Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-07/19/1999PLANNING BOARD MEMB~ BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Present were: MINUTES July 19, 1999 Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Richard G. Ward G. Ritchie Latham Kenneth Edwards William Cremers Melissa Spiro, Planner Robert O. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer Absent: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Martha Jones, Secretary Mr. Orlowski: Good evening. I'ci like to call this meeting to order. The first order of business, Board to set Monday, August 16, 1999 at 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. #### Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All Southold Town Planning Board those in favor? 2 July 19, '1999 Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Orlowski: 5:00 p.m. Summit EstaLes - SecLions l, 2, :5 & 4 - Public hearing in accordance with Condition Number 11 of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for Summit Estates. SCTM# I000-35-8-(5.4-5.18) and 38-7-(8-12). 'd just like to say that before we get going, I'm going to entertain a motion later tO hold this hearing open and they are going to hold this hearing open pending the review of the Town Trustees in regard to the allowable number of boat slips and the allowable use of the dock for the dockage of the boats. So know a lot of you are here for that, but we're going to hold it open. We also have some correspondence that just came into the office from, I believe, the attorney for Cleaves Point and we [~aven't had a chance to even look at this. But the hearing is open now and I'll ask if there are any comments from the audience on this. Donna Geraghty: I'm Donna Geraghty and I represent Summit Estates and Gusmar Realty. I'm just going to reiterate basically for anyone that hasn't had a chance to look at the file, exactly what it is we're looking to accomplish. We filed Section I about two years ago and we were unable to file Section 2 and Section 3 for the reason of the Suffolk County Water obviously, the moratorium on water. Therefore, we're moving ahead to file Section 4, which consists of Lot #33. The way the Covenants and Restrictions currently .read for Lot 33 is that it was for the use of Lot 33 until such time that we decided to set it off. And the actua dock ownersh p belongs to the Homeowners Association (HOA). The fact that we had not sold any homes at that time, we had no problem whatsoever utilizing or putting a covenant in there for the use of Lot 33. n the meantime, we have sold a few of the homes and we're starting construction over there and the HOA has said that they would like the enjoyment of the ctock, even if it be at this time just to be able to walk out there. They don't like the fact that there's a private sign. It is a part of their HOA. They would ike to utilize it. I had asked that we.,.I believe, and I'm not 100% sure on this, but we requested the use of four boat slips there. That use would be for two for Lot 33 and two ~:or the current developer. Once we sell off 51% of the subdivision, we would then turn over the entire Southold Town Planning BoarC July 19, 1999 subdivision to the HOA. We did sell it to a party, Lot #2, which he has shown interest in running the HOA. And he did not express interest so much for the use of Boating, but he said they'd tike possibly to be able to put I~enches out there and just to be able to use it. I know that both condominiums on both sides, they have the use of a nice dock space. They have the ability to be able to walk out and possibly fish on their ~)~er and I think that the HOA of Summit certainly is entitled to at least the same use. I understand there is a lot of concern with boat traffic, and certainly we're concerned about the same thing and I aEIree with that. What 'd like to do is hold it open for the HOA themselves to decide what they might want to do in the future with it, We're not looking to put a marina there. The dock in question is 280 feet in length. It has a 50 foot frontage. It could easily accommodate much more than 4 boats, but at this time, we are asking to be allowed to accommodate 4 boats and if the Board also sees that fit, this is what we'd like. I'm open to answer any questions that anyone may have, and we'll take it from there, Any questions from the Board? Mr. Orlowski: You say 2 slips for the HOA and 2 slips for the developer. Ms. Geraghty: 'm sorry. Two slips for Lot 33. Currently in the Covenants and Restrictions it says that the dock boat slips is for Lot 33. The developer had put in the dock and then he brought in a partner for the house which is Lot 33. They would like to share the use of the dock in common right now for boating purposes because it's a really big dock and the doctor only has one Boat and so they've said that why not let him use it. He's the developer, he's not planning to live there. Once he does sell off the rest of the subdivision, or at least 51%, he will then pass that on to the HOA and allow them to determine along with the Board what the future use of that dock might be. But we would certainly like all .of the people to be able to walk along that dock and have the use of that dock for pleasure, not boating I'm not saying, just to enjoy it as the condominium owners on both sides do I know the children go out on the piers next door and they fish or things such as that. It's a nice thing to be able to walk out on the dock as opposed to just being on the beach. Tom Krause: My name is Tom Krause and I'm a resident of Crescent Beach Condominium, unit #13, and I'd like a clarification of Ms. Geraghty's remarks. I thought I heard her say that the HOA already owned the dock or it had been turned over to them already. Is that what you said? Southold Town Planning Board 4 July 19, ~i999 Ms. Geraghty: The HOA does in fact own the dock. We're now talking about the use of the dock, Mr. Krause: My understanding is that the dock was owned by the owner of Lot #33 and there needed to be a public hearing before the transfer of the dock to anybody and only the Board could approve that and that had to happen after a public hearing. And if there hasn't been a public hearing, how can there have been a transfer of the dock to the HOA? Ms. Geraghty: There was never a deed transfer of the dock. It remained with the HOA when the HOA left. Lot #33 clearly has in the Covenants and Restrictions use of and the only question is further use of the dock, But the HOA has always retained ownership of the dock, Is that correct? Mr. Orlowski: Well, you're going to have to put that in writing for the Board because I've never seen that anywhere, Ms Geraghty: I think that's what we talked about Melissa, no? Mr. Orlowski: You might have talked about it but this Board has never read that anywhere. Ms. Geraghty: There is nothing in any deed referring to the dock. And I think the question was if in fact it's on the land that the HOA owns that that would be part of. There's mo reference in any deed to the dock, so you might explain it to me. Mr. Orlowski: That's why we're holding this hearing open. Mr. Krause: I would like to know who filed the permit application to build the dock? Clearly not the HOA because there were no owners. Mr. Orlowski: That was done before the subdivision and probably the owner of the property. Ms. Geraghty: Exactly. Mr. Krause: And if I recall, that permit application said that in fact the dock would ~)e owned by and used only for the personal use of the owner of Lot 33. Am I correct in that? Ms. Spiro: I can't say yes or no, Southold Town Planning Board 5 Ms. Oeraghty: There was no subdivision (inaudible) at all. July 19, 1999 Mr. Krause: i'm not concerned about whether or not there was a subdivision. want to know who owns the dock? And who filed the permit? Because only the owner of the dock can file a permit application I would assume, unless that's a mistake. Mr. Orlowski: And I believe originally it was the developer of the property, so now the dock is part of the whole development and to be part of the HOA, but this Board is not going to make any decision or close this hearing and make any decision until the Trustees nave reviewed this whole thing and tell us exactly what can go on down there, and how many boats can be docked down there. Mr. Krause: 'd like to refer to No. 11 in the Covenants and Restrictions for the deed and I believe it says that ownership of the dock can only be conveyed to the HOA after a public hearing and after Board approval. If it already owns it, how could it be conveyed after a public meeting? Has there been some approva or some conveyance that we don't know about or is the restriction mis-worded, because the restriction is saying it can only be transferred to the HOA with the Board's approval and after a public meeting. If the HOA already owned it, what would be the need for a transfer or a public meeting? Ms. Spiro: At the time of the subdivision approval, I don't know the date, Gusmar Realty owned it. There was no such thing as a HOA at the time of the subdivision approval. Now, I believe there has been a conveyance, maybe Donna .can speak to that, since the subdivision approval date, of Section ~ Mr. Krause: Does the creation of the subdivision pre-date or post date the Covenant and Restrictions in the deed? Ms. Spiro: The filing of the Covenants and Restrictions was done as a condition of approval for Summit Estates Section I. So, it would be at the same time as... Mr. Krause: OK, so at the time Summit Estates subdivision Section fl pre- supposes the pre-existence of the subdivision, right? It was a subdivision,.:they decided, since they couldn't afford to get, or decided that it was not in their best interest, ~o get water rights for all 35 lots, they applied for sectionalization, Sections 1, 2 and 3, they got the water rights for Section I. Southold Town Planning Board 6 July 19, 1999 Ms. Spiro: When you say water, you mean drinking water, not swimming water? Mr. Krause: Yes, drinking water, that's correct. So, if the Covenant was part of the approval process for the creation of the sections, than at that time the HOA could not have owned the dock. So now we know that the transfer to the HOA came sometime after the creation of Section I. Ms. Spiro: If indeed it was transferred to the... Mr. Krause: If indeed it was transferred, so my question ~s was it transferred? Ms. Geraghty is calling it a fait accomplis and I'm saying it can't have happened without a public hearing and I thought that's what this was about. This was the public hearing. Mr. Orlowski: This is the public hearing, and my question too was I have not seen anything on that myself, neither has the Board. Mr. Krause: So we're not accepting that as a statement of fact at this stage? Mr. Orlowski: No, not right now. Mr, Krause: Thank you Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments? David Dubin: Good evening. My name is David Dubin. I'm the attorney who you referred to earlier who submitted the comments this afternoon. I apologize for submitting them so close to the hearing. We were just retained very recently and didn't have a chance to do our homework for getting them to you. I'm not going to spend a lot of your time because I think you've made a prudent to have the Trustees get involved and find out what really the plans are for this lot and for the dock because it seems even after hearing Ms. Geraghty this evening, unclear to me who owns the dock and what the future and permanent intentions are for the dock and for Lot #33. There are a number of people here as you can see who do want to speak briefly as to the issues about usage of the dock and I know you said you want to hold that open, In looking at the letter that Ms. Geraghty submitted to request this hearing, part of her request was to ask for two slips for I think she called the developer and two slips for Lot #33. Southold Town Planning Board 7 July '19, '1999 We haven't beenable to spend a lot of time with this so far, but what we have been able to discern is that if there has been a conveyance to the HOA that's been a second conveyance without a public hearing because there was a conveyance to a Mr. Markakous, if that's the correct pronunciation, back in September of 1995. And at that time as Mr. Fakaris sold or at least conveyed the property to Mr. Markakous, which seemed to also include Lot #33, four days later Mr. Markakous flipped the property to Gusmar Realty which I assume from hearing Ms. Geraghty's comments is now the developer. In that deed for Mr. Markakous to Gusmar Realty, he retained ownership of Lot #33, so if you look at the deeds at the County Center...and I don't know how you convey property or a dock other than by a deed, Mr. Markakous is the current title owner to Lot#33, presumably the dock. So, I think it's very important before we go any further to find out who purportedly owns the dock and what the current intention is for the dock. I think you'll hear from these people that they don't object To people walking along the dock who ultimately buy homes within the subdivision and they don't object to having four slips at the dock, so that if the developer or the owner of Lot #33 or Gusmar Realty; or whoever would want to enter into a Covenant and Restriction at this time saying that the permanent use of the dock is restricted to four slips, we could probably have a short evening of this. But the problem ~s, is that it seems tike it's been incremental steps. It's been asking for permission to do one thing today, where the request that maybe later down the road we'll ask for something else, and that doesn't seem to me to be prudent planning. We should find out first what the permanent intention is. They've owned the property for some time now. If they don't know what the permanent intention is then perhaps they should reconsider what it should be and then come back and ask for whatever they want. I don't want to take up much more of your time now. I would like just to introduce a couPle of people who would like to speak briefly as to the issues that are foremost on their minds with respect to any approval of increased usage of a dock beyond that which is allowed in the Town Code, because think you'll hear from them that there are some serious safety issues that are presenT. So perhaps Sue you would like to speak briefly? Sue Hallock: Good evening. I'm Sue Hal ock and I manage Cleaves Point Village and Commons Condominium. would like to submit for the record, I think there are approximately 41 letters from our owners regarding, in Southold Town Planning Board 8 July 19, 1999 general, opposition to any change of use of the dock as we understand it now exists. May I submit them to you? Mr. Odowski: Yes, Ms. Hallock: As that letter mentions, basically we're opposing any change in use for reasons that span - noise, pollution - but mostly the density of potentia use of ilO0 feet of frontage on the bay by 35 families. In particular, the use of the dock that could potentially be used by 35 families. You've already decided this may not be the forum in which to consider the change in use, but we'd like to let it stand on the record for the Planning Board in case it's decided it's reverted back to you at some point. I'd also like to ask Ms. Geraghty about the HOA, when that was established and if that does indicate that there is a perspectus available for review, which think the Board would want to see. I know we would be very interested in having the offering plan to see basically Bow the dock has been treated in the promotion of the properties. It may give some indication as to the future intent of the use of the dock. Is that something that we may IDe able to request? Ms. Geraghty: Yes. Ms. Hallock: OK. I'm not sure who all would like to speak from Cleaves Point here. Don would you Ii<e to? OK, this is Don Henry, ~e sits on the Board of Cleaves Point Village. Don Henry: I'm also a year-round resident at Cleaves Point and one of the concerns that I ~ave is that originally, the plan was for this to be a private dock for the exclusive use of that particular piece of property and as Sue (or our attorney) mentioned, perhaps 2 or 3 more slips would not be objectionable. We are talking about I00 feet of waterfront that this dock extends out from and to subject that area to a larger amount of boats and slip spaces, I think it would definitely affect the ecology of the area and it causes us a great concern. Secondly, the amount of traffic it would generate on the water' in that area is also a large concern. True, we have a fairly large dock on one side and there's a fairly large amount of slips on the other side. Those cover a broad spectrum of the waterfront. To increase the density in that particular locale in that short amount of space really is a large concern to us in the communiW. As was mentioned earlier with the people just coming down Southold Town Planning Board 9 July 19, 1999 walking on the dock - that's not a problem, but the amount of traffic on the water would be of great concern. Chairman Orlowski: That's exactly why we're asking the Trustees to take a look at it. It's in their purview. Any other comments? John Kraus: Again, my name is John Kraus and I have 11 letters of objection from unit owners ~n Crescent Beach Condominiums which 'd like to submit. Cha rman Orlowski: OK Mr. Kraus: Further, I'd just like to say that in the 10 years since Crescent Beach Condominium has had contact with the initial developer Peter Fakarls of Summit Estates, our relationship has been an extremely problematic one. About 10 years ago, we went home at the end of one summer, came back the following Spring, ano found that the 100 foot wide strip that you're talking about that nas been designated Parcel C for park and recreation uses of Summit Estates, was raised by 4 feet from the northernmost point where it touches Crescent Beach Condominium by a distance of several hundred feet. And the concrete wall was constructed on the property line, raising, and then backfilled behind it creating a very serious flood zone for Crescent Beach Condomioium which resulted immediately in that summer of'having floods 5 and 6 feet deep at certain points of the condominium road, adjacent to the condominium structures which we have spent in the neighborhood of, collectively over the years, 535,000 to S45,000 creating a drainage area. We got no address from the town or any surrounding agencies. That 4 foot high wall has since been topped with aggressively growing, closely planted together, pine trees which nave obliterated the views of a significant number of waterfront condominiums, and are now threatening to impair the views substantially, of a significant qumber of additional condominiums. One of the reasons we're here tonight, aside from the particular application, is we're looking for the town government to give us, as residents, the protection that we feel we need To maintain and increase the value of our condominium and the community that we live in. Thank you. Chairman Orlowski: Thank you. Any other comments? Ms Geraghty: Yes, I'd like to comment with reference to John's statement. As far as the strip itself that pre-dates my involvement with the subdivision. However, do have all of the files that pre-date my involvement, and I do know that in my files, they had hired people, they had Army Corp of Southold Town Planning Board '10 July '19, '1999 Engineers, they had all of the permits necessary. (Change tape) Everything that was done on that property has permits for. Everything was done according to code. With reference to the views, this happens frequently - I'm in Real Estate 20 years. The real problem here, and it's been an ongoing feud between the condominiums, I must admit, is that the trees are there and inasmuch as they came back one w~nter and found trees there, we've come back several winters and found the trees cut down. They keep cutting the trees so they can get their views. The point is that unless you have ownership of a waterfront piece of property, and that you are able to control a (inaudible of use, trees and so on and so forth -- I'm in the process of building a home right now, and the woman across the street, it was a lot, and she obviously had wonderful views for many years and she's making my life very difficult right now because my home is going to obstruct her views, feel very strongly that if the condominiums were concerned about an obstruction of views, perhaps they should have also purchased that portion of property to protect their views, understand where you're coming from, feel for you, unfortunately, you cannot take the property rights of someone else's ~)ecause of your views. It's been an ongoing feud because of the trees. fully anticipated a lot of people here. I do respect, I do understand your concern about the boats, certainly, I I~ave that concern myself. I asked the Board whatever the Trustees say is the allowable use for the dock I ask that you allow us to have that whether it be 4 slips or whatever the Trustees say it is. But I certainly hope that you will allow the enjoyment of the entire subdivision, the entire Homeowners Association to, when I say utilize, I mean walk along that dock, perhaps go out and fish on that dock, I heard someone else say earlier that they would not be objected to that. And I just hope you allow that use. It is a lot of homes, I do understand that according to the zoning down there is the same as the condominium zoning that you all have. We could have easily put 4 units on that particular area. We didn't do that. We instead decided to give that use of the beach to all of the owners. There are many beaches in Southold that have less frontage than that. I ask that you take that under consideration. Sorry for the loss of your views, sincerely I am, but there's 2 sides to every story. Janet Mitzler: My name is Janet Mitzler and 'm also an owner at Crescent Beach Condominiums and I would like to address some of the comments that Ms. GeraghW made and quite frankly, just appeal to the Board and hopefully you can pass it on to the Trustees. Regardless of the comments that she makes, and she is merely a representative, I don't know what power you have over the organization, I don't think a whole lot. You keep in mind Southold Town Planning Board 11 Ju1¥19,~999 that there is nothiflg benign about anything this organization proposes to do. Everything they have been involved in whether or not they were able to get permits somehow to get something done, has been for their own personal use and desires with no regard to the ecology, to the surrounding neighborhood, to anything that goes on. I would ask you to please keep that in mind because, even you said, you're really not concerned about somebody else's view. We're all concerned about everybody's view. Ms. GeraghW: I didn't say that. Ms. Mitzler: ...and we're concerned about the ecology. Chairman Orlowski: 1 don't want this to be a. debate. I understand. Any other comments? Patrick Regina: Good evening, I'm Patrick Regina from Crescent Beach Condominiums. When we applied to the Board to put.up our dock, they asked us to ge[ an as-built survey to see if we would stay within our water space, which nobody... Jet me get this perfectly clear, owns the water. But may I approach the Board with something? Chairman Orlowski: As long as it's not a bomb. (laughter) Mr. Regina: It is bomb, wait until you see this. This is an as-built survey. Before we could put up our dock, we had to stay within our water space. (repeat) Within our water space, would like you to look at our neighbor's dock That is the ine showing that technically, we own the T. I just would like the Board - and here is a picture that I had specially made up. Crescent Beach was 8 condominium for a very long time. That is a very pristine area and we did not want this particular water to be disturbed. If it was up to us we wouldn't have a dock. We had no choice But when this 300 ft, dock came in, picture the property next door being sold and another dock veering across us, we'd be landlocked. We'd be absolutely landlocked, This has been a swim area since 1955. We ne~zer even thought of putting up a dock until the condominium was 12 years and one neighbor said "hey guys, you're going to be hurt, if you don't put up a dock, someone's going to landlock you, you'll be trapped, your children will be mowed down by boats". I mean let's face it, we don't know which side they are going to put it on. We respectfully ..and I know yourjob, 've been before the Board, is very difficult. Past Boards have been honest and fair. It's a thankless job. But I Southold Town Planning Board 12 July 19, t999 really want you to give this consideration. If it was up to us, we'd take down every dock. We'd enjoy the water. But it's not going to happen. Cleaves Point owns, I believe Sue, 1,300 feet? They could put in the Panama Canal. This is 100 feet. We own 2-I/4 feet. Please, I beg of you to think of this. You've seen the pictures, you've seen the as-built survey. We're not here to hurt anybody, we want to be respectful towards our neighbors and all walk in harmony. But we respectfully ask this, really consider this and not have this pristine area destroyed. Thank you, I appreciate it. Chairman: Thank you. That would be a good speech for the Trustees when they address this, so they can get an idea of what's going on. Any other comments? Michael Greenstein: Good evening. My name is Michael Greenstein, I'm a resident of Cleaves Point Condominiums. also sit on the board of Cleaves Point. First 1 would like to underscore Mr. Dubin's appeal to the Board that you first determine the ownership of this lot and the dock amenity. Elecause I believe Ms. Geraghty indicated that it is already owned by the Homeowners Association and that issue has been raised by other speakers and that clearly contradicts what we believe to be the intent of one of the governing covenants. My second point is about the use and size of the dock. Ms. Geraghty indicates that, at this point, they would like to have the dock available to property owners and homeowners in the association to wa k out on the dock and to fish on the dock. We have absolutely no problem with that notion However, it should be noted that this dock, as I think the Board or a speaker pointed out, is 280 feet long. There has already been one application to extend that another 100 feet which was roundly disputed by the governing agencies and I believe that the application was withdrawn So that would nave been 300 or 400 feet of dock. Now, if you like to fish on 400 or 500 feet of dock, that becomes deep sea fishing. To suggest that the use of this dock is for that purpose is to insult al of our intelligences. I think we really need to look at the ultimate purpose of this dock and keep in mind the hazards that are inherent in that use. Thank you very much. Mr. Orlowski: Thank you. Anyone else? Like I said right in the very beginning, we're going to hold this hearing open. I thinkthe Board has the same questions that everyone here has about the ownership and also about the use. The Trustees are going to address that use and we're going to send it over and some of these speeches that you've made tonight would be very $outhold Town Ptanning Board I ~ good to make to the Trustees when they address it. to entertain a motion to hold this hearing open. July 19, 1999 So right now i'm going Mr. Ward: So moved Mr. Cremers: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? Unknown: I have one point of clarification. Will there ~3e a public notice of the Trustees nearing on this particular issue? How will it be addressed Dy the Trustees ultimately? Mr. Orlowski: Well, that's up to the Trustees and I'm sure if they have to nave a hearing on this, and 'm guessing that they would, that it would be a public hearing. Unknown: If that were to happen, the Trustees, why don't we give you a copy of the, as-built survey so they could observe it before time and digest it and... Mr. Orlowski: Well, would take that to the Trustees office and talk to the Trustees about it That's out of our purwew and in theirs. Unknown: What's being hetd open? Just the question about the dock and Covenant and Restriction number 11, or the formation of Section 4, or both? Mr. Orlowski: Both. Actually, as I go on, I'll get to that. I have a motion made and seconded All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers.. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. And while you're all here, I'll just go onto the hearing held over for Summit Estates, Section 4, Summit Estates - Section 4 - Section 4 of this major subdivision is for one 4.3739 acre lot (Lot # 33). The property is located off Shipyard Lane in East Marion. SCTM# I000-38-7-p/o 10 (a.k.a. SCTM# 1000-35-8-5.3) This too will be held open until such time that the public hearing in accordance with Condition N umber 11 of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions is concluded, so that's all part of it and we're going to hold that open too. So, I'll entertain a motion Southold Town Planning Board Mr. Ward: $o moved. Mr. Edwards: Second. 14 July19,1999 Any questions on the motion? All 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. Mr. Cremers: Just one comment, Mr. Chairman. I think the applicant will have to apply to the Trustees. We're not going to pass it to the Trustees, so you will have to do that Donna. Mr. OrlowsKi: 5:05 p.m North Fork Bank & Trust - This proposed amended site ;)lan is fora 7,100 square foot storage addition to an existing office building, in Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-6-20 & 22. I'll ask if there are there any comments on this amended site plan? Joe Fischetti: Mr. Chairman and the Board, my name is Joe Fischetti. I have the notice of posting I'd like to give to the Board. I'mjus~ here if there are any questions from the members ,of the Board. Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments? Any questions from the Board? What's the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer the following resolution. WHEREAS, this amended site plan, to be known as site plan for North Fork Bank, is for a 1,700 square foot file s~orage addition to an existing bank; and WHEREAS, North Fork Bank is the owner of the property Known and designated as SCTM# 1000-122-6-20 & 22, located on Main Road in Mattituck; and WHEREAS, a formal application for the approval of this site plan was submitted on January 14, 1999; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8), Part 617, declared itself lead Southold Town Planning Board 15 July 19, 1999 agency and issued a Negative Declaration on March I, 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 Site Plan 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 December 4, 1998, and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final surveys subject to fulfillment of the following conditions. All conditions must be met within six (6) months of the date of this resolution: Approval by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services subject to a s~gned affidavit that: The applicant hereby agrees and understands that if the site plan which receives stamped Health Department approval differs in any way from the proposed conditional site plan on which the Planning Board held a public hearing and voted on, then the Planning Board has the right and option, if the change is material to any of the issues properly before the Planning Board, to hold a public hearing on this "revised' site plan application and review its conditional approval. The applicant agrees not to object to a new public hearing and Planning Board review of the revised application. 2. Certification by the Building Inspector 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. Odowski: Opposed? Motion carried. Southold Town Planning Board 16 July 19, 1999 Hearings Held Over From Previous Meetings: Mr, Odowski: Eleanor Sievemich - This minor subdivision is for 2 lots on 3.7648 acres located on the east side of Cox Neck Rd. in Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-8-5. Again, I'll make a motion to hold the hearing open for six months from the date of this resolution due ~o the litigation pending ~n the Supreme Court. 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. MAJOR AND MINOR SUBDIVISIONS. LOT LINE CHANGES AND SET OFF APPLICATIONS Sketch Determinations: Mr. Orlowski: Keith Scott Morton - This minor subdivision is for 4 lots on 17.59 acres located on the northwest corner of King Street and Old Farm Road, and the south side of Orchard Street in Orient. SCTM# I000-25-4- 11.4. Mr. Latham: Mr. Chairman I'll offer this resolution. WHEREAS, the proposed minor subdivision is for 4 lots; and WHEREAS, lot number I has Deen designed as a 13.627 acre lot with a 1.75 acre building envelope; and WHEREAS, the developer is proposing to sell the development rights on the area outside of the 1,75 acre building envelope; and WHEREAS, if the development rights are not 'offered for sale, the Planning Board will be requ!ring that an Agricultural Easement be placed on the area outside of the 1.75 acre building envelope; be it therefore Southold Town Planning Board 17 July 19, 1999 RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant sketch approval on the map which was received by the Planning Board on July 15, 1999. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. 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. Latham: BE iT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board start the lead agency coordination process on this unlisted action. Mr. Cremers: Second that 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. Sketch Extensions: Mr. Orlowski: Carmine Rufrano - This lot tine change is to subtract 7809 of an acre from a 5.7'13'1 acre parcel (SCTM# '1000-'127-2-5.3) and add it to a '1,3452 acre parcel (SCTM# '1000-'127-2-6.'1); and a 2 lot minor subdivision on 4.9254 acreS. SCTM# '1000-'127-2-5.3 7 6.'1. Mr, Cremers: Mr. Chairman, I'll offer the following resolution. BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant an additional six month extension of sketch approval from August 23,1999 to February 23, 2000 Conditional sketch approval was granted on February 23, '1998. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Southold Town Planning ~3oard 18 July 19, 1999 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 - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Determinations: Mr, Orlowski: Ed,qar and Arlene Marvin - This minor subdivision is a cluster subdivision of 2 lots on 2.081 acres. The subdivision is located on the south side of Jackson St., 431.57 feet west of Fifth St. in New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-'10-9 Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I'll offer the following resolution. BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, establishes itself as Lead Agency, and as Lead Agency makes a determination of non-significance, and grants a Negative Declaration. 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. Mr. Orlowski: North BaWiew Associates - This proposed minor subdivision is for 4 lots on 15.973 acres located on the south side of North Bayview Rd., approximately 150 feet east of Seawood Dr.,in Southold. SCTM# 1000-79-8- '12. Mr. Cremers: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, es~a~31ishes itself as Lead Agency, and as Lead Agency makes a determination of non-significance, and gran~s a Negative Declaration. Sour:hold Town Planning Board 19 July 19, 1999 Mr. Latham: 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 Final Extensions: Mr. Orlowski: Peconic Landing - This application is to amend an approved site plan for construction of 118 single family detached cottages; 132 apartment units; 24 unit assisted living center; and 32 bed skilled care center with supporting amenities. SCTM# 1000-35-I-25. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer the following resolution. BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant an additional six month extension of conditional approval from August 31, 1999 to February 28, 2000. Conditional final approval was granted on August 31, 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. Orlowskh Opposed? Motion carried. SITE PLANS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Determinations: Mr. Orlowski: Mattituck Laurel Library- This proposed site plan is for a 4,285 square foot addition to an existing library. SCTM# 1000-I 14-11-2. Southold Town Planning Board 20 July 19, 1999 Mr. Latham: Mr. Chairman, I'll offer this. BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, establishes itself as lead agency, and as lead agency makes a determination of non-significance, and grants a Negative Declaration. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those ~n favor? Ayes: Mr. Odowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. Mr. Orlowski: Hellenic Cabins - 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 story frame house which contains two apartments, on a 1.52 acre parcel; to allow for the construction of four (4) two story frame cabins containing a total of 20 units (2 containing 6 units and 2 containing 4 units). 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 Detween the buildings, restaurant and office building. SCTM# 1000-35-2-14 & 15 Mr, Cremers: Mr. Chairman, I'll offer the following resolution, BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Envinonmental' Quality Review Act, and as lead agency, in its review of this unlisted action'finds that the action may significantly effect the environment, and makes a determination that an EAF Part III oe prepared The EAF Part III should include the following: A hydrological study of the ground water conditions on-site, with additional discussion of the potential impacts to the ground, water. Soil analysis Traffic analysis Southold Town Planning Board 21 3u1¥ 19, 1999 · Land use and zoning analysis due to the large number of variances Mr. Latham: Second. 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. Orlowskh Opposed? Motion carried, have nothing left on my-agenda. If anybody has any questions or comments for the record speak now otherwise we're going to adjourn and have our work session. I entertain a motion to ad_lourn, Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Cremers: 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 6:00 p.m. RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK Town Clezk, Town of Southold Respectfully submitted Martha A. Jones Secretary