Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-03/14/2005~?LANNiNG BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 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 MINUTES March 14, 2005 6:00 p.m. Present were: Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson Kenneth L. Edwards, Member Martin H. Sidor, Member George D. Solomon, Member Mark Terry, Senior Environmental 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 March 14th, 2005 meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board. For the first order of business, I'll make a motion for the Board to set Monday, April 11, 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. Edwards: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor?. Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Southold Town Planning Board Pa.qe Two March 14, 2005 PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairperson Woodhouse: We have three public hearings on the agenda tonight. There will be opportunity for the public to address the Board. When you want to do so, please approach the microphones on either side of the reom. We ask that you state your name and where you're from. Please write your name also legibly on the piece of paper. That will help us in transcribing the minutes of this particular meeting. 6:00 p.m. - Greenport Heights Development1 LLC - This site plan is for a new 3,950 sq. ft. building which will include 1,200 sq. ft. of retail space, 1,200 sq. ft. of restaurant, & 1,550 sq. ft. of second floor storage/mechanical space on a 1.521 acre pamel in the B Zone located approximately 775' w/o Moores Lane, on the n/s/o NY$ Road 25, in Greenport. SCTM#1000-45-4-3.1 Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? Patricia MooreI Esq., 51020 Main Road, Southold: I am the attorney for the applicant. I also have with me Mr. & Mm. Domino, who are the applicants. Hopefully, we can answer any and all questions that you might have. Before I begin, I just want to put some issues on the record. I don't want to create an adversarial position but I think that these are important points that I would want on the record. I was under the impression that the Work Session began at 5:00. I was here at 5:00 and, by the time I got here, I learned that this application was being discussed at 4:30 and that Garrett Strang and Rob Brown came before this Board to discuss this application. The applicant, myself, certainly none of the public was here. That is not the proper way to do things and I would place that on the record. We certainly have an objection to that kind of communication being held outside of the presence of the applicant, at minimum the attorney. So, I just want to put that on the record. I would also refer you to the Work Session Agenda which says 5:00 - again, everything started at 4:30. Your secretarial staff wasn't aware of a 4:30 meeting. With respect to this site plan, I don't know why we are at a point where we are. We are hoping that this matter can be resolved and the site plan can be approved. I think that the Board, right now, has the option of doing two things: leaving the hearing open because we're waiting imminently for the Department of Transportation permit. We were under the impression from Mr. Butler that it had been approved and we were just merely waiting for a copy of it to get to us. We don't know - I think, Mr. Wolfgang - what happened is it was reviewed by Mr. Wolfgang with Jeff Butler, the professional engineer on this. It was reviewed once, submitted once, reviewed by Mr. Wolfgang or someone in his staff and then Mr. Wolfgang reviewed it - I guess the staff reviewed it a second time, made some revisions which Mr. Butler had to make additional revisions. So, there was a little give and take going back and forth and that caused a delay. We really Southold Town Plannin.q Board Pa.qe Three Mamh 14, 2005 apologize because, certainly Bruno - I know the Board's policy is to have the DOT permit in hand and we thank Bruno for moving this along and we don't want to put him on the spot. It was a communication error. We believed from Mr. Butler that it was in hand; it was actually being processed and, as of today, I don't know if it's been pumped out of the DOT or not. So, if the Board feels that they want to have DOT in hand before the approval, then I would ask that this hearing remain open because it's imminent. Everything's been approved. It's all been drawn and we just hope that DOT will issue the permit. The only thing that usually holds up the - when the permit itself is issued, it may be conditioned on bonding and things like that. Not having seen it, I can't tell you what remains to be done. With respect to the objectives of the site plan, in going through the elements, we have - through DOT - reviewed traffic access. This site plan is essentially a building that houses two tenants. It's not a heavy commercial use hero. We have the potential, somewhere down the line, where the second floor - if affordable - accessory apartments aro suitable hero. That may be down the line but, right now, all we have are two perspective tenants. The interior circulation and parking has been addressed. We have adequate parking. We have interior circulation and, in fact, the reason that the site plan is designed the way it is, is that Crackerbarrel Antiques is owned by the applicant as well in two separate corporations for obvious reasons but, nonetheless, the internal workings - eventually, we hope that the development of some of the adjacent sites there - Mr. Swann has a little house right next to this site. Maybe, down the line, when this Board reviews the site plan, it might look more integrated. Right now, it's a little piecemeal because we have Crackerbarrol that's a very nice site but it sits behind the Swann building which is, right now, a rosidence with the gentleman who operates a long-time, kind of a home-occupancy scrap metal business. We have photographs which I would like to put in the record. The adjacent residential parcel is Photograph #14 and #15 shows the Crackerbarrel sign. So, right now, thero's a very small house that's maybe 800 square feet at most. It's quite small. The parcel is also very small and it's flanked by Crackerbarrel to the back of the piece and this piece to the east. The landscaping and screening has, again, been very heavily - the site, if you compare to most of the properties along this corridor, is going to be much more landscaped than any other property. If you review any one of these photographs, you can see that there is no landscaping, essentially, by any of the property owners surrounding. You have Jamie Mills across the way - right across from the site is the Jamie Mills' site. It's mostly parking - no grass. The only one who has recently re-developed is Riverhead Building Supply that has some landscaping but, aside from that, all of these properties are pro- existing and have no landscaping whatsoever. No screening either. The parcel to the east of this site shows as Photograph ~4. It had been a used car parking aroa. It is prosently being used by a contractor - what, I think, is a contractor storage yard. I don't Southold Town Planning Board Page Four March 14, 2005 believe he's come into this Board for any kind of site plan approval. He's operating there and I can't quite tell - it's certainly a commercial use but I can't tell. There's no signage so we don't really know what he's doing but there's certainly commercial activity going on there. Natural features: we have been very careful to have all construction at minimum of 100 feet from the fresh water wetland area. In order to firet develop the site, even before he bought - Mr. Domino bought the site - we had the property flagged. We wanted to be sure we had adequate building area that was well away from the fresh water wetlands. Most of the wetlands are occurring east of this parcel and we have more than 100 feet to even the impervious parking areas. So, we've been very careful to maintain the site and not to affect the natural features of the parcel. Pavement, pedestrian walk-ways: again, the development of this site is an internal campus-style development. This building, you have Crackerbarrel behind the existing residence so there will be campus-style so that, hopefully, when somebody comes in to one of the tenants in the proposed building, they might actually leave their car where they are and just walk over to the antique shop which is Creckerbarrel Antiques. That's the goal here. Eventually, we hope that everyone around will create a nicer commercial center- commercial area - here but we can only control those parcels - development of the parcels - that are within the applicant's control. Lighting: there is no issue with lighting. It's all directed on site. There are no sound systems planned or proposed. Grading and drainage: this site, again, has been thoroughly engineered. The design professional is Jeff Butler who very carefully considered the drainage and the grading of this site. Public utilities: there are certainly adequate public utilities here. We are on the Main Road and there is public water. There is electricity. We are just outside the village with private sanitary. Architectural features: I think this is where we got a little bit - we came across a little difficulty because of different subjective opinions with regard to architectural features. My client didn't design this building as a layman although he is an engineer so I don't want to offend him. He has an engineering background. But he actually hired a very respected design professional, Jeff Butler, who did a very nice job. It's a simple, clean design. The street frontage could be a residence as well as commercial - it's very simple. It has a Colonial architectural look to it. I hope I described it correctly. It's a Colonial architecturel design. Again, it's a campus development so the focus - and I know the Architectural Review liked the one interior site elevation better than the outside elevation although they are both very nice - very clean. Again, keeping in mind Southold Town Plannin,q Board Paqe Five March 14, 2005 the goals here which are the integrated development of the commercial area here. You want to encourage pedestrian access between the buildings so it would make sense that if you are trying to get people to shop in your store and want to go from one rental unit to another, you want to make it as visually pleasing as possible. What you see from the read - the traffic goes by very quickly. Again, the photographs I'm going to put on the record show you what people are generally looking at from the read and it is not a very - what has been the development, the history of the development, in this area of Greenport is a hodgepodge of pre-existing, non-conforming uses - all commercial uses but it has no rhyme or reason. You have the sign - it used to be a gas station, Photograph #8, to the east, is the sign maker. This used to be a gas station. This parcel, the parcel to the east, was the gas station; this parcel was the old car dealership. That's what this area was developed as. It was the industrial area to Greenport - between $outhold and Greenport. It was heavily industrial. The remnants of it are still very apparent. We are designing something that is looking - again, we have a house right next door to us, an 850 square foot house. This actually is in conformity with the kind of residential look of the little cottage next door. Some day when somebody buys that building and they are limited, obviously, by the development of it because it sits on a very small parcel, they are going to be dealing with a little Cape Cod box and we hope that they will look around and do something that works well with what will be the existing development around them which we hope will be this project. Again, I point out that Architectural Review sits in a very precarious position. They are criticizing another design professional. Every single one of the members of the ARC, certainly the licensed architects, professional engineers - everybody who works for Town Hall in a representative capacity has good motives behind them so it's really subjective as far as what people's views are - what looks nice and what doesn't. Again, they are imposing their subjective views based on their experience as to another design professional and you can professionally disagree. You put two lawyers in the room and we will always have disagreements professionally - courteously disagree. You put two or three architects in the room -they will also have professional disagreements or just agree to disagree. That is not uncommon so I want you to keep that in mind as you consider this application. Finally, this property is going to be developed fully handicapped accessible. Again, because it's a new building, it will have all the benefits of handicapped accessibility unlike most of the development that's adjacent. They are all dealing with existing buildings. So, limited handicapped accessibility exists in this corridor. I'm going to put on the record the photographs and why don't we wait to comment on that and hear what the comments are. Southold Town Planning Board Page Six March 14, 2005 I thank you for your patience. I know this is longer than you're used to but I thought it was important for us to put our position on the record. Thank you. Do you want us to hold the photographs here or put them in right now? Chairperson Woodhouse: You can pass them up. Ms. Moore: Sure. Ms. Woodhouse: O.K. Bruno Semon: Pat, for the record, can you just tell us where we are with Suffolk County Health Department? Patricia Moore, Esq.: Yes. That application was submitted quite a while ago. I think what happened is this area has a tendency to have the water level that alternates. The ground water frem the wetlands in that area is difficult for the Health Department to really analyze. Based on test holes, we have an idea of where our ground water- where the water level is. In this instance, they actually did a site inspection and, what they are supposed to do is, they have you dig, put in a tube and the water level has to wait a little while before it can be analyzed. Because of the snow and everything, the water level was a little high so they waited a day or two - they really should have waited three days because by the time three days passed, the water level was down quite Iow but when they checked it, the water level was a little high so the engineering of our sanitary which was based on a test hole - they were concerned that maybe it might be designed a little too Iow given the water levels that can occur here depending on the time of the year. So, it's a very long kind of answer but we have the application. I believe Jeff has re- designed the sanitary based on the most recent site inspection by the Health Department. So, we're working with the Health Department. Everything's in. We would have had approval because our sanitary was designed in accordance with our test hole but, again, the Health Department was being a little more cautious than we anticipated and they asked for actual site conditions and a little re-design may be required. Nothing out of the ordinary. Every re-design to a professional is a lot of work because you set aside everything. You do the work and you submit it. So, every change can lead to a month's delay. Certainly, by the time you submit it to the Health Department, sometimes it takes a while before it gets to the person's desk for review. So, we anticipate that within the month we should have Health Department in place. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board on this application? Southold Town Planning Board Pa,qe Seven Mamh 14, 2005 Robert Brown, Co-Chair of the Amhitectural Review Committee: I'm speaking on behalf of the Board. While it's true that if you put five architects in the reom, you'd probably get seven or eight opinions, the Architectural Review Committee - professional and non- professional - unanimously, I believe, agreed that our recommendation to this Board be that some additional design consideration be given to the south and east elevations of a faidy substantial building at a significant location on the Main Road and really that is all we have been asking for. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Ms. Woodhouse: You're welcome. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board on this application? Ms. Moore: Does the Board have any questions? Mr. Solomon: Yes, I have one question. Has Mr. Domino completed the application process with ARC? Ms. Moore: Yes, the application process with ARC was submitted very early on in the project. There were actually three hearings: one he was alone, one I was there and the third one I don't think either one of us was there. It got presented and neither one of us knew that it was going to be on. The application was complete. Some of the comments that came back to us as far as recommendations - we thought - the hearing that I attended, the sense that I got from the Board was to take the south elevation - at the time this entrance wasn't the way it's designed presently. It didn't have the reverse gable. What we got out of the second hearing was look at this treatment - we were given certain recommendations. We put another more formalized entrance door- remember that we have one tenant on this side and another tenant on the other side. There are just two tenants here. So, we don't want to make this an entrance for the tenant although they could use it. They could use it as a second or third form of egress. We don't know who our tenants are going to be yet but, yes, that's a functioning door. We want to try to focus the entrance again on the side, the west elevation. So, that's why it was designed the way it was. Some comments came back to us and, again, we weren't present and, I think, one of the comments that Bruno - I hope I don't miss-state it but - do a fa~;ade, like a fake facade essentially and that was something that really did not interest the applicant and I'll put on the record, because you're asking our explanation of why we really didn't want that and Mike would be best suited to explain specifically why that would not work and essentially would eliminate the second floor space significantly. Whether that was what could have solved the Architectural Review's comments or not, I don't know because, again, we were getting it as hearsay - third hand and we were trying to react to comments. I remind this Board, I guess for the record as well, that we tried to address the Board's concern with regard to the disagreement between the Architectural Review Board as a recommendation to this Board. We actually added landscaping and we came back and really emphasized some taller evergreens which will soften the south elevation which was the main issue. Southold Town Plannin.q Board PaRe Eiqht March 14, 2005 Keeping in mind right now, the east elevation is just an access doorway. We don't want to really encourage a lot of traffic for security reasons obviously and, right now, we have an evergreen buffer. We're right next to an existing construction yard right now so when they do their site plan, they, too, will be obligated to put some screening between us once we know what they're doing. So, this east elevation won't even be seen. We actually added landscaping so that the traffic that goes along Route 25, as they drive by, all they're going to see is a wall of evergreens and other vegetation. We'd rather - rather than compromise the functioning workings of this building and the design, adding design elements to essentially what is an access point. It made more sense to put that same money into landscaping so that the whole community can enjoy it. I think the majority of the Board felt as we did - add some more landscaping and that really should mitigate any concerns we have. Mr. Solomon: Thank you. Ms. Moore: Let me just put on the record the reason why the fake fa(;ade would not work. This is the structural element - what we're missing here are the gambrel(sp.?) pop-outs. This is just the roofline. If we were to put a fa(;ade along this line, then we would essentially eliminate the dormers that provide the light, the air and the ability to make that second floor usable for ceiling heights and the rest. To put a fake fa(;ade in front of it would work against our ultimate design in that you'd be blocking - putting a wall in front of what you would want which is light and air. That's why these dormers are where they are in order to provide usable space, habitable space for the second floor down the line. Chairperson Woodhouse: So, what you're saying is the ARC suggestion to put a facade would have blocked the light and the air and - Ms. Moore: The fake fa(;ade was going to be along - remember, this was the roofline they liked. What they were suggesting is, structurally, you couldn't do it without significant expense because, yes, you could do it but then all of these trusses would have to be cut and you'd end up having to re-structure the building. That would be an enormous expense and it hasn't been designed that way. So, the only other alternative is to be a fake fa(;ade, a fake front, essentially that matches the side and that fake front would eliminate the dormers. That would be where that replacement front would be. Mr. Edwards: Would the applicant be willing to sit down with the ARC again one more time? Ms. Moore: It's the third time. Ms. Woodhouse: Let me just ask you this for a point of clarity. Southold Town Planning Board Pa.qe Nine Mamh 14, 2005 Ms. Moore: Sure. Ms. Woodhouse: When it appeared that there were some problems between the applicant and the ARC, it was this Board's recommendation that the amhitect and the applicant go back and meet with the ARC and see if they could come up with a compromise. From what you say, that meeting never took place. Patricia MooreI Esq.: That would have been the third meeting - you would have been asking us to go back a fourth time and, I think, that what came out of that meeting was - the sense that the Board got was we don't want to go back a fourth time and re- design this place. To design a plan takes a lot of money. It's now been thoroughly engineered. You'd be asking us to really scrap what we've done because - Ms. Woodhouse: No, I'm talking about when we had a meeting - Ms. Moore: No, yes, we had that meeting and the end result of that was let's add landscaping. Ms. Woodhouse: Not with us - I'm talking about with the applicant and his designer and ARC. Prior to the discussion about the landscaping, there had been the recommendation of this Board that, because there was no agreement between both parties on what needed to happen, and when you raise the issues about a facade, we had recommended that the applicant go back to ARC with their concerns and see if there could be some sort of a compromise. Ms. Moore: All I know is that the third meeting - (Mr. Domino pointed out from the audience that it was at the second meeting.) that was at the second meeting? Ms. Woodhouse: That was at the second meeting, yes. Ms. Moore: That was at the second meeting. At the third meeting it got presented and nobody even told us that it was going to be on. Ms. Woodhouse: How did that happen - Ms. Moore: I don't know. Ms. Woodhouse: - that somebody presented that you weren't party to? Ms. Moore: Well, I think that it was an effort to explain where we were as far as landscaping and the rest. I don't know - I honestly don't want to point fingers. I really don't. Southold Town Plannin,q Board PaRe Ten Mamh 14, 2005 Ms. Woodhouse: O.K. Sure, I'm just trying to understand. So, that meeting actually never took place? Ms. Moore: Not with us present. Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you. Ms. Moore: So, ultimately, what we got at third hand was what the response was. Mr. Edwards: Would the two parties be willing to sit down and hash it around? It doesn't mean that anything is going to be changed. Ms. Moore: Yes, we've always been, I think, willing. Mr. Domino (from the audience): I've always been willing. Ms. Woodhouse: Excuse me, Mr. Domino, could you please state your name? Mr. Domino: Michael Domino. I reside in Southold and I am the applicant, the President of Greenport Heights Development, LLC. I've always been willing to address the issues. At the very first meeting, I respectfully disagreed with the ARC. I asked for some guidelines. Their request was to soften the south fa(;ade. I asked for a definition of the term soften and I was told that they would not design the building for me, that the process involved me going back to my engineer, re-designing it - perhaps some shutters, perhaps a fake dormer - and bring it back and they would tell me if they like it. I suggested that that was an onerous process. In seventeen days, this application will be two years old. When I was asked to provide more screening - vegetation - it was a reasonable request. I immediately acquiesced. In this case, I asked for the guidelines. It's not forthcoming. It becomes very expensive to go back to your engineer, come up with something, bring it back - it's expensive; I have to pay the gentleman. But, it's also expensive in time. It takes several months and, again, I'm two years into this process. I read in the papers that this administration is supportive of small businesses, diversity, affordable housing and I believe that this is a very attractive building. I've accomplished everything that you've asked me to do and I really think that it's time to move this forward. Ms. Woodhouse: So, the answer- Ms. Moore: I think that what we would prefer to do is to have what has been our offer of landscaping to be the mitigation of the softening of the elevation which is what one of the options was. To continue to go back and forth .on the design, it just may be you get to a point where both sides feel the frustration. I'm sure the ARC is as frustrated as my client is. So, that's why we thought well, nobody can complain about plants and the Southold Town Planninq Board PaRe Eleven Mamh 14, 2005 more plants, the better and that's how we tried to address the building - keeping in mind, please look at those pictures. This is a very nicely designed, professionally designed building and it's really just a question of the ARC, if they were given the job to design it, that would be one thing but - Mr. Domino: Could I just add one thing? If this were a question of health or safety - Ms. Woodhouse: Excuse me, did you get his name? Please state your name again? I'm sorry. Ms. Moore: Mike Domino. Mr. Domino: Mr. Domino. If this were a question of health or safety on the part of the Architectural Review Board, I would be foolish not to comply but it is certainly not. This suggestion of faux dormers, my attorney adequately explained, negates - removes safety exits for any future apartments up on top and becomes extremely difficult to engineer around that particular process. In that regard, I'm reticent to go back to my engineer and start to re-design something. This building didn't come out of nowhere. This is a long process involving my wife and I thinking about what we wanted to accomplish, as my attorney mentioned before, and in working closely with my engineer. I believe it addresses all those issues. I'm reticent to go back one more time, in terms of time and cost, to try to design something for which I haven't been given adequate guidelines to meet. Thank you for your time. Robert Brown: Again, for clarification - the ARC is very reluctant to offer any suggestions to any other design professional for a number of common sense and ethical reasons. Certainly, if a false fa(;ade was mentioned, it was mentioned as one of several possibilities. We are not going to design somebody's project. That's not what we're intended to do and I would also like to point out that, of the several meetings that we did have regarding this project, we have not met with the design professional which, I think, in all cases - regardless of this project or any project - is always a very official way of expediting communication. Thank you. Chairperson Woodhouse: Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board? (No one else asked to be heard.) Are there further comments from the Board? Any questions? (There were none.) I think, at this particular point, that we need to hold the hearing open because we do not have the Department of Transportation permits and those delays are not caused by this Board. I must say it is our intention, and it has been our intention, to move this application along with all deliberate speed and the delays that have occurred do not belong here at this end of the room. Southold Town Plannin.q Board Paqe Twelve March 14, 2005 Patricia Moore, Esq.: We acknowledge that. It has nothing to do with this Board. The Department of Transportation works its own time frames and the Health Department - well, you usually approve conditional site plan with regard to Health Department but I do recognize that the Department of Transportation is an issue. Certainly you have the ability - Department of Transportation is something where you don't want to approve a plan that the Department of Transportation might change on you and, therefore, require an amendmerit. I think we're very confident that we don't have a situation like that occurring here. We actually have the final plan that's been presented to the Department of Transportation but the Code does refer specifically to the Department of Transportation so I've explained to the client that there may be a need to adjourn it. So, that's fine. Mr. Edwards: Madame Chairman, I'd like to entertain the following motion: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby holds the public hearing for Greenport Heights Development, LLC open. Mr. Solomon: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor?. Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Thank you very much. Chairperson Woodhouse: 6:05 p.m. - The Old BarRe Restaurant - This amended site plan is for a new second floor addition of 1,397 sq. ft. and an alteration to 3,923 sq. ft. of existing building space on a 1.4438 acre parcel in the Mil Zone located on the s/s/o Old Main Road, approximately 1,953' w/o Dolphin Drive, known as 750 Old Main Road in Southold. SCTM#1000-56-6-8.7 Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? Carol Reiter Denson: I'm the managing partner for the C.D. Reiters who own the land and building on the site plan under discussion. Just briefly, the land has been in the family since 1938. At the time when my dad purchased it, he was operating the fishing station next door which is now known as the Port of Egypt and then in 1948, my parents brought in the U.S. ammunition barge which has been on the site and been operated as a fish market and a restaurant since that particular time in our history. The plan that's before you now really is looking to contribute to the business environment here in an aesthetic and responsible way and tonight, our architect - I'll ask Rob Brown to switch Southold Town Plannin,q Board Pa,qe Thirteen Mamh 14, 2005 hats - is with us and we're here to answer any questions that you might have remaining on this site plan. Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this application? (No one else asked to be heard.) Does anyone on the Board have any questions? 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 favo~ Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. The hearing is now closed. (The hearing was closed at 6:42 p.m.) Mr. Edwards: Madame Chairman, I'd like to entertain the following motion: WHEREAS, the applicant, Carol R. Denson, proposes the amended site plan for a new second floor addition of 1,397 sq. ft. and an alteration to 3,923 sq. ft. of existing building space on a 1.4438 acre parcel in the M-II Zone; and WHEREAS, The C.D. Reiter Partnership is the owner of the property known as SCTM# 1000-56-6-8.7 located on the s/s/o Old Main Road, approximately 1,953' w/o Dolphin Drive, known as 750 Old Main Road, in Southold; and WHEREAS, on November 7, 2003, a formal site plan application was submitted for approval; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 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; and WHEREAS, on May 12, 2004, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services approved the site plan prepared and certified by Robert Brown, dated November 5, 2003 and last revised April 9, 2004, under Reference Number C10-04-001; and WHEREAS, on May 14, 2004, the New York State Department of Transportation reviewed the site plan and assigned the Case Number 04-123PP and indicated no Southold Town Plannin.q Board Pa.qe Fourteen March 14, 2005 Highway Work Permit is required and the Planning Board has accepted this recommendation; and WHEREAS, on August 3, 2004, the Amhitectural Review Committee reviewed and approved the architectural drawings, associated site plan materials and the Planning Board has accepted this approval and determined it to be satisfactory; and WHEREAS, on February 3, 2005, the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals granted Special Exception approval as described under Appeal Number 5626 and the Planning Board has accepted this approval; and WHEREAS, on February 18, 2005, the Southold Town Building Inspector reviewed and certified the site plan for "Restaurant" use by Special Exception; and WHEREAS, on March 7, 2005, the Southold Town Trustees approved an amendment to Permit Number 5964, issued on July 21, 2004, and the Planning Board has accepted this approval; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 2005, the Southold Town Engineering Inspector reviewed and approved the proposed drainage with conditions and the Planning Board has accepted his recommendation; and WHEREAS, on Mamh 11,2005, the Southold Fire District recommended that fire protection is adequate and the Planning Board has accepted this recommendation; 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 two 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 Southold Town Planninq Board Page Fifteen March 14, 2005 RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant final approval on the site plan prepared and certified by Robert I. Brown, Licensed Architect, dated November 5, 2003 and last revised February 18, 2005, and authorize the Chairperson to endorse the final site plans subject to a one year review from the date of issuance of the building permit. Mr. Solomon: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Thank you. Robert Brown: Thank you very much. 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 I'll entertain the following motion: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby holds the public hearing for Silver Nail Vineyards open. Mr. Edwards: So move. Mr. Sidor: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. Alt those in favor?. Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson VVoodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Southold Town Plannin.q Board Pa.qe Sixteen March 14, 2005 CONSERVATION SUBDIVISIONS, STANDARD SUBDIVISIONS, RE- SUBDIVISIONS (Lot Line Changes) - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Lead Agency Designation: Chairperson Woodhouse: Charnews, Daniel & Stephanie - This proposal is to~ subdivide a 23.4004 acre parcel into two lots where Lot 1 equals 3 acres and Lot 2 equals 20.4004 acres. The property is located on the west side of Youngs Avenue and the east side of Horton Lane in Southold. SCTM#1000-63-1-25 Mr. Sidor: WHEREAS, this proposal is to subdivide a 23.4004-acre parcel into two lots where Lot I equals 3 acres and Lot 2 equals 20.4004 acres; and WHEREAS, an Application for Sketch Approval was submitted to the Planning Board on February 3, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board initiated the coordinated SEQRA process on February 14, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has not received any comments or objections to the proposed action; therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, performed a coordinated review of this Unlisted Action and hereby establishes itself lead agency. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor?. Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Chairperson Woodhouse: Baxter, Mark - This standard subdivision proposes to subdivide a 6.78 acre parcel into 2 lots where Lot 1 equals 4.407 acres and Lot 2 Southold Town Planninq Board Page Seventeen March 14, 2005 equals 2.616 acres. The property is located n/o Main Bayview Road, 325' e/o Smith Drive South, in Southold. SCTM#1000-78-7-5.3 & 5.4 Mr. Solomon: WHEREAS, this standard subdivision proposes to subdivide a 6.78-acre parcel into 2 lots where Lot 1 equals 4.407 acres with an existing dwelling and Lot 2 equals 2.616 acres (SCTM#s1000-78-7-5.3 and 5.4); and WHEREAS, on February 14, 2005 the Southold Town Planning Board started the SEQPA lead agency coordination process for this Unlisted Action; therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Planning Board establishes itself as lead agency for the proposed action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Section 617.6. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. SITE PLANS Final Determinations: Chairperson Woodhouse: CVS Pharmacy - This site plan is for an alteration of a 14,467 sq. ft. building to retail pharmacy space on a 1.78 acre parcel in the B and R-40 Zones located on NYS Road 25 between Sigsbee Road and Marlene Lane, in Mattituck. SCTM#(s)1000-143-2-1, 2, 4, 27.1, & 28 Mr. Solomon; WHEREAS, the applicant, Laker Development Group, LLC, proposes a site plan for the alteration of an existing 14,467 sq. ft. building to retail pharmacy space on a 1.78-acre parcel in the B and R-40 Zones located on the south side of NYS Road 25 between Sigsbee Road and Marlene Lane, in Mattituck, original SCTM #'s1000-143-2-1,2, 4, 27.1, & 28 and new merged SCTM#'s1000-143-2-2, 4, 27.1,28.1 & 30.1; and WHEREAS, North Fork Bowl, Inc. is the owner of the property known as SCTM#1000- 143-2-2; Robert Chipetta is the owner of the property known as SCTM#1000-143-2-4; Southold Town Planning Board Page Eighteen March 14, 2005 Mattituck Realty Association is the owner of the property known as SCTM#1000-143-2- 27.1; North Fork Bowl, Inc. is the owner of the property known as SCTM#1000-143-2- 28.1; North Fork Properties, LLC is the owner of the property known as SCTM#1000- 143-2-30.1 and all the properties listed above are located on the s/s/o NYS Road 25 between Sigsbee Road and Marlene Lane, in Mattituck; and WHEREAS, on July 13, 2004, the final public hearing was closed; and WHEREAS, on July 13, 2004, the Southold Town Planning Board issued conditional final approval of the site plan prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., certified by Michael W. Junghans, dated January 19, 2004 and last revised June 18, 2004; and subject to fulfillment of the requirements which have been met as follows: 1. On March 14, 2005, conceptual agreement approval was obtained from the New York State Department of Transportation for all work improvements as indicated in the letter dated March 1,2005, Case Number 04-110P. 2. On January 11, 2005, approval was issued by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services under reference number C10-04-0004; and WHEREAS, no building permit may be issued until the lots are merged by deed as indicated on the Notice of Disapproval dated 11, 2004; 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 by Yanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., certified by Michael W. Junghans, dated January 19, 2004 and last revised June 18, 2004, subject to the NYS Department of Transportation conceptual agreement dated March 1,2005 and its formal approval of the site plan last revised March 11, 2005, and authorize the Chairperson to endorse the final site plans subject to a one-year review from the date of issuance of the building permit. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Southold Town Plannin,q Board Pa.qe Nineteen Mamh 14, 2005 Set Hearings: Chairperson Woodhouse: The Whitaker House - This site plan is for alteration of an existing two-story building of 2,177 sq. ft. to an office of 1,373 sq. ft. and two apartments on an 18,001 sq. ft. parcel in the HB Zone located on the s/e corner of NYS Route 25 & Horton's Lane in Southold. SCTM#1000-61-1-5 Mr. Edwards: I'd like to entertain the following motion: WHEREAS, the site plan is for alteration of an existing two story building of 2,177 sq. ft. to an office of 1,373 sq. ft. and two apartments on an 18,001 sq. ft. parcel in the HB Zone located on the s/e corner of N¥S Route 25 & Horton's Lane in Southold, SCTM#1000-61-1- 5; 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. Ms. Woodhouse: Second. Motion made and seconded. All those in favor?. Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Please continue. Mr. Edwards: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, April 2005, at 8:00 p.m. for a final public hearing on the maps dated December 7, 2004 and last revised January 18, 2005. Mr. Solomon: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor?. Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. SITE PLANS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Southold Town Plannin,q Board Pa,qe Twenty March 141 2005 Lead Agency Coordination: Chairperson Woodhouse: Cutcho.que Business Center - This proposal is for an amended site plan for an alteration to an existing 12,000 sq. ft. building on a 6.1 acre parcel in the LI Zone located on the s/w/s/o the intersection of Cox Lane and Oregon Road in Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-83-3-4.6 Mr. Edwards: WHEREAS, the proposed action involves an amended site plan for an alteration to an existing 12,000 sq. ft. building on a 6.1 acre pamel in the LI Zone located on the sw/s/o the intersection of Cox Lane and Oregon Road in Cutchogue, SCTM#1000-83-3-4.6; 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. Solomon: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: I'll call each member for a vote - Mr. Solomon: Aye. Mr. Edwards: Aye. Chairperson Woodhouse: I recuse myself. Mr. Sidor: I abstain. Chairperson Woodhouse: Matt-A-Mar Marina - This amended site plan is for a new boat storage building of 28,480 sq. ft. and a new two-story office of 6,778 sq. ft. on an 8.5 acre parcel in the M-II Zone located approximately 210' n/o Freeman Avenue on the w/s/o Wickham Avenue, known as 2255 Wickham Avenue, in Mattituck. SCTM#1000- 114-3-1 Mr. Sidor: WHEREAS, the proposed action involves an amended site plan for a new boat storage building of 28,480 sq. ft. and new 2-story office of 6,778 sq. ft. on an 8.5-acre parcel in Southold TOwn Planning Board Page Twenty-One March 141 2005 the M-II Zone located approximately 210' n/o Freeman Avenue on the w/s/o Wickham Avenue, known as 2255 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck, SCTM#1000-114-3-1; 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. Edwards: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favo~ Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. I'll entertain a motion to close the meeting. Mr. Solomon: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favo~ Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor, Mr. Solomon Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Thank you and good night. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, William ~w~'ers,~-Chairman Carol Kalin Secretary RECEIVED ¢'/-~'~-~ OCT I 9 2005 '3outhold Town Clerk