Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-06/28/1999PLANNING BOARD MEMBer'S BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE PJTCHIE LATYIAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southo]d, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES June 28, '1999 Present were: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Ch airman Richard G. Ward G. Ritchie Latham Kenneth Edwards William Cremers Melissa Spiro, Planner Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer Martha Jones, Secretary Absent: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Mr. Ortowski: Good evening. I'd like to call this meeting to order. The first order of Jgusiness, Board to set Monday, July 19, 1999 au 5:00 p.m. at Southold Town Hall, Main Rd., Southold, as the time and place for the next regular Planning Board meeting. Mr. Cremers: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr, Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Orlowski: K. Louise Noble BO.clar~ - This lot line change is to subtract 1.22 of an acre from a 1.37 acre parcel SCTM# 1000-10-6-2 and to add it to a 1.01 acre parcel SCTM#1000-10-6-3; and to subtract .15 of an acre from Southold Town Planning Board 2 June 28, 1999 the same 1.37 acre parcel SCTM# I000-10-6-2 and add it to a 3.57 acre parcel SCTM# 1000-10-6-1.5. SCTM# 1000-6-1.5, 2 & 3. I'll ask if anybody has any comments on these lot Line changes? Pat Moore: Just one clarification I have been in touch with the Ferguson Museum. Mrs, Bogart's intention is to prepare her wills in such a way that the ultimate conveyances are going to be done by way of testamentary gifts. Not an immediate transfer, but a testamentary transfer. So I just want to make that real clear so that everybody is aware of it, Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments? Hearing none, any questions from the Board? Mr. Ward? Mr, Ward: No. Mr. Orlowskh Mr. Latham? Mr. Latnam: No questions. Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Cremers? Mr. Cremers: No. Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Edwards? Mr. Edwards: Do we have the affidavits? rvls. Moore: Yes, Mr. Orlowski: If there are no further questions, I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Cremers: So moved. Mr, Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded those in favor? Any questions on the motion? All Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr, Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. What's the pleasure of the Board? Southold Town Planning Board :5 June 28, 1999 Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, 'd like to entertain the following motion WHEREAS, K. Louise Nobel Bogart is the owner of the proper[¥ known and designated as SCTM# I000-10-6-1.t5, 2 & 3, located on Private Road, Fishers Island; and WHEREAS, this proposed lot line change is to subtract 1.22 of an acre from a 1.37 acre parcel SCTM# 1000-10-6-2 and to add it to a 1.01 acre parcel SCTM#1000-10-6-3; and to subtract 15 of an acre from the same 1.37 acre parcel SGTM# t000-10-6-2 and add it to a 3.57 acre parcel SCTM# 1000-10- 6-1.5; and WHEREAS, The Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, did an uncoordinated review of this unlisted action, and made a determination of non-significance, and granted a Negative Declaration on June 14, 1999; and WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said subdivision application at the Town Hall, Southold, New York on June 28, 1999; 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, all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Southold nave been met; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant conditional final approval on the surveys dated March 15, 1999, and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final surveys subject to fulfillment of the following condition. This condition must be met within six (6) months of the date of this resolution: The filing of new deeds pertaining to the merger of 1.22 of an acre from a 1.37 acre parcel SCTM# 10-6-2 and adding it to a 1.01 acre parcel SCTM# 1000-10-6-3, and the merger of .15 of an acre from the same 1.37 acre parcel SCTM# 1000-10-6-2 and adding it to a 3.57 acre parcel SCTM# 1000- 10-8-1.5. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Southold Town Planning Board 4 June 28, 'i999 Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. Mr. Orlowski: Summit Estates - Section 4 - Section 4 of this major subdivision is for one 4.3739 acre lot (Lot # 33). The property is located off of Shipyard Lane in East Marion. SCTM# I000-38-7-p/o 10 (a.k.a. SCTM# 1000-35-8-5.3). '11 ask if there are any comments on this major subdivision? Unknown: Who is here representing this? Mr. Orlowski: There isn't anyone. For the record, we are going to hold this hearing open because there is going to be another hearing held separately on the dock, which will be held the next time we meet. Unknown: So, in other words, nothing is really going to come of this hearing right now in regards to this? Mr. Orlowski: We'll be setting up a hearing. We're going to hold this hearing open. Ms. Spiro: There will be two hearings on July 19. One nearing in regard to Summit Estates Section 4, which is the hearing tha~ we opened tonight and we're holding it over until July 19; and another hearing in regard ~o a condition of 8pproval for Summit Estates, the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions which involves the dock. The Planning Board is setting that Nearing tonight. Francis McNally: So we're really not going to resolve anything here tonight in regards to this. We're just postponing this? Mr. Ortowski: We'll nave a special hearing for that. Ms. Spiro: You can make comments tonight if you wish. Mr. McNally: I'd like to know the reason why this request...how come it was such a long delay and now you want this? Ms. Spiro: Summit Estates Section 4 was not put on the calendar by the Planning Board. Well, it was on the Planning Board calendar, but the Southold Town Planning Board 5 June 28,1999 applicant asked to have the Planning Board proceed with Section 4, so you're asking for the delay since the Summit Estates Section I was approved? Is that the delay you're talking about? Mr. McNally: In regards to what they're requesting right now. Ms. Spiro: But what delay? Mr. McNally: Why did such a period of time go on from when this was initially filed until now. Mr. Orlowski: It's the process and this is Section 4. They sectionalized this whole subdivision. Tom Krause: My name is.Tom Krause and I'm also a resident of Crescent Beach. Is this the appropriate time to ask the question why is Summit Estates asking for this change in the subdivision and establishing Section 4? Or should that be held until the 19th? Mr. Orlowski: It's not a change. There always was 3 sections to Summit Estates and this one lot here was always the fourth section Ms Spiro: I can g ve you a history in just a couple of minutes. They star[ed with all of Summit Estates. It was just all one. They then decided to make three sections - Section I, Section'2, Section 3. The Planning Board approved Section I in 1993. They had some difficulties obtaining Suffolk County Water Authority approval for drinking water and so their preliminary approval was extended during that time frame. There is an existing house already on what they are calling Section 4, and they wish now to convey Section 4 out separately and they can't do that until they get an approved subdivision from the Planning Board. So that was always one of the lots. It was lot number 33 in Section 3. It's a technical process, I guess just to split it out. It's nothing new, Mr. Krause: It's the process because they had in fact conveyed ownership of that lot and the house on it, and so on and so forth, in 19957 Ms. Spiro: Probably. Mr. Krause: Since we don't why it's going to happen, this is a comment from a good number of people at Crescent Beach, when we don't understand what Summit Estates is doing, we assume the worst, Decause we've had some really bad experiences. So, does this change any rights that they have Soul:hold Town Planning Board 6 June 28,1999 with regard to anything in the subdivision or that particular lot? Is there something they can do when it becomes Section 4 that they cou dn't do when it was Section 3 or when it was part of the overall subdivision? Ms. Spiro: Whether it's called Section 3 or Section 4 is just a technical thing. Mr. Krause: I remember your comment the other day that if they'd asked for four sections in 1991 you would have g~ven them 4 sections. And that's fine but it's really difficult to understand or to project what their intentions might be at this stage in the game. Mr. Ward: That's part of the process why we would have a hearing so that we'd have them come forward and explain what they're doing and air it and also that the general public can be there also. Mr. Krause: OK, and your terminology tonight, when you said you're going to hold the hearing open, does that mean no ~esolution and come back on tne 19th, for the rest of the hearing? Mr. Ward: Yes. Mr. Krause: Great, thankyou. Mr. Orlowskh Any other comments? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion from the Board to hold this hearing open. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman i'd like to offer the following resolution. WHEREAS, in 1993, the Planning Board granted final approval to Summit Estates Section I; and WHEREAS, at the time final approval was granted to Section 1, a dock existed on the area shown as Summit Estates, Section I, Parcel "D' eark and Recreation Area; and WHEREAS, at the time final approval was granted to Section I, a house existed on the area shown as Future Section 3, more particularly on the area shown as Lot #33 of the overall Summit Estates subdivision; and WHEREAS, in accordance with a condition of approval for Summit Estates Section 1, a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions was recorded in the County Clerk's Office for the Summit Estates subdivision; and Southold Town Planning Board 7 June 28, '~999 WHEREAS, Condition Number 11 of the recorded document contains the following restriction: "The dock, and any further expansion of such, cannot be conveyed separately from Lot No. 33 except by permission of the $outhold Town Planning Board a~ter a public hearing, and if such conveyance shall be allowed, it shall be to the owner(s) of the park and recreation area only."; and WHEREAS, as per the Southold Town Tax Assessors' records, the area know as Section 4, Lot Number 33, is owned by Panagiotis Mourkakos, and the area know as Parcel "D" is owned by Gusmar Realty Corp.; and WHEREAS, the conveyance from one properw owner to the other took place without a public hearing as required by Condition Number I'] of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions; and WHEREAS, since the Planning Board's approval to Section 4 will allow the conveyance of Lot Number 33 to be formalized, the Planning Board has decided that the public hearing in accordance with Condition Number 11 of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions must take place prior to the Planning Board granting any approval to the proposed Section 4; be it therefore RESOLVED to hold the final hearing for Summit Estates, Section 4 open until such time that the public hearing in accordance with Condition Number 11 of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions is concluded. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? Mr. Krause: With reference to that part 11, am I to understand that in fact some conveyance of the private dock was made from the subdivision to the private lot number 33, or attempted or something? Mr. Orlowski: The land was part of lot 33 and always was. But the intent I think was to use if for... Ms. spiro: The dock is located on the park and playground parcel D, which is.. rthe intent is to have that owned by the Homeowners Association. The, dock is physically located on that piece of land. Lot number 33 has always been a separate lot from the beginning, before there were any sections, it was a separate lot. $outhold Town Planning Board 8 June 28, ']999 Mr. Krause: So the land, the 100 foot wide strip that gives access to Oardiners Bay is intended to I~e owned by the Homeowners Association? Ms. Spiro: Yes. Mr. Krause: is the dock intended to be owned by the Homeowners Association? Ms. Spiro: That's what wil Mr. Ward: We're not sure. have to be resolved by the hearing. That's the reason we're having a public Nearing. Mr. Krause: Does the previous approval su[]gest a preference by the Planning Board? Mr. Ward: Not necessarily. I can't speak for the Board as a whole. Mr. Krause: Is your assumption that the dock is part of the recreation area and owned by the Homeowners Association, or there is no assumption? Mr. Ward: There is no assumption. Mr. Krause: Is there a way of finding out whether or not the dock is, in terms of Gusmar Realty or summit or anybody, held separate from the recreation area? Ms. Spiro: I did a quick review of the deeds and I don't see any mention in the deeds whether parcel A or parcel B owns the dock. It's silent on that, which is something that will have to be resolved at the time of this public hearing. And that will be a resolution of the public hearing. Mr. Krause: Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Any other questions on the motion, All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a further motion. Be it further resolved to set July 19, 1999, at 5:00 p.m. for a public hearing in accordance with Condition Number 11 of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for Summit Estates. Condition Number 1 t reads asfollows: Southold Town Planning Board 9 June 28, 1999 The dock, and any further expansion of such, cannot be conveyed separately from Lot No. 53 except by permission of the Southold Town Planning Board after a public hearing, and if such conveyance shall be allowed, it shall be to the owner(s) of the park and recreation area only." Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made,and seconded. Any questions on that motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. Hearings Held Over From Previous Meetings: Mr. Orlowski: Eleanor Sievernich - This minor subdivision is for 2 lots on 3.7648 acres located on the east side of Cox Neck Rd. in Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-I 13-8-5. Mr. Cremers: Mr. Chairman, I'.11 offer the following. BE IT RESOLVED to hold the hearing open due to litigation pending in the Supreme Court. The next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for July 19, 1999 at 5:00 p m. Mr, Edwards: Second the motion. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr, Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. MAJOR AND MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, LOT LINE CHANGES, SET OFF APPLICATIONS Sketch Determinations: Southold Town Planning Board I 0 June 28, 1999 Mr. Orlowski: Orville Terry. Jo¥ce Terry & Edward Wysocki- This proposal is to set off a 1.84 acre parcel (Lot #I) from a 32.33 acre parcel. The remaining oarcel (Lot #2) is 30.49 acres, of which the Town has purchased the Development Rights on 28.65 acres. The property is located on the north side of Main Rd,(NYS Rt. 25) in Orient. $CTM# 1000-20-1-3.2, 3.3, & 3.4. Mr. Cremers: Mr. Chairman, I'll offer the following resolution. WHEREAS, the subject property includes three separate tax parcels (SCTM# 1000-20-1-3.2, I000-20-I-3.3 and t000-20-1-3.4; and WHEREAS, the three separate tax parcels where created by the conveyance of a life estate from Terry to Wysocki and the sale of the development rights to the Town of Southold on 28.65 acres; and WHEREAS, the subdivision application shows the three tax parcels as one piece of property, and proposes to create a 1.84 acre parcel (Lot #I), and a 30.49 acre parcel (Lot #2) on which the development rights have been sold on 28.65 acres and the development rights remain intact on 1.84 acres; and WHEREAS, there is an existing house located on Lot #I and there is an existing house located on the 1.84 acre area of Lot #2 on which the development rights remain intact; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Planning Board grant sketch approval on the map dated May 26, 1999. rvlr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those ~n favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. Mr. Cremers: In addition, be it further resolved that due to the fact that there is an existing house on each of the proposed lots, and the development rights have been sold on the remainder of the property, that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, do an uncoordinated review of this unlisted action. The Planning Board establishes itself as lead agency, and as lead agency makes a determination of non-significance, 'and grants a Negative Declaration. Southold Town Planning Board 1'1 June 28, '1999 Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. Any questions on the motion? All MAJOR AND MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, LOT LINE CHANGES, SET OFF APPLICATIONS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Determinations: Mr. Odowski: Deerfield Farm - This application is for a lot line change and a minor subdivision. The lot line change is to subtract 0.569 acres from an existing 7.93'1 acre parcel and to add it to an existing 0.34 acre parcel (SCTM# 1000-88-1-2). The minor subdivision is for 4 lots on 7.362 acres. The property is located on the northwest corner of Main Bayview Road and Jacobs Lane. SCTM# 1000-88-'1-I & 2. Mr. Cremers: I'll offer the following. Be it resolved that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, assumes lead agency, and as lead agency makes a determination of non- significance, and grants a Negative Declaration. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowsl(i: Opposed? Motion carried. SITE PLANS SeLLing of Final Hearings: Southold Town Planning Board 12 June 28, 1999 Mr. Orlowskk North Fork Bank & Trust - This proposed amended site plan is for a 7,100 square foot storage addition to an existing office building, n Mattituck. $CTM# 1000-122-6-20 & 22. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, i'll entertain the following motion. BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, July 19, 1999 at 5:05 p.m. for a final public hearing on the maps dated December 4, 1998. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. OrlowsKi, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. SITE PLANS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Determinations: Mr~ Orlowski: Hellenic Ca_bins - This proposed amended site plan is for approval to demolish existing structures consisting of two (2) storage buildings, a shower structure, five (5) two unit cabins, nine (9) one unit cabins, and a two stow frame house which contains two apartments, on a 1.52 acre parcel; to allow for the construction of four (4) two stow frame cabins containing a total of 20 units (2 containing 6 units and 2 containing 4 un[ts). Additionally, the applicant proposes to construct an 811 square foot office building, and a swimming pool and spa. Twenty-eight (28) additional parking stalls will be added along the access drive to accommodate the proposed structures, with additional paved walkways between the buildings, restaurant and office building. SCTM# 1000-35-2-14 & 15. Does the Board have any pleasure? Pat Moore: We're all here if you'd like to discuss it before you make your decision. We're kind of at a loss because there hasn't been much communication with the applicant as far as what your ideas are. The main concern we have is that you decide to Positive Dec this application, when 'n fact this could be achieved througi~ additional information from the applicant to the Board, if we knew what exactly you wanted from us. And that obviously can be done, as you know, from an extended Part I17 I don;t Southold Town Planning Board 15 June 28, 1999 know if it's A, B or 2, but in any case we can give you more information with regard to the environmental assessment form. in addition, there are ..limited business is right now a ;)lus, with respect to zoning changes. At worse, we're still pre-existing. At best, the zoning changes are proposed that might help this application. We don't know, but I believe that if you were to Positive Dec just because of issues that it's a pre- existing use, then that's an issue that will oe resolved through the zoning process with the proposals that should be coming through, at least presented to the Board, within the next two weeks. We're here to answer whatever questions you have. The main issue which I know from our field inspection where you were all kind enough with the Zoning Board to do a joint walk through, the main issue was the sanitary system. We have public water there, but it was the sanitary system. We went to the Board of review and did get through that process favorably. $o that issue has been resolved and that is ithink, at least in Southold, the ma~n issues that come before...l'd say before the Board, but it's an issue that you're always concerned about, but there's an agency that resolved it. As far as the typical site plan issues that you're concerned with are drainage, parking, traffic, if we can identify what of those ~ssues you would like more information on, we're willing to submit that to you if you would like. I don't want everybody to jump into a position that then requires...if you Positive Dec it we now have to set a public hearing to rescind a Positive Dec, whereas if we have an extended EAF, we can discuss what your concerns are and then go from there. $o, we're here ready to listen to whatever comments you might have, but I'd like to discuss it, notjustjump into a resolution (Change tape). Mr. Ward: Ithink, if we have a project here that if it was the proper zone, you would have five times the density here in units than we would allow normally under the zone that this would allow, which certainly in my opinion is a Positive Dec. Ms. Moore: Well, keeping in mind that it's a pre-existing use that is probably the foremost issue and that's why we've peen trying to get before the Zoning. Board to establish to what extent we're entitled to continue those uses and modify them. think as a matter of case law and as a matter of right, those units -- if nothing happens, there are more than 20 units, 21 with the apartments. What we're proposing to do is eliminate, consolidate and re-build it in such a way that they'll be to code, they'll be certainly 100% better than what they are today. So if anything, we're making positive Sour;hold Town Planning Board 14 June 28,1999 improvements to the property, positive impact on the environment, not negative impact on the environment. You can't eliminate a pre-existing use. You can't penalize them because they have a pre-existing use. And they way I see the SEQRA process in a Positive Dec is to penalize them rather than to encourage whatever tailoring you want to make this project better. And that's what the site plan process ~s all about, is your influence on an applicant to make the project better. Not to make it economically impossible for them to see an application through. The SEQRA process can be used either cooperatively or as a sword And don't want it to be used as a sword. Mr. Odowski: Well, I don't think we intend at all to use it as a sword, but on the face of it looking at it, I believe the tax card shows 16 units. You're asking for 20 units. There are a lot of unresolved questions. There was hearing at the Health Department that we didn't Know about it and never got any notice of until six months after the approval. In talking To the Health Department, they weren't sure how that happened. You have property there that's located next to, as a matter of fact Suffolk County Water Authority owns part of that property that you're leasing, that they have no intent of selling. They may have a comment on this. And I think by proceeding through the SEQRA process will be the way to get all the answers that we want. Ms. Moore: I see that there are alternatives on this. As far as the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA), the SC:WA had made a communication with them to deem it surplus property because their well site up at the far end I don't believe is usable anymore, it hasn't been used in a long time because of what they can get out of that well, but even so the only area that we've used and it's been leased for the past ten years and that lease was renewed think three or four years ago, is for parking. And that's worked out very well for both sides. Certainly Greenport generated income from it and Hellenic has used it as a logical place for their parking for their restaurant. The water issues, you can't just say well, we didn't know about the hearing. The hearing went through the process and they are the ones who determine sanitary and water and that was resolved and it was in our favor. So, really the Planning Board and the .Town...that's what the Health Department is for and that has been resolved. We're not going to re-evaluate ail the Health Department issues with the Planning Board. That's inappropriate. So whatever questions you make with respect to the SEQRA process, the Health Department has already resolved that issue. Your issues are parking, drainage, lighting, your standard litany of site plan issues And those can be Southold Town Planning Board 15 June 28, 1999 addressed. We're willing to address them with' you. A Positive Dec won't,' again, it's just going to be an economic process, an expensive one, that's going to lead to the same information, the same conclusions through a different way. We can give you that information if we know what they are. So far the communication has been submit a long form EAF That's it. If you ask us, well we'd like some additional information on drainage, Young and Young is prepared to give it to you. In fact thinkthe site plan probably has more information than you typically see on site plans. Parking, again, the parking is leased and it's there and we don't really have any end in site for that. We propose to continue those leases and we propose to buy the property. SCWA doesn't have to choose to sell it to us but they can certainly...they're qot going to use that area as a well site, that's clear. It's surrounded by the golf course so about one of the only comments that I got was well what about the buffer between the two uses? It seems kind of silly to buffer that property from the beautiful golf course. It doesn't make sense, but those are issues that we can discuss. I hate to see us do it through this public hearing process. We can certainly do it through a work session and ask us for information or ask us what are your concerns. Density, fine, but there is an existing restaurant that has been there forever and it went through a site plan process. The cottages are existing -- they're there. And if they chose to fix them up and slap some paint on, they're still going to oe flushing, they're still going to be using the water and they're still going to be sleeping in there. So, what we're proposing is a thousand times better, t's a major investment in this property. So far I haven't heard any arguments, any logical reasons to Positive Dec it. Mr. Orlowski: Does the Board have any questions? George Giannaris: I'm George Giannar~s. My father is part owner of the Hellenic Cabins and Snack Bar, Inc. I would like to see some kind of clarification for the reason behind such a tremendous expense, We've already spent almost si00,000.00 in three and a half years trying to get through the largest environmental impact which obviously is to the water supply and we've gotten approval for that, so if you are going to go through with this I would appreciate to understand why -- some Kind of clarification so that it makes sense to us. We would rather IDe able to I~e up and running. Obviously, the capital 'nvestment would increase our property taxes which would be a benefit to Southold Town Planning Board 16 June 28, 1999 the community. We would rather start paying taxes than pay 30 some odd thousand dollars for this ~<ind of analysis if it's completely unnecessary. If you could come up with a logical reason for why it is necessary, then obviously we have so do it, but I just would like to know why basically. Mr. Orlowskh Well, as you know most of the town is basically 2 acre zoning; that's I unit per 2 acres. You have 1.5 acres, you're asking for 20 units and a 70 seat restaurant, with outside seating for 70 more. That's pretty intense ~n anybody's book. If we go through the SEQRA process, which the Board would like to do, we nave the scoping session where we'll all sit down and discuss it and where the outside agencies will have a chance to get involved and ask questions. Like I've said, talking with the Water Authority, they are already asking questions. You're ~easing the parking, you're adding to it and there's two and a half acres there, maybe the Health Department will have some comments that they thought that was yours and it wasn't. But don't Know that. But this Board would like to get all the answers, because this will be the most dense and intense used acre and a half in the whole Town of Southold. Ms, Moore: That may be true, however, it is already. What we're doing is proposing replacement. Mr. Orlowski: Is anybody staying there right now? Mr. Giannaris: tn the cabins right now? Mr. Orlowski: Yes. Mr. Giannaris: The cabins, up until about three years ago were rented publicly. At that point we were applying to renovate them. Then we stopped renting to the public and we rented to cus:omers that we've had for 10-I 5 years and family where people would come in and stay for a week, two weeks, three Weeks. Right now there is a cabin that is being occupied. The guy has had his stuff there for seven or eight years. They are no longer in any kind of condition to be rented to the public. The m~ain unit, the main house is occupied. We were under the impression that rather than put any more expense into fixing these up, patching them up, we would do it right and basically take what we have there rightfully, pre-existing for the past 75 years -- Brown's Cabins was established approximately, maybe even longer than that. Ms. Moore: In fact, to add to this, in the Town Clerk's records, when you purchased Brown's Cabins, the Town'ClerK, the Town Board had stated that Southold Town Planning Board '17 June 28, '1999 there were 50 people that were authorized to stay there. That's now intense -- the cabins, not the restaurant, just the cabins -- that has been -educed to a certain extent to the one or two or however number of guests that can occupy the cat}ins there today. But that's what they were, when you talk about intensity of use, that's now intense it was. And, if anything, this proposal is a significant decrease to what it had legitimately been set up as. · ' e Those cabins were very intense, and Brown s Cabins, th y were an institution out here, just as their restaurant and these cabins have been. So, to say that this is the most intense property, well, that's the way it's been. And I object to your use of the SEQRA process to try to lessen the use just because you're tying to, let's see what the Health Department can say, let's see what the Water Authority can say, let's see who can complain the 'oudest so that we can reduce you through economic means. And that's JUSt nOt appropriate. There is a conditional Negative Dec process, that would give additional information, if that's what you want, that's available to us. It's an unlisted action, so a conditional Negative Dec is always available for an unlisted action To Positive Dec it at this point just seems an extreme measure. I can't recall the number of Positive Dec's you've done in town And most recently some very big applications have come through and they haven't been Positive Decked, they've been done as unlisted actions through extended information being submitted on the environmental assessment form. That's the appropriate mechanism, not a Positive Dec with a scoping and then a full DEIS and then a final DEIS. That is the extreme for projects that would be 71,000 square feet, like North Fork Bank addition. That's the kind of a project that typically something over 4,000 square feet m ght icad to a Positive Dec. Not replacement of cabins for 20 units to make them meet state code and invest whatever n umber of th ousands of dollars into the community. It just doesn't make sense. Mr. Giannaris: It seems that there's two ways of approaching this. We can take away the units and put up.something that's appropriate for the community or we can just simply fix up what we nave. Either way, we're going to have units that are operational. If we were to slap some paint on them, put down new floors, fix a light switch here or there; replace the flushing systems and all that, we wouldn't even need approval for that. Basically, if we lqave to add this kind of expense then we're just going to go and fix the units that we have. For $30,000.00 we can do a beaut fuljob in those cabins. They'll look gorgeous and the people who come out here for a week-end won't even Southold Town Planning Board 18 June28, f1999 care. They'll still stay in them. They're staying in places that are pretty much worse off right now. You keep mentioning that we're proposing [o do something. We're not proposing anything, we're trying to fix up a pre- existing condition. If we had purchased and acre and half or two and a quarter acres down the road and we're proposing to put up 20 units, then I could see you're absolutely right, but it's not the case. Are we taking advantage of a pre-existing condition? Yes, we absolutely are. That's what we have and that's what we want to work with. If anything, by doing this we're actually mitigating the negative effects on the water supply by eliminating the number of units and putting in the proper cesspool systems. Now, each cabin, or every other cabin shares a simple septic tank Or whatever is in the ground, a cesspool. If you see the plans, what we have there is up to code and I don't understand why waste water management has to [3e brought into an issue that's already Deen resolved on their behalf. They've made their piece; they've given us the permission to go forth. Why should it happen again? It doesn't make sense to me. But I understand your concern and I respect the Board I am a member of this community and I do want to live here and I don't like seeing things that go up that are going to take away from the peace of the town that I grew up in and that I love. And I respect your opinion and I respect what you're doing, but we have to bear in mind that this ~s an establishment that's been here for 25 years and probably 50-75 years before that. We have to respect thai grandfatherect condition, I believe. Mr. Orlowski: What's the Board's pleasure? The Board will hold this unti the next meeting and we'll discuss it and we'll look at it again. Maybe we'll have you in for a work session. Ms. Moore: Keep in mind, as the applicant's attorney, want the process to be done right because in the end when the approvals are obtained those approvals could be challenged, so we want to see the SEQRA process done properly, we want to cross our T's and dot our I's, but there are ways of doing it and there are ways of stopping projects... Mr. Orlowski: I guess our concern is mostly the intensity ot: the whole proJect and it sounds like you're willing to talk about that, so let's talk about it. Ms Moore: OK, I think dialogue certainly is always available. Mr. Orlowski: Board to approve the Planning Board minutes of June 14, 1999. Southold Town Planning Board '19 June 28, '1999 Mr. Ward: So moved Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made ant seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried, have nothing left on my agenda. Anyone Rave anything to say for the recora, they can, otherwise I' entertain a motion to adjourn and we'll go into a work session and you can all hang around and make comments then. Mr. Latham: I move we adjourn. Mr. Edwards: Second Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 5:47 ~3.m. Bennett Orlowsl~i, Jr.~ Chair~l' RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK Town Clerk, To~ of ~uthold Respectfully submitted, Ma rtha A. Jones Secretary