Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-05/18/1992PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 18, 1992 SCOTFL. HARRIS Supe~isor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516] 765-1823 Present were: Bennett Orlowski Jr., Chairman G. Ritchie Latham Richard Ward Mark McDonald Kenneth Edwards Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Melissa Spiro, Planner Holly Perrone, Secretary Mr. Orlowski: Good evening, I would like to call this meeting to order. First order of business, Board to set Monday, June 8, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. at Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold as the time and place for the next regular Planning Board Meeting. So moved. Second. Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Subdivisions: Preliminary's Mr. Orlowski: 7:30 p.m. Willow Run. This major subdivision is for thirty-four lots on seventy acres on the north side of Mill Road, 852 feet east of Reeve Road on the south side of Sound .Avenue in Mattituck. We have proof of publication in both the local papers and at this time everything is in order for a Mr. Latham: Mr. Edwards: Mr. Orlowski: ~ ~SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD 2 M_AY 18, 1992 public hearing. I'll ask if there are any objections to this subdivision. Ann Cremers: I live in Saltaire Estates, there is no objection to the sutxlivision however, we would like to ask the Planning Board if they would provide a conservationeasement between the Willow Run subdivision and Mattituck Saltaire Estates. We have had this natural buffer that has been there for years. We can remember, the farmer who farmed there has always left this buffer between the farm and the houses and it is a natural b~hitat for wild life and we would like this to continue. In addition SEQRA says, that you should really try to provide privacy for the residents and it would benefit bo~h Willow Run and Saltaire Estates by having this I believe. It is a natural characteristic of the area and to rip down these trees would really be a shame so we are asking would you please consider this. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Any other objections to this subdivision? Mr. Cremers: Just a comment, the question is you have a ten foot walkway between Soundview Avenue and the open space and I think originally you had asked for that because that was going to be a joint ownership, now it is a single ownership and the thought is do you still need a ten foot walkway under single ownership. You don't have to answer that but it is for your consideration. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., any other objections? Ms. Rankel: I just want to say I agree with the Cremers, we are the next house there and I wouldn't like to see those trees all be knocked down. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., anything else? Any other objections? Eleanor Hunnkey: Same objection. Alice Glogg: Same objection. Rory Forrestal: Same objection. Diane B. Inicali: Same objection. Tom Sturniolo: Same Objection. Odel Sturnirolo: Same objection. Helen Oates: Same objection. Bob Rankel: Same objection. Mr. Orlowski: I'll ask if there are any endorsements of this subdivision? ~ ~ SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD 3 MAY 18, 1992 Mr. Henry Raynor: Good evening, I am representing Willow Run. Mr. Mathews is here this evening° This Board is well aware that this major subdivision before you this evening is a sectionalized proposal on seventy acres with thirty four building lots. The test wells and test holes have been completed for the Department of Health Services and presently we are installing test wells in section one. This Board approved sketch plan back on May 9th in 1988 subject to revision and declared themselves lead agency, made initial determination of a Negative Significant Impact under SEQRA. Since that time, we have changed the drainage system from a swale to a conventional form, the Board has the sectionalized maps before them with final drainage plans to be forthcoming prior to the final hearing. Both the road lot configurations have been modified several times at the Planning Board's request. We have gone forward with the sectionalization to conform with the new Suffolk County standards and if there are any questions concerning the boundaries of these new maps, I realize the Board has not had the opportunity to review them at this point and we would be happy to answer any questions. There have been some questions with reference to wetlands on the property and the trustees who informed the Board and the staff that there are none in existence, the question of historical preservation of the Gildersleeve House was brought up and I am sure the Board is well aware that this has been restored. I believe on the basis of what we have presented that this conforms with Section A-106 in the Town Code and both Mr. Matthews and myself have been here this evening and listened to the voice objections of the neighbors and I am sure the Board will take that under consideration as well as ourselves. I would note that the property in question A) is already wooded comes under the subdivision regulations as far as the demolition of trees is concerned that this will not occur_and B) the question of the ten foot walk and easement was that of a request from the Planning Board which we recognize and affix to the map. If you have any questions, we will be happy to answer them. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., any other endorsements of this subdivision? Helen Oates: It is my understanding that you want to break through at Wavecrest Road ? That is the only street that we have going down to a dead end street. The school bus goes through there and there are a lot of children on Saltaire Way going all the way around. Alright, I think that would be a detriment to break open that road there with all those children in the area. If you are going to put in houses that is going to be that much more traffic. Mr. Orlowski: I asked if there were any other endorsements. Helen Oates: No, just objections. ~ ~SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD 4 MAY 18, 1992 Mr. Orlowski: I don't want this to get into a debate. Helen Oates: I am not debating, I am making a point. Mr. Orlowski: Is there anyone out there that is neither pro nor con but may have information pertaining to this subdivision that~would be of interest to the Board? George Clark: Down at that one end there is a pond that runs under that property and they say there are no wetlands, what does that go under then? There a.re two ponds that were down there. Mr. McDonald: In the southwest corner? Mr. Henry Raynor: Yes, it you were to look on lot five, it exists and it is proposed to be remained as such. Mrs. Cremers: Excuse me, I thought part of what he is talking about is clearing it out, am I wrong? It seems like it was graded and cleared, part of that pond down there. I know that wasn't declared wetlands but it was cleared. Is that considered critically sensitive area, but it was cleared, water did accumulate in there at one point, Mr. Henry Raynor: That was graded to remove the brush and eventually be refurbished in a better sense and it is not a environmental area that is significant however, theapplicant does consider it certainly significant to the property as well as the building lot and there is no attempt to go in there and cover this over. Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments? Hearing none, any questions from the Board? Board: No questions. Mr. Orlowski: The Board has not yet had a chance to totally review the map and we are sending it out to the Suffolk County Planning Co~xu~,ission so I will entertain a motion to keep this hearing open until we hear from the Planning Commission. Fir. Henry Raynor: Mr. Chairman, can I ask you on what basis you are Sending it out to the Suffolk County Planning Commission? Mr. McDonald: The maps indicate that it is in their jurisdiction and we checked with them and their map indicated that one corner of it and therefore the whole subdivision was in jurisdiction. Mr. Henry Raynor: I have had two surveyors look at it and they both indicated that it is not, as a matter of courtesy I have no objection. ~SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD 5 MAY 18, 1992 Mr. McDonald: This is a question that has been raised but they go by the map that sits down there and I understand that there are some co~m~ents that it is more than the 500 feet that we ask because of that. It shows on our map so send it to us. Mr. Orlowski: The key map shows it within 500 feet so... I have a motion made and seconded, any question on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Subdivisions - Final: Mr. Orlowski: Samuel S. Polk - This minor subdivision is for two lots on 4.88 acres located on East End Road Chocomount Hill on Fishers Island. SCTM ~1000-4-5-5.9. We have proof of publication in both papers and at this time everything is in order for a final hearing. I'll ask if there are any objections to this subdivision? Hearing none, are there any endorsements of this subdivision? Hearing none, is there anyone out there neither pro nor con but may have information pertaining to this subdivision that would be of interest to the Board? Hearing none, any question from the Board? Board: No questions. Mr. Orlowski: Being there are no further questions, I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Ail those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. McDonald. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Does the Board have any pleasure? Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. WHEREAS, Samuel S. Polk, is the owner of the property known and designated as SCTM 91000-4-5-5,9, located at Private Road on Fishers Island; and ~ SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD 6 MAY 18, 1992 WHEREAS, this minor subdivision, to be known as Minor Subdivision for Samuel S. Polk, is for two lots on 4.88 acres; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8), Part 617, declared itself Lead Agency and issued a Negative Declaration on December 9, 1991; and WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said subdivision application at the Town Hall, Southold, New York on May 18, 1992; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Stubdivision Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; and be it therefore, RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board approve and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final survey dated January 9, 1992. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Edwards, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ortowski: Opposed? So ordered. (Chairman endorsed z~ps.) Hearings Held Over From Previous Meetings: Mr. Orlowski: Summit Estates~ Section 1 - Section 1 of this major subdivision is for ten lots on 17.5036 acres located on the southwest corner of Main Road (NYS 25) and Shipyard Lane in East Marion. The entire project, Section 1, 2 and 3 is for thirty-five lots on 40.822 acres. SCTM $1000-35-8-5.3. At our last hearing there was a question about the dock and I believe the applicant or a representative is here tonight to let us know what is going to happen there. Donna Geraghty: Before I answer the question about the dock, I think I have a few questions I would like to ask. With reference to the letter that was sent out on May 15th, I received it today so I didn't have a lot of time to act on it. However, I just want to state that you have asked that my client dedicate the dock to the homeowners association and from the very beginning he has stated that he wanted to use it for his own personal use, he pays for it and he maintains it and he would like to keep it as such. In the second paragraph, you ~ -' ' SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD 7 MAY 18, 1992 referred to the park and recreation stating that you allowed us to use this area as park and recreation if I remember correctly you had suggested to us that we use this space. My client had originally thought about putting four units down there and we were going to go for a change of zone, we do have the zoning down there currently so in fact, we went with that as per your request. With reference to the homeowners association again, you have addressed asking us that we put into the homeowners association that we dedicate this dock space to them and we really don't want to do that. We want to maintain it for ourselves. With reference to the C.O.'s there was a question that there were not all of the C.O.'s for the structures that are currently existing and I have a copy for you and can share them with you. That is for all of the structures that are currently there. In fact, it is my understanding that we have probably more C.O.'s than many people have for every structure almost right down to the barbecue. Again, you have asked me to make changes in covenants and restrictions and I have made changes twice and amwilling to work with you. You have added something in reference to parking in paragraph two and we have no intention of putting parking there and in fact, my client's home is right next to the area in which you are suggesting that at any further time he put parking in. I see absolutely no reason for that because he has no intention of ever putting parking there. As far as the strip, the dedication, we don't have any problem with that we have already agreed to that and if ~ou look on the map you will see that we have already said we would dedicate that and we can act on that immediately. The last thing I want to refer to is paragraph five, I have never seen this paragraph in covenants and restrictions before and I ask that you might explain that to me. Number five, the following statement is to be included. The Planning Board shall have the authority through appropriate legal action and at the due notice and then to everyone in the world of course to enforce the covenants and restrictions. You have that already and so I don't see a need to enter that once again into the covenants and restrictions. That is pretty much what I have to say. If you have any questions, we will be happy to answer. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., does the Board ha~e any questions? You are stating that the applicant will be the only one to ever use this dock for his own personal use? Ms. Geraghty: At this time, this is his intention yes. Mr. Orlowski: At this time. Ms. Geraghty: As long as he is there I think what he would like is to use the dock for his own personal use, he does not want to open it up to the homeowners association, he is paying for it and he paid for it to be there and the reason it is in the -~ SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD 8 MAY 18, 1992 location that it is in is because he was instructed by Army Corp. to put it there and I think Mark mentioned at the last meeting, why didn't he put it on the corner of his property. Well in fact, it is impossible to put in on the corner of his property because the homeowners on both sides have docks and already he only has in the location where it is, he only has ten foot passing room. Mr. Orlowski: You keep stating for right now. I mean, is there another ...... ? Ms. Geraghty: No, this is it peziod. End of discussion. I think I sent you a letter with reference to that. Mr. Edwards: How many vessels does the applicant anticipate docking at this dock? Mr. Fakiris: Five. Mr. Orlowski: While the hearing is open are there any other comments? Mark Solomon: If in fact, he is going to use it for his own use, can't that be put into writing that the use will not change and that will be the use? What happens if the permits are granted based on tonight's statement and in a years time the Property that his house is on or the proper~y that the dock is on is turned over some of the space for their use. It is then going to be the discretion of the then Board of managers or trustees of thirty-five homeowners to then rule on how that dock is going to be used and if in fact that is the case then what is going to be the Town of Southold~s position with different agencies that I am not familiar enough to see o~ the proper use. Once the dock is 350 or 380 feet long simple arithmetic will divide it into how many slips will be available and that is what concerns the neighbors. We, speaking for my association have approximately fourteen or fifteen hundred feet of waterfront and we have room for thirty six slips and we have I don't know how many acres of land but if we go by the waterfront usage, I don't know what environmental impact it is for less than 100 feet to be used for thirty five boats when we have fourteen hundred feet that is used for up to thirty six boats and currently we only have built facilities for maybe twenty or twenty-two and it is used by half of that. So, that is our big concern. It doesn't matter What people say or want or wish, it matters how the Board or the different agencies that protect the co~nL~unity and its neighboring properties put into writing so it can be forever and I realize forever is a long time but certainly not at somebody's whim who is developing property that has a sign out there that says he is developing it for boating and that is right on the Main Road as we showed a photograph last week, it is for boating and this weeks ad for Victorian Sales offering says boating right in the offering. ~ ~ ~ SOUTHOLD TOWN PL~ING BOARD 9 MAY 18, 1992 MS. Geraghty: I can answer that question for you O.K., and that is if in fact you have a piece of property that is on the water yes, it says boating but it does not say mooring nor does it say docking. Boating also in so much as I have advertised golfing and fishing and bird sanctuary so ~if you can put it in the context as a recreational type thing, yes you can boat, there are many boats there, you can moor a boat, you can get a mooring permit but put it in the context that I mean it and that is from a sales point Of view. It is a marketing technique and I think if you look in the papers, many people use marketing techniquesit has nothing to do nor does it refer to boat slips and just if I may in answer to your question, my client does not need intend to build any additional boating in this area. However, if some day he is out of there he does not have the say of what the homeowners association does just as you stand there now. When your condominium was formed you did not have those voting rights nor did the people on the other side of him have those voting rights. It was the homeowners association that went in after the fact. Mr. Orlowski: I can't let this get into a debate. It is a public hearing. Mark Solomon: In our original prospective of that property it was marina stated. Mr. Fakiris: I have some concern about my neighbors and I'm concerned about my dock. I understand reasons. Before T answer the question, I have a very serious question. I do some backfill and I ask you official all of you to give me a copy of the plans they have to backfill and I am asking today to give me any rights to follow the checkup of the backfill because I believe ... (inaudible) this is the first time I noticed... (inaudible) so if they are concerned about the dock, how about if you look what we create with the water we are drinking. I have a well 300 feet away from them. I never say nothing and (inaudible) as soon as possible for the subdivision to go through to get the city water. But know that I see how much they are concerned about my dock, I make officially and I ask all of you what avenues I must go through to find out what they are backfilling the hole with. Mr. Orlowski: Well, this Board can't get involved with that. There are other Boards in this Town. Mr. McDonald: Building Inspector? Mr. Orlowski: Building Department would help you out there. Mr. Solomon: My next question is if park and. recreation is the use of the land and that is just the marketing tool, why is there a hesitancy to tie up in real words that can be substantiated in a court of law if necessaryhow to administrate ~ ~ ~ SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD 10 MAY 18, 1992 over that property or over that dock. Why would there be a hesitancy to state in the English language not just superficially say it is a marketing tool that boating is a word for marketing purposes. Can we agree that there should be language put in the offering perspectives for the permit, the Town Zoning Board, Planning Board, etc. all the proper agencies that can read the same thing at one time and not have to show up and hear it at a meeting. There should be a way to do that I believe. Mr. Lark: I would like to answer that question. I represented Mr. Fakiris for some time and it is my understanding that Ms. Geraghty has been.handling this application for him and it is my understanding that you have read the homeowners association approved by the Attorney General. Is that correct? Mr. SOlomon: I have not. Mr. Lark: The Board members have. If you have taken the 'trouble to read it because the Attorney General is also very plagued by this when we had to file for a homeowners association for the co.u,enaries and it appears no less than four times in there clearly in representing future buyers of this property or any lots that are subdivided on this property that the dock in question is not going to belong to Mr. Fakiris but to belong to that lot. It it is impertinent appendage to that lot to be gotten to over the parcel D there because Parcel D will be owned by the association in effect the owner of lot thirty five or whatever Mr. Fakiris item section three ultimately will be, he will have the right to go over as a property homeowners and then to the dock. The dock is not being included in any of the common elements'are it belongs to that lot where Mr. Fakiris presently has his home and in fact it is a very close question as to whether it even reaches the highland. So it is out there and as he says, it was designed by the Court because of the situation. I say it four times. When the homeowners association which the Board has a copy which is la public document on file at the Attorney Generals office having been approved on page two, it says the owner of, and there it is referred to as lot three because that was the ilot under the original concept, has exclusive use of the existing dock attached to parcel D and is obligated to pay all costs in connection with maintenance repair of the dock. On page ten, which is the description of the commenary, the dock which is attached byparcel D will remain for exclusive private use in the ~adjoinment of the owner of lot number three. On page thirteen, which gets into explaining the costs and expenses in addition the owner of lot three will pay all costs in connection with the operation in maintenance and repair including insurance at the dock located adjacent to parcel three and then on the by-laws of the homeowners association which is covenants and restrictions which have to be filed in the SuffOlk County Clerk's office in that declaration of covenants and restrictions which is exhibit A to the homeowners association on page seven ~ SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD 11 MAY 18, 1992 in its contain in section three. In addition, the owner of lot three will pay all costs in connection with repair, maintenance and operation of dock located adjacent to commentary parcel D for which it has the exclusive use. Four spots in a public document which you have approved and I think that puts to rest. Now, Ms. Geraghty referred to what homeowners association do ~r not do. One of your conditions of your original approval which went to all three sections as I read it was that a homeowners association that was approved by the Attorney Generals Office and also to be approved by your Board. Therefore, if that is a condition of the map filing, which again follows suit with th~ Suffolk County Planning Commission, any changes to it whether made by homeowners association will definitely have to have that amendment approved by the Attorney Generals Office and it also I submit to you that the jurisdiction would have to be approved by you at such future time that there was to be any amendment. Never mind the zoning ordinance you have in effect as to who can or can't use that dock you know with different property owners whether it becomes a residential marina or otherwise. Sc, even if the homeowners association were to get relief from the Town Board under the zoning ordinance, they would have to come to ~this Board to get approval to change the use of it so that everyone of the lot owners or a certain fraction could or could not use that dock so I think that is the question. It was never, never intended to be a part of the subdivision and if you will remember, when you were doing the original which was one and now it is three sections which would be section three, you were all aware of that because otherwise you would never had Negative Deced it, you were well aware of that, it is not a part of the subdivision it is pertinent to which was lot three now it would have a different lot denomination in section three of course. I think that answers it. Any further questions on that? Unknown: All the association would have to do is to buy that house which is on lot three and it becomes their's to use then, the dock, correct. Mr. Lark: In the unlikely event that the association purchased Mr. Fakiris mansion on that lot and used it. What are they going to use it as, they cannot use it as a clubhouse without coming back to the Town Board, it is a residential use for a single family on a single family lot on a residential subdivision and there{ore that rules that out. But, let's say they bought it and left it vacant to try to get property rights, that would be a perversion of what the Attorney General ..... the Attorney General is very strict on this point and that is why I can speak so conversely on it. He wanted it disclosed, put it in the by-laws, put it in the covenants and restrictions because it is shown on a map as required by the regulations by the Town Board and the Suffolk county Clerk but, it is not included as part of the subdivision for anybody else having rights other than that lot owner which at the present time is Mr. Fakirus. O.K., does that answer your question? ~ ~ ~ SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD 12 MAY 18, 1992 Mr~ Mark Solomon: No, not really. Mr. Lark: You cannot use the house as a clubhouse, ask your attorney. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., would you address the Board Mr. Lark? Mr. Lark: O.K. Mr. Orlowski: Is there a problem with putting it in the covenants? Mr. Lark: It is, it is. It is in the covenants that are going to be filed. Mr. Orlowski: In the by-laws. Mr. Lark: Sure, put them in fine because it is in the covenants that is already going to be on record when the map is approved. This homeowners association has to be filed in Riverhead. It is there, I gave you the page reference. Mr. Orlowski: O.K.. Unknown: Excuse me. In this situation, I think belt and suspenders is called for. If it is in the specs of the Attorney General that I have never seen, then why shouldn't it be in other documents that are more available to the~general public that don't have to go and be interested in purchasing a property in order to see it in writing? So, I believe that it should be in some document that the Zoning Board or Town Board states clearly and I would like to see that if possible with a limitation. Last month it was four votes and now it is five votes, that doesn't make a difference to me, it really doesn't but I certainly want it to be more than what personal use is going to be. However, how many boats you limit it to is fine. That should be in writing as a matter of fact that can be looked at by local enforcement agencies. Enforcement agencies to my best of knowledge does not read what is filed in the Attorney General's Office. Mr. Orlowski: Does the Board have any comments? Mr. Moore: We're past, open, and closed and thrown against. I am here on behalf of Crescent Beach and I am here more by way of clarification based upon the last meeting that you had and the questions that were raiSed and I am willing to stand corrected on point in reference to offering plans there and I do believe that there were reservations throughout that document which the declarant reserves for himself the right to amend those C & R's as to access to that dock. I think the problem you have got is that throughout the applications that we have available to us to look at which is the DEC and Army Corp. it was pretty clear the (inaudible) being sought after was a personal dock. ~ ~ ~SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD 13 MAY 18, 1992 Things get a little crazy when you look and see a billboard using the reference of boating as a marketing tool or what have you for the sale of lots and then read C & R's in which the declarant reserves some right, himself the right to amend those. Call it illease, I don't want to use the word distrust but just an uncomfortable feeling that avenues are being left open to change what is being considered. No objection is being made to your negative declaration of SEQRA, not withstanding the fact that it is a Type 1 action that carries with it a presumption that perhaps an impact statement should be considered. If you have taken a good hard long look at it, you are O.K., as long as you understand what you are looking at and I think that the Cleaves Point people, I won't speak for them, but the Crescent Beach if it truly is a personal dock, do they have problems with its length? Yes, that is a problem t~t they have to adjust with the Army Corps of Engineers but as long as they can rest assured that we are not talking about a marina for the thirty five lot owners there, I think their objections are going to be dropped substantially. Whatever you can do, to amend your documents in such a way that it is clearly impertinent to and your approval and modification and that C & R and limiting that use is approved~ I don't think they will have a problem with that but the conflicting messages go on. The long form EAF that you had made no reference to any other agencies that approval needed to be sought from. So, you guys didn't even know at least for quite some time that the Army Corps. and DEC were involved in a dock extension application. I have learned something neat from this application that with the Trustees if you are going to ask for a hundred foot dock and they give it to you, come back and ask later for the rest of it and they will declare it is out of their jurisdiction. That is extraordinary, I have learned a neat one on that and I am surprised that they did that but that is not your concern except as a whole scheme of interagency and SEQRA communications so that everyone seems to know what is going on and truly what the application is all about. A lot of neighbors questions can be dropped and eliminated with open understanding of the application. Thank you. John Bredemeyer: Chairman of the Southold Trustees. Just a point of clarification, the dock was out of jurisdiction of this Board by virtue of being greater than being five feet below mean low water which is a delineater in the Town Wetlands Ordinance. Mr. Solomon: Excuse me sir, does that mean that the end of the dock is currently stated beyond the five foot water t~hle? Mr. Bredemeyer: As measured by the Board of Trustees. Mro Solomon: So, wh~ does it have to be extended to get to deeper water? Mr. Bredemeyer: As I said, it is beyond the jurisdiction of my Board and I am just clarifying my reasons. ~ ~ ~ SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD 14 MAY 18, 1992 Mr. Lark: Since Mr. Moore wants to know, the reason that it was being extended or requested to be extended is due to the property owners or owners or association to these Cleaves Point or what have you, when they put in their bulkheading, their breakwater, their jetty and doing their dock work, they took a long period of time to do it as a result of that mother nature shoaled in where Mr. Fakiris dock is today to the point is that his boat sits today on the bottom. He cannot use it, the Department of Environmental Conservation when he went to dredge there out at the end, said no way, build an extension. The Army Corp. said no way, build an extension, the Trustees said, dredge, O.K.. So, what is he going to do, he has a forty four foot boat plus a couple of other odd boats that he does use the dock for and that is why the extension. He did not want the extension, that was an unnecessary expense when he could s~,ply dredge it because that would have been far cheaper but that is the reason for the extension request for him so he can use it. He has no water even at the end of his dock that he has built. Mr. Orlowski: Is there something new, because I think we have a lot to digest right now and I don't want to make it a debate. Mr. Solomon: I was in my boat this week em~d and last week end and took a reading at the end of his dock and the end of our dock and he had five feet at the end of his dock last week and he is talking ~hout our embankment causing shoaling, shoaling doesn't usually happen in the middle of a bay. If sand is moving from one place to another and by the way it is building up on that shore, not eroded from that shore since we put the (inaudible) in. It would then move across the bay bottom on to the beach which is building up very dramatically now against the easterly side of the Greenport jetty. Mr. Fakiris: (Inaudible). Mr. Orlowski: I think we have heard enough from the audience. Does the Board have any coam,ents? Mr. McDonald: I have some sympathy for what has been coim~ented here about the fear of this becoming a public dock by the same extent, the purpose of park and recreation is to service the subdivision. Mr. Fakiris: (Inaudible) Give me the dredging, I go for the dredging. Mr. McDonald: I don't have the power. Mr. Fakiris: One tell me don't do dredging, the other tell don't do extension, what am I allowed as a taxpayer, what am I allowed to do? Ms. Geraght~: I thi~k.one of~.the questions here that we really ought to co~sider is %h~ right now Qe are speaking about ten SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD 15 MAY 18, 1992 lots, we are talking about Section I, we are not talking about the entire project. We would like to get going, we would like to move forward, we are losing marketing time and I think that we are getting caught up a little bit on the whole pro~ect when we are really referring to and tonights hearing here is referring to the ten lots in Section I, so we are asking at this time that you go forward and let us go forward with our subdivision, with Section I is what we are talking again, I think that is important that we keep that in mind and certainly we are not talking about thirty five boats or anything even thirty five families using the beach. Here and now we are talking about at the most ten and we hope that we can sell those ten lots quickly. Mr. Lark: Since the Board did sectionalize this thing, I think the Board is aware that you are going to have two more applications and two more hearings so this is only for ten lots on the northerly portion of the subdivision so if there is any illusions here Mr. Fakiris woUld have (inaudible) with his dock you are going to have two more shots at it because in order to be this economically worthwhile he has got to come back for Sections II and III. Sot I don't think just by virtue of you sectionalizing it and having two more applications, two more preliminaries and two more finals, I don't think you have too much fear and with the economic climate being what it is, that he has to come back so you Will two more bites of his apple sort of speak if he does something that you don't approve of. Mr. Orlowski, I notice again you didn't sign this letter that you dated on May 15th, are you aware of its contents? Mr. Orlowski: Yes. Mr. Lark: Because I do want to put the Board on notice that having, and you approve of its contents? Mr. Orlowski: Yes. Mr. Lark: Because I did want to put the Board and yourself on notice that when you consider the entire application process that this subdivision has gone through, we are very, very borderline on violation of both Mr. Fakiris, individUal and corporation civil right here. I just want to make you aware of that, we are getting very close. Mr. McDonald: I am wondering in light of Mr. Lark's co~m~ent, if we Should go into executive session because of the litigation of this? Mr. Latham: I think you are right Mark. Mr. Orlowski: A lot of information has been gathered here tonight and it appears the by-laws of the homeowners association clearly state that Lot Number 3 has exclusive right of his dock facility and Mr. Lark stated that there would be no problem to ~ ~ ~ SOUTMOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD 16 MAY 18, 1992 put it in the protective covenants and restrictions for the subdivision, that is not a problem, and being that this dock is five foot out of the jurisdiction of the Trustees, beyond the limit, does the Board want to do anything? Mr. Ward: I am in favor of moving it, Section I. Mr. Orlowski: You are going to put it in the covenant of the subdivision. Mr. Lark: We assume that when the Board makes the decision you might have some other conditions because as Ms. Geraghty pointed out some of the ones in the May 15th letter really don't apply to Section I concept when you are thinking that the dock doesn't go with it. Mr. McDonald: The only problem with that is the open space and the recreation is showing in the Section I map, so the only shot we are going to get is really here in this section. Once we approve this section, we will only be approving what remains of the other sections which does not include the park and recreation. Mr. Lark: I'm surprised when you sectionalized it from the real property point of view, the map when it is finally filed because the covenants and restrictions and the homeowners association is going to have to reflect that the very same open space and park and recreation and drainage if you will which is bonded and so on and so forth, will also apply for Section II and Section III, so you will see it again. People buying in Section II will also have the same privileges as those in section one and the same with Section III. So, you will see the thing again, the only difference might be that the road might be constructed when Section II comes in. Mr. Orlowski: I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Edwards: So moved. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Any q~estions on the motion? Ail those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Eleanor Sievernich - This minor subdivision is for two lots on 3.743 acres 'located on the east side of Cox SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD 17 MAY 18, 1992 Neck Lane in MattituCk. SCTM ~ 1000-113-8-5. a motion to keep this hearing open. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: I'll entertain Any questions on the Opposed? So ordered. Wolf Pit Estates - Board to discuss amending Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. MAJOR AND MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, LOT LINE CHANGES AND SET OFF APPLICATIONS Final Determinations: Mr. Orlowski: Salvatore and Jeanne Catapano - This minor subdivision is for three lots on 13.730 acres located at the south side of Main Road and the east side of South Harbor Road in Southold. SCTM 31000-69-6-9.2. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board authorize the Chairman to endorse the final maps dated June 22, 1990 with the following condition to be affixed to the maps: Mr. McDonald: Second. Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Orlowski= the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for this major subdivision located on Mill Road in Mattituck. SCTM ~1000-107-4-2.I. We haven't heard anything yet so I'll entertain a motion to keep the hearing open. ~ ~ SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD 18 MAY 18, 1992 Certificates of Occupancy will not be issued for either proposed dwelling structure until such time that all conditions of the March 8, 1991, Zoning Board of Appeals approval of access have been met. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edward~, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Preliminary Extensions Mr. Orlowski: West Mill Road (M. Paul Friedherg) This major subdivision is for ten lots on 22.106 acres located on the west side of West Mill Road in Mattituck. SCTM 9 1000-106-9-4. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a six month extension of preliminary approval from May 18, 1992 to November 18, 1992. Preliminary approval was granted on November 18, 1991. Mr. McDonald: Second~ Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? Ail those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Sketch Determinations: Mr. Orlowski: David S. & Elizabeth T. Branch - This minor subdivision is for two lots on 3.676 acres located on the northwest corner of Eugene's Road and Skunk Lane in Cutchogue. SCTM 91000-97-3-17 & 18.2. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. ~ ~ ~ EOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD 19 MAY 18, 1992 RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant sketch approval on the map dated March 19, 1992, with the following condition: 1. The access to Parcel One shall be subject to approval from the Engineering Inspector and the Planning Board. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Sketch Extension: Mr. Orlowski: John and Margaret Guest - This minor subdivision is for three lots on 13.7 acres located on the west side of Crescent Avenue on Fishers Island. SCTM 91000-6-5-5. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I would to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a six month extension of sketch approval from May 30, 1992 to November 30, 1992. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. McDonald. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Bond Determinations: Mr. Orlowski: Farmveu Associates - This major subdivision is for 47 lots on 111.764 acres located southwest side of Sound Avenue and Aldrich Lane in Mattituck. SCTM ~ 1000-121-3-2. Mr. Ward: 'Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. ~ ~ SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD 20 MAY 18, 1992 RESOLVED tO adopt the bond estimate dated May 4, 1992, and to recommend same tO the Town Board. The bond estimate is in the amount of $488,530.00, with an administration fee in the amount of $29,312.00. Mr. Latham: Second. Fir. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr.. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Or!owski: Opposed? So ordered. Richard J. Cron: Mr. Chairman, just for a point of clarification, I am one of the associates in Farmveu Associates. Do I understand that the resolution adopted by the Board is solely for a bond determination and a point of fixing inspection fees? Mr. Orlowski: Yes. Mr. Cron: No bond will in fact be required for the subdivision so long as we don't sell any lots until improvements are made? Mr. Orlowski: Yes. That is correct. MAJOR AND MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, LOT LINE CHANGES, SET OFF APPLICATIONS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Lead Agency Coordination: Mr. Orlowski: David S. & Elizabeth T. Branch - SCT~ ~1000-97-3-17 and 18.2 Mr. McDonald: I would like to make a motion. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the lead agency coordination process on this unlisted action. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on this motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. MCDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. ~ ~ SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD 21 MAY 18, 1992 SITE PLANS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Lead Agency Coordination. Mr. Orlowski: Matt-A-Marina - This proposed site plan is to add a 2064 square foot addition and two handicap bathrooms to an existing restaurant located on Route 48 in Mattituck. SCTM 91000-114-3-1. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, start the coordination process on this Type I action. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Determinations: Mr. Orlowski: Daniel C. Moone¥ (North Fork Beer and Soda) This proposed site plan is for the conversion of a residence to an office and the expansion of a one story storage building on 40,447 square feet located on Route 25 in Mattituck. SCTM ~1000-122-3-4 & 5. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that we hold this over, we received a letter just today from the Zoning Board of Appeals raising several questions about the completeness of this application so I would ask that we hold it over while we review that letter to make sure that they comply fully with SEQRA. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? Ail those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. ~ - SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD 22 MAY 18, 1992 Other Mr. Orlowski: We have Peter Jacques North Fork Sign Company, I believe he has made an appointment for tonight. Mr. Peter Jacques: I would like to discuss signs. Mr. McDonald: Would you like to set up a meeting and come in and just talk about it some time? ~. Peter Jacques: Inaudible. Mr. McDonald: You have the application? Is the application complete now? Ms. Spiro: I don't know. Mr. McDonald: We don't have our site plan reviewer here. We have been reviewing it though. Ms. Spiro: Yes, Bob had it. Mr. McDonald: Do you want to give Bob Kassner a call? Mr. Jacques: Can it be done tonight? ~ir. Orlowski: You were on the agenda to discuss it with the Board it you have some comments and we scheduled an appointment for you. Mr. McDonald: Let me ask Bob, I'll talk with Bob and have him get in touch with you so you know what is going on so you know exactly what is happening and when it will come up. Mr. Jacques: What I am trying to do is get rolling along here and a couple months ago the Planning Department sent me to the Health Department and I applied to the Heal.th Department and they sent me back to the Planning Department because I need SEQRA determination. Mr. McDonald: Let me check with Bob to see exactly where you are and we will get in touch with you. Mr. Jacques: I have the complete application, it's not going to be done tonight? Mr. McDonald: Let me talk to Bob to see what we need so we can move it as quickly as we can. Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Kassner said you were going to talk about the signs, we don't know anything about them. ~ '- SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD 23 MAY 18, 1992 Mr. Jacques: Inaudible. Mr. McDonald: We'll see what we can do to get you on the next eeting. r. Jacques: Inaudible. Mr. Orlowski: Talk with Bob tomorrow and you can get back to us and you can either come in and talk to the Board or ........ Mr. Orlowski: Being there is no further business to be brought before the Board, I make a motion that we adjourn. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: So ordered. - Respe~fully ~mitted, Bennett Orlowski Jr., Chai~an RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK Town Cler~ ,;. ~... _outhold