Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-97.-3-1 .._'"'..._..,.,.....,-~.._~,......-,..--- --....~~ ..---<-----.-..---- .,---, ._~--~"'- 4c; . .Lhemo . ..~ :Ib.'.-_f!L...~. ~(('\'. Mell.s.~j....s~~~ek..w~,_-~tf:.. . .J("- 't>lfl"ltJoff ~ 1:\ z~ .. ~ m~.. {<::>Q!>..::: u'lZ::-~::oo.~L IJA-'\€.' ucembe~S)'1.~.<id .ThiS. ~Ile. \::;..clo.~~. As.. '.1'*'g... '1lq'O,",~&~ . .~-k!\2Sio.~.\.LI;:ls,. ~_. ..~.9H~~6..ffi-("~--~Me~...5h5-1e.g~1 . .('0+ -iTR..aA.w..a- m Ne..u ~~~cJ.~.onL..v.)Q.s-~5~Q.hm.~1k6.uQ~.~.lJ/Bi8.C[ .... . -- ..-.-. --. ._..~._..__.._---- -,.._-- ......-.--.... -----.-- -- -,,---.,-.-.. -_...---_..._"'-~--_.."_._-_._----....._....--------. -. .. ,---_._--_.~_._~_._..._..~_.-_.. .-'.- .-...-... ---------- ---. ----~ -- -.... ------ ----. .- .....--.-.-.----.-- .-_.. ._--. __ __.+_.____._..__" - _..._._u_.___._._____.."__..__.___ ..-.-.-.-------.----.--..--- . ..-----"..-.-.--.-----..--- .---.. ----------..--.--.--...---. .. .._--~...-_._.__.._-_. ---- -..,"--,....--.-..--- ...--.-..-----..----.-.. .___._....,,_,___._._______..______.._...___._..._._..~___ __-0"-- .____.__._ _.n. _____". ___.___....._~. ,,-'-"---"--~' -""----' ----,,--- -~ ....-...---. --. ..-.----'".- .-+ '-'-'---' -.---.--.--------.. --.- ..,,-- 'T- _._-~~~. _.~ ~ ~ . . Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 25, 1989 Henry Raynor :no Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: Proposed Subdivision for Birndorf/Rizzo SCTMl1000-97-3-1 Dear Mr. Raynor: The Planning Board has reviewed your request to reactivate the above mentioned subdivision. The P1anding Board is not in favor of granting this extension. To reactivate the subdivision, a new application and application fee must be submitted. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. CHAIRMAN ", lS:~a ~- ms ,... '" ~r ,q: l i' II' I:: II: 'I' II I ~ \ ~ ~ -- , ~ -' ".-..._-"."-,.~._..,>" MINOR SUBDIVISION 1. 6 copies sketch plan received spot elevations sent to Planning Board 2. Meet with Planning Board 3. Required changes sent in writing 4. New submission received 5. Approval of sketch plan 6. Sent letter with resolution approving 7. Application and fee If corporation, affidavit of ownership 6 copies of final map covenants and restrictions Desc,ription of property Note on plat that sanitation ans water facilities meet county Board of Health specifications Developer attend meeting (official submission) 8. Public Hearing (within 45 days) Advertised Affidavits of publication received 9. Action by planning Board (within 45 days) 10. Sent to county planning Commission Received county's recommendations 11. Filed covenants and restrictions received 12. Authorization and signing of map /3. f I Rt IVtu.- oS! r/f'" \ l -~, --'-'~------ ------ ---_.__...~.__._-_..- . . 'i;;. ~ ,/ V' 7 =z v /_,), J~ / - -. ~--_.-.,-_.._--_._._-- -_..----~._- -- _._----~ ---- - ----.- . . HENRY E. RAYNOR ill rn@rn~~qrn!~ APR 2 4 I9E9 ' I!J I i ! SOUTHOLD TOWN PlANNING BOARD P.O. Drawer A, Main Roa Jamesport, NY 11947 April 21, 1989 Mr. Bennet Orlowski Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE: Birndorf/Rizzo Dear Mr. Orlowski: Please be advised I am requesting a reinstatement of processing of the above captioned subdivision. The sketch plan approval time has expired, so I am requesting a motion reaffirming the Planning Board resolution of 12/8/86 approving same. Please note there have been ~ changes in this project. Sincerely, HER/lmk ~., , I t ..,. 461 West 21 Street New York, Ny 10011 ... October 7, 1988 I -'l>'~.~ To Whom It May Concern: "" ,IllS"" 11. RI'Z'%O I, Philip Birn~rf," hereby authorize Henry E. Raynor, Jr. to act as my agent to obtain subdivision approval for my property at Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, further described as District 1000, Section 97, Block 3,Lot 1. J South old Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Sirs: rI~@~nwrn iwr ore I 3111111 P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 119 December 10, 1988 SOUTHOlD TOWN PlAN!!!!ill.!!QARD I hereby request you hold in obeyance any further action on the processing of the proposed minor subdivision of Birndorf and Rizzo at Main Road, Cutchogue, New York until further notice. HER:ml CC: Birndorf S~CerelY' (] Hen~!1!:e!:1'r. . 001 1 J , . Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (5'6) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 18, 1988 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: Birndorf/Rizzo SCTM *1000-97-3-1 Dear Mr. Raynor: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, October 17, 1988. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant an extension of sketch approval from June 8, 1988 to June 8 1989. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. VrpEy- truly your~..., /' /') J'" ~ I.>!.I,., . t" / /" ..,I f, ._t_,l// /,/ I ",/;/ ,:::-'>",~. .- "l // .;((' t..",./ r ;<,".:J ..Mv1t.l:l/V &~~"./"'{u.,'''''----'vf... ."~ // .. .r-- BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. P" CHAIRMAN jt c..c.. '- Q,~,,~~ . u . .JOSEPH M. RIZZO. C.$.W./461 WEST 21 STREET I NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10011 /675-2134 September 29, 1988 Dear Sirs: SOUTHOLO TO'/", PlANNING 80;;', reinstate our permit for sub-division plan for our mow m,~ SEP 3 0 1988 ~ Southold Planning Board Southold, Long Island, New York We respectfully are requesting that you our application for the approval of the property on the Main Road in Cutchogue. Despite numerous phone calls to our lawyer who is presumably hand- ling this matter for us, we never receive return calls or any com- munication as to the status of our application or of what further is required to receive final approval. We were not informed that the permit did expire until one of us contacted your offices recently. We were also not informed that you did not know that our mortgage had been transferred by our bank to another bank upstate; we were not informed that this had taken place until long after the fact. Phone c~lls to both banks went unanswered. Although we hHve made every effort to fulfill all requirements, we have felt stymied by a serious lack of communication, the motivation for which we ould prefer not to imagine. In consideration of this, we trust you will agree to reinstate our permi t . . <(,0. PLANNING BOARD . Page 19 MARCAt, 1988 Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion to grant sketch? All those in favor? ( RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant sketch approval for this minor subdivision. Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Also to take Lead Agency? Mr. Edwards: So moved. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare itself Lead Agent under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. ************************* Mr. Orlowski: Birndorf and RizZo-Board to discuss Attorney's request for change in Board's revision of layout.SCTM 111000-97-3-1. ( Ms. Scopaz: If I can clarify that for you, the Board recently extended the preliminary approval for six months. At the time of the extension it requested that instead of having the two lots on 25 that all four lots have access off the right-of-way. Mr. McClaughlin, on behalf of his client has requested that the Board reconsider that to allow his client to have two access points out to leave the second lot, the lot that is adjacent to 'Top Sail Realty, to have access to 25. Mr. Mclaughlin: Kevin Mclaughlin for the applicant. Basically my understanding of the Board's request is based on the number of access points out on the Main Road. My suggestion after speaking with my client is that perhaps we could have a common drive between the two parcels out fronting along the Main Road. That way there would only b~ two access points on to the Main Road, which would be the same amount that we would have if we stacked the four lots with only one on the Main Road. There is an existing drive into the existing structure there. They where going to have a 25 foot right-of-way. This would provide for the same number of access but would allow us to continue to have two lots with frontage on the Main Road. Mr. Ward: Your client believes the front~ge on the Main Road for residential lots would be better? , , \:;- Mr. Mclaughlin: He prefers it that way. PLANNING BOARD . Page 20 MARCH. 1988 "8"~ ( Ms. Scopaz: My only recommendation is that if you have one right-of-way with all four lots having access over that. You will create three lots off of the Main Road leaving the front lot with the front lawn intact. My recommendation is that you stay with your change, but that is the Board's decision. Mr. Lessard: If I might point out to you, sir, through the chair. For every lot or right-of-way that hits the Main Road you need a 239K and the state is very tough on that. I wish you would keep that in mind. They may just say no! Regardless of what happens whether you need one or two it has to be applied for. I think what this Board is trying to do is to cut down on the amount of entrance onto a state Highway. I think that is what the intent is here. But again, regardless you might have to go for two 239K's or access approvals if you are going to design the property so that touches the Main Road plus the access touching the Main Road. Mr. Mclaughlin: But we have an existing access. What we are looking for, one way or the other, is to get approval on the 25 foot right-of-way. Mr. Lessard: O.K. I just wanted you to be aware of it Kevin. Mr. Orlowski: What is the pleasure of the Board? ( Mr. Ward: Personally, I feel it is a better layout then what we are recommending. I don't know. Unless there was something with lot one as to the configuration, I am missing something somewhere as to why they would want to stay with this configuration. Mr. Mclaughlin: I don't really know the answer to that other ~ then that is the way they proposed i~, When I went to them after the last meeting where you indicated your preference for this. They indicated a definite preference if the Board would approve. "Mr. Ward: You know if there was something we did not know about, lets say behind the garage or something that should be part of that lot. Sitting here looking at it I don't know that there is any reason not to do what we are requesting. Maybe there is. some reason. Maybe you would want to look into that further and get back to us. Mr. Mclaughlin: Why don't I do that. l Mr. Orlowski: Your also next to an existing B-1 zone and squeezing in another residential lot between a house and that 8-1 makes things tight. I think far more ahead putting lot 2 in back of lot 1 and keeping away from that B-1 zone which is there. I would not look for any further thought of extending that B-1 zone over to that piece of property. If that is the case I think they should forget that. To put that lot in the back, would mean its off the Main Road an~ to me it would make it a more salable lot. " '- .... . <(1' . Page 21 MARCH. 1988 PLANNING BOARD Mr. Mclaughlin: Why don't I discuss that with my client and get back to you. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Mr. Mclaughlin: Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Papadopoulous and Maragos-Board to discuss attorney's letter requesting clarification of its February 25th decision. Mr. Bruer. Mr. Bruer: Members of the Board. I think the letter is pretty clear. What we are doing here is that we have had final approval of the map' subject to certain conditions which related to a report from Mr. Davis and a Bonding report from the other applicant, which came just before the expiration of the time frame of the conditions. The Board was gracious enough to extend it for a period of time. What bothers us is they have the one engineer that is now talking about a preliminary map. Obviously this has been granted a final hearing. It is kind of hard for a developer to now start discussing with an engineer, a preliminary map and believe me for me to explain to him, you know, something is obViously wrong. Obviously what the Board probably wants is something so that on this existing Town road, which has been around for a long long time,to make sure that it has proper drainage. If as a result of this subdivision. I guess what we are here for is, could you please clarify with not only your people but for the record that number one we are in our extension period and I am dealing with an engineer that thinks I have preliminary map. Mr. Orlowski: Well, in the engineer's part I think that is just a mistake. We know that we are looking at a approved " subdivision. As far as the engineer's report in what he has picked up. Do you have any problem with the report. Mr. Bruer: No, I gather with the conversations my office has had "with Valerie. What the Board really wants is us to supply the Board or your experts with a topo of the road to show were we should put our basins. I have ordered this already. As long as we understand each other that I do have a final map and this is what we are doing. And what we are doing' is to put in the final drainage, which we have already contracted for as I stated at the last meeting. We have paid half the Bill already. Ms. Scopaz: If I could clarify, apparently the wording in Sidney Bowne's letter was stated in such a way that it was as though if he did not have approval. I think in the future I wili talk with them about, it is simply a technical matter in the field. They were asked to state were the drainage should go. When they got out there they found out it was a little more complicated then they thought. They did not want to just eyeball it and say, well we think here...because if it didn't wor~ out they would be in hot water. Mr. Bruer: Right, because even when Mr. Van Tuyl was out there said based upon the original report you really probably don't c ( ..... ,~ PLANNING BOARD . Page 22 MARA 1988 ~ ( want that there. It's frightening to tell a client that he is in the preliminary after three or four years and now we have a final hearing. We asked for an extension. Mr. Orlowski: That is the Engineer's comments and he made a mistake and we can apologize for that. Mr. Bruer: I understand we are to get a Topo of the road, right Valerie? Ms. Scopaz: Right. Mr. Bruer: And put it where... Ms. Scopaz: The elevations of where the road is and the adjoining land. All they want to know is the high points and the low points, so they can make a determination as to where the basis should go to be most effective. I think that should resolve the problem. Mr. Bruer: What bothers me and I'll go into it at the last matter that we are going to discuss tonight. I apparently have a meter running and do not have the information to comply. I am trying to get it. We are on our first extension. I am trying to work. ( Mr. Orlowski: Well, we are trying here too. We have a lot of changes going on in this office and it is all for the better. It seems we don't have any problem here at all. Mr. Bruer: Thank you very much. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Dawn Estates Shopping Center-Board to discuss attorney's letter. \ Mr. Mclaughlin: I wrote a letter to the Board on this lot number four. It is part of a minor subdivision back in 1980. On this 'particular lot there is a very large, dilapidated old building that is starting to fall in around itself. Originally I think the building that the building was utilized as some kind of barn facility. Later years it had been used somewhat as a storage facility for a present day condominium. The roof is falling in on the bullding. At any rate as part of the minor subdivision approval there was restriction placed on this lot, which basically restricted from being used for anything other then utilizing the existing building or any future building as a storage facility for the present day condominiums. What I have requested, in letter form to this Board, is to entertain the possibility of allowing this lot to be developed for one family residence. The building that exists there now is, as I said, is in horrendous condition. To try to bring it up to anything that is usable anymore is prohibitive. The alternative if we can't get any kind of reli~f from this restriction is the bUilding is not going to be used, it is going to cont~nue to deteriorate and it is going to become more of an eyesore. I think if you look at a lot of the surrounding lots of Cleaves Point you will see that the lot size is in 'substantial compliance with many of the 'lots ~. PLANNING BOARD . Page 23 MARC_, 1988 there. Basically what I am doing is asking the Board to reconsider the restriction that were placed on lot number four and remove the restrictions preventing it to be utilized for one family residential purposes. c Mr. Orlowski: It is there an existing M-1 map? Are you going to remove that building? Mr. Mclaughlin: That is the plan, to move that building and to sell the lot as a vacant lot and allow someone to develop for one family. Ms. Scopaz: I believe there is a letter in the file from the ZBA. It sald something about you couldn't use it for multi. Existing buildings on subject lots can only be used for storage or for conferences by the proposed purchaser, and shall never be used as living quarters or multiple-family, or single family residence. It seems to me that since the Zoning Board of Appeals set the original restrictions that you may have to go back to the Board that set the restrictions. This Board only follows suit. Mr. Mclaughlin: I intend to. My reason for being here first is I spoke with the ZBA and he said, "fine file an application." By letter request, I asked this Board to consider that possibility. Frankly, I did not know the procedure to have this restriction removed. So I wrote a letter asking so it would be put on before the Board so that I would know what procedure to use. I got back correspondence from this Board preliminary indicating that they had no intention of lifting that restriction. If this Board has no intention of lifting that restriction I think there is no sense of going to the ZBA with that application. Both Boards have put that restriction on. I guess what I am really asking \ you for is if I can proceed with an application before this Board to lift that restriction. If I get the ability to do that I got the application forms in the file to go ahead and file . with the ZBA to get their approval to lift that restriction. ( Mr. Orlowski: Does the Board have any problem with that? Mr. Ward: I am not so sure I know enough about it, but it sounds reasonable. .' Mr. Orlowski: I don't think there is, do you Valerie? Ms. Scopaz: Legally, the fact that the ZBA set the restrictions first it would have to go back to them first. You have the right to file with the Planning Board at the same time. The Planning Board can't say "well, no we won't entertain the application at all". Mr. Mclaughlin: They have done that. ~ Ms. Scopaz: They indicated that they wereR't in favor of changing the restriction. I think the decision is baSically yours whether you were to make two final payments with the. applications in which case, knowing that if the ZBA declines to PLlINNING BOARD . Page 24 MARCH. 1988 QC ( grant "your request, you would have spent money with the Planning Board application that has been lost. You may just want to make an application with the ZBA. ZBA as a matter of course always refers to the Planning Board for their approval. What you can do as a courtesy is submit copies to the Planning Board so it has it on file. Then it can send its comments back to the ZBA. If you don't get it, then you haven't lost your application fee to the Planning Board. If you do get it, then you can proceed with the Planning Board application. Mr. Mclaughlin: And by what mechanism do I apply to the Planning Board to have it's restrictions removed. Ms. Scopaz: That will become part of your application. Mr. Mclaughlin: Under what? What application? It's obviously not a site plan or a set-off. Ms. Scopaz: I would say it is an amendment of a subdivision map. Was it a minor subdivision? We would have to amend all your approvals that went with that map. Mr. Orlowski: We are looking at a single and separate lot though. That is in an M-1 Zone. ( Ms. Scopaz: Maybe we should refer the question to the Town Attorney and ask him for an opinion as to how this Board can consider the specific request that he is asking. How do you change the restriction on it. I don't think you can change the restriction on just a single separate lot, because the restriction was, the wording of it was such, the wording is in reference to the entire subdivision in Cleaves Point and section 'four, subject to a restriction. There is some mention on the 'approved map that states that there i~ a restriction. I think you would have to amend the subdivision map so the new map does not have this. ""Mr. Mclaughlin: I have a copy of the approved map and it doesn't show this restriction, but I do have a copy of a March 31, 1980 letter from the Board, specifically referring only to lot four and putting that restriction on it. That it can only be used for conferences and storage, but I don't think it was ever a part of approved subdivision map per say. However I have to do this, as long as someone can indicate to me how I can get in front of this Board. I will be happy to go through the ZBA first. And again, my preliminary letter was only trying to find out how to go about this. That is still were I am. Trying to figure out how to go before this Board procedurally so that you can make a determination as to how you want to proceed on my application. ( Mr. Orlowski: I would proceed with the Zoning Board of Appeals and simultaneously file with this Board. We will touch base with our Attorney.If there is any way we can cut any corners during that process we will give it a shot. Thac.N-1 Zone is existing on that single and separate lot. We will have to find out how this effects this whole application. . ~\ . PLANNING BOARD &'age 25 MARA 1988 Mr. Mclaughlin: The deed of that lot into my clients does specifically contain that restriction in it. (' Mr. Orlowski: It is in there, O.K. then that answers that. I think two applications, one to the Zoning Board and one to this Board and we can proceed. We will touch base with our Attorney first thing tomorrow. Mr. Mclaughlin: O.K. And I will get a hold of Val? Mr. Orlowski: Yes. Next Sterling Idea Ventures-Applicant to discuss letter to the Planning Board. Mr. Strang: I have addressed several letters to the Board, I am not sure which one they are discussing. I'll discuss any or all of them. Mr. Orlowski: You sure have enough of them here. O.K. let's just go with the last one. Conference with the Board. Mr. Strang: I requested a conference with the Board in the hopes of that I could maybe more clearly present to the Board the site plan that is in the application. Answering questions and hopefully alleviate the request that the Board has with respect to that the withdrawing the present site plan approval. And act on this as an amendment to that. I think it would be mutually beneficial to both the Board and my client. First hurdle, obviously, I think has to deal with whether the Board will entertain this site plan as an amendment or'if the Board will entertain this site plan conditionally; that its approval will supersede the prior application, the prior approval. c .. Mr. Orlowski: This amendment is a complete overhaul, as far as I t can see. Mr. strang: It is an overhaul in site utilization. It's a , business use. It's the same zoning, the same essential bottom ".line uses which was originally proposed. OUr presentation differs from that which was approved in that there was two buildings originally proposed. Ours is a single building. We are probably grossing over a few hundred square feet that was there originally. It is about nine hundred more square foot more gross area from what was there originally. We are providing more parking and I think our application in working with some comments that Valerie has is a much more viable alternative then which was originally presented. In that you now have a buffer at the road which you wanted but you didn't have formely. You have more landscaping in front on the street side which you didn't have essensally under the former application. The problem, I guess, stems from the fact that my client purchased the property with the approval which gives it a certain market value, obviously. If he then withdraws that approval he is left with a parcel that is less valuable, until such time as the new approval is given. We' are not certain at,tJ1is point in time what the Board's feelings are, they have not encountered it yet. L ~ PLANNING BOARD .page 26 MAR~ 1988 q;;, ( Mr. Orlowski: Personally, we went through a lot and approved that one site plan. You're in a commercial zone, so I don't see where value is gained or lost. I don't see how we can take a whole new site plan on top of one that is already existing and call it amended site plan. I think it is a completely new sit~ plan. As far as I can see it is much more than any amendment, which we do entertain. We should have the original withdrawn and move on to a new site plan. Mr. Strang: O.K. again I am speaking on behalf of my client who is not able to be here this evening. Mr. Orlowski: What you are saying to us is if you don't like what we say about this one you are going to go back to the other one. And then they are going to waste our time doing this one and I do not think that is fair to this Board. c Mr. Strang: It is not that we don't like what you are saying. We are trying to move it along and we have been obviously very receptive to what the Board says, because I have had several meetings with Valerie. Every comment that Valerie has presented to me which from the Board has been, to the best of my knowledge, incorporated into the site plan. We have revised it twice: trying to address all the issues the Board has presented. The bottom line is that we are looking to have a workable site plan that is acceptable to the Board, that is acceptable to my client and not have him give up something that he paid to buy originally. He is not looking to do what was there originally, he would rather not. It doesn't make sense to him to do what's there. . Mr. Orlowski: Then I would withdraw it. 1Mr. Strang: He is willing to withdraw-it, but withdraw it at the same time or in conjunction with your approval of the present that has been submitted. 'Mr. Orlowski: What is the Board's pleasure? Mr, Ward: Do you want to talk to Jay and see if there is any time involved that can be done. Mr. Orlowski: I think we would have to entertain a new application fee. Mr. Strang: Excuse me, a new? Mr. Orlowski: A new application Fee. \ Mr. Strang: That has already been submitted. There has been an application and a fee submitted. It was really a matter of semantics as to whether this was going to go on as a withdrawal in conjunction with an approval or withdrawal prior to an approval. I guess my client is just trying to protect his investment, if you will. Unfortunately the real estate market is such that if someone has a piece of property with an approval on it's market value is considerably higher then a piece of . , C\3' PLANNING BOARD . Page 27 MAR~ 1988 property without an approval on it. You do pay for those approvals. That is one of the reasons he is reluctant, seriously reluctant to give that up. ( Mr. Ward: Is he planning to do this? Mr. Strang: Is he planning to build the structure? Mr. Ward: Yes. Mr. Strang: To the best of my knowledge he is. He has not advised me otherwise. Mr. Ward: If he is planning to build it, it does not seem like there is any problem with... with what you have. If you are doing it for spec purposes then I can see why maybe he is nervous. Mr. strang:... Possibility while we are discussing it if we could discuss the other aspects of the site that the Board had difficulty with. Maybe we can resolve that as well. Mr. Orlowski: It has always been a policy of this Board to rescind one and start with another. We have been in the position where we have two then, when we get to the end they say never mind. It seems like a waste of time. I do not see where the big problem is. I do not see where we are creating a problem or losing anything. You have an existing zone there. You have the approval. I think you even have a variance on this lot, don't you? c ~ Mr. strang: I think there was a variance that was granted to the 'former applicant on which the existing approval is there. Mr. Orlowski: That is still there. ,Mr. strang: Well, that goes with the land. " Mr. Orlowski: That is right. So we are not taking anything away and we are not playing games either. Mr. Stran~: I know. I guess all I can say in he... Mr. Orlowski: We will run it by our Attorney but I know the policy has been what ever the Board wants to do. Mr. strang: Is there anything that the Board can share with me this evening with respect that in the event that my client does agree to withdraw the application to proceed on the new site plan. Is there anything you can see that is a major stumbling block? Again if he does withdraw his application he would undoubtedly want to streamline the process for the new application if we cou~d have it place as soon as possible. ~ Mr. Ward: I would say probably the through road. Mr. Strang: The circulation around? PLANNING BOARD . Page 28 MARC_ 1988 9' ( Mr. Ward: Yes. It looks like you can put your curb line right on the property line in the back because you have the recharge basin. In other words, we are not trying to buffer anyone back there. Mr. Strang: No that is true. I think that curb line is pretty close now. If I'm not mistaken. The problem that I had, and I addressed in one of the letters, is that by putting the circulation loop behind the building, to leave the parking spaces that are back there, thereby reducing the ultimate number of parking spaces we could provide. The curb line is four feet of the property line. If we were to put it directly on the property line, we could probably maintain two of the four spaces back there.if that is such a great situation. The other question I guess I have, is the absolute need for that circulation route. This is not a Key Food or a King Kullen type shopping center. It is a relatively small cluster. Mr. Ward: We prefer to see that loading zone out back and not in front. That was our concern with that. So you could use part of the strip out back and maybe gain another space here. Mr. strang: So ultimately the Board is steadfast on the circulation route, as long as I know that we will deal with it as best we can. ( Mr. Ward: It could stay oneway. It is a small enough site that it could stay oneway. Mr. Strang: O.K. Is there anything else that we can discuss that we have to get over? , Mr Orlowski: Any other comments? Mr. strang: I know there was question in one of the letters with regards to the curb cut location. That pretty much dictates the . configuration of the site and again the question was with .'respect to the circulation, conflict with Van Duzer. Van Duzer's really not operating a quote un-quote "retail establishment". The amount of traffic that he generates, it is minimal. Mr. Orlowski: That is it. O.K. we will touch base with our attorney in the morning and get right back to you. I think we are going to proceed the way we have been, but we will let you know tomorrow. Mr. Strang: O.K. Thank you. I appreciate it. ************************* l Mr. Orlowski: Now, Arshamomaque Island-Board to review applicants request for grading on road specifications. Mr. Bruer: Mr. Chai~n, Rudolph Bruer. I think it goes beyond that. The best I could on February 12, I~ote Ms. Scopaz a letter, which I would like to make part of this record tonight. If the Board would stipulate to that we will just assume th~t it '~' PLANNING BOARD .age 29 MARA 1988 is in here rather then me read it. It is three pages. We don't need that. For the record, see letter: ( -> , ( (" Sr i-I '" Gf~.and' fl84'<<M< ATTO"'NEYSATLAW MAIN ROAO~ p.o. BOX 1466 SOUTHOLO. NEW YORI( I 1971 LE""ERTSP. EDSON (Retired) RUDOLPH H. BRUER PAT"'C'AC,MDD"E February 12, 1988 IS 16, 765-1 IS 1 61 765.2 Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Arshamomaque Island Subdivision Shalette (formerly Ofrias). .( Dear Ms. Scopaz: The above referenced minor subdivision was approved by the Town ; Planning Board on July 14,1986, subject to: (1) filing of covenants ' and restrictions and (2) improvement of right of way to requirements ~of Inspector within 6 months. SUbsequent to the initial 6-month time limitation, two 90-day extensions were granted by the Board, which extensions expired on July 14, 1987. On July 13, 1987, this office requested additional time to comply with the conditions of this approval on behalf of Dr. and Mrs. Benson Shalette who purchased the subject property on April 2, 1987. I met with you personally on July 23~ 1987, to discuss this matter and, if I recall correctly, you explained that the Town Code would'not permit the'Board to grant any additional extensions. Your recommendation was to resubmit the original application, with the understanding that additional fees may be required. The Planping Board's July 27, 1987 meeting agenda called for consideration of our request for an extension. on the conditions of final approval, and acceptance and request for compliance with report No. 602 from Inspector Davis with regard to the right of way improvements. Assuming this report No. 602 constitutes the same "requirements of Inspector" made a' condition of the 7/14/86 approval. which I believe it does, please take note that said report is dated~ June 30, 1987 (14 days prior to thQ expiration of time to comply wi~ same) and did not come before the Board for acceptance until July 27, 1987 (13 days after ~he final extension expired). Theoretically, our clients were permitted 14 days time in Which to complete right of way improvements on the basis of a report which had not yet gained the Planning Board's acceptance. I believe the inequity is clear. ( ( c ~ . PL?>NNING BOARD .( '1' ~~CH 7, 1988 .' V. Scopaz -2- o.\; ,d.J.q- February 12, 1988 On August 18, 1987, this office formally requested that the planning Board reinstate the original application, that the form and substance of same remain unchanged, and that the Board update and reaffirm thei 7/14/86 approval. In response to this request, the Board's September 2, 1987 letter states that "they would accept a new application with new (additional) maps" and filing and inspection fees totaling $750.00. We note here that the Board's 8/24/87 adoption of its new policy with" regard to the construction of minor subdivision roads was in place at this time, but no inference is made, nor taken, as to its applicability with respect to this project. On September 25, 1987, w, compl~ed "to the letter" with the Board's 9/2/87 advise, once again requesting that this application be reinstated and the 7/14/86 approval be updated and reaffirmed. On October 27, 1987, a letter from the Board states that the new application has been reviewed. They request certain map revisions, and road improvements, to be bonded and constructed to Town specifications. These requests were totally inconsistent with our understanding of the Board's position on this application. On December 11, 1987, Mrs. Shalette and I met with you and stated our position, as follows: (1) That applicants were prevented from complying with the conditions of the 7/14/86 apprqval, prior to its expiration, due to the" nonexistence of accepted "requirements of Inspector"; and, (2) that, besides being inequitable due to the particular circumstances of this application, the imposition of road improvements to Town specifications would be cost prohibitive for thio project; and (3) that our repeated requests that the 7/14/86 approval be reinstated, updated and reaffirmed were never acknowledged by the Board, although we had been led to believe that the Board was amenable to this procedure, based upon my discussion with you on 7(23/87 and the Board's letter of 9/2/87. "~.:.-. At this 12/11/87 meeting, 'you assured us that the matter would be addressed at the Planning Board's 1/8/88 work session and that we would ha~7 their response on 1/11/88. No response issued from that work seSSlon. Thereafter, we understand, the 1/15/88 work session was cancelled due to a snow storm and this matter was not addressed at the 1/22/88 work session" nor "il't the session on 1/29/88, From what I gather, a c?nside7ation of this matter is being made part of protracted general dlScusslons on the new road requirements and the "g7andfathering" of certain minor subdivisions with respect to same. ThlS sho~l~ not be,the ca~e. ,The points of contention we have raised are speclflc to thlS appllcatlon and exclusive of any such discussions. ". Please advise. . RUdolph H. Bruer RHB/df CC: Dr. and Mrs. Benson sJialette/ Southold Town Planning Board" James A. Schondebare, Esq. Sincerely, o(f PLANNING BOARD . Page 30 MAR~, 1988 I will assume the Board has read it. I think the major thrust of this is, this is a subdivision that was the former home of Mr. Ofrias, which I think the members of the Board agreed with and the application as it went through. The thrust here is more than just the roads. The roads are a definite part of this. But what happened I believe, according to what I can garnish from the record, is that the Planning Board on July 14, 1986, granted conditional approval of this minor subdivision. One subject to filing a covenants and two putting in the improvements to a right-of-way pursuant to the inspection within six months. During that six month period of time, Mr. Ofrias came along and got, I guess a ninety day extension and sold the property to my clients who got a second extension. The second extension brought it out to a year. The problem, basically, is that this was a conditional approval. Now the conditional approval was basically the engineer and the engineer had to get up the specs and tell what the road was. According to my investigation of the records that the Board is willing to accept, I understand, is that Mr. Davis's report was finally forthcoming on June 30, 1987. Fourteen days prior to the expiration of the second extension, which really didn't leave the applicant too much time to put the road in, particularly during the first extension. It is also my understanding from reading the records that the Board did not accept that report till, I think, 13 days after the expiration of the second extension. Which I think is kind of unfair, because they really could not have put the road in if they didn't know what it was supposed to be. I guess what if comes down to is in the mean time I've had a number of conversations with Ms. Scopaz. One of the problems with respect to this is the position of the Board is that after the second extension expired, the subdivision expired. Therefore we had to reapply. It was my understanding at that time and the easy way to do it 'was to reapply. Everything would kind of go along they way it 1was. That did not happen. The Board in the meantime came up with different road specs as the general policy which is not to the liking of my client, who purchased this property with the . understanding that it had a subdivision or they had a 'subdivision. Not only that, I guess, the new Trustees' laws came in with the respect of being 75 feet away from wetlands, which mayor may not be a problem with the old Ofrias subdivision. What I mean by that is, I may have to go back and try and get relief as far as the new law that came in after the so called expiration of this subdivision. I'm sure I talked to the Board and I'm not going to up hold you. I think what has happened is very unfair. ( ( Mr. Orlowski: As far as what? Mr. Bruer: Well, to give a person a approval of a subdivision and tell them they have to put in a road pursuant to the specifications of the engineer within six months. And the engineer not give the specs until nine months later. That's unfair, the Board through, I rather not argue about this. The Board in itself has prevented the applic~nt from complying. I would like to suggest to the Board, I don't think I really want to debate with you, is I think the Board should think about what I am trying to say. 'e PLANNING BOARD . Page 31 MARC. 1988 9K ( Mr. Orlowski: Were you ready to put the road in immediately, right then and there. Mr. Bruer: On thirteen days notice? Mr. Orlowski: No, prior to, when you first got approval. It appears that thing was jerked around so many ways in the very beginning. ( Mr. Bruer: As I said, the merits of the road if you want me to bring that to you, I can't do that. I was not present. Mr. Ofrias has been viewed with respect the conditional approval. His view is, to my understanding, is different from what the Board says' those conditions are. The conditions happen to be some type of a penciled in notation with respect to this condition. I don't think that it should be argued at this particular point. What I am suggesting to the Board, if I may, is that when you give conditional approvals subject to a engineers report, so to speak, that the time frame doesn't start to tick until the Board has given the applicant the material or the information to make its decisions to do the job. What I am hoping to influence the Board here to do, would be at this particular instance to say at the very least that the original time frame of this subdivision should not have started to tick until the Board had approved Mr. Davis's report. Then the proper decisions could be made. I think the equities in terms of everybody, members of the Board, the applicant, would be fairly analyzed as to whether to proceed or not or jerk around. I think that has happened and I think your other applications before the Board I am starting to see that. I think maybe I would imPeach the Board that in their future policy thinking in these terms generally you could consider what , I just said. \ Mr. Orlowski: I don't see where talking bottom line, other then , problem is with it is the road, ", the hardShip the Trustees right? is really. You are and what their Mr. Bruer: Assuming the utmost good faith on the part of my client she could not have done what she was Supposed to have done because the Board did not approve the engineer's reporx, the work to be done, until after the secDnd extension. It did not exist, how could she comply with it? Mr. Orlowski: Why didn'~ you make a few more requests to imProve it. It appears there was no intent to approve that road anyway. \., Mr. Bruer: Well, we came here for an extension. It was an extensional matter. The interpretation of the Board was at that time, I don't know if everybody thought it all out, was that the time it expired and therefore, it was removed and they had to reapply. You can not grant something and not allow them to do it. I would please suggest that you speak to Mr. Schondebare and my letter before you make a decision. I'd rather not back everybody into a corner tonight on the issue. I think my letter is fairly clear. I think if everybody thinks it o~t arid if you make a decision contrary to what I am asking I would appreciate " qi\' PLANNING BOARD . Page 32 MARA 1988 that. I think it should be with great care and I don't think it is going to envy you. ( Mr. Orlowski: You are talking that you would rather go with Mr. Davis' report rather then our new specs. Mr. Bruer: I am saying to the Board not only don't I have a... I don't have a subdivision, I don't have specs, I don't have a subdivision. Ms. Scopaz: If I may, I could briefly recount the history of this in more detail. He is giving you the bare bone, outline. He did not represent Mr. Ofrias, so he was not a party to that at .that time. . Mr. Bruer: You missed something Valerie, when Mr. Ofrias left I think you missed something. You would have enjoyed it. Ms. Scopaz: There are two issues that are being raised here. Maybe I can clarify them, I am not going to get involved in the discussion. Back in July 18, 1986, the Board did give Mr. Ofrias Conditional final approval. It was a practice that the Board did at that time with minor subdivision. Now any approval it grants with minor subdivisions, it requires that the road be bonded so that the applicant has more time in which to comply with plans of the proposal. But, at that time it was not done. I am just going to read through the correspondence here. August 25, 1986 the Planning Board asked Jack Davis to please come up with the road specs and then in September of 1986 the Planning Board asked Mr. Ofrias at the request of Mr. Davis to please set the road and to provide some kind of profile. Evidently Jack needed some more information. In November of 1986, Mr. Ofrias sent a ' letter to the Board asking that the right-of-way be left \ unresolved until such time that someone came in for a building permit on either of the two remaining lots. He made it clear that he really wished not to put the road in at this time. In December of 86 the Board in response to that letter granted a 90 "day extension on the conditional approval. Once again reiterated that it wanted the right-Of-way to be improved. In April of 1987, Jack requested that additional information be provided to the surveyor in regards to the road profile, and on April 8th, the road profile was amended by the surveyor. On April 13th, there was a second 90 day extension of conditional final approval in order to complete the road. On April 22, Van Tuyl submitted an application. June 30th there was a letter to Jack from the Board and then in July there was the request to extend the approval an additional 90 days. But under state law the Board could not extend the approval again. It was at that point the new person involved. Now I understand the current owner bought the property sometime in the spring of 1987. The letter in the file is from April. What transpired between December and April I don't know. Mr. Bruer: There is a serious issue of f~ts that I don't think should be debated here. Is to whether the actual subdivision was a conditional subdivision of the roads having to be put in or being put in as such time as the lapse of time. If you recall c ~-. ~ PLANNING BOARD .age 33 MARCH. 1988 tDI . ( back at that particular time you were phasing out that type of subdivision. But up until that time, you would allow a developer to put. in a minor subdivision or grant him approval of a minor subdivision and the roads did not have to be put in until such time that somebody came and said I wanted to build there. At that particular point they would have to come back to the Board, despite the years after the original granting of the approval. As for the going to the Building inspector, you would say go to the Planning Board and what are specs that are required. That is the way things were done. I know the Board is getting out of that. It is a factual questionnaire and I. Valerie and I are pretty much on the same wave length. Mr. Orlowski: Alright, let's talk to Mr. Schondebare tomorrow and see what he has to say. That is a horrendous road unless it has been fixed up. The last time I was down there it was just a bad road, period. Mr. Bruer: Well, I know Mr. Mullen likes it because he is selling his Cherokees. If the Board would please, if there is a meeting I would like to be present, with Mr. Schondebare.Please indicate to him I would like to talk to him about it. I would like to work it out and I think it should be worked out. The Board has always been fair, generally speaking. ( Ms. Scopaz: What I would recommend is to draft a letter or a memo to the Town Attorney. I have already spoken to the Town Attorney about setting up meetings. Mr. Bruer is not the first attorney or applicant to request a joint meeting with the Planning Board and Town Attorney. Given that they are still setting up there office, what we have agreed on is that we will write a memo, talk to the applicant, talk to the Town Attorney, ' and he will responce to us in writing. If there is still any ~unresolved question at that point, then we can talk about setting up a meeting. For the time being that is what he suggested. Mr. Bruer: That would be fine. I would like that, I would like to be able to say to my client I could expect future report with the Board on this. I just like to throw out as my suggestion, I don't expect any comment back on that, is when you have conditional approval and if there is something there that the Board is Suppose to do, please lets not have the meter run. I mean the taxi driver doesn't charge you till you get in the cab. . Mr. Orlowski: But when you don't know where you are going, the meter is sure running. We will work it out to the best of our ability, because personally I would like to get rid of this thing myself. c Mr. Bruer: Thank you very much. ************************* Ms. Scopaz: There is just one more item ;hich I forgot to put on the agenda. .It is my fault, not the computer's fault. On February 25th the Town Board had an interesting meeting with Greenport Village Board to discuss certain problems. It was / / / PLANNING BOARD . MARCH. 1988 Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion to grant sketch? All those in favor? that the Southold Town Planning for this minor subdivision. Vote Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mr. Edwards: Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: MotiOn motion? All tho~ in RESOLVED th~" the Southold Board declare itself Lead Agen~Under the State Environm tal Quality Review Act. Vote 00he Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, / Mr. ~lOWSki: Opposed? So ordered. ~-~ ************************* d seconded. Any questions on the Mr. Orlowski: ~ request for ch in #1000-97-3-1. 1 to discuss Attorney's Board's revision of layout.SCTM Ms. Scopaz: If I can clarify that for you, the Board recently extended the preliminary approval for six months..At the time of the extension it requested that instead of having the two lots ~ on 25 that all four lots have access off the right-of-way. Mr. McClaughlin, on behalf of his client has requested that the Board reconsider that to allow his client to have two access points out to leave the second lot, the lot that is adjacent to "Top Sail Realty, to have access to 25. Mr. Mclaughlin: Kevin Mclaughlin for the applicant. Basically my understanding of the Board's request is based on the number of access points out on the Main Road. My suggestion after speaking with my client is that perhaps we could have a common drive between the two parcels out fronting along the Main Road. That way there would only be two access points on to the Main Road, which would be the same amount that we would have if we stacked the four lots with only one on the Main Road. There is an existing drive into the existing structure there. They where going to have a 25 foot right-of-way. This would provide for the same number of access but would allow us to continue to have two lots with frontage on the Main Road. Mr. Ward: Your client believes the frontage on the Main Road for residential lots would be better? Mr. Mclaughlin: He prefers it that way. PLANNING BOARD . MARCHe1988 Ms. Scopaz: My only recommendation is that if you have one right-of-way with all four lots having access over that. You will create three lots off of the Main Road leaving the front lot with the front lawn intact. My recommendation is that you stay with your change, but that is the Board's decision. Mr. Lessard: If I might point out to you, sir, through the chair. For every lot or right-of-way that hits the Main Road you need a 239K and the state is very tough on that. I wish you would keep that in mind. They may just say no! Regardless of what happens whether you need one or two it has to be applied for. I think what this Board is trying to do is to cut down on the amount of entrance onto a state Highway. I think that is what the intent is here. But again, regardless you might have to go for two 239K's or access approvals if you are going to design the property so that touches the Main Road plus the access touching the Main Road. Mr. Mclaughlin: But we have an existing access. What we are looking for, one way or the other, is to get approval on the 25 foot right-of-way. Mr. Lessard: O.K. I just wanted you to be aware of it Kevin. Mr. Orlowski: What is the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Ward: Personally, I feel it is a better layout then what we are recommending. I don't know. Unless there was something with lot one as to the configuration, I am missing something somewhere as to why they would want to stay with this configuration. 'Mr. Mclaughlin: I don't really know the answer to that other \ then that is the way they proposed it. When I went to them after the last meeting where you indicated your preference for this. They indicated a definite preference if the Board would approve. Mr. Ward: You know if there was something we did not know about, lets say behind the garage or something that should be part of that lot. Sitting here looking at it I don't know that there is any reason not to do what we are requesting. Maybe there is some reason. Maybe you would want to look into that further and get back to us. Mr. Mclaughlin: Why don't I do that. Mr. Orlowski: Your also next to an existing B-1 zone and squeezing in another residential lot between a house and that B-1 makes things tight. I think far more ahead putting lot 2 in back of lot 1 and keeping away from that B-1 zone which is there. I would not look for any further thought of extending that B-1 zone over to that piece of property. If that is the case I think they should forget that. To put that lot in the back, would mean its off the Main Road and to me it would make it a more salable lot. PLANNING BOARD . MARCH .1988 Mr. Mclaughlin: Why don't I discuss that with my client and get back to you. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Mr. Mclaughlin: Thank you. -.-;;.:.. OnowsJU: NeXt: We liave ~apaaopou1:OiiS'aiid-Mar;os-Board to discuss attorney's letter requesting clarification of its February 25th decision. Mr. Bruer. Mr. Bruer: Members of the Board. I think the letter is pretty clear. What we are doing here is that we have had final approval of the map subject to certain conditions which related to a report from Mr. Davis and a Bonding report from the other applicant, which came just before the expiration of the time frame of the conditions. The Board was gracious enough to extend it for a period of time. What bothers us is they have the one engineer that is now talking about a preliminary map. Obviously this has been granted a final hearing. It is kind of hard for a developer to now start discussing with an engineer, a preliminary map and believe me for me to explain to him, you know, something is obviously wrong. Obviously what the Board probably wants is something so that on this existing Town road, which has been around for a long long time,to make sure that it has proper drainage. If as a result of this subdivision. I guess what we are here for is, could you please clarify with not only your people but for the record that number one we are in our extension period and I am dealing with an engineer that thinks I have preliminary map. Mr. Orlowski: Well, in the engineer's part I think that is just a mistake. We know that we are looking at a approved c subdivision. As far as the engineer's report in what he has picked up. Do you have any problem with the report. Mr. Bruer: No, I gather with the conversations my office has had with Valerie. What the Board really wants is us to supply the Board or your experts with a topo of the road to show were we should put our basins. I have ordered this already. As long as we understand each other that I do have a final map and this is what we are doing. And what we are doing is to put in the final drainage,~which we have already contracted for as I stated at the last meeting. We have paid half the Bill already. Ms. Scopaz: If I could clarify, apparently the wording in Sidney Bowne's letter was stated in such a way that it was as though if he did not have approval. I think in the future I will talk with them about, it is simply a technical matter in the field. They were asked to state were the drainage should go. When they got out there they found out it was a little more complicated then they thought. They did not want to just eyeball it and say, well we think here...because if it didn't work out they would be in hot water. Mr. Bruer: Right, because even when Mr. Van Tuyl was out there said based upon the original report you really probably don't . . / ~ A'-.. ~u~"'~:- ATrORN;,;;:;;;;;r--- 828 FRONT STREET, P. O. BOX 803 GREENPORT. NY 11944 (518) <7H018 February 18, 1988 Southo1d Town Planning Board Town Hall Main Road Southo1d, New York 11971 Re: Minor Subdivision for Birndorf and Rizzo Gentlemen: May I please have a response to my letter dated January 6, 1988, a copy of which is enclosed herewith. JKM/1mt Enclosure I "..'.""r, . . /" ~~ At~~Nmf/-A, ATIORNEY -:::1'77--. 828 FRONT b'TREET. P. O. HOX 803 aUEENPOH.'l'. NY 119-tot 15161 477-1016 January 6, 1987 Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Minor Subdivision for Birndorf and Rizzo Gentlemen: On December 14, 1987, you extended sketch plan approval for the above-referenced minor subdivision for a period of six months. At that time, the Board also indicated that it would. prefer only one lot to front along Main Road in order to avoid more than two entrances on to Main Road (the existing driveway and the proposed 25 foot right-of-way). My client would prefer to have two lots fronting on Main Road, but would certainly be willing to limit the number of access ways on to Main Road to a total of two. This could be accomplished by granting easement to lot 2 over the existing drive and then in a westerly direction over lot 1 to lot 2. This concept would accomplish the Board's stated purpose, while allowing my client to retain two lots with street frontage. Any covenants restricting further access to Main Road which the Planning Board recommends would be acceptable to my clients. I would like the Planning Board at . . . an opportun~ty to rev~ew your next meeting. this concept with Very truly yours, J. Kevin.McLaughlin JKM/lg . -/ ~ -'I~~,,_.f~_ A1TOmi-;:.;;;:;;r-_r 828 FRONT STREET. P. O. BOX 808 GREENPORT. NY 119<< 16181 477-1018 . January 6, 1987 Southo1d Town Planning Board Town Hall Main Road Southo1d, New York 11971 Re: Minor Subdivision for Birndorf and Rizzo Gentlemen: On December 14, 1987, you extended sketch plan approval for the above-referenced minor subdivision for a period of six months. At that time, the Board also indicated that it would prefer only one lot to front along Main Road in order to avoid more than two entrances on to Main Road (the existing driveway and the proposed 25 foot right-of-way). My client would prefer to have two lots fronting on Main Road, but would certainly be willing to limit the number of access ways on to Main Road to a total of two. This could be accomplished by granting easement to lot 2 over the existing drive and then in a westerly direction over lot 1 to lot 2. This concept would accomplish the Board's stated purpose, while allowing my client to retain two lots with street frontage. Any covenants restricting further access to Main Road which the Planning Board recommends would be acceptable to my clients. I would like an opportunity to review this concept with the Planning Board at your next meeting. JKM/lg Very RECEIVED BY sOU"rU0~'~':' , ',' ',''1'10 En/DD lit; ,'t.l I L'ij';j~W~u , lit;i~ N 8 l:Jd8 f2~TE. . . T D Southo1d. N. Y. 11971 (516) 765.1938 January 7, 1988 J. Kevin McLaughlin, Esq. 828 Front Street, P.O. Box 803 Greenport, NY 11944 Re: Birndorf/Rizzo Minor Subdivision Dear Mr. McLaughlin: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, December 14, 1987. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a 6 month extension on the filing of the final submission of the subdivision of Birndorf and Rizzo located at Main Road, Cutchogue, for 4 lots on 9.111 acres, SCTM# 1000-97-3-1; subject to a revision in the survey that all lots will have access off the right-of-way proposed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, B~ Q,tU.uJ~\~. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. CHAIRMAN f'ji) SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD aUUilicl~ ,," ~ O{ ',..U ti\;U~lI , -,.,'.,,, . ,/ ~ -'/~Y!.M.f~_. ATI'ORNi~~-'. 828 FRONT STREET, P. O. BOX 803 OREENPORT, NY 119" (5161477.1016 . December 14, 1987 Planning Board Town of Southo1d Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Birndorf/Rizzo Minor Subdivision Gentlemen: By resolution dated December 8, 1986, the Planning Board approved the sketch map for the above-referenced minor sub- division. By resolution dated June 1, 1987, the Planning Board granted a six-month extension of this approval. Since August 3, 1987, we have been attempting to obtain the consent of the mortgage bank for the recording of the covenants and restrictions required by the Suffolk County Health Department in order to obtain Article 6 approval. Dime Savings Bank, the original mortgagee has assigned the mortgage to California Savings Bank. As a result, it has been extremely difficult to work with the new mortgagee. We are presently having an updated appraisal prepared in order to satisfy the mortgagee. Upon receipt of a satisfactory appzaisal. I have been assured that the bank will consent. Due to the foregoing, it is necessary to request a further six-month extension of the Planning Board's approval. Very tru y JKM/lg ...~.T.'" . . T D Southold. N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 June 8, 1987 Mr. J. Kevin McLaughlin, Esq. Attorney at Law P.O. Box 803 Greenport, NY 11944 Re: Birndorf/Rizzo Dear Mr. McLaughlin: The fo~lowing action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, June 1, 1987. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a six month extension for the minor subdivision of Birndorf/Rizzo located at Cutchogue pursuant to the request of the attorney for the applicant in order to file for final approval, sketch plan approval has been received. This extension to expire on December 1, 1987. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, ~T~~~c't-~ur. SOUTH OLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary - MAY 29 1987 . /' ~ ;~~N_-f~_ ATl'ORNEy;n;:;;r-_v 828 FRONT STREET. P. O. BOX 803 GREENPORT. NY 119<< 1618)<77-1016 . May 29, 1987 Planning Board Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Attention: Diane M. Schultz, Secretary Re: Birndorf from Rizzo Dear Diane: By resolution dated December 8, 1986, the Planning Board approved the sketch map for the minor subdivision was approved. We are presently awaiting Suffolk County Health Department. made for a six-month extension of Article 6 approval from the Therefore, request is hereby the sketch map approval. JKM/lg .,...- . . T D LD Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 December 9, 1986 Mr. Kevin McLaughlin Attorney at Law 828 Front Street Greenport, NY 11944 RE: Birndorf and Rizzo Dear Mr. McLaughlin: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, December 8, 1986. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, following a field inspection, approve the sketch map for the minor subdivision of Birndorf and Rizzo located at Cutchogue for 4 lots on 9.1 acres, survey dated May 23, 1986. Upon receipt of Article 6 approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services we will schedule a public hearing on this proposal. Please note, Article 6 is to be obtained by the applicant. Would you, also, forward six (6) surveys in accordance with the enclosed list for our referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, ~~S~~~~~ SOUTH OLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD enc. By Diane M. SChultze, Secretary Mr. Kevin McLaughlin Attorney at Law 828 Front Street Greenport, NY 11944 Re: Birndorf and Rizzo Dear Mr. McLaughlin: . tD Soulhold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 December 2, 1986 Enclosed is a copy of the negative declaration for the above mentioned subdivision which was granted by the Planning Board at the regular meeting of November 24, 1986. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. enc. Very truly yours, JvzIl11t (}I1JJ:tsU)~ BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary - '" ,.. . . T LD Southold. N.Y. 11971 (516).765-1938 November 24, 1986 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law State Environmental Quality Review Act and 6NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.10 and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, notice is hereby given that Southold Town Planning Board as lead agency for the action described below has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION The minor subdivision of Birndorf and Rizzo is for 4 lots on 9 acres located at Main Road, Cutchogue. Tax Map no. 1000- 97-3-1. The project has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons: An environmental assessment has been submitted which indicated that no significant adverse effects to the environment were likely to occur should the project be implemented as planned. Because there has been no correspondence received in the alotted time from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services it is assumed that there are no comments or objections from that agency. Because there has been no correspondence received from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation in the alotted time, it is assumed that there are no comments or objections from that agency. The project will meet all the requirements of the Code of the Town of Southold Subdivision of Land Regulations. Further information can be obtained by contacting Diane M. Schultze, Secretary Southold Town Planning Board, Main Road, Southold, New York, 11971. .... . . Copies mailed to the following: Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Planning Commission NYS DEC Peter Flack, DEC Commissioner Supervisor Murphy Applicant 9" . / T . LD Southold. N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 November 24, 1986 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law State Environmental Quality Review Act and 6NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.10 and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, notice is hereby given that Southold Town Planning Board as lead agency for the action described below has determin~ that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION The minor subdivision of Birndorf and Rizzo is for 4 lots on 9 acres located at Main Road, Cutchogue. Tax Map no. 1000- 97-3-1. The project has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons: An environmental assessment has been submitted which indicat~ that no significant adverse effects to the environment were likely to occur should the project be implemented as planned. Because there has been no correspondence received in the alotted time from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services it is assumed that there are no comments or objectic from that agency. Because there has been no correspondence received from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation in the alotted time, it is assumed that there are no comments or objections from that agency. The project will meet all the requirements of the Code of the Town of Southold Subdivision of Land Regulations. Further information can be obtained by contacting Diane M. Schultze, Secretary Southold Town Planning Board, Main Road, Southold, New York, 11971. r- T . LD Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 November 13, 1986 Mr. J. Kevin McLaughlin Attorney at Law P.O. Box 803 Greenport, NY 11944 Re: Birndorf and Rizzo Minor Subdivision proposal Dear Mr. McLaughlin: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, November 10, 1986. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare themselves lead agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act for the minor subdivision proposal of Philip Birndorf and Joseph M. Rizzo located at Cutchogue for 4 lots on 9 acres. An initial determination of non-significance has been made. It was the consensus of the Board to conduct a field inspection of the premi prior to any further review or action. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, ~ {)rWxAJ;.-9Y~ BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary . ---"'lI{ '. ,);:1...-.: I 1::1-;',' i: ':~.H:r.iT/d. /\SS::~~~.E:H j J:lSr::'JCT lOllS: ." . (0) JII c>rde:r to OIlS\'l"r the qu<!stions 1.n thJ.s short EAF J.t J.s aSsumE: that the preparer will use. currently available inf~r~ation concerning the projecl nnd the lil:ely impacts of the oclion. It).s not expected that additional studic~, reseorch or othar investigations wi~l be undertaken. (b) If ~ny question has been answered Yes the proJect may be significont olld a co,oplcted Environmental Assessment Form is. necessary. (c) If all questions hove been onswered No it is likely that this project is nol significont. (d) Envirorlm~ntal As~c~~m~nt 1. \'Ii,n p,'ajccl result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter more . thun 10 (Icres of lond?....................... Yes X No 2. \"Iill there be 0 major change to (my unique or - -. .ur.usual land fa 1m found on the site?......... Yes X No 3. \'/ill project alter or hO'le a large' effect on - .- cxisti:l8 body of wolcr'?........................_Y.es....JLNo. 4. Will project hava 0 potentially large impact .' . on groundwater quality?....................... Yes- X'No 5. \'Iill project significantly eff-ed drainage -:-- -.-:- flow on adjacent sitas?....................... Yes X No 6. \"iill project affect 0:1)' threatened or - -' elldangered plant or onimol species?.......... Yes ~ No 7.. \'Iill project result in a rnaje'r adverse effect:7 . ~ on air quolit)'?............................... . Yes XNa C. \'Iill project hove 0 major effect on visual - - chGracter of the corar:wnity or scenic views or X vi:dos known to'be important to the community? . Yes No 9. \'Iill project adversel)' iropoct any site or -- structure of historic, prehistoric or . . paleontologicol im['lortonce or ony site dc:siSjnCltc:d us 0 criticCJl environmental crca b)' 0 local agenc}'?.............~.........,.............,. Yes xNo 10. \'Iill project hove (l major effect on existing - - or fu ture recn:ationol opportunities?......... Yes X No 11. \1.\11 projc<Ct result in .mojor traffic problems - --:- o~ cau~e 0 major effect to existing transportation systems?...................... Yes-E-No 12. \'Iill project .Tp.oulorly couse objectionable - oclors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical distur~once os 0 result of the project's .' opcToliorl?..,....... ...... .............. ........ .. . . .. .. .. ...... Yes X No' \'lil1 project hove on)' i",poc'l. on public health - or. so r c t y? .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . . .. .. . .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. Yes X No \'Iill projact affect thc existino community by - - directly causing 0 growth ill permenent population of more than 5 percent over 0 one year pariod or hove 0 mojor neD~tive effect on the charaCter of the community or nai9hl.,orhood? .. . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . ... ._Yes X No 1" there public cont rover sy cor cerning the p;.C>jec:t./......... .............. 'fes xNo 13. 11,. 15. PREP/II!EP.' S p D^TEO+.I'l ($'f6 REPRESEIHING T . Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 October 27, 1986 Environmental Analysis Unit DEC, Building 40, Room 219 SUNY Stony Brook, NY 11794 Gentlemen: Enclosed find a completed Short Environmental Assessment Form and a copy of the map of the subdivision of Birndorf and Rizzo located at Cutchogue, tax map no. 1000-97-3-1. This project is unlisted and an initial determination of nonsignificance has been made. We wish to .coordinate this action to confirm our initial determination. May we have your views on this matter. Written comments on this project will be received at this office until November 10, 1986.. We shall interpret lack of response to mean there is no objection by your agency in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and our agency will assume the status of lead agency. ,~:y;;;&~J9vcJvV BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary enc. cc: Department of Health Services . ,/ ~ L~MAlAf_, ATTO~.;;;;;;:;r-'- 828 FRONT STREET. P. O. BOX 808 OREENPORT. NY 11H4 (618) 477.1018 . OCT 22 1986 october 22, 1986 Planning Board Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Minor Subdivision of Philip Birndorf and Joseph M. Rizzo Gentlemen: I have enclosed the minor subdivision application, twelve (12) copies of the sketch plan, long environmental assessment form (Part 1), legal description of the property, and the filing fee in the sum of $550.00. Please accept this application for filing, and advise me of the date for meeting with the Planning Board. JKM:kk Enclosures Very . . . . OCT 22 _ ~ ,. . APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT To the Planning Board of the Town of Southold: The undersigned applicant hereby applies for tte_ti~-(final) approval of a subdivision plat in accordance with Article 16 of the Town Law and the Rules and Regulations of the Southold Tow" Planning Board, and represents and states as follows: 1. The applicant is the owner of record of the land under application. (If the applicant is not the owner of record of the land under application, the applicant shall state his interest in said land under application.) 2. The name of the subdivision is to be .. Minor.. S.\J.tl.qiy.il3.:i.on. Rf..li'!1..i,J..i,P.. .. ....... . )~;i.:t;p..q9.t:f. .cH1..q.~9p.~P.I1. ~k .~;i.~ll.q...................................................... 3. The entire land under application is described in Schedule "A" hereto annexed. (Copy of deed suggested.) 4. The land is held by the applicant under deeds recorded in Suffolk County Clerk's office as follows: Liber ....+9.U.L........... Page .....~J..L........... On ....~tMjl.L..........; Liber ........................ Page ...................... On ........................., Liber ........................ Page Page Page ...................... On ........................, ...................... On ........................, Liber ........................ Liber ........................ ...................... On ........................, as devised under the Last Will and Testament of ........................................ or as distributee ........................................................................ ................................................................................................ 5. The area of the land is ......~: .~~.~... acres. 6. All taxes which are liens on the land at the date hereof have been paid .. ................................................................................................. 7. The land is encumbered by . ."'. .~;i.:r:~:t:.................................................. mortgage (11) as follows: (a) Mortgage recorded in Liber ............ Page.................... in original amount of $.~.~!5...9'O.9...... unpaid amount $..~?~I.QQP.,... held by ..~!1.E!..I?;i!1)lj!..9!lX;iAg.EL . .?a,J?~. 9.~. Nr.,.. f.1?!3... address...................................................... (b) Mortgage recorded in Liber ............ Page .................... in original amount of $. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. unpaid amount $. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. held by ........................... . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... address ........ .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. --..--i . . , . . (c) Mortgage recorded in Liber ............ Page.................... in original amount of $. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. unpaid amount $. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. held by ........................... . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. ... address ...................................................... 8. There are no other encumbrances or liens against the land ~ ................... . . . . . ......................................................................................... 9 Th I d I. . h f II' . d" A Residential/ . e an les In t e 0 oWIng zonmg use 1St nets ...................................... . " .. !l:g:r.~~.~;L:t:I:I!='.~;L. ..... .. . . . ... .. .. .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . 10. No part of the land lies under water whether tide water, stream, pond water or otherwise, ~ CKJlIIX . .. .. . . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . . .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . II. The applicant shall at his expense install all required public improvements. 12. The land; (does) (does not) lie in a Water District or Water Supply District. Name of Dis- trict, if within a District, is .............................................................. 13. Water mains will be laid by ... ."11 l';. .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . and (a) (no) charge will be made for installing said mains. 14. Electric lines and standards will be installed by ....... ~V?\-. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..................................... an d (a) (no) charge will be made for installing said lines. 15. Gas mains will be installed by... ../!lIT';................................................... and (a) (no) charge will be made for installing said mains. 16. If streets shown on the plat are claimed by the applicant to be existing public streets in the Suffolk County Highway system, annex Schedule "B" hereto, to show same. None 17. If streets shown on the plat are claimed by the applicant to be existing public streets in the Town of Southold Highway system, annex Schedule "C" hereto to show same. None 18. There are no existing buildings or structures on the land whieh are not located and shown on the plat. 19. Where the plat shows proposed streets which are extensions of streets on adjoining sub- division maps heretofore filed, there are no reserve strips at the end of the streets on said existing maps at their conjunctions with the proposed streets. 20. In the course of these proceedings, the applicant will offer proof of title as required by Sec. 335 of the Real Property Law. 21. Submit a copy of proposed deed for lots showing all restrictions, covenants, etc. Annex Schedule "D". . , . . . #- ~ ' .. .. 22. The applicant estimates that the cost of grading and required public improvements will he $. . . .. . . ... as itemized in Schedule wE" hereto annexed and requests that the maturity of the Performance Bond be fixed at ........ . . .. years. The Performance Bond will be written by a licensed surety company unless otherwise shown on Schedule "F". DATE .():,~.C 00 ! 100 . 00 . 00 d, 19:9~ .. A . 00 00.. . 00 00 .~ STA TE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF .... .~!l.F.'f~~~ .. 00 00 .. 00 .. 00 00 ..., ss: O~lt~e .....! 71f:... 00' day of ..a..\9.~Coo. 00.....' 19. .8.Q.., before me personally came ~ KEVIN McLAUGHLIN k bh . d"d I d 'bed . d' h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " to me nown to e t e In IVI ua escrl In an . w () executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that ...... h~. . . " executed the same. -!~.&,..~b~....,., ~~i';; . P~blD; . (J IlATHY AI. KUNGf IIITMY PUB.!.ll:,.. of New YorlI ~~=~~~~7 STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF 00................................ ss: On the .............. . . .. dJay ...,........ .. of ..... . . . . .. 19. . . . . ., before me personally came . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to me known. who being by me duly SWorn did de. pose and say that. . . . . .. . . '" resides at No. .................................................... .. . . .. 00 . . .. 00 .. 00 00 00 . . 00 .. 00 .. .. 00 00 . . . . . 00 . . . that ............. 00 .. .. .. 00 00. is the ....... 00 . . 00 .. 00 .. .. .. 00. of ......... 00 00 .. 00 00 . .. .. 00 . .. . . "00 .. . . . . .. . .. . 00 .. .. .. 00 00 . .. 00 . 00 . . .. . .. 00 . the corporation described in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that ............ knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed by order of the board of directors of said corpor- ation, and that ............ signed ............ name thereto by like order. Notary Public ................................................. . , . . SCHEDULE A ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a monument at the southerly side of Main (State) Road at the northeasterly corner of land now or formerly of Tuthill, said point of beginning being the northwesterly corner of the premises herein described; RUNNING THENCE from said point of beginning North 57 degrees 34 minutes 30 seconds East 493.13 feet to land now or formerly of Bailey; THENCE along said last mentioned land, South 28 degrees 17 minutes 50 seconds East 163.57 feet to land now or formerly of Midgley and Horton; THENCE along said last mentioned land, South 27 degrees 02 minutes East 98.52 feet to land now or formerly of Miraglia; THENCE along said last mentioned land, the following four (4) courses and distances: (1) South 26 degrees 06 minutes 30 seconds East 64.97 feet; (2) South 10 degrees 09 minutes 10 seconds West 578.09 feet; (3) South 13 degrees 27 minutes 20 seconds West 239.30 feet; (4) North 70 degrees 54 minutes 40 seconds West 416.74 feet to land now or formerly of Stepnoski; THENCE along said last mentioned land and along land now or formerly of Tuthill the following three (3) courses and distances: (1) North 18 degrees 21 minutes 20 seconds East 224.72 feet; (2) North 19 degrees 18 minutes 20 seconds East 218.22 feet; (3) North 30 degrees 15 minutes 40 seconds West 314.85 feet to the monument set at the point or place of BEGINNING. . WCB2 Q r.:l r.:l Q r.:l H p., ~ Ul DISTRICT 1000 SECTION BLOCK LOT - . S"ndud N. Y. B.T. U. Fo'm 8002. -B....~::~I. O..d, w;,h Cmn", ,s,;n.. Gun,o" A",_I"I 0' Co'pomion (,inSI. .hm) CONSULT YOUR LAWY" ___SIGNING TIlIS_TIlUMINT-THIIINITIlUMINT SHOULD" VlID _Y LAWYIRI ONLY. nus INDENTURE, made the day of , nineteen hundred and BE11VEEN PHILIP BIRNDORF, residing at 461 West 21st Street, New York, New York, and JOSEPH M. RIZZO, residing at 461 West 21st Street, New York, New York party of the fint part, and party of the aecond part, \\oIl ~ III, that the party of the first part, in consideration of Ten Dollars and other valuable considerati?" paid by the party of the second part, does hereby grant and release unto the party of the second part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever, ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of Iancl, with the buildings and improvementa thereon erected, situate, lyinc and beiDr in the ( Description of Parcel ) SUBJECT TO Covenants and Restrictions of Record. TOGETHER with all right, title and interest, if any, of the party of the first part in and to any streets and roads abutting the above described premises to the center lines thereof; TOGETHER with the appurtenances and all the estate and rights of the party of the first part in and to said premises; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises herein granted unto the party of the second part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever. AND the party of the first part covenants that the party of the first part has not done or suffered anything whereby the said premises have been encumbered in any way whatever, except as aforesaid. AND the party of the first part, in compliance with Section 13 of the Lien Law, covenants that the party of the first part will receive the consideration for this conveyance and will hold the right to receive such consid- eration as a trust fund to be applied first for the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will apply the same first to the payment of the cost of the improvement before using any part of the total of the same for any other purpose. The word "party" shall be construed as if it read "parties" whenever the sense of this indenture so requires. IN wrrNESS WHEREOF, the party of the first part has duly executed this deed the day and year first above WTilten. b. PUSENC& OF: SCHEDULE D On the day of personally c:ame 19 .., STATIO' NIW YORK. COUNTY 0' , before me On the day of personally came , before me ST A TIi 0' NIW YORK. COUNTY OF to me known to be the individual executed the foregoing instrument. executed the same. described in and who and acknowledged that STATIi OF _ Y_. COUNTY 0. On the day of 19 , before me personally c:ame to me known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he resides at No. that he is the of . the corporation described in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that he knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed to said instrument is sur" corporate seal; that it was so affixed by order of the board of directors of said corpora- tion, and that he sicned h name thereto by like order. ....in .. "It aerb WITH COVENANT AGAINST GRANTOR'S ACTS Tina No. TO STANDMD 101M Of NIW YOM IOAIO Of Tlnl UNDIIWIIIHS DutribtUlfI by First American Title Insurance Company of New York ~ I I a iI I I ! I .., 19 to me known to be the individual executed the foregoing instrument, executed the same. described in and who and acknowledged that .., ST A TIi 0' NEW YORK. COUNTY OF 5S: On the day of 19 , before me personally came the subscribing witness to the foregoing instrument, with whom I am personally acquainted, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he resides at No. that he knows to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument; that he, said subscribing witness, was present and saw execute the same; and that he, said witness, at the same time subscribed h name as witness thereto. SECTION BLOCK LOT COUNTY OR TOWN Recorded At Request of Fint American Tille I_co Comp_ d New York aBTUaN ay MAIL TO: Zip No. . . PROPOSED DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS DECLARATION made this day of , 1986, by PHILIP BIRNDORF, residing at 461 West 21st Street, New York, New York and JOSEPH M. RIZZO, residing at hereinafter called the "Owner" WHEREAS, the "Owner" has title to certain land situate, lying and being at Cutchogue, in the Town of Southold, County of SuffOlk, and State of New York, said land hereinafter being more particularly described; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the "Owner" that the aforesaid lands be subdivided into a minor subdivision of not more than four (4) residential lots, formal application having been made to the Planning Board of the Town of Southold for approval of said minor subdivision plat on October 22, 1986, and a filing fee in the amount of $550.00 having been paid on October 22, 1986, NOW, THEREFORE, the following described land shall be restricted as hereinafter set forth: ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Cutchogue, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, and State of New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a monument at the southerly side of Main (State) Road at the northeasterly corner of land now or formerly of Tuthill, said point of beginning being the northwesterly corner of the premises herein des- cribed; RUNNING THENCE from said point of beginning North 57 degrees 34 minutes 30 seconds East 493.13 feet to land now or formerly of Bailey; " . . . , , . THENCE along said last mentioned land, South 28 degrees 17 minutes 50 seconds East 163.57 feet to land now or formerly of Midgley and Horton; THENCE along said last mentioned land, South 27 degrees 02 minutes East 98.52 feet to land now or formerly of Miraglia; THENCE along said last mentioned land, the following four (4) courses and distances: (1) South 26 degrees 06 minutes 30 seconds East 64.97 feet; (2) South 10 degrees 09 minutes 10 seconds West 578.09 feet; (3) South 13 degrees 27 minutes 20 seconds West 239.30 feet; (4) North 70 degrees 54 minutes 40 seconds West 416.74 feet to land now or formerly of Stepnoski; THENCE along said last mentioned land and along land now or formerly of Tuthill the following three (3) courses and distances: (1) North 18 degrees 21 minutes 20 seconds East 224.72 feet; (2) North 19 degrees 18 minutes 20 seconds East 218.22 feet; (3) North 30 degrees 15 minutes 40 seconds West 314.85 feet to the monument set at the point or place of BEGINNING. Declarant does hereby warrant, covenant and represent that on approval of the aforesaid described land as a minor subdivision by the Planning Board of the Town of Southold, no further application will be made to the Board or to any other Board in the Town of Southold to further subdivide any of the lots set forth in said minor subdivision into additional building lots. Declarant does hereby further warrant, covenant, and represent that the aforedescribed land within the minor subdivision cannot be subdivided into more than four (4) building lots. Declarant does hereby further warrant, covenant and represent that the foregoing restrictions and agreements shall bind the under- signed, their heirs, successors and assigns, and any and all person or persons who shall succeed to the ownership of any of the lots shown on Ii .. . . I' . . I , 'I' i, Ii i the aforedescribed premises in said minor subdivision by transfer or otherwise. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the declarant does hereby cause their hands and seals to be affixed this day of , 1986. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ss.: On the day of October, 1986, before me personally came PHILIP BIRNDORF to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. Notary Public STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ss.: On the day of October, 1986, before me personally came JOSEPH M. RIZZO to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. Notary Public p"..' , ~ Southold Town Planning Board Town Ha 11 Southold, New York 11971 OCT 22 1986 Re: Minor Subdivisior. of Philip Birndorf and JosEph M. Rizzo Gentlemen: The following statements are offered for your cons~deration in the review of the above-mentioned minor subdivision Clnd its referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission: (1) No grading, other than foundation excavation for a residential bUilding is proposed. (2) No new roads are proposed and no changes will be made in the grades of the existing roads. (3) No new drainage structures or alteration of existing structures are proposed. 1d f)~ ," \I ct: . .f / C'Ilr / V~ Y-'06 dlY' ,r" .' 'i- "'$. -\.~ \''''~ 0.. ~....... .... .,. ':'........ ~;.. ~ 0.. "l- . .... ~,.oj> .P .~ t) z~ . , k~ I' I ''', i \ , , , '. '. ~ ii/If .:;-. /\t . i'c 0). .i,..Q 'f~' r- ..... !;I 0 ~ f\ "1\ ea l> ~ () j l\ () () ~ I\'~ ;:-"'i~ .. 11 t 'J If ~ i~ -, . ~'" ' ~... ..,. <:.oort I-- ('-I (l;J ~ i\' ^1 g ~ <<11\ ,1\i1\ t, l\ ~ ~ .~ t t ~ ~ ~, ",... ~ /I: ,.~ \ "l:' ~ \ ~ . T ~ ....\ 1\' .. ::. ~ "' "\ -. '" l'.. to.. .\..,J "C:: I \:' t'l ~ r: .is -~~ " .. ... <i; !It- v ,\1.... t"\ 1:\ '" .. : , I I I I t I. ~ -l 1 , L \. 'iii ,. il:) I ~~ :b '" ;: IIA , 011. .' o .~ ," "<o:IiIoo, ..co;:. .,)0 0 .... Q.. oj). "'0.. '."'s.- ...... ~. ~., ....r; ...."j " ..... /1 --~ .... - . ",.""g J -,,.-r'll',, I '~'l I "" ~~ '.. ~~ I l'" . .... c:...-:,. '~'../ I: ~. I"i :,/::=.-- .:t ., , , i'l " =0 I\... ~ :t ., .... ,~ ;sO =m 12 I~ ---':.~'~--...".,.., _._,-'"-----_._----,'~ -l"', "- .'~ "- " '" .- .... .. ~ \.... tl u- ~.... If\I \~ !~ in \: zs '. :0 (".4! 0" , 0" Gl S II II :2 ~ "\j.' (j '" ~ ~ !.l " t\o ~ "'" I /'" ~"- . . '-. "'._"'..._,.....^~,.~!.,~'fIl<,~. ""~""-~!li"(:;') ::j\fl:;:.o ~'~!')s;r \) ~ 0 ~ a-i1 OJ. c: l-! ';g 1,t.:r ~\l *-~.!f~~~.~~ ~~;'I:!' ,~.g.~'t '} .;')." _..3 ~ :r if -, ~ ">,,, ,'1 ~ _" ~~HH:ii r ::- 'i:,:~~ "" iT< :0'1 Q. ,., ;., i 'Ii,. i """~ .'t JHhHP1I~ fH s:f!t~;;~~:'_~'}{ '~~_:~ ;,J," ~ ;t=.;' iiJ- t": ;~, ;J ~~ ,-,.I,.l ;:1-?~ ~~ .~,..:::Iotlg!~,:,:r::;. ;~~';:r '<. ~, ~~~:[lt;~~; ~ il ':~ .~ ~ 0":' ~ 3~:; i'.J.. ;:. ~.-, .i, ,,,- -.- ','-, "" ":::> <( Tt.J T /-i II... l. N. ::J().I6''-I()~tN. '~ )- ---. I , I b' o / .,j>' .'. o 0'-- ~ .... :), , !\ ~ ) .. 'J Co ,..--, )1 '___.J - 6.....97 :s. Z~.~~. 3C"IF. ~ ...t::: r:1 .~ l:\ t.> ~ r; '\- <S t: ~ ~ '\. " , t) ., ... :.. .... ~ ~ "1;,- .~ :I ~ ~ .. ., C. c) 98.sz. 6. Z7.cz iF. 1~/O(SLe'r' '\ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ C\ ~ (l, 1;. ~, ~ ' . C't1 ("~.\ :t- (, ~ , .. ..... . '\ .:') ."- -.. ~. -. I) 1) () {\ .. .. , . ~, - fit r, '-'1 ",- , '~~ '". ,;>0 .r-~~ :>. . -Q s:> (..;. () (..:> , \..1 ,r.~ --..l \ "t I " t ~\~ " ~() tJ .. tIll.ti -0 () . . ~'li1 t !-. i I I ! '.. r- ~ ..t".... _ I 2/15" '\:':;' ~ C". ! ",~~ ~'I\Iol -..l :... Uo,\a) I 3M. S '5' .vAY ~Sa , ., ,-', '''; r- ~ / .. '" () ~l-J') ,1"1- '1 . .. :~ ..?", . 1.3.5'7 So ZS417 'S'C'G'. I"!"YIL/Ey "'s- ff Hc~rON -t. <It., , ..... :<- , <.. :"-N :-<- -'" " t!I ~~ ~'\- (~ -- - I 1'-1 ! \-1 : \:i\ ,'r-- ~; ~ f" <:. l '., >oJt I,.... ~~ ,I I "- t'; I '!~" '(<. : (\ D' I "'t~ , ".," .- J~ i c:: '- . i -'\ I .~ :~ ; (}.J . ~ 0 I~ :1') . n.:: e\ !. .;; (: ~l ::;' : It\ 1),..- "'_.-'" ---- !,~-~ (/ I ____ i'\l '~iO /", ~J !(1 () ,-~ " .~ I.....~ ~ ~ < C- .} -" , '1 _ ir~ "', \. :t> \J rJ C/) ........ (" ! '- ~ lex: \; it] 1-'- -, . ",," ,; I':~: C. r.:\ ! ~~~~ ( . '~.' I I \ I \ I I :- 'd.t.../ I , , .. C1 118'37-, ~- ~ ~ .. l i ! ~ i I I I I Ii I ~ I ' .~ :i 1 i . , ~ ~- ~ ~ -l lQ ........ ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ i ~ , I ", :S; , ~i , i -I ~ J; o c. ", <. "~-C'C'C"'.'--'--"''''''''''~~~c''~;::''''7";'~--- ...". .' - l. . - ?'" ' , " ... :_--- ,- ...~._. , , I t < 1:< () 't-- I' ~ \f) Q~ l::t CS C,J I I' CO, tu .~ :)! ~ ll.l V>i ~ \.1 't1l 0~1 ~ i , Z1 ! . I ~ I , j \ I \ '.., l\l I Cl . I < I : 0 I . l'\l ' I '" ~/r \ . I I I L j' I I ~\.~ 1I! -,0 " ." , LJ ", i.:l ~ '.l.. ~. t'.II. ," f ,,'.) j ,-)\ tui .;.: /1 ~i~, (l. .~\~' "i'\:JI ~ :t' :'! '-..j ..! ~ \ ~l \) [, :::ll ~ . \...)! ~ <]"1 I \} - '" * ~._I ... '-t. '-' ~:) ..-i. l V3 f-l, -.---- ---- ..'-,_.,.----'"'-,--<-.-.-_._~.",.,~~'~ "-_.--..~---.._-~.. .~_._--".-._.- Ii) tu . l.l '-, \) ,It ':) <t () ~, --- .~ -- -, 0\ ~ ;:s .. ; ,~ ,J \) tu ~ 't - -- -,' \:) ... .;:: , '<)... .,'" -- ).: "1 ' .:-t .~ ..' ,. ..... . l< .$~ , -- ~ I ~ 'f: I f'- <;) 'I' "4.. I) ~ ,) ;J-. () ~ ') ~ '" ... <) -... " ~l y ~ . "J '4,. >;: -, I:l \.. " '\- -.. " .~ :'1 '. \;) :J 'j ~ '"' "' ~'.... ""' <:) ~ ~lv :;} V, ;J Nt.>..1.2!I~H..". ^i!I'1~/(A/ j -\.. t \I i ~ ~ ~ .t- f ^ ,it., I ""1iI . 8~~.I, ,,' .,gZ'S: L$ 'G~J -"'..LZiP :r.!l1t~ , ..' , ...1 .... '-" 'M' ~ ! ~ 1'-, "~'_ ~, 't ( :1.:/ . ~l' "Ii;,. '......... 1~___-..,$'1!_. \.~ " " .,'~l 'ft "t ...;;"./ ~~':_" :' ' i!j ~ ~ - ~ . .:-: ""-.., . .-~ ... ~ / f . 'l .. I l J I "'. 1 II' f..; ";',-i i \' / X . ( It.. ~, . \ .... 1't ... r- ~t ~ j ~\ . . / ~ , / 1 , " . j---;--'1 ' f'~r' / 1.,; ~. /f r' ~I I ....; t.! '--' \), ~( 'Oi 'i ~, cs o. .. ""O~'" ~', \ ~.\ ... 'j / I / " . a (!l ".R~'()~,"Q.9Z 'S: t..!> .."." _n "--...", , 0- "'- .."" "',, " , ',-"" '. '" / " , . )'0 /~~ / o . ,11)/ ".. .' -""--.-.._. Q{6 ..n.___--(/ ""- "At ""... \. $-""'~ - ''''''.,,/Nf;.I1I.f>fl ',., "7 "I"'.t. f\.l. '> " ---- ---"'" t, --~-', --- - j-i ~. ~ jj'~ HUH!J 11i~ 11~! ~~nln. UI~H~jlili~li H8JhH~flll"i.tli:'i" ' .~: ~~.j~~~ $ ~"!,-lfR. ~ t~..~..~. jH~~.$f.' Jld~ .,"~ t"h H. "ilJali.! ::;.2U.iill: ~ t:tJi _ '. _.__""" i < !~l i&.",; ~ "",- -'-,. ...."."".~ 1 >-1<.0 CQJ~ 'X) o ~ ~ I! -. ! gj . "I .... \) I!.,., "tt: 0'" ~ ~'r~ ~.}; ,\, : ~ l~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ I' ~ t <I: > : ~ 1: ~~ ~ 1.,t Il) Q\ .... t; :it. II} "~ ~ ~ QN,\)\' ~ ~ ~i:::;1b ; ., '" !III i I ", ~ i q: ~ ~ * 'l' -~ II .. S'Q ~ i: ~ \I'" I .... !J .~ ..'......, .J: .'/ I i \ I I I "'. \ I . I i ! , I I , ! , ; ~,..-,~-.- 1 r----. ... ~i -s~ ...... " ....!i 'i. ,.., ~,,,. d " ", .}''' '" l~i/ .'.1 ."...... ~ ~, ., ......,'- <t. '--, ~ / .~, ~" ~.;-- .;.Pj. 'lIIl^l:) , "l:!.. CIa .' <. '~ ''''... ,.0/ \ -...... " " .' -.$Z "..' II ~I (1;))'. .\ ". \..:....... . ~ ~l "',<> ~... , ~., ./0 /~ "'I !I) '>; \J- (i)q: 'I:) lit .,.,....... , -"A...-- " lot' ~. ../-'..~. . ,"". /' , ";1 ';:.'. !" ...~) I 'l ._., ;1 . t" -, _ ^:Jr7/~a . I I . '.93~"".(.r..,.~,S .~.~ ". "A..<>e,9tp.9Z-S: r <$'0" "... L'~ u .......,/1 .,...~~qo.;:,. """" - ' ~ . -;..-.....<... ~',,~ I'f\ . ". .i __. . . ,', :"Q "- QIo. . ~ ! '; " ,e., ';,: , ..,. "'-. '" (,., i. .'( . '\',I . ;.:C} ;. :'Cl,.; ,l :: " . lW"'''' ~> ; :':,;Jm.., .l' " ~ j ~/. . '..N ,_. "- -e ~ '.: ;J";'~'> """" "" " ". ; i't' t~;., i . ~'J( ~.,.t 'r.C] 'A.' ,'fl. ',;~.. ,*.1 ,r- '. '~..!1 l'\ in .... .1:t: I ()~ ~ ti 't\ ~ ~ ~. -~ "11 " , :~i ..~ . . . 1 .I I , I ,. I (, t, . ,~' I I I I:' '. I , 1 ! ..... :< () ........ .,,,1 'If:) "* '.... ~ ~l ~J... esi CJ '. J u; ~I ~ ......,; '<It .V); ~ 'j tu t:l: ~ ()J Q I -'1.1': I. F...., "c - . "7"'~ .:.::.. 4-......, ~, ; , :'.. 1 ) ~;ij ; ili- ;~ l~ ;! i , ; ~ , !J '<I '" C) .0(' :0 ,Qt , " 1: , I ~ I , i~. I ~ I ~ l' r I, ~ ' I '1 ... i ~ ! I ,.. '.. Pl>,i I ",. ,-r-,,--V , " , ~ '0 .. -"~ ,',-- ... : i , , , i i j I I I' .. -,~ ,""'," " ", '. .. ___";:"1...,,;:';::'. ----'-" . ~ . ,.. ~i " ..' "'1' ;.. ,.~.",~ ~ ~ ~ ~' !~ III .~ " 'il ~~ ...j ..-: ';' .~ ~~ ~ C) ~ ~ lr' l <) ..:. l>\,,-.' \ ;-".., ... () ~~ \),~ .' ....... ': ~ ~~,!'::t"'" .! -, \) ":l''''' ~ i~ ~ ~ l"'~ ~: ~ ~ ~.. l ;~> t:, ~ ~ <) :J ~". l;l "J -l~ l~~ .c ~ ~ ;<;~ II -... ': ..'II ~ ~ ,~ ';J ..... \) ;;; ~~ \", ~.~ ~ v, 'tll ~\Jl,.. t..J(~l ()l..f\ .... ~'i : ~~}'~~l ;r' . . ~.'\u j ~'tl '9 ~.i "~'..' .~. =t "'." ;', (' . I ,J <:J! i., .'01. ;~l.' \~l.~. '.' '.... t. 1 ~: :::~l 1 . ... ~': '-1.. . 0; ~l... i ': "3, r. ' ')l l,J, . -, , .... . V;! lu, ~I. ,~ ",""i '-ll .\1 <:J Q '''.~ -- - -- . \)\ ~ -...:. ~ (, \:. J '. q:' l.ij, ~2i' !'. ". . . <to - -.. <'I -\.~ (; lr'J ..... "" -..... .~ I\} '. .:t ~ ,:' ^ '- , '~ ~ ,.. ..$'... ' --"OJ> , . :" "",~.' '- ... ~ \) ~ ... t \l ."'.~ "- ... X': t', NQJ.:!JIOH fI- , ",., ':" l' :~:,'_;..;" ~:' :, ^'~. .' ~ . - ~"-' .-' " II " 8 <1> V\' , ~j. ..., ,.~.,~l \C!J '.. ....~I. .. '. '> .. .~ .J~l, l>gt ._-;...~-------"t~~- . Jolr"''''''* $g;1~ _ ~- , '..;: t. """rIH;.l.iIf,i.: , .> ; ";.". L' ~' ""'-""',~-;-"I'.,~,,0.,~ . ~ . -:r:.:",. '1 ,,--...~ ,- '. .. '. -'t. ~ - .;g,. >C\ ". !I.... )I. '- ~ ", C,' .. .' "', ""-'. ' '. .:""',n ....~..:':--..~""...' , ," "}>'-. , - - -'..; , , '~~ . . . "" ','.. .';'" " 'I . 1 ~---. .. j j .", ___'"'._ ~,._i_ . '_ C.,j ..',,,,,.',,, "-"_C'''':4 ~...i-J.k,..; ,_.........,......-~.."-,-- ~,-' " . ......~ - tf~.. . f!~<;,..,. it'.".!.,) , I"xl-" . I.<c.~. i -cf~ if' ~"'... ,t'C- " / '~. \~~.:-. ,~,~, " ",~s~:.::;:_.-:: '::,,_,":' ~.. t '! J! I' i c ...., :I 4l;':'''f-f! "HBhj . i J III hHhh i'5'5 H.s hiH~~~ ~~i th" H.!!l~lh.~ Hz Pi e.il"'~~ ~ r:: ld~ u~~~, ih i..'ll' !!J;;E 5tli!t~o~. 'Hg~ ip:!1 ;~i~~~ci~ {~l<c" )J i!~~~g'1 .l'~ '"li' ='P .2.LH~. 'jI!3 ~1I 11 ~~hli;;"$:! ~".i 5ESi eu;;-'!." ~I sJ!u r "1l \:,. " ~'I-'1 " ... ~ ! ~ .... " '. '/. l' __". ....,...,.--.' , . .T." ", . '. ~'1 " '.. 1 ..c:;~ ~ '.....,.. ". . . J ';. l ,j. ,~. , ~).. '\ .. ~'-' .~;"---. "\..\ "- t \ ~~ ' . , , . " L.<t, ". 11""'1,.':_. .......- . ..,..----- <,~, II x" Sz- '" , " '''-. / / ." , , tf.. ""'-", ...~ .~. '" ~ :G." ..... :\. "0 "" "'5' '" 0, "4 ,", QI ,-.(> <:. 11)\ 'Ill 1.. 1J: "1:; /~.~ \ t"J ' , ~; " . ~i , "'0 , ."" /..:,. ~.~... ~~ - It 6" ~,O .~ ! ~ ~' \.l t ~l ~l , It>, .. ~ '...,~ - ..$"1 ..... " .. ) ) . . , ':..h_ .. --_.~,,~ ----;-- ; .0- '"', : t ... i - . ,., ......i. , r t I 'J 1 . j I l' . o.j " t 41 i, ~ ,ll: *~ I Ij\ _ "," , ... '" ':. l ~ ' I'~ ~ ~ ~ 1... ; ~ ~ ~ ~t: ~ I -. ~t:~t, .. ~~I.. a 1 1:' 1lJt\l': ~ ~ " Q ; \) , ~ ~ i~ \!l '. ,,', '. .. .. '. ~ 11 ':'lO. $~/ .... ... .... . 'l. ~ ~ ~ ~ S 't ..., , i , .. . I I 1 i ! '>" .... '~_ ' R,,' i;~. 'J"'~r::!",:, 1>: . '<~\.2,_ ...' .~ r-- It...,.",! ~t.q J~ .~. ."< "t s~1 i~ ~..~.. al,. S,tt i. .... ..~. '1/: . .. . f.,.. ., . ,-;, ..,'...... ....- ~. , . .,. it ,.,. "~~";: .." ~G.1"': ..'." '~ j i ) r j',.., ",', >.I'. t I, i :'i..H....-".,.. ' , .- .....it:: , I . ".J .' J d~"f "', '.'JL ~ " . ' ' ~'. .;, .- . '1 ".... 'j ..'."\,..... ., . '-~'~ };, .- ,., . (".,;';;i;.k J~;;~ ",',ir'r># ,I, [~",'f " '.". .....1 ' .., 1 . ./.. .. "'-:.. ...."l'~.J". .~ .~ ~-~:'~:~ii:~i./~',,:: fftL':~-" -"'.'r_ .~~.. ~p. .