Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-10/04/2004PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair RICHARD CAGGIANO WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES October 4, 2004 6:00 p.m. MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Sou~ho!d Town Clerk Present were: Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson Richard Caggiano, Member Kenneth L. Edwards, Member Martin H. Sidor, Member Mark Terry, Senior Environmental Planner Anthony Trezza, Senior Planner Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer Carol Kalin, Secretary SETTING OF THE NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETING Chairperson Woodhouse: Good evening and welcome to the October 4th meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board. The first order of business is for the Board to set Monday, November 8, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, as the time and place for the next regular Planning Board Meeting. Mr. Ca.q.qiano: So move. Mr. Edwards: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Before we begin, I'd like to tell you that there are agendas out in the lobby if you haven't received one. There will be opportunities for the public to address the Board when we deal with each of the individual applications. I ask that, when you want to address the Board, that you please come up to either of the podiums, speak your name and where you're from and if you would write your name down on the piece of paper - preferably if you would print it so that we would be able to print it better as we transcribe our public records. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairperson Woodhouse: 6:00 p.m. - Cutcho.que Harbor Marina - This proposed site plan is for an existing marina to include 18,029 sq. ft. of existing buildings, 120 existing boat slips, 92 existing parking spaces, 4 buildings including 1 apartment, 1 single family dwelling, office, bathroom and accessory building on a 3.9 acre parcel in the MI Zone located at the intersection of West Road and West Creek Avenue, on the west side of West Creek Avenue, in Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-110-1-12 We've had numerous pieces of correspondence which are in the file for you to look at and there have been a series of meetings between the Civic Association and the Marina. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? Lawrence Willis: I am the current owner of New Suffolk Shipyard and the proposed buyer of Cutchogue Harbor Marina. I just want to put in perspective where we think we are in this process and what has transpired to date. A purchase contract was signed over a year ago for Cutchogue Harbor Marina. The money has been escrowed since that time subject to getting an approved site plan which was not in place at the time that we went to contract. New Suffolk Shipyard took over operations when that contract was signed even though we don't own the property at this point. We've made significant improvements, I believe, in the operation and I've made significant investments in the property even though we haven't purchased or closed on that property to date. think people who have been in there over the past year have seen some major improvements made. We agreed at the time that we signed the contract, knowing the problems that the current owners have had in the past in dealing with the Town and in dealing with issues surrounding that property, we said we would take it upon ourselves to work with the Town, work with the Association to gain the approval of a site plan so that we could complete the transaction. The contract for sale is on the verge of expiring so we need to come to a resolution fairly quickly on what's going to happen. We've tried to address all issues outstanding over the past year. I don't know how many versions of the site plan have been prepared. Each time an issue has been raised, we've dealt with it. We've gone back through the correspondence and the issues over the past fifteen years. We believe we have addressed every issue that has been raised over that period in the site plan or through commitments that we have made to additional changes related to the property. We have secured DEC approval for everything that's there. There are permits in place for all buildings, all dockage - everything there has DEC approval, Building Department approval. Everything is in place. We've gone through dye testing which was requested by the Trustees. That has been done and we're submitting those results. New Suffolk Shipyard, in submitting the revised plans, agreed to fund the cost for the changes that are reflected in the site plan that you have now. Originally, this was supposed to be an as is application for a marina that has been 2 operating essentially as it exists today for twenty or thirty years. The plans that are actually in place now reflect some fairly major changes from what exists now. We've committed to making those changes. There are expenditures associated with that that the current owner said they would not address. I have stepped in and said I will make whatever changes we have reflected in that plan take place. It's our intent going forward to continue to work with the neighborhood associations and with the Town to make this the best operation going in the area. If we can't close, we're basically going to have to turn the operation back over to the current owners. They do not have the financial wherewithal nor the management expertise to run that facility. I think that was evident by the condition that that facility was in when we took it over. If we turn it back to them, it's likely that it's going to go down hill again. I will be out in excess of $100,000. in capital improvements that we've made if we turn it back to them because we know it's just going to fall apart again. It can't be sold without an approved site plan so, if it's turned back to them, we're just in a situation where they'll run it into the ground. If they do get an approved site plan in the future, it will be a difficult process, because they're not intending to make any investments. It would be required to get approval. They've indicated that they would fight anything going forward but, if they do get a site plan in place, I do have right of first refusal in buying it. But the only use for that facility is as a marina and the only value as a marina to operate according to the site plan that you have today is in a situation where there's an owner that has another facility in very close proximity. The only way that marina can be run economically going forward, per the site plan that you have, is if the service work is done elsewhere which I can do through New Suffolk Shipyard and have been doing. If it's sold to another operator, the revised operation is going to be a much more commercial service-oriented operation in order to make that economically viable. So, I just wanted to go through where we are and some of the history. We're prepared to continue to work with folks to get this done but we have to get closure fairly quickly because the contract is expiring. Thank you. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board? Mr. Huntington? Ray Huntington, Cutchoque: I'm speaking for the Fleet's Neck Property Owner's Association. It's been a very, very long road that we've been on with some turns that we expected and some that we didn't expect but I think we've come to a point where we can see the end of the road if we're not right at it. So, that's very good that we've achieved that so far. We have reviewed the site plan earlier on and made a number of comments. We have reviewed again the second time most recently. I will make those comments right now. That would be on what we expect would be the final site plan. The perspective owners, whom which we've just heard from, have been operating this marina and doing a marvelous job. They are good neighbors. We trust that the Planning Department has checked the proposed site plan with respect to the requirements, including those noted in the Planning Department letter to Mr. Irving of the 16th of March, 2004. We anticipate that the perspective buyers will conduct operations and facilitize(?) in accordance with the Town Code. They seem to be those kind of people so that's great. With reference to the site plan, we make the following specific comments: Lighting - We request that your resolution require that the perspective owners eliminate the flood lights mounted on the 22-foot pole near Slip 80. Incidentally, I'll be able to give you this in a minute. These were not installed to any applicable code. This may be done as the new owners modify the lighting to conform to their needs and the Town Code. We understand that they will be making certain adjustments that they regard as being needed and can be done at the same time. Drainage - We're not experts in this matter but we are concerned that the 22 proposed parking lot leaching pools may not be of value. They may really be a negative factor in the salt water flooding which happens on average of once a year and that flooding may disturb the fresh water lands that service nearby homes not hooked up to Suffolk County Water. Further, since the sub-straight is almost horizontal and rainwater percolates well here, the earth-moving disturbance may simply be not worth it. The hay bales also seem superfluous given the grade. But, since we are not experts, we really make no comment beyond what I've just said, that we're just wondering whether it's really necessary to go through with all that. We are concerned about the damming of gutter flow of a ramp that's been extended into the road but we're taking that up with the Highway Department and hope to get resolution that way. Water Supply - We would ask you to note in your resolution that the site plan note that says "water pump cable access" refers to power and piping for an off-site well located at 2805 West Creek Avenue. In other words, across the street. Landscaping - The landscaping plan is acceptable and we anticipate the details on the northern border will be worked out with the contiguous neighbor. Moving of the wooden curb on the southwest corner where there is an encroachment on Town land doesn't really seem necessary. It bothers no one and, if the move is made, it may destroy three trees that are in the area. Members on the hill east of- members of our Association, that is - on the hill east of West Creek Avenue, enjoy the water view and hope that the necessary plantings are topped occasionally. We do not expect that that would be a requirement in the site plan but we did want to say that as a function of reviewing the site plan. Parking - We assume that parking areas equate to trailer and winter boat storage limits. That's where the cars would be parked. That's where the boats would be stored. We appreciate the No Parking sign provided by the perspective owners. They've done this as a courtesy to we in the neighborhood. If this continues to work, we do not plan to request the Town to dedicate No Parking signs on this only 33-foot wide street. In other words, progress there as well. In closing, we want to say that we are supportive of rapid approval of this site plan. Nothing above that I've mentioned should serve to delay approval. We believe that the successful and beneficial operation of this marina is aided by expeditious approval of the proper documents. If anything that we have said in this testimony tonight will do 4 anything to delay the approval of this site plan, we would really like to know about it because we want to see it happen. Thank you. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you and to the Association for all its' hard work on this particular application. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board on this application? (No one asked to be heard.) Are there any questions or comments on the part of the Board? Hearing none, Ill entertain a motion to close this hearing. Mr. Edwards: So move. Mr. Sidor: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. (The public hearing was closed at 6:17 p.m.) Mr. Edwards: Madame Chairman, I'd like to entertain the following: WHEREAS, the applicant proposes a site plan for an existing marina to include 18,029 sq. ft. of existing buildings, 120 existing boat slips, 92 existing parking spaces, 4 buildings including 1 apartment, 1 single family dwelling, office, bathroom and accessory building on a 3.9 acre parcel in the MI Zone; and WHEREAS, Cutchogue Harbor Marina, Inc. is the owner of the property located at the intersection of West Road and West Creek Avenue, on the w/s/o West Creek Avenue, in Cutchogue, SCTM#1000-110-1; and WHEREAS, on January 9, 2004, a formal site plan application was submitted for approval; and WHEREAS, on March 29, 2004, the Cutchogue Fire District found adequate fire protection for this site plan and the Planning Board has accepted this recommendation; and WHEREAS, on April 1,2004, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services granted a waiver for the non-community public water supply and the Planning Board has accepted this recommendation; and WHEREAS, on April 15, 2004, the Architectural Review Committee reviewed the architectural drawings and associated site plan materials in accordance with its recommendations of January 29, 2004 and April 15, 2004 and determined they were satisfactory; and WHEREAS, on May 10, 2004, the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (6 NYCRR), Part 617.6, performed a review of this unlisted action, and as lead agency, made a determination of non-significance and granted a Negative Declaration on June 15, 2004; and WHEREAS, on July 21,2004, the Southold Town Trustees reviewed the application and issued a Permit Number 5965 with conditions and the Planning Board has accepted this; and WHEREAS, on August 30, 2004, the Southold Town Engineer reviewed and approved the proposed drainage with conditions and the Planning Board has accepted his recommendation; and WHEREAS, on August 30, 2004, the Southold Town Building Inspector reviewed and certified the site plan; and WHEREAS, on September 21,2004, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation reviewed the site and indicated the subject marina is in compliance with recent Permit Numbers 1-4738-0096/00017 & 1-4738-00096/00011 and the Planning Board has accepted this; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Chapter 58, Notice of Public Hearing, has received affidavits that the applicant has complied with the notification provisions; and WHEREAS, the following items are incorporated and included in the site plan: That Cutchogue Harbor Marina, Inc. provide two 15' wide drainage easements centered on each of the existing culvert pipes to allow for the continued maintenance of these pipes by the Town Highway Department. The applicant agrees all outdoor lighting shall be shielded so that the light source is not visible from adjacent properties and roadways. Lighting fixtures shall focus and direct the light in such a manner as to contain the light and glare within property boundaries. The heights of the existing lights are to be modified to meet the Town Code requirements or that Town Zoning Board of Appeals relief be sought. 3. All signs shall meet Southold Town Zoning Codes and shall be subject to approval of the Southold Town Building Inspector. WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant conditional final approval on the site plans prepared and certified by John T. Metzger, Surveyor, dated October 30, 2003 and last revised September 15, 2004, subject to fulfillment of the following requirements: 1. Final approval by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. 2. Submission and execution of a drainage easement between the owner and the Town of Southold. These requirements must be met within six (6) months of the resolution and if Cutchogue Harbor Marina, Inc. fails to adhere to these requirements within the prescribed time periods, this approval shall become null and void. Mr. Ca.qgiano: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Thank you. Chairperson Woodhouse: 6:05 p.m. - Elysian Field - This proposed major subdivision is for 5 lots on 37.85 acres where Lot 1 equals 1.83 acres, Lot 2 equals 1.83 acres, Lot 3 equals 1.83 acres, Lot 4 equals 1.83 acres and Lot 5 equals 28.40 upon which a Conservation Easement was granted to the Peconic Land Trust and includes a 2.09 acre building envelope. The property is located n/o Main Road in Southold. SCTM#1000-75-2-2 Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Joseph Fristachil 45300 Main Road, Southold: I live right across the street. I'm here because I'm concerned - I feel that if they put Lot #5, there's rumors that there may be a winery over there. That would be terrible for my property - myself. I bought the house as a retirement home and I don't know what's going to be with the traffic and everything that's got to go through it that's going to be approved. I don't know if I have to contact an attorney or the Board could take into consideration the fact that I have property over there and the traffic would be unbearable. That's it. Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you. Would you like to address that issue? O.K. We have someone who can answer your question. Mr. Fristachi: Please. Tim Caufield, Peconic Land Trust: Good evening. I'm here on behalf of the owner and in support of the application. I can quickly address that concern. They are rumors - there are no plans for a winery in that area at all. As is stated in the resolution and on the plan, it's a building envelope. It's not a residential building envelope. There are only 4 residences allowed on the entire plan. The building envelope on the Main Road is simply to leave the area for agricultural structures. But, again, there's no specific plans for a winery at all that we're aware of. We just needed to leave the opportunity for ag. structures of any type there whether it's a farm stand for flowers or an orchard or what have you. Thank you. Joseph Fristachi: Anything that would be retail would create a traffic mess on a road that's too narrow to hold the traffic. We have a problem now with the traffic. I don't know what kind of structure - I don't understand what that envelope means but I'd like to know that my property will be protected from the traffic that I see a couple miles up west on a Saturday when they do all kinds of things to bring the people here. I understand - they have to do it. They're in business and the economy enjoys that, too, but I don't want me to be in a mess over there with traffic where I bought the house to retire one of these days and then I find out that I won't be able to live there. Mr. Caufield: I do appreciate the concern but I just want to, for the record - again - state that the application that's being reviewed tonight is simply for the subdivision. There's no site plan. There's no consideration for any type of use at this point in time in that location at all. The rest of the property is perpetually protected and, what could have been an 18-1ot subdivision with a major road and a lot of traffic coming and going, is now forever not going to be something that could ever happen on that property. So, we've protected 75% of the property and we're looking forward to the Planning Board moving forward with the application as expeditiously as we can. Thank you. And I'd be happy to talk to any neighbors at any time. You can feel free to give Peconic Land Trust a call and we'd be happy to provide additional information about the conservation easement and the protections that are in place. Please feel free to call us at any time. Mr. Fristachi: Thank you. Thank you to the Board, too. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. So, just to make it clear, there's nothing before this Board concerning any structures. We're only looking at the subdivision and the protection of the agricultural portion, the large portion. Mr. Fristachi: Thank you. Ms. Woodhouse: Are there any other comments - anyone else who would like to address the Board on this issue? (There were none.) Are there any questions or comments from the Board? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Edwards: So move. Mr. Sidor: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. (The public hearing was closed at 6:25 p.m.) Mr. Caggiano, would you please read the resolution? Mr. Caq.qiano: WHEREAS, this proposal is to subdivide a 37.85 acre parcel into 5 lots where Lot 1 equals 1.83 acres, Lot 2 equals 1.83 acres, Lot 3 equals 1.83 acres, Lot 4 equals 1.83 acres and Lot 5 equals 28.40 acres upon which a Conservation Easement was gifted to the Peconic Land Trust and includes a 2.09 acre building envelope; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board granted conditional sketch plan approval by resolution, dated August 10, 2004, on the map dated as last revised July 23, 2004; and WHEREAS, since granting conditional sketch plan approval, the Town Board enacted a Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to a new Chapter A106-Subdivision of Land of the Code of the Town of Southold" on August 24, 2004; therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant conditional preliminary plat approval on the map, dated as last revised August 13, 2004, subject to the following conditions: 1. Clearing calculations pursuant to Chapter A106, Section A106-56, of the Town Code need to be shown for each lot on the map. 2. The "common driveway" turn-around should be re-located so that it bisects the property line separating Lots 3 and 4. The submission of a proposed ownership of the right-of-way and a Road and Maintenance Agreement between future property owners for the common driveway. The submission of a New York State Department of Environmental Protection SPEDS General Permit for the action or a covenant and restriction mandating the securing of the permit prior to any construction activity. 5. The submission of a Road and Drainage Plan for the common driveway. 6. The submission of a bond estimate for the improvements of the common driveway. The submission of a draft Covenant and Restriction prohibiting direct access to and from Lot 5 onto State Route 25. Access to Lot 5 shall be from the 50' wide right-of-way. 8. The submission of a Curb Cut Permit from New York State Department of Transportation. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Chairperson Woodhouse: 6:10 p.m. - Ore.qon LLC/Morell LLC - This proposal is to subdivide a 52.91 acre area comprised on SCTM#1000-83-2-11.5 and SCTM# 1000- 83-2-12 into 7 lots where Lot 1 equals 80,143 sq. ft., Lot 2 equals 84,221 sq. ft., Lot 3 equals 80,195 sq. ft., Lot 4 equals 1,269,413 sq. f. which includes 1,229,393 sq. ft. proposed for Development Rights Sale to the County of Suffolk and a 40,020 sq. ft. building envelope, Lot 5 equals 80,112 sq. ft., Lot 6 equals 80,698 sq. ft. and Lot 7 equals 530,275 sq. ft. and is proposed for a Development Rights Sale to the County of Suffolk. The property is located n/o Oregon Rd., at the terminus of Cox's La. in Cutchogue. SCTM#s1000-83-2-11.5 & 1000-83-2-12 We have had a number of pieces of correspondence and we have one letter where they have asked that we read it into the public record so, before we begin, I'll ask Anthony to read this letter. Anthony Trezza, Senior Planner: This is a letter submitted from Pauletta Jane Brooks and she writes: After viewing plans for the Oregon/Morell, LLC subdivision, I wish to voice objection to two aspects of the plan. Number One, no development site should be allowed on the corner of Dignan's Road and Oregon Road. A building of any sort would clearly destroy the scenic rural quality of Oregon Road and, basically, undermine the purpose of leaving a large area agricultural. Any and all building sites should remain clustered at the north end only of this planned site. Number Two, the access road to the six homes should be adjacent to the existing road now used by Corso and should not be allowed to infringe on the current Dignan's Road usage. Putting in utility poles, drainage systems, etc. will, once again, further ruin the rural nature of this area for those of us who now use Dignan's Road and for the farmers and homeowners who maintain it. Putting a hard surface road parallel to a dirt road would look and be ludicrous. Ms. Woodhouse: Would you like to address the Board on behalf of the applicant? Patricia Moore, Esq., 51020 Main Road, Southold: Good evening, Board and Madame Chairman. This is, as the Board knows, what is considered a conservation subdivision in which 75% of the property is preserved in agriculture. The interests of the property owner have been balanced with the interests of the community and most of the home sites - all of the home sites but one - will be north of the property. What has been reserved is a one-acre development - reserved - area which, ideally, would be suited for a farm house, a house very similar to those homes that are already in place on Oregon Road. It's in character with Oregon Road. Most of the farms out here have the 10 farm houses on Oregon Road and they till the fields behind their property so it seems that the design was appropriate in keeping with Oregon Road. With respect to the road, the road was placed adjacent to an area that is already an active road site - again, trying to preserve the integrity and the contiguous nature of the farming, that being the primary goal that this Board has expressed. We have created what is a right-of-way area and, the road that is being proposed, is actually east of the existing road. We are not interfering in any way with the existing road - I guess they call it Dignan's Road. That road will not be affected in any way. We are keeping - the way this was designed by Mr. Ingegno is there is, in fact, the utility pole(s) - east of the utility pole(s) is a vegetated area - a 10-foot vegetated area - and then is our road. So, it has been placed in such a way that we will not interfere in any way with the road that is adjacent that gives access to several properties west, northwest, of the subject piece. The road, as it originally had been proposed, was bisecting the property and, as the Board knows, that was not favored. This was the more appropriate location and the applicant conceded with that request. I'm here to answer any questions that the public may have and we thank you for your courtesy. Chairperson Woodhouse: Is there someone else who would like to address the Board? Yes, Sir? William Killen, 2710 Di.qnan's Road: You've all seen the map, which frankly I've just seen really for the first time this week. I object to the house at the end of the road but, more importantly, I object to the absolutely - I can't understand placing a developed road within ten feet of a road in which there are seven or eight homes. I happen to live on that road year round. I'm concerned about drainage. I'm concerned about the general loss of the look of the area. I have trouble understanding why the placement of the road in a different spot other than along Dignan's Road parallel - exactly parallel to Dignan's Road - makes no sense to me. It may make sense to the developer but no sense at all to me and, if you lived on that road, you would probably understand my position on this. I think I share my position with those other people who are here tonight who also live on the road. There are other concerns. First of all, I mentioned the drainage issue. The residents of the road pay to take care of the road. We have it graded and we have sand added to it four times a year in order to maintain the look and the condition of the road. I've been on that road when it hasn't been well maintained, when it's been virtually impossible at times during the winter to get out. So, we put a lot into that - into maintaining that road today. We are - just in general - concerned about what's going to happen with the utility poles. Are they going to be maintained there; are they going to be buried? We also wonder how the water situation is going to be handled for that area. We, right now, are in an area where we're on Town wells and the water is not in good shape. I have questions to whether or not water is going to be brought in to that area that would be made available to the people who live on Dignan's Road. I don't know whether that's been a consideration but, the fact is, we really haven't heard anything about this until this week and that's a bit disturbing. We would like to perhaps have heard a little bit more about this in advance of this session. Anyway, those are my comments. There may be others who want to make similar comments. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. Patricia Moore, Esq.: Madame Chairman, do you want me to go over the design of this road because there seems to be some misunderstanding of its placement? Would that be appropriate? Ms. Woodhouse: Please. Ms. Moore: O.K. For anyone who wants to look at this map, you're welcome to look at it with me. There is the road and then, from our survey, it appears that there is about ten feet to the property line - to our common property line. Then you have guy wires and utility poles that run on my client's property. Within the area, there is from the property line which is already ten feet from your road, the guy wires on the poles exist. Then there is another five feet of buffer so you're now fifteen feet and then the road begins. The area of the road would begin fifteen feet from our property line or about twenty-five feet from your road. William Killen: Can I ask a question? Ms. Moore: Sure. Mr. Killen: You said that the poles are ten feet from Dignan's Road? Ms. Moore: I'm looking - no, the poles, right now, as I see the survey because the surveyor has to identify our property line - the poles that are shown on this survey are actually on Lot 4, on our property. Your road is to the west of the property line and it appears - now, the surveyor is mapping the road and is looking for encroachments mostly. There is no encroachment of your road. It goes, for the most part, parallel to our property line and approximately, give or take, ten feet more or less from the edge of your road to the property line. Inaudible Comment from Mr. Killen in Audience: ...... Ms. Moore: The survey - that may be where you believe it to be but the surveyor has mapped it somewhere else. Mr. Killen from Audience: I've lived there for five years and driven up and down that road. Chairperson Woodhouse: O.K. I just wanted to say that, if you want to make a comment, we can't pick it up and we need to have your comments on the public record. So, if you would like to address that - Mr. Killen: I'm sorry. I just want to make the point that I don't believe - I think the utility poles are virtually right on the road at some parts of the road. Ms. Woodhouse: Have you had an opportunity to look at the survey? Mr. Killen: Only a picture. Ms. Woodhouse: I would suggest, if you could, that you take a look at the survey so that you are both looking at the same information. Would you put it on the table here? Ms. Moore: Oh, sure. Ms. Woodhouse: Look at it and then, if you want to comment, please go to the microphone. We'll take a five minute recess so that any of you who would like to come up and look at this map, can take a look at it. - Recess - Ms. Woodhouse: I believe there were some other people who wanted to address the Board. Yes, Madame? Nancy Butkus: I'm also a resident of Dignan's Road. I have a letter here that some of us wrote over the weekend because, I guess you know, none of us were really on top of how far along this development plan had proceeded. I guess there's a couple things - the main one, yes, we are upset about the road because we feel like, if Lou wants to develop his property, that's obviously within his rights, but, you know, we wish he would put the road near his road. You know, we feel like we're paying the price aesthetically and probably financially in terms of our own road maintenance. I do think it would look weird to have this sort of lovely rural dirt road next to this gravel road that, whether it will be five, ten or fifteen apart, it certainly is not going to look good. I guess all of us feel like Oregon Road is one of the sort of last bastions out here - you know, just capturing the rural character of the North Fork. I know the Town and the County have done a lot to preserve it and bought up a lot of the rights and their wonderful vistas and you see bicyclists and tourism. It's priceless. So, we're resigned to the fact that we're happy that Lou is going to save 75% and we'll have the houses along the north border but, I guess, besides the road, we're also concerned about the house on the corner. If we knew that there was going to be a period 2,000-foot shingled farmhouse on that lot, that would be one thing but there is no guarantee. Even down Oregon Road, at this point, you can drive down and you can see a house that was put on a diagonal with an above-ground pool that now looks abandoned because it's just so outrageously out of character and, you know, there are no guarantees that we're going to get a wonderful little farm house on that lot. We may end up with a Barbie dream house or something. I don't know. I think the other thing that we're very concerned about is the water. I think we all do live in something called the plume and we have our water tested. The idea of public water, to me, just means it's going to invite more development. I know Mr. Manzi is bringing water down to develop what is now a farm field and then Lou is going to develop his and then what's next? And before you know it, all this effort to preserve these open spaces - you know, once water becomes available, I just fear that there's no stopping what can happen. So, I think that's another issue we're concerned about - the bringing of the water, the road that will be parallel and close to our road which we don't think will look very good and then, finally, the house on the corner which could end up being God knows what because there really is no guarantee that we're going to get a lovely farm house. It sounds great but we know that chances are, it probably won't happen that way. Now, I just want to read a letter that, again, some of our neighbors - I'll give it to you. It's signed by a half a dozen of us: We understand the partnership Oregon/Morell has planned to sell the Development Rights of 75% of its' two lots on Oregon Road and then develop five housing lots on the northern border plus the sixth lot at the corner of Oregon and Dignan's. Any development of these fields will represent an additional loss of Oregon Road's priceless rural character, a matter I'm sure the Planning Board is aware of. But development of the solitary lot at the Oregon-Dignan's intersection would be grossly harmful to the preservation efforts that the Town has earmarked for the Oregon vista. The land to the east, west and north of this lot has or is to be preserved and, except for the single period farm house, there are no other houses on the north side of Oregon all the way down to the eastern end of it. A new, inevitably out-sized house at this intersection will destroy the joy of seeing and feeling the agricultural history of Southold that this uninterrupted vista of field upon field now affords. We urge the Town to reject this proposal in the interest of preserving the future of Southold's link to its very rich past. David Auchincloss: I'm actually married to Nancy Butkus and I agree with all of the objections that have been brought up, certainly about the house out on Oregon Road. That seems to me a real subversion of what's trying to be accomplished in the first place with the purchase of Development Rights. I want to ask something in particular about the road and that is whether the development people that are involved here have explored the possibility with the owners of either Dignan's Road, who I think is here tonight, or the road that is shared by several people including Mr. Corso and Mr. Steele - I don't know who owns that road - whether there's been any exploration of using that road for the northern development area, to serve either one of those roads. In other words, so that we don't wind up with still more roads penetrating those fields. Have I made my question clear? Chairperson Woodhouse: Yes, I understand your question. I think we'll ask Ms. Moore if she could comment on that, please. Patricia Moore, Esq.: Sure. The owner of the road to the east is Mr. Steele. That road - or the land underlying the road - is owned by Mr. Steele. The property owners to the north have right-of-ways over that property. There is not a very good working relationship with Mr. Steele so I doubt that that would be available to us. We have suggested early on a placement of this road between the two parcels. That was acceptable to the applicant but the reason that was rejected is that there was a belief that, since the farm land had already been bisected by this road on the west, that it was more appropriate to place an adjacent road parallel to an area that was already disturbed. So that's the reasoning behind placing the road where it's been proposed. The alternative site was a favored site by the applicant. Certainly, they would have no objection to it but the Planning Board - it would not be consistent with this Board's policy of trying to maintain contiguous farmland. So, we've tried to balance everyone's interests and this was the more appropriate location. Ms. Woodhouse: I think the question that was just asked right now was have you approached the people who use Dignan's Road to see if they would be interested in granting access over that existing road. Ms. Moore: No, I have not - we have not approached them. There are how many property owners? (discussion with Ms. Moore & audience) We have not broached it because we didn't know the answer to those questions. We can certainly talk. I don't know what my client, how he would feel about the placement of the road there. I think if it's mutually beneficial for everyone, then we'd consider it. Otherwise, this is the proposal. I'm always open to discussion and I promise that, after we close, if you wouldn't mind holding up for a few minutes, then we can talk. We'll get an idea of how he feels about it. Essentially, where you have a property owner and six people that have rights over it, I would not want one person to interfere with an additional six property owners using this road. I would want to be sure legally that I had the consent of everyone involved because we would be increasing the use of the right-of-way that, generally, you can't do without consent of those that have the rights to it. So that was - it seemed like a large task at the time it was suggested and, given the magnitude of that project, we didn't undertake it. But, if there is 99% of everyone that is here, we'll talk. Mark Terry, Sr. Environmental Planner: Just to clarify that question - the Planning Board, early in the concept design stages, did propose to the applicant to reach out to the land owner of that road and combine the right-of-ways in order to prevent this road from going in. We were told that wasn't a possibility and the Planning Board has since reached out for some alternatives which led us to - the Planning Board - to locating the road where it is at its' present location. Unidentified Person in Audience: You said it was not- Ms. Woodhouse: Excuse me. You have to come - could I just repeat - the information that the Planning Board had at its disposal was that it was not a possibility to use the road that you are suggesting tonight. The information we were told was that - from the applicant - was that it was not a possibility. Ms. Moore: Legally, we cannot impose our road on you. We would need consent of all of those - the person who owns the road and, certainly, the people who have a right to use that road. If we have a mutual agreement from everyone, that's something else but, at the time, we had nothing legally that could force us to have a road re-located or shared by using your common road. We can't do that. If everybody is here, again, we will talk. Ms. Woodhouse: O.K. So, what I hear you saying is that issue might be discussed further at this point. Ms. Moore: Well, we will discuss this and - Ms. Woodhouse: The position of the Planning Board took is we were opposed to adding a new road right down the middle of the field and bisecting that existing field for many of the reasons that have been discussed here tonight. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board on this issue? Yes, Sir? Greq Boyd: I live on the corner of Cox and Oregon Road, adjacent to the property and I, basically, agree with the subdivision. I think it's a great idea. I love the preservation. It's going to be good but the road thing is a big issue and I think if the parties can get together and combine the right-of-way into the access into the new subdivision on the north end, it would be in the best interest of the people who live on Dignan's Road and also your local emergency service in town - the fire department and ambulance services - Dignan's Road in the winter time is sometimes inaccessible. I'm a volunteer fireman. We've had alarms down there - it's very hard to access it and we have to travel at a very slow rate of speed. So, if the developer and the people who own the right-of-way and the Dignan people can all get together and make one road and improve it, it would beneficial, I believe, to everybody. Thank you. Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board? Yes, Madame? Patricia Moore, Esq.: I just want to put something on the record. If we approach the idea of a shared access, there has to be an understanding that maintenance of that road is as important as the development of the road and one of the reasons - another reason - that generally you don't have an owner trying to get into a situation where there's already six property owners using a road, is that the condition of this road tells me that there's no agreement on the maintenance of this road. Chairperson Woodhouse: I would ask that you direct your comments to the Board and I think some of those conversations with the residents would need to take place outside of this hearing. Ms. Moore: Because this Board is asking us to make that overture - to talk with them - I think it should be made clear that the Planning Board, when they create a road, is as concerned as the applicant to make sure that the road is maintained for the reasons that this gentleman raised about continued fire and emergency access. A road is fine being cut through. It's ten or fifteen years down the line - Ms. Woodhouse: We would review that the way we would review any road in terms of its suitability. Ms. Moore: True. Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you. Is there someone else who would like to address the Board on this issue? Yes, Madame? t6 Jo¥ce London: Hello. I'm also a tenant on Dignan's Road. I own the property at the very, very end of the road. I've been isolated from a lot of my neighbors. I'm happy to say that I'm meeting and knowing neighbors for the first time. My parents bought the property in 1946 so I've been there for years. I have an infinity for the road and the fact that it's a dirt road and it's a farm road and that it's, you know, always been as it's always been. It was shocking just to see the planning and this meeting this evening and all of these changes. I'm sure they haven't happened quickly to you but, for us on the road, you know, it's really something we hadn't foreseen. I guess we'd foreseen it but we certainly never anticipated that anything would happen quite so quickly. In any case, I just wanted to say that I was opposed to the parallel road and am just here to voice my solidarity with my neighbors. I hope we can reach some kind of agreement that everybody is comfortable with. I just am not sure about Dignan's Road. I mean, we don't own Dignan's Road so I don't know whether we have any say in saying that we can share the road with this new plan because, as far as I understand, we don't own the road. I mean, it's just in the last couple of years because of the water run-off, we've joined together and contributed to maintain the road and this is just a very new development in terms of maintaining our own Dignan's Road. I think we have to delve further to see who can give the right-of-way away from Dignan's Road, being that we don't own it. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. Mark Terry: Madame Chair, can I go ahead and explain a little bit further about what Pat was talking about as far as the ramifications of creating a common easement to serve these lots? Ms. Woodhouse: Yes, please. Mr. Terry: If you chose to - is the land owner here of the road - the right-of-way? Ms. Woodhouse: Would you like to address the Board? David Zuhoski: My brother, Steven, and myself own the farm just west of the proposed development there. I do own the right-of-way. As far as maintaining the road, I really don't know whose problem it is. I know it's been a problem in the past. When it snows, it drifts there terrible. I'm the owner of the right-of-way so if she wants to talk to me after the meeting, that's fine. Ms. Woodhouse: O.K. Mr. Zuhoski: Thank you. Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you. Mr. Terry: Just to go a little bit further, Pat was essentially correct when she says that, as far as Planning Board maintenance agreements go, what they do require is the pro- rate of maintenance costs over as many lots as the right-of-way is serving. For instance, everybody would take an equal share. In a case like this, the road is 20 feet ].7 now. It would most likely be required to be improved to a 16-foot stone-blend road if the Planning Board is able to obtain approval from the Town Engineer and the Highway Department to do so. It would be stone blend which means obviously stones over crushed concrete. There's a road that was just put in to the east of this parcel that serves a very large home and if you want to take a look at what something like this would look like, that would be something to go out and visit. Ms. Woodhouse: Yes, Sir? Please re-state your name. William Killen: I think that this can't be approved tonight. There are too many questions here that affect a lot of people on this road - too many uncertainties, not enough discussion. I understand the problem getting everybody to agree. I happen to pay to have that road plowed and opened up during the winter. Richie McBride does that for me and it costs me a lot of money - because I'm there and I know what it's like when it snows, when it snows badly. It's been within the past - as I said already - it's been within the past two years that the residents of the road have recognized that it's important to all of us that we take care of that road and maintain it properly so that it drains properly because there were times when it was almost impossible to move on that road - certainly with a normal car - and all-wheel drive occasionally would even get stuck. There are too many questions here tonight that we raised that have not been answered. People haven't talked to each other. I don't know how this could be approved tonight. It would be, in my mind, unfair to the residents of Dignan's Road and you all can look at the picture. You know what it's going to look like. Something needs to be done to work out an arrangement. None of us object to Lou's building houses on the back side of that lot. That's his property. It's his to do it. We don't like the house - none of us like the house down at the bottom of the road and all of us, I think, are concerned about the ability of the access and the maintenance of what is a very nice North Fork atmosphere. The bottom line is the residents of the road who, I think, have a right to have - not to have their property disrupted by having something trumped down there that is out of character with the dirt road. Let's find a way to get together on the road issue that would be satisfactory to everybody. And - by the way - that won't be easy because we all know what it's like when you live out here. Not everybody agrees with every point. I just don't see how this can go forward, approved, unless we have a much more comfortable reaction on the part of the people who are really going to be very directly affected by having that road there and I, for one, am very concerned about my ability to access my home during the winter if we suddenly have something new put in next door. I don't know how it's going to affect the road. I don't know how it's going to affect the drifts. I'd like to have somebody make me comfortable about that. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. Mr. Killen: Thank you very much. Ms. Woodhouse: Someone else? David Auchincloss: I'm just eager to know a little bit about what the process is exactly from here on out. You have a proposal. It's consistent with Mr. Killen's question. Is it just an up or down vote now on the part of the Planning Board and then it goes - Ms. Woodhouse: No, this is a public hearing and the purpose of the public hearing is for us to get the in-put from the public on a proposal that is before us for discussion. And we, as a Board, have the opportunity to hold the hearing open, to close the hearing to ask for further information. Mr. Auchincloss: O.K. Ms. Woodhouse: Very soon we will weigh the information that we have heard tonight and we will make a decision and it will be public and you will hear our decision. Mr. Auchincloss: O.K. Thank you. Anthony Trezza, Sr. Planner: If I could add just one thing - this is also the preliminary plat approval so there's also the final plat approval stage part of this }rocess where they would have another opportunity to speak in a public forum. Patricia Moore, Esq.: My understanding of the conservation subdivision is that you're trying to get away from the numerous public hearings. That's the whole reason you're trying to convince people to participate in a conservation subdivision. So, I just wanted to respond to that more public hearings. We've heard the comments tonight. We're certainly - certainly, I am and I'm sure my client is - amenable to listening to their thoughts and suggestions. We would actually consent or request that you leave the hearing open. I would like an opportunity to discuss it with them. I want to consider the different options. Our road takes out 72,000 square feet of our property. That is a significant deduction from our development so it may be in everyone's interest that the road - we use their road. I don't know if it's possible. There are so many legal hurdles to making that possible. It really takes an effort on their part as well if they want to see one road and they're agreeable as a group that the road has to meet certain minimum Town specifications and those are 16 feet in width, certain crushed stone material, you waive trees and things like that. That's never been an issue. It's more of having the road be passable throughout the year. That's important to everyone. It's important to us. It's important to them. But I can't have somebody who thinks that a 6-foot wide one lane road made with dirt is suitable. I can assure them that that's not going to be acceptable for this developer or this property owner. It's not safe and it's not appropriate. We have six property owners that we have to worry about having safe access so if they're not willing to come to the table with a road that may be what we've proposed here in their place, that's something to consider. You've got the utility poles there already. You've got an area that's already been cut through. It's a question of the improvements of the area of the road that's there but there have to be certain minimum requirements and that's something that the Board would certainly never approve of a road that is of the condition that their road is today. If we can make their road better with cooperation - if it's a common access and, as I said, it works for both sides - that's something that we should all consider. Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you. Any further comments on this application? Yes, Sir? Tim Steele: My wife and I and sons own the property to the east. I would like to state that I object to this whole thing in its entirety. I don't understand why all of these house lots have to be two acres approximately. I don't see the need for the house on the corner of Dignan's and Oregon Road. I would invite the entire Board to come visit me and my farm on a frozen ground winter day when it is raining. The entire south end of these two farms is under approximately two feet of water or less or more which can probably be dealt with if it just drains down Cox Lane. All of Lots 5 & 6 and a portion of the farm to the south and to the west drain into my basement and have done on a couple of occasions of which Mr. Corso and his family refused to remediate or to help solve. So, I'm wondering why are the lots so big? Why can't they be one acre and clustered towards the center of the property on the north end and why can't this one lot on Dignan's and Oregon Road be eliminated? There's absolutely no need for it. He's getting a whole lot of money for the Development Rights from the County supposedly and I think that's a simpler solution. I don't think he needs six lots or seven lots or seven houses. Let's have three or four, each on their own acre. That's all. I'd just like to state that I object to it entirely. Thank you. Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you. Any further comments? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to hold the hearing open. Mr. Edwards: Based on the concerns of the people we heard from tonight, I'd like to entertain a motion to keep this hearing open. Mr. Caq.qiano: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Thank you. The hearing is held over. Chairperson Woodhouse: 6:15 p.m. - Elements of Nature - This proposed site plan is for alteration of an existing 2,606 sq. ft. two-story single-family dwelling into a 28-seat restaurant and three-bedroom tourist house with personal services and alteration of three existing accessory buildings as follows: 470 sq. ft. frame shop, 1,188 sq. ft. barn & 381 sq. ft. garage into storage without water or sanitary facilities on a 1.962 acre parcel in the HB Zone located approximately 425' east of Boisseau Avenue, on the north side of State Road 25 (Main Road), known as 56125 Main Road, in Southold. SCTM#1000- 63-3-10 Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Yes, Sir? 20 Michael Miller: I purchased that property just about a year ago from the Albertsons. I pretty much did this whole site plan for the proposal of a small cafb in the main house. turned four bedrooms into three bedrooms for an inn kind of a bed and breakfast type feel for an inn. There will be, for the inn guests, spa services available in the rooms. I kept the integrity of the property and the house pretty much as is. It's now about one year since we started the whole application process. We've gotten our permits from the Health Department, the DOT and so forth and so on. I guess this comes to the public hearing part. I want to thank the Board and Bruno especially for going through the process with me. It was quite a learning process for me, needless to say, but I'm here. Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you. Mr. Miller: Thank you. Ed Pressler: Good evening. I own the property just west of the applicant for some twenty some odd years. The improvements that he has been making right along have been a compliment to him. We're very comfortable with what he's doing and I'd like to see this whole process go through for him. ~ think it's an asset to the community and we welcome it. Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board on this application? Hearing none, I'~1 entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Edwards: So move. Mr. Ca.q.qiano: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. The hearing is closed. (The hearing was closed at 7:14 p.m.) Mr. Edwards: I'd like to entertain the following motion: WHEREAS, the applicant proposed a site plan for alteration of an existing 2,606 sq. ft. two-story single-family dwelling into a 28-seat restaurant and three-bedroom tourist house with personal services and alteration of three existing accessory buildings as follows: 470 sq. ft. frame shop, 1,188 sq. ft. barn & 381 sq. ft. garage into storage without water or sanitary facilities on a 1.962 acre parcel in the HB Zone; and WHEREAS, Michael Miller & Ors. are the owners of the property located approximately 425' e/o of Boisseau Avenue, on the n/s/o State Route 25 (Main Road), known as 56125 Main Road, in Southold, SCTM#1000-63-3-10; and WHEREAS, on December 24, 2004, a formal site plan application was submitted for approval; and 2! WHEREAS, on January 12, 2004, the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (6 NYCRR), Part 617.6, performed a review of this unlisted action, and as lead agency, made a determination of non-significance and granted a Negative Declaration on March 8, 2004; and WHEREAS, on May 17, 2004, the New York State Department of Transportation issued the Case Number 04-167P for the Work Permit Application; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 2004, the Southold Fire District found adequate fire protection for this site plan and the Planning Board has accepted this recommendation; and WHEREAS, on August 3, 2004, the Architectural Review Committee reviewed the architectural drawings and associated site plan materials and determined they were satisfactory; and WHEREAS, on September 1,2004, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services received an application and issued approval under Reference Number C10-03-0017; and WHEREAS, on August 30, 2004, the Southold Town Building Inspector reviewed and certified the site plan; and WHEREAS, on September 17, 2004, the Southold Town Engineer reviewed and approved the proposed drainage and the Planning Board has accepted the recommendation; and WHEREAS, on October 1,2004, the New York State Department of Transportation issued the Work Permit; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Chapter 58, Notice of Public Hearing, has received affidavits that the applicant has complied with the notification provisions; and WHEREAS, the following items are incorporated and included in the site plan: 4. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded so that the light source is not visible from adjacent properties and roadways. Lighting fixtures shall focus and direct the light in such a manner as to contain the light and glare within property boundaries. The lighting must meet the Town Code requirements. 5. All signs shall meet Southold Town Zoning Codes and shall be subject to approval of Southold Town Building Inspector; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore 22 RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant final approval on the site plan prepared and certified by Joseph A.. Ingegno, dated May 14, 2004 and last revised August 11,2004, and authorize the Chairperson to endorse the final site plans subject to a one year review from the date of the building permit. Mr. Ca.q.qiano: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Thank you. Chairperson Woodhouse: 6:20 p.m. - Bedell Cellars - This amended site plan is for expansion and addition of 4,602 sq. ft. to an existing winery on a 49.32 acre parcel in the A-C Zone located on the n/s/o NYS Route 25, approximately 566' e/o Bridge Lane on NYS Route 25, known as 36225 Main Road, in Cutchogue. SCTM#(s)1000-85-2- 10.2,10.3 & 97-1-25.1 Is there someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? Nancy Steelman, Samuels & Steelman Architects: I'm here to answer any questions. The application is fairly straightforward. We're adding a covered tasting area and an extension to the production facility. Can I answer any questions? Ms. Woodhouse: I do have one letter where the writer has asked that we read it into the public record so I will read the letter and you might want to comment after I've read that letter. And it's addressed to the Planning Board: To Whom It May Concern: This letter is written in response to the notification of a Planning Board Meeting to be held October 4, 2004 with regard to a proposed expansion at the Bedell Cellars Winery located at 36225 Main Road, Cutchogue. My sister and I own the parcel of land immediately adjacent and west of the winery. We are writing this letter and we are requesting that it be read into the minutes of the meeting as our response to the application for expansion in lieu of our presence as we are unable to attend and we have no representative who can be present. If there are any questions about the letter, you may contact me by telephone at 607/278-5148. Our family has owned the property on the Main Road in Cutchogue for almost 200 years. Our uncle sold what is now the Bedell Cellars property to John Bedell in 1978. Since then, we have watched the winery grow and be added to grow more. There have been some additions that we have had personal objections to but we also understand and respect that things need to move forward and change is a part of growth and so we have not, in the past, objected. This new change proposes an addition to the parking area and a new septic system as well as a wastewater processing system and all of this will be basically in our back yard. At this point, we feel we must object. There is a lot of property available at the winery for alternate placement. We object to all the changes being so close to the property line. In addition to this issue, another concern is, with an added septic system, how long will it be before we have more buildings in our back yard as well. In a separate issue related to this change, we already have people from the winery who decide that our back yard trees would be a great place to picnic and have had to, on several occasions, ask people to leave our property. We also have children (not particularly well supervised) running through our back yard even though there are property markers. Is the winery prepared to address this issue? If we already have a problem, how much more will we have if people are even closer to our property line? We realize we are two small voices against the winery, their money and influence in terms of bringing some commerce into the community, but at what cost? They already have a large operation there. They paved paradise and put up a parking lot - this is what they are asking us to accept and we must object. We respectfully ask the Board to turn down the project as proposed and do an alternate site plan. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, JoAnne F. Bragonier and Linda M. Price Nancy Steelman: Well, I think what I've gathered from that - we got a copy of that letter today also - I think the one point regarding the sanitary system and the wastewater system - that has now been approved by the County. That meets all of their requirements in terms of distance off the property line. It meets the - it's over 200 feet to their well. 150 is required. So, there is nothing that they're going to have any effect on. If it's all buried, they will not see it. They will not experience that for the sanitary or the wastewater system. I'm not sure of their concern with that. We've also - on the site plan, as you can see, there is a row of cedars that we are going to be installing that, we feel, is at least one edge - a substantial edge - that should protect them, at least visually, from their property looking over to the new expansion area and the parking. So, we did try - we were very concerned about that. We knew that that was an issue. There currently are - and she refers to markers - now, they have a series of small sections of split-rail fence to try to at least to note that there is an edge to the winery property. That might be something that we might want to expand. We might be willing to do something like that. Those are at least the concerns that I can see from her letter. Chairperson Woodhouse: You have had a conversation with these property owners to date? Ms. Steelman: No, I haven't. We just got this late this afternoon so there was no discussion with them. They have gotten things from us in the past. Every time we have come for a site plan approval, things have been sent to them. This is the first time that we've heard that there were problems with people entering on to their property. 24 Ms. Woodhouse: I would assume that they have not then looked at the site plan and seen where the landscaping is going to be proposed. Hopefully, you will be able to communicate that to them. Ms. Steelman: Yes, we definitely can and, if we need to extend that to a certain degree, we can also do that. Ms. Woodhouse: So, you would be willing to do that to mitigate people going over to their property and making a demarcation? Ms. Steelman: Yes, we definitely would. Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board on this? (No one asked to be heard.) Is there anyone on the Board who would like to comment or ask a question? Hearing none, I will ask for a motion to close this hearing. Mr. Edwards: So move. Mr. Caq.qiano: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. The hearing is closed. (The hearing was closed at 7:20 p.m.) The resolution for this will be read by Mr. Caggiano. After a brief discussion between the Board, Planning Staff and Ms. Steelman regarding the language for the resolution, the following motion was made by Mr. Caggiano: Mr. Caq,qiano: WHEREAS, the proposed site plan, to be known as Bedell Cellars Expansion 5/04, is for an expansion and addition of 4,602 sq. ft. to an existing winery on a 49.32 acre parcel in the A-C Zone; and WHEREAS, Bedell North Fork LLC is the owner of the property known and designated as 36225 Main Road, located on the n/s/o NYS Route 25, approximately 566' e/o Bridge Lane on NYS Route 25, a.k.a. 36225 Main Road in Cutchogue, SCTM(s)t000- 85~10.2, 10.3, and 97-1-25.1; and WHEREAS, on April 3, 2002, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services approved a Permit Number C10-01-0012; and 25 WHEREAS, on June 7, 2004, a formal application for approval of this site plan was submitted; and WHEREAS, on June 15, 2004, the Architectural Review Committee reviewed and approved the site plan and the Planning Board has accepted the recommendation and condition; and WHEREAS, on September 13, 2004, the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, performed a coordinated review of this Unlisted Action. The Planning Board established itself as lead agency, and as lead agency, made a determination of non-significance and granted a Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, on September 14, 2004, the New York State Department of Transportation reviewed the project under the case #04-243P and indicated that this does not require a Highway Work Permit and the Planning Board has accepted this recommendation for approval; and WHEREAS, on September 17, 2004, the Southold Town Engineer reviewed and approved the site plan and the Planning Board has accepted his recommendation for approval; and WHEREAS, on September 23, 2004, the Cutchogue Fire District indicated no fire well is needed and the Planning Board has accepted the recommendation for approval; and WHEREAS, on October 4, 2004, the Southold Town Building Inspector reviewed and certified the site plan; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Chapter 58, Notice of Public Hearing, has received affidavits that the applicant has complied with the notification provisions; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant final approval on the site plan prepared and certified by Nancy Steelman, Architect, dated May 21,2004 and last revised June 24, 2004, and authorize the Chairperson to endorse the final site plans with the following condition and subject to a one year review from the date of the building permit: 1) All outdoor lighting shall be shielded so that the light source is not visible from adjacent properties and roadways. Lighting fixtures shall focus and direct the light in such a manner as to contain the light and glare within property boundaries. The lighting must meet the Town Code requirements. 2) Extend the split rail fence on the west side to NYS Route 25 from where the evergreen screening ends to the road. 3) Add additional landscape evergreens to the north on the west side of the parking lot up to the point where the property boundary turns west. 4) Install split rail fence on the southwest property line from the evergreen shrubs to the furthest west property line. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Thank you very much. Chairperson Woodhouse: 6:25 p.m. - North Fork Custom Audio/Video - This amended site plan is for alteration of an existing building of 1,785 sq. ft. on a 1.16 acre parcel in the B Zone located on the n/s/o New York State Road 25, approximately 4,755' e/o Aldrich Lane, in Mattituck. SCTM#1000-125-1-19.7 there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application? James Fitzqerald, for the Applicant: Yes, I would. First, I would like to talk about the description of the project. This is the way it started off. Way back at the beginning when we submitted the original application, it appeared that there was some sort of chance that there would be a speedy resolution to the thing. It was the owner's interest in renovating the what we now call Building #1 and to get his business started. When it became apparent that that wasn't going to work, it also became apparent that, I think, that there was to be more universal in the scope of the plan in that it now includes all of the facilities and structures on the property. And, of course, the main thing which isn't indicated here was - again, at the beginning - was the use that we were intending and, of course, the fact that there apparently never had been an approved site plan from time in memorial. Anyhow, the plan which we have submitted to the Planning Department and have been submitting additional information all along, calls for two structures - two businesses, for which we have a ZBA approval, and again, all along we have been submitting information what we now refer to as Building #2, the building in the back - the floor plan, existing and proposed, the parking, parking schedule on the site plan and so forth. The bottom line of what I'm saying here is that I would hope that the project, in your mind, includes everything that is on the drawings that we have provided which includes all the information necessary for the building in the back which we have described as a contractor business and yard. My Point #2 is that we do not have the written approval from the New York State DOT yet. However, I believe that the engineer reviewer has spoken to Mr. Semon and indicated that his review found it to be acceptable and we're waiting for his boss, who apparently writes very slowly, to sign the letter which he has prepared and which will tell us that it's o.k. And that's all I have. 27 Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address us on this application? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Caqqiano: So move. Mr. Edwards: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. The hearing is now closed. (The hearing was closed at 7:32 p.m.) We'll read the resolution. Mr. Sidor: WHEREAS, the applicant proposed an amended site plan for alteration of an existing building of 1,785 sq. ft. on a 1.16 acre parcel in the B Zone located; and WHEREAS, FHV, LLC is the owner of the property known as 6619 Main Road located on the n/s/o New York State Route 25, approximately 4,755' e/o Aldrich Lane, in Mattituck, SCTM#1000-125-1-19.7; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2004, a formal site plan application was submitted for approval; and WHEREAS, on June 15, 2004, the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (6 NYCRR), Part 617.6, makes a determination that the proposed action is a Type II and not subject to review; and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2004, the Mattituck Fire District found adequate fire protection for this site plan and the Planning Board has accepted this recommendation; and WHEREAS, on August 3, 2004, the Architectural Review Committee reviewed the architectural drawings and associated site plan materials and determined they were satisfactory; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2004, the New York State Department of Transportation issued the Case Number 04-163P for the Work Permit Application; and WHEREAS, on September 17, 2004, the Southold Town Engineer reviewed and approved the proposed drainage and the Planning Board has accepted the recommendation; and WHEREAS, on October 4, 2004, the Southold Town Building Inspector reviewed and certified the site plan; and 28 WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Chapter 58, Notice of Public Hearing, has received affidavits that the applicant has complied with the notification provisions; and WHEREAS, the following items are incorporated and included in the site plan: 1. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded so that the light source is not visible from adjacent properties and roadways. Lighting fixtures shall focus and direct the light in such a manner as to contain the light and glare within property boundaries. The lighting must meet the Town Code requirements. 2. All signs shall meet Southold Town Zoning Codes and shall be subject to approval of the Southold Town Building Inspector; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant conditional final approval on the site plans prepared and certified by John C. Ehlers, Surveyor, dated June 13, 2004 and last revised September 21,2004, subject to fulfillment of the following requirements: 1. Final approval from the New York State Department of Transportation for all work improvements proposed. These requirements must be met within six (6) months of the resolution and if FHV, LLC fails to adhere to these requirements within the prescribed time periods, this approval shall become null and void. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Hearings Held Over From Previous Meetings: Chairperson Woodhouse: Silver Nail Vineyards - This proposed site plan is for a new winery building of 5,477 sq. ft. on a 21.5019 acre parcel in the A-C Zone located on the n\s\o New York State Route 25 approximately 3,612' e\o Peconic Lane, in Southold. SCTM#(s)1000-75-2-15.1 & 15.2 Mr. Caq.qiano: 29 BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby holds the public hearing for Silver Nail Vineyards open. Mr. Edwards: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Chairperson Woodhouse: ~ - This proposed major subdivision is for 7 lots on 20.8211 acres. The property is located on the south side of Main Road, 150' west of Sigsbee Road, in Mattituck. SCTM#1000-122-7-9. Mr. Caqqiano: WHEREAS, the above application is a major subdivision without an executed conservation component; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a waiver from Local Law Number 3; and WHEREAS, the request was denied by the Town Board; be it therefore RESOLVED that Local Law Number 3 was adopted at the regular meeting of the Southold Town Board on August 13, 2002 entitled "Local Law in relation to a Temporary Moratorium on Processing, Review of, and making decisions on applications for Major Subdivisions, Minor Subdivisions and Special Use Permits containing Dwelling Units in the Town of Southold" and therefore no comment can be accepted or action can be made on this application. Mr. Edwards: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. MAJOR AND MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, LOT LINE CHANGES AND SET- OFF APPLICATIONS Final Determinations: 3O Chairperson Woodhouse: Nicokim - This proposed minor subdivision is for 3 lots on a 27.877 acre parcel. The property is located on Little Neck Road, 92.76 feet s/o Eugene's Road, with 201.78 feet of frontage on Skunk Lane, in Cutchogue. SCTM#1000- 97-8-31.4 & 38.2 Mr. Edwards: Ill entertain the following: WHEREAS, this proposed subdivision is for 3 lots on 27.2 acres where Lot 1 equals 80,043 sq. ft., Lot 2 equals 80,294 sq. ft. and Lot 3 equals 24.19 acres inclusive of an 80,095 sq. ft. reserve area in the R-80 Zoning District; and WHEREAS, 21.23 acres of Development Rights were sold to the Town of Southold on March 3, 1986; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board classifies this subdivision as a Conservation Subdivision pursuant to Chapter A106; and WHEREAS, the Suffolk County Department of Health issued a permit for the action on July 24, 2003 and updated October, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Suffolk County Water Authority issued a letter of water availability on July 2, 2003; therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant final approval on the plat, last revised on May 3, 2002, and authorize the Chairperson to endorse the plat. Mr. Ca.q.qiano: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Setting of Final Hearings: Chairperson Woodhouse: Harbes, Edward III - This proposal is to subdivide a 42.37 acre parcel into two lots where Lot 1 is equal to 15.61 acres, inclusive ora 7.52 acre building envelope, and 8.08 acres of which Development Rights will be sold to the Town of Southold; Lot 2 equals 26.76 acres, inclusive of a 2.85 acre building envelope, and 22.46 acres of which Development Rights will be sold to the Town of Southold. The property is located n/o Sound Avenue, 2,174 feet w/o Bergen Avenue, in Mattituck. SCTM#1000-112-1-7 Mr. Edwards: I'll entertain the following: 3! WHEREAS, this proposal is to subdivide a 42.37 acre parcel into two lots where Lot 1 is equal to 15.61 acres, inclusive of a 7.52 acre building envelope and 8.08 acres of which Development Rights have been sold to the Town of Southold; and Lot 2 equals 26.76 acres, inclusive of a 2.85 acre building envelope and 22.46 acres of which Development Rights have been sold to the Town of Southold; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board classifies this subdivision as a conservation subdivision pursuant to Chapter A106; and WHEREAS, the Seuthold Town Planning Board granted sketch plan approval on the maps dated, as revised, March 16, 2004; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A106, Section A106-18, the preliminary plat review is hereby waived for this conservation subdivision; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A106, Section A106-60, the Park and Playground Fee for conservation subdivisions has been reduced to $3,500.00 per buildable lot not improved with an existing single family residence; and WHEREAS, the Suffolk County Department of Health issued an exemption stamp on August 27, 2004; therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, November 8, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. for a final public hearing. Mr. Caqqiano: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sider Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Sketch Determinations: Chairperson Woodhouse: I will recuse myself as I am a party in the next matter. Will someone please read the resolution? Mr. Caq.qiano: Woodhouse, John & Jerilyn - This proposal is to subdivide an improved .97 acre parcel in the R-40 Zoning District into two lots where Lot 1 equals 22,250 sq. ft. and Lot 2 equals 19,904 sq. ft. The Zoning Board of Appeals issued an area variance on April 17, 2003 (Appl. No. 5218). The property is located at 95 Navy Street (n/w corner of Navy Street and Bay Avenue) in Orient. SCTM#1000-26-1-12 Mr. Edwards: I'll entertain the following: 32 WHEREAS, this proposal is to subdivide an improved .97 acre parcel in the R-40 Zoning District into two lots where Lot 1 equals 22,250 sq. ft. and Lot 2 equals 19,904 sq. ft.; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals issued an area variance on April 17, 2003 (Appl No. 5218) for the action; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board classifies this subdivision as a Standard Subdivision; and WHEREAS, both Lots 1 and 2 are improved with a single-family residence, landscaped and located in a high density residential neighborhood; therefore, be it RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section A106-63, the Planning Board waives the requirements of Section A106-11, Item A, B, C and D; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, do an uncoordinated review of this Unlisted Action. The Planning Board establishes itself as lead agency, and as lead agency, makes a determination of non-significance and grants a Negative Declaration; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant sketch plan approval on the maps, dated as revised July 20, 2004. Mr. Caqgiano: Second the motion. Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor (Ms. Woodhouse abstained.) Mr. Caq.qiano: Opposed? The motion carries. Sketch Extensions: Ms, Woodhouse: Doroski Family Limited Partnership - This proposed minor subdivision is for 4 lots on 40.56 acres where Lot 1 equals 99,316 sq. ft., Lot 2 equals 103,823 sq. ft., Lot 3 equals 80,000 sq. ft. and Lot 4 equals 34.06 acres. The property is located south of Sound View Avenue, + 170' west of Hope Lane, Southold. I'll read this one: WHEREAS, this proposal is to subdivide a 40.56 acre parcel into four lots where Lot 1 equals 99,316 sq. ft., Lot 2 equals 103,823 sq. ft., Lot 3 equals 80,000 sq. ft. and Lot 4 equals 34.06 acres upon which the Development Rights on 33.16 acres have been sold to the Town of Southold; and WHEREAS, the Town of Planning Board granted conditional sketch plan approval on April 14, 2003; and WHEREAS, the applicant sold the Development Rights on 33.16 acres to the Town of Southold with an expectation that the applicant would later be permitted to realize a yield of three building lots; and WHEREAS, a wetlands discrepancy led to a dispute over the permitted yield of the parcel leaving the applicant unable to meet the conditions of sketch plan approval within the permitted timeframe; therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a retroactive extension of time for conditional sketch approval effective October 14, 2003 until April 15, 2005. Mr. Edwards: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor?. Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. SITE PLANS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Type II Actions: Chairperson Woodhouse: Sang Lee Farms - This amended site plan is for the construction of a 5,640 sq. ft. agricultural storage building on a 14.36 acre parcel in the A-C Zone located at 25180 CR 48, approximately 781' e/o Bridge Lane, on the s/s/o CR 48, in Peconic. SCTM#(s)1000-84-5-1.2 & 1.3 WHEREAS, the proposed amended site plan is for the construction of a 5,640 sq. ft. agricultural storage building on a 14.36 acre parcel in the A-C Zone located at 25180 CR 48, SCTM#(s)1000-84-5-1.2 & 1.3; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (6 NYCRR), Part 617.5 © (3), makes a determination that the proposed action is a Type II and not subject to review. Mr. Edwards: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. 34 Chairperson Woodhouse: David Rose Perennials - This site plan is for a new 13,200 sq. ft. building with 1,600 sq. ft. of office space on the first floor, 1,600 sq. ft. of office space on the second floor and 8,400 sq. ft. of storage warehouse at grade on a 39.4 acre parcel in the A-C Zone located at approximately 1,807' s/o Sound Avenue, on the w/s/o Aldrich Lane, known as 5645 Aldrich Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#1000-120-3~11.12 Mr. Edwards: I'd like to entertain the following: WHEREAS, the proposed site plan is for a new 13,200 sq. ft. building with 1,600 sq. ft. of office space on the first floor, 1,600 sq. ft. of office space on the second floor and 8,400 sq. ft. of storage warehouse at grade on a 39.4 acre parcel in the A-C Zone located at approximately 1,807' s/o Sound Avenue, on the w/s/o Aldrich Lane, known as 5645 Aldrich Lane, Mattituck, SCTM#1000-120-3-11.12; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (6 NYCRR), Part 617.5 © (3), makes a determination that the proposed action is a Type II and not subject to review. Mr. Ca.qgiano: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sider Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Chairperson Woodhouse: North Fork Deli - This site plan is for a new 1,840 sq. ft. building with 857 sq. ft. for retail floor display, 729 sq. ft. for food preparation including a utility/bathroom and 245 sq. ft. of storage with no public access on a 0.22 acre parcel in the B Zone located on the n/s/o NYS Route 25 at the intersection of Legion Avenue and NYS Route 25 in Mattituck. SCTM#1000-142-2-22 WHEREAS, the proposed site plan is for a new 1,840 sq. ft. building with 857 sq. ft. of retail floor display, 729 sq. ft. for food preparation including a utility/bathroom and 245 sq. ft. of storage with no public access on a 0.22 acre parcel in the B Zone located on the n/s/o NYS Route 25, at the intersection of Legion Avenue and NYS Route 25, in Mattituck, SCTM#1000-142-2-22; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (6 NYCRR), Part 617.5 © (7), makes a determination that the proposed action is a Type II and not subject to review. Mr. Edwards: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Lead Agency Coordination: Chairperson Woodhouse: Malon, Stanley - This site plan is for a new 18,112 sq. ft. commercial center on a 1.2356 acre parcel in the B Zone located approximately 83.35' west of Cox's Lane, on the n/s/o NYS Route 25 (Main Road), also known as 32845 NYS Route 25, in Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-97-5-4.5 Mr. Edwards: I'd like to entertain the following: WHEREAS, the proposed action involves a new 18,112 sq. ft. commercial center on a 1.2356 acre parcel in the B Zone located approximately 83.35' w/o Cox's Lane on the n/s/o NYS Route 25 (Main Road), known as 32845 NYS Route 25, in Cutchogue, SCTM#1000-97-5-4.5; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Part 617, Article 6 of the Environmental Conservation Law acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, initiates the SEQR lead agency coordination process for this unlisted action. Mr. Caqqiano: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Chairperson Woodhouse: Hi.qh Wind Farm, Inc. - This site plan is for 22,451 sq. ft. of an existing building to be converted to a stable and riding academy with a 4,434 sq. ft. addition on a 53.8 acre parcel in the R-80 Zone located on the s/s/o NYS Route 25, at the intersection of Old Main Road and NYS Route 25, in Mattituck. SCTM#1000-122-7- 6.6 WHEREAS, the proposed action involves a 22,451 sq. ft. existing building to be converted to a stable and riding academy with a 4,434 sq. ft. addition on a 53.8 acre parcel in the R-80 Zone located on the s/s/o NYS Route 25, at the intersection of Old Main Road and NYS Route 25, in Mattituck, SCTM#1000-122-7-8; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Part 617, Article 6 of the Environmental Conservation Law acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, initiates the SEQR lead agency coordination process for this unlisted action. Mr. Edwards: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. I'd like to offer the following: RESOLVED that Martin Sidor be authorized to sign documents on behalf of the Chairperson, Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, while she is on vacation from October 12 to October 25, 2004. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Have a good trip. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Caq,qiano: So move,. Mr. Edwards: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 7:42 p.m. J~rilyn B.,Woodhouse, Chairperson Respectfully submitted, Carol Kalin, Secretary 37