Board?
25 MR. SHURMAN: My name is Charles
July 9, 2018 132
1 Shurman. I am a resident of Orient.
2 I am also a farmer. I think the
3 comments that were made by the number
4 of agricultural community are really
5 inappropriate for what is being
6 considered tonight. You are not
7 dealing with the viability of
8 commercial farming in the Town of
9 Southold. The applicant has stated
10 that the animals that he has on his
11 property at this time is for his
12 personal consumption and use. I know
13 you have received 100's and 100's of
14 pages of written materials that have
15 been submitted for your
16 consideration. Some by the speakers
17 this evening and by others. I want
18 you to please not get lost in those
19 papers. I want you to take a ride
20 around River Road. The road that I
21 drive everyday from my home to my
22 farm. I ask you to look at the
23 animals that are on that property.
24 And I ask you to how can one family
25 possibly consume all the animals that
July 9, 2018 133
1 are on that property. What I am
2 suggesting to you is that the
3 applicant is not being truthful in
4 any respect. He has demonstrated an
5 attitude of dismissiveness on
6 non-cooperation and disrespect
7 towards this Board. The requests
8 that you have made of him, I believe
9 that he is intentionally falsifying
10 the application for the purpose of
11 trying to creep under the wire.
12 These animals are not for personal
13 consumption. The variety of these
14 animals suggest to me that he is
15 ready to make livestock to support
16 his restaurants. I suggest that 3200
17 barn space, the portion allocation
18 for animal housing by his attorney is
19 inconsistent with personal use. I
20 suggest to you that his
21 representation that all wastes is
22 being trucked off this farm is
23 patently false. I invite you to
24 drive down Narrow Road, with your
25 windows down. This is a property --
July 9, 2018 134
1 and I dare you the word, contiguous,
2 and I am very well aware of what the
3 word means. It may not be contiguous
4 because there is a public road
5 separating the applicants property
6 from Narrow River; however, as
7 suggested by the one of the speakers,
8 there is culverts underneath the road
9 that allow all of the wastes
10 infiltrate the water system below to
11 flow directly into Narrow River.
12 Once that happens, you can forget
13 shellfishing. You can forget the
14 water quality in Orient. Please
15 don't get lost in the paperwork.
16 Please take your personal experience
17 and see whether all these animals can
18 possibly be for personal consumption
19 and whether all of the wastes
20 generated by these animals is truly
21 being removed and trucked off the
22 farm. I am confident that those
23 statements will be viewed as false.
24 Thank you.
25 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
July 9, 2018 135
1 MR. PERRY: Kevin Perry, Orient.
2 I will be brief. Last time Sandy
3 flooded that site, it didn't go in
4 and out of culverts came over Narrow
5 River Road. Almost reached the main
6 road. Almost completely flooded the
7 site and went back out across the
8 River Road. Anything that is stored
9 on the site, at some point in
10 history will wind up in Hallocks
11 Bay.
12 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
13 Would anyone else like to address the
14 Board that hasn't spoken before?
15 MS. MCNEELY: Very short comment.
16 My name is Ellen McNeely again. This
17 is just a comment. Sheep and goats
18 are often times used as lawnmowers in
19 various situations to clear parkways
20 and a lot of different venues. The
21 reason being they come down and they
22 chew very, very deeply. They will
23 uproot grasses, etcetera. If we're
24 in an area that we're dealing with
25 water and drainage, you do not want
July 9, 2018 136
1 ponderance of animals that create
2 that kind of circumstance that they
3 chew down and making the area much
4 more permeable that it might be.
5 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
6 MS. MARKEL: Yes. My name is Jean
7 Markel. I have a house in Orient.
8 And I am here to say that I am
9 opposed to this project and the
10 keeping of livestock on that land. I
11 think in represents an ongoing
12 enforcement kragmeyer. Thank you.
13 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
14 Would anyone else like to address the
15 Board? Pat would you like to make any
16 more comments or are you done?
17 MS. MOORE: I listened to a lot of
18 comments and you were right, a lot of
19 them were in the first round of
20 comments. And we have despite some
21 very derogatory comments made against
22 my client, we have been cooperative.
23 We have responded. I have responded
24 as completely as I could. I have
25 responded to what animals we have
July 9, 2018 137
1 there now because we were addressing
2 the allegations that he was going to
3 be slaughtering animals and providing
4 food to his restaurant. That is as
5 far from the truth as could be ever
6 stated. You cannot produce food. It
7 has to go through USDA. Those
8 comments are complete illogical. I
9 have reviewed regulations. The
10 Federal Government does not have
11 restrictions on buffer areas. They
12 allow agriculture up to the water.
13 The DEC allows fencing and
14 agricultural use into the buffers.
15 The proposal here are more than 100
16 feet from the buffers. Our buffers
17 are intact. And one of the
18 recommendations were a conversation
19 with the Board regarding the farm
20 management practices, reasonable
21 discussion, reasonable conditions.
22 We're always willing to listen. What
23 we don't want to see is the dicto or
24 the dicta from the above of what
25 you're being asked to provide and by
July 9, 2018 138
1 the attorney, which is requesting
2 conditions that are intended to hurt
3 the agriculture and hurt the
4 enterprise. What you have here is an
5 individual who bought from
6 Ms. Cunningham's estate. Over a
7 million dollars worth of property.
8 And the property remains in
9 agriculture. It will and continues
10 to be used under the development
11 rights covenants. Mr. Tenedios
12 understand the covenants. And at any
13 point in time if something that he
14 doesn't understand, he calls us and
15 asks us and we tell him yes he can
16 or no you can't do that. And he has
17 followed all the instructions that we
18 have given. So we want to continue
19 the cooperation. As much as all of
20 my responses for request of
21 documentation and things, I oppose
22 it, because in theory we are
23 agriculture community. And if we
24 treat this farmer this way and then
25 the next guys gets treated -- it's a
July 9, 2018 139
1 matter of zoning by consensus rather
2 than zoning and treating agriculture
3 for what it is. So we will
4 cooperate with the Board. We will
5 cooperate to see that this farmland
6 is protected and used properly. But
7 understand that we cannot get
8 conditions and some of the conditions
9 were really aggressive and
10 antifoaming conditions. So we
11 welcome a meeting of the Board on a
12 work session agenda so that with your
13 comments and whatever proposals you
14 want to make. We're not responding
15 to the comments by the public. We're
16 responding to this Board. We welcome
17 continued conversation and
18 communication with this Board.
19 Thank you.
20 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
21 MS. HANDS: Let me be the last
22 speaker. I am Venetia Hands again.
23 There is a game going on here, which
24 is if Mr. Tenedios is a gentleman
25 farmer not a commercial farmer and he
July 9, 2018 140
1 is trying to simply trying to provide
2 for his family with the animals and
3 not the crops, he's trying to farm a
4 very, very expensive property of his
5 own bat. He's not wanting to make
6 money from this operation. He has
7 money. That is the game that was
8 just played. Chris Baiz just said he
9 wants to do commercial farming but
10 he's not. This is not what this
11 gentleman is asking for unless he is
12 lying. If he wanted to have lots and
13 lots of animals in a different
14 location that wasn't on Narrow River
15 Road, we might even come and support
16 it. It's the place. And there is a
17 game going on of commercial versus
18 gentleman. Thank you.
19 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you for
20 that. Anybody else? I think that
21 about wraps it up. Go ahead?
22 MS. WICKHAM: Gail Wickham. I am
23 sorry I came in late. My name is
24 Abigail Wickham of Mattituck, New
25 York. And I am here tonight on my
July 9, 2018 141
1 own behalf and not for a client
2 refreshingly. I am a concerned farm
3 owner. I have strong interest in
4 good farming practices, stewardship
5 and playing by the rules. And when
6 someone doesn't follow these, you do
7 have to fall back on the rules. This
8 Board knows only too well to make a
9 decision on a complex problem like
10 this when you have so many different
11 factors coming together. But the
12 North Fork and this farm in
13 particular are blanketed by many
14 layers of regulations. And you are
15 fortunately not charged with
16 enforcing all of them but you can
17 rely in your brother and sister
18 agencies to handle their aspects and
19 you deal with yours as defined by the
20 code. The issues that have been
21 raised could have broad implications
22 for farm owners by virtue of
23 precedents and Town Code
24 interpretation. I do want to address
25 tonight and there are only a few of
July 9, 2018 142
1 them. The first is open space
2 vistas, placement of agricultural
3 structures, which are essential to
4 allow farmers. To allow them to
5 determine the best location. And
6 that is defined by the code. These
7 matters are restricted to code
8 restrictions. In this particular
9 case, the language of the development
10 rights deed is very specific with
11 regards to placement and goes beyond
12 restrictions. However, these factors
13 are not controlling. The deed does
14 not preclude a balancing need and the
15 code does not. Your decision should
16 state that any aspect related to
17 building placement and design is
18 based upon the authority granted by
19 the specific deed restrictions. As
20 it should not govern on other sites.
21 In fact, it's not the Planning's
22 Board authority to govern these deed
23 restrictions and your decision must
24 be based on the decision granted by
25 code and State law. No, 2. So I
July 9, 2018 143
1 have handled a lot of commercial and
2 farming site plan applications in the
3 Town. None of my clients have been
4 asked how many cans of paint or tanks
5 of propane they will be selling. How
6 many drinks and dinners the
7 restaurant might serve and how many
8 rows that they will be planting for
9 season or per day. The inquiry you
10 make as to site plan is used is
11 important but it should not be overly
12 broad. Again, these other agencies
13 if they're relevant, they will be
14 asking those questions. The
15 questions you ask relating to
16 specific use must recognize the zone
17 in which this property is located,
18 must recognize that permitted use.
19 As far as special events. The deed
20 does not place any restrictions on
21 special events. Therefore the
22 property should -- I don't think, be
23 subject to any further restrictions
24 on holding of special events then
25 another other property under the
July 9, 2018 144
1 code. As to sanitary and drainage
2 issues, these are the province of the
3 Health Department, the DEC and Town
4 Trustees and within the perimeters of
5 their jurisdiction. The installation
6 of drywall's (sic) for roof runoff
7 and drainage must be addressed on the
8 site plan, but how many animals, I am
9 not sure is a proper inquiry. And
10 how do you handle reproduction that
11 they are suddenly over their number?
12 I ask again that your review not
13 extend beyond the State Law and Town
14 Code. In closing, I don't mean to
15 understate the restrictions, but
16 given the extreme requests made by
17 those commenting, I trust that you
18 will sift through all the
19 considerations and the testimony
20 tonight and throughout your review
21 and decide what is relevant and not.
22 It is customary over a public hearing
23 that you hear everything whether it
24 comes properly before you or not.
25 And that is going to be your to
July 9, 2018 145
1 consider what is relevant to your
2 inquiry. Thank you.
3 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
4 Does anyone else want to speak?
5 Board Member Martin Sidor would like
6 to make a few words.
7 MEMBER SIDOR: Gail, you can help
8 me. My mind is a little shotty. I
9 believe back in the 80's the Town had
10 two, open space committee and
11 Farmland Committee. And I am
12 speaking before that current Town
13 Board at that time, basically saying
14 do not merge the committees because
15 they are too diametrical and could be
16 difficult if put together in one
17 committee. And the Town went ahead
18 and formed the Farmland Committee.
19 This is the first easement that I
20 remember that we're having that
21 conundrum that we're trying to get
22 through both sides of the open space
23 and the farm land. My first
24 question, I farm in Mattituck. So I
25 try to be -- but I have to be
July 9, 2018 146
1 objective here. And my first
2 question to the Town Attorney, was
3 the building permit permissible and
4 it was ascertained several different
5 times. The building was permissible.
6 The next two components that
7 presented to me, and needed to be
8 looked at, was the natural resources,
9 both groundwater and surface water.
10 I have long and lengthy talks and
11 they were both very manageable. I
12 have had that conversation several
13 different times. Also as far as the
14 language, just recently the Town has
15 codified the Ag Advisory Committee.
16 This language in this particular
17 easement is very subjective,
18 cumbersome and problematic. They ask
19 for what the property should be
20 consistent with both value and scenic
21 value. The Town Board's 2002
22 resolutions including reasons to
23 include scenic value and land value.
24 That is very difficult language to
25 work through, with the recent
July 9, 2018 147
1 codification and Bill, you can help
2 me here, the Ag Advisory, will be
3 more -- to be more definitive and
4 simplify this.
5 MR. DUFFY: I don't know if
6 they're going to review past
7 convents.
8 MEMBER SIDOR: We have ten more on
9 a docket that we will be going
10 through with this type of language.
11 So that is something to look forward
12 to. Hopefully it's not in Orient.
13 So those are my -- and by the way, I
14 did not support the visual
15 simulation. That is where my farm
16 hat took over. On my 65 acre farm, I
17 have almost 20, 000 square feet
18 storage space and it's not enough.
19 It has gone with cows and horses and
20 tractors and now to potato chips. As
21 far as individual, I am not the judge
22 of this case. That is all I really
23 want to say about that. I do
24 appreciate everyone. This is what
25 makes it work.
July 9, 2018 148
1 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Anything else?
2 MEMBER RICH: I would just like to
3 thank everybody for their patience
4 and professionalism and their
5 comments particularly.
6 MEMBER RAFFERTY: I just would
7 like to say that I have heard a few
8 mentions of the guys up here today.
9 There is a new member of the Planning
10 Board who is not a guy.
11 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Yes, Mary.
12 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: It's an honor
13 and a privilege to me there. Thank
14 you, Pierce.
15 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: So with that, a
16 motion to close this hearing?
17 MEMBER RICH: Make a motion to
18 close the hearing.
19 MEMBER SIDOR: Second.
20 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Motion made by
21 Jim. Seconded by Martin.
22 Any discussion?
23 (No Response. )
24 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: All in favor?
25 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Aye.
July 9, 2018 149
1 MEMBER RAFFERTY: Aye.
2 MEMBER RICH: Aye.
3 MEMBER SIDOR: Aye.
4 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Aye.
5 Motion carries.
6
7 (Whereupon, the meeting concluded. )
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 9, 2018 150
1
2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
3
4
5
6 I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
7 foregoing transcript of audio recorded
8 Meeting/Public Hearings was prepared
9 using required electronic transcription
10 equipment and is a true and accurate
11 record of the meeting.
12
13
14 Signature:
15 Jessica DiLallo
16 RECEIVE®
17 '%
18 Date: August 6, 2018
SEPd 201
19
S thold Tovvn Clerk
20
21
22
23
24
25