Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-05/17/2004~PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODItOUSE Chair RICI-LkRD CAGGLkNO ~VILLIAM J. CP~EMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS i~LARTIN II. SIDOR P.O. Box 1179 Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1938 Fax (631) 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES May 17, 2004 4:30 p.m. Present were: Jerilyn Woodhouse, Chairperson Richard Caggiano, Member William Cremers, Member Martin Sidor, Member Valerie Scopaz, Town Planning Director Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer Mark Terry, Senior Environmental Planner Linda Randolph, Secretary Chairperson Woodhouse: 4:38 p.m. Good evening and welcome to this Special Hearing conducted by the Planning Board. The Hearing today concerns the Mill Creek Preserve. This proposal is to subdivide a parcel into six residential lots. The total area of developed rights that are going to be sold equals 52 acres. I would like to entertain a motion please to open the hearing. Mr. Cremers: So moved. Mr. Caggiano: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: All in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Sidor. Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries and the Hearing is opened. PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Woodhouse: I have two letters I'd like to read into the public record concerning this proposed subdivision. The first says: "Dear Members: The northern most property line of our property abuts the southern property line of the proposed Io~5. On lot #5 just north of this common property line is a Iow area where a seasonal pond forms roughly one acre in size. Our concern is that with development of this lot that the elevation of this area may change thereby causing flooding onto our property. The owners of Mill Creek Preserve also at one time spoke of possibly draining this area into an area on the western border of our property. There exists a series of stagnant ponds and mosquito ditches in this area that drain down towards the Bay. Increase flow into this area would cause increase flooding of my property thereby decreasing the value of our land, a direct financial hardship. Thank you for yQur consideration in this matter." It is respectfully submitted by Pauline E. and Scott R. Carter. The second letter: "In reference to the Covenants and Restrictions regarding the common road and ROW known as Old Mill Path; we as property owners along Old Mill Path have the following concerns: 1. The use of Old Mill Path by lot number 5 is quite vague, it is clear that it will not be used as a pdmary access, however, it's unclear as to possible uses. We are concerned about the roadway becoming a service entrance for this estate. Will we fall victim to the traffic of garbage trucks, delivery trucks, construction vehicles, farm employees, as well as farm equipment? 2. Lo~5 as presented on the proposed subdivision map has two separate accesses, one off of the common roadway to be constructed, the second off of Pond Avenue. Is a third access really necessary? 3. It should be noted that the property extended from Old Mill Path to Lot #5 is actually a strip of land and has never been an improved roadway in the past. 4. The initial intent of the ROW is as a shortcut from the rear of the parcel to the front of the parcel. Given the fact that the Town will not allow this ROW to be used as an access for a subdivision as stated in the Covenants and Restrictions, the fact that LONG ISLAND RAILROAD has denied access over the railroad tracks to the subdivision, and considering that this parcel will be divided into two separate lots (Lot #5 & #6) and owned by two different people, is this ROW still valid and necessary? 5. Another concern is a fact that a Mill Creek Preserve sign has been posted on the ROW known as Old Mill Path, which may encourage vehicular traffic to the subdivision. 6. Lot #6 should no longer have access off of Old Mill Path due to the fact that it has a newly constructed road leading to Pond Ave. Particularly on this lot due to the fact that LONG ISLAND RAILROAD has denied subdivision access for Lot #6. We feel that the above facts as presented would lend credence to our belief that the Mill Creek Preserve should give up their ROW across Old Mill Path for Lots #5 & #6. Since Lot #5 & #6 will be a farm operation, this will generate more traffic than a residential parcel. By giving up the ROW, this would decrease traffic on our roadway, which is the only access to our homes and property. The other two existing homes and a 7.3-acre parcel, which is approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals to construct a single homestead, currently use this 12-foot ROW. Any additional traffic may hinder safe passage and access for emergency vehicles. We feel these changes would not cause any harm nor inflict any monetary losses to the applicants. Thank you for your attention to the above matter. We hope that we can resolve this issue amicably." This letter is respectfully submitted by Pauline Carter, Scott Carter, Michael Glew, Claire Glew, and Ted Dowd. I have no other letters to read. Is there anyone who would like to address the Board on this matter? Please come forward and would you please state your name. Betty Rauch: My name is Betty Rauch and we have the right of way through this subdivision that is already there over to Big Island. I have no objection to anything except I'd like to be assured that our ROW will be kept open during construction and everything and that our electric line, which runs on the south side of the road, will be protected during building. I just wanted that to be in the record. Thank you. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board? Edward Ernst: Good afternoon. Edward Ernst, applicant. I'll take a couple of these and give a little bit of rebuttal on these. First, about the lowland or the area that gathers water seasonably. There is no intention to drain that into the wetlands; it is slated to be a shallow wildlife pond that is being developed by the Department of Agriculture Soil & Conservation. The use of Old Mill Path: The Board had expressed that we not use that access to go to Lot #5 because of the RAILROAD. It has been used for over 100 years as a connection between the farm complex and the back fields primarily when it is too wet in the spring to drive across the fields. We don't intend to use that access, and this does not include the RAILROAD track, this is after the RAILROAD track but between the two sections of property. We don't intend to increase the traffic on it, but we have been using it and have used it in the past and it is necessary for the farming activity once in a while to go back into work when we can't get through the fields. The alternative would be to drive onto Pond, Park Avenue and Long Creek Drive to get to the back. The Mill Path that is in front of the neighbors' houses, Mr. Carter's and Mr. Glew's house, is a common road, a traveled road. The first section of it actually goes across our property. They have a ROW across our property; we own the majority of Mill Path. The section that they are talking about they do not own. So, I would like to continue that, but I can assure them that we are not going to increase traffic or use it unless it is necessary to get to the backfields. At one time, Mr. Carter asked us not to use the larger ~ractors and we have refrained from doing that. We attempt not to disrupt the road surface. I would also be willing to work with Mr. Glew and Mr. Carter on establishing a road maintenance for the sections that the three of us use, and that would be nice to have that in writing so we all know what we are supposed to do since we use it. The Rausch's: of course we will keep the road open for their access. I have also spoken to them about extending the roadway, paving it to their property line while we are doing it so that they can save some cost. Their electric line is buried five or six feet down, it is a high voltage line. We are keeping our utilities away from that and as much of the roadway off of it as we can. Unfortunately, it is a little bit close to where the road has to go, but it is on the edge and we will try and keep that from being uncovered. In no way will it be damaged or upset. Thank you. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board? Scott Carter: I am property owner adjacent to the Preserve. Basically, I just wanted to bring another rebuttal. We were the ones who wrote that letter that you read in regard to Old Mill Path. Essentially, what we are trying to bring to attention is that this property that was originally 80 acres is being subdivided into multiple lots at this point in time. In regard to the ROW, yes they do have the legal ROW over that property at this point in time as do we. I do own approximately just under 600' of that roadway. They probably own about a similar amount. We go through their property as well. What's happening though is that essentially the property that will be south of the Long Island Railroad tracks is going to be one total and separate piece of property that's not even part of this subdivision that we are considering. Valerie Scopaz: The piece containing the two access points? Scott Carter: I'm sorry. I can come up and look and point to it, is that what you'd like? Where Old Mill Path crosses the Ernst and Norton property, south of the Long Island Railroad tracks. So, there's a parcel of property south of the tracks between the tracks and main road. That parcel is not even part of the subdivision at this point. Do you understand the parcel I'm speaking of? Chairperson Woodhouse: That would be this parcel here? Mark Terry: That would be this parcel south of the railroad tracks. Chairperson Woodhouse: Yes, that's the parcel. Scott Carter: So that's one parcel that's separate and away. The second parcel would be Lot #6 which is just north of the railroad tracks that has the existing home and barns on it, OK? And the third parcel is Lot #5, which is behind our 4 properties. OK. Basically the argument I am trying to make is that now there's three separate parcels as opposed to one complete 80+ acres that used to be there. Essentially, there is going to be three different owners. So, there's going to be someone who owns the part down in front, someone owns the middle, and someone owns the back. So I don't understand the necessity for them to have to use Old Mill Path any longer to communicate between their different properties if they are going to be owned by three different people. So, what I am trying to say is that Lot #5 in the back has its own access that will come off of the common roadway; it also has access off of Pond Avenue to the west. So that parcel has plenty of access. Lot #6 also has a newly constructed road coming off of Pond Avenue that goes right down the center of Lot #6. So as far as wet fields and such are concerned, these parcels are easily accessed by their given access points without having to cross over any wet fields or going over any roadways like Pond Avenue, Park Avenue to make access to other parts of the property. So, what we are trying to say is that it seems to me that which lot is going to get this right of ~/ay that was originally for all 80 acres? Is it going to go to Lot #5, Lot #6 or that parcel i'n the front, or do they get a split up right of way? What we are trying to say is now that you're splitting up this thing, perhaps that right of way should be given up because it's not needed to make access to any these properties because they've all got plenty of other accesses to get to. So this is the argum'ent we are trying to make at this point in time. To see if this is truly necessary. I would prefer not to get into anY kind of agreement because basically, Old Mill Path, part of it is owned by the Town. You bought that property not too long ago; so you own half of it, I own part~ of half of it, cuz basically the road fol!owS along the property lines and [he property, line is in theory down the roadway. So, in an effort to, you know, at this point decrease traffic on this roadway, make it safer for the people, you knOw, if the Town decides.they wantta start to. use it at some point to access this ,property that they own as well, that's going to also bring more traffic on it somewhlere down the road. So we're, you know, in an effort to try to minimize traffic and also as I was saying to try to get into ~ome kind of written agreement on .a road that's owned by multiple people,gets very difficult and complicated and to justify costs and come to agreements can be very very difficult and then what kind of enforcement do we have if one of the property owners doesn't pay Up or, do their contribution or things of that naitu~'e? And our other problem also is that if they are allowed to keep the ROW, wl~at, kir~d of enforcement is there if the road may not be used as a primary access.but is used in another fashion and becomes abusive in regard to farming activities, you know, service entrance as we mentioned,, garbage trucks coming up and down at 6 in the morning, 7 in the mc.ming, I don't mind agricultural equipment so much, but if you have a big operation, that could be a lot of traffic, and heavy vehicles. These aren't just light little cars coming in and out. And so that would add to the wear and tear as well as. you know it would decrease the value of my property if all of a sudden I've got a service entrance going through the front of my yard. Thank you. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. Mr. Ernst? Edward Ernst: Just a couple of corrections on that. The parcel that is south of the railroad track has always been a separate parcel. We own two parcels at this moment, and that parcel is just not something under subdivision; nothing is being done with it. The Lot #6, Lot #5, when the subdivision is complete, they are still going to be owned by my wife and myself, we do not plan on selling Lot #5 at this time. In fact, we don't plan on selling any of the lots; this is something we are doing primarily because we are selling the conservation rights and we want to have development rights on the property and we want to have all this done and in place before we sell the development rights. It is one farm operation; we own all the parcels. Old Mill Path is a "traveled road," it is listed, as such, as a "traveled road;" it is not maintained by the Town at this point. We own the land under Mill Path where it crosses our two pieces of property; we own close to 100' easterly of Mill Path; it goes right through our property. Mr. Carter owns part of Mill Path, the other part I assume would be owned bythe Town now since they bought that property from the Adams. But it is considered a "traveled road," it has been used by the Lang Farm, which was the previous owner; Wickharn's before that, for close to 1'50 years -200 years as part of this farm parcel I understand his co~cems; I don't expect garbage trucks or any traffic~to come across the railroad tracks to go to Lot #5. We have decided that that will come.through Long' Creek Drive. What I am saying is that we have agreed with the Board'~ot'to haYe traffic come acros{s the railroad tracks because of the inabili~ of anybody to define the egahty,of ~t or [or the safety reason because ~t Is hot a guarded track. But to go. between my one farm parcel and the back farm parcel, as we have been doing for many, many years, does not cross the rai!road track and .should be al[owed,.to continue or be restricted to the use of agd~ltur'al. I will: take into consideratibn my neigh.bors~ concerns and we have beea dbi)3gthat. We hardly ever use. that unleSs W~ are forced to use it because of ~ea{ttt~'r conditions. Thank you. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board? Scott Carter: One more time. The only thing is whether or not they plan on owning that property; those two lots owned by one owner, that's fine, but at some point in time they will die and those lots will probably be divided into two separate individuals. And so I think by virtue of making this a subdivision, you have to look into the future and assume that every lot will be sold to an individual owner. Therefore, I don't think just because they decide that they're going to own both parcels at this point in time, that should be something that goes on into perpetuity. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. Scott Carter: Thank you. 6 Chairperson Woodhouse: Does anyone on the Board have any questions at this point? We have a question; just a moment we're just formulating a question here. We have a legal question for our attorney and if we could ask you to please vacate the room for a few moments while we can straighten out this issue, we'd appreciate it. PAUSE FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION Chairperson Woodhouse: Mr. Ernst, I have two questions for you. Would you like to come up here please to clarify some issues and for the record? Would you please tell us what access is proposed for Lot #6? Edward Ernst: This is the lot with my existing house on it. Currently, we come in at three different places. Currently, we come across our front area, which is the front lots which are across the railroad track. On the plan, I have added the driveway that goes out to Pond, and we would not sell the development rights on that part, so I can bring utilities and water in there and also provide, if I sell the front lot, that provides me with an access to the property. Chairperson Woodhouse: One of the questions came about because on the map you are showing the access from the front as closed except for agricultural accesses. So that would be closing it for residential access. So that was our first query to you. Edward Ernst: On the center access, over the railroad. I did that after talking with the Dept. of Transportation, and they said that they would appreciate if we would just use that for agricultural. To use the entrance on Mill Path because it had better site lines, as far as watching for the train. And they advised us that that was a safer entrance to use and that one met all their qualifications for a safe entrance. Chairperson Woodhouse: OK. But if I understand you, then what you are saying is the primary access for Lot #6 would be off Pond Avenue and down the traveled roadway. Edward Ernst: That is one of our accesses. Our primary access also is the one that goes across Mill Path. For Lot #6. Chairperson Woodhouse: OK. Thank you. Does anyone have a question about that? William Cremers: Yes. The Dept. of Transportation, did they give you a letter saying that they are allowing the agricultural crossing at the railroad? Edward Ernst: The Dept. of Transportation's policy is not to give a letter for or against. We met the Dept. of Transportation at the site. They were actually going to review the crossing for the Southold Town Park, which is actually at the other end of Mill Path. They were trying to inspect that, they were at the wrong site; they were at my house looking at that one, and we had to tell them which one to go to. That's why we know they told us that one meets their standards. But they will not give a letter for or against going across. If it's already been used prior to 1894, it's considered to be OK to use and they won't close it. My house has been there 150 years before the railroad. That's why we have the OK to use it--or not OK, but the implied OK to use and they won't close it. William Cremers: They won't write that in a letter, saying that if it's over 100 years....? Edward Ernst: I think it's in their statutes. I think I saw it in one of their statutes saying that if it was in existence before a certain date, it's OK to have it. You could not create a new agricultural crossing, but if it was already there before a certain date, it's considered to be there. Chairperson Woodhouse: OK. Any other questions? William Cremers: The other question I have is: Lot #5 the road you have going down to the houses is 10' wide? Edward Ernst: The driveway. William Cremers: 10'? Edward Ernst: 10'. William Cremers: I think you're going to have to make that 15' to match according to our code for fire access and everything else. Edward Ernst: The fire access calls for an envelope 15' X 15' clear. I don't know if it particularly calls for a roadway to be that wide. I showed this to the Fire Commissioner and he said everything was fine on it. It is not the road, it is a driveway. I don't know if there's a law that says somebody's driveway needs to be 15' or 20' wide or anything like that. William Cremers: That's a long driveway is what I was saying. I remember someone else having one like that and they had to go 15' on a long one. A short driveway is in front of our house, of course you wouldn't have to go 15' X 15', but that's a long one and the fire engines would have to go down there or an emergency vehicle would have to. According to our code. And the Fire Commissioner also said he wants you to keep access to the property 15 X 15 on all roadways in his letter to us. So? Edward Ernst: I did not consider the driveway a road. William Cremers: And my second question is on the map that you submitted back in February. On Long Creek Drive, you said the access would only be 14'. Edward Ernst: That was cleared by the Fire Commissioner, he said he would not insist we remove the specimen tree. There are two large specimen trees at each side of the road as you first enter. That's the only constriction. It is 14' clear. It is 16' high in clearance. He said they would have no problem getting through that and they get through much narrower areas all the time. William Cremers: But in his letter he says 15 X 15 .... Edward Ernst: Would you like a letter from him to tell you that he's OK'd... If you put it in writing I will take down the 300-year old tree... William Cremers: No, no. Edward Ernst: OK. I will get a letter from him to say that he has OK'd that, cuz he did. William Cremers: That's fine. Chairperson Woodhouse: And I have a further question.., can construction access be limited to access off of Pond Avenue and Long Creek for safety? Edward Ernst: As far as Lot #5 goes? Chairperson Woodhouse: Yes. Edward Ernst: Yes. I would not have construction trucks, garbage trucks or any of those trucks come across Mill Path to access that lot for a number of reasons. One, they would have to go across the railroad track, and my agreement with the Planning Board was not to have any unnecessary traffic come across there. Two, is that it is a narrow roadway and it just wouldn't be feasible to try to make the turns and stuff like that. So yes, I would have no problem restricting heavy construction traffic, garbage trucks, UPS or the Good Humor Man from coming the other ways. Chairperson Woodhouse: OK. Mark, did you want to clarify an issue that was raised with regard to the pond? Mark Terry: Yes, the seasonal pond. One of the letters we received mentioned a seasonal pond next to Lot #5. I guess up against the Carter property, if that's correct. It doesn't look like any improvement is proposed behind your property other than the building envelope, which is farther east and behind the Glew property. So, any improvements that Mr. Ernst makes as far as raising the grade for his septic systems as shown on the map, will drain into the 8' contour. Unfortunately, we don't have micro-topography on these maps. But I can tell you that from the maps it shows that water drains behind the Glew property into an 8' hole, basically. Edward Ernst: It does as the land is now. The area where the house goes has an elevation of close to 14' (that's the height). The farmland, they way it was divided up in the past and where you see woodland at this point. The woodland is mostly in all the lower areas, and that's why they didn't clear it, because it was always wet. The shallow pond that comes seasonally is between two higher areas, it's also part of a ridge when you do a plowline you get that line dght there. In the wet season and the spring it will have about 6 or 7" of standing water and it stays there for a month or so. We plan on taking advantage of that to create a shallow wildlife pond. Mr. Allen Connell of Natural Resources has been developing a plan for that. We don't, unless it gets to a certain height, because then it might overflow into the streams where it overflows now. The streams are on my property. They do flow between my property and Mr. Carter's and then eventually wind up in some ether ditches and then flow out into the marshlands. We are trying to restrict, the reason why we keep that shallow wildlife pond is to restrict the flow of water from going into these streams so as to trap the nutrients from the farm fields, the fertilizer and stuff from going into the wildlife areas. We have an.other program with the Conservation Division on creating filter strips around the fields to prevent runoff from going into the wetlands. We have been approved~ for these plans, we have the funding, they have been in the works for close to six years. That's how long it takes to get them to do all this. So, I don't think it's a concern. The area behind Mr. Glew's house is very Iow; it's a wetland. His house has been raised. When he built it he had to raise it to keep out of the wetlands and to put his septic in. But we'r~talking there's a large distance between roy property line and his house. And that area in between there is very overgrowt~ and wet and has been.., it's a natural topography. I do not think that we are incre,asing the problem. All the houses that we have proposed have dry wells for the gutters, even though they are not required. And some of them we have put them in the plans and they are shown on the plans.., the drywells. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. Are there any other questions from the Board? Board Members: None. Chairperson Woodhouse: I have two comments in terms of some of the other comments that were made. In terms of the Right of Way: whatever exists now, deeded use of the Right of Way, is really between the people who hold the deed to the Right of Way. The Board cannot take away the use of the Right of Way, so it is an issue that needs to be resolved between those people who are affected by the deeding. Secondly, the same is true with the enforcement issue. Because it is a private road, the Right of Way is private, it is really up to those l0 people with proprietary interest in the Right of Way to work out whatever agreements they need to work out between them. It is not our understanding that it is within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board to determine what happens with that. Does anyone else have any questions or comments for the Board? Hearing no questions, I will entertain a motion to close the Hearing. William Cremers: So moved. Richard Ca,q,qiano: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: All in favor? Board Members: Aye. Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The Hearing is closed. I will read the resolution with the changes. I just want to make one further comment in terms of... I think you raised the question what will happen in the future if the ownership changes or things happen. We will be suggesting some amendments to the Covenant & Restrictions. The Covenant & Restrictions are a legal document that is filed and it will outlive any of the property owners who would be involved with this property. The Covenant & Restrictions stays with the deed on the property in perpetuity. I just want to remind you that this is land that is being sold for development rights and the nature of that sale does restrict the activities that can take place on this land. I will read the Resolution, and if there is anything else to be added .... excuse me .... (discussion with Mark Terry) I think I have it: RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant preliminary approval on the plat, dated as revised March 8, 2004. The following items remain outstanding and must be submitted in order to proceed to final approval: To satisfy the park and playground fee, the amount to be deposited with the Town Board shall be $25,000 ($5,000 per vacant lot in the subdivision). Payment is required prior to the final endorsement of the map. The filing of the amended Declaration of Covenant and Restriction Common Roadway with the Suffolk County Clerk and, upon filing, the recording of the liber and page number upon the final map. The required amendments include: Please replace clause 10 with the following language; "Access from Long Creek Drive to Lot 5 shall only be permitted over a 15 foot traveled roadway to and from the 16 foot wide stone drive right of way (unnamed) as shown on plat dated as revised March 8, 2004. Please add the clause; "Access to Lot 6 shall only be permitted over a 15 foot traveled roadway to and from Pond Avenue and over the roadway known as "Old Mill Path" as shown on plat dated as revised March 8, 2004. Please refer to and include a legal description of the proposed Common Roadway as Schedule A to the Road and Maintenance Agreement. Prior to any construction activity, the project will require a General Permit for Storm-water Runoff from Construction Activity (GP-02-01) administered by the New York State Department of Environmental Protection (DEC) under the Phase II State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Program. Please submit written proof from the Southold Fire District and Southold Building Inspector that the 14' width of the access "Common Roadway" from Long Creek Drive is acceptable for emergency purposes. The submission of a performance guarantee for improvements in the amount of $26,075 and administrative fee in the amount of $1,564.50 to this office. Town Board approval is required for the bond estimate and performance guarantee prior to any final approval. 5. Submission of 3 mylar and 8 paper plats with Suffolk County Department of Health approval stamp. Note that the Planning Board is requiring that the proposed 10' wide traveled roadways serving Lots 5 and 6 be widened to a minimum 15' in width to meet town code. Final approval cannot be issued until a response from the Suffolk County Planning Commission is received and the comments are adopted, adopted with changes or denied. It is the Planning Board's understanding that construction vehicles will not use Old Mill Path to access Lots 5 and 6. The Planning Board also requests that you submit a proposed name for the common roadway to be approved by the Highway Superintendent. Chairperson Woodhouse: Mark, is there an addition? Mark Terry: There is an addition. Chairperson Woodhouse: OK. Now I am going to read the first part, and I will not repeat the second part. I will just say "as previously read." This is the actual Resolution: The Southold Town Planning Board, at a meeting held on Monday, May 17, 2004, adopted the following resolutions: WHEREAS, this proposal is to subdivide a 79.71 acre parcel into 6 residential lots where Lot 1 equals 46,653 sq. ft.; Lot 2 equals 87,939 sq. ft.; Lot 3 equals 111,690 sq. ft.; Lot 4 equals 64,469 sq. ft.; Lot 5 equals 45.58 acres, inclusive of 44.$8 acres upon which Development Rights will be sold, and a 1.19 acre building envelope; Lot 6 equals 25.61 acres, inclusive of 22.23 acres upon which Development Rights will be sold, and a 1.37 acre building envelope and Lot 7 equals 2.10 acres upon which Development Rights will be sold to the County of Suffolk. The total area of Development Rights sold equals 52.01 acres; and WHEREAS, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services granted approval on the plat dated as amended April 4, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Suffolk County Water Authority issued a Letter of Water Availability on May 30, 2003; therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board adopt the report submitted by the Office of the Engineer, dated May 12, 2004. Bill Cremers: I second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: All in favor? Board Members: Aye. Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? That motion is carried. And RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board adopt the bond estimate, dated May 12, 2004, in the amount of $26,075.00 together with an Administrative Fee in the amount of $1,564.50 and recommend the same to the Town Board. Bill Cremers: I second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: All in favor?. Board Members: Aye. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion carried. And RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant preliminary approval on the plat dated as revised March 8, 2004, with the conditions that I outlined previously. Bill Cremers: I second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: All in favor? ]3 Board Members: Aye. Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? This motion carries. I will entertain a motion to close the Hearing. Bill Cremers: so move. Richard Ca.qq~ano: I second. Chairperson Woodhouse: The Hearing is again closed. Yes? Mr. Car[er: I have a question on access to Lot 5. Could you read it again, I am sorry, I didn't understand this. Chairperson Woodhouse: OK. It says access to Lot 5 shall only be permitted over the traveled roadway to and from the 16' wide stone drive ROW unnamed as shown on plat dated as revised March 8, 2004. Mr. Car[er: There was another clause in there about Mill Path and Pond Avenue. Chairperson Woodhouse: That's access to Lot 6. Shall only be permitted by the traveled roadway to and from Pond Avenue and Old Mill Path. Chairperson Woodhouse: thinkwe're done. There being no fur[her business to adjourned. come before the Board, the meeting was Respectt'ully submitted, Linda Randolph, Secretary ~'~rilyn B.~Voodhouse, Chairperson .~CEiVED JUN t8 2004 -