Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-02/08/2021 OFFICE LOCATION: MAILING ADDRESS: Town Hall Annex tF SOU P.O.Box 1179 54375 State Route 25 ��� �/yo! Southold, NY 11971 (cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.) Q Southold NY Telephone: 631765-1938 www.southoldtownny.gov �y0OUNTi PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED PUBLIC MEETING MA 21 202kf41.� MINUTES I February 8, 2021 6:00 p.m. Present were: Donald Wilcenski, Chairman James H. Rich III, Vice-Chairman Pierce Rafferty, Member Martin Sidor, Member . Mary Eisenstein, Member Heather Lanza, Planning Director Mark Terry, Assistant Planning Director Brian Cummings, Planner Jessica Michaelis, Office Assistant Chairman Wilcenski: Good Evening and welcome to the scheduled Public Meeting for Monday, February 8, 2021 for the Southold Town Planning Board. This meeting is public..The Planning Board may add or remove applications from the Agenda upon its discretion, without further notice. Applications may not be heard in the order they appear on this agenda. This public meeting will be held virtually via the Zoom online platform. Pursuant to Executive Order 202.1 of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in-person access by the public will not be permitted. SETTING_OF:THE NEXT PLANNING,.B.OARD.MLEETING 77y Chairman Wilcenski: The first order of business is to set Monday, March 8, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. as the time for the next regular Planning Board Meeting. James H. Rich III: I make a motion. Pierce Rafferty: Second. Southold Town Planninq Board Public Meetinq — February 8, 2021 — Page 2 Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Jim, seconded by Pierce. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Opposed? None. Motion carries. SUBDIVISIONS FINAL PLAT EXTENSION: Chairman Wilcenski: Gonzalez Standard Subdivision —This proposal is for the standard subdivision of a 4.29-acre parcel into two lots, where Lot 1 is 2.07 acres and Lot 2 is 2.22 acres in the R-80 Zoning District. This parcel is located at 2050 Platt Rd (+/- 1,830' south of S.R. 25), Orient. SCTM#1000-27.-1-9 Pierce Rafferty: WHEREAS, this proposal is for a Standard Subdivision of a 4.29-acre parcel into two lots where Lot 1 is 2.07 acres and Lot 2 is 2.22 acres located in the R-80 Zoning District; and WHEREAS, on August 5, 2019, the Planning Board granted Conditional Final Plat Approval on the application; and WHEREAS, on January 31, 2020, the applicant requested a 6-month extension of the Conditional Final Plat Approval granted August 5, 2019 and set to expire February 6, 2020 to provide time to receive approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services; and WHEREAS, on February 10, 2020, at their work session, the Planning Board agreed to retroactively extend the Conditional Final Plat Approval from February 6, 2020, to August 6, 2020; and WHEREAS, on August 10, 2020, at their work session, the Planning Board agreed to extend the Conditional Final Plat Approval from August 6, 2020, to February 6, 2021; and WHEREAS, the agent requested that the Conditional Final Plat Approval be extended an additional six months to provide time to receive approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services; therefore be it Southold Town Planning Board Public Meeting — February 8, 2021 — Page 3 RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby extends the Conditional Final Plat Approval upon the plan entitled, "Gonzales Standard Subdivision Final Plat," prepared by John T. Metzger, Land Surveyor, dated April 29, 2015, and last revised July 3, 2019, from February 6, 2021 to August 9, 2021 with the following two conditions: 1. Submission of 12 paper copies and 4 Mylars of the Final Plat including the Health Departments stamp of approval; 2. File the covenants and restrictions with the office of the Suffolk County Clerk. James H. Rich III: Second. Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Pierce, seconded by Jim. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Opposed? None. Motion carries. 77 PLAN APPLICATIONS DETERMINATIONS: Chairman Wilcenski: Fishers Island Airport Hangar—This Site Plan is for the proposed construction of a 4,200 sq. ft. aircraft hangar and ±13,830 sq. ft. of paved access and tarmac area at an existing airport on 192 acres in the R-400 Zoning District. The property is located on Whistler Avenue, Fishers Island. SCTM#1000-12-1-18 James H. Rich III: WHEREAS, this Site Plan is for the proposed construction of a 4,200 sq. ft. aircraft hangar and ±13,830 sq. ft. of paved access and tarmac area at an existing airport on 192 acres in the R-400 Zoning District; and WHEREAS, on October 24, 2019, John Mealy, authorized agent, submitted materials for the Site Plan Application review; and WHEREAS, on November 4, 2019, John Mealy, authorized agent, submitted additional materials for the Site Plan Application review; and WHEREAS, on November 4, 2019, the Planning Board found the application incomplete for review; and Southold Town Planning Board Public Meeting — February 8, 2021 — Page 4 WHEREAS, on November 13, 2019, John Mealy, authorized agent, submitted additional materials for the Site Plan Application review; and WHEREAS, on November 20, 2019, John Mealy, authorized agent, submitted additional materials for the Site Plan Application review; and WHEREAS, on December 2, 2019, the Planning Bound accepted the application as complete for review; and WHEREAS, on December 2, 2019 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, on December 13, 2019, the Planning Board, pursuant to Southold Town Code §280-131 C., distributed the application to the required agencies for their comments; and WHEREAS, on December 17, 2019, the Southold Town Code Enforcement officer verified that there were no open violations on the subject parcel; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2020, a Public Hearing was held and kept open; and WHEREAS, on January 15, 2020, the Southold Town Trustees responded that the proposed action is outside the wetland jurisdiction under Chapter 275 and 111 of the Southold Town Code; and WHEREAS, on January 22, 2020, the Architectural Review Committee reviewed the proposed project and approved it as submitted; and WHEREAS, on January 27, 2020, the Southold Town Fire Inspector reviewed and determined that there was adequate fire protection and emergency access for the site; and WHEREAS, on January 27, 2020, the proposed action was determined a matter for local determination by the Suffolk County Planning Commission (SCPC); and WHEREAS, on February 7, 2020, the Southold Town Engineer reviewed the proposed application and determined that the certain revisions were required in order for the application to meet the minimum requirements of Chapter 236 for Storm Water Management; and WHEREAS, on February 11, 2020, the Fishers Island Water Corp. stated that water was not readily available and the developer would have to incur the cost and extension of water supply; and WHEREAS, on February 10, 2020, a Public Hearing was continued and kept open two (2) weeks for written comment only; and Southold Town Planninq Board Public Meeting — February 8, 2021 — Page 5 WHEREAS, on February 24, 2020, the Public Hearing was closed; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, in a state of emergency response to the COVID-19 public health pandemic, the Town of Southold closed its offices to non-essential employees including the Planning Department; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 2020, the Town of Southold re-opened its offices to non- essential employees at 50% capacity; and WHEREAS, on June 3, 2020, the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Coordinator reviewed the proposed project and determined it to be consistent with the Southold Town LWRP policies with certain recommendations to be considered; and WHEREAS, during this time period, the applicant was provided direction to obtain certain information received from referral agencies and staff prior to and during the COVID-19 closure; and WHEREAS, on September 14, 2020, the Fishers Island Conservancy provided information for the Planning Board to review; and WHEREAS, on December 7, 2020, the Southold Town Planning Board, as Lead Agency pursuant to SEQRA, made a determination.of non-significance for the proposed action and granted a Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 2021, the Southold Town Planning Board determined that all applicable requirements of the Site Plan Regulations, Article XXIV, §280 — Site Plan Approval of the Town of Southold have been met; and RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board has determined that this proposed action is consistent with the policies of the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program; Martin Sidor: Second. Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Jim, seconded by Martin. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Opposed? None. Motion carries. Southold Town Planning Board Public Meeting — February 8, 2021 — Page 6 ' James H. Rich III: And be it further RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board approves the Site Plan with three (3) conditions to the plans entitled "Fishers Island Airways" prepared by Richard H. Strouse dated November 4, 2020 and authorizes the Chairman to endorse the Site Plan after condition #1 is met. - Conditions 1. Prior to endorsement of site plan, obtain a use certification from the Chief .Building .Inspector as required by Town Code. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, additional plantings may be required during the final site inspection process to provide sufficient screening of the hangar building at the discretion of the Planning Board. 3. All exterior lighting on the property shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 172 of the Town Code and the approved site plan. Any future exterior light fixtures not shown on the approved site plan must be reviewed for compliance and approved by the Planning Board prior to installation. Martin Sidor: Second. Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Jim, seconded by Martin. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Opposed? None. Motion carries. Chairman Wilcenski: Peconic Landing Amended - Duplex Conversions (5) —This amended site plan is for the proposed conversion of five..(5) existing 1-story single- family dwellings (units #19, 20, 60, 68, 74) to two-family dwellings 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, Greenport. SCTM#1000-35-1-25 Martin'Sidor: WHEREAS, this amended site plan is for the proposed conversion of five (5) existing 1- story single family dwellings (units 19, 20, 60, 68, 74) to two family,dwellings 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; and Southold Town Planninq Board Public Meeting — February 8, 2021 — Page 7 WHEREAS, on December 26, 2019, Charles Cuddy, authorized agent, submitted an amended Site Plan Application for review; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2020, the Planning Bound accepted the application as complete for review; 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; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2020, the Planning Board, pursuant to Southold Town Code §280-131 C., distributed the application to the required agencies for their comments; and WHEREAS, on February 10, 2020, a Public Hearing was held and closed; and WHEREAS, on February 14, 2020, the Southold Town Code Enforcement officer verified that there were no open violations on the subject parcel; WHEREAS, on February 14, 2020, the Architectural Review Committee reviewed the proposed project and approved it as submitted; and WHEREAS, on February 21, 2020, the Southold Town Fire Inspector reviewed and determined that there was adequate fire protection and emergency access for the site; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2020, the proposed action was determined a matter for local determination by the Suffolk County Planning Commission (SCPC); and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, in a state of emergency response to the COVID-19 public health pandemic, the Town of Southold closed its offices to non=essential employees including the Planning Department; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 2020, the Town of Southold re-opened its offices to non- essential employees at 50% capacity; and WHEREAS, on June 1, 2020, the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Coordinator reviewed the proposed project and determined it to be exempt from the Southold Town LWRP policies; and WHEREAS, on July 1, 2020, the Southold Town Engineer reviewed the proposed application and determined that the application met the minimum requirements of Chapter 236 for Storm Water Management; and Southold Town Planning Board Public Meeting — February 8, 2021 — Page 8 WHEREAS, on July 6, 2020, the Southold Town Planning Board determined that all applicable requirements of the Site Plan Regulations, Article XXIV, §280 — Site Plan Approval of the Town of Southold have been met with exception of approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS); and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2021, the Planning Board received the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) approval reference #C-20-0043 stating that the project does not require additional sewage disposal or water supply facilities; therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board has determined that this proposed action is exempt from the policies of the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program; Mary Eisenstein: Second. Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Martin, seconded by Mary. Any discussion?All in favor? Ayes. Opposed? None. Motion carries. Martin Sidor: And be it further RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board approves the Site Plan with one (1) condition to the plans entitled "Proposed Duplex Cottage for units #19, 20, 60, 68, 74)" prepared by Frank B. Ryan Jr., R.A. dated July 30, 2019 and authorizes the Chairman to endorse the Site Plan after the condition below is met. Condition 1. Prior to endorsement of site plan, obtain a use certification from the Chief Building Inspector as required by Town Code. Mary Eisenstein: Second. Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Martin, seconded by Mary. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Southold Town Planning Board Public Meeting — February 8, 2021 — Page 9 Opposed? None. Motion carries. Chairman Wilcenski: Tenedios Barn & Greenhouse Amended —This amended agricultural site plan is for the relocation of a one story 8,664 sq. ft. building to house livestock and store feed, supplies and farm equipment; which was granted conditional approval from the Planning Board in 2019 and not constructed. The plan includes a 60' x 24' (1,440 sq. ft.) greenhouse and other accessory agricultural buildings 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 (the greenhouse is located in the 5-acre area and the barn is located in the 29.5-acre area) in the R-200 Zoning District. The property is located at 28410 Route 25, Orient. SCTM#1 000-19-1-1.4 & 1.3 Mary Eisenstein: WHEREAS, this amended agricultural site plan is for the relocation of a one story 8,664 sq. ft. building to house livestock and store feed, supplies and farm equipment; which was granted conditional approval from the Planning Board in 2019 and not constructed. The plan includes a 60' x 24' (1,440 sq. ft.) greenhouse and other accessory agricultural buildings 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 (the greenhouse is located in the 5-acre area and the barn is located in the 29.5-acre area) in the R-200 Zoning District; and WHEREAS, on June 15, 2020, Patricia Moore, authorized agent, submitted materials regarding the amended Site Plan Application for review; and WHEREAS, on July 13, 2020, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) granted a modified permit for the amended site plan including the greenhouse and relocated barn structure, with sixteen (16) Natural Resource Permit Conditions for reference #1-4738-03952/00003 which expires on April 30,2024; and WHEREAS, on July 31, 2020, Patricia Moore, authorized agent, submitted additional materials regarding the amended Site Plan Application for review; and WHEREAS, on August 24, 2020, the Planning Bound found the application incomplete for review and required additional information; and WHEREAS, on September 4, 2020, Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E., submitted revised site plans to the Planning Board for the amended site plan application; and WHEREAS, on September 14, 2020, the Planning Bound accepted the application as complete for review; and Southold Town Planning Board Public Meeting — February 8, 2021 — Page 10 WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning.Board, pursuant to Southold Town Code §280-1318 (5), has the discretion to vary or waive the parking requirements for Site Plan Applications where doing so would not have a detrimental effect on the public health, safety or general welfare, and will not have the effect of nullifying the intent and provision of the Site Plan Requirements chapter of the Town Code. The Planning Board has found that this application is eligible for a waiver of parking requirements because there is no need to provide for parking -the application is for agricultural buildings not open to the public and the parcel is large in size relative to the proposed structures (less than 1% lot coverage total); and WHEREAS, on September 14, 2020, 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, 617.5(c)(3) agricultural farm management practices, including construction, maintenance and repair of farm buildings and structures, and land use changes consistent with generally accepted principles of farming. The action is for the construction of an 8,664 sq. ft. agricultural building and 1,440 sq. ft. greenhouse, and amending the previous location for the agricultural barn; and WHEREAS, on October 5, 2020, the Public Hearing was held and kept open for two (2) weeks for written comments only. This was due to a typographical error on a physical sign noticing the public hearing on site; and WHEREAS, on October 7, 2020, the Planning Board, pursuant to Southold Town Code §280-131 C., distributed the application to the required agencies for their comments; and WHEREAS, on October 16, 2020, the Southold Town Code Enforcement officer verified that there were no open violations on the subject parcel; and WHEREAS, on October 19, 2020, the Public Hearing comment period was closed; and WHEREAS, on November 13, 2020, the Southold Town Agricultural Advisory Committee unanimously recommended approval of the project as submitted; and WHEREAS, on November 18, 2020 the action was determined to be a matter for local determination by the Suffolk County Planning Commission (SCPC); and WHEREAS, on November 23, 2020, the Southold Town Fire Marshal reviewed and determined that there was adequate fire protection and emergency access for the site; and WHEREAS, on November 23, 2020, the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Coordinator reviewed the proposed project and determined it to be consistent with Southold Town LWRP policies provided that the Planning Board considered and required recommendations to the greatest extent practicable; and Southold Town Planning Board Public Meeting — February 8, 2021 — Page 11 WHEREAS, on December 7, 2020, survey stakes were installed on site to mark the proposed location of the agricultural building; and WHEREAS, on December 15, 2020 a site visit was conducted by members of the Planning Board (no quorum was present) and staff; and WHEREAS, on January 14, 2021 another site visit was conducted by members of the Planning Board (no quorum was present) and staff; and WHEREAS, at their work session on January 25, 2021, the Planning Board reviewed comments from referral agencies and staff analysis, and considered clarifications to certain.conditions to prevent livestock from entering the vegetated buffer areas (1, 2 and 3) as shown on the subject plan and listed below. At this work session it was determined that all applicable requirements of the Site Plan Regulations, Article XXIV, §280 — Site Plan Approval of the Town of Southold have been met; therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board has determined that this proposed action is consistent with the policies of the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program; Pierce Rafferty: Second. Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Mary, seconded by Pierce. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Opposed? None. Motion carries. Mary Eisenstein: And be it further RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grants an amended approval with conditions for the site plan entitled "Amended Site Plan for Tenedios Farm" prepared by Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E. dated March 22, 2017 and last revised August 21, 2020, and authorizes the Chairman to endorse the site plan after Condition "A" is met: Conditions: A. Prior to endorsement of the site plan, a use certification must be obtained from the Chief Building Inspector as required by Town Code. Southold Town Planning Board Public Meeting — February 8 2021 — Page 12 B. Effective immediately, fencing shall be installed prior to any livestock being adjacent to the areas that include any part of the Vegetated Buffers 1, 2 and 3 (this serves as a clarification to condition #s 3 and 4 below). C. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the agricultural building and the greenhouse, fencing of sufficient design shall be constructed and verified along the boundaries of the required vegetated buffers to exclude all livestock as shown on the approved site plan (this serves as a clarification to condition #s 3 and 4 below and must be done regardless of the presence of livestock at the time). D. Additional Conditions of approval (ongoing) 1. The public is not permitted to access the barn or greenhouse; 2. The barn and the driveway to the barn shall be used for agricultural purposes only as per the Town's development rights easement; 3. Livestock grazing., paddocks, shelters and enclosures shall be located outside the vegetated buffers shown on the site plan; 4. Livestock shall be prevented from entering the vegetated buffers; 5. Buffers Vegetated Buffers 2 & 3 shall be managed for the following benefits: a. Provide denitrification and nutrient uptake; b. Slow water runoff and enhance infiltration; c. Trap pollutants in surface runoff& subsurface flow; d. Stabilize soils. Vegetated Buffer 1 shall be managed to maintain-existing trees, shrubs and groundcover; 6. Signs Any sign that requires a sign permit must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board prior to installation; 7. Lighting Four proposed (4) exterior lights on the barn were reviewed and approved in connection with this amended site plan. Any exterior lights on the barn or elsewhere on site must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board and must meet Town Code §172 Lighting; Southold Town Planning Board Public Meeting — February 8, 2021 — Page 13 8. The Planning Board strongly encourages the property owner to follow the guidelines developed by the USDA for sustainable numbers of animals on pasture. The Board further encourages the farm owner to request a nutrient management plan for the animal husbandry portion of the farm, as well as consulting with the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). The Board also strongly encourages the property owner to develop a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP) to address nutrient loading to surface and ground waters by working with the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District and/or USDA NRCS. Pierce Rafferty: Second. Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Mary, seconded by Pierce. Any discussion?All in favor? Ayes. Opposed? None. . Motion carries. APPROVAL EXTENSION: Chairman Wilcenski: 870 Love Lane Professional Office and Apartment—This proposed site plan is for the conversion of an existing two-story single family dwelling to a 1,296*sq. ft. Professional office on the first floor and 830 sq. ft. apartment on the second floor with nine parking stalls on 0.7 acres in the Residential Office (RO) zoning district, Mattituck. The property is located at 870 Love Lane. SCTM#1000-140-2-17 Pierce Rafferty: WHEREAS, on October 15, 2018, this Site Plan was approved with conditions for the conversion of an existing two-story single-family dwelling to a 1,296 sq. ft. professional office on the first floor and 830 sq. ft. apartment on the second floor with nine parking stalls on 0.7 acres in the Residential Office (RO) Zoning District, Mattituck; and WHEREAS, on January 29, 2021, the applicant requested a final site inspection and extension of site plan approval; and WHEREAS, at a Work Session held on February 8, 2021, the Planning Board reviewed the application and determined that the expired Site Plan was in compliance with current rules and regulations; and Southold Town Planninq Board Public Meeting — February 8 2021 — Page 14 RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grants an Extension of Approval with Conditions, listed below, for six (6) months from February 8, 2021 to August 8, 2021 of the site plan entitled "Proposed Office &Apartment at the Racanelli Building" prepared by Donald G. Feiler, Registered Architect, dated August 30, 2017 and last revised January 19, 2018. Conditions 1. A 25-foot landscape buffer is required along the entire north property line that abuts County Road 48. This buffer shall extend from the corner of Love Lane and CR 48 to the east property line and is required to preserve evergreen and other existing trees located within the buffer; 2. The existing barn is for accessory storage to the office or apartment use only and any other use of this area will require an amended site plan .application; James H. Rich III: Second. Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Pierce, seconded by Jim. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Opposed? None. Motion carries. Chairman Wilcenski: The next application is Strong's Storage Building. As I am recusing myself from this application, at this point, I am going to turn it over to Vice- Chairman Jim Rich. I will log off from the Zoom call until complete and we will then continue with the Public Hearings. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT -ADOPT THE FINAL SCOPE: Vice-Chairman Rich: Strong's Storage Buildings —This Site Plan is for the proposed construction of two (2) buildings for boat storage, one at 52,500 sq. ft. and the other at 49,000 sq. ft., located on 32.6 acres in the MII and R-80 Zoning Districts where there are 69,245 sq. ft. of existing boatyard buildings. The property is located at 3430 Mill Road, Mattituck. SCTM#1000-106-6-13.4 Vice-Chairman Rich: Before we move ahead with the resolutions I would like to address something. There have been many questions regarding SEQRA. SEQRA standsfor the State Environmental Quality Review Act and it is a process regarding this Southold Town Planning Board Public Meetinq — February 8, 2021 — Page 15 application. I would like to read this statement in attempt to provide answers: Tonight the Planning Board as lead agency will consider adopting the Final Scope for the Strong's Storage Buildings, included in this Final Scope are all rational, reasoning, comments and elements necessary to thoroughly analyze all identified potential adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project. If adopted, the next step is for the applicant to prepare and submit a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, often referred to as a DEIS. Once a DEIS is submitted, the Planning board will determine if the applicant has included, analyzed and answered all items in the Final Scope. If this is not the case, the DEIS will be found inadequate and more work will need to be done. If the applicant did provide the appropriate assessment and answers the DEIS will be found adequate. Once the DEIS is found adequate, the Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing on it. This is the next opportunity for the public to comment. Again, I would like to just emphasize that the DEIS scope is 26 pages long and it has an executive summary that is 2 pages long and contains 5 subsections and probably 75 items on it. So that is what is being voted on right now, the scope of the DEIS. Martin Sidor: WHEREAS, this site plan is for the proposed construction of two (2) buildings for boat storage, one at 52,500 sq. ft. and the other at 49,000 sq. ft., located on 32.6 acres in the MII and R-80 Zoning Districts where there are 69,245 sq. ft. of existing boatyard buildings; and WHEREAS, on February 10, 2020 the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) 6 NYCRR, Part 617, determined that the proposed action is a Type I action pursuant to 617.4(b)(10): Any Unlisted action, that exceeds 25 percent of any threshold in this section, occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any publicly owned or operated parkland, recreation area or designated open space, including any site on the Register of National Natural Landmarks pursuant to 36 CFR Part 62, 1994 [see 617.17]. The physical alteration of 3.74 acres exceeds 25% of the 10 acre threshold listed in 617.4(b)(6); and WHEREAS, on August 10. 2020 the Southold Town Planning Board declared itself as Lead Agency and issued a Positive Declaration for the action; and WHEREAS, on September 11, 2020 the applicant submitted a Draft Scope prepared by P.W. Grosser Consulting Inc.; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Regulations of the State of New York Title 6 Department of Environmental Conservation Chapter VI General Regulations Part 617 State Environmental Quality Review the Planning Board held a public hearing on the Draft Scope on November 2, 2020; and WHEREAS, on November 16, 2020 the public comments received to date were discussed at a Planning Board work session; the public comment period was held open until December 7, 2020 and additional written comments were received; and Southold Town Planning Board Public Meeting — February 8 2021 — Page 16 WHEREAS, The Planning Board as lead agency included in this Final Scope all rationale, reasoning, comments and elements necessary to thoroughly analyze all identified potential adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project; therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board adopts the Final Scope for Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage Buildings dated February 8, 2021. Mary Eisenstein: Second. Vice-Chairman Rich: Motion made by Martin, seconded by Mary. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Opposed? None. Motion carries. Vice-Chairman Rich: I will now ask Jess to please notify Chairman Wilcenski to re-join the meeting so that we may move forward. Jessica Michaelis: Don's here. Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you, Jim. Public Hearings Continued by Court Reporter Jessica DiLallo 1-1l-IE�r'RI�I,C�S Chairman Wilcenski: Koehler Family Limited Partnership -This proposal is a Clustered Standard Subdivision of a 14.94 acre parcel into seven lots where Lot 1 equals 0.80 acres; Lot 2 equals 0.90 acres inclusive of 0.08 acres of unbuildable lands; Lot 3 equals 1.11 acres inclusive of 0.14 acres of unbuildable lands and .07 acres of easement area; Lot 4 equals 0.70 acres; Lot 5 equals 0.66 acres; Lot 6 equals 0.70 acres; Lot 7 equals 9.51 acres inclusive of 8.72 acre area of Open Space and a .05 right of way easement; located in the R-80 Zoning District. The property is located at 4180 New Suffolk Avenue, on the corner of Marratooka Road and New Suffolk Avenue, in Mattituck. SCTM#1000-115-10-1 Southold Town Planning Board Public Meeting — February 8, 2021 — Page 17 --- - --� 7.7 " 'PUBLIC,HEARINGS Chairman Wilcenski: 6:01 p.m. - Colusa North Conservation Subdivision —This proposal is for an 80/60 Conservation Subdivision of 66.2 acres into 11 residential lots ranging in size from 0.8 acres to 2 acres with a private road (2.5 acres), and an agricultural lot of 51.26 acres, from which development rights are proposed to be sold to the Town of Southold in the AC and R-80 zoning districts. The property is located at 7750 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-84-2-1.1, 3.3, 3.4 Chairman Wilcenski: 6.02 p.m. — Heritage at Cutchogue Amended (aka Harvest Pointe) —This amended site plan proposes to change eight of the approved units from the B2 unit design (livable floor area 1,599 sq. ft.) to a revised C unit design (livable floor area 1,999 sq. ft.). The livable floor area will increase by a total of 3,200 sq. ft. for the overall site. The property is located at 75 Schoolhouse Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 6:03 p.m. —Wickham Road LLC Offices —This site plan is for the proposed conversion of an existing 770 sq. ft. accessory apartment to a principle office structure, no footprint expansion or basement, with four (4) parking stalls on 0.23 acres in the Hamlet Business Zoning District..The property is located at 12800 Route 25, Mattituck. SCTM#1000-114-11-15 6:04 p.m. - Olde Colonial Place LLC—This Site Plan is for the proposed construction of a 4,500 sq. ft. building to consist of four (4) retail units with full basement for storage and twenty-four parking stalls on 0.5 acres in the HB Zoning District. The property is located at 615 Pike Street, Mattituck. SCTM#1000-140-2-21 Chairman Wilcenski: Okay, with no further business, can I get a motion for adjournment? Pierce Rafferty: I'd like to make a motion for adjournment. James H. Rich III: Second. Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Pierce, seconded by Jim. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Opposed? None. Motion carries. Southold Town Planning Board Public Meeting--- February 8 2021 — Page 18 There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, � Jessica Michaelis Transcribing Secretary Donald J.-Wilcenski, Chairman 1 �_. 1 TOWN OF `SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD -COUNTY -OF SUFFOLK: STATE -OF NEW YORK 2 ------------------------------------------ X 3 4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARINGS 5 -6 ------------------------------------------- X 7 8 (Via Videoconference) 9 February 8-, -2021 6:01 P.M. 10 11 - 12 13 . ,14 15 16 Board ..Members .Preseat-: .17 DONALD WILCENSKI', Chairman 18 JAMES H. RICH, III, Board Member 19 MARTIN SIDOR, Board Member . 20 - PIERCE RAFFERTY, Board Member 21 MARY EISENSTEIN, Board Member 22 23 24 �r— 25 February -8, .2021,-Public ,Hearings 2 i INDEX 2 3 NAME: PAGE: 4 Koehler Family Limited Partner-ship 3/2 5 Colusa North Conservation Subdivision 14/6 6 Heritage -at Cutchogue Amended (Harveste Pointe) 27/25 7 Wickham Road .LLC Offices 38/2 8 Olde Colonial Place LLC 42/20 9 10 11 12 -�, 13 14 15 1-6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 -25 i February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 3 1 KOEHLER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP- * 2 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: The first 3 -application is. for Koehler Family Limited 4 Partnership. This has been held over from 5 last month because I believe the Green 6 Card`-s for the notifications were not 7 complete. This proposal is for 8 Standard Subdivision of a 14.94 acre parcel 9 into seven lots, where Lot 1 equals 0.80 10 acres; Lot .2 equals 0.90 acres inclusive .of 11 0.08 acres of unbui_Tdable lands; Lot 3 12 equals 1.11 acres inclusive of 0.14 acres 13 of unbuildable lands and 0.07 acres of 14 easement area; Lot 4 equals 0.70 acres; 15: Lot 5 equals 0.66 acres.; Lot 6 equals 0.70 16 acres; Lot 7 equals '9'.51 acres inclusive "of 17 8.72 acre area of Open Space and a .05 18 right-of-way easement; located all in the 19 R80- Zoning. District. The property is 20 located at 4180 "New Suffolk Avenue on the 21 corner of Marratooka Road and New Suffolk 22 Avenue in Mattituck. SCTM#1000-115-10-1. 23- At. this point, I believe John 24 Koehler or Mike Kimack. Jess, can you tell 25, me who is out there? 1 February 8, 2421 Public Hearings 4 1 MS. MICHAELIS: I just let someone 2 Mike in. I think it's Mike Kimack. 3 MR. KIMACK: Can you hear me? 4 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Yes, Mike. 5 If you can give us a quick breakdown? 6 Again, this is an open Public Hearing for 7 the Koehler property and carried over from 8 last month. 9 -MS-. -MICHAELIS: And if anybody 1.0 would like to .speak, they can toggle the 11 "Raise Hand" at the bottom of their screen, 12 or if you're a call-In., the option is *9. 13 MR, KIMACK: Yes. The .reason for 14 the holdover very quickly was that, two of 15 the certified mailings were to .people who 16 the addresses had changed. And'that 'bbb 17 been corrected and resubmitted. The 18 .property was reposted with all three signs 19 for the last three weeks. And that 20 information, along with notary of the 21 reposting, was submitted a few days ago to 22 Jessica. So the incompleteness of the 23 certified mailings has- been addressed. As 24 far as the overall project is concerned, i' 25 Don, you basically laid out what it was i February 8, 2021 Public Hearings- 5 1 going to be. Quite frankly, it -was 2 thoroughly done at the last meeting. I 3 know that you got a long way to go tonight. 4 So I ,don't want to necessarily add to it. 5 But if you have any questions, other than 6 the fact that we have addressed the 7 incompleteness of the certified mailings, 8 which was the reason for the holdover. 9 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Okay. , Does 10 any Board member or -staff have -any 11 questions for Mike at this time? 12 MEMBER SIDOR: No. 13 NME +ME EISENSTEIN-: No, 14 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKL: Okay. At 15 this time, I would open up the floor to 16 anyone in the- public who would like to 17 address the Board on this application? And 18 as a reminder, all of the attendees or the 19 public, please direct all your comments to 20 " the Planning Board and not get into a Q&A 21 session. 22 MS. MICHAELIS: Okay. The first 23 one is going to be Leslie. Please state 24 your name. 25 MS. HIRSCH: My name is Leslie February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 6 1 Hirsch. 2 CHAIRMAN WILCENSRI: Yes, Leslie. 3 Thank you. The floor is all yours. 4 MS. HIRSCH: I am here with my 5 husband, Doug. I am going to give him the 6 floor.. 7 MR. HIRSCH: Hi. This is Doug 8 Hirsch. On January 21st -- well, first of 9 all; we are the adjoining landowners at 10 5028 New Suffolk Avenue. And I guess we 11 are one of the two landowners whose the 12 address -- we didn't receive the mailing 13 because we purchased the home in May and .I. 14 guess the records were not updated. All 15 good now- On January 21st, I sent an 16 e-mail to Mark Terry and I outlined 5 17 questions or six questions or concerns we 18 had. And I don't know if Mr. Terry had a 19 chance to go over those with you or if.you 20 want me to go through them right now, but 21 we have some concerns and issues we would 22 like to have addressed. 23 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: , Well, I thunk 24 the best thing to do is to submit those in 25 writing to the Planning Department. But if February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 7 1 you would like to tick down the list you 2 have -- what we don't to do is to get into 3 a back -and forth question and answer 4 period. 'But if you want to, let the public 5 know and let the Planning Board instead 6 know what those issues are, you can give 7 them to us know and submit that to the 8 Planning staff for response. 9 MR. HIRSCH: Okay. We thought we 10 did submit that to the Planning staff when 11 we e-mailed Mr. Terry with all the 12 questions and concerns. So I am not quite 13 sure what else we have to do but I .am happy 14 to do that. 15 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Okay. Well, 16 Mark you have that. What I would suggest 17 now is, if you could go down the list, so 18 everyone in the public who is listening in 19 is aware of your concerns. The rest of the 20 Planning Board will get that information 21 from Mark as well. Just for the purpose of 22 letting the open public hear your concerns, 23 maybe you can just tick down your list. 24 MR. TERRY: Mr. Chairman, I will j 25 just go ahead and give them a synopsis of February 8, 2421 Public Hearings 8 1 the process. The process is, that all `1 2 these comments are received in-house and 3 staff and addressed to the- Planning Board. 4 The next step is that they would all be 5 compiled to a Staff Report and brought back 6 to the Work Session. And your comment will 7 be outlined and there will be an answer 8 underneath every comment you submit. So 9 that is the process. And the Chairman is 10 . just asking you to restate them here.. 11 MR. HIRSCH: Okay. So the first 12 concern that we had, currently there is 13 our electric line for our house runs along 14 utility poles on the edge of the water. 15 That is going to run across proposed lot 2 16 and 3. So I wanted to know, I would 1"7 imagine Mr. Koehler wants to �take down that 18 electric utility line because it would be 19 an eyesore on whoever buys Lot's 2 and 3 20and that he is going to run the electric 21 line up the cul-de-sac. And if that's the 22 case, we want to make sure that he is 23 financially and legally responsible for 24 making sure that our electric supply is not 25 interrupted during construction and that we February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 9 1 continue to have electricity to our home. J 2 That was one issue. Two, there is a 3 proposed easement along the northern border 4 of our -property on Lot 3. And we have 5 concerns about located that easement right 6 along the property line because in order to 7 access that easement, we would have to 8 constantly cross what our new proposed 9 driveway is going to be along the 10 cul-de-sac. So we don't think that is a 11 good place for the easement and we suggest 12 that you move the easement further north on 13 .Lot 3, .so that people don't ,cross back and 14 forth on our right-of-way driveway. Also, 15 we have air conditioning equipment right on 16 that -northern edge of the property line. 17 And if they're going to be carrying kayaks 18 or things to access the water there, there 19 is -concern that people would hit the air 20 conditioning equipment. Just doesn't seem 21 like a good place to put the easement. We 22 would like to see the easement moved 23 further north. The plan shows that Mr. 24 Koehler is going to bring in the city water 25 line. We would like an opportunity to hook February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 10 1 up to the city water line if that is what's 2 happening. The fourth issue, we want to- 3 know and make sure -- our driveway to our 4 house on New Suffolk Avenue is a dirt 5 right-of-way that runs fairly close to the 6 waters edge. The proposed plan is to 7 eliminate 'that -driveway and attach our 8 driveway or access to the end of' the 9 cul-de-sac. And we would like to know what 1.0 needs to be done to make sure that our 11 egress and ingress is protected and that we 12 have proper access from the end of the 13 cul-de-sac for our home. And that you 14 know, Mr. Koehler continues to be 15 .responsible for maintaining that access to 16 our home, otherwise, we won't be able to 17 get access to our house. We want to know 18 what is going to happen with our mailbox 119 and our address? Where will our mailbox 20 be?- What will be the address? Is the 21 address to our house going to change? The 22 plan also indicates that there are two 23 existing structures on Lot 3' and those will 24 remain. And our question is, why is those ;" 25 structures going to remain on Lot 3? Right February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 11 1 now, it's a very small garage and a very, 2 very small house. It's like a cottage. 3 Mr. Koehler has the vineyard workers, I 4 believe, staying there right now. - They -are 5 all very nice. It's all great. But if 6 they're selling that lot, we wanted to know. 7 why would those two structures remain? ; And 8 then the last question is, on the proposed !9 plan, Lot 7 is the lot that seems to 10 control the Open .Space_ Lot 7 is going to 11 be approximately 10 acres, and is going to 12 control the Open Space. What happens to 13 the field? Does the Open .Space stay 14 exactly the same or is someone going to 15 have to be responsible for maintaining it? 16 Can they change it? What. happens to- that 17 Open Space and who is responsible for it? 18 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI; That question 19 I can answer. The Open Space is attached 20 to Lot 7. That's correct. And that person 21 has the rights of farming rights to 22 basically use that agricultural use for 23 whatever he deems -- whoever the owner 24 deems or wants to raise or not raise crop 25 on it. February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 12 1 MR. HIRSCH: So they can leave it 2 as-is or they can farm it? 3 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: That's 4 correct. 5 MS. BEST: Alright. Thank you. 6 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: And the rest 7 of the questions that you raised will -all 8 be addressed through the process of going 9 forward through this hearing. 10 MR. HIRSCH: Thank you. Just so I 11 am clear on the Open Space. They can leave 12 it as-is or farm it, but they can't build 13 anything outside the building envelope for 1 14 Lot 7; is that right? 15 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: That's 16 correct. 17 MR. HIRSCH: Thank you very much. 18 CHATRAN WTT.('ENgKT-* Thank you. 19 -Jess,, do we have anybody else? 20 MS'. MICHAELIS': No. That was it. 21 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Does anybody 22 else in the audience like to address the 23" Board on the Koehler Family Limited 24 Partnership? Again, this hearing is being 25 held over from last month and Mr. Kimack February 8, 2021 Public -Hearings 13 1 stated the reasons and we have the comments ` 2 that we will address from Mr. & Mrs. 3 Hirsch. Would anybody else like to address 4 the Board? 5 (No Response) . 6 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: I see no more 7 hands raised_ So I would like a motion to 8 close the hearing? 9 MEMBER RICH: I will make a motion 10 to close the hearing, Don. 11 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Motion made 12 by Jim. Second? 13 VMMER ST-DOR: Second.. j 14 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Seconded- by 1.5 Martin. 16 -Any discussion? r 17 (No Response) . 18 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI- A77 in favor? 19 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Aye. 20 MEMBER RAFFERTY.- Aye. 21 MEMBER RICH: Aye. 22 MEMBER SIDOR: Aye. 23 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Aye. . 24 Motion carries. F 25 Just to reiterate to Mr. & Mrs. February 8 2021 Public Hearings 14 1 Hirsch, all those concerns that you raised r 2 will be addressed through the process 3 moving forward. r 5 Colusa North Conservation Subdivision 6 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Our next 7 hearing is for the Colusa North 8 Conservation Subdivision. This proposal is 9 for an 80/60 Conservation Subdivision of 10 66-.2 acres into 11 residential lots, 11 ranging in size from 0.8 acres to 2 acres 12 with a private road, which is 2.5 acres- - � 13 And then an agricultural lot of 5.1.26 acres 14 from which development rights are proposed 15 to be sold to the Sown of .Southold in the 16 AC and -R-80- Zoning-Districts. The property 17' is located at 7750 Bridge Lane in 18 Cutchogue, SCTM#100.0-84-2.1.1, 3.3, 3-4 19 Just as a note, we did receive at 20 " least one letter of concern from a neighbor 21 in the residential area concerned about the 22 driveway being close to the property of the , 23 residential area. And again, that was, 24 written and is in writing in the file, and 0 25 that will be addressed as this moves f February 8, 2021 Public Bearings 15 1 forward. And at this point, we would like 2 to open the floor up to anyone who would 3 like to address the Planning Board on the 4 Colusa North Conservation Subdivision. 5 MS. MICHAELIS: I have let Martin 6 Finnegan in. He is the agent for the 7 application. 8 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Martin, good 9 evening. Hopefully, you can give us a 10 quick overview as the applicants agent? 11 _ MR. FINNEGAN: Good evening 12 Members of the Planning Board. I represent 13 Stefan Solaveya (phonetic), who is the .sole 14 member of the LLC, that holds title to the 15 subject -.parcels that are located just east 16 of Bridge Lane :in Cutchogue, with the 17 largest of the three having frontage up on 18 Long Island Sound.. I am joined this 19 evening by Andrew Stolzenberg from BBV, who 20 is the project engineer. -Both Andrew and I 21 will .be available when I finish my brief 22 presentation here, to answer any questions 23 that the Board may have, the public may 24 have. So the applicant its seeking sketch . 25 plan approval for an 80/60 conservation February 8, 20.21 Public Hearings 16 1 subdivision of the combined 66 acres of 2 land to create 11 residential lots with -the 3 balance of the land being preserved as 4 farmland. These parcels lie partially in 5 the AC Zoning District, but the northern 6 end of Lot 3.3 is split zoned in R-80. The 7 minimum lot size in both district's is. 8 80,000 square feet. There is about three 9 acres of unbuildable land due to the 10 Coastal Erosion Hazard Line and existing 11 utility easement that is depicted on the 12 sketch plan. So the resulting, 63 acres 13 -would yield a total of 34 conforming -lots. 14 But by application of the 80/60 15 regulations, the maximum yield must be 16 reduced by 60% to -13 lots. Here the 17 applicant is seeking 11 residential lots 18 ranging in size from approximately 36.,000 19 1 square feet to around 86,000 square feet. 20 The larger lots being the waterfront lots 21 that are subject to the 100 foot bluff 22 setback. The buildable area for all of the 23 lots is essentially the same when we' take 24 into account the same bluff setback. The 25 proposed lot configuration is going to February 8, 2021 Public 'Hearings 17 1 result in -development of about. 12.6 of the 2 63 acres or that is about 19.7% of the 3 property with the balance of 50.3 acres or 4 a little over 8'0% remaining of ©pen Space 5 in compliance with the 80% preservation 6 requirement. ' The parcels are currently in 7 active AG production and within the New 8 York State AG District. The improvements 9 are the barn that you can see on the 10 southern end right off the north road and .a 11 little shed that is right in the center of 12 the larger parcel. Both of which have been 13 in _existence prior to the zoning As you 14 can see on the proposed sketch plan, access 15 is to .be from .Bridge Lane across the 16 northern and western borders of Lot 1.1 and.- 17 continue along the western border of Lot 18 3,3, with a total of approximately 3200 19 feet of roadway proposed. The intent of 20 this access was to maximize the view shed- 21 from the north road as short as possible. 22 So while there is an existing farm road on 23- the southern end of Lot 1.1, our 24 presubmission discussions with the staff, 25 through them it seemed to make sense to hug February 8, 2021 Public Hearings I8 1 the road on the north end of that parcel. 2 So that the Open Space does not -- sorry. 3 So that the roadway doesn't end up, 4 bisecting the Open Space. And I did get a 5 call and speak with Ms. Krupski, who I 6 believe who you were referencing, Donald, '7 who may have written the letter. She owns 8 the property just to the north and she did 9 express those concerns about the location 10 of the roadway.. And I dial explain to her i 11 why we were proposing it --to be where it-.is. 12 And that the actual improved portion of-the t 13 roadway would in all likelihood be buffered 14 and well off the property line with 15 landscaping. If you look at the 16 configuration of the property to the north, 17 there is a farm field that would lie 18 directly to the north there as well, So in 19 addition, I just want to point out, that 20 there is public water available for Bridge 21 Lane. We have applied to that preservation 22 -for the sale of the development rights for 23 the Open Space, and we did receive comment 24 -- a letter from Melissa, which I assume is ,y 25 part of the record. But the Land February 8, .20.21 Public Hearings 19 1 Preservation Committee was in favor of 2 recommending the purchase of development 3 rights and the Open Space. They did have a 4 couple of concerns. one- being, they wanted 5 to see a reserve area on the farm field. 6 And they also hada question -- concern 7 about Lot's 1 — Sand that the 8 configuration of those lots somehow hinder 9 agricultural operations on the farmland to 10 the east. There was not an .alternative 11 configuration proposed by Land 12 Preservation, but that was a concern that 13 they raised. Eo I don't know, that is 14 something that could be discussed. Just 15 didn't .really realize that would be a 16 concern in light of the ..fact .that there are 17 farm fields abutting residential parcels 18 all over the Town. Just across the street 19 on Bridge Lane, you have the mirror image 2'0 situation of a row of residential- 21 esidential21 structures abutting farmland. So anyway, 22 with that, I think I will just open it up 23 to any questions that the Board may have 24 and anyone else may have. - -, 25 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Martin, thank February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 20 1 you. At this point, does the Board or 2 staff have any questions for Martin? And 3 what Martin originally said, it is a sketch 4 plan and somewhat preliminary. This is 5 part of the process of getting feedback. 6 -So with--that, its there-anyone in the 7 audience that would like to address the 8 Planning Board on this application? 9 MS. -MICHAELIS. we have -two people 10 actually. The first one is a phone number.. 11 So I am going to allow you to talk. I am 12 not sure who you are. It's Z4b 13 MS. BEST: Hi. It's Barbara .Best 14' from Cutchogue. 15 MS-, MICHAELIS--_. Hello, Barbara. 16 MS. BEST: Can you hear me? -.17 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Yes, we can 18 Barbara. Thank you_ 19 MS BEST: Okay. Great. So I 2"0 have a question about - it looks like the 21 plans show a private road that ends before 22 the Sound Beach -- I think it's -- one of 23the last parcels. And I am wondering, with 24 trying to get. open vistas and access. to -- i 25 you know, to our waterways. why not bring f! February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 21 1 the private road and grant deeded access 2 rights to the rest of the parcels? 3 Wouldn't that increase property value of 4 the other parcels and maybe translate to 5 additional tax revenue to the Town? And 6 - follow-the Comprehensive Pian. 7 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you for 8 your comment. Obviously your comment is in 9 the record and -that will -be considered as 10 this process moves forward. Thank you. Do 11 you have anything else to add? 12 MS-. BEST: No. Thank you. 13 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.. 14 Jess, you said you had someone else? 15 MS-_ MICHAELIS-: Yes. Louise 16 Harrison:. 17 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Louise, are 18 you there? 19 MS. HARRISON: Yes, I am. Good 2'0" evening. Thank you very much. This` is 21 very interesting and I am glad that it's in 22 a preliminary state. I think that is good. 23 It allows for some time for adjustments. I 24 am squinting to see what is on my computer 25 screen but I do see the words on the slope, February 8-, 2021 Public Hearings 22 1 "heavily wooded and overgrown." overgrown 2 is a matter of opinion. In my world, 3 vegetations holds slopes up. And so I am 4 not entirely sure what is meant by 5 overgrown, but it appears that it's setting 6 up perhaps a request -for =clearing -for -- of 7 an opinion that there is too much 8 vegetation. I understand that people who 9 have lots -on Sound want to -see the-water, 10 but I think it's very important that we 11 protect the bluffs to the most extent 12 possible. And this is a highly eroded. 13 area. So we have to be careful- with that. 14 So the only comments that I would like to 15 make, this. is preliminary- Is to try and 16 -move the lots out of the wooded area.. And 17 keep vegetative clearing to an absolute .1-8 mini mum. We-have.-lots _of- fa-*-ml and -in the 19 Town and we do want to protect it. That is 2"0' what draws people to Southold and is an 21 economic driver and we love agricultural. 22 We have a diminishing amount of forest and 23- wooded open space-. So I would just liketo 24 see the bluff protected and as much natural 25 vegetation protected as possible. Thank February .8, 2021 Public -Hearings. . 2-3 i you. 2 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you so 3 much for those comments. And all your 4 -comments will be addressed: Just for 5 information, in almost all of our 6 -applications, Planning -Board and staff do 7 make site visits, and we can snake those 8 determinations. Mark does our LWRP's. So 9 that will definitely all be addressed as 10 this application moves forward. Thank you. 11 Anybody else, Jess? 12 MS_ -MICHAELIS: I don't see 13 anyone- 14 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Okay. Hoes 15 any Planning .Board .member or staff have any � 16 question or concerns that they would like 17 to put into the record? 1.8 MEMBER_..EISENSTEIN.: Yes., _Don. I 19 would like to ask Martin Finnegan a 20 question? 21 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Sure. 22 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Martin,. it's 23 Mary- Ei:senstein. Martin, Lot's 1 - 51 24 would you explain why that configuration ' f 25 and what I am thinking about is, you know, February 8, 2021 Public .Hearings 24 1 certainly in the Comprehensive Plan, we 2 talk about vistas and keeping open vistas 3 and then farming. So I am wondering, about 4 why those lots are in that configuration, 5 1-5? 6 MR. FINNEGAN: Well, it was the 7 best that we could do to maximize the 8 balance of the Open Space. We have -- we 9 are seeking 11 lots and you know, there was 10 really ,no other way to have access from the 11 road to those lots. And you know, look, I 12 am sure -there are other configurations to 13 be .considered, but .the thought was -- `we 14 are only using approximately 12 acres of 15 this .66 acre property for these lots. And 16' the rest of it -- and the lots are as far ` 17 north as possible so that the view shed is 18 -:preserved from.-the .north-road- That is why 19 access was coming off of Bridge because we 20' didn't want to have a road near cutting the 21 farm field in half. 22 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: So I am 23hearing you. Sather -- I am also thinking 24 of the farming. The actual, you know, 25 using machinery- etcetera -- what would- you February 8, 2021 Public .Hearings 2,5 1 call it, the L-Shape portion? Does it make 2 sense to take those lots and have them go 3 east to west rather than north to south? 4 In terns of' then having more open space-to 5 farm; is that an issue, I guess? 6 -MR. FINNEGAN. Well, it seems to 7 be an issue with the Land Preservation 8 Committee. Listen, Mary, we are certainly -9 open to suggestions that would make it 10 work. This is not carved in stone. There 11 is -- I can't see the member -- I think 12 there is a couple of -hundred -of feet. If 13 you can compare it to some of the adjacent 14 farm fields, it's a really workable size 15 piece .of farmland... So yeah, _look, I 16 understand that concern. I don't think - 17 particularly where the buld'ing_envelopes .18 are _and _the ..setbacks .that we have., I ..think 19 it can work. we can talk about it. 20- MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Thank you 21 Martin for answering my question. 22 MR. FINNEGAN: Sure. 23 CHAIRMAN WILCENSRI: And again, I- 24 would like to reiterate that this is an 25 initial sketch plan and the Planning Board February 8, -2021 Public Hearings 26 1 and staff will go through the -options based 2 on the feedback and site visits and all the 3 other instruments we used to determine what 4 are the best case scenarios. And we ,will 5 work with the applicant and the applicants 6 agent, Martin on moving forward. - With 7 that, does any -- is there anybody else out 8 there, Jess? 9 MS. MICHAELIS: No. 10 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI Does' anybody 11 from the Planning Board after Mary's 12 comments, -does anybody have -any -questions 13 for Martin at this point? Everybody okay 14 for now? 15 (No -Response) 16 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: And.again, 17' this is the prelimiriarg stages. This is a 12 sketch.-.plan ,and there will be -a -lot more 19 put into this and some back and forth with 2'0' the applicant and the applicant's agent" and 21 the Planning Board staff, as well as, 22 Melissa with the Land Preservation 23 Committee and I am sure we will work this 24 out to the best plan we possibly can. With 25 taken consideration from -- with the bluff February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 27• " - 1 and the significant growth on the plot. So 2 with that, I would like a motion to close. 3 the -hearing? 4 MEMBER SIDOR: So moved. 5 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Motion made 6 by Martin_ Second? 7 MEMBER RICH: I second: 8 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Second by 9 Jim. 10 All in favor? 1l MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Aye. 12 MEMBER RAE7ERTY: Aye. 13 MEMBER RICH: Aye-. -14 -MEMBER S=DOR: Aye. 15 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Aye. 16- Opposed-? 17 (No Rdspdidd) 18 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Motion 19 carries. 20 Thank you, Martin. We will be- In 21 touch. 23, HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE AMENDED- (AKA 24 HARVEST POINTE) ' 25 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: The third February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 2-8' 1 Public Hearing we have for this evening is 2 the Heritage at Cutchogue Amended, also 3 known as, Harvest Pointe. This amended 4 site plan proposes to change 8 of the 5 approved units from B2 unit design (livable 6 floor -area, 1,-599 -square -feet') to a revised 7 C unit design (livable floor area of 1,999 8 square feet) . The livable floor area will 9 increase by a total of 3,200 square feet 1.0 overall site. The property is located at 11 75 Schoolhouse Road in Cutchogue. 12 SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3. 13 Before we open up the floor to the 14 public, I would just like to make a couple 15 -of comments.. ..we .did .get .a letter from the 16 neighbor with- two points of concern. One -1-7 wdd the overall additional squame footage 1-8 _of ..32.0 0'..square ..feet. And -the .agreement -- 19 and actually it was a lawsuit that there 2'0-` was an agreement upon, that there Would not 21 be able more square footage over 245,000 . 22 square feet. They came in with a proposal 23 of 219,0O0` square feet. And with the 24 additional request., they're at 222,200. So 25 they are still below what- they were allowed February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 29 1 through with-the agreement. And the second 2 issue that was raised was septic, which I 3 -will let Henry get more in depth with that, 4 but without = February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 30 r 1 site plan to allow for the addition-of - � 2 8-two story units with a square footage of 3 1999 square feet, in lieu of a -single 4 dwelling unit of 1599 square feet. Both 5 the approved site plan conditions and the 6 -covenants and -restrictions that contain 7 language to give the Planning Board 8 approval for the same. The conditions 9 state that the-applicant -can apply -to add 10 livable floor area to second floors with -no 11 expansion of the building footprint, as 12 long -as we don't -exceed -the maximum livable 13 total floor area allowed for- all units on 14 the property. -Adding the two-story units 15 would share the same building footprint, -as 164 one of the. single units would add a total -17 - of 3200 s"quar"e feet of livable floor area, .18 which .would .still be far :_less .than _the 19 allowable liveable floor area more than 20' 20,000-- square feet. Don, you eluded to 21 that before I began to make some comments. 22 It`s important to note that the two-story 23 unit that we- are referring to is a model 24 that has been currently built on the r 25 project. We have four of them, and this February 8, 2.021 Public Hearings 31 1 model type has been approved by the Town. 2 In addition, conditions state that 3 wastewater regulations must be met with the 4 Suffolk County Department of Health 5 services and approval from the Health -6 Department--has--been -granted and a -copy has 7 been delivered to the Planning Department: 8 I think it's important for all to note that 9 we submitted -our request for -additional 10 square footage to the Suffolk County 11 Department of Health, -based on consultation 12 with our current Engineer, -Nelson & Pope, 13 to obtain a Board review determination on 1 14 the design density and flow calculations of 15 .the approved septic treatment systems -on 16 our site. Since the system design, these 17 are the innovative and alternative waste _1-8 treatment septic _systems-, .we :wanted to 19 ensure that those calculations were 2-0-' - -accurate- and we had the ability.oto request 21 additional square footage. It was 22 determined that additional square footage 23 was- obtainable- and- then subsequently, the 24 Health Department approval was granted for 25 the same. I think lastly and most February $, 2021 Public Hearings 32- 1 importantly, there .is a desire for the 2 current buyer for these two story units.,. 3 and we did feel it was important to "pursue 4 any and all options that we had available 5 to us and to our potential buyers that may 6 be looking-to -purchase and become -resi dents 7 in the Town of Southold: 8 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Okay. Thank 9 you, Henry. At this point, •we will open- it 10 up to anyone in the public who would like 11 to address the Board and staff. Jess, I 12 don't -know who you have? 13 MS MICHAELIS: Tom Wacker- I- 14 14 just let him in. Identify yourself, Tom,- is and .state your .name .for the record .and 16 address your comments to the -Planning 17 Bda=d. 18 MR. WACKER.: Good evening, 19- Planning Board. Tom Wacker here. You all: 20 are. very- fWnlia= with- the history` of thig- 21 thing. It was- pretty consistently opposed 22 by the Town Board,- as well as., the 23 community- at large. It came about as a 24 result of a Court ordered stipulation. We 25 thereupon fought to- limit- the size of this February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 3-3 1 project. And I just want to go on record 2 and say I can't imagine why.you would at 3 this point consider gratuitously granting 4 them an expansion. You know, what's in it 5 for us? Do they want to perhaps upgrade to 6 -full sewage treatment return or °give the 7 Town something in return? I don't hear 8 that forthcoming. Thanks very much. . 9 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you, 10 Tom, for those comments.. Would anybody 11 else like to address the Board and. staff 12 for the Heritage -at -Cutchogue-Amended site 13 plan? -14 MS MYCHAELIS: I have a John 15 Barnes- -Please .state your mane for the 16 record and address the Planning Board? 17 M. BARNES: My name is John -18 Barnes_. - I _live._at -Harri .Point.. _I moved 19 all the way from Southold to come here. I 2`0- am -- I would just like to say that Harris 21 Point is a very nice place to live. And 22 the people here, whether they're in a large 23 enough unit or smaller unit, are treated 24 quite equally. And I think the use of the 25 facilities is quite equal. The larger- February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 34 1 units really just allow guests to be able 2 to come and be in a more comfortable 3 situation. But from a practical point of 4 view of overuse, a number of -the people- who 5 have the larger units tend to go south for 6 the winter. So- the overall usage is -pretty 7 much the same whether you're in a bigger 8 unit. I would see no good reason why they 9 -couldn't have a bedroom for -extra guests 10 there. 11 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Great. Thank 12 you, Mr. Barnes. Again, I will just 13 reiterate what Mr. Henry said. And just 14 what the overview for the project is again. 15 Just so .that .everybody knows_ They .are, 16 Harvest Pointe, Is well within their square 17 footage allowed through the s"ettleJient that 1-8 was ..created.. ..So they'-re underneath that 19 245.,000 square foot area. And they have 20 not as Henry stated, not increasing the 21 footprint of any of the buildings With 22 that, Jess, do we have anybody else? 23 MS. MICHAELIS: No. 24 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Alright. 25 Does anybody from the Planning staff or- February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 3-5 1_ Planning Board have any- questions- or `= 2 comments or questions for Henry or Mr. 3 Alia? 4 MEMBER-RICH: Yes, Don. I have 5 one comment or question here. Henry read 6 -from-"a letter, -basically verbatim,.-that he .7 . had sent to Brian. Cumm3 ngs .at _my. request 8 for an analysis of the size. He said it 9 was -determ?hed that the additional square 10 footage was obta3.nable -and. _subsequently ll Health Department approval was granted the 12 same. Where he stopped -reading, -he- stopped 13 reading. He also goes on to say in 14 addition based on (no audio). will not 15 approve.any request from the -developer for 16 additional square footage on our site. So 17 that is the fest of the lett:= that he did 1.8 _.not -read. .And._I would just ._like to have 19 that sent into the record before we move 2 0� on. It's' seems td he that lie's saying that 21 this is his last request for additional. 22 square footage. 23, CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI-. Henry,` I will- 24 throw it back to you. -,You do not have to 25 answer that. We' will enter that intothe February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 3-6 1 record? 'r 2 MS. MICHAELIS: . Henry Alia again, 3 Harvest Pointe. Yes, Mr. Rich, we have no 4 issue with == that was an a=mail that .was 5 sent to Brian Cummings. I don't have it in 6 front of me, I am sure you do. The 7 developer -- I think I speak for the 8 developer in stating and I think I have 9 --stated this -on the record -before at -one of 10 our past work sessions, that we would not 11 be pursuing additional square footage. And 12 the Health Department has sought of capped 13 where we are allowable right now. So as. 14 far as our conversations with the Health 15 Department with you, -members of the 16 Planning. Board in the past and Brian 17 Ci&ffiifiqd and Plariri i'nq, and I am not Sure if 18 -Heather .was. .part of .those .conversations ..but 19 that is correct. Your statement is 2,0- correct. 21 MEMBER RICH: That's fine. Thank 22 you., Henry. 23 MR. ALIA: .You'.re .welcome. 24 - CHAIRMAN WILCENISKI: Okay. Does 25 anybody else from the Planning Board or- February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 3-7 1 staff have any other questions? 2 (No Response),. 3 CHAIRMAN -WILCENSKI: Hearing -none, 4 I am looking for a motion to close the 5 hearing? �6 MEMBER RICH: �1 will makeaemotion 7 to close the hearing, Don: 8 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Notion made -9 by Jim. A second? 10 MEMBER EISENSTEIN. Second. 11 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Second by 12 Mary. .-Any discussion? 13 (No Response). 14 CHA3RMAI ', L:w SKI: All in favor? .15 MEMBER _EISENSTEIN_: Aye. 16 MEMBER RAFFERTY: Aye. 17 MEMBER RICH:' Aye. 1.8 MEMBER..:SIDOR: Aye- 19 CHAIRMAN' WILCENSKI`: Aye. 20" Opposed?' 21 (No Response) . 22- CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: 23 Notion carries. 24. Thank you., Henry. February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 3-8 1 WICKHAM ROAD LLC OFFICES 2 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Okay. Our 3 - next Public Hearing. is Wickham Road, LLC, 4 offices. This site plan is for the 5 proposed conversion of existing 770 square .6 foot accessory apartment to -a -princ ple 7 office structure. No footpr.int.expansion 8 or basement, with four parking stalls on 9 -0.23 -acres in the -Hamlet --Business Zoning 10 District. The property is located -at 12800 11 Route 25 in Mattituck. 12 SCTM#1000-114-11-15. I think we have the 13 applicant:'s agent, :Anthony' Portllo. Is he 14 available? 15 - MS_ MICHAELIS_- .Stephen Kiely. 16 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: You -can bring 17' him in. Good afternoon, Stephen. Good 18 _evening. . ..State your..name ..for,-the...record- 19 MR. KIELY: Good evening, Mr. 2-0. Chairman and the rest of the Board`. My 21 name is Stephen Kiely, as you are aware, 22 and I am the attorney for the applicant, 23- Wickham Road', LLC. The- subject application 24 is for a conversion of a vacant building 25 into office space-, with absolutely no i February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 39 1 changeto the existing footprint. The 2 property is located at 12800 Main Road in 3 Mattituck, and was previously the site of 4 (inaudible) Appliances and Liberty Data 5 Systems. The site has been used for 6 -commercial purposes as far back at least as 7 the 1950's: It is located in the Hamlet 8 Business Zoning: District, which it should _9 be -noted -to allow as of right, business 10 offices, subject to site plan approval, 11 thus why we are here tonight. The :Intended- 12 ntended12 use is much less intense, then the 13 historical use of the property because 14 we're going from what was retail with an 15 accessory .apartment •to .passive office- The 16 use :is . in._full- conformity. With the 17 requirements of Section 290-78A; by 18 providing .four .off .street parking spots- 19. We are going to provide also 41% of 20 landscaged' coverage, including three 21 landscaped trees., Junipers under the trees 22 and lavender in front of the split rail 23- fence, and- with the rest of the coverage 24 being manicured lawn. Run-off will be 25 maintained on the site by the leader and February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 40 . 1 gutter system and drywell's. There is no. 2 signage proposed at this time, as the 3 'offices intent to -be used by the applicant 4 with signage not being necessary. -And just 5 for the record, I just want to describe the -6 odyssey, of this project. On May 28, 2019, 7 we filed a building permit application for 8 the conversion. On September 3, 2019, a . 9 Notice of Disapproval was issued saying 10 that we needed site, plan and however we 11 were caught up In the moratorium. We 12 submitted an application for the waiver of 13 the moratorium on October 3, 2019. Sorry, 14 we had a Public Hearing on the waiver 1.5 - request.on, March .l0 r 202-0- Then the waiver 16 was ..granted July 28, 2020. We submitted 17 this instant site plan application on .1.8 September .3.0, 202-0 .and we .are here.tonight 19 for the Public Hearing. So it has been 19 20- months` this process, in: just trying to 21 convert an existing building into an 212, allowable use. So now I am ready for any 23 questions you may have.- 24 ave.24 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Jess, is 25 there anybody from the public- looking- to February 8,- 2021 Public Hearings 41 1 make comments? r 2 MS. MICHAELIS: No. Doesn't look 3 like it. 4 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: I would-ask 5 the public who is on this application, does 6 -anybody will -- I will -give you, -a last 7 chance for anybody to raise your hand or 8 notify Jess that you would like to make any 9 comments to the Planning Board or the 10 Planning staff? In the meantime, does any 11 Planning Board or Planning staff have any 12 questions- for Mr. Kely? 13 (No Response). ~ 14 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI Because it 15 looks .like we have nobody from the public 16 wishing to make comments. So does anybody 17 ffom the Plaiin;iiq Board staff have any -.18 questions _or .comments for- Mr- .Kiely? 19 (No Response) . 2.0., CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Mr. Kiely, 21 you gave a pretty good time table or 2-2 timeframe of the process went forward. So 23 hearing none, and if the Planning Board or 24 staff have no questions., I would like to r% 25 look for a motion to close the hearing? February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 42 1 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Motion to 2 close. 3MEMBER"RAFFERTY: Second. 4 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Motion made 5 by Mary. Seconded by .Pierce. 6 ' Any' -discussion? 7 (No Response) : 8 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: All in favor? 9 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Aye. 10 MEMBER RAFFERTY: Aye. 11 MEMBER RICH: Aye. 12 MEMBER SIDOR: Aye. 13 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI; Aye. 14 Opposed? 15 .(No Response.)_ 16' CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you, 17 Mt'. Kiely. 1.8 *** * *** * ******* *** *** ********** ** 19 OLDE COLONIAL PLACE LLC 20 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKIr The final 21 Public Hearing we have for tonight is for 2-2 Olde Colonial Place, LLC. This site plan -23- - - is for the proposed construction of a 4,500 24 square foot building to consist of four 25 retail: unite with full basement for storage - February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 43 1 and twenty-four parking stalls on 0.5, acres 2 in the HB Zoning District. The .property is 3 located 615 Pike Street in Matttuck. 4 SCTM# 1001=140=2=21. 5 I am not sure or have any -6 notations on who the applicants agent is, 7 Jess. 8 MS. MICHAELIS: Anthony Portillo. -9 I just let him- 1n. 10 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Good evening, 17 Anthony. If you could just give us an up 12 to -date-explanation -of what we .have going r 13 on here? 14 MR. 35bAT! I,d: good evening. My 15 -name .is .Anthony .Portillo from A&P 16 Architecture, Laurel, New York. So 17 cu=fently there is no building. The 1$ .-building:has.been demolished that was 19 existing at this lot. We are proposing 2'0` four retail units on Pike Street', with 21 .parking in the rear of the building. The 22 parking proposed meets the required space 23 needed for- the retail stores. A total of, 24 24 spots. The parking area has proposed 2-5 planting on both neighboring lots per- the February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 44 1 site plan. The building design was 2 derived and taken from inspiration of Love 3 Lane. The -building facade moves in and out 4 of the .front of it. Giving a little bit of 5 dimension. Also some -different- scales. We 6 utilized rectangular and arched windows. 7 The doors and the windows are more of a 8 human scale and then we have added natural 9 lighting and building design. The -design 10 utilize different facade materials from. 11 brick facade. We have- a lap siding and 1-2 then we -have a vertical facade on the, 13 center buildings. We paid attention to the 14 window and door archtrays -ontop -of the. 15 buildings Home of the .buildings have some 16 dental work. The signs are posted for each 17 retail building with goose-neck .lighting _ _18 ...above. .Tide__are :proposing .a -stucco -on .the 19 three facades that are not facing Pike 20r Street.. WG are proposing a brick patio 21 area on the front of Pike Street with 22 brick walkways that take you into each 23 retail unit. (Iso audio) slab on grade 24 with exterior walls. Will have.-a steel 25 structure for the roof- with a- flat February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 45 1 -roof membrane. Each unit will have a F 2 single bathroom and each unit will have a 3 single (inaudible) heating and cooling. 4 That is sort of the summary of the 5 - project. -6 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you. 7 Jess, do we have anybody with their hands 8 rai.sed. .or anybody who would like to 9 speak? 10 MS. MICHAELIS: Yes. We have a 1] couple of people. The first one is Anne 12 Smith. Please state your -name for the 13 record and address the Board_ 14 MS. SMITH: Good evening 1.5 -everyone- Anne Smith, resident of 16' -Mattituck. and also representing Mattituck 17 Civil As"s"ociation tonight. We just WAhted 1.8 to go -on-record to be sure that the 19 Planning Board is paying attention to 20, accomodation on parking. I am not a 21 parking expert. The building next door to 22 this building seems to have very limited 23 parking and some dangerous in and out. We 24 have also noticed some people starting to 25 park along the streets of Pike street February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 46 1 that don't allow for parking. And -as you 2 know, we have had such an increase in 3 `-people on the North Fork, that was 4 -something that we wanted to be sure. So 5 - kind of the flip side •of that is, concerns 6 about too-much asphalt and heat sources. -7 So we're hoping that the Manning Board 8 and the developer is taking both of those 9 concerns into consideration. And I got a 10 quick look at the -architecture. And again, 11 just wanted to go on the record to be sure 12 that -the Planning Board is working-wth the 13 Architectural design Or Review . 14 . And wondering when things like this or 15 redevelopment .or new .development,. you know-, 16 how could we, as a Civic, contribute to a 17 discussion about continuity and consistency IS of the-look _of our .buildings. Certainly -we 19 have the scaling of Love Lane and wanting 20 to he sure of° that- -- use of that area 21 grows around the corner. I think people 22 will enjoy. That we're looking for some 23 consistency. And Iagain, I am not an 24 expert on lighting but I do believe that 25 the lighting- next door-, which I believe is February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 47 1 -the same developer, Dark Sky -compliant. 2 And this. appears to be the same.. So 3 those were the -items that we wanted to go 4 on record to be sure, you. know, keeping up 5. with. And you, know, any way to know about -6 conversations about design, you can let us 7 know: 8 CHAIRMAN WILCENSRI: Okay. Thank. 9 you for the comments. Just so you know, 10 the parking has been. -- I will use the 11 term, -regulated, by the size of. the 12 building ,and -uses of the -building. And ,as 13 far as the Architectural Review committee., 14 if you would like to submit any suggestions 15 or ,conee na.., you -can submit them.to the 16- Planning Department and we can convey that 17' to the ARC'. _L8 ..,MS..-:MICHAELIS 1 already._sent ..her 19 out. We have Gail Wickham. 201, CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI:- Okay_ Gail?` 21 _ MS. WICKHAM: Hello. Good 2-2 evening. I just have a few comments, 23 questions:- dn� this project-: 'The-- first is, I 24 was .quite disappointed where the -applicant 25 was dealing with a vacant building-- February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 48 1 vacant lot and new construction, that he 2 did not take the o _ pportunity ,to add any 3 affordable apartments over the buildings 4 and instead is providing exclusively 5 four-retail shops. It might be nice if -6 they would consider reducing that number of 7 retail shops and adding much needed 8 affordable housing. The second thing that 9 I noticed is 'the -- as Anne Smith 10 mentioned, the parking is a concern in 11 Mattituck. The municipal lot is over run 12 between the -uses-on Love Lane area, the 13 school kids that park "there. And even the 14 surrounding buildings that have their own 15 parking- Many of -them still .-go to the 16 ' ' municipal lot and park there. For many, 17 many reasons we don't have to get into. 1.8 So _I would like .to .suggest that -- while. ..I 19 know they have met their parking 20 requirements according to the chart, I do 21 want to (inaudible) and that can be a 22 problem. It`s further aggravated by the 23 fact that Pike Street doesn't have a full 24 width there. There is absolutely no room 25 for on street parking there. There is no February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 49 1 shoulder. The two lanes of traffic, east 2 and west, completely take up the- road -- 3 the paved road surface. So that very much 4 aggravates things. And in-variably, people 5. do park there and it creates a problem. 6 That is why I thunk maybe some more work 7 needs to be done in terms of the exit and 8 entrance there, which is .quite narrow and 9 maybe not as inviting as .it could be. The 10 third thing that I would like to mention is 11 lighting. I do find that there is an awful 12 amount of lighting in Mattituck from 13 existing building. Some of them are 14 preexisting Dark Skies compliant and some 15 are :not.. Even with these .new .buildings, 16 these down -- does reflect if there is a 17 wet pavement and certainly during the snow .18 .time. It _is can get very reflective .at 19 night. And one of the main things that I 20 think aggravates it and I don't know how 21 that is computed when you -- the amount of 22 light that comes through these big front 23 windows, because that does augment the 24 evening lighting into the street and then 25 upward into the sky. February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 50 1 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Okay. 'And -- 2 MS. WICKHAM: Yes? 3 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: -Go ahead. I 4 thought you were done. I was going to say 5 all your comments will obviously, be looked -61 into. 7 MS. WICKHAM: Well, I am almost 8 done. I just have one more. Sorry. I was 9 looking at my notes. The groundwater 10 question in Mattituck is also problematic. 11 It is because of its proximity to the 12 waters of Mattituck Creek and quite close { j 13 to the surface. And I looked at the test 14 hole on the map and that does show 13 1/2 15 feet _to the .water_ But--then I -noticed that. 16 was done in 2010. And I just -- just 17 having a building in the neighborhood, it 12 just seems -to be that- the groundwater has 19 increased in its depth. So that creates a 20 problem particularly sanitary systems. 'I 21 also wondered if you were going to require 22' a particular sanitary system on this 23 project. So those are my comments. Thank 24 you for the time. And I also want to 2-5 mention that my- name is Gail. Wickham. I February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 51 1 don't know that I mentioned that at the 2 beginning. And I am not Eric as that may 3 show -up on your label. Thank you. 4 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you 5, very. much. Eric= -- I mean,. Gail,- 6 MS. WICKHAM: -Fair -enough- 7 Fair -enough.7 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you for 8" your comments,.. Gail..: Wedefinitely will =9 explore them. And I think that'-s 10 definitely a very good point with the test 11 A hole being .7 or 8 years old. So thank you., 12 MS. WICKHAM: 11. 13 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: 11. Jess, 14 anybody else? 15 MS MICHAELIS, No, sir. 16 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: We will give 17 it a minute. In the meantime, does anybody 1.8 _on.the -Board or, staff have any questions 19 for Mr. Portillo? Mr. Portillo, can you 20 just confirm that in fact is the last soil 21 :test -- not the soil test. Test hole was 22 done? 23 MR. PORTILLO: So what actually 24 happened here is., the applicant did the 25 site plan and- submitted it to the Planning February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 52 1 Board, I think about 7-8 years ago. And 2 the test hole was done at that time. I do 3 want to point out though, I don't think we 4 are any where near requesting -- you know, 5 I think 8 feet is the longest our pools 6 area So even -- we are note requesting to 7 go down to 13_ In fact, I think the most 8 we are at is at 5 feet proposed, leaching 9 and -septic. We also just want to note that 10 we have approval from the Health Department 11 for the system proposed. The last piece of 12 that proposal is receiving approval from 13 local jurisdictions. So we have been 14 through that process. So you know, I do 15 .think -that the ..IA-..systems- -make a lot. of 16 sense. But I don't believe we are in an 17 area that requires it in my opinion. , It .-18 does...-have .an :added._costs..to the -prof ect- 19 Also has an added maintenance costs as you 20 guys probably know. We did fine -with 21 - - Health Department -and we're basically 2`2 approved besides the local jurisdiction 23 approval that I have to provide them, if we 24 receive. So I _just wanted to let. you guys 25 know that as well.. February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 53- 1 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Okay. Does 2 any 3 MS. ' MICHAELIS: Yes. I "have Gail 4 again. 5 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: You can bring 6 Gail back. 7 MS. WICKHAM: Hi. I have one 8 other item that I would. like to .add on 9 parking that just occurred to me. As the 10 retail spaces, you are using particular 1.1 X computation. If you switch to another. dry 12 use,. that would increase the -parking 13 considerably. So I am just wondering, how 14 does the Plann;ng Board plan to handle if 15 an applicant .came in at a later date and 16 required a change to office? Would thele 17 be something in the covenant that would 18 require Isome additional parking .if they are' 19" maxed out? I" would just like to introduce, 20 that question into your consideration of 2.1 the project as well. Thank you. 22- CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you. I 23 think that is a very important comment. 24 And I -don't want to make any specific 25 comments about° myself, before we discuss- February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 54 1 this further but I think that is a very ` 2 good point. Does anybody else? Any 3 Planning Board members or staff have any 4 questions? 5 MEMBER EISENSTEIN_: Yes, Anthony, 6 I would like to ask you. This its 7 clarification. Did I hear you say that 8 each of those four retail stores are. going 9 to have a bathroom? 10 MR. PORTILLO: Hi, Mary. Yes, 11 that's correct. . Each one has their own 12 toilet and vanity and they are ADA - 13 compliant. l i 14 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: So that's four 15 bathrooms (no audio_ ). 16 MR. PORTILLO: That's correct. 17 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Thank you. 18 :CHAIRMAN :WILCENSRI-: Anybody else. 19 have any questions? Board? 20 MR. PORTILLO: If I can just 21 comment on the covenants and the spaces., I 2-2- don't think we would have an objection to 23 -- if we were to rent a space to someone 24 who wanted to use it, say for a certain 25 office that possibly they would have to be f February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 55 1 restricted to the parking spaces that we 2rovided. So in _ p my world,. sometimes what 3 we do is, part of the space beconmes 'storage 4 and only part of the space can be utilized 5 as office. Whatever that use is that 6 someone may be wanting to use that for. I 7 think we have done a 'pretty good job at 8 accomplishing: the parking spaces. We have 9 given a pretty large piece of the lot to: 10 parking because we understand that both 11 people from the public have said, there is. 12 limited parking, and I agree. Being a long 13 time resident of Mattituck, I agree that 14 Love Lane doesn't have a lot of parking. 15 So I dothink we try to accomplish that as 16 much as possible. And I would- say that 17 anybody that would want to change the .18 use.-.of 'the building or one of the use of 19 the units would have to meet the 20 requirements of whatever spaces are 21 provided for that. 22 CHAIRMAN- WILCENSKI: Okay. 23 Great. I am not speaking for the Planning 24 Board but I think that is where we would 25 be looking- to- go with this as well. So February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 56 1 again, I would ask the Board and staff, l t 2 does anybody have any other questions? 3 (No Response) . 4 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Okay. 5 Hearing none. Jess, there is nobody ,else 6 waiting to come in? 7 MS. MICHAELIS: No. 8 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI.: Can. I get a 9 motion to close the hearing? 10 MEMBER RAFFERTY: So moved. 11 CHAIRMAN WILCENSRI: Motion made 12 by Pierce. 13 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Second. 14 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Seconded by 15 Mary. 16- Any discussion? 17 (No Response. ) 18 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI-: All. in .favor? 19 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Aye. 20 MEMBER RAF.FERTY: Aye.. 21 MEMBER RICH: Aye. 2Z MEMBER SIDOR Aye. 23 CAATRMAN WILCENSKI:, Aye. 24 Opposed? 25 (No Response'. )- February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 57- 1 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Motion 2 carries. Thank you,- Mr. Portillo for your 3 time. 4 5 (Whereupon, the Public Hearing 6 portion of the Southold Planning Board 7 concluded at this time. ) 8 9- 10 11 12 13 14 15- 16 17 18. 19- 20 21 22, 23 24 2-5 February 8, 2021 Public Hearings 58 1 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 2 1 I, JESSICA DILALLO, a Court Reporter- 4 and Notary Public, for and within the State 5 of New York, do hereby certify.- 6 ertify:6 THAT the above and foregoing contains 7 a true and correct transcription of the 8 meeting held on -February 8, 2021, via 9 videoconference, and- were- reported by me-. 10 I .further certify that I am not 11 related to any of the parties to this action 12 by blood: or by marriage and- that I .am- in no {- 13 way interested in the outcome of this matter. 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF-, I have hereunto 15- set. my, hand this 28th day of February,- 2021.. 16 ., 17 1.8- Jessica- DiLallo- 19 20 RECqiVED 21 22 MA 1 2022 Cc 23 ®uth®Id Town Clerk 24 25 i