Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-09/26/2005 KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND MAIUNG ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE WCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Special Meeting of the Planning Board September 26, 2005 4:30 p.m. Present were: Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson William Cremers, Member George Solomon, Member Mark Terry, Senior Environmental Planner Anthony Trezza, Senior Planner Victor L'Eplattenier, Planner Linda Randolph, Secretary PUBLIC HEARINGS SITE PLANS Final Determinations: Chairperson Woodhouse: Good evening and welcome to the September 26th meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board. We have a number of public hearings this evening. 4:30 p.m. - Catapano Dairy Farm - This site plan is for the new construction of a 8,250 sq. ft. accessory building for agricultural processing and a 100 sq. ft. farm stand on a 4.998-acre parcel in the A-C Zone located on the nlslo County Road 48 approximately 360' elo Mill Road at 33705 County Road 48 in Peconic. SCTM# 1000-74-2-12.2 Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? And when you speak would you please state your name and where you are from. Michael Catapano: My address is 3985 Sound Avenue, Mattituck. I am here to answer any questions for the Dairy Farm. Southold Town Plannina Board Paae Two September 26. 2005 Chairperson Woodhouse: OK. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to close the hearing. Georae Solomon: So moved. Bill Cremers: How about against the application? You said on behalf of it. Chairperson Woodhouse: Is there anybody here who would like to speak on this application? Yes? Marie Beninati: My property adjoins or is across the road from the proposed goat farm site. I have a number of issues, some of which I haven't had really time to research because we had less than two weeks in terms of the notice that we received for this hearing. So, I'm a little dismayed about that because I really haven't been able to thoroughly look at what was with the Zoning Board; I only had access to the file Friday and I couldn't look at it Friday, so I had to look at it today. So, one of the requests I am going to make is if you would postpone your decisions to give me enough time and neighbors here as well, to really thoroughly research what is happening here. Secondly, I responded to a request in March posing some concerns and questions about the rezoning of this property and I went to the files well Friday I was told and my letter was not included in those files. So, the Zoning Board made a decision based upon I guess one person responding who was against approving this and it did not have my letter in it as well. So I am going to give you the letter, I brought a copy of it. I realize that decision has already been made; I really don't know whether this has any impact at all, but I think there are a number of issues that were not considered. So I'd like you to consider them. One of the issues not properly raised in the application was what is around this property. Also, the fact that it's zoned AC, which really, it's part of a minor subdivision and all the records show that it's residential. So, there's a million dollar house on five acres of land and I don't see how this is AC, but it's very hard for me to understand how it could be agricultural conservation when actually it was a minor subdivision sometime in the '70's or the 'SO's. So that's one issue. The second issue is that it's surrounded by residential property. This kind of was glossed over in the application. The application talked about the properties to the north, the properties to the east and the properties to the west, and not the properties to the south. So this letter that I'm going to give you shows all the properties on the tax map, both tax maps, and how many most of them are single family residential. And that leads to the next issue and that is that it really will change the complexion of this neighborhood. It is a residential area and having a farm on really less than five acres of land because the house is designated on two acres of their property, so basically you're looking at a site plan for three acres, not even five, and I have a concern about that. I have a concern about the fact that I didn't see anywhere in the files any assessment of the environmental impact. What happens to the waste for 90 goats? How does it affect our drinking water? I mean, as I said, it's primarily residential, we all live around there, is it going to have any effect on our drinking water? Next, 15 parking spots are part of this site plan. Are 15 parking spots adequate? I'm not sure how familiar you are with that road, Route 4S, but it's a very busy road and a very dangerous road. Since I've South old Town Plannina Board Paae Three Seotember 26. 2005 been living here only six years, I think there have been four or five fatalities as a result of the speed of the traffic and the fact that people are coming out on the side streets on Peconic Lane. What will happen with the farm stand spill out onto the road, what will happen to that statistic? Will it get worse? It's certainly not going to get better. I don't know that anyone really considered that as well. Then I have a couple of more issues that I'd like you to take into consideration. Most of the paperwork talks about a 7,500 s.f. farm building, but the site plan has 8,250. I don't really know if that's something that was approved or whether it was something that was not considered. I also noticed specifically the elimination of retail, but yet there is going to be a farm stand and there will be retail sales. So, here we go, it depends on where you begin with this. If it's residential then you're down-zoning it to commercial use; you're going to have a farm there, you're going to have goats there, you're going to have the sale of cheese, you're going to have people going back and forth, a major change in the complexity of the environment. For those of us who live there, I think, and I'm a real estate person, it's going to reduce the value of our property significantly. So I have a concern about that. And lastly, maybe a little altruistic, Route 48 was designated by the State as a scenic highway. I think having a goat farm and parking spaces and all those things really do change the nature of what's physically there right now; it's all treed, you can barely see the house, and that's going to change dramatically from my perspective. So, if you don't mind, I'd like to give you this letter and hope that you'll consider some of the points that I've made. Thank you. Chairperson Woodhouse: Well, we can respond to some of the things that you brought out in your letter in terms of the zoning of this property which has been designated a farm, it's agricultural use, the Dept. of Ag & Markets certified it as such, and our own Zoning Board of Appeals certified it. So, the size requirements, the building, all of those things come under the definition of the farm, and they are permitted uses on this parcel. It has been reviewed by the Suffolk County Planning Department, it has a permit from the Highway Dept. in terms of the road and the traffic safety. All of those things have been examined as part of the review for this application. Marie Beninati: I didn't see that in the file. I saw that Suffolk County basically said it wasn't something that they would rule on, and that it would have to be dealt with by the local authorities. Chairoerson Woodhouse: The staff could answer some of those things. Do we have the file? Mark Terrv: Ma'am, the file references the Department of Transportation, particularly the Department of Public Works, approve the action on 8/4/05. Marie Beninati: Is that by Thomas Isles? Mark Terrv: No, that's the Department of Public Works. That is the entity which controls the curb cuts and assesses the traffic. Marie Beninati: I'm talking about the environmental. Southold Town Planninc Board Pace Four September 26. 2005 Mark Terrv: Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, it is an "Ag" building, so therefore it's a Type II designation and that was issued July 12, 2005. Marie Beninati: Can you refer to the letter from Thomas Isles, who basically says that it's not within their jurisdiction, that it needs to be dealt with on a local level. Anthony Trezza: He said it was a matter for local determination. Which basically means that when the County is looking at this, they are looking at it a lot of times from a regional perspective. So this is the type of application where there would be, and because it was on Route 48, it had to go to them for review and they determined that it didn't have a regional impact and that it would be a local matter for review. Marie Beninati: Right. So they basically didn't say one way or another whether it had an impact. Anthonv Trezza: I think that the Planning Commission, if they had seen, they often make comments, even if they see something that's a matter for local determination. They didn't make any comments, but it did go to their review committee. Marie Beninati: I think you're really stretching it, because basically they're saying they don't have any, you know, they're not, no jurisdiction, they're leaving it to the local, so they didn't say anything basically. Chairperson Woodhouse: We see lots of responses from them where they do say something if they have a problem with the application. But your letter that you gave us, I just want to note that it is directed to the Chair of the Board of Appeals, the ZBA: that would never come to us. Marie Beninati: I'm not saying the letter... the letter is not in the Zoning Board file. For some reason, the letter was delivered, but it's not part of the file and it wasn't considered. Mark Terrv: We can't comment on that. Chairperson Woodhouse: We can't comment on that, you would have to...... Marie Beninati: I'm not asking you to comment on that, I'm asking you to comment on the points that are made in the letter. I understand that you would not have received it. Chairperson Woodhouse: OK Mark Terrv: The other response to one of your concerns is regarding scenic byways. The scenic byways was basically on County Road 48 because of most of the agricultural uses along that route. The Planning Board has imposed a 15' minimum landscape buffer to retain those trees in front of the residences. So, your concern about maintaining that view shed the Planning Board has addressed already. Southold Town Plannina Board Paae Five September 26. 2005 Marie Beninati: A 14' barn? Obviously, you're going to see that. Mark Terrv: Well, the 14' barn is set quite a ways back. Isn't it, Victor? 200' from the road? Marie Beninati: All right, well, I would ask you to just keep in mind the landscaping around there so that it stays that way and doesn't turn into a view of a parking lot and a farm stand. Chairperson Woodhouse: We do have that in the resolution, and I suggest that we read the full resolution so that you hear all the descriptions of the buffer areas on the north side, east side, the west and the south side of the property so you are aware of that. Marie Beninati: OK, and the size of the barn? Victor L'Eplattenier: The ZBA did not limit the size of the structure. I think what's going on is the size of the parking lot is 7,500 s.f. and the size of the building is 8,250. That is what the site plan calls for. Marie Beninati: All the files in the Zoning Board talked about a 7,500 s.f. barn. Victor L'Eplattenier: I reread the ZBA resolution. In their final approval, they did not put any size limit oln the building. Marie Beninati: I see that, but what was submitted was for a 7,500 s.f. barn to the ZBA. That's what it says. So, you're saying that's fine, or...... Mark Terrv: My response to that is that's the ZBA's jurisdiction. If they ruled in their final approval there was no limitation on the size, then the Planning Board would follow through with that. Victor L'Eplattenier: The issue before the ZBA was really whether the goats were permitted on properties less than ten acres, and their decision was that it was. And it didn't deal with the size of the building, or any of that issue. Marie Beninati: Let me read from the Board of Appeals Basis of Application: it says: "To construct a 7,500 s.f. building for the purpose of a barn" etc. But you're right, it does not: it talks about what they're allowing a variance for. Chairperson Woodhouse: In the site plan that we reviewed and that is the subject of this hearing here tonight, it is for an 8,250 s.f. accessory building for agricultural processing and a 100 s.f. farm stand building. That is the information that we reviewed and that's part of our hearing tonight. Marie Beninati: Right. There is a discrepancy because all the applications that were submitted were for 7,500 s.f. Southold Town Planninq Board Paqe Six Seotember 26. 2005 Chairoerson Woodhouse: I have to say there are two different Boards and they are looking at two different things. So, what happened with the previous Board, or the size of the building, would not be part of our review. We would look at the site plan and what we were looking for with the ZBA was the Use Determination, which they rendered. Often the site plans do go through different changes along the way, depending upon the responses from various agencies. So, I understand what you are saying, but that would not again be part of our review process, the size of that building. It is a permitted use, it's a permitted size building, and the ZBA ruled that. It used to be that you had to have ten acres to be considered a farm and that is no longer true. Marie Beninati: Well, the ZBA ruled beyond that. I mean, it's five acres and two acres are allocated to the residence. So basically you're putting a farm on three acres of land, including a barn, including parking and a farm stand. Chairoerson Woodhouse: Is there anything else staff wants to comment on? Mark Terrv: Yes. Basically, you are correct. The ZBA ruled on the use of raising of goats on a parcel less than ten acres. Marie Beninati: Yes, and allowing three acres for the farm. Mark Terrv: But that wasn't this Board's decision, this Board's just entertaining the site plan. Marie Beninati: I understand; I'm just saying that now we're down to three acres. So, I would ask you to consider that when you are looking at the site plan, when you're making decisions and especially understand that this is a residential area and I don't see how it's A-C when it's part of a minor subdivision, but that's not your issue and not your problem. I understand that. I really do. But I think it's a travesty, really, as well. Thank you very much. Chairoerson Woodhouse: OK. Thank you. I believe there's someone else in the back who would like to address the Board on this application? Sidney Wachsler: I live on Peconic Lane, south of the property that you are talking about now. I've been there for 35 years. I have seen the incidence of traffic accidents increase exponentially almost, certainly since the two lane came in. My question is essentially this: supposedly there is going to be a parking lot for 15 cars. Now you and I know very well that when 25 and 30 cars show up, they're not going to be turned away. OK? Secondly, they're gonna wind up on the shoulder. You and I know that. There's gonna be children all over that place. So I hope you're gonna consider that when you introduce a commercial endeavor such as is being proposed. Thank you. Chairoerson Woodhouse: Yes sir. South old Town Planninq Board Paqe Seven Seotember 26. 2005 Vincent Callaher: I live at 1140 Mill Lane, Peconic. I just briefly looked at the drawings this evening for about 10 minutes, and I noticed on the area, apart from the house and apart from the new barn and the parking spaces, there is about an acre of land left for 90 goats to graze. I want to find out if that is enough. Is one acre of land approximately or maybe 1-1/2 enough for 90 goats to graze on. From my experience, I grew up on a farm, I am still involved in a farm very much, and still involved in goats. And I've never seen 90 goats on one acre of land. Whether they fit on there or not, that's fine, they probably do, but my question is, what do you do with the sediment, how do you control the sediment from 90 goats going into the well water? And my well is right there adjacent to that property. I would like to know if there was a survey done and will it affect my water? That's it, thank you. Chairperson Woodhouse: Mr. Catapano, would you like to answer any of the questions that have been raised? Mr. Cataoano: I guess I'd first like to say that the property will pretty much remain visually as you see it today except for a larger driveway mandated by the County Public Works Department. Other than that, the large trees, the landscaping, will all remain as is; so the visual look as you are from across the street or driving down the road will be the same. And even a 14' barn is lower than the tree height in front and on the sides of the property. As far as putting that many goats, we have 60 goats now on a property of about I would say they are on about a quarter of an acre. But goats aren't grazing the land; all the food is brought in. So, they're just being housed on the land, they really don't need any, hardly any space at all; they could probably just be kept in an area that's very small. Most of the spoils from the raising of goats is unused hay, because goats are fairly picky eaters contrary to most people's opinions. And so 95% of any kind of spoils we have is just a hay pile. Which is I would think very similar to just a leaf pile and I would think would have no effect on water quality, but maybe you would know better than that. Chairoerson Woodhouse: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to comment on this application? Anyone on the Board have any comments or questions? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to close the hearing. Georqe Solomon: So moved. Chairoerson Woodhouse: All in favor? Ayes. Chairoerson Woodhouse: Opposed? And the motion carries. Would you please also in reading cite the buffer, please? Bill Cremers: WHEREAS, the site plan is for new construction of a 8,250 sq. ft. accessory building for agricultural processing and a 100 sq. ft. farm stand on a 4.998 acre parcel in the A-C Zone located on the n/s/o County Road 48 approximately 360' e/o Mill Road known as 33705 County Road 48 in Peconic; and South old Town Planninq Board Paqe Eiqht September 26. 2005 WHEREAS, Valentine & Erika Pust are the owner of the property, known and designated as Catapano Dairy Farm; and WHEREAS, on May 13, 2005, a formal site plan application was submitted for approval; and WHEREAS, on March 10,2005, the South old Town Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance as applied for and shown on the site diagram prepared by the applicants with a date stamp of January 6, 2005, and this approval is subject to specific conditions set forth by the South old Town Zoning Board of Appeals; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 2005, The Architectural Review Committee reviewed and granted conditional approval with one condition on the architectural drawings and associated site plan materials, and the Planning Board accepted this approval and determined it to be satisfactory; and WHEREAS, on July 11, 2005, the Suffolk County Department of Planning responded after review of the site plan that this matter to be for local determination and there appears to be no significant county wide impact; and WHEREAS, on July 12, 2005, the South old Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (6 NYCRR), Part 617.5 @ 3, makes a determination that the proposed action is a Type II and not subject to a review; and WHEREAS, on July 13, 2005, the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets indicated that the product samples submitted were in compliance with the standards and regulations of that agency; and WHEREAS, on August 5, 2005, the Southold Town Building Inspector reviewed and certified the site plan for "Farm" use; and WHEREAS, on August 10, 2005, the Southold Fire District indicated adequate fire protection and the Planning Board has accepted this recommendation for approval; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 2005, the Suffolk County Department of Public Works issued a Highway Work Permit #48-200 with conditions and requirements; and WHEREAS, on August 18, 2005, the Architectural Review Committee approved the signage as reviewed and the Planning Board accepted this approval and determined it to be satisfactory; and WHEREAS, on August 19, 2005, Michael Catapano submitted a letter of intent in response to the August 4, 2005 LWRP determination and the Planning Board incorporates the conditions in this approval; and WHEREAS, on August 30, 2005, the Southold Town Engineer commented on the site plan and the Planning Board has accepted his recommendation for approval; and South old Town Planninq Board Paqe Nine September 26. 2005 WHEREAS, on September 12, 2005, pursuant to Chapter 58, Notice of Public Hearing, the Planning Department did not receive affidavits that it complies with the notification provisions and the Planning Board held open the hearing; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Chapter 58, Notice of Public Hearing, has received affidavits that the applicant has complied with the notification provisions; and WHEREAS, the following items are incorporated and included in the site plan: 1. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded so that the light source is not visible from adjacent properties and roadways. Lighting fixtures shall focus and direct the light in such a manner as to contain the light and glare within the property boundaries. It is a general principle of the town that parking lot lights should be turned off or reduced in intensity between 11 :30 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. The lighting must meet Town Code requirements. 2. All signs shall meet Southold Town Codes and shall be subject to the approval of the Southold Town Building inspector. 3. The applicant shall guarantee the survival of all required landscaping for a period of five years from the date of final site inspection. 4. The applicant agrees to maintain the following landscape buffer areas; north side 20' minimum, east side 10' minimum, west side 10' minimum and south side 15' minimum; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the South old Town Planning Board has reviewed the proposed action under the policies of the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program and has determined that the action is consistent provided that the best management practices outlined in the August 4,2005 memo prepared by the LWRP coordinator are implemented; Chairperson Woodhouse: All in favor? Ayes. Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? That motion carries. Bill Cremers: and be it further RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant final approval on the site plan prepared and certified by Joseph Fischetti, P.E., dated March 17, 2005 and last revised August 5, 2005, and authorize the Chairperson to endorse the final site plans. Chairperson Woodhouse: All in favor? Ayes. Southold Town Plannina Board Paae Ten September 26. 2005 Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? And that motion carries. Thank you. ******************** CONSERVATION SUBDIVISIONS, STANDARD SUBDIVISIONS, RE- SUBDIVISIONS (Lot Line Changes) Conditional Preliminary Determinations: Caselnova. Raloh & Catherine - Proposal is to subdivide a 15.68-acre parcel into three lots where Lot 1 equals 2.0034 acres, Lot 2 equals 2.3518 acres and Lot 3 equals 11.3226 acres upon which the development rights have been sold to Suffolk County. The property is located on the n/s/o NYS Route 25, approximately 1,740 feet west of Browns Hill Road in Orient. SCTM #'s 1000-18-3-9.8 & 9.9 Chairperson Woodhouse: Is there anyone who would like to address the Board on this application? Charles Cuddv (for the applicant): Good evening. As the Chairwoman has just indicated, basically this is a one-lot subdivision that is going to be developed with a home on it. The second lot has a home on it, the third lot is 11.3 acres which has the development rights sold. So, what's before the Board is creating essentially a single new lot from the two lots that are there, and I would think at this point that this application has been here for a considerable period of time, much before I worked on it. The Board has had an opportunity to view it, I think it's appropriate, as I say it will result in one residential home. The total lot is 15 acres, so there will be two homes on that whole area. I would ask the Board to approve it. Chairoerson Woodhouse: Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this application? Anthonv Trezza: As Charles knows, and we had discussions; there is an existing 50' wide right of way that already provides access to the existing residence. I believe two more residences adjacent to this property. There had been discussions about, because it is creating a new building lot that the actual pavement width of the road would need to be brought up to Town specs. And there still seems to be that discussion; I discussed it with Jamie today and we're not really sure how we are going to resolve this; we may need to actually widen the road. I had suggested that you go to the Fire District if you recall, to see what they had to say. But Jamie and I are going to sit down and look at this again because, as you know, if you have to do any improvements, you have a DOT curb cut permit that would be needed. We discussed all this. What I would suggest that we do in this case, because the way the resolution is written, it doesn't really address the right of way issue. So I would just recommend at this point that we hold the hearing open, and deal with this right of way and pavement width. South old Town Plannina Board Paae Eleven September 26. 2005 Charles Cuddv: I don't object to that on the basis that (a) this is something that has just very recently come up, I believe; and (b) to do that for this subdivision would essentially mean that you'd be asking the owner that's to the north who owns the entire piece, to really improve 1,100' for something that's 180' from the road. That's an enormous improvement. I've driven over this site a number of times. It's gravel, sand, hard- packed; it's a decent opening, there's nothing that's an impediment, it's straight, people have been driving over it for years. To ask somebody to improve an 1,100' road for essentially a 150' driveway I think is somewhat oppressive. I hope the Board would really take a second look at that. I think it's something that would be saying to the owner that you probably shouldn't develop this because the cost to him would be extraordinary to do that. So I would ask you to take a hard look and I don't object to you keeping it open for that purpose. Anthonv Trezza: And I would suggest that we sit down, you included, with Jamie and even Pat Finnegan to see if we could hammer this out, to be fair. Charles Cuddv: I would be happy to do that. Chairperson Woodhouse: That being said, is there anyone else who would like to address the Board on this application? I'll entertain a motion to hold the hearing open. BE IT RESOLVED that the South old Town Planning Board hereby holds open the public hearing for the Caselnova Subdivision. Bill Cremers: So moved. Chairperson Woodhouse: All in favor? Ayes. Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? That motion carries, and that hearing will be held open. ********************************************** SITE PLANS Final Determinations: Breezy Sound Corp.. a/k/a Cliffside Resort - This site plan is for a 68-unit motel complex on a 7.13-acre parcel in the RR Zone located 285' east of Chapel Lane on the north side of CR 49 and known as 61475 CR 48 in Greenport. SCTM#1000-45-1-2.1 William Cremers: I will offer the following resolution: WHEREAS, this proposed site plan for Breezy Sound Motel in Greenport is to construct a new 68-unit motel with a pool house for motel guests and a manager's apartment unit, located on 7.13 acres; and South old Town Planninc Board Pace Twelve Seotember 26. 2005 WHEREAS, Breezy Sound Corp. is the owner of the property known and designated as Breezy Sound Motel, a/kJa Cliffside Resort, CR 48, Greenport, SCTM #1000-45-1-2.1; and WHEREAS, a formal application for the approval of this site plan was submitted on December 1, 2000 and conditional final approval was granted on May 12, 2003; and WHEREAS, the applicant sought to extend the May 12, 2003 conditional final approval and such approval was granted on October 14, 2003; and WHEREAS, the applicant sought to extend the October 14, 2003 conditional final approval and such approval was granted on April 14, 2004; and WHEREAS, the applicant sought to extend the April 14, 2004 conditional final approval to October 14, 2004 and such approval was granted on December 14, 2004; and WHEREAS, the applicant sought to extend the October 14, 2004 conditional final approval to April 14, 2005, and such approval was granted on December 14, 2004;and WHEREAS, The applicant sought an additional extension of conditional final approval from April 14, 2005 to October 17, 2005, and such approval was granted on May 10, 2005; and WHEREAS, on August 18, 2005, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) approved the site plan prepared by Barrett, Bonacci & Van Weele, P.C., and certified by Kevin Walsh, Professional Engineer, dated October 3, 2001 ,and last revised August 18, 2005 for the SCDHS under reference number C10-02-0015; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant final approval on the site plan prepared by Barrett, Bonacci & Van Weele, P.C. and certified by Kevin Walsh, Professional Engineer, dated October 3, 2001, and last revised August 18, 2005, and authorize the Chairperson to endorse the final site plans subject to a one-year review from the date of issuance of the building permit. Martin Sidor: Second it. Chairperson Woodhouse: All in favor? Ayes. Chairoerson Woodhouse: that motion carries. Thank you. ************************************************ South old Town Planninq Board Paqe Thirteen September 26. 2005 OTHER Override Planning Commission's Condition #1: Kanev, H. L10vd - This proposal is to subdivide a 25.449-acre parcel into two lots where Lot 1 equals 2.93 acres and Lot 2 equals 22.511 acres. The property is located at the terminus of Strathmors Road and the west side of Rocky Point Road, approximately 300' south of Aquaview Avenue in East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-1-30.1 Bill Cremers: I will offer the following: WHEREAS, this proposal is to subdivide a 25.449-acre parcel into two lots where Lot 1 equals 2.93 acres and Lot 2 equals 22.511 acres; and WHEREAS, the South old Town Planning Board granted conditional sketch plan approval on May 10, 2004 for the proposed action; and WHEREAS, on August 8, 2005, the Southold Town Planning Board granted conditional preliminary approval upon the plat dated December 30, 2002 and last revised on November 18,2003; and WHEREAS, the South old Town Planning Board received comments from the Suffolk County Planning Commission on September 14, 2005 and discussed said comments at their work session on September 19, 2005; be it therefore RESOLVED, the Southold Town Planning Board hereby overrides condition #1 because it finds that the driveway to Lot 1, which is already improved with a single family residence, is sufficient for vehicular access and that Lot 2 has adequate road frontage to accommodate safe vehicular access in the event that parcel was subdivided in the future; Chairperson Woodhouse: Second. All in favor? Ayes. Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? That motion carries. Bill Cremers: and be it further RESOLVED, that the South old Town Planning Board accepts Condition #2 and will require the submission of a signed and notarized affidavit which states that the property owner limits the relocation of the existing dwelling back from the top of bluff in the future, and that this limitation may result in hardship in the futu re; Chairperson Woodhouse: Second. All in favor? Ayes. South old Town Plannina Board Paae Fourteen Seotember 26. 2005 Chairoerson Woodhouse: Opposed? That motion carries. Bill Cremers: and be it further RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board accepts Condition #3 and will require the submission of a signed and notarized affidavit which states that the creation of this subdivision in no way commits either the Town of South old or the County of Suffolk to any program to protect this property from shoreline erosion through the construction of engineering or other work. Martin Sidor: Second. Chairoerson Woodhouse: All in favor? Ayes. Chairoerson Woodhouse: Opposed? That motion carries. ********************************** APPROVAL OF PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Chairoerson Woodhouse: I will entertain a motion to approve the Planning Board minutes dated February 14, 2005. Martin Sidor: So moved. Bill Cremers: Second. Chairoerson Woodhouse: All in favor? Ayes. Chairoerson Woodhouse: Opposed? That motion carries and I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Georae Solomon: So moved. Bill Cremers: Second. Chairoerson Woodhouse: All in favor? Ayes. Chairoerson Woodhouse: Opposed? We are adjourned, and we will now resume with the Work Session. Southold Town Plannina Board Paae Fifteen September 26. 2005 There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~ Linda Randolph Secretary L?/~ . Woodhouse, Chairperson