Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-03/27/2006 KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND MAIliNG ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair OFFICE WCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTH OLD RECEIV;::O ,,~ ol,3cJf'm :CEil 1!: 2007 MINUTES ~O?t-'!" Souilivid Tl>v,"n Clerk Special Meeting of the Planning Board March 27, 2006 4:00 p.m. Present were: Jerilyn Woodhouse, Chairperson Martin Sidor, Member Joseph Townsend, Member Mark Terry, Senior Environmental Planner Anthony Trezza, Senior Planner Victor L'Eplattenier, Planner Amy Ford, Senior Planner Linda Randolph, Secretary PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSERVATION SUBDIVISIONS, STANDARD SUBDIVISIONS, RE- SUBDIVISIONS (Lot Line Changes) 4:00 p.m. - Cottaaes at Mattituck - This proposal is for a Standard Subdivision to subdivide a lA-acre parcel into 24 lots for an affordable housing development, where the lots range in size from 6,019 square feet to 19,329 square feet in the Affordable Housing District. The property is located on the south side of Sound Avenue and the west side of Factory Avenue in Mattituck. SCTM #1000-122-2-23.1 Chairperson Woodhouse: This public hearing is to vary the lot width dimensional requirements pursuant to Section 100-54b of Southold Town Law. Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Von Kuhen: I am Senior Vice President with Community Development Corporation of Long Island, 2100 Middle Country Road, Centereach. We are under contract to purchase this property. I want to thank you for holding this hearing today. As you are Southold Town Planninq Board Paqe Two March 27, 2006 aware, CDC of Long Island is a not-for-profit organization and we have been developing affordable housing on Long Island for 37 years. All of the housing which we have developed, which amounts to more than 1300 units, has been developed in close cooperation with local government and in partnership with local residents and community- based groups. We believe we have brought the same sense of collaboration and cooperation to the development under discussion, which has been modified in response to public comments and those of this Board. We are proposing 24 modest two-bedroom houses; the plan no longer includes any provision for accessory apartments. Families with incomes below 80% of the area median are immediately eligible to purchase half the houses, and we have been able to reduce the price on these homes to $165,000. The other half of the houses may be purchased by families with incomes up to 100% of the median income, which will sell for $213,000. The site plan has been configured to require as few variances as possible in order to facilitate development of 24 homes on this parcel in accordance with the Affordable Housing District requirements and comments from local residents. I would now like to turn over to Jim Milliken, our engineer on this development from Nelson & Pope, who will talk about the revised sketch plan. Jim Milliken: Good afternoon, Madame Chairwoman, I am an engineer with the firm of Nelson & Pope having offices at 572 Walt Whitman Road in Melville. The plan before you, which is the plan over there on the thing, this plan right here, is what we are proposing as a subdivision be constructed. That subdivision has modifications in which some of the lots are less than the 10,000 square feet. We have two lots that require a minimum side yard of 6' with a total of 25, and we have seven lots that require some modification to the rear yard setback. That was done in order to accommodate clustering the lots so that we could construct the recharge basin down here to help reduce the cost affected with the construction of the subdivision rather than going to pre-cast leaching pools which would increase the cost of the drainage. And that's why we minimized the lot sizes in order so that we could construct a recharge basin. If you have any questions, I will be more than happy to answer them. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. Anthonv Trezza: Gail, could you clarify what we are having the Public Hearing specifically for, if you could? Gail Wickham: I am representing the applicant. We are before you on what is perhaps your first variance hearing in the history of Southold Town. I would like to thank the Board first of all for all of the consideration they have given us, and the staff, on getting this project together because, as you know, it is a project that involves the first use of the Affordable Housing legislation, and actually one of the earlier uses of your new Standard Subdivision. First of all, I would like to clarify that we are here on, first of all, variances for the yield map of 24 lots. The technical requirements of your Subdivision Law A106-11 indicates that for any standard subdivision, this is Subdivision B2, a yield plan must be prepared which would accommodate the minimum lot size and density requirements of the Code. Our yield map does actually accommodate all of the lot size requirements of the Code in terms of the area, all of the lots are 10,000 square feet. It utilizes flag lots, in a few cases which again are permitted by the design standards of A 1 06-50d of the Code. Southold Town Planninq Board Paqe Three March 27. 2006 There are a few lots on the yield map which have insufficient width or area as Mr. Milliken mentioned. They are fairly minor in nature, we've been through them at the work session, and they are reflected in my letter, if you'd like me to specify them, I can. But they are of a range of a few feet to I think the most is the 6' side yard on one side. Those are specifically what it is that we are asking for variance for on the yield map only. I believe you have in your file a map that was submitted by Nelson & Pope that designs a yield map which has the entire size, dimensions of the Code in place. That yield map would create a 22-lot subdivision on a yield basis. The reason we are asking for a variance is because (a) financially, the applicant will not be in a position to build this project based on 22 lots. The subsidies, the cost of the construction, the cost of the building, are completely based on a 24-lot yield and they are down to the wire with the subsidies and everything they can do the project. The other reason is that when you look at the 22-lot yield map, you will see that three of those lots are considerably bigger than a 10,000 sq. ft. lot; one is 15,000, one is 19,000, and one is, I believe it's just over 20,000. So the reason we're really here for variances today is not because of the size of the parcel itself, but because of the awkward shape of the parcel, and getting the lots to fall within what would be technically the four corners of the Code, which are drafted with regular lots. So that addresses the technical. I do want to show the Board a map I just sketched together quickly that illustrates to the Board, and I'll pass this around. In pink we have the parcel, in green we have the acres that have been preserved in the area and there's a whole other map over here that goes to Laurel Lake. So we are looking at an area where there has been considerable amount of preservation, or non-developed property which is Suffolk County Water. I have also pieced together the tax map in the area, and you will see in yellow, all of the parcels in the neighborhood where the lot width is considerably less than is required, the lot size is considerably less, and/or the lot depth is considerably less than required. And you will see that there are quite a number of those parcels where the type of relief that we are asking for is in keeping with the neighborhood. I believe Mr. Kuhen mentioned, but I want to clarify, that the applicant has submitted a revised development concept plan to the Town Board, and that calls for 24 single-family homes. They are 1100 sq. ft. each in size. They have two bedrooms, one bath, the bathroom number has been reduced, and there will be no accessory apartments. If I could take just a minute, I don't want to prolong the hearing, but I do think that it's important that we address the area of the variance reasons, as I would typically do before the ZBA. It's important to realize that we are looking for, is that we are reviewing the variance criteria, not on the basis of the current R-40 Zoning, but on the basis of the proposed AHD Zoning, Affordable Housing District Zoning, which this project will incorporate. The first is whether the proposal will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. We are talking about a differential here between 24 lots or 22 lots; 22 lots, three of which are extremely large for the criteria, so there's not going to be any considerable change in the character of the neighborhood. The benefit cannot be achieved by some other feasible method using other criteria, and that is because of the irregular shape of the parcel. The (inaudible) is not substantial, it is only with respect to several lots in terms of very few number of width issues, depth issues, and size issues on the yield map. The variance will not have an adverse affect on the conditions of the neighborhood, and I think you've seen that in the SEQRA report, which should have been included with the Southold Town Planninq Board Paqe Four March 27. 2006 paperwork the Town Board sent over. The fifth criteria is whether the difficulty has been itself created and it has not. I'd like to mention that we also do want to address as you are aware, the neighborhood in fact in terms of the immediate neighbors. Those properties who have homes on Factory Avenue that back up on the east side, all but one of those properties do have accessory structures in the rear yard that will be shielded somewhat from this development. On the west side, we have the Sullivan property that's shown on the map, and you will see that they have the advantage of the town and the county preserving hundreds of acres of land to the west of them. On the south side of the property we do have the railroad tracks, which is a disadvantage in terms of proximity. The homes that will be constructed down there will be additionally insulated and built in a way that will minimize the impact. I am happy to answer any questions if the Board has any, or perhaps to respond to any comments that are made during the hearing. Thank you. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board on this hearing? Jack Berdinka: I was born on Factory Avenue and I still live there. I have two parcels of land, two homes, which I am going to be looking out, right straight out, at this subdivision. Now, I know that Nelson Pope and Voorhis did an environmental impact study on the property. Could I get a copy of that? I think that should be made available to me. Chairperson Woodhouse: Umm hmm. Jack Berdinka: One thing, also, maybe you can help me on that, if they took into effect on the traffic and the noise and the pollution on Factory Avenue because of this new development. Right now, Factory Avenue is like a thoroughfare, going from the north end of town to the south end of town. You've got all the trucks that are going to the shopping center, they are coming down there. I am not against affordable housing, don't get me wrong. I am for it 100%, but I want something done about the traffic, the road. In front of one of my homes, the road is all busted out. It's a flood area. Is anything going to be done about that? What about sidewalks? I have one granddaughter that still lives with me, and I'm wondering is there going to be a way that she's going to be able to walk downtown, or down to the shopping center? Is there anything in there about sidewalks? I'm not getting answers. Chairperson Woodhouse: Do you want to ask one question at a time, we could address some of them. Gail Wickham: If you'd like to go through the hearing, I'll make notes and try and answer the questions all at once, rather than one at a time. Chairperson Woodhouse: Yes, I think that would be, if you do that, if you raise your questions, we'll keep track of them and we'll try to answer them all. Gail Wickham: OK, I've got them so far. Southold Town Planninq Board Paqe Five March 27. 2006 Jack Berdinka: Good. The thing I really would like to see is some sidewalks. And I've been after that for years. A sidewalk going down; there is a partial sidewalk that comes almost to the tracks from the shopping center. Another thing, too is: the trucks that are parked down at the end unloading at Waldbaum's. There are many, many times that you can't even get through that area. They sit there, they block the road; tractor trailers sit there, especially when you get a driver that's not too familiar with his piece of equipment, and he sits and he blocks the road and you sit there and you sit there and you sit there. Now something has to be addressed about that, with Waldbaum's. That might be a police department issue on that, I don't know. That's about it. Property values as a result of that, they're going to go down. Because when I look at it out of my home, I'm going to be looking right at it. I'm on the east side of Factory Avenue. And it is pretty open across the street from me. It's been cleaned out pretty good. I had hoped there was going to be a buffer zone. Usually when they put in a development like that, they put a buffer zone of maybe 100'. And to cut down every tree in that area, that's pretty tough, especially I believe the Town at one time was talking about asking to have permits to cut down trees. You would clean out over seven acres of trees. That's a lot of trees, that's a lot of wildlife that's going to be out there going down the road underneath the cars. And that's about alii have. The density, I feel is just too much. You run into something like an apartment or condos, that would be fine, but to have individual, there's no room for them over there. A lot of that land is useless, it's way down by the tracks, it's useless. And when that train comes through there, people who live anywhere near there are going to know it. I'm quite a ways away, I'm maybe five houses down, and my house will rumble, and that's a three-story home, an old three- story home, and that still rumbles. So I'd like to see something taking that into consideration before it's voted on and give this outfit a clean bill to just go out and just do whatever they want to do. We don't even know where the road is going to come through yet. They don't know if it's going to come in through on Factory Avenue; they keep calling it the Cottages on Factory Avenue: is it going to come out on Factory Avenue or is it going to come out on Sound Avenue? I mean you got two areas. And, just cutting the zoning right on down, that's going to be the end of it, then you're going to be allowing them just to do anything they want to do. Put the houses wherever they want. There were two houses at one time down by the tracks. People are probably unaware of that, but there were two houses down there at one time, and I think the plans here are for two more houses there, but those houses are going to fall apart. don't see how they could even stand it. I want to thank you. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. Is there someone else who would like to address the Board? Frank Wills: I am a resident of Mattituck. In fact, I was a stakeholder in the Mattituck Stakeholders group. I would like to address several points on the overall development. I think it's a great idea; it's needed. I'm glad that they apartments are no longer there, and I regret that all the houses are going to be for sale. My own opinion is some of those should be rental because I think we need rentals more than home ownership, and though it's prideful and lovely to own a house, but if you can't afford it, maybe renting would work. Next point: I don't know if there are any rules or regulations as to the Southold Town Planninq Board Paqe Six March 27. 2006 number of houses that can be put on a lot. Basically, what is the net effect of all those houses on the sewage disposal. I realize there are going to be cesspools, and I realize that 10,000 sq.ft. or Y. acre is the minimum if there is no sewage system; it's 5,000 if there is a sewage system. So, has the Board considered the effects of so far, 24 houses and the eventual build-up in the ground of sewage which will eventually leak? On that line, do the houses on Factory Avenue have public water or their own wells, in which case obviously there isn't going to be enough distance between the wells and the sewage system or the cesspools of the new development, so that should be considered. I don't know; I've looked at the map; I see there is what looks like possibly a walkway to Factory Avenue, because if there isn't, people will eventually trek through some of these properties to get to Factory Avenue, because to walk all the way from Sound Avenue down into the shopping center, right now is impossible because there are no sidewalks, but then the accident rate as sure as anything is going to go up, because people come down Factory Avenue at a good clip. So, the last point is, and my own feeling is that 24 units on 7.4 acres is too much. It should be reconsidered; the amount should be cut back by 20 or 30%. I realize the effect on costs, but it is too much. Thank you. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. Is there someone else who would like to address the Board? Yes, ma'am? Please state your name. Helen Burdinka: I live on Factory Avenue. I think it's wonderful that we are going to have affordable housing. I, too, just want to say that I'm concerned about the density because I'd like it to be something we could all be proud that we've done; that we've done a good thing and we've given people homes that they'll be happy to be living in. Especially those down by the railroad tracks; and I know they've taken that into consideration. But I do raise that concern to the Board, that I'd like to see the density reduced for that reason. I'm just not sure, those plots are so small; it's awfully hard to have your own home on such a tiny piece of property. Thank you. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. Yes, ma'am? Dina Rose: I'm from Southold. I'd like to talk also in defense of the CDC. Obviously, they've been doing this for quite many times. I know people are expressing their concerns to do with the sizes and the parcels and the sewage and all the problems. They wouldn't have gone this far, to present all this information and been fighting this hard to put this together, if it was going to be a huge issue. I'm one of the people who would be qualifying for the housing. I've been to a meeting already up the Island at their institution to find out about this, and anywhere you are going to put it people are going to be upset if they're in that general area. It's not exactly a desirable place to live. If I had my choice, obviously I wouldn't pick by a railroad track, but for something of this matter, with the people who are trying to afford a place, it's obviously an area that would be a place to put something like this. And I just think that obviously they've been planning really hard; there's a lot of people who are in need of this who couldn't be here, because I've talked to them, and they're in jobs trying to even afford to live here at the moment. I just think that it really needs to be put through. No matter where you're Southold Town Planninq Board Paqe Seven March 27. 2006 going to put it, there's going to be complaints. But it looks like it's going to be a nice plan if everything is put together properly and there are no problems with waste management and traffic and things like that. I think you really should give people an opportunity around my age group or with other different situations to stay here, because I do work for the school and I do contribute a lot to the Town; and I've been born and raised here and I want to stay here. But if this doesn't go through, me and many other people are going to end up leaving a town that we put a lot of effort and energy into. So, I just want to stress that to you; if it does look like it could be put together, I think you should really consider having it. OK. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. Stephanie Ruqqles: I also live in Southold and I completely agree with her. I want to thank everyone who has done so much to get this development going. I am the assistant activity director at San Simeon. My husband-to-be is a local fisherman. If we can't afford to live here, we are moving, amongst many, many people our age, older, younger, who are out of here. I am sorry if you don't like to look at the houses or if this is in your backyard I am sure it affects you deeply, but we don't have a place to live. So, I just want to show my support for me and many others and I want to thank you. I'm sorry if it upset some of you that it's going to be there. But just think your children will have a place to live; your grandchildren will have a place to live. Thank you. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. Next person who would like to speak? Jack Burdinka: I don't think anybody's really against it; because as far as looking at it, it's a safety issue. And why is Mattituck worrying about affordable housing for the whole Town of Southold? Why aren't we doing a little bit here, and a little bit there, and a little bit here? Mattituck is trying to solve all the problems, and people are coming from out of town. I have no problem with that; I have no problem with my school taxes going up. I'm just thinking of the safety part of it. There's going to be a lot of lawsuits; people are going to get hit on that street, I'm telling you. People just don't realize what it's like there. Come out to my house; come out to lunch; just sit there and watch the trucks go by, watch the tractor trailers go by, the bread trucks go by. It's terrible there. People are under the impression that we're against it because it's in our neighborhood. I'm not against it because it's in my neighborhood. My brother's property is going to border it. It's not that at all. Chairperson Woodhouse: Is there anyone else? And I do have a letter to read also after you. Leslie Weisman: I live in Southold, and I'm here as a member of the Southold Town Housing Advisory Commission, and we are presenting a letter to the Town Board tomorrow night as well as to the Planning Board in support of this development. I will hand that letter to you afterwards, and I don't want to read all of it now because some of it's repetitive, but I would like to for the record, read some of this letter from the Southold Town Housing Advisory Commission: "On Wednesday evening, March 15, Southold Town Planninq Board Paqe Eiqht March 27, 2006 Supervisor Scott Russell attended the regular meeting of the Housing Advisory Commission. At that meeting, the Supervisor explained the changes to the CDC's original proposal as recently presented to theTown Board. These changes provide for a reduction in density from 24 two-bedroom single family detached homes, and allows the CDC to offer 12 of these homes at $165,000 with the remaining 12 at $213,000. The first 12 homes will be offered to those qualified at 80% and below of the median household income, and the remaining homes to those at 100% or less. According to home sales data compiled by Suffolk Research Services, Inc., the median price of a home in Southold Town rose more than 129% between 2000 and 2005. This rise has far outstripped the rise in wages over the same period for local residents. Those who did not already own a home before this rise simply cannot afford to buy a home today. This project is a significant attempt to address this imbalance, provide ownership opportunities for those who live and work here and create affordability in perpetuity. The Housing Advisory Commission supports the current 24-unit proposal at $165,000 and $213,000. The changes made to the development are good changes and now we must move forward." There is more, but I'll submit this at that time and ask the Planning Board to consider the variances before them, as extremely reasonable, to be cost effective. Twenty-four units are absolutely essential. The additional income that could have been realized has been reduced and absorbed by the CDC and this project by the elimination of accessory apartments. Regretfully, they were eliminated because, as some have pointed out, rental units are extremely needed as well, but this project is not attempting to provide an answer for everything throughout the Town. It is one of many, we hope, future developments that will provide as many. We can never meet all of the needs for affordability that this town requires. But it is one project; it is not taking the brunt of all of the burden; it is one new model that we believe should be fully supported and the variances requested are extremely reasonable as it the lot yield of 24. Thank you. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. I have a letter that I've been asked to read into the public record, so I'll do that at this time. "Dear Mr. Russell and Mr. Trezza: My work schedule does not allow me to take two consecutive afternoons off to make a 4 p.m. Public Hearing. As I have mentioned in previous correspondence, my husband and I have over 1,100' of shared boundary to this lot. Our concerns with the subdivision are as follows: (1) Road access: the current plan is for a cul-de-sac off of Sound Avenue. The traffic on both Sound and Factory Avenues is heavy and increases steadily each year, particularly in the summer season. (a) The new road as designed in the preliminary site plan is only 50' wide including the non-paved portion. Given that the community is very vehicle-oriented, we do not feel that it is adequate for the proposed density of the development. (b) The access at Sound Avenue does not allow for any buffer to the adjacent properties. A 50' wide road would touch the lot lines on the east and the west boundaries of this portion of the site. It would put incoming cars under 10' from the westerly adjacent house. The quality of life for this homeowner and their tenant house would be adversely affected. It frightens me to think that this is considered 'good planning and design.' (c) Adding vehicular access at Factory Avenue would alleviate some of this increased volume on Sound Avenue and would also create a more direct route to the shopping area for pedestrian traffic. Yes, it would sacrifice Southold Town Planninq Board Paqe Nine March 27. 2006 one or two proposed homes, but since the developer isn't paying for the land, the taxpayers are, they should be more considerate to the community who funds them and has to live with the consequences. (2) Lot Coverage/Size: (a) Based on the proposed site plan, the lots on the westerly side of the development are only 60 x 100' (lots 16 through 21). These lots are only .15 of a 'builder's' acre (40,000 sq. ft.), not the .25- acre lots discussed at the Town meeting. Based on the current design of the smaller units, these lots would not satisfy the minimum setbacks for front, side and rear yards. (b) While we understand that the developer can 'play' with the lot sizes, there is a big difference between .15, .25 and, as the DOH requires for sanitary flow, .5 of an acre. @ If the accessory apartments are being eliminated and all of the units will now have the same footprint, we would like to see a more equitable distribution of the lot sizes between the eastern and western lots. (d) The density of the housing as proposed will feel more like the trailer parks found along Mill Road in Riverhead, and less like the rendering or its predecessors such as Camp Mineola. (3) Emergency Vehicles: Given the density of this housing, it will be paramount to the life safety of these residents that the narrow road width and density of the car parking will still enable emergency vehicle access to this site, especially if the road is a cul-de-sac. The proposed design has the houses very close together. There is no emergency access as designed other than Sound Ave. (4) Zoning for enlarging the houses: We would like to know what codes and regulation will govern these units from being over expanded. For instance, adding a second floor on these houses would have a very direct impact on the scale of the neighbor and the available light to the adjoining properties. Thank you for your time and further review of this design. Sincerely, Carol Sullivan." Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board or answer some of these questions? Marv Zaneski: I live right adjacent to the property there. We've been there 59 years. There's only two lots that are Y. acre; the rest of them are bigger. What happened to the one-acre zoning and two-acre zoning? That's what I want to know. Chairperson Woodhouse: OK. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board. Ms. Wickham, would you like to answer some of the questions? Gail Wickham: Thank you. Could I ask you first: what was the date of Mrs. Sullivan's letter? Chairperson Woodhouse: It was received March 2ih, 2006. Gail Wickham: And the date is? Chairperson Woodhouse: March 2ih, 2006. Gail Wickham: OK. Because she wrote a letter also to Mr. Russell and Mr. Trezza dated March 3, that has many of the same points, to which I responded, and I will Southold Town Planninq Board Paqe Ten March 27, 2006 submit that for the record tonight. I don't know that you want me to read it, but I will submit that this evening. Chairperson Woodhouse: OK, Gail Wickham: Getting to Mr. Burdinka; he raised a number of questions that I think I can answer. The SEQRA review report is at the Town Clerk's office for the public to study. It does contain a traffic study. This is just for people here other than the Board to know this is not the final resolution of this development, this is an early part of this process. The Planning Board will be spending a considerable amount of time addressing the details of traffic and access and those other things in conjunction with the traffic study that has been done. As far as the Factory Avenue road conditions that you mention, that is a Town-maintained or un-maintained road; it is the Highway Dept. who needs to be advised of that, and this might be a good time to do that, to address the Highway Dept. of what can be done. As far as sidewalks, that has been discussed by the CDC both with the Planning Board and the Town Board; they believe it's important that there be sidewalks provided. There is something called Community Development Fund Money, which is money available to the Town, and I believe the Town Board and the Planning Board and whoever they designate will be working on that to utilize that money to provide sidewalks north of the railroad tracks. There are already sidewalks south of the railroad tracks, and I agree that the Waldbaums shopping center truck safety issue should be addressed again with the Police Dept. The houses along the railroad track are there of necessity; however, there will be a recharge basin along a large part of it. The homes will be triple-insulated, and additional as well as special windows to be provided to help minimize that, and I am sure there will be some sort of fencing and planting as the Board determines is appropriate. That will also help screen the rear of the homes along the east side; Mr. Burdinka lives on the east side of Factory Avenue, so he does not back up to the subdivision, he faces it. He does see the homes along Factory Avenue, they are also every single home on Factory Avenue with one exception has accessory structures in their rear yard that will also shield it and I believe there will be screening and a green area as seen along the rear of those eastern parcels to help further minimize that impact. I will also mention they will be single story homes, they will not be two-story. And, in response to someone else's question tonight, the Town Code specifically limits the amount of capital improvements that a homeowner can make; they first have to ask the Town, have to go through a review process, and they are not allowed to make improvements unless the Town approves that, and that is because the Town does not want large improvements that will no longer render these homes affordable. I realize this doesn't all address specifically the variance we're here tonight, but if you'll allow me, I'll answer the audience's questions. Helen Burdinka raised the question of density. Twelve of the accessory apartment units have already been eliminated. The plots may be small, but the size and depth and the size of the lots are in keeping with an affordable housing district and, as you see on the map before you, very much in keeping with a number of the other lots in the immediate area, south of the Main Road and, at the Town Board hearing I presented a list of subdivisions all throughout the Town, very nice subdivisions where the lot size is Y:, to Y. of an acre. Mrs. Zaneski asked about that too: "what happened to one and two-acre zoning?" This is a specific Southold Town Planninq Board Paqe Eleven March 27, 2006 designation only allowed on a very limited scale in the Town for this particular purpose because of the overwhelming need for affordable housing to balance the questions of density. One of the things I think makes this a good site is that it is in the same community where hundreds and hundreds of acres have been preserved and no homes can be built upon or will be built upon because of the preservation that has occurred immediately to the west of this property. That doesn't even get to all the hundreds of acres within the Cutchogue-Mattituck School District that have also been preserved. Mr. Wills asked about the sanitary and septic situation. The project is undergoing a very excruciating review by the Health Department. They have strict density limitations. These are again, small units with one bathroom apiece that will be limited. Our engineers have looked at groundwater flow, depth to groundwater, and all of the other engineering criteria that the Health Department requires, and yet they will be hooked to public water. The CDC has also offered (inaudible, someone sneezed) the Health Dept. application to hook homes in the immediate vicinity to public water at the CDC's expense if they are not currently serviced by public water. There will be, at the very least, a pedestrian walkway to Factory Avenue. Again, the access is still under consideration by your Board, but there will definitely be a pedestrian walkway to Factory Avenue. If I could just take a minute to get back to the questions at hand: lot width, depth, and the variances, I'd like to make sure that the record contains the March 10 letter which I have submitted, which specifies the lot width and depth and setback issues on the proposed sketch plan which is before the Board. That map includes a table of modifications, which had a very few number of lot width issues and rear yard setback issues which we addressed. Your staff then submitted that to the Building Department, who came up with a different table of modifications, which I believe is also in the record. Again, the only difference is that the building inspector and I read the map differently in terms of how you do lot width. He came up with absolutely no lot depth variations and a few lot width variations which are fairly minimal. In addition, the prime variance is reflected in my January 25 letter to the Board which is in your file. That addresses specifically the yield map, and those modifications, the five lots which have width issues and that was it, the width issues. If you'd like me to clarify that any further, I'm happy to do that. Chairperson Woodhouse: We have that in our files. Yes, we have that information. And I think your point is that there will be a whole other series of hearings and steps that will happen as this project moves forward. This hearing is on the variances on the specific lots. Gail Wickham: Yes, there will be a final hearing for the final subdivision map, and preliminary? Anthonv Trezza: This project will probably have had more public hearings than any other at Town Hall at this stage of the game. It's a new type of development. We haven't done all the planning aspects of it. We're still going to address all the concerns; Southold Town Planninq Board Paqe Twelve March 27. 2006 you're going to have another opportunity to speak. We're going to evaluate the environmental review; we're going to look at the landscaping and I think the public can be assured that the Planning Board is not just "rubber stamping" the project; we will do our due diligence and work with the public and the applicant to make this work. But it's still early in the process; it's still before the Town Board to make some decisions before the Planning Board proceeds in the subdivision. They're not too far along in the subdivision process yet, and that's where the bulk of the design gets done, during the subdivision review process, Chairperson Woodhouse: Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board on this application? Are there any questions from the Board? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to close this hearing. Martin Sidor: So moved. Joseph Townsend: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: All in favor? Ayes. Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? This hearing is closed. We will not be issuing a decision tonight on this application; we will be considering what we have heard tonight and going over the files and we will be issuing our decision at a later date. Thank you very much for coming and your comments. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Z:IYS;e~rZ- Linda Randolph, Secretary ~ RECEIVi:D I j-<-t.u/ cl; 3a fJ/J1 Jerilyn Woodhouse, Chairperson cij~J~ SOl'il,cjdTl.v,'n C:e,k