Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-01/10/2005PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOL05ION PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 O~-~ICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 MINUTES January 10, 2005 6:00 p.m. Present were: Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson William J. Cremers, Member Kenneth L. Edwards, Member Martin H. Sidor, Member George D. Solomon, Member Valerie Scopaz, Town Planning Director Mark Terry, Senior Environmental Planner Anthony Trezza, Senior Planner Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer Victor L'Eplattenier, Planner Carol Kalin, Secretary SETTING OF THE NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETING Chairperson Woodhouse: Welcome to the January 10th meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board. The first order of business is for the Board to set Monday, February 14, 2005 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. Cremers: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor?. Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Two January 10, 2005 Before we begin our first public hearing, for those of you who are here for the first time, welcome. It's our first meeting of 2005. We do have a new Planning Board Member who has joined us. Welcome to George Solomon. For those of you who are here to speak on an application, you will have an opportunity to come and address the Board. There are two microphones in the room. There is a sign-in sheet. We ask that, if you address the Board, please print your name so that we can read it afterwards when you come and speak from the microphone. We have one public hearing scheduled tonight on Gatz Landscaping. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairperson Woodhouse: 6:00 p.m. - Gatz Landscaping, Inc. - This site plan is for the new construction of an 11,700 sq. ft. building for agricultural use on a 5-acre pamel in the A-C Zone located approximately 464' n/o Sound Avenue on a private right-of-way in Mattituck. SCTM#1000-121-1-4.6 Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? Peter Danowski, Esq.: Good evening. I am the attorney representing the Gatz Family. In attendance is Walter and Marilyn Gatz, Donald Gatz and the surveying firm of Young and Young, represented by Howard Young and Bob Tast. I believe this Board is certainly familiar with the application. You should be aware of the history here. There was a four lot subdivision granted called Green Pastures in which, potentially, four residential homes with accessory structures such as tennis courts and swimming pools and barns and garages would be allowed on each of the four residential lots. As part of the thought process here with the Gatz Family, Donald Gatz and his wife, Jackie, have built and reside on one of the lots. Walter and Marilyn are currently building a residential home at the far end of one of the residential lots. That leaves the two remaining lots plus the open space areas around Walter and Marilyn's home to be farmed rather than building residential homes and accessory structures. So, although this site plan application relates to one 5-acre tract, as I indicated in a letter to the Planning Board, it is our thought process that we would prefer to farm the open space areas and erect an agricultural building on one of the lots rather than sell two residential - potentially residential - home lots with their necessary accessory structures. So, what we would be doing by approving this site plan, would be to put an agricultural building up consistent with the Agricultural Conservation Code, locating it on one of the lots and farming the remaining areas. I would also note that next door to us, to the east, is the Bissett Farm and we basically would do something very parallel to what is happening to the east. You would see nursery stock on much of the land and, if you note, I think at this time, Mr. Bissett is building a residential home and another structure on his property. It's a beautiful area. Farming is something that is clearly something to be desired and, whether it's nursery stock or grapes or potatoes, the end result is the use of open space that's consistent with our traditions here on the East End. Mr. Gatz comes from a farming family of twelve kids. He grew up on a farm in Riverhead. He's married to Marilyn who grew up this way as well. The Hamilton Family Southoid Town Planninq Board Page Three January 10, 2005 has resided here for a long period of time and their son wishes to continue and his ideas are, rather than going out and necessarily buying nursery stock, he may put Dad to work who is trying to get retired, although he might insist that he is still running the show, truly Donald is these days and Dad would be living next to the farm and would be able to continue to raise the nursery stock on the site. So, Young and Young developed a site plan consistent with your zoning as far as set backs are concerned, zoning regulations, and the site conforms to, not only zoning, but the State Fire and Building Code. So, we have been indicating we'd like to get in the ground with the agricultural building before it's too late to pour concrete. We've had some lucky weather. The Board started this process, I know, after review by the Building Department and certainly we'd appreciate an approval of this particular plan. If I can answer any questions tonight, I'm here to do that. We can answer any technical questions if they relate to Mr. Young's plan. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. Mr. Danowski: Thank you. Chairperson Woodhouse: Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board on this application? Richard Lark, Esq., Main Road, Cutcho.que, NY: I represent the owners to the south of this project, Lorraine Wolz and Joseph Onefrek who own the old Jens house which is to the south. I understand that the matter is before you because the Building Inspector certified the site plan for your approval, pursuant to 100-50 of the Zoning Code. At the outset, before we talk about the specifics of the proposed site plan, I want to point out some of the general regulations that apply to this thing - this proposed site plan - and point out that the regulations in the Zoning Code to grant site plan approval is to protect the established character and value of adjoining properties, both public and private, of the neighborhood in which they are located. That's 251b of your Zoning Code. In review and consideration of this site plan, the Zoning Code states that you have some objectives. Some of them are landscaping and screening for all seasons of the year from a view adjacent to a Residential District so that the proposed landscaping complements the site that you're involved with. I mention this only because the proposed 11,700 square foot commemial building in this location should be looked at quite carefully. I realize that your staff and all the referrals you've made under Section 254c have all signed off because the site plan, apparently on cursory review, meets technical requirements. But, I would like to cover a few specifics for your consideration. Is this proposed agricultural barn accessory to the proposed use of the presented nursery to you? Because I assume that the principal use of this 5-acre pamel will be for a nursery because that's what is permitted in the A-C Zoning District on this particular 5- acre lot. What I mean by principal building on the lot is, if it is the principal building on the lot, then it's entitled to be 35 feet high, which is what is presented to you; whereas, if it is an accessory use, it's only entitled to be 18 feet high. So, you're going to have to find out which is the principal use and which is the accessory use here. It goes on and Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Four January 101 2005 on and on under your site plan review because, if it's accessory, you're only allowed 4 off-street parking areas in the front yard, whereas, there's some 12 or more here. So, again, you have to consider what we're doing there. Now, taking these general principles, which I just mentioned, and what conditions would be reasonable for the Planning Board to put on this if it were to bring it to approval - would you put that no exterior lighting on the south and west side of the building so it wouldn't shine on this neighbor's property to the south? Would you allow no storage of fertilizer because that's what the Code says in the A-C District. You're not allowed to store fertilizer. I was surprised when I read that also. No outdoor storage is allowed so where's he going to put all his landscaping material? Since it is in a Residential District, what are you going to use for your restrictions of vehicles? Presently, your Code provides one commercial vehicle, not to exceed 20-25 feet in length to be stored outside and one commercial vehicle of 25 feet in length or less can be stored inside. O.K., so these are things - now, are you going to provide a landscape buffer?. This plan provides very minimal - they treat the south part of the building as 20 feet from the lot line which puts it right on Mr. Onufrak's and Ms. Wolz' property. The regulations call - the ordinance calls for the landscape buffer to prevent primary and visual intrusion to residential dwellings and we have a residential dwelling which is about 300 and some odd feet from the footprint of this proposed building. Does the requirement that the buffer area and all boundaries on the non-residential lot - how are they going to impact the residential lot? These are questions on how you are going to treat the buffering of this. From my view, this makes an excellent subway(?) into what we're approving here. If it's respectfully submitted, the plan you have before you is for a landscape yard and that places it, under our Zoning Code presently, in the Light Industrial District - not in an A-C District. This is a dilemma that you're going to have to deal with and, unfortunately, the present use of the premises, if any of you have seen it, today it is a landscape yard. You have large piles of dirt that's been trucked in there. It's not from the excavation of the proposed building. It's been trucked in there. You have a pile of landscape materials like wood chips and shavings that are used by landscapers piled there. So, you automatically have this now as been used as it. Now, I realize what the applicant proposed - this type of use is needed in this town. I understand that. I've lived here long enough and represented enough farmers in my life to know that. And they have to have a place to go - landscaping people and stuff like that. You can't always buy in an Industrial District. We need some kind of regulation that would allow this but yet would not impact residences within 300 feet of it - right next door to it - especially those industries like the Gatz Family is in are agricultural based. But, I think the Planning Board has to take a close look as to just what is going on here and what kind of protections that you have to think fifteen-twenty years down the line that this building, the impact it will have. And there is another added problem here, not only from the zoning point of view, it's been pointed out to me by the owner and he's an attorney - Joseph Onufrak - and he's going to speak in a minute, that in order to get this subdivision to where we are today, there were originally around 28 acres of which they made a small subdivision of two Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Five January 101 2005 properties and then made this subdivision, which you have in front of you that Mr. Danowski explained, of four 5-acre pieces. In other words, there were basically 5-acre pieces there. Regardless of minor subdivision requirements and everything, we're here today on it but, fortunately or unfortunately, the Gatz Family represented to you that this area, when they got your approval back in the '80's for a subdivision, would be residential lots. There's a Covenant on there right now of residential lots only. Mr. Onufrak will speak to that because he's a real estate lawyer. As it turned out, he's much more familiar of just how that's going to impact it. So, not only do we have a zoning question, we have a Covenant and Restriction question on use and, not that I'm suggesting a chicken and an egg situation, because I think this type of thing is needed - this is not the issue here - the issue is how you're going to site it, what's going to be your impact on it - where you're going to locate it. O.K.? There's no question that they are in the landscaping business and I have no doubt that they will plant the rest of this 5 acres, other than the square footage of the building and all the things that it has there in that site plan, in nursery stock but the question is - is it going to be used for anything else? Is it going to be used for storage of his heavy equipment in his contracting business and is it going to be all over the property - what restrictions are they going to have? The site plan before you, and the staff, have not addressed these issues and the reality of it is, he is not only in the landscaping and the contracting business, he obviously needs a home for his equipment and everything. I recognize that but, again, this is an ^-C District and is this the principle use or is this what makes it then a Light Industrial situation or is this an accessory use? O.K.? That's something that has to be and you have to live with the magnitude of its size and scope of the site plan in relationship to the size of the nursery and what he's going to be doing and not doing. And, believe it or not, you have the power to ask all those questions and to either say yes or no and also to put various restrictions on there that would be in conformity with the over-all principles that are in the zoning ordinance for site plan. O.K., at this time, not to take any more time, I'll give you Joseph Onufrak and he would like to talk to you about the Covenants. Joseph Onufrak: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'm an attorney and, more importantly, I'm the owner with my wife, Lorraine Wolz who is here, of the property to the south - to the southerly edge - of the subject area. I won't take a lot of time and I recognize that dates get tedious but there are a handful of dates that are very important because my attorney, Mr. Lark, has provided the appropriate reference point that makes sense to this larger picture. In the 1980's, to be brief, Frank Jens and his wife owned this land. This is the pink Victorian to the west of Cox Neck Road, to the west of Premium Winery. It's a rather well known house; it's in the video - the Chamber of Commerce video and it's appeared in a number of magazines. It's one of the oldest houses, the ...(inaudible) houses that's been restored in Mattituck. The house was undivided - it's actually nearly 30 acres. Within a very short - immediately after, when Mr. Jens wanted to sell, he was unable to sell, for reasons that I'm not clear on, without dividing the property up immediately so he Southold Town Planning Board Paqe Six January 10, 2005 entered Mr. & Mrs. Gatz who are here and Mr. and Mrs. Pufahl and bought all of the thirty acres together, as tenants in common under one deed. So, in 1982, when they purchased the property, there were four owners, one deed - 30 acres undivided. Within a handful of months - almost immediately, I should say - they entered into a joint venture agreement of sorts, a copy of which I do have that I can make available to the Board appropriately. Getting back, they agreed to arrange for the subdivision of the 30 acres and to discuss various possibilities as to how they would do the subdivisions. It appears they did two staged subdivisions as Mr. Lark alluded to. But at the same time that they did that, they're not agreeing. Mr. Gatz and Mrs. Gatz were given authority by the four of them, as is very common in business, to execute - to go ahead and put the applications in and, in fact, they made the applications to this Board and the agents and received approval for the subdivisions. Along with - ...(inaudible) to that, they entered into Declarations of Covenants and Restrictions, which are on the public record. Among the lots that they appear on, is my property - the 5-acre Pufahl Property. So, what happened in the '80's was, when they did the subdivision, they put the C & R - the Covenant and Restriction - on all the property. They then subdivided and Mr. Gatz and Mrs. Gatz wound up with 24 - approximately 25 - acres for simplicity sake and the Pufahls walked away with the 5 acres which comprised the house. I and my wife now own that Pufahl House. The Pufahls sold to the Davies(sp.?) and the Davies(sp.?) sold to my wife and I. That Covenant and Restriction sits on the record today. It sits on the record - the Pufahls and the Gatz held title on the public record until 1988. Whatever else they may have been privately doing, on the public record and in the records in the Town vault - excuse me, the Planning Board - on their public deed in 1988, the Pufahls and the Gatz combined owned, that acreage, on which a Covenant and Restriction is placed. That Covenant and Restriction says that the acreage is to be used for residential purposes. Moreover, problematically, because two other things - it says the Town of Southold has the right to enforce that Covenant and Restriction and most problematically perhaps for Mr. and Mrs. Gatz, is that I have the right to enforce it. A real estate attorney has the right to enforce the Covenant and Restriction that says his property rights must be run as a residence. Now, so in 1986, they put the C & R on, they convey out - in 1988 they finally break up the property that the Pufahls have. The Pufahls sell in 1994 to the Davies and the Davies title policy - and I'll show you a copy of the policy, if you'd like me to make it available - the record shows that the C & R is there. In 1997, they sell to my wife and I. So, where are we now? We have a Covenant and Restriction, essentially, that gives me the right to raise objections - not on a zoning basis but on the basis that this property should be maintained as a residence. If you were to come with me and buy my property today and we were to go out and ...(inaudible) diligence, we would look at the public record and we would look and say what are the environments around us and one of the things we would look at and say is my neighbors, what can they do with their property? ...(inaudible) under the law, what my neighbors were permitted to do ...(inaudible) was to only maintain residences. I expected that my property to the west would be developed ...(inaudible) with a magnificent home or that the Gatz - Mr. and Mrs. Gatz - were doing with their home or that Mr. Bisset appears to be doing with his magnificent home to the northeast of me. Or ...(inaudible) Lane is doing to the northwest of me. Problematically, unfortunately, this Board allowed Premium Winery to go up with a Southold Town Plannin,q Board Pa,qe Seven January 10, 2005 shed. Now, I'm faced with the possibility that, unlike residences which I could have reasonably...(inaudible), I'm now faced with the possibility of looking at a 12,000 square foot commercial building with parking spaces, shops, sheds, lighting - nothing like any of you would choose to see. That isn't what any reasonable owner would have bargained for. It isn't what the law requires for me to take and I would respectfully ...(inaudible) the Board to consider that, before this becomes more of a problem on a Town-wide basis - before I am forced to enforce my rights - that the Board step back and take a good look at what we're doing here. Today, I would appreciate it if you would hear from my wife who will give you some sense, who will show you some pictures of what we are faced with if you allow the building that the Gatz propose to put on there to go up. Thank you very much. Lorraine Woiz: Hello. This is my husband Joseph Onufrak and together we own the property in question. In consideration of the idea that the Planning Board can make decisions to alter- say, no but; yes, but - I believe that that's what you should be doing. You should be looking at exactly what's out there. Anybody that looked at that site and looked at what is proposed and looked at the 3-acre site that will be left to plant anything on and call it a farm and say that that building that's going up is going to be a barn for the agricultural site, it's absolutely incredible to even look at that and think that that's possible. There isn't any doubt that that's a commercial building. There's no doubt. If you look at it, you'll see that it is. I lived in Brookhaven Township some years ago and, at one point, my ex-husband and I had petitioned the Planning Board for a garage. We owned a little ranch house. We petitioned for a two-car garage and the Planning Board said no. They said no, we won't agree to a two-car garage because you have this little ranch house on an acre of property and it's very close to your neighbor's line and, even though your neighbor said it was o.k., we'll agree to a one-car garage because we think that that's big enough for you - for your house. That was their decision and, it seems to me that since Planning Boards everywhere seem to be able to think these things through and make those decisions, that you people who live in this Town and care very much about the way things are done, would appreciate that this requires a lot more thought. I'd like to show you some pictures to give you some idea about what we'll be looking at and what we have looked at for the past number of years. If you want to take a look at the dirt mounds that have been piled up higher than my barns for the past six years - we've allowed and not argued with and not fought with Mr. Gatz. This is the electric system for the little agricultural barn that's already in place, a rather elaborate electrical system for a barn. This is the site that's already planned out. These are the cement pilings. I'm not sure what they're for. I know that he has to have a rather elaborate cement slab to - I don't know - to house his little tractors, I guess, for the 3 acres of land that he's going to farm. This is a picture of our house from - a view from the southwest corner of the site. We have the same view from our house of the site. This stake is the southwest corner site marker and you can see it in reference to our property line which is at the corral fence. These other pictures are some of the same. The dirt mounds have been various sizes, by the way, over the years. At one point, the dirt mounds went the entire length of what we could see behind us and were taller than Southold Town Planninq Board Page Eiqht January 10, 2005 our barns. They sat there for years. This is the dirt mound that now stands behind our last barn in the back. These are from our upstairs. These pictures are taken from my upstair's bedroom window so that you can see that the stake that you're looking at is the southwest corner stake. And, if you could picture that stake turned into a building 32 feet high, try to picture what we're going to look at. We've been dealing with Sunday shotguns for three hours because there's skeet shooting in the back. We've never said a word. We've never complained; we've never said a single thing. We've dealt with the dirt piles coming and going, blowing onto my property, blowing into my screens and we've never said a word because we were trying to find a way to deal with our neighbors in as neighborly a fashion as possible. But, this is too much. Thank you. You can keep them (referring to the pictures). Ms. Woodhouse: We'll put them in the file. Thank you. Mr. Onufrak: Thank you for letting us be heard. Ms. Woodhouse: Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board on this application? Yes, Madame? Eve Kaplan: Hi. I'm a North Fork resident. I don't have any personal stake in this application and I'm not an immediate neighbor and I'm not sure, to tell you the truth, whether I know the Gatz or not so, certainly nothing against them and their business or their multiple businesses. I'm sure they're very productive, up-standing members of the community but when I saw a short article about this project, I think in the Traveler/Watchman, and it said something about a 12,000 - 11,700 square foot building, I thought to myself there's supermarkets this size that are prohibited in towns on Long Island and I do live just off Sound Avenue and I know that Sound Avenue and the area is Agricultural-Conservation zoning and it's meant to protect and produce a farming community, essentially, and a 12,000 square foot building is an unusual size for a farm building. There are some, I am sure, that exist that can probably be found in Southold and in Riverhead but, as I said, it's unusually large and particularly for a nursery of something like a few acres and really the main purpose of a building like that unless it was, you know, like a large potato storage or something like that, it's usually for heavy equipment, essentially, and why a nursery of 3 acres or so would need that amount of heavy equipment to be housed in a 12,000 square foot building, is not clear to me. Now, if the building somehow comes to be used to house landscaping equipment or the equipment of a landscaping business, one of the things that I looked into was, essentially, how landscaping is considered under the use codes and whether that would be something that would be allowed in the Agricultural-Conservation District which I'm sure you've also considered and staff has considered. Landscaping is considered an agricultural service. It's not agricultural production and, if you look for example, at the SIC Codes that the Building Inspectors use to determine what uses are allowed or not allowed, what would be permitted or special exception or just not permitted at all, it's agricultural service and, as such, it's not allowed and not a special exception use in the Agricultural-Conservation District. And to kind of bring that point one step further, Southold Town Plannin.q Board PaRe Nine January 10, 2005 landscaping is also often associated with landscape contracting which involves earth moving, grading, digging - all of which are perfectly valid things to do in the landscaping business and a lot of signs say landscaping, landscape contractor but that contractor use is really a Light Industrial use and, as you know, really needs to be in an area that's zoned for those kinds of activities. We have a problem, essentially, on the whole east end that there's a lot of demand for landscaping service and not a lot of land available for people running these businesses to put their facilities on. However, that doesn't mean that those businesses can necessarily just be allowed to take over farmland just because. It's not a farm; it's not a farm operation and it's certainly not looked at that way either under local zoning law and not under state or federal law either. So, just to summarize, I think that, if there's a valid need for a building as part of the site plan, I hope that the Planning Board will consider what the appropriate size of the building might be and might think about asking the applicant to make it somewhat smaller. I think half as large probably would be reasonable and, I guess, the last thing that had occurred to me was I don't know whether the applicant has a farm business right now as defined by New York State Ag. and Markets and, if they do, then they are certainly able to put up whatever building they need to on agricultural land. If they don't, then I'm not sure what legal right they would have to a building like this given that they don't necessarily really have a farm yet. By extension, anyone would be able to go onto farmland and build something allowed only by a farm without actually having a farm, if you follow me. Thank you. Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board on this matter? Peter Danowski, Esq.: I think some of the comments are well taken. Mr. Lark's comments that specifically addressed site plan issues - I certainly appreciate that this Board can condition the approval and I join in some ideas about comments concerning the numbers of parking spaces or the amount of drainage rings required or the amount of buffering that you might want to suggest. All the things are good planning concepts with regard to agricultural buildings and this is not commercial other than it's not residential. All right? So, I don't want to quiver with terms but certainly this is an agricultural barn application and Eve's suggestion, certainly she and I have either knocked heads or I certainly would disclose that I've represented her father in the past along with Mr. Robert Krudop in a Riverhead project- certainly I understand the concept of farming but what comes first, your barn or your farm? You own the land, you want to farm it, you want to make sure that the tractors and trucks will have a place to be stored inside a building and you want the approval of the building first. Is that such a bad idea for a farmer to get his approval first for his agricultural building? I don't think it is. I think it's very proper to come to the Building Department and ask for an agricultural barn. A lot of this sort of information that relates to other issues in the Town, I appreciate. As Dick Lark has mentioned, there may be all kinds of needs in the Town to re-visit the Town Code and talk about zoning provisions regarding contractor's yards and different zoning provisions within and without the Agricultural-Conservation Zone but I try to keep my eye on the bouncing ball. The issue here is should the Gatz Family be able to farm - and again, they want to talk about maybe 3 acres but, we're saying to Southold Town Planning Board Paqe Ten January 10, 2005 you, we're going to farm a larger tract of land because we own the adjacent parcels and we prefer not to put housing on them. So, I do appreciate the fact that Onufraks have kept their parcel well wooded. They haven't knocked down a lot of trees. I appreciate the fact that creates a buffer that's really good around their own home and their own accessory structures and I commend them for it. In fact, it provides a buffering in part from Sound Avenue and 25 so, my answer here is that we haven't asked for a building contractor's storage yard. We haven't asked for a landscape contractor's yard. Any other farmer that came before you, all right, if he wasn't in a business that related to the word landscaping, would you make every farmer that raised potatoes, that had a vineyard - would you say to him well, we're going to question whether you're a farmer? Would you say to him we're going to limit the size of your barn? Would you say to him that if your Town Code doesn't limit the size of the barn? All we're asking for is what the Code allows us to ask for in a building. We've been through the Architectural Review Board. They've looked at the building. If you want the lights, you know, shaded by means of implements so nothing can shine on the neighbor's property, I agree with that. I think that should be a natural thing to have happen on a piece of property. You don't want to interfere with lights shining at the neighbor's houses. That, I appreciate but the net result of your approving this plan will be no different than looking at the neighboring property, which, I think is a beautiful farm with nursery stock on it. Yes, with a rather large barn going on it and a rather large house but, what is wrong with that if it's permitted in the Town? And it should be permitted. So, all I'm saying is arguments that the Town may have with regard to other issues on other parcels of property that deal with contractor's storage yards - I may be sympathetic to a lot of those contractors and their issues and the Town should take them up. I'm not saying they shouldn't and they may apply in the Agricultural-Conservation Zone or the Light Industrial Zone or both. All I'm saying is grant reasonable conditions, approve the site plan as an agricultural barn. I want to be treated like every other agricultural user- no better, no worse. I've asked for an agricultural barn, I meet the Code requirements, I don't have issues with reasonable conditions and I don't like the application sort of turn from an agricultural barn to something it's not. My clients are local people looking to raise a nursery crop on their property and putting a barn up that meets the Town Code provisions. I suggest to you there isn't discretion other than reasonable conditions to put on the site plan approval and so I'm more than happy to meet with neighbors or anyone that's got any issue about something on the site plan that I can change but Young and Young came in and produced the plan that was consistent with your requirements. You have a chance to waive conditions or add conditions that are reasonable and we would welcome any discussion in that regard but we certainly think we have a right to the agricultural barn as proposed and the reason we put some of the improvements on it relating to drainage or parking is we thought they were required in the site plan review process. Thank you. Chairperson Woodhouse: Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board on this application? Richard Lark, Esq.: I'd just like to make a few comments on it. He keeps referring to it as an agricultural barn. You're going to have to use your common sense on that. Does an agricultural barn have an office? Does it have a shop? Does it have to be of that magnitude with concrete slabs? You've seen the plans; they're part of your file there. Is Southold Town Planninq Board PaRe Eleven January 10, 2005 that an agricultural barn? Common sense is going to dictate it, never mind the 11,700 square feet because I recognize you could have a barn that big that was devoted for storage of potatoes, if you would in that sense of the word, or for cooling off of nursery stock and stuff like that. No, I understand that but, when you look at this site plan, that's disingenuous and I don't care what you call it. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is a duck. If you call it an agricultural barn, you can call it anything you want but, the reality of it is, with the sophistication and everything there, it's more than that. This is a business and, again, you have that use issue to deal yourself with -whether he's going to have to get some kind of relief somewhere along the line to allow this type of use. I'm just trying to prevent a problem in the future and I think it can be worked out but, I mean, it's going to take some tall consideration on your part. Thank you. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Board? Mr. Onufrak? Joseph Onufrak: Thank you. I'll be very brief again. I want to clarify these couple of points. Remember, if you would take a moment and take a look at the application in the file - the survey. We're talking about the Gatz Family, after my property - remember, there were 5 lots - there were 4 lots left. They were approximately 6 acres apiece. One of the lots has now been developed by Mr. Donald Gatz to the west. One of the lots is being built on right now by Walter and Marilyn. That's two. The third lot is the subject lot of this application. That leaves 6 acres plus approximately 3 acres on the subject lot that is supposed to be farmed. So, when we're hearing about this farm, we're talking about when it was once a 25-acre tract of land that now has two houses on it. So, we're talking about acreage in the range of 9 or 10 acres maximum. Now, Mr. Danowski keeps referring to the Bissett Nursery to the east. The Bissett Nursery is in excess, I believe, of 20-25 acres and has virtually no building of this size - sheds of less than a few hundred square feet on them. He is running a nursery to the east that is two to three times the size of what the Gatz propose to use with a building less than a tenth the size. Common sense says if you go out and you look at what they're talking about, the Gatz Family is moving their landscaping and the materials that they store on the south side of Sound Avenue and they're re-locating their home and their business behind me and everyone knows it. They know it; I know it. Frankly, your staff knows it and the problem you have with - Mr. Danowski has blithely went around is - we have a problem, Ladies and Gentlemen. One of us is a lawyer and one of us has a Covenant and Restriction that says that I have a right to ask the Town and I have a right to enforce the residential provisions. And, if we keep pretending that this is just a zoning question, the Town is going to have a larger problem. We don't enforce in this Town. We do a very poor job. We all know. it's not your fault but we're not enforcing which means that I have very little choice but, if you go ahead and simply ignore the fact that Mr. Gatz is essentially putting up a commercial enterprise here under the ...(inaudible) that he's going to run a 12,000 square foot building to run a 9 acre farm, then we're going to have complications in the Town. Thank you. Chairperson Woodhouse: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to address the Board? Southold Town Plannin.q Board Pa.qe Twelve January 10, 2005 Peter Danowski, Esq.: Thank you. I'd just take note of the fact that I may be incorrect. Maybe it's a mirage but when I go back at the Bissett Farm, I see a couple rather large structures back there and, maybe I'm misinformed or maybe I'm dreaming but there's a beautiful home under construction and a beautiful, I think, barn-type structure there. It probably went through a process before this Board. Secondly, I think the Ag. and Markets Law set a standard and recognized that small farms exist throughout the state, especially on Long Island. If you recall, there was an individual commitment program that required a 10-acre minimum size at one point. That size has now been reduced to 7 acres. So, the idea of small farms existing in the State of New York - a state law recognizing that a tax exemption should be created in the state and in this town, in particular, to allow small farms to exist, 9 acres falls within that state definition. So, the idea that someone is a small farmer as opposed to a large farmer shouldn't prevent him from having a barn. Thanks. Chairperson Woodhouse: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to address the Board? (No one else asked to be heard.) Does anyone on the Planning Board have any questions at this time? Mr. Edwards: I think that we ought to look into the Covenant that was presented for the residence only. Chairperson Woodhouse: Do we have any information in the file about the Covenants on the subdivision? Bruno, is there any information in the file? Mr. Semon: There would be nothing in the site plan file. I'd have to pull the subdivision file and speak to legal counsel about that. Ms. Woodhouse: O.K. Mr. Edwards: I suggest we do that. Ms. Woodhouse: Any other comments from the Board? Mr. Sidor? Mr. Sidor: I thought I heard from both sides - from Mr. Lark and Mr. Danowski - that there was some give where if the parties can come together and discuss some of the reasonable requests from both sides, that they could be answered. I think sometimes that - I've only been here two and a half years and I'm probably out of my element right now - but it seems to be some of this where the Code doesn't really - it's not something that I would fall back on. It's simply being a good neighbor and trying to work with the neighbors and people in general. I think I did hear that from both sides. Mr. Lark, you did say that you understood that there seems to be a need for this. I don't know if there's a Home Occupancy Law in this Town that would help alleviate some of the things that were brought up here today. And, Mr. Danowski, I think I heard you also say that some reasonable requests were well intentioned and could only help this instead of going through possibly the next step. Southoid Town Planninq Board Page Thirteen January 10, 2005 Mr. Danowski: Well, I would say that's correct. I'm more than happy to meet with Mr. Lark. I would suggest, since we are the ones that are sort of having a need to have a prompt approval, that the consideration might be to close this hearing and allow us until the next meeting to see if we can put our heads together to see if we can come to a concrete conclusion. That would be one suggestion. I don't like to do that only in a sense that I've been trying to ask for an approval recognizing that a break in the weather would allow us to begin construction and that hurts us. I don't know if there's any more time tonight with other considerations you have on your agenda for us to even have a discussion tonight before you break for the evening, but I'll attempt to do that. Chairperson Woodhouse: I heard that one of the Planning Board Members is suggesting that we get some further information about the legal situation of the Covenant and Restriction and, I for one, would not vote this evening to close the hearing without the opportunity to do that. Mr. Onufrak in Audience: ...(inaudible) Ms. Woodhouse: We're saying that we are not going to close - we're discussing now whether we will or will not close the hearing. Mr. Lark: He wants to submit some papers to you on the legal issue of the Covenant and Restriction. Ms. Woodhouse: May I suggest that if we keep the hearing open, there will be opportunity to do that but, right now, I'd like to hear from the rest of the Board the sense of the Board in terms of closing or keeping this hearing open. Mr. Edwards: I move to keep it open: WHEREAS, the site plan is for the new construction of an 11,700 sq. ft. building for agricultural use on a 5-acre pamel in the Zone A-C; and WHEREAS, the applicant, Peter S. Danowski, Jr., proposes new construction of an 11,700 sq. ft. building for agricultural use; and WHEREAS, Walter & Marilyn Gatz are the owners of the property known as SCTM# 1000-121-1-4.6 and the property is located approximately 464' n/o Sound Avenue on a private right-of-way also known as 6477 Sound Avenue in Mattituck; and BE IT RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby holds the public hearing for Gatz Landscaping, Inc. open. Mr. Cremers: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Southold Town Plannin.q Board Pa.qe Fourteen January 10, 2005 Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. We'll keep the hearing open. That will give you opportunity to submit further documentation. It will give us an opportunity to consult with legal counsel, it will give the parties an opportunity should they choose to meet and discuss to see if there is anything that can be worked out between the parties. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming with your comments. 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, 3,612' e\o Peconic Lane, in Southold. SCTM#(s)1000- 75-2-15.1 & 15.2 Mr. Edwards: BE iT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby holds the public hearing for Silver Nail Vineyards open. Mr. Cremers: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Chairperson Woodhouse: Perino, Joseph - 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. This is also a hearing that we're going to hold over. I'll entertain a resolution to hold this over. Mr. Cremers: 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 Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Fifteen January 10, 2005 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. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. CONSERVATION SUBDIVISIONS, STANDARD SUBDIVISIONS, RE- SUBDIVISIONS (Lot Line Changes) Final Determinations: Chairperson Woodhouse: Dubner, Steven - This proposal is for a conservation subdivision to subdivide a 22.92 acre parcel into two lots where Lot 1 equals 2 acres and Lot 2 equals 20.92 acres upon which the Development Rights are proposed to be sold to the Town of Southold. The property is located n/o County Road 48, 855.87' w/o Bridge Lane, in Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-84-1-8 Mr. Sidor, did you want to read the resolution? Mr. Sidor: WHEREAS, this proposal is to subdivide a 22.92 acre parcel into two lots where Lot 1 equals 2 acres and Lot 2 equals 20.92 acres upon which the Development Rights are proposed to be sold to the Town of Southold; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board granted conditional sketch approval on April 12, 2004 for the proposed action; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board granted conditional final approval on December 13, 2004 for the proposed action; and WHEREAS, in a letter, dated December 12, 2004, the Cutchogue Fire District recommended that a fire well is not needed because the property is within range of an existing fire well which will provide adequate protection; and Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Sixteen January 10, 2005 WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted the Park and Playground Fee in the amount of $3,500.00; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board finds that the applicant has satisfied all of the conditions of conditional final approval; therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant final approval on the plat, dated February 18, 2004 and last revised on December 3, 2004, and authorize the Chairperson to endorse the plat. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Chairperson Woodhouse: North Fork Industrial Park (Tide Group) - This proposal is for 12 lots on a 29.10 acre parcel where Lot 1 equals 43,773 sq. ft., Lot 2 equals 47,166 sq. ft., Lot 3 equals 162,852 sq. ft., Lot 4 equals 133,594 sq. ft., Lot 5 equals 141,253 sq. ft., Lot 6 equals 120,000 sq. ft., Lot 7 equals 120,763 sq. ft., Lot 8 equals 136,860 sq. ft., Lot 9 equals 47,344 sq. ft., Lot 10 equals 40,531 sq. ft., Lot 11 equals 40,003 sq. ft., and Lot 12 equals 41,888 sq. ft. in the LI and LIO Zoning Districts. The property is located on the n/e corner of CR 48 and Depot Lane Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-96-1-1 Mr. Cremers: I'll offer the following resolution: WHEREAS, this proposal is for 12 lots on a 29.10 acre pamel where Lot 1 equals 43,773 sq. ft.; Lot 2 equals 47,166 sq. ft.; Lot 3 equals 162,852 sq. ft.; Lot 4 equals 133,594 sq. ft.; Lot 5 equals 141,253 sq. ft.; Lot 6 equals 120,000 sq. ft.; Lot 7 equals 120,763 sq. ft.; Lot 8 equals 136,860 sq. ft.; Lot 9 equals 47,344 sq. ft.; Lot 10 equals 40,531 sq. ft.; Lot 11 equals 40,003 sq. ft.; and Lot 12 equals 41,888 sq. ft. in the LI and LIO Zoning Districts; and WHEREAS, pursuant to a change of zone on the south portion of the property from LIO to LI, the applicant amended the application which received conditional final approval on March 18, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Cutchogue Fire District is requiring the installation of two fire wells or, with the approval of the Suffolk County Water Authority, fire hydrants, one at each end of Commerce Drive; and WHEREAS, the Suffolk County Water Authority issued a letter of water availability on June 28, 2004; and Southold Town Planning Board PaRe Seventeen January 10, 2005 WHEREAS, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services granted approval for the action on December 30, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board is requiring that the applicant replace any and all street and buffer trees that have expired and guarantee the survival of replaced and newly planted trees for a period of five years from the date of the release of the performance guarantee; and WHEREAS, the recharge basin must be re-graded to establish the correct slopes subject to the approval of the Town Engineer; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board is requiring the replanting of the undisturbed 100' buffer to replace the expired trees. A minimum of 85 balled and burlapped evergreen trees with a minimum height of 5' must be planted and, upon completion, subject to the approval of the Office of the Town Engineer. The applicant must guarantee the survival of replaced and newly planted trees for a period of five years from the date of the release of the performance guarantee; and WHEREAS, the revised final plat is in substantial agreement with the preliminary plat which was approved December 13, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board granted conditional final approval on the maps, as revised December 8, 2004 on December 13, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services issued approval on December 30, 2004 for the action; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board override conditions Number 1,2, 3, and 4 issued by the Suffolk County Department of Planning in their December 3, 2004 letter. Mr. Edwards: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Please continue. Mr. Cremers: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board accepts the December 31,2004 North Fork Bank Letter of Credit #3330001013 in the amount of $99,000.00 and recommends same to the Town Board. Southold Town Plannin.q Board Page Eighteen January 10, 2005 Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor?. Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Mr. Cremers: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant final approval on the plat, last revised on December 8, 2004, and authorize the Chairperson to endorse the plat upon the fulfillment of the following conditions: 1. Approval of the performance guarantee by the Town Board. 2. The filing of the Covenant and Restrictions with the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk and upon filing the recording of the Liber and page number upon the plat. 3. The submission of 8 paper plats with up-dated Department of Health approval stamp. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor?. Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Conditional Final Determinations: Chairperson Woodhouse: Mullen Motors~ Inc. - This proposal is for a lot line change that will transfer 8,551 sq. ft. from SCTM#1000-62-3-22.1 to SCTM#1000-62-3-20 and merge SCTM#1000-62-3-19 with SCTM#1000-62-3-20. Following the transfer and merger, SCTM#1000-62-3-22.1 will equal 21,255 sq. ft. and SCTM#1000-62-3-20 will equal 44,252 sq. ft. The property is located on the south side of SR 25 and the east side of Cottage Place in Southold. Mr. Cremers: I'll offer the following resolution: WHEREAS, this proposal is for a lot line change which will transfer 8,551 sq. ft. from SCTM#1000-62-3-22.1 to SCTM#1000-62-3-20 and merge SCTM#1000-62-3-19 with SCTM#1000-62-3-20; and Southold Town Plannin.q Board Page Nineteen January 10, 2005 WHEREAS, following the transfer and merger, SCTM#1000-62-3-22.1 will equal 21,255 sq. ft. and SCTM#1000-62-3-20 will equal 44,252 sq. ft; and WHEREAS, the proposed action requires variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals before the Planning Board is able to review the application and render a decision; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted the requested variances pursuant to their determination, dated November 4, 2004 (ZBA Ref. 5598 and 5599); and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a waiver of the public hearing in a letter to the Planning Board, dated December 27, 2004; therefore BE IT RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, does 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. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor?. Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Mr. Cremers: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the subject parcels are under the same ownership and the Southold Town Planning Board hereby waives the public hearing upon this application. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Mr. Cremers: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant conditional final approval on the survey, prepared by Peconic Surveyors, PC, dated June 9, 2004 and last revised July 30, 2004, subject to the following conditions: 1. Submission of a revised map that shows the correct proposed lot areas to be 21,255 sq. ft. for Parcel II and 44,252 sq. ft. for Parcel I. Southold Town Planninq Board Paqe Twenty January 10, 2005 2. The filing of new deeds with the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk pertaining to the lot line change and, upon filing, submission of a copy to this office. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Setting of Final Hearings: Chairperson Woodhouse: Ioannou, Constantine - This proposed standard subdivision is for 3 lots on 6.81 acres where Lot 1 equals 92,332 sq. ft., Lot 2 equals 124,679 sq. ft., inclusive of the 25' wide right-of-way, and Lot 3 equals 80,000 sq. ft. The property is located on the north side of State Road 25, 4,848 feet e/o Kayleigh's Court, in East Marion. SCTM#1000-23-1-14.7 Mr. Edwards: I'd like to entertain the following motion: RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, February 14, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. for a Preliminary Public Hearing. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor?. Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Sketch Extensions: Chairperson Woodhouse: Estate of Bertha Pawluczyk - This proposed action involves the subdividing of a 4.19 acre parcel (SCTM#1000-84-5-4) into two lots where Lot 1 is proposed as a clustered 1 acre and Lot 2 as 3.27 acres. The parcel is located on the south side of CR 46 (Middle Road) in Peconic in the A-C Zoning District. Mr. Cremers: I'll offer the following: WHEREAS, the proposed action involves the subdividing of a 4.19 acre parcel (SCTM# 1000-64-5-4) into two lots where Lot 1 is proposed as a clustered lot and is equal to 40,000 sq. ft. and Lot 2 is equal to 3.27 acres; and Southold Town Planning Board Page Twenty-One January 10, 2005 WHEREAS, the Planning Board classifies this action as a Standard Subdivision pursuant to Chapter A106; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board granted sketch plan approval on the maps, dated as revised March 13, 2004 on June 14, 2004; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested an extension of time in order to obtain Health Department approval and meet the conditions of sketch approval; therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Planning Board grant a retro-active extension of time for sketch plan approval effective from December 14, 2004 to June 14, 2005. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. SITE PLANS Final Determinations: I'll entertain a resolution on this matter. Mr. Sidor- Mr. Sidor: WHEREAS, the applicant, Norman Keil, proposes a new 42,757 sq. ft. greenhouse on an 18.75 acre parcel in the R-80 Zone; and WHEREAS, N and J Management, Co. is the owner of the property known as SCTM# 1000-113-13-1.2 and the property is located on the s/s/o Westphalia Road approximately 831' e/o Cox Neck Road in Mattituck; and WHEREAS, on December 13, 2004, the Southold Town Planning Board closed the final public hearing and granted conditional final approval of the site plan prepared and certified by Robert Nicholson, Professional Engineer, dated December 8, 2004, subject to fulfillment of the following requirement: Approval from the Architectural Review Committee prior to construction of proposed greenhouse; and Chairperson Woodhouse: N & J Mana,qement~ LLC - This site plan is for a new 42,757 sq. ft. greenhouse on an 18.75 acre parcel in the R-80 Zone located 831' e/o County Road 48, on the s/s/o Westphalia Road, in Mattituck. SCTM#1000-113-13-1.2 Southold Town Planning Board Paqe Twenty-Two January 10, 2005 WHEREAS, on January 6, 2005, the Architectural Review Committee reviewed and approved the architectural drawings and associated site plan materials; and the Planning Board has accepted this approval; therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant final approval on the site plan prepared and certified by Robert Nicholson, Professional Engineer, dated December 8, 2004, and authorize the Chairperson to endorse the final site plans with the following condition that the approval is subject to a one-year review from the date of issuance of the building permit. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. Ail those in favor?. Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Set Hearings: Chairperson Woodhouse: Kestler, Frances - This site plan is for conversion of a single family dwelling to a dentist office on the first floor and storage on the second floor on a 0.501-acre parcel in the RO Zone located at the n/w intersection of NYS Route 25 and Pacific Street in Mattituck. SCTM#1000-142-2-16 Mr. Edwards: i'll entertain the following motion: WHEREAS, the site plan is for conversion of a single family dwelling to a dentist office on the first floor and storage on the second floor on a 0.501-acre parcel in the RO Zone located at the n/w intersection of NYS Route 25 and Pacific Street in Mattituck. SCTM#1000-142-2-16; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (6 NYCRR), Part 617.5 -C-7, makes a determination that the proposed action is a Type II and not subject review. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Mr. Edwards: Southold Town Planninq Board Paqe Twenty-Three January 10, 2005 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, February 14, 2005, at 6:10 p.m. for a final public hearing on the maps dated November 11, 2004 and last revised December 17, 2004. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor?. Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Chairperson Woodhouse: Fitness Advantage - This site plan is for alteration of an existing 3,031 sq. ft. building into a fitness health club on a 0.75 acre parcel in the B Zone located at the n/e intersection of County Road 48 and Youngs Avenue, on the n/e/s/o CR 48 and the e/s/o Youngs Avenue, in Southold. SCTM#1000-55-2-16 Mr. Cremers: I'll offer the following: WHEREAS, the site plan is for alteration of an existing 3,031 sq. ft. building into a fitness health club on a 0.75 acre parcel in the B Zone located at the n/e intersection of County Road 48 and Youngs Avenue, on the n/e/s/o CR 48 and the e/s/o Youngs Avenue, in Southold. SCTM# 1000-55-2-16; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (6 NYCRR), Part 617.5 -C-7, makes a determination that the proposed action is a Type II and not subject review. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor?. Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Mr. Cremers: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, February 14, 2005, at 6:15 p.m. for a final public hearing on the maps dated September 20, 2004 and last revised November 19, 2004. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Southold Town Plannin.q Board Pa.qe Twenty-Four January 10, 2005 Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Chairperson Woodhouse: David Rose Perennials - This site plan is for a new 10,000 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 approximately 1,807' s/o Sound Avenue, on the w/s/o Aldrich Lane, known as 5645 Aldrich Lane, in Mattituck. SCTM#1000-120-3-11.12 Mr. Edwards: I'll entertain the following motion: WHEREAS, the site plan is for a new 10,000 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 approximately 1,807' s/o Sound Avenue, on the w/s/o Aldrich Lane, known as 5645 Aldrich Lane, in Mattituck, SCTM #1000-120-3-11.12; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, February 14, 2005, at 6:05 p.m. for a final public hearing on the maps dated August 22, 2003. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor?. Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. SITE PLANS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Lead Agency Coordination: Chairperson Woodhouse: Mullen Motors, Inc. - This amended site plan is for a proposed alteration on SCTM#1000-62-03-19 & 20 of three existing buildings of 9,050 sq. ft., total, to one new building including new additions and all existing buildings to 14,227 sq. ft. to be used as an automotive dealership on a 44,152 sq. ft. parcel in the B & R-40 Zones located at the s/w intersection of NYS Road 25 (Main Road) and Cottage Place in Southold and, on SCTM#1000-63-3-22.1, the proposed includes 5 existing buildings of 6,397 sq. ft. to be reduced to 4 buildings of 4,556 sq. ft. on a 21,355 sq. ft. parcel in the B Zone located at the s/e intersection of NYS Road 25 (Main Road) and Locust Avenue in Southold. SCTM#(s)1000-62-3-19, 20, 22.1, & 24.1 Southold Town Planning Board Pa.qe Twenty-Five January 10, 2005 I'll offer the following: WHEREAS, the proposed action involves an amended site plan for a proposed alteration on SCTM#1000-62-03-19 & 20 of three existing buildings of 9,050 sq. ft., total, to one new building including new additions and all existing buildings to 14,227 sq. ft. to be used as an automotive dealership on a 44,152 sq. ft. parcel in the B & R-40 Zones located at the s/w intersection of NYS Road 25 (Main Road) and Cottage Place in Southold and, on SCTM#1000-63-3-22.1, and includes 5 existing buildings of 5,397 sq. ft. to be reduced to 4 buildings of 4,556 sq. ft. on a 21,355 sq. ft. parcel in the B Zone located at the s/e intersection of NYS Road 25 (Main Road) and Locust Avenue in Southold. SCTM#(s)1000-62-3-19, 20, 22.1, & 24.1; 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. Cremers: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor?. Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. OTHER Set Hearings: Chairperson Woodhouse: Approved Major Subdivision Summit Estates~ Lots 13 and 14- Proposed amendment to filed Covenants and Restrictions. SCTM#1000-35-8- 5.21 I'll offer the following: RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, February 14, 2005, at 6:20 p. m. for a final public hearing on the Covenant and Restrictions/maps dated August 22, 2003. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Southold Town Planninq Board PaRe Twenty-Six January 10, 2005 I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Mr. Sidor: So move. Mr. Edwards: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor?. Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 7:04 p.m. n B.' Woodhouse, Chairperson Respectfully submitted, Carol Kalin Secretary RECEIVED FE~ 2 ~_ 2005 ~n CI