The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPB-07/12/1993PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Bennett Odowsk[, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards 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 ].2, ].993 Richard G. Ward, Chairman Bennett 0rlowski, Jr. G. RitchieLatham Kenneth Edwards Mark McDonald Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Melissa Spiro, Planner Martha Jones, Secretary Mr. Ward: Good evening. I'd like to call the July 12, 1993 Southold To~v~ Planning Board meeting to order. ~ne first order of business is the setting of the next Planning Board meeting. Board to set Monday, August 9, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, as the time and place for the next Planning Board meeting. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. 0rlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ed~ard~ Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Hearings Held Over From Previous Meetings: Mr. Ward: Harold Reese, Sr., et al & Otto Uhl, Jr., et al -- This lot line change between Harold Reese Sr., et al and Otto Uhl, Jr., et al is to convey 10,093 square feet from Harold Reese, Sr. to Otto Uhl, Jr. and to convey 5,258 square feet from Otto Uhl, Jr. ~o Harold Reese, Sr. After the lot line change the Harold Reese, Sr. parcel will be 98.1563 acres and the Otto Uhl, Jr. parcel will be 12.4051 acres. SCTM~ 1000--22-~-]5.1, t8.~ & ]8.3. Is the applicant here? Unknown: He's on his w~y. ~ ~ Southold Town Planning Board 2 July 12, 1993 Mr. Ward: OK, we'll hold off then and put you on at the end of the agenda. MAJOR AND MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, LOT LINE CHANGES AND SET_ OFF APPLICATIONS Final Determinations: Mr. Ward: Southold Villas -- Section ~ -- .This major subdivision is for 16 lots on 9.01]. acres located on the west side of Main Road in Southold. The parcel is located in the Affordable Housing District and is Section 2 of the Southold Villas Development. The lots in Section 2 are not affected by the provisions of the AHD. SCTM~ 1000-70--1-p/o 6. What's the pleasure of the Board? Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I m~ke a motion that the Southold Town Planning Board authorize the Chairman to endorse the final surveys dated August ]8, 1992, subject to fulfillment of the following conditions. All conditions must be met by October 19, ]993. Submission of five paper prints and two mylars of the final maps, all containing a valid stamp of Health Department approval and a notation including the Liber and Page numbers, that Declarations of Covenants and Restrictions were filed pertaining to the subdivision. 2. Submission of a copy of all recorded Declarations of Covenants and Restrictions for the subdivision. Ail covenants and restrictions are subject to the Planning Board having the authority, through, appropriate legal action and after due notice to the Declarants, their heirs, executors, legal representatives, distributees, successors, and assigns, to enforce the covenants and restrictions contained in the filed Declarations of Covenants and Restrictions. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Mr. Ward: Summit Estates - Section 1 -- Section 1 of this major subdivision is for 10 lots on 17.5036 acres located on the southwest corner of Main Road (NYS 25) and Shipyard Lane in East Marion. The entire project, Sections l, 2 and 3 is for 35 lots on 40.8022 acres. SCTM~ 1000--35-8-5.3. What's the pleasure of the Board? Mr. McDonald: Is there anyone here from Summit Estates? I think we'll take this off the agenda subject to some changes in the map, at our next meeting, if that's alright with the Board. Mr. Latham: It's OK with me. Southold Town Planning Board 3 July 12, 1993 Mr. Ward: applicant? OK. Is there anybody here representing the applicant, or the OK, we'll hold off on this until the next meeting then. Preliminary Extensions Mr. Ward: North Fork Industrial Park -- _q/ais major subdivision is for 8 lots on 29.11 acres located on the northeast corner of Middle Road and Depot Lane in the LI0 District in Cutchogue. SCTM~ 1000--96N-1--1. What's the pleasure of the Board? Mr. 0rlowski: I make a motion that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a six month extension of preliminary approval from August 24, 1993 to February 24, ~994. The Planning Board has granted this additional extension due to the fact that this application is currently before the Health Department Board of Review, and a decision from that Board will not be made prior to the expiration of the preliminary approval. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. Ail in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Mr. Ward: Harbor Park Homes -- This major subdivision is for 5 lots on 9.04 acres located on the west side of Harbor Lane; 675 feet south of Main State Road in Cutchogue. SCTM~ 1000--97~-6--17 and 103~-]-20.5 & 20.6. What's the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to maple a motion that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a six month extension of preliminary approval from July 13, !993 to January 13, ~994. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Note that I abstain for reasons previously given. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Setting of Final Hearings Mr. Ward: S.H. Friemann & Others - This minor subdivision is for 3 lots on 19.596 acres located on the north side of Main Road; 1658.7 feet west of Cox's Lane in Cutchogue. The subject parcel is located in both the A~ricultural Conservation (A-C) District and the General Business (B) District. SCTM4t 1000~-~02--2--24. What's the pleasure of the Board? ? ' Southold Town Planning Board 4 July 12, 1993 Mr. Latham: I make a motion that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, August 9, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. for a final public hearing on the maps dated April 15, !993. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Mr. Ward: Ail those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edkrards, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Richard Cron: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might beheard on this matter? My name is Richard Cron, from Cron & Cron, and I represent Mr. Friemann on this particular application. ~ne Board is well aware of the fact that this matter had ended with the litigation and was successfully resolved on behalf of the applicant. One of the principal issues of that litigation was as to whether Mr. Friemann would be required to improve the right of way that runs across the minor subdivision premises consisting of two lots, to a parcel in the rear which is an agricultural parcel. The court was clear in this determination that he did not have to do so. Yet, and not withstandin~ that fact, this Board by a resolution has asked that he file convenants ~nd restrictions with respect to that particular parcel burdeninc the two business parcels with a right of way and compelling the o~ner of-lot number one, whoever it may be, at such time as it's improved, to improve that right of way to Town specifications if required to do so. I submit that that's in violation of the court decision, the judgement of that court, and I would ask this Board to immediately rescind that resolution. In addition, the Board on the recommendation of the Cutchogue Fire Dept., passed another resolution which requires the applicant, Mr. Friemann, to put in a firewell with respect to lot number one which is that agricultural lot, at a time when the fire department or this Board deems that necessary. That is not something within the purview of this Board. If there's to be any firewell, it'll occur when that property is subsequently approved and improved by the applicant. There is no subdivision pending with respect to the agricultural lot and this Board and the fire department has no jurisdiction over that parti~llar parcel. So I would ask that you rescind that resolution as well. Mr. Ward: Mr. Cron, in relation to your first comment regarding the right of way, how would the property to the back have a proper road if it was not able to be improved over the two business lots? Mr. Cron: There is a proper road. You've got recognition of access under Section 280A of the Town Law. Mr. Ward: Access that probably as it is now, not for necessarily eight or ten houses. Mr. Cron: That's a matter that's going to have to be resolved, if, as and when, parcel number one is approved or... ~ ~ Southold Town Planning Board 5 July ]2, 1993 Mr. Ward: You seem to indicate that parcel one would not be the people that would do the improvements. I think it was our intent or our thinking, that as, if or when parcel one came in they would have the right to make the improvements over parcels two and three. Mr. Cron: Well, that we're not going to do. We're not going to burden lots two and three, which is the business parcel, with the ~ight to widen that right of way. The court said we didn't have to do it and we don't intend to do it. Mr. Ward: Alright, well we certainly have a difference of opinion on it at this point. Mr. Cron: I suggest that you review the matter with Town Counsel because the Board I'm sure is well aware and will be so advised by counsel that if you ~ersist in violating %he judgement of the court, I will move to hold each of you in contempt. Sketch Extensions: Mr. Ward: Anne%re Zabohon~¢i -- This major subdivision is for 2 lots on 5.9] acres located on Crescent Ave., on Fishers Island. SCTM~ 1000--6~-2--1. What's the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a six month extension of sketch approval from July 13, ]993 to January !3, 1994. The Planning Board has granted this additional extension to allow your client the additional time required to obtain Health Department approval. Mr. McDonald: Second. Mr. Ward: Second to the motion. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, .Mr. Ward. Mr..Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Mr. Ward: Ernest and Jean Schneider - This minor subdivision is for 3 lots on ].3.423 acres located on the southwest side of Alvah's Lane; 1347.3 feet northwest of County Road 48 in Cutchogue. SCTM~ ]000-95---10 & 101--1-14.3. What's the pleasure of the Board? Mr. McDonald: Mr. ~.~airman, I make a motion that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a six month extension of sketch approval from July 13, 1993 to January 13, 1994. The Planning Board is granting this additional extension in response to your letter of July 2, 1993. Final maps with Health Deparhment approval must be submitted prior to the expiration of the extension date. Mr. Latham: Second the motion. ~' Southold Town Planning Board 6 July 12, 1993 Mr. Ward: Ail in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Review of Reports: Bonds Mr. Ward: Adam Associates -- This approved subdivision is for 4 lots on 7.6797 acres located on the south side of a r--o-w off of Cox Neck Lane and on the north side of County Road 48 in Mattituck. SCTM~ 1000--113--12-10. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I recon~aend to the Town Board that the $38,345.00 Letter of Credit for the minor subdivision of Adam Associates be reduced to a total of $t9,172.50 as recormnended in the July 1, 1993 report from James A. Richter, Engineering Inspector. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr.Edwards, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. MAJOR ANDMINOR SUBDIVISIONS, IX)T LINE CHANGES, SET OFF AP~LICATIONS - STATE ERWIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Uncoordinated Reviews: Mr. Ward: Edwin and Patricia Moone~ -- Livinq_Trust -- This lot line change is to subtract 13,977 square feet from a 14.594 acre parcel and add it to a 2 acre parcel. SCTM~ 1000-55-6-33.] & 33.2. What's the pleasure of-the Board? Mr. Ortowski: I make a motion that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, do an uncoordinated revie~ of this unlisted action. The Planning Board establishes itself as lead agency, and as lead agency make a determination of non-significance and grants a Negative Declaration. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ed%~ards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. e Southold To%rn Planning Board 7 July 12, 1993 Determinations: Mr. Ward: ~oseph F. Gazza -- I - This minor subdivision is for 2 lots on 4.915 acres and is located west of Dam Pond beginning at a point 1,414.51 feet north of Main Road that is 1,950 feet east of Stars Road, East Marion. SCTM~ 1000-~2--3--19. Joseph F. Gazza -- II -- This minor subdivision is for 2 lots on 5.393 acres and is located north of an extension of Dam Pond beginning at a point 534.7 feet ~fest of a point 1,170.81 feet north of Suffolk County Control Monument No. 10--1243 on 5~S Route 25, East Marion, between the proposed minor subdivisions of Bernice Lettieri and Grundbesitzer Corp. & Andrew Lettieri. SCTM$.~ 1000--22--3--21. Bernice Lettierl - This minor subdivision is for 2 lots on 4 acres and is located northwest of an extension of Dam Pond beginning at a point 1.86.35 feet east of a point 1,414.51 feet north of Main Road at a point 1,950 east of Stars Road, East Marion. SCq?M~ 1000--22--3-20. AndrewLettieri -- This minor subdivision is for 3 lots on ]0.67 acres and is on the north side of SR 25, 1900 feet east of Stars Road in East Marion. SCT~ 1000--31--5--1.2. Grundbesitzer Corp. & Andrew Lettieri -- This minor subdivision is for 3 lots on 6.3 acres and is located on a western point of Dam Pond, primarily west of a point 1,170.81 feet north of a Suffolk County Control Monument No. 10--1243 on NYS Route 25, East ~rion. SCTM~ 1000--22--3--22. Mr. Ward: Are Gazza ~nd Lettieri here? Joseph Gazza: Yes, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. I understand this evening you're going to talk about either a Positive Declaration or a Negative Declaration, of the subdivision application of Gazza and Lettier of East Marion. I would call upon. the Board not to give it a Positive Declaration for the following reason. The purpose of working with the Board over the last several years has been to create a subdivision that does not have the environmental and important problems that have to be addressed. We ~ant to create a subdivision that works. That ~orks for the developer and that works for the Town, the Tow~ Trustees and the Department of Environmental Conservation. For 'this reason, if you would suspend so to speak, the process under SEQRA until such time as we could satisfy the concerns which I'm sure you have raised, so that a Negative Declaration could be issued in connection with this subdivision. We don't want a Positive, we want a Negative, and we want to satisfy your concerns and the concerns of the other agencies involved, by working the problems out beforehand. I've noticed at another Planning Board hearing where you were able to work with the developer on another waterfront parcel to get the problems resolved, to get the proper setbacks and the water supply taken care of and those environmentally sensitive lands possible turned over to, in this instance it was the Peconic Land Trust. You may remember the subdivision, it was the old oyster farm application? ? Southold Town Planning Board 8 July 12, !993 We %rant to follow those footste correct problems that may exist necessary in connection with %hes upon the Board to give considerat Mr. Ward: Any comments from the Mr. McDonald: I really lulow Wher We ~rant to work with the Town to that a Positive Declaration would not be minor subdivision applications. I call on to that, please. Board? e you're coming from, because obviously you're trying to do something thei~e that's going to work. Our problem is you're a Type I action and if we,! at this point if we go ahead with you and enter into discussions about how %o change this to make it more nvlronmenta!ly sensitive, wo~ld_~ a violation of the law. It says that because you're a Type I we ei~her~ave to give you a Negative Declaration and say that these don't have~a s}.gnificant impact. Or issue a Positive Declaration and have an impac~ statement. We can't negotiate with you about this. The law doesn't 19t us. ~e only alternative you have at this point is to withdraw your applications. Mr. Gazza: ~ell, I'd like to/ref. conditional Negative Declaration. Mr. McDonald: It's not allowed i~ unlisted action and you're a Type Mr. Gazza: Our subdivisionwas e unlisted. If we go back tothe o~ maybe we come under the same [~e~u~ oyster farm came under when they Mr. McDonatd~ They were Type/1 a] mitigated everything in the b~gim with them. They came in with~an~ probler~m up front. So, we didn't ( that kind of thing with them. ! Mr. Gazza: Possibly, if the ~ar~ need to be mitigated, and maybe a address those issues. Maybe most certainly tried to work over t~e creating a subdivision that benef~ regulations, we're here to wor~ w~ Declaration and to cause us an~ad( expenses, I think it's uncalle~ f( We're trying to %aDrk with. you;|we what the concerns are. We'll w~rk Mr. Ward: Well, obviously some your access problems in going mitigated at this point. Mr. Gazza: At the last meeting, ~ proceeded with this next step and. the Board would havethe leverage owner, Cove Beach Estates propert ~r to Section 617.2H of SEQRA, discusses a Type 1 action. Only allowed in an action. _ev~ted to Type 1. It started as an riginal application date of prior years, _ations that the subdivision of the old ~re able to escape the... they came in with an application that ~ing. We didn't enter into negotiations ~pplication that had mitigated all the ~t into like you do this and we'll do I would give a list of the problems that two week adjournment so that we could of the issues have been resolved. We .asr 4-1/2 years with the Board in ts everyone. We're not here to upset the thin them. But to give it a Positive [itlonal 10 to 15,000 dollars in immediate ~ in the nature of this subdivision. want to address the concerns, tell us together on it. the concerns were raised a/ready where wetlands, certainly hasn't been ~. Chairman, it ~as discussed that if we paid the environmental review fees, that to talk to the adjacent subdivision , about bringing so~ecoordinated access. ~ Southold Town Planning Board 9 July 12, 1993 Has the Board made any progress with that since out last meeting. Mr. Ward: No. Mr. Gazza: That was an important element of our last meeting which I thought something was going to happen on in the interim. Not yet. Mr. Ward: Well, the only thing that I can see is that if you would like to take a try at addressing the issues at this point and submitting that in writing to us so we could at least let our environmental consultant look at it. Mr. Gazza: Have the issues been put forth in some type of a report? Mr. Ward: Well, you're fully aware of the issues. Your primary one is an access and how do you... Mr. McDonald: But to send it back to the consultant is clearly going to be an act...I would ask the attorney, but from what we had in 'the past it would be probably illegal. This is a Type l action. If it was unlisted we could go ahead with this pretty simply. The only alternative I see is to withdraw the applications, amend them and re--submit them. Mr. Gazza: We're not prepared to withdraw. We have submitted' over four years ago at the time when it was unlisted, and I would discuss that with counsel for the Board, about the status today for a SEQRA review and a Positive Declaration. I was hoping that the Board might have some type of a report on the forms which we did submit on the environmental review that we could bring back and address in writing, and possibly a couple of week adjournment to do that before a decision would be made. Mr. Ward: Well, the Positive Declaration, the whole purpose of it is to ferret out all of the particular problems or conditions of a particular subdivision, so to do something in between is difficult. Our advice has been w~th the Type 1 action that we can't do that. Mr. McDonald: If you want us to adjourn for us to ask counsel, we can ask counsel their opinion. Mr. Ward: Not take action tonight, and we'll put it back on for next calendar, if in fact we have to go (inaudible). Mr. Gazza: OK. Mr. McDonald: Have we entered into any kind of time frame on this? Ms. Scopaz: Yes, does the Board have any objection to giving him copies of the consultants report? Board: No Mr. McDonald: Absolutely not. No problem. It's public record. (Everyone talking). There's some question about whether we have legal time frames in this in the SEQRA. Southold Town Planning Board 10 July ].2, 1993 So, what I'm going to ask you is very simply, is are you prepared to waive your rights ~under the time frames, so ~e can continue this over to another meeting? Mr. Gazza: For the time period necessary until the nex5 meeting, absolutely. Mr. McDonald: Good. Mr. Gazza: Thank you. SITE PLANS Final Determinations: Mr. Ward: Suffolk County National Bank - This proposed site plan is for a canopy and automated teller machine at the drive up window of this bank, on Rt.25 in Mattituck. SCTM~ !000~-143--3-4.2. What's the pleasure of the Board? Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion 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 N~]ative Declaration. Mr. 0rlowski: Second. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Mr. McDonald: I'd like to make a further motion that WHEREAS, the Suffolk County National Bank is the o~ner of the property known and designated as The Suffolk County National Bank, SCTM~ 1000-- 143-3-4.2 located on Route 25, Mattituck; and WHEREAS, a formal application for the approval of this site plan ~as submitted on June !, 1993; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8), Park 617, declared itself lead @gency and issued a Negative Declaration on July 12, ].993; and WHEREAS, this site plan was certified by Curtis Horton, Senior Building Inspector on July 7, ~993; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations of the Town of Southotd have beenmet; and now therefore be it ~ Southold Town Planning Board !1 July 12, 199 RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board approve and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final survey dated June 22, 1993, subject to a one year review from date of building permit. Mr. Ward: Is there a second? Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. Ail in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward. Mr. W~rd: Opposed? Motion carried. (Chairman endorsed surveys) ******************** Mr. Ward: Peter Jacc[ues -- This site plan is for a custom sign shop and storage in two existing buildings on 19,857 square feet, located on Route 25 in .Mattituck. SCTM~ 1000-114-11212. Wq~at's the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion ~hat the Southold To~n Planning Board authorize the Chairman to endorse the final surveys dated July 8, 1993. Ail conditions of final approval have been fulfilled. Mr. Lath~m: Second. Mr. Ward: Second to the motion. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlo~ski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried.(Chairman endorsed surveys.) ******************** SITE PLANS -- STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Lead Agency Coordination: Mr. Ward: Fishers Island Development Corp% - This site plan is to create retail stores in a !6,000 square foot existing ex--milit~ry building located on 1.280 acres on Fishers Island. SCTM~ 1000--12--1--5.1. What's the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Southold Town Planning Board start the lead agency coordination process on this u~n!isted action. Mr. Orlowski: Second. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. Ali. in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlows]ci, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Southold Town Planning Board !2 July 12, 1993 Determinations: Mr. Ward: Sterlinq Idea Ventures -- This site plan is for a 3,000 square foot medical building on 4.426 acres in Mattit~ck. SCTM1000-122--6--31. nat's the pleasure of the Board? / Mr. Orlow~kl: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion t~at theSouthold 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. Latham: Second. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. LOCAL LAW PROPOSALS Mr. Ward: A I~Dca! Law in Relation to Standard Yield Requirements. ~3e Planning Board has been in favor of us delineating in the Town Code the various items that would be related to standar~ yield requirements and cluster subdivisions, and at this time does the Board have any motion they would like to make? Mr. McDonald: I make a motion that we send oun comments to the Town Board. Mr. Latham: I second that. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. 0rlowski, .Mr. Latham, ~4r. Edwards, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. ***~**************** APPROVAL OF PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Mr. Ward: Board to approve February 8, 1993 minutes. Mr. Orlowski: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr.0rlowski, Mr. Latham, MI. Edwards, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. / ~ Southold Town Planning Board 13 July 12, 1993 Mr. Ward: San Andres -- Mr. Saland to discuss purchase of development rights. SC~[~t 1000-125-1-2.9. Is Mr. Saland here~ If not, we'll move on. Mr. Ward: Tartan Oil -- To discuss drainage for property site plan. SCTM~ 1000-115-3-9. Is anybody here for them? William Moore: We just had a couple of items. This thing's been kicking on for awhile. We're back and forth with our site plan drawer, our engineer. We have from the Board @ letter in which you requested certain piece information on our site plan and, in fact I'v had these things for awhile. By the time I had site plans put in my file, you had gotten a letter from the New York State Department of Transportation with regard to side%talk width so we're back all over again to re-draw the side%~lk because the State doesn't want to reduce the width. You had requested a narrower sidewalk and the State disagrees with you so now we've got to go back and draw the new sidewalks all over again. But, before we went and did that, we had a couple of items we ~anted to discuss with you relative to some site plan elements you wanted to see. One of which w-as a drainage plan.. I know you're familiar with this site, this is the piece that's e!ev~ted where the building is. It's all asphalt and it's been that way for years. (TAPE CHANGE) It's been in its relative present state for a year as far as asphalt goes. It's all wooded to the beck and then asphalted right up to the road. You had asked for drainage plan calculations and the engineers have been playing around with some ideas and they wanted to .get conceptually from you...in fact we had one of the fellows from Tartan speak with Mr. Kassner, and he suggested we come and speak with you tonight. The problem we had with this site is it being asphalted from the building down to the road, the rainwater is going to run right down into the street and that obviously presents a problem. The idean we are trying to come up with and see if you would more or less go along with it is to utilize the proposed curbing or an internal kind of trench train as a trough teadinq to some dry wells as @ solution to this and we wanted to get some kind of in idea if that was workable or doable rather than a proposed re-grading of the site which we thought was... Mr. Ward: Well, if you took it...is the whole site draining ~o the Main Road? Mr. Moore: No, I'd say, having seen it in a gooN rain, I'd say some of it at least drains over to Marratooka as well, at l~ast that portion of the property. It slopes quite dramatically from that east side of the building down to Marratooka. Mr. Ward: Because you could intercept it with trench drains in those areas and then go to dry wells with that, but these would have to bepre-cast or have to be substantial structures, not just gravel. It would have to be drains. Constructive drains. Mr. Moore: OK. ' Southold Town Planning Board 14 July 12, 1993 Mr. Ward: Like you would see when you go into a dip in the city where the drain... Mr. Moore: I think that's what we were thinking about as well, as a solution, if that's agreeable to you we'll see if the engineers can work on that. The second item of some significance there is the sign which is there and that sign at the present location has been there for I don't know how long but the letter that you folks wrote to us requested the sign be moved back 25 feet, and we were asking if the sign remained where it is it's going to be within a landscaped area. As far as visibility goes you have in your file a study done by DunnTraffic that we had presented to you back when we were debating and negotiating and arguing over the number of curb cuts on Rt. 25. You had wanted the one at one point and we had Dunn Engineering come back and do a traffic study to show that two would work. One of the findings in their traffic study was that the visibility at Marratooka and 25 where that present sign is located is no trouble whatsoever. So, where the sign is presently situated does not provide a visibility problem for the use of that intersection. And so we ask that that sign remain where it is and has been, and not be relocated. Drainage was the one thing and the sign is the second. Other than that I think ,ge can get a site plan that's suitable. If you have any questions, I have the Tartan 0il folks here as well. Mr. Ward: We'll take it under advisement and get back to you. Does the Board have any comments? Mr. McDonald: The site's looking better. ~ne signage is dropping, you're site's looking better. Mr. Ward: ~iqhpoint at South Harbor - ?als major subdivision is for 9 lots on 17.5473 acres located on the east side of South Harbor Road and the west side of Main Bayview Road in Southold. SCTM~ !000-75-4-22.1. Is there anybody here that would like to speak this evening regarding this proposed subdivision? Michael. Croteau: I'm with a few of the other people interested in the subdivision. The latest plan the developers submitted~..and I understand he doesn't feel it necessary to submit anymore, has the 100 foot lots running down South Harbor Lane. I know that there's been some discussion with the Planning Board as to the feasibility of this plan already. I am here just to say that ! think that there is a more effective way to exercise the cluster zoning that they had on that piece of property, to put the houses in an area that keeps the open vistas both for South Harbor Road and Bayview Road and uses that piece of property in a manner that doesn't essentially cut it off from both sides as it would with a tract of houses that they propose to run down South Harbor Road. I don't know if the Plannin~ Board has received any other plans from the developer at this point, but I think I'm speaking for myself and alot of other people here that are pretty upset with the existing plan that he has on the table, and ! would like to speak my peace tonight about that plan. ~ Southold Town Planning Board 15 July 12, 1993 Mr. Ward: Anybody else like to address the Board this evening? Patty Petit: I live in the area of South Harbor Road and I don't like the judgement that ~ras made that it w~s a NIMBY syndrome, not in my back yard. It's just that I like Southold because it still has itsrural character and I am happy with that even when it hadn't make a master plan and it upsets me to think that we're going to consider that. I knowwe talked, the last time we were before the Planning Board, the cluster development ~as permissible because the property was in excess of 10 acres. The plan that the developers have submitted is very unsatisfactory and it's really unsightly and I'm very unhappy with it as Michael Croteau has said, and many of our neighbors and other people in the community, it's not just the people in that particular area. It would be problems with traffic, it would be problems for the school. I would be happier to stick with the two acre zoning and~have a house on. two acres, and speaking with people in the con, unity they seem to be happy with that. Or if you're going to go ahead and consider a cluster development, let's not change the character of Southold so much by just shoving all these houses side by side because it would be pretty ugly. I would be happy to see more of a spreading out of the houses so it wouldn't be such a strip mall at this point, if those plans were approved. I feel that they're doing it to save themselves some money and make a little more profit because the water has already been brought down the road for them to take advantage of someone else having paid for that. If they want to develop the property, go ahead an pay the money to make water available. Some other concerns that concern me is that I spoke to a man, and I meant to get ahold of him but I could only reach him on a Sunday when I'm no~ available, who had mentioned that a complete Indian skeleton was found in that area of the George Stepnoski farm several years ago and I would like to speak with him again and try to get some documentation which might be interesting. Apparently, he [eels that there may have been an Indian village located at that point which would make alot of sense because the creek would be right there. I'm also concerned about runoff problems into the creek and the problem of runoff and pollution and the bro%m tide, which we all know about. And I'll just close and say I just hope you don't accept those plans because I think it would be really terrible and unsightly and I'd like to see some other plan explored. Thanks. Mr. Ward: Anyone else like to speak? Donald Frederick: I'm a resident of Glen Road, right adjacent there, which I had mentioned before, there are seventeen small lots still open down there out of the fifty that were developed in 1963. Now we don't need more small lots and I'd li~ce to address the 100 foot lots. Nowadays, most people want to attach their garage to their house. Many families have two cars. In the last ten years, more and more people have gone in for recreationvehicles which could mean a trailer or a house or motor home which obviously don't go into the garage, and many people have boats on trailers -- 16, 18 up to 24 foot. Now I'have drawn up...taking what I could Southold Town Planning Board 16 July 12, 1993 get out of ~is small map, with my 80 year old eyes and last years ruler, and I have divided this up into five lots on South Harbor Road of 163 feet front, whi.ch allows you to have your you can drive in at a right angle int back yard. Many people now have swimming pools i more and m~re popular. And back yard useful. Now, we're dividing it into require about 491 feet or so to get y ~arage on the end of your house where your house and also access to your their back yard. They're getting are becoming more prevalent, more Five lots of 163 feet, it would bur required 80,000 square feet lots, 2 acre lots. And I have divided the Bayview area, I've sketched it in...as I say I can't do it accurately and any surveyor could fine tune it and get these other lots in here, that would be 2 acres. The only possible exception that I see here, the first ~had known that it ~as 17--1/2 acres, and the possibility would be to make that ~xisting farmhouse there into a 1-t/2 acre lot. The developer would have to add no roads, he'd have to add no utilities and I think it might be a workable plan and I'd like to have the Board consider it. As I say it's a little crude... Mr. Ward: OK, thank you. Paula Croteau: I would just like to make a comment onMr. Israel's statement in the paper which I took great offense to which was the people who attend these meetings don t know,hat they re here for. Mr. Israel, I would look around the room and I bet ~veryone could stand up and tell you their own point of view as to why we don't want a traCk of houses down South Harbor Road. Mr. Israel: And I'm here to listen to every single one of you. Ms. Croteau: Well, I think you owe apologies to all of us in this room. Mr. Israel: And I think you owe me the same. Ms. Croteau: No, I don't think so, Mr. Israel but...(everyone talking) Mr. McDonald: Please direct your conm/ents to the Board. Mr. Ward: ~n. is is not even a public ~earing yet, this is highly unusual, we're in a sketch phase here and we're trying to listen to everybody and you arebeing put on the record tonight which is kind of unusual. We normally would adjourn and then just Rear this as comments. Ms. Croteau: I apologize, Mr. Ward, ~ understand. The comment did take me back. I just want to make the point {hat there are a number of people here , and everyone does have their own reason ~hy they do not want to see a track of houses put down South Harbor Road, and I just do ~ant to go on record saying that there are alot of other alternatives and we d like to make sure that the Board is keeping a~ open m~nd and also encourage the developer to come up with some alternative plans. Thank you, and I apologize for that. Mr. Ward: Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak? Southold Town Planning Board 17 July 12, 1993 Ms. Croteau: I'd just like to add one more comment, I'm sorry. And the comment that I'd like to make is when you had your Planning Board a week or so ago, which was just sort of an informal Planning Board, my concern is the fact that~ if we go ahead and leave say 12 acres as the proposal was to be undeveloped was that members of the Board had indicated that yes, it would be possible at some future date for that 12 acres to be subdivided, although some Board members did say well, not as long as I'm here. But in speaking to many people in the com~m%nity, that verymuch did concern them and upset them that say you go ahead and approve these plans, that may be several years down the road that could go ahead and be subdivided, and just as I have said, it would destroy the rural character and please keep that In mind. Mr. Ward: Basically, ~nat we were addressing there is that the cluster subdivision provisions of the Town, if we were to save half or more of the property, you're only allowed to have the eight lots or nine lots in this case on this particular property. Wbkther that be configured in nine equal lots or in one large lot and eight smaller lots, the one large lots and eight smmlle~ lots is what we normally would call our cluster in which we would then preserve one lot for some other use such as farming or horse farm or some other large property use. There would be covenants and restrictionson that. There are 20 or 30 subdivisions in this town that have been ~s~.~.ivided in this manner where there are currently half or more of the subdivision has been set aside for a farm lot or for another use for open space Or for whatever it happened to be. The covenants and restrictionson that property are very difficult to break. ~at ~as said, which was true, yes, is it possible in the future to break them? Well, it ~ould take .and act of the Town Boa[d or the trustees in the sense of the town, to ma]~e those kinds of decisions. They would have to be zoning decisions that would be made at some date. The liklihood of it happening is very unlikely. The mandate of the present To~n Code is to create large open spaces yh~re we can. And, therefore, when we did meet with the developer iqitially, a cluster subdivision w~s really asked for in this case, was looked at as a means of preserving some large open space in the area. Mr. Croteau: misconstrued there were s on the whole cluster pla~ what the cl~ vista ~nd cu neat piece c highly traff I have one more thing to say on that. I think that we were as chaI!engin] the cluster concept of it and I think that ome people here that feel that 2 acres spread out larger lots property is a better idea, I question the feasibility of the that ~as presented because I don't think that it accomplishes ster is intended to do. It basically is going to cut off the off the open space from essentially both sides ~nd this is a property in the sense that it has such an exposure and two iced roads. By putting the nine houses down one side you create a backdrop for whatever open space is left which basically I feel destroys that vista and obviously from the other side it's going to cut if off entirely. I think that there has been a real insensitivity towards the piece of property in designing it that way, and as someone said in the previous meeting, it wasn't planning to put a ruler on a piece of paper and draw a straight line and we all know why the line went where it did, because of p~blic water being there. I thin that there is also public water if I'~ not mistaken, on Grange Road,~h~cn' ~ the cuL-de-sac butts right Southold Town 91annimg Board !.8 July 12, 1993 up to the piece"of property. There is also an even better ~a%er supply as far as I Julcw very close on Bayview so ! think that...I don't quite understand why the nine houses and the-railroad down one side of the property is presented like that and I think the cluster could be more effectively done. Mr. Ward: ! think we've reached a point where...I }unow the representative of the applicant is here, Mr. Israel, and we open it up to you to make a few co~ents in defense of your plan, or whatever you would like to say. Richard Israel: I am the developer of the property. Originally, we brought this subdivision into the Town Board as an affordable housing subdivision which would have needed a variance to do so. But, because of the public outcry w¢. determined that if it is unwanted in the area and I think the Town Board at that time felt it w~s unnecessary to have more affordable housing in the town, we abandoned that plan. We now are in front of the Planning Board, through its normal process to develop the land. Under Southold code we are pretty much re%m/ired to cluster which is a code that determined what to do with spaces. One of the important things of the cluster subdivision is that it creates a large lot to conserve or to use for farming uses or other open space uses. The plan that we have presented to the Board here tries to keep that !2 or 13 acre lot. I believe under code I could make one acre lots here, but due to the dimension of the plots, we have reduced them to 3/4 acre plots. Now 3/4 acre plots sounds small, but they are actually very large. On a 3/4 acre plot you can put everything from a house to a swimm/ng pool to a garage to a .tarn, to quite a bit. ~ost people do not build large houses in the To~m of Southold that are off the ~ter. ~q/he reason we made them 300 feet deed %cas one thinq_~bat does happen in subdivisions historically is that the people that are adjacent to farm lots look to keep their houses away from them due to the farming use, the pesticides, the fertilizers, the dust. _.The original plan which we have now presented to you, the last hundred feet is meant to be that buffer zone between them The other thing you have to remember with lots is that a house does no~ take up an entire lot in it's width or size. There are setback requirements by the Town. One of the things we did consider, and the Planning Board did discus with us was 'to keep the openness of South Harbor, we would have a further requirement of a setback necessary than the 35 foot that us required under Town Code which WOUld give the road more a feeling of openness. One of the things here is the creation of roads. We can creame a road but it will not decrease traffic and as many houses here that we're putting, we're putting all of 8 dWelling units or nine dwelling u ts - one does exist -- on a 17 acre tract or an 18 acre tract. ~ Some of the questions here that I've heard tonight 'were traffic. One reason~we,ve set towards South Harbor is due to traffic. The Main Bayview portion of this parcel sits on a tremendous curve and a very dangerous one and we've tried to avoid putting any driveways onto that curve. And that's one reason why we've chosen the South Harbor side. The other co~ent was the small lots which mos~ of the lots that are in Southold today are 3/4 or one acre lots. I know the Planning Board in tryin~ to preserve as much open Southold Town Planning Board 18 July 12, 1993 up to the piece of property. There is also an even better ~ater supply as far as I _know very close on Bayview so I think that...I don't quite understand why the nine houses and the railroad down one side of the property is presented like that and I think the cluster could be r~Dre effectively done. Mr. Ward: I think we've reached a point where...I know the representative of the applicant is here, Mr. Israel, and we open it up to you to make a few comnents in defense of your plan, or whatever you would like to say. Richard Israel: I am the developer of the property. Originally, ~ brought this subdivision into the Town Board as an affordable housing subdivision which would have needed a variance to do so. But, because of the public outcry we determined that if it is unw~nted in the area and I think the Town Board at t~hat time felt it ~s unnecessary to have more affordable housing in the town, we abandoned that plan. We now are in front of the Planning Board, through its normal process to develop the land. Under Southold code we are pretty much required to cluster which is a code that determined what to do with spaces. One of the important things of the cluster subdivision is that it creates large lot to conserve or to use for farming uses or other open space uses. ~e plan that we have presented to the Board here tries to keep that 12 or 13 acre lot. I believe under code I could make one acre lots here, but due to the dimension of the plots, we have reduced them to 3/4 acre plots. Now 3/4 acre plots sounds small, but they are actually very large. On a 3/4 acre plot you can put everything from a house to a swimming pool to a garage to a ,barn, to quite a bit. Most people do not build large houses in the Town of Southold that are off the water. The reason we made them 300 feet deed ~as one thinq that does happen in subdivisions historically is that the people that are adjacent to farm lots look to keep their houses away from them due to the farming use, the pesticides, the fertilizers, the dust. The original plan which %~ have now presented to you, the last hundred feet is meant to be that buffer zone between them The o~her thing you have to remember with lots is that a house does not take up an entire lot in it's width or size. There are setback requirements by the Town. One of the things we did consider, and the Planning Board did'discus with us was to keep the openness of South Harbor, we would have a further requirement of a setback necessary than the 35 foot that us required under Town Code which would give the road more a feeling of openness. One of the things here is the creation of roads. We can create a road but it will not decrease traffic and as many houses here that we're putting, we're putting all of 8 .dwelling units or nine dwelling units - one does exist - on a 17 acre tract or an 18 acre tract. Some of the questions here that I've heard tonight ~vere traffic. One reason we've set towards South Harbor is due to traffic. The Main Bayview portion of this parcel sits on a tremendous curve and a very dangerous one and we've tried to avoid putting any drive%mys onto that cu~e. And that's one reason why we've chosen the South Harbor side._ The other con~nent was the small lots which most of the lots that are in Southold today are 3/4 or one acre lots. I know the Planning Board in trying to preserve as much open Southold Town Planning Board 19 July ]2, ]993 open space as possible al%rays tries to push down to a smaller lot to live on and ~having more open space created to keep the vistas and the concept of cluster zoning. The other thing that I would like to address to some of the people who don't know some of the subdivision that I have done, we place covenants and restrictions on our subdivisions which keep them as single family homes. They go as far as to not allow above ground pools, to not allow trailers outside their homes. If a person has a boat or a trailer it must be placed in a garage structure so it is not visible from the street. And we have several covenants and restrictions whi~] keep up the nature of the property. You're not allowed to keep and unregistered vehicle on any of our lots, and people buy these lots knowing this, and knowing they 'want to live in a certain area this way. In meeting with the Board I have gone back with my engineers and we have tried to figure out a %my to achieve what Mike has asked for and that the Planning Board ~bas asked for which is to open up the vista. This can be done through a variety of ways of flag lots and small roads and even a major road if that's what. you w~nt, but it doesn't serve the purpose I don't think, with keeping the vista. (Change tape) The vista that's being created here is not one from South Harbor, but one of Main Bayvlew. It is the more traveled road, it is the more scenic road, it is the road closer to the water, things of that nature. And it lays out nicely. If you recall, there is a 3 acre piece of property to the south of this parcel which will have a firehouse on it in the near future, I believe. I don't know if anybody's aware of that in this room. A firehouse is not a use that everybody~nts in their ba~ofard. Anything that I'm asking for on this map is no different than any other subdivision. The piece ~s no5 environmentally sensitive and is just there. It is zoned R-80 and we're trying to develop it as best we can. If we can help in developing in a better way, surely we will. The more nicer we can make the lots the more I can sell them for so there is something here that d~ives everything. Mr. Frederick: I don't think I made the entire point when I said the 100 foot lots, almost all of them require ba~in§ out onto the high, ray. Very few of them work so that you can drive out. You have to back ou5 on the highway. And also I would bring up another point that these dead end roads which is Grange Road, referred to right now, there were two rescue calls - one rescue and one fire call in there within the last four or five months. And both times there were traffic jams there with getting cars in and out and getting the apparatus in there. And where a road doesn't go through, ! don't know what is exactly planned on this; if there are any roads they should go through from one way to another. There should be two ends to a road. Thank you. Ms. Petit: ! would just like to comment back to Mr. Israel that I question his statement that Main Bayview is the more heavily traveled road. That's count how many cars go by on each one, because I'll tell you South Harbor Road is very busy, particularly in the summer months and I disagree and let's just say that was opinion, just as it's mine. We could count the cars and find out. Thank you. Southold Town Planning Board 20 July 12, 1993 Mr. Ward: Is there anyone else that would like to address the Board? Unknown woman: Yes, I have a question. I would like to ask who would enforCe the covenants and restrictions on the property. Mr. Israel was saying that there would be restrictions as for having unregistered vehicles there and for having different things on the property that would be asthetically pleasing to the area. Who would enforce these? Mr. Ward: The property owners themselves would be allowed to enforce that. There would be C&R's that would run with each of the properties. From your other subdivisions Mr. Israel, how does that work? Mr. Israel: Basically, in other subdivisions either a Homeowners Association is created to do it. In the first seven years, I take care of that covenant and restriction, and you can see from my past developments that they have been enforced. I've lost many a sale to people who' want to put their boat in their driveway, and we just don't agree with it. After my term, or once they are in place and recorded if you are an adjacent owner and you object to anything on your next door neighbor's property or down the street that has that covenant, you have th~ right to come and enforce that in a court of law. It is something they bought, subject to, and it will be enforced. The only ~ay it can be changed is by I believe a quorum and a creation of a Homeowners Association before they can be changed, and they normally do never get changed. Raymond Berkaw: I'm a resident of South Harbor Road. I wondered what the procedure is following this meeting? We have seen one plan submitted by Mr. Israel. I suspect that we could have much better plans provided. I have seen others. Where does the Planning Board go from here? Mr. Ward: Fair question. I think that at this particular juncture we've heard from the community, we've heard from the developer, I think we're looking to the developer to come up with something a little more creative than he has presented and get back to us basically a this point. Ms. Petit: I have a question. Isn't it the Town who enforces...for example if I had a car in my driveway and it had no license plate on it, isn't it a Town ordinance that says I'm not permitted to do that and isn't there someone in the Town whose job it is if my yard had junk cars all over isn't it a Town rule that you're not allowed to do that? Mr. Ward: Yes, in that particular case, you're right, it would be the Town. Ms. Petit: So it wouldn't be a developer necessarily. Mr. Ward: Well, no, what Mr. Israel is saying is that he was going to place CL1R's on each of the lots where you couldn't park a Winnebago in the front yard and you couldn't put your boat there and other things like that. Ms. Petit: Yes, but is it true that the Town does have a rule that says if you have a car, does it have a license plate, it can't be parked in your yard. ~ Southold Town Planning Board 21 July 12, 1993 Mr. McDonald: He's talking about putting in place rules more restrictive than the Town. But the more restrictive part, the Town would have no liability to enforce it. But the parts that are in the Town Code, the Town Building Departn~nt supposedly... Ms. Petit: And the Town Building Department will give sur~nonses oum right? Mr. Ward: Yes. Mr. Israel: Just to clarify that, under the Town you can have as many unregistered vehicles as you would like on your property. After you have three or more unregistered vehicles, the only infraction they can get you on is that you're operating a junk yard without permission. And there are several places even on South Harbor Road where you have farms, a little further down which have quite a number of junk vehicles on their property that are not used but they don't t~e them away to the dump because that costs money. Unkno~woman: I want to ask, is it only a h~ndful of the neighbors who can complain about the boat and trailer. If I live in Greenport, can I go to Mattituck and complain about somebody's boat, if it's zoned that way. For example, if I know that Highpoint Meadows is zoned that way, and if I live in Greenport and I see somebody's boat trailer in Highpoint Meadows can I complain, or do I have to live in Highpoint Meadows? Mr. Israel: You do not have to live in it, it's something that runs with the land. Woman: You said your neighbor could take him to court. Mr. Israel: In most situations, it would be the neighbor who would complain first because why should he look at a boat that's maybe been abandoned in a back yard, so at least he can protect his rights upon which he bought the land. Woman: In most cases, but could I? Mr. Israel: I don't know the answer to The answer that I just got, quickly, is that it really just pertains to the other owners in that development. Mr. Ward: Alright, let me just summarize and say that we appreciate your coming out and taking an interest. We hope that we see more interest like this in the future. What we'd like to do at this point is we will have some discussions with the developer and see if we can do some modifications to come up with a happy mediumhere. We've heard your responses and we'll go from here. The nex~ order of business would to bring this to some conclusion in terms of a map which would then come up to a sketch hearing at which time their sketch proposal would be presented, it would be at a session like this, from there it goes to preliminary which you'd then have another change to talk at as well as a final hearing. It is a major subdivision so it takes those stages. We have not approved or disapproved at this point, a sketch submission. Is there any other com~aent from the Board? ' Southold Town Planning Board 22 July 12, 1993 Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Chairman, I'd just take an informal poll. I guess all of you have gotten this flyer that wehave up here. Is this a better layout to you? No. Mr. FrederiCk: No, too many unanswered questions there. Mr. 0rlowski: Like I said, it's ~n informal poll. Mr. Ward: I th~k you all for coming. Mr. Ward: San Andres - Mr. Saland to discuss purchase of development rights. SCTM~ 1000--125--1-2.9. We thank you for waiting, but we had to keep going here. Marshall Crowley: I'm an attorney from Southampton, I represent David Saland. This gentleman is Luis San Andres, and is here representing himself. He and David Saland are partners in a vineyard which you may be a~are of in Laurel on the Main Road called San Andres Vineyards. The property some years ago, five or six years ago, was the subject of a 4 lot subdivision. I believe that map was filed. The intent of the subdivision was largely abandoned. The property has been used as a vineyard for the last 12 years. It was under cultivation long before the development of (inaudible) ~as even sut~nitted. So effectively, that subdivision was abandoned at least in the sense tb~t it's been under cultixration for the last !2 years. The intent now is to accept Suffolk County's offer to purchase the development ri]his to the entire property. We have a firm offer from them and we're inclined to accept it. However, we may or may not, at some juncture make an application to this Board for a winery. We're not doing that, we're not here to discuss that, but that may be a possibility. To that end, we need to enter contract with the County now, and they've agreed to do that in the alternative, on a price. Their obligation wouldbe to pay, our obligation would be to convey and the only question is whether there would be a carve out for a winery. For the very same reasons that I can't tell them today that we would ever make such an application, much less pre--judge whether you'd be inclined to grant such an application, is the same reason we're here informally to have a little chat alon~ the following lines, that were we to make such an application in the future, and were this Board inclined for any reason to grant that, we're not here to pre--judge that, to get some idea of how to mesh the County's interest with what would be required and what might be permitted. If I were kin~ of the world and there was to be a winery, it would be well off the road, very, very far off the road. As I understand from talking to you Mr. Kassner, you only require -- and this is in an AC zone - from what understand is that the setback off the road for any structure is 60 feet, and that a sideyard setback which ~ould be intended off the eastern right of vray I believe he said 25 feet, it could be 30--35 feet, it wouldn't matter. Assuming that is the case, the County then superimposes a requirement that the carve out since it would be that close to the road Southold Town Planning Board 23 July ]2, 1993 would get in the veryway of what they're paying for, which is the scenic easement, or at least implicit in purchasing the development rights is the right to look at that which they're purchasing. And so they then in turn impose a requirement whichwould be easier to meet and that is that the width of that carve out would be 150 feet m~ximum, which would then require to get to a 2 acre carve out which is what it would be, were we to make such an application, would run back 581 feet. The development rights would be conveyed entirely to all of it, but for that strip of land and were an application to be made for a winery the structure would in fact go in that space. If we did make an application, the combination of the building and the parking requirement would mesh to so comply to fit within that 2 acre piece, if informally the Town had no problem with that kind of a configuration. Am I making myself clear, or not? Mr. Ward: In your experience with the program, is this something you're saying you're going to leave out now, not convey? Mr. Crowley: Let me explain that there will be a difference in the time when we potentially enter into contract with the County of two weeks. Mr. Ward: No, what I'm saying at this point your intent is not to convey? Mr. Crowley: The development rights would not be conveyed to 2 acres. What I'm trying to do is locate that 2 acres in the event we ever came back to this Board and made application. (Everyone talking.) Mr. Orlowski: I sit on that committee and I don't remember that discussion. I don't think... Mr. Crowley: I spoke to Terry Alar today and she was adamant. I've spoken to Dave Fishborn(?) and he's equally adamant. First of all, in the meeting in which they made the offer, a couple of months ago, I was not present at that meeting, but Dave Fishborn...(inaudible) ...no but he runs the Real Estate Department. But the offer and the transaction is conducted through his department. Mr. Orlowski: But it's by the authority of the commitee which I sit on and I don't see that to be a problem. I've been to all the meetings and Mr. San Andres has been there and I wouldn't cut yourself short by taking...you want to grab some road frontage there, I mean as long as you're going to do a winery, I would cut if off a little bit differently. I don't think there would be a problem if the Board was in favor of it, and I presented it, to allow that. Mr. Crowley: Well, here's our problem Mr. Orlowski, we have to enter contract with these folks very shortly. I'm not quite sure I'd like to go into why we must do that, but we must. Mr. McDonald: You can't do it without the committe no matter what though, right? They can't go to contract without bringing... Mr. Orl~vski: No, the committee said to go ahead... Southold Town Planning Board 24 July 1.2, 1993 Mr. Crowley: Done. That was done in January and the offer was in fact, z there a reason why you're keeping this road frontage. If [hi is going to be...if the development rights are going to be sold, you don ~ need that road, that could be your... Mr. Crowley: That's a good question. The subdivision itself is not being abandone~. The right to develop those lots is. T~at's the difference. Mr. San~ndres is holding back a theoretical right to sell four lots, ~houghw~y the devil he'd ever do it, I don't know, but they would never be developed because the development rights would be sold. ~r. McDonald: But, with no houses on them there's no need for the road because.~. Mr. crow}ey: There would be Mark if you had four separate owners of those lots. Rat's not a road, that's a right of way. J Mr. McDonald: We're looking at a road with a cul de sac and everything. If you're just talking about, access that's another story. Mr. Crowley: That's just a right of way as far as I understand it. Ms. Spiro: It's not improved. Mr. Crowley: It's a right of way, that's all it is. Mr. San Andres: To me it's access to the back portion... Mr. Crowley: It is no~ a subdivision road. In any event, it's just an access if the property were never divided or used. Ms Scopaz: But if you're selling the development rights I don't... Mr. McDonald: He's retaining the right to sell off the individual parcels, with the development rights gone, should someone desire to buy. He's 3ust keeping options open. Mr. Crowley: It's a theoretical unliklihood but he's just keeping his options ~pen. In either case, that's not a paved road it's just a right of way. But, Mr. Orlowski, back to your point. When the offer was made two months ago at a sit down meeting, and I w~s not there but Mr. Fishborn tells mewhat went on and they confirmed it, that both the County and Messrs. Saland and San Andres had thought that if they came and asked this Board for a winery that it would be on this lot, the second one back. And so there was general agreement, there wasn't any argument because it was i~plicit in the general discussion that there would be no barrier to the scenic easement. It's when we went to them and said, well, we're pretty confident now that if we ever did apply for a winery, it would be up front, and that's when they had a problem with values. And I frankly agree with them, that to make the argument in extreme we will pay you for the development rights for all 22 acres, but we're going to allow you to put up a six foot fence across the entire width of the property and obliterate the view we're paying for. Southold Town Planning Board 25 July 12, 1993 So I thi~k there's some validity to their point. So this Terry Alar said to me to~ay, look, if we're going to dO it this w~ay, we have no great problem with that, but we're going to restrict you to 150 feet. Now, incidentally, although I thank you very much for the latitude that you're offering, but in point of fact, Messrs. San Andres and Saland themselves are not objecting. So we've got the mesh of the County and these ~uys and the question is if we did come to you, would you oppose it, would you have a problem with it? And we're not asking you to cast anything in cement because we're not here formally. Do you think you would have a problem with it? Mr. Orlowski: Why did you keep it off the road? Mr. Crowley: I was told by Mr. Kassner that you had a sixty foot setback no matter what. Mr. Ward: When the last one that went to ZBA actually got pushed back further, but the setback actually is from the road right of way, not from the property line. Mr. McDonald: The setbac~c's from the property line, isn't it? Mr. Crowley: Sure. Mr. Ward: It would be from the road, in this case if this is considered the front he would be sixty foot in this direction. Mr. Crowley: Oh it wouldn't be though~ would it, this is the right of way so the Main Rd. would be your front yard would it not? Mr. Ward: If in fact this line came down to the Main Road you could claim this as your front yard. RiGht now, this is your front yard. Mr. Crowley: I see your point. Mr. Ward: So all we're sayinq I guess is why don't you just take this strip ri§hr out if you need the 150 foot and it may be if you go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the special exception they may actually require a 100 foot setba~f rather than a sixty, but that will be from the Main Road, not from the... Mr. Crowley: So what you're suggesting is that if the Town wants the 150, go right down to the road and then if we ever made an application, position it within that? Mr. Ward: Your primary setbacks would come from the Main Road. Mr. McDonald: I don't see the point behind that because no matter what he's going to be setback from, the Main Rd. is 60 feet. Mr. Ward: No, I'm saying Mark that the setback of putting 60 foot from the Main Road and you put a big structure up, it's quite imposing. The ZBA has been pushing them back further, going 100 foot back. ~ Southold Town Planning Board 26 July 12, 1993 Mr. McDonald: So you're saying push it back 100 to begin with? Mr. Ward: No, I'm just saying that if you bring the line down to the Main Road - you didn't see this -- then your front yard is here so if they push him back 100 foot, they're back into here someplace. But just from the Main Road, right now... Mr. McDonald: But you've got to understand, the setbacks would not necessarily take place from where the development line stood, it's from your property line. It doesn't say that i~ has to be where your development rights still exist. Mr. Ward: That's the property line. Mr. McDonald: No, he's not carving it out, he's simply not selling the development rights in that property. Mr. Crowley: That's true. Mr. McDonald: It's still only going to be...number one lot is still only going to be one lot. There's four lots here, there's going to be... Mr. Ward: I understood you to keep it as a separate lot, but you're not. Mr. Crowley: Separate ownership, yes, it could very well be. (everyone talking) Mr. McDonald: I mean clearly, legally by deed, you could do that it just makes us shudder. Mr. Ward: It raises a question with me as to how it would be looked at especially if it became a separate owner. Mr. Crowtey: Let's imagine then - let's ta~<e the worst case -- first of all it's a practical matter gentlemen, if this is going to be operated as a vineyard, these lots as separate ownership are unmarketable, I don't ~a~ow why we're even complicating it with this nonsense. Let's take the worst case, that is I own this lot. These will never be built on, this will, with the winery. Now, I've heard you say that without this carveout -- well even then you still have the setback off the Main Road because this is not a property line, this is a side yard. Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Crowley: Mr. Orlowski: Can you feasibly build a winery on a 150 foot lot? 150 by 40 is a 5,000 square foot lot. But would you want to do that? Mr. Crowley: As opposed to what? Mr. Latham: As opposed to leaving the whole thing open. I look at it as the taxpayers are going to buy this thing to keep it open forever and I don't think anything should be put there now or any other time. Mr. Crowley: I agree with you. ~ Southold Town Planning Board 27 July 12, 1993 Mr. Latham: That's my initial position, unless you convince me. Mr. Crowley: No, I happen to agree. The original thing was to put it someplaceback here. Mr. Im. tham: Well I wouldn't put it anywhere. Mr. Crowley: You wouldn't approve a winery if we came here, is -what you're saying, and that's fine. Mr. Latham: No, I would if you owned the land, but my initial reaction this is open land, it should stay forever, and it shouldn't have any structure other than a tractor house or something like that. Mr. Crowley: So you're essentially saying if we came to you and applied for ~ winery, you'd be inclined to say no. Mr. Latham: That's my own personal... Mr. Crowley: I respect that. Mr. Orlowski: I hate to disagree, but I thi~ that the winery itself is an accessory use to the agricultural operation that's there, to bottle, package and sell your product. Mr. Latham: If this is a winery forever. Mr. Orlowski: It would have to be. (change tape) Mr. Latham: This is too small for one thing. Mr. Crowley: You have a five acre lot here. This whole lot is five acres. Mr. Latham: It looks like you want to have your cake and eat it too. Mr. McDonald: Why did you pull it for~ard? You were saying you wanted it back. Mr. Crowley: Because, there are things I'd rather not tell you because it's not any legitimate concern of this Board. But in order to save this... Mr. McDonald: It's not for design purposes obviously, there are other considerations. Mr. Crowley: There are other considerations. Let's put it this way, if this thing gets sold to the (inaudible) Trust Corp., there will never be a winery. Why? They're anotherprecinct to be heard from and they don't want it. They want all the development rights. Is that clear? Now, ~f we can save this property, we definitely want a winery. They guy ~no may become an equity investor in this, that if he makes that investment, it go forward. That the winery be up front. As he points out, every single winery, I~nz, Pindar, Pugliesi... Mr. Ward: There are a couplethat are set way back. Southold Town Planning Board 28 July 12, 1993 Mr. Crowley: When I ~as driving into town all I saw was wineries, wineries, wineries. I saw the ones that were on the road, to put it that way. Anyway, if it be my preference, it would be well back, but it's not my preference. What I'm trying to do is save the property for my client. That's what I'm trying to accomplish. Other than that, to save him from bankruptcy. And to that end I'm willing to convey the whole damn property, less the development rights, to the (inaudible) Trust Corp. Mr. McDonald: We're looking at about 350, 360 feet of frontage, right? What's next door? Mr. 0r!owski: A house. Mr. McDonald: The house is right up here, there's a hedge next to the road, right? Mr. 0rlowski: No, the grapes run this way. Mr. McDonald: This is grapes on the Wow-ak property? Mr. San Andres: He has six acres. Mr. McDonald: But the road that leads down, isn't there a hedge along that road? Mr. Orlowski: You're thinking over here more, there's a barn and a house here. Mr. San Andres: There's a gravel road on that side. Mr. McDonald: What I remember about this is when you drive down it, when you talk about vista, all you're getting is this. You're driving down the road, this is what you're getting. You're getting this or you're getting this, you're never getting this. So if you had the building set in here it would still have a kind of dominant place, but for someone simply just drivln§bycasually you would look across and not see the building. Mr. Crowley: Mark, that's a very good argument, but the point is that the County is saying otherwise. They're saying that if you are going to move the winery, in the event that you have one, in the event that you're going to move it for%mrd to the Main Road, then the carve out of development rights cannot be any wider than 150 feet. And I'm here to find out whether that would be acceptable in the event we ever made such an application. Mr. 0rlowski: That was not discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Crowley: And the reason it ~asn't was because there ~had been agreement that it was going to be back here. So the subject never came up. Mr. San Andres: Because I said I w-~nted it up here, and they said no, they didn't want it here they x~anted it back here. Mr. McDonald: I think the safest way for you to process this, if you're in compliance with the code, you're in compliance. He's trying to draw an area wherein he can build. Southold Town Planning Board 29 July 12, 1993 He needs to consult the code, see what the code see what the code says, being aware of the fact that the code is ever changing and that there are no guarantees for the future. If you came in with an application today, no problem. Mr. Crowley: It's somewhat Ii]ce playing tennis with the nets down. Mr. McDonald: That's the problem with applications that don't exist. Mr. Crowley: Mark, that's not being entirely fair. I have the County issues to resolve, the potential issues of this Board to resolve, (inaudible) Trust Corp. issues, they have alot of competing interests. What I'm trying to do is make some of them stand still or not move so much. I don!t thi~k the question is that unreasonable. Mr. McDonald: No, that's why I'm saying to you, probably the best answer slraply lies in the code. Mr. Crowley: They will not accept that. But what they will accept is my attorneys affirmation that I've come bo this Board - and if Mark, you were speaking for the Board, you'd saymeet the code. We're not saying we're going to give you a winery but if you came, you're sure as hell going to have to comply with the code, so 60 feet by 30 feet, so I fax this to her and I say OK if we go, it will be there. Because that complies with the code. But Terry Alar would not accept my statement that we would comply with the code. Why would she not accept it? For the very same reason that if I could, as a matter of code pout up a six foot fence across this whole strip, they wouldn't pay me one penny for those development rights, even though it complies with the code. Mr. McDonald: Even though every winter the Building Dept. is going to corr~ in and throw a fence up across that anyhow? Mr. 0rlowski: I would think that at ghat point they should bring it back to co~nittee then because the committee is the one who recon~ended this be purchased. Mr. Crowley: We're not opposing it. We have no problem in acceding to this. Mr. 0rlowski: You can do anything you want. It's your land. Mr. McDonald: He wants us to send a letter. Mr. Crowley: No, I don't. Mr. Orlowski: We can't do that. Mr. Crowley: No, I don't. I don't want to put words in this Board's mouth. And I'm no% asking you to. Mr. Edwards: Are you just feeling us out to see if we would look favorably on this? Southold Town Planning Board 30 July 12, 1993 Mr. Crowley: Is my radar turned on well enough to hear any screeching no's to complying with the code? Compliance with the code as near as I understand it, says we, and I'll certainly check this before I make any representation to the County, but my understanding of the code is 60 feet. Now the Chairman just said that maybe 100 feet. Well, I'm going to check that out. Mr. McDonald: It is 60 but there might be other conditions imposed by other Boards, or the SEQR process for that matter. Mr. Crowley: Quite so. Mr. Ward: Basically, our minimum lotwidth is what, 175 for a two acre lot? Mr. McDonald: But this is not a lot. Mr. Crowley: But this is the lot, this is not a carve out. This is the lot. Mr. McDonald: All it says is buildings have to go inside this area, building envelope. Mr. Crowtey: That's correct. Mr. Ward: It should be a dotted line. Mr. Crowley: That's what it would be. Mr. Orlowski: What the committee al~ays says is if you w-ont to do something, build anything, now it's even a barn, they don't wann you to come back for anything, if you want to do anything, a house, or have a couple of houses, if you wanted to take six acres out of three 2 acre lots, do it now. Just not sell the development rights. You don't have to come here until you subdivide or develop the site. I don't ~oaow anything you're talking about the Department of Real Estate now, and they're saying the value is less because you're cutting it in the wrong place and you're cutting the vista, I don't know. Mr. Crowley: What's more, I agree with them, what they are saying. Mr. Orlowski: But I personally would like to see, you should take half of this frontage and block yourself out a nice piece and gob ack 400 feet and do it the right %ray, because like Mark said, to get a look at this vista at 60 miles an hour, it's one quick look and you're gone. I don't k~ow 'ghat they're telling you. Mr. Crowley: If we accede to, assuming for the sake of argument Terry Alar speaks for the County, and assuming %~ agree with them, and assuming that it's highly improbable we'll ever come back here again anyvray, because (inaudible), but in the event that we can come back we would ask to sequester a building within that dotted line, which is what it is, it's not a subdivision, do you think you'd have a problem? You might prefer something else, but do you think you'd have a problem? Southold Town Planning Board 3l July 12, 1993 Mr. Ward: Well, you're asking one Board that's going to have site plan review of this. The Board that's going to give you yes or no on this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Crowley: Well a~rare of it. You do have site plan review? Ms. Scopaz: I don't forsee of any (inaudible) approved site plans for wineries (inaudible) the shape of the lot and the configuration because you have to figure parking into that. Mr. Crowley: Yes, well we're going to work this one backwards. We're definitely going to carve out two acres as a development right carve out and we're saying as I understand your ordinance, there would be a certain back and filling of a building size in relationship to parking. Since we're going to start with two acres we would then say, we'll (inaudible) whatever works. Is it 4,000 square feet that gives you the right parking, we'll come to that. We'll restrict ourselves to building size and parking that would fit that two acres. That's what we would do. Mr. Ward: I don't think that's the economic approach to doing things but... Mr. Crowley: No, the tail is very definitely w~agging the dog. And I hope you appreciate that that's what's happening here. If I were king of the world, if there were a winery it would be well back here, but I'm not the king of the world and right now I've gob four separate people who think they are. Thank you gentlemen for your time. Mr. Orlowski: I think you're a little too narrow for... Mr. Crowley: Well, you ~ant to call Terry Alar? Mr. Orlowski: Have her call me. They have my number; I'm on the cormuittee. If they have a problem, they know where I am. Mr. Ward: If their intent is a winery, the two acres is very limited. If you looked at the other wineries that have gone up they take more space... Mr. Crowley: In proportion? This is only 22 acres...what's the size? Mr. Ward: Not necessarily proportion of a vineyard because if they're taking grapes into processing there's a certain point where the curve breaks for you where you can make money or you can't make money. I'm not in a position bo tell you what those numbers are just that looking at what's been done to date, the two acres looks very restrictive. Mr. Crowley: Indeed it is. On the other hand if we carve out 5 acres, the price of the development rights goes w~y down, the RTC screams deficiency judgement, you get the idea? There are too many v~riables to deal with. Thank you gentlemen for you time, I appreciate it very much. Southold Town Planning Board 32 July ]2, 1993 Mr. Ward: OK, we're ba~f to hearings held over from previous meetings. We certainly stayed out of order pretty good tonight. Item one is Harold Reese, Sr., et al and Otto Uhl, Jr., et al -- This lot line change between Harold Reese Sr., et al and Otto Uhl, Jr., et al is to convey 10,093 square feet from Harold Reese, Sr. to Otto Uhl, Jr. and to convey 5,258 square foot from Otto Uhl, Jr. to Harold Reese, Sr. After the lot line change, the Harold Reese, Sr. parcel will be 98.!563 acres and the Otto Uhl, Jr. parcel will be 12.4051 acres. SCTM~ 1000--22--3--15.1, 18.1 & ]8.3. Ben Kinzler: The original preliminary plat plan approval contains a couple of things. Number one %fas the exchange of two parcels so as to square off one parcel on the proposed Cove Beach subdivision and to add to the Uhl~-Russell piece a larger piece. Obviously a (inaudible) benefit to them in the exchange, and the reason of course being the ability to square off that one corner parcel. I understand there was some issue with the County Planning Board. Has there been a definition as to what the problem is, if any? Mr. McDonald: We're about to resolve those problems. Mr. Ward: We're writing letters back and forth, there's a communication gap. They've asked whether we're creating new lots, and we're not. They were asking for numbers on lots, which aren't lots, so I think at this point we're ready to proceed with it. Did you have anything else to add? Mr. Kinzler: If the Board has any questions? Mr. Ward: Any questions from the Board? Mr. McDonald: Or anyone else? Joseph Gazza: The neighboring property. I was wondering if the Board had the opportunity to question the access. There was a discussion at our last meeting about the coordination of the two access roads, Cove Beach Estates and the Gazza--Lettieri subdivision. It seemed like an opportune time. Mr. Ward: Well, this is not a particular time that the subdivision is before us. This happens to be a lot line change of trading two pieces of parcels to even out a piece, that's all. Mr. Gazza: Will the access road serve those lots that will be created by rearrangement? Mr. McDonald: .They'll be no change in the parcels. There's a parcel now, there will be a parcel later. The other parcel is existing and accessed elsewhere. So, there is no change in the parcel.(everyone talking) Mr. Kinzler: As the roads are already laid out...I becamm aware of the issue just this evening. It's airways unfortunate when you have a neighbor and you have to wind up meeting him here. But if there%-as an issue certainly we would have been delighted to consider in the inception stage and here we are coming down to the back end, and very frankly, I don't know how it is at this point in time we would go about cutting through what appears to me, the only way to come through would be to cut through Southold Town Planning Board 33 July 12, 1993 existing proposed plots. Mr. McDonald: That's not what he's proposing at all. It will have to be addressed in the SEQR process and the final approval for this subdivision, the major subdivision of which this is trying to facilitate has not been done, it remains open. Mr. Gazza: I just thought that this might be an excellent opportunity since the land owners are both before you on happen chance on subdivisions - mine has been pending for five years and... Mr. McDonald: You had indicated to us you had talked to them... Mr. Gazza: Numerous occasions. Mr. McDonald: ...and they had given you answers. Mr. Reese(?): The only discussion I had with Mr. Gazza was certainly in regard to once our application was approved, there might be some discussion between his subdivision, but I wanted Cove Beach approved first. Mr. McDonald: That's exactly what he relayed to us. Mr. Reese: Yes, so I want Cove Beach approved, and then if hew ants we can get together somehow, and with the Board's consent, fine, but I want it approved first. Mr. Gazza: And the Board led Mr. Lettieri and I to believe at our last meeting that upon payment of the environmental review fees that the Board would look into the further possibility because of the SEQR process of coordinating a common access in the interest of proper planning. Mr. McDonald: We said that in the SEQR process we would examine the possi-- bilities, those legal possibilities, which exist. And that's what we're re- quired by law to do and that's what we will do, exactly. Mr. Gazza: We're gentlemen appearing before you, is there any enlightenment that you could give on these two applications? I .know they' both been pending for a long time. Mr. McDonald: You want us to give you the answers to the process without engaging in the process. That I can't do. You had discussions with him already, right? And he has just given you the same response now that you said he gave previously. If we~get into the process, we'll see what the process brings forward. There are legal considerations that undoubtedly our lawyers, their lawyers and everybody is going to talk about. We can't resolve this here. You've a~{ed him and he's responded here to you again, about it. It's not really pertinent in my mind to the application before us at this moment, which, is a lot line change which is a little tiny piece of their other project, which is not getting a final approval tonight. It's simply a lot line change which we would like to r~ve ahead on. I understand your frustration in this, but I don't see the connection. Southotd Town Planning Board 34 July 12, 1993 Mr. Gazza: Well since you have the adjacent property owners before you... Mr. McDonald: That's why I brought up the fact that you've had this discuss-- ion with them already. If the two of you could go out in the hall and sit down and talk and solve it, God bless you. Mr. Kinzler: I thi~( maybe the question you're asking is, what does the Board see as the further process. Mr. McDonald: We haven't made even a determination on Mr. Gazza's SEQR, because he's asked us to hold it in abeyance while he provides other inform- ation. There's not even a SEQR determination. Mr. Kinzler: So we're at different stages of the process. Mr. McDonald: Yes, you're a quite different stages. Mr. Gazza: But the cor~non point is the access. I've read the SEQR reports and the reports focus as the Chairman focused, on the opening of my conver- sation this evening before the Board, on coordinated proper access. Now, my neighbor says ther~ is going to be no discussion until be completes the sub-- division. Now if he completes the subdivision... Mr. McDonald: You want to get the answer to the process without being in- volved in the process. You don't leap frog over. You need to enter into your part of the process. Then we're going to get involved and undoubtedly there are going to be discussion, legal discussions about this with our attorney about what can and can't be done. Mr. Kinzler: I think the perception is not completely accurate. I think what my client has said and is intending to say is very simply this, look, the cost of this thing is enormous. We're anxious to get going with the thing as you know. To the extent that the Board comes to us or the Town Attorneys come to us in the final process and in conjunction with the approvals and says listen will you do us a favor, could you do this instead of doing that? I think we've evidenced an ongoing desire to be flexible, to the extent that it requires a side-tracking and a further delay in the process is not something we can afford to do. You want us to be reasonable? We're more than prepared to be reasonable. Mr. Gazza: I'm trying to be reasonable and I think that if we pool our efforts we can get two maps approved at the same time. Mr. Kinzler: I don't think, in all fairness, it deserves the .belaboring of the Board, before whom it does not appear to be an issue. Mr. Gazza: I've been before the Board for five years, as you've been maybe longer and I was led to believe that the access issue was the major part of holding up my subdivision application and it may become a stumbling block on yours. Mr. McDonald: What we were trying to impress upon you at the last meeting is the same thing - I haven't been here that long but every time someone's tried to impress on you - the sooner you get in the process, the sooner you get the answers. Southold Town Planning Board 35 July 12, 1993 Five years ago, and unfortunately this thing has ~otally (inaudible) up, but the sooner you get in, the sooner we get the answers. If we continue to sit outside of it, the answers will never come~ because until you make an application, you never get an answer. If you can[t get an answer to the process without getting into the process. You can't do it. Mr. Orlowski: I've been here 14 years and I've never had one applicant give access to another applicant and it's never happened. I don't even know if it's going to happen now. Mr. Gazza: Well, then we might as well build a bridge and scrap the whole idea of coordinated access and the Board should have told Mr. Lettieri and I that at the last meeting and...why side track us? Mr. McDonald: The answers aren't there until you ask the questions and we go around and go through the process. You think that we can sit down and make all the decisions without entering in...the public has something to say about it, the neighbors have ...(change tape), t would ask that we move ahead on this. I would like to move ahead on this particular application. Mr. Ward: What's the pleasure of the Board? Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Ortowski: Second. Mr. Ward: All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. 0rlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Mr. McDonald: I'd like to make a further motion that WHEREAS, Harold Reese, Sr., et al is the owner of the property kno~n and designated as SCTMi~ 1000--22--3--15.1 & 18.3 and Otto Uhl, Jr., et al is the owner of the property known and designated as SCTM~ 1000--22--3--18.1; 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 May 24, 1993; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southotd Town Planning Board grant conditional final approval to the surveys dated May 28, 1993 and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final surveys subject to fulfillment of the following condition within six (6) months of the date of this resolution: 1. Submission of the executed deed fOr each parcel. Mr. Ward: Is there a second? Southold Town Planning Board 36 July 12, 1993 Mr. Orlowski: Second. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. Ail in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latbam, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Mr. Kinzler: I think we already submitted copies of the executed deed? not intend to file it until the final subdivision was approved. Is that acceptable to the Board? We did Mr. Ward: Say that again? Mr. Kinzler: We did not intend to actually swap property until the final sub-- division approval is granted. Mr. Ward: Do it with the final map? Mr. Kinzler: Yes. (inaudible) Thank you. Mr. Ward: Hillcrest Estates - Section 2 -- This major subdivision is for 20 lots on 22.9 acres located in Orient. SCTM~ 1000--13--2--8.5. I guess the question is, where are you at? Mr. Kinzler: We had a meeting a number of months ago with members of the Suffolk County Dept. of Health. The issue is obviously water quality. And very frankly, while we applied for a variance from the Board and were denied, we believed and still believe that we would have an appropriate redress in the courts. What we've done in an effort to avoid that is to meet with the Board and representatives of the Health Dept. in an effort to achieve a compromise and to try to work out some solution. At their suggestion we had gone back and had retested the existing wells and had found that with some of the wells there had been changes in water quality, that there's been a dissipation from the water table of some of the contaminants that previously existed but that in other locations they still exist. As a result of the initial retesting we've decided to drop new wells and to see what water quality is in other parts of the proposed parcel. We're hopeful, and unfortunately ~he driller is unable to move with the same speed (inaudible), with respect to the testing, and not only the testing but also with respect to the dropping of a well for the water for the pumps for the fire department. We hope to get that accomplished real quickly. Unfortunately he's not moving as quickly as we would like and unfortunately we have no control over it. And we hope to get that done shortly to go back to the Board of Health and to hopefully accomplish some kind of a reasonable compromise in terms of the subdivision~ What we contemplate the possibility of doing is combining in some cases, lots. In four or five cases we may take two lots and combine them into one lot for purposes of complying and perhaps averagIng out, if you will, the respective water quality. Southold Town Planning Board 37 July 12, !993 ~Mr. McDonald: You've been denied at the Board of Review. What's your time frame remaining in an Article 78. Do you have much time left, a!otted tir~? Mr. Kinzler: My feeling is that the time I think is one that by reason of the implicit agreement to try to work it out is stayed. Mr. McDonald: But you're anticipating strongly a potential reconfiguration of the lots? Mr. Kinzler: We are hopeful that given the lapse of time -- the original tests were, I think 10 or 12 years old, that given the lapse of time there would have been some dissipation of the contaminants in the water. Mr. McDonald: Realistically, I know thi~ is an impossible thing to answer but I'm going to ask it anyhow. How !on,g do you think it is going to take to get to a point where you're going to 'kuaow whether you're going to be denied or you're going to make a reasonable compromise with them. Mr. Kinzler: I'm certainly not nnwilling to keep you posted. We have the further results coming in I guess within 30 days and at that point we're going to go back to the Board and meet with them again with a view to say look, this is the situation, what can we do, what can you live with, what's reasonable. _And they've indicated a desire to be reasonable, as we have. I think certainly within 90 days we would have a better idea of where we're going with the Board. I recognize the fact that you've kept it open for some time, I really am. On the other hand, litigation is not something that serves anyone's aim and something we've really tried to avoid. Mr. Ward: If you're going to reconfigure, what's the conse~uences of you losing this application? Mr. Kinzler: The way I can see, dealing with the issue is to come before you in terms of leaving the existing subdivision intact, but putting in either Covenants or Restrictions which, if you will, preclude the development of designated lots, and leaving them as open area or something of that nature. Rather than having to resubmit a new application, but certainly if the Board had a difference preference, we would certainly address it. Mr. McDonald: It wouldn't make any difference in the final hearing. Those kinds of changes, if you %~hnt to simply add them to the lots or rename them wouldn't make any difference at the final. If you were going to have more lots it would be a problem, but taking them away is nothing. Mr. Imtham: You mentioned firewells, which is good you mentioned it. You could buy my vote by a firewell, and if you showed me a firewell... Mr. Kinzler: We've directed Mr. Casola to install it. Mr. Latham: This is for Section 2; Section 1 you're not going ahead with the firewell at this time? Ms. Spiro: There's one in each. (everyone talking) Southold Town Planning Board 38 July 12, 1993 Mr. Latbam: Well, I think we need it. And you are goin§ to build it? Mr. Kinzler: Yes. Mr. Orlowski: The fire districts are bothering both of us about this and it's... Mr. Kinzler: We understand. We're not insensitive. Mr. Ward: What's the pleasure of the Board? Mr. McDonald: I make a motion we hold this hearing open. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Ward: All in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Mr. Edwards: I'd like to make one count Mr. Chairman. On item number 8 on our agenda tonight was on Fishers Island, Mrs. Annette Zabohonski. She's had a two lot subdivision that's been going on for a long time and her problem seems to be with the Health Dept. and Judge Edwards just asked me what the hold up was. I don't know if it was with the attorney or who, but I told him that we couldn't forsee to have the final hearing until we have Health approval, and that's the case not only with this application but with every application. Judge Edwards(?): I'm going to call up Steve Ham and see what's going on because I see (inaudible) often and she's quite upset. Mr. Ed%rards: Well, that's the reason I brought it up because I know that you're familiar with it and I just wanted you to know that it's not just this particular piece, it's every piece. Mr. McDonald: Is it on public water? Judge Edwards: No. Mr. McDonald: It's not on public water. Mr. Edwards: Well, there's public water available and she's had (inaudible) tested, sewage system, there's no city sewers. Mr. McDonald: But I mean if there's public ~ater, what's left? Mr. Ward: Ken, was that the archeological study that held it up? Mr. Edwards: That's been done alonc time ago. We're ~aiting for the Health Dept. Mr. McDonald: Is she Board of Review or something? - ~ Southold Town Plarkning Board 39 July 12, 1993 Mr. Edwards: Judge Edwards: Mr. Edwards: I don't know where it is. I'll find out from Steve Ham. It's not with this Board. Ms. Spiro: I think that he's almost completed it. In the letter that he sent to us he had to do some Covenants and Restrictions and I think he said they're just about to be filed. Mr. Edwards: Do they have the Health? Ms. Spiro: I think they do. Mr. Edwards: We can't set the final hearing until we have it. Judge Edwards: Did Melissa say that they have been filed? Mr. Edwards: Well, she seems to think...she just had a letter (everyone talking). The process you know, as I do, has been going on for a couple of years. (everyone talking) That was my only con~nent. Mr. Ward: What's the pleasure of the Board? Mr. McDonald: I make a rm~tion to adjourn. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Opposed? Motion carried. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Martha A. Jones Secretary Richard G. Ward, Chairman