HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-12/19/1988 �O��FF®tad®
O
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 1 1971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
DECEMBER 19, 1988
The Southold Town Planning Board held a regular meeting on
Monday, December 19, 1988 at 7 :30 p.m. at the Southold Town
Hall, Main Road, S6uthold.
PRESENT WERE:
Chairman Bennett Orlowski,Jr.
Member G. Ritchie Latham,Jr.
Member William F. Mullen,Jr.
Member Richard G. Ward
Member Kenneth Edwards
Town Planner Valerie Scopaz
Secretary Jill Thorp
Absent: Melissa Spiro (Vacation)
Mr. Orlowski: Good evening. I would like to call this meeting to
order. The first order of business is the Marina Bay Club.
SCTM 41000-117-8-18. This is a public hearing on Supplement
Number Two of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. This is
a site plan located in New Suffolk. At this time we have proof
of publication in the Long Island Traveler/Watchmen and also in
the Suffolk Times. Everything is in order for this hearing. We
will start out by asking if there are any comments. We will
start on my left, this side. Please step up to the microphone
and state your name.
Mr. Fenton: If it pleases the Board, my name is Joseph Fenton. I
live on Jackson Street, in New Suffolk. I'm an attorney and I
was elected Chairman of a committee that was formed by the
community almost six years ago. When the previous owners of the
property petitioned the Town Board to rezone so that
condominiums could be built, the New Suffolk Community met at
the school and voted 168 to 10 to oppose that petition. I have
been selected to act as the Committee' s spokesperson. We do
represent the bulk of the community here. The other members of
the committee would like any time they might be entitled to at
this hearing allocated to me so that we -can speak with one
Planning Board Page 2 December 19 , 1988
voice. Our stated goal at the rezoning hearing was to retain the
character of the community 'and encourage continuance of what had
existed at the site during the last century and a half, mainly a
restaurant, boatyard and marina - environmentally and
aesthetically sound.
The committee has continued to operate for the purpose of
monitoring progress of .the Marina Bay Club' s plans. We believe
that committee is representative of the community, was selected
at community meetings and was voted in by the Civic
Association' s membership to represent it with respect to this
proposed project.
The committee has unanimously concluded that the proposed
project is too ambitious, and is too big for New Suffolk. The
committee represents to your Board that this is also the view of
the overwhelming bulk of the community and that this project, if
carried out as proposed, it will adversely affect the quality of
life we enjoy. It would have certain adverse impacts on the
environment and materially change the unique character of New
Suffolk and its charm. We also believe and will demonstrate that
certain aspects of the plan exceed the rights of the developer
to accomplish them and impact on the environment in unacceptable
ways.
Both the developer and the community find themselves in
positions each feels unable to modify. Richard Carr and his
representatives have been approachable. .He..has provided us with
a general store next to the Post Office for newspapers, milk,
bread and other necessaries. He has agreed to continue to lease
the existing space to the post office which is important to us,
although it could be relocated.
If the Town approves the site plan, Marina Bay Club has
entered into a covenant which would prohibit building of a
structure for residential proposes; or .prohibit the use of boats
moored at the site for residential purposes, except that
sleeping aboard overnight would be permitted to transients
provided their use was occasional and not regular. Something we
requested and something that the Town could copy in other
situations, without the need to resort to difficult legislation.
Since this covenant has not yet surfaced in any submission to
date, I submit a copy for your information.
While we would like to accommodate the developer' s needs to
show our appreciation, what he is asking for can be summed up in
two simple words. TOO BIG! What can be done about it is another
matter. Originally Galley Ho restaurant' s capacity was 50 seats.
The first talk of enlarging the capacity to of 150 seats -
triple the number. Now 300 are prepared -six times the original
number, although the existing restaurant has since increased. its
capacity somewhat with the addition of a terrace. I will talk
about parking when we get to the marina, but because the parking
for the restaurant and marina are interrelated it is obvious
Planning Board Page 3 December 19 , 1988
that there is inadequate parking in one and it will impact on
the other. We recognize restaurant use is one we asked for and
what it is zoned for, ,but a six fold increase is in our view
impractical and unworkable. Richard Carr has assured us that his
experts insist that this size restaurant, in this location will .
work, on a year round.basis.
The Association, .in a letter to you dated November 18,
1987, favored .reasonable efforts to minimize the size of this
project. That is still our request. Since you exist to serve the
community, perhaps you can help. Experts help sell projects to
investors, but are nowhere to be found when feasibility fails.
The size of the marina is another matter. Here, Mr. Carr is
electing to ignore a century and a half of conduct by the
original grantee of a New York State Underwater Grant and by all
subsequent grantees by attempting to go outside the confines of
the grant. The DEIS cites an important case and asserts that the
grant is irrelevant, despite the fact that our case, is
distinguishable from the Hempstead case cited. In that case the
Town was the grant' s owner looking to collect rent for the use
of its underwater land, while in our case the owner is the
beneficiary of the grant which was designed to measure how far
out he could go. We believe that a century and a half of conduct
speaks louder than any other concept in establishing how far he
can penetrate the bay. The case cited and the thrust of this
comment is that he is entitled to reasonable use of adjacent
underwater land. Should the grant be ignored,., when he himself
chooses to rely on it in asserting a six acre site in these
documents and by citing the handwritten reference to it in a
November 10, 1987 deed.
Despite the fact that the upland site is only three and a.
half acres. What better test can there be of what is reasonable
than what the State considered reasonable in making the grant?
What his predecessor in interest is considered reasonable in
requesting it and accepting it and which all subsequent owners
recognize during the past one hundred and fifty years in
enjoying its use and staying within its confines? Certainly the
State must have considered the effect on navigation. The
developer proposes to go out one hundred and fifty feet beyond
the grant. This will bring him too close to the three to four
foot deep water gap, which sits out in front of the Southern
side of the site, and will narrow. or substantially eliminate the
relatively deep water gap which permits keeled boats to pass
east of the site, particularly at low tide. If this path is
eliminated or narrowed, it will be difficult or impossible for a
keeled boat to tack past the site against the wind. There will
be insufficient width to be able to zig zag into Cutchogue
Harbor or reach a way point to make the turn east toward Nassau
Point. In heading into the wind, a sailing vessel needs
sufficient width to make enough headway on each tack to have
enough momentum to be able. to come about into the wind for the
next tack. Establishing the breakwater as far out as is proposed
Planning Board Page 4 December 19 , 1989
will impede navigation and enable further build up of sand
against the breakwater when it is established, thereby further
impeding navigation.
We have not yet questioned the right of the owner to the
existing grant lines but call your attention to the fact that
the grant required that the unappropriated and the unapplied
portion of the grant reverted to the State if it was not
appropriated and applied within two years of the 1838 granting.
There was evidence that only steamboat wharf was then
constructed, so that we now. face the prospect that if what is
reasonable from a navigation standpoint is something less than
the eastern grant line. And perhaps if the developer is
relinquishing any claim to the grant area, or that area is less
than originally made because of the two year requirement, then
the one hundred and fifty foot incursion past the Eastern grant
line will not only have to be eliminated but an additional
distance, perhaps to the existing use will become what is
reasonable in the circumstances. We would welcome your
determination that the developer is bound by the grant's
boundaries, or in the alternative that reasonable use would
either coincide with or comprise less than such boundaries,
perhaps present use.
As an alternative, and perhaps you will consider this as
means of resolving the matter, and we would have no problem with
it since it offers both sides the opportunity to assert our
respective positions in a public forum. . There is nothing to
prevent the developer from. applying to the General Services
administration of New York State, whose jurisdiction includes
the -bay bottom which is owned by the State for an additional
grant to accomplish what he proposes. There will then be notice
and hearing as part of that -process, and the developer's rights
will be preserved as will ours and you will not be making a
decision with respect to which another agency may have greater
or concurrent jurisdiction.
A few additional items. Parking spaces are a function of
use and size. The plan appears to provide one hundred and .
seventy seven spaces and requires one hundred and fifty six, an
average of twenty one. More careful scrutiny discloses that
sixty six boat slips are permanent requiring eighty three spaces
for cars, and that seventy one slips are transient requiring no
spaces for cars. Earmarking slips as transient or permanent
enables the developer to meet whatever code requirements are
involved. We believe the ratio of slips between permanent and
transient is unrealistic and when the real world imposes itself
on this plan, and transient slips are rented or used by seasonal
boaters, the parking requirements will have been circumvented.
The same is true for a number of slips designated for use by one
hundred foot, eighty foot and sixty foot boats. Obviously slips
for two hundred foot boats can be used by six - thirty foot
boats; several eighty foot slips can accommodate eighty - twenty
foot boats and so on. This can make a mockery of any limitations
. Planning- Board Page 5 December 19 , 1988
you propose, so that it is obvious that the plan requires more
-leeway than the reported twenty one. The developer proposes room
for close to one hundred and fifty boats - again six time the
present. capacity of twenty five. It should be -obvious to you
that the marina, post office, store and restaurant complex
requires at least two hundred and fifty parking spaces. If he
proposes to provide one hundred and seventy seven. Something has
to give. .
We do prefer off site water to reverse osmosis. We are
pleased that only one stage of the development is planned. we
remain concerned about raising the height of the site and ask
you again that by installing shallower cesspools, but more of
them. The same volume of effluent can be processed, but the.
height of the project can be reduced. On page forty four the
DEIS asks the question, "Will the project impact the scallop
beds?" and unequivocally states "The answer is no" . This is
completely untrue as any one who has dredged for scallops in .the
area knows. I know this of my own knowledge as does everyone
else who scalloped. The western side of Cutchogue Harbor along
the shore from one hundred feet to one thousand feet out all the
way to Southold past the site along the western side of Robins
Island has always been an excellent spot for scallops. Brown
tide affected them in recent years but with its disappearance
and reseeding effects, this should once again become a fertile
area.
On Friday, a week ago, I met with Richard- Carr and his
attorney, Jack Hart, at his request. The purpose was to enable
us to explain our respective positions. It was a pleasant
meeting without outward rancor or any sign of disagreeableness.
We have no interest crucifying him. I explained our position to
him in the two words - TOO BIG. He explained that the project' s
size was dictated by what was needed to finance it, attract
investors and meet resulting carrying charges and return on
investment. He advised me that if going forward was met with
continuing delay, he would opt for selling the property,
probably to a restaurateur who might not provide the kind of
quality establishment he proposes and who would probably not
enlarge the marina capacity or establish a needed boat yard. I
informed the committee of his stated intent. The reaction was
that of the alternatives, the community would prefer that if he
is unwilling or unable to downsize the project that we would
prefer a less ambitious restaurant and marina, more in keeping
with the unpretentiousness of the area and its people. Richard
Carr has since advised me that he may be prepared to scale back
the marina by sixty feet, which we feel is inadequate but a step
in the right direction. We would like to see the process proceed
since we have no control over it.
In the correspondence and the additional information
section on page A17 the deed description is .entitled Rider to
Deed from Marine Associates,Inc. to James Arthur Kenniff and
Jonathan Rosin, dated November 10, 1987. But the Insurance
Planning Board Page 6 December 19 , 1988
policy refers to a deed dated that day from Marine
Associates,Inc. to Shamrock Properties Corp. No such deed exists
or was ever recorded. Probably a mistake has been made. Until
this is resolved, the impact, if any, of the inclusion of these
documents in the DEIS should be ignored. Furthermore, no one
other than the title company is bound by any position it takes
or the DEIS purports it takes. The DEIS, on page 15 asserts that
the salient point is found in the legal description of the
property which includes all lands under water, but. fails to
point out that the title company' s exception number 5 which
excepts rights of the State of New York or any department or
agency to regulate and control the use of the piers, bulkheads
or land underwater and and. land adjacent there to. While the
title company recognizes the State' s possible jurisdiction, the
DEIS selectively adopts what appears to serve its purpose and
ignores what it does not.
As I have already pointed out the deed description in the
covenants I have submitted to you does not include any reference
to the underwater grant which we have . been discussing.
On page twenty four of the supplement to the DEIS the
statement is made that the site has been raised an average of
four feet. On page thirty eight of the same document in response
number thirty one the statement is made that the site been
raised three feet. Which is correct?
In response number forty there is a. .s.tatement that filling
in is not an appropriation. We disagree and call your attention
to the fact the owner had. two years to fill in the area. That
time period having. expired in 1840, we challenge the conclusion
that the owner still has this right.
To conclude, we feel that most of the problems we face are
in here, in the site and the fact that the developer is
attempting to construct a marina in an exposed bay area rather
then in a creek, inlet, a cove or another protected area where
most marinas locate. The cost to build the marine structures
needed here in fifteen feet of water are. tremendous. These costs
create the catch twenty two situation that makes the project
grow further to justify the huge cost and to help defray it. The
developer' s problems and costs in aquiring title, create the
same pressure. But who is to bear the cost. The developer? or
the people .of the State of New York by providing excessive bay
bottom or the community by having imposed on it a project whose
size is dictated by costs stemming from unwanted assumptions,
questionable judgement and dubious site selection? Electric
utilities are precluded from including them in such cost as
their rate base. Perhaps it' s time Planning Boards take them
into account in approving site plans.
Now you have a sense of where we are coming from and the
basis for our objections. We don' t believe the huge armada of
boats the plan contemplates is permissible, reasonable,
Planning Board Page 7 December 19 , 1988
environmentally sound or does not impede navigation. As that
wonderful Fats Waller song goes- and perhaps only we old timers
remember it and you youngsters don't remember, it, Richard -
"Can' t love you cause your fleets too big. "
Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments from my left here.
Mr. Holzapfel: (CAC) I just have a few questions,
environmentally in terms of this particular project. First and
foremost I am mostly concerned with this reverse osmosis and the
salinity change that is going to occir. If you read through the
plan, it is quite obvious that they are putting water back that
is much more salty and, in turn, much more dense, That water is
going to settle at the bottom. There will be some mixing, but it
will still be settling on the bottom. That is going to increase
the salinity, I don' t know how much. I had asked the question
originally. I wanted to have it answered- much clearer, but it
didn' t seemed to be answered. That salinity along the bottom
could layer and be a much more dense and continuous layer of
high salinity water. You heard earlier that the brown tide
caused the scallops to disappear and a lot of other things. The
main theory proposed of the brown tide has been an increase of
salinity in the bays. Three summers ago or four summers ago was
the third driest summer in the last forty five years. The
wheather patterns produced a 'condition that changed the salinity
of the bays dramatically. The water became much more salty. The
common theory today is, one of the most common theories, is that
it could be an oceanic species that came into,_ the bay. In other
words, it, is a salt water species that came into the bay because
of the higher salinity. That is how it came in and that is how
it developed. Perhaps that is why it flourished because it did
not have any competitors that it has out in the ocean. Now we
are going to influence that salinity. I ask you to think about
that carefully. That salinity might be changing. That answer, as
far as I was concerned, the answer to the fact whether that
salinity is going to layer out on the bottom is not sufficiently
answered.
A second point again,, that has already been mentioned but I
bring it back, is that there is a scallop bed area there, it is
well known and that area is being taken away from the people of
Southold. It is something to be concerned with. Something to be
at least ..thoughtful about in your considerations. Another point
that I would like to bring up is that, the answer to one of the
questions dealing with heavy.-metals from boats, in terms of
cleanup. I think the people that prepared the particular
environmental impact statement did not understand the question
that was asked. Because it asked "will there be an increase in
heavy metals due to the maintenance of the boats?" I think most
people are familiar that bottom paint is definitly something
that kills off marine organisms. That is what it is designed- to
do. When you pull your boat out of the water and you scrap the
bottom and sand the bottom, you are cleaning the bottom. All of
that goes into the land or the. ramp where you are doing it. If
Planning Board Page 8 December 19 , 1988
they are going to be doing the boat maintenance right there,
that is going to come back into the bay. The question was asked
and it was dismissed, rather clearly, that there wasn' t any
problem. I don' t think that was the case. It has been the. policy
of the Trustees to have that included in most marinas. that are
undergoing any permitting now. They ask for a catch basin so
that toxic bottom scraping can be collected and not be
distributed right on the bottom, right in the marina. So again,
that is something that you might .want to consider in your
deliberation. I believe 'it is something that should be included
in the plan. As it is now, it is not.
Another thing that was brought up early and I will mention
is just the possibility that, again, it is something to think
about, the existence of house boats in that area. I don' t know
what you can do about it but it is something to be considered.
If they put in one hundred boats and those people move out on
those boats and spend everyday of the whole summer you've now
. got one hundred condominiums , but they are floating. I know
there is not any real law on the books, but it is something to
be considered and something that you should at least weigh in
your decisions. The house boat situation should at least be
addressed. Also in terms of boats, I am not saying that boaters
are polluters, but when you. have lots of boats you have some
pollution. You can go through any of the marina' s that are here.
The waters are closed in a number of them simply because there
are a large number of boats. Usually there are only a couple of
people or a few people who will address..that :problem. The
problem is with lots of boats, you get pollution. That has to
be, I don' t know what to do. The project in my estimation is a
little bit too large and that if you brake it down, the
possibility of damage to the environment would be decreased. So
that is another thing that you should. at least consider. Two
other points that I would mention is the runoff. Again, it' s
talked about a two inch maximum as being what is planned for.
The question is asked what if there is more than two inches?
There is a number of answers there and that is something to be
considered. I think that the answer to the response was ten
percent. of storms or greater than two inches of rain fall. what
is going to happen when that -runoff goes into the bay? I am
sure, again, that you are all familiar that ninety or ninety two
percent of the bacteria that ends up in the bay comes from road
runoff. Are we going to permit or are you going to permit in
that particular design of this project that to happened ten
percent of the storms? A number of creeks are already closed due
to the large bacteria counts or are we just going to add to the
problem? Finally, just one point, I am not sure if it is a major
point but something to at least think about. The boat- basin
itself is going to be a ten foot dredging. On both sides of that
the water is relatively shallow. Is it going to create a hole
there? Tides go up and down,- water moves back and forth. Is that
water sitting on the bottom going to sit there all the time? The
flushing rate in that hole will be much lowered: It is
something, again, to consider. One end is open, and I understand
Planning Board page 9 December 19 , 1988
that. I think that it might be considered and might be looked
into. Thank you.
Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments from this side?
Mr. Wickham: My name is John Wickham, from Wickham Fruit Farm in
Cutchogue. We happen to own almost half -the land in New Suffolk
School District if you discount Robins Island. I have spoken
before in this connection and I will try not to repeat myself. I
have basically two concerns, first I will say that I agree with
Joe Fenton that this plan is a little much. I want to go back a
little in saying I do favor a marina there and some very real
reasons for me. I recall playing on the hull of the old
submarine. It was on the first set of weighs there soon after
the Holland torpedo boat people left. I also took part in
loading potatoes on ships at Goldsmith/Tuthill Dock' s. I want to
talk, however, briefly about reverse osmosis. I visited a
reverse osmosis plant in Florida. They are effective, there is
no question about that. In spite of . what the previous speaker
said, it is possible to return to the sea water that is less
salty. But to do that you have to have a supply, which is
obviously less salty. In other words, a reverse osmosis plant
might use salt water for a supply which is anticipating. You
could also put a well in, say ten feet inland, and presumably
discharge water slightly less salty than the salt. Or you could
go further inland and return discharge water substantially less
salty. The problem with both of these second cases is that you
would have to take sufficient volume to seriously impact the
wells of a large part of that east facing slop of New Suffolk.
In other words the neighbors will bare the brunt of it. This is
a thing where there are too many variables to really put an
.answer down in black and white. I want the Planning Board to be
aware of some, legal action that was put on the books some years,
ago, where permit or permits were given by municipalities under
the assumption that there will be adequate water. Through
factors not of their own making, the developer determine that
they did not, in fact, have enough water and took the cases to
court. The court found that the municipality must make water
available— That is a position I do not want the Town of Southold
To get into. I do not know quite how it can .be handled. Perhaps
a covenant, that under no possible circumstances would the
developer ever come back to the Town of Southold or the County
of Suffolk to make water available. I want to make very sure.
that this question is addressed.
I want to address, .that has been mentioned twice. That is
the under water grant line. To me somewhat of an historical
buff. Our people came here from England and other European
nations where the landlord owned the game, the fish and the
water. When our people came to the new world they said it is not
going to be that way. The game, the fish, the water is going to
belong to everyone. I uphold that tradition and .I say to you I
will use every effort in my power to make sure that what belongs
i
Planning Board Page 10 December 19 , 1988
to all of us is not taken over by someone or some agency for
private use. Thank you very much.
Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments from my left? Hearing none, any
comments from the center section?
Mr. B1uid: My name is John Bluid, I live on Old Harbor Road in
New Suffolk. This is a small comment about a statement in the
supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement about
water wells, page thirteen under comment number ten. About
twelve lines down from the top there is a statement that seems
to me to be somewhat naive. They say there is obvious test well
work that all wells will all be about forty feet when actually
anybody with experience with water wells close to the shore
knows that less shallower water will also be salty as soon as
they start to draw up very much water out of it. However, the
important question is about, the well supply will be constructed
below the confining pad. The depth' s probably about one hundred
and twenty two feet. This is a_ very unpredictable operation. I
have some experience with a well drilled on the southshore of.
Long Island, on the Great South Bay where the underground.
situation is very similar to what it is here. My well driller
suggested that I should find water one hundred feet down below
the clay. Actually, the well finding came four hundred feet
down. I raise that question.
Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments from the center section?
Mrs. Wacker: My name is Ronnie Wacker and I am with the North
Fork Environmental Council and thank you for the opportunity for
me to address this Board on the Impact Statement for the Marina
Bay Club. The Planning Board' s decision will affect what the
developer Richard Carr and his associates can make on the
proposed shipyard complex. That money will soon be spent or
invested in other areas, far from here perhaps. We may or may
not see Mr. Carr and his associates again. Your decision will
also have a far more lasting impact on several hundred people
who live . in this quiet fishing hamlet and want to stay here. It
could turn the little community upside down. The Carr complex as
proposed would outdazzle anything ever seen in this tiny hamlet.
The plans include slips for one hundred and thirty seven boats,
a three hundred seat. restaurant., more than three times the size
of the Galley-ho and a parking lot for a hundred and fifty six
cars. All this on three plus acres. Everything is jumbo scale.
The impact on this quiet fishing center, if you decide to
approve such amount of scheme, is easily imagined. Noise,
lights, traffic, congestion. Perhaps rowdyism. Night time will
never be dark in New Suffolk again. But there are other problems
attacking many more of us than in New Suffolk. Because there is
so little drinking water on fit of glaciar morain the developer
proposes to take bay water, strain the salt from it and serve up
what is left as drinking water, returning the unwanted salt to
the bay. This will increase the salinity of Peconic Bay water.
As we already know, the smallest change in salinity can have
Planning Board Page 11 December 19 , 1988
disastrous impact on shellfish, which have been severely
impacted by other environmental salt already. The Suffolk County
Department of Health Services has expressed deep concern over
this desaliniation process which has not been used on anything
like the scale proposed here- anywhere on Long Island. Then, also
what happens when the desaliniation pumps fail. We all know that
they will at some time or another. The proposal as presently
offered will reach out five hundred and. twenty feet into .the
Bay: about fifty further than the developer has rights to from a
New York State grant. This will also make a difference to people
in this area who sail their boats into and out of Cutchogue
Harbor. All this adds up to, gentlemen, is that this proposal is
just too darn big. The very charm of a hamlet, and Mr. Carr
expects to attract visitors to, will be destroyed by the size of
this project. Up Island people can find the same tawdry glider,
noise and carbon monoxide closer to home. You know Port
Jefferson, Coney Island. We .are not saying that Mr. Carr should
not be allowed build something out here. I think in general
people in New Suffolk welcome a good construction along their
water front. But, please make it something reasonable. Something
whose size will not overcrowd a small community. We are asking
you, the members of the Planning Board, simply to trim this
project down to size. To stop Mr. Carr and his friends from the
killing the goose that they hope will get them a crate of golden
eggs. Thank you.
Mr. Orlowski: Any one else from the center section?
Mrs. Larsen: Ellen Larsen. Good evening Gentlemen. Following the
obvious that there is -.no portable water supply and a proposed
sewage treatment. Which suggest you are in. one hundred feet of.
the Peconic Bay and Cutchogue Harbor. Which I find almost
laughable to a certain extent considering that this is the
nineteen nineties and we have a system call SEQRA. I raise the
following questions with regard to the. DEIS. Through my review I
really found no significant changes since the public hearing
from November of 1987. The numbers have been shuffled somewhat
but the results are basically the same proposal. I would suggest
or hope that the draft as it proposes of the Marina Bay Club
realize that a more formal review, of the environmental review
is required pursuant to SEQRA to satisfactorily meet the
standards required by the Town of Southold Planning Board. And
raised at the public hearing of 1987 . Specifically in regards to
dredging water supply, sewage treatment, marine habitat and
riparian rights. There is no potable drinking water at the site
hence the RO unit.
Evidence contrary to the. proposal has been documented
stating areas with moderate iron concentration can cause filter
problems with these systems. This needs to be addressed further.
Pretreatment would obviously be necessary before the water can
enter a RO unit effectively. Effects on the fresh water land
through the primary pumping have not been discussed. Liz Casper
from SUNY at Stony Brook and Robert Nuzzi of the Suffolk County
Planning Board Page 12 December 19 , 1988
Department of Public Health have .stated repeatedly that
increased salinity enhances the brown tide bloom - awrocoxins
anorixefeuris. A diffusion system would be an absolute
necessity. A direct influence on increased salinity increases
the brown tide, which we are just beginning to understand.
Significant eel grass beds are established offshore at the
site of question of the of the riparian rights. Eel grass beds,
beside functioning as a nursery to scallop spawn, seed and
mature. - alalquipectin and eradiance- enable the sediments to
gently settle rather than plop to down to the bottom. Totally
and I repeat totally protected measures would have to be insured
to insure the survival of these limited beds. Coliform counts
can go right through the roof during major holidays. The
consequence of repeated high counts cause increased shellfish
area closures. How will this be addressed with the amounts of
boats? TBT paints are antifouling and kill marine organisms in
minute concentrations and they are directly released into the
water column.
The sewage treatment plant within one hundred feet needs
fail safe measure to act for malfunction. In lieu of the Town of
Riverhead' s experience with the denitrification sewage plant it
is your obligation to review thoroughly and hard the proposed
measures. Keep in mind that the developers must bear the cost of
any additional and environmental review you justify feasible..
My final point. deals with the proposed riparian rights.
What are the riparian rights of the people of the State of New
York and the loss of public bottom to private enterprise through
an expired eighteen thirty eight grant. This in essence is a
challengable assumption made by the drafters. of the proposed
Marina Bay Club. Five hundred and- eighteen feet into Peconic Bay
could mean one thousand five. hundred and eighteen feet in the .
future for a future developer. The confiscation of public bottom
is not allowed by law. Obviously the land they have purchased is
not enough. Seemingly at the bargain price of seven thousand two
hundred and eighty one dollars in tax revenue to the Town of
Southold. They are hungry confiscating additional public lands
at no additional cost to them. I ask you at what future price to
the Town of Southold and the Peconic system. You can not give
away what does not rightfully belong to you.
As officials of the Town please do not succumb to the
assumption that the submission of a DEIS means the ultimate
approval of an over zealous and detrimental plan. In retrospect
imagine the proposal either on Fishers Island or in Orient
themselves.
Traffic flows and air pollution are in themselves are
grounds to significantly mitigate the proposed scope of this
project. Thank you.
Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments from anyone in the middle?
Planning Board Page '13 December 19 , 1988 .
Mr. lowery: My name is' Tom lowery. I live on Jackson Street in
New Suffolk just like Joe Fenton, but I live at the low scale
end. Which means I live at the very near of the proposed
development. I feel that I have a special interest in what will
happen here. The marina, the restaurant, by the way nobody so
far has mentioned the dry storage facility. Any dry storage.
facility requires a fork lift truck and they are industrious and
noisy. Means that if Mr. Carr wants to go out a tenth of mile
into Cutchogue Harbor. That is a long way. I went out five
hundred and. twenty feet last summer in my small boat. I. felt
that I was dam near out of. site of land. That one hundred and
fifty additional feet amounts to one and a third additional
acres. It seems to me that Mr. Carr' s need to use that
additional part of the bay bottom, which he clams is reasonable,
is reasonable only by virtue 'of the fact that he needs to do it,
he says. It worries me.
The project as planned will also use as much spoke of R.O.
plant. Similarly hightech sewage plant both of which will
require extensive and constant maintenance. If Marina Bay
succeeds in selling the developement as it has already tried to
do, it, has put ads in the papers for property for two and half
million dollars. There is no insurance of any new owner would be
as responsible as Mr. Carr promises he will be. All this
hightech stuff raises disagreeable smells from the
denitrification plant harm to the shellfish in the bay and
additional strains are proposed on our already fragile water
tables. Four years ago my house burned and shortly after that
there was a big northeaster. The northeaster was of such
consequence that our well water shortly after the storm began to
effervese. It was effervesecing with marshgas. The northeaster
screwed up the water table so much that it was several years
before we could use our well again.
Mr. Carr has some what of an unusual point of view in the
underwater land grant. He says that he can do what ever is
reasonable. The situations which he gives in the DEIS seem to
this laymen at least to be quite irrelevant. The findings of
- what the Marina Bay Club comes down to is this, one man wants to
develop a very small portion of New Suffolk so more people would
be attracted to it then live in all of New Suffolk. It would be
a giant wort on the east shore of New Suffolk. What we would
like him to do is build handsome new marina that would allow us
to continue in our small town ways without overwhelming us with
the swales, the lights, the noises, the automobiles and the
crowds of a major production. Thank you.
Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments from this section?
Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman, I will reserve mine until the end if I
might.
Mr. Orlowski: Alright. Any comments to the section to my right?
Planning Board Page 14 December 19 , 1988
Mr. Latson: My name is Steve Latson, I am secretary to the
Baymens Association. I, thought it was understood at one point
that before the brown tide the area in front of the Galley Ho'
was a scallop bed. This seems to have been lost maybe to the
brown tide. I think the problem is that they can't defend that
if scallops do come back they will be taking one of the most
productive scallop beds on all of the North Fork. Year after
year that area always has scallops, not because of the eel.. grass
beds but because of codium beds. The Codium serves as excellent.
site for the scallops to set. The only other thought that I had
on this whole thing was, well I have had a lot of thoughts on
it, I just think that people just don't want the project. It is
way to big. Everything that has been expressed is correct,
essentially. On important aspects. Riparian rights already
exist. You have access to navigable water right this minute.
Certainly I don' t see why you have to go any further. Also I did
read that deed of 1838 a couple of months ago. I actually have
it here. It says, "If our said grantees and our heirs on
assigned shall not within two years from said date actually
appropriate and apply all and every part of the bolk described
land for the purposes of the province by 'erecting dock and
wharfs there are and filling in the same. Then these presents
here in contained shall seize and determine so far as he lays
any part of the granted premises that have .not have. been so
appropriated or apply. I think that is it. It is a scallop bed,
people don't want it, the project is way too big. If Mr. Carr is.
trying to set up Dick' s Boat Yard or Shipyard maybe expanded
from twenty four slips, or to forty five.._slips. I think people
would think it was a good idea. I said instead of going in and
knocking down a hole facility that was there already, why don' t
they just fix it up. That is what I would have done if I bought
it. Maybe fix up the restaurant a little, put in a few more
seats. Not all of this. R.O. which was mentioned, salt water is
heavier then fresh, the saltier the water the heavier it is. It
will settle down were the scallops spawn. They do need a certain
amount of fresh water. The best years for scallops are when it
rains a lot. There is jus one. thing after another. It is New
York City, not. Southold. Thank you.
Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments from this side?
Mrs. Robins: My name is Joan Robins. My husband and I live in
New Suffolk on Main Street the north east corner of third and
Main. Too Big. My living room is thirteen feet long. My property
is one hundred feet. Five times that must be going up Pike
Street all the way over to Cleave. I couldn't even see that far.
Beyond that when you start messing around- with our water you are
tampering with our lives. And when you fool around with the very
water you are tampering with as things that live in the water
that is important to us. My'husband and I would like to see a
marina. .We would like to see a small good resturuant. But we
think it is too big.
Planning Board Page 15 December 19 , 1988
Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments from this side? Are there any
other comments?
Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, I am John Hart
of the firm of Pelletreau and. Pelletreau in Patchogue,
representing Mr. Carr. We started in July of 1981 with the first
draft of the Environmental Impact statement. There have been a
supplement and a second supplement since that time. The
developer is not asking for anything more then he is entitled to
under the zoning ordinance of the Town of Southold and of the
law of the State of New York and the United. States. We would
submit that questions which have been raised here this evening
are answered in the documents which you now have and we would
ask that the Board prepare the Final Environmental Impact
Statement. Thank you.
Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments?
Mr. Lowery: Did I understand Mr. Hart to say that you were going
to prepare the Final Environmental. Impact Statement?
Mr. Orlowski: I believe he said that, yes. Any other comments?
Comments from the Board? Mr. Mullen?
Mr. Mullen: No.
Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Latham?
Mr. Latham: No comments.
Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Ward?
Mr. Ward: No.
Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Edwards: No, not at this time.
Mr. Orlowski: Ms. Scopaz.
Ms. Scopaz: No, not at this time.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. I will declare this hearing closed.
Mr. Fenton: One comment. I understand that the time to file
written comment is open till January sometime..
Mr. Orlowski: Yes, it is January 4th.
Mr. Hart: If I am correct and I would have. to check my dates, I
am not sure that is the correct date. Whatever time it is, it is
fixed by law and of course that is a matter of record. Assuming
that there is that goes beyond the date we would object to it.
Planning Board Page 16 December 19 , 1988
Mr. Fenton: I don' t want to make a legal argument out of this
but I don't think you are in a position until he has asked that
you make some determination until the time. has expired.
Mr. Orlowski: Right.
Mr. Hart: Again, Mr. Fenton and I have gone back and forth and
all I can say is whatever the law is Joe, that is the law and we
are all bound by it.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. I will declare this hearing closed and thank
you for coming.
Mr. Orlowski: Board to keep the public hearing open from October
14, 1988 open, pending receipt of revised preliminary maps. This
affordable housing project is located on. Fishers Island.
SCTM #1000-6-2-3 .1.
Mr. Mullen: So moved.
Mr. Latham: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Board to set Monday, January 9, 1989 at 7: 30 p.m.
at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road Southold as the time and
place for the next regular Planning Board meeting.
Mr. Edwards: So moved.
Mr. Ward: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Subdivisions-final: Peter Blank- Board to make a
determination on the final maps dated as amended October 4,
1988. This minor subdivision is on 160,000. sq.ft. located at
Orient. SCTM #1000-27-4-p/o 10.1. Everything is in order to
approve and endorse.
Planning Board Page 17 December 19, 1988
Mr. Ward: Approve subject to the C & R' s whereas no further
subdivision.
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion?
Mr. Latham: Abstain.
Mr. Orlowski: All those in Favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards.
Abstain: Latham
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Latham abstained.
Mr. Orlowski: Onto preliminary. Long Meadow- Board to make a
determination on the preliminary maps, dated as amended June 7,
1988, for this major subdivision on 36 .9636 acres located. at
Mattituck. SCTM 41000-113-7-19. 2. The forty five days are up.
Everything is O.K. for preliminary approval. I would recommend
doing it subject to the final map showing revised drainage and
grading as per Sidney Bowne' s report of October 19, 1988 and
review of the November 4, test hole data. Also to show the
realignment of Melissa Lane to the South be addressed.
Mr. Mullen: So moved.
Mr. Edwards: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion?
Ms. Scopaz: One thing Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that those
conditions be placed on the map so that the applicant is aware
that this has to be included on the final map.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. We will put that in the motion. Motion made
and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Farmveu Associates- Board to make a determination
on the preliminary maps dated as amended October 5, 1988, for
this major subdivision on 111.672 acres located at Mattituck.
SCTM #1000-121-3-2. Forty five days are up on this. Recommend to
approve it showing the revised drainage and grading plans and
Planning Board Page 18 December 19 , 1988
addressing the shallow stormwater runoff retention areas. Either
eliminating it or indicating the depth of the pan.
Mr. Ward: So moved.
Mr. Latham: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and second. Any question on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of .the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski:. Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have the Norris/Carr/Wanat- At this time
the Board is ready to close the public comment period for the
Environmental Impact Statement. I will entertain that motion.
There will be no action taken tonight, until we meet with the
Town Board. We have been advised by our Town Attorney, since we
are co-lead agents, to meet with them, which we will do at their
earliest convenience and discuss it with them before we make any
determination.
Mr. Hart: The only thing, Mr. Chairman, that we ask you to do is
that, with respect to that meeting, make your recommendation to
the Town Board so that they can schedule a hearing on the
result.
Mr. Orlowski: I will entertain that motion.
Mr. Ward: So moved.
Mr. Latham: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Cove Beach Estate- Board to review the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for completeness. This major
subdivision is located at East Marion. SCTM #1000-22-3-15.1 &
18.3 . Mr. Emilita has reviewed it and. says it is O.K. to deem it
complete. There are comments from the Board of Health and the
Ecology department. I would recommend that we send on to the
applicant so that they can be addressed. At this time I think we
can deem this complete.
Mr. Latham: So moved.
Planning Board Page 19 December 19 , 1988
Mr. Edwards: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes; Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Angel- Shores- Board to review the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for completeness. This major
subdivision is located at Southold. SCTM #1000-88-6-1.,4,5. Mr.
Emilita., our reviewer, has not had a chance to complete it. He
said he will have his comments in by January 2nd and makes a.
recommendation to extend it to our next meeting, January 9th.
Also, we have comments from the Department of State that they
will have comments by then.
Mr. Edwards.: Move we extend..
Mr. Latham: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Tim Gray- Board to make a determination under the
State Environmental Quality Review Act. This minor subdivision
is on 9.1568 acres located at Southold. SCTM 41000-58-1-2.
Everything is in order for a negative dec.
Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I offer that we negative dec. this
application. The applicant has addressed our concerns and
revised the map accordingly.
Mr. Latham: I' ll second the motion.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: John Beebe- Board to make a determination under
the State Environmental Quality Review Act. This minor
subdivision is on 97,035. sq.ft. located at Cutchogue. It got an
Planning Board Page 20 December 19 , 1988
approval from. the Zoning Board of Appeals and everything is in
order for a negative dec. SCTM #1000-103-3-5.
Mr. Latham: So moved.
Mr. Ward: second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Cofam Realty- Board to review the Suffolk County
Planning Commission report. dated December 8, 1988. This minor
subdivision is on 4.178 acres located at Mattituck.
SCTM #1000-122-7-3. I will entertain a motion to accept and
request compliance.
Mr. Edwards: I move we accept the report and request compliance.
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on_ the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Harbor View- Board to review the bond estimate for
this major subdivision located at Southold.
SCTM #1000-115-17-17. The applicant has asked that we reduce the
bond. What is. the pleasure of the Board?
Mr. Mullen: On what basis?
Mr. Ward: We are going to need a report from the Engineer in
order to reduce it.
Mr. Mullen: There is a current report, dated December 8th. I
think we should go along with the Engineer, they' re the
professionals.
Mr. Orlowski: They find approximately thirty percent of the work
has been addressed at this time.
Mr. Ward: What is the date of the Bond?
Mr. Mullen: There have been three inspections and they have not
been complimentry.
Planning. Board Page 21 ' December 19 , 1988
Mr. Orlowski: In reading the report I don't think there is any
reason to. We would have to hold a public hearing and 2 think we
should just move on.
Mr. Latham: They would have to wait till spring to do anything
now.
Mr. Orlowski: Can we have a motion to deny that.?
Mr. Mullen: So moved.
Mr. Ward: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Golf View- Board to review the bond for this major
subdivision located at East Marion. SCTM #1000-35-2-p/0 16. I
think we can make a recommendation to the Town Board to approve
the amount of $5,000.00.
Mr. Latham: So moved.
Mr. Edwards: Second.
Mr. Orlowski.: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr.. Orlowski: Anybody want to be Chairman?
Mr. Mullen: I make the recommendation that we continue to suffer
with Mr. Orlowski as Chairman for another year.
Mr. Latham: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: You guys are terrible. Any question on that? All
those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Planning Board Page 22 December 19 , 1988
Mr. Orlowski: I have nothing left on my agenda. Does anyone have
anything to say.
Mr. Mullen: Just one thing. I have an year end report here,
dated December 12, it reflects that fact that we handled a
considerable amount of applications this year and have received
an excess of $200,000. for the Town. We have taken care of
thirty two applications. We have, unfortunately, seventy to go.
I think that we are overworked and underpaid. I am very happy to
see the tremendous increment on the income for the Town. I hope
it will continue.
Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments.
Mr. Edwards: I just like to wish everybody, members of the Board
and their families, a healthy happy holiday season.
Mr. Latham: Same to you.
Mr. Orlowski: I would like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas
and Happy New Year and we will see you on January 9, 1989. I
will entertain a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Mullen: So moved. -
Mr. Latham: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Meeting adjourned at 8:50.
Respectfully submitted,
)i,Ll-,Qm. Thorp, Sec tary
Southold Town Planning Board
BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. ,CH MAN j RECEIVED AND FILED BY
THE SOUTH.OLD TOWN CLEF
D ATE /aFPP HOUR
Town Clerk, Town of Southold