Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-06/04/1991PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516~ 765-1823 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 4, 1991 Present were: Absent: Bennett Orlowski Jr, Chairman G. Ritchie Latham Kenneth Edwards Richard Ward Valerie Scopaz, Planner Holly Perrone, Secretary M. McDonald Melissa Spiro, Planner Jane Rousseau Mr. Orlowski: Good evening, I would like to call this meeting to order. First order of business, setting of the next meeting. Board to set Monday, June 24, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold as the time and place for the next regular Planning Board meeting. Mr. Edwards: So moved. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. PUBLIC HEARINGS: PLANNING BOARD 2 June 4, 1991 Subdivisions - Final Mr. Orlowski: Next order of business at 7:30 p.m. is Thomas A. Sarqent - This minor subdivision is for three lots on 26,983 square feet located on a private right-of-way to Fox Avenue on Fishers Island. SCTM ~1000-6-6-7. We have proof of publication in both local papers and at this time everything is in order for a final hearing. I'll ask if there are any objections to this subdivision? Hearing none, are there any endorsements of this subdivision? Hearing none, is there anyone out there neither pro nor con but may have information pertaining to this subdivision that would be of interest to the Board? Hearing none, any questions from the Board? Board: No questions. Mr. Orlowski: Being there are no further questions, I'll declare this hearing closed. Everything is in order, does the Board have any pleasure on this? Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. WHEREAS, Thomas A. Sargent is owner of the property known and designated as SCTM~ ~ 1000-6-6-7 & 12, located on a private right-of-way to Fox Avenue on Fishers Island; and WHEREAS, this minor subdivision, to be known as Minor Subdivision for Thomas A. Sargent, is for three lots on 26 983 square feet; and ' WHEREAS, a variance to the Zoning Ordinance for approval of insufficient area, width and depth of each parcel was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on October 17, 1990; and WHEREAS, the Southotd 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 January 14, 1991; and _ ~WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Subdivision aegulations of the Town of Southold have been met; and be it therefore, RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board approve and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final survey dated January 22, 1991. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? PLANNING BOARD 3 June 4, 1991 Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Michael Hills: I would just like to say thank you for the Sargents. Mr. Orlowski: 7:35 p.m. ~ohn Zuhoski and Murray & Constance Klapper - This lot line change is to subtract 7,125 square feet from a 41.27 acre parcel and to add it to a 1.2 acre parcel at Cutchogue. SCT~ ~000-83-2-13 & 6.6. We have proof of publication in both local papers. At this time everything is in order for this final hearing, I'll ask if there are any objections to this lot line change? Hearing none, are there any endorsements? MrD Lark: I represent Mr. and Mrs. Zuhoski and unless the Board has any questions, I respectfully move that you approve this lot line change so they can legalize an already existing situation. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., any other endorsements? Hearing none, is there anyone out there neither pro nor con but may have information pertaining to the Board? Hearing none, any questions from the Board? Board: No questions. Mr. Ortowski: Being there are no further questions, I will declare this hearing closed. Does the Board have any pleasure? Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. WHEREAS, Murray and Constance Klapper is the owner of the property known and designed as SCTM ~1000-83-2-13 & 6.5, located north of Oregon Road, west of Duck Pond Road in Cutchoque; and WHEREAS, this lot-line change, to be known as lot line change for John Zuhoski, is for a lot line change subtracting 7,125 square feet from a 41.27 acre parcel and adding it to a 1.2 acre parcel; 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 April 1, 1991; and WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said subdivision application at the Town Hall, Southold, New York on June 4, 1991; and PLANNING BOARD 4 JUne 4, 1991 WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; and be it therefore, RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board approve and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final survey dated November 8, 1990. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards. Abstained: Mr. Orlowski. Mro Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. (Chairman endorsed maps) Mr. Orlowski: 7:40 p.m. John Zuhoski and Murray Klapper - This lot line change is to subtract 6,373 square feet from a 41.27 acre parCel and to add it to a 2.2 acre parcel at Cutchogue. SCTM $1000-83-2-13 & 6.5. ~r. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. WHEREAS, Murray Klapper is the owner of the property known and designated as SCTM $ 100-83-1-13 & 6.5, located north of Oregon Road, west of Duck Pond Road in Cutchogue; and WHEREAS, this lot-line change, to be known as lot line change for John Zuhoski, is for a lot line change subtracting 6,373 square feet from a 41.27 acre parcel and adding to a 2.2 acre parcel; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board~ pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8), Part 617, declareditself Lead Agency and issued a Negative DeclaratiOn on April i, 1991; and WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said subdivision applicationat the Town Hall, Southold, New York on June 4, 1991; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the subdivision Regulations have been met; and be it therefore, PLANNING BOARD 5 June 4, 1991 RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board approve and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final survey dated November 8, 1990. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made ~nd seconded, any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Ward Abstained: Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. (Chairman Endorsed). Mr. Orlowski: 7:45 p.m. Public Hearing for the Board of Fire Commissioners to give testimony as to the necessity and placement of the fire well in Highpointat East Marion, Section Three. SCTM$ 1000-31-3-11.25. This is a subdivision in East Marion that is currently being litigated because of the applicant's question of the need of a fire well. The judges sent it back here to hold this hearing where the fire district and the applicant can give testimony to the Boardwhy it should or shouldn't be. So, I will open it up to who ever wants to go first. All questions will be directed to the Board in this hearing. Mr. Kevin Mc~aughlin: Ralph Martin is here on behalf of the Board of Fire Commissioners for East Marion and would like to give a statement to the Board at this point. Mr. Ralph Martin: Ladies and gentlemen of the Board. Thank you. I'm going to read a little bit some letters that you have and to offer a bit more information. NFPA (National Fire Protection Agency) so states in 11413-7.2 requires a fire hydrant for every 160,000 square feet of ground area. The standard set forth are for the minimum requirements only. The subdivision in question consists of three lots approximately one acre each. The nearest existing source of water is a fire well located in excess of 1800 feet from the proposed fire well. As a result the necessity for the location of the fire well within subject subdivision is apparent. Without fire well within the subject subdivision the structures located therein would be inadequately protected based upon the standards set forth and in our experience as fire fighters. The proposed fire w~ll was strategically lOcated in the center of the subject subdivision and adjacent to the existing roadway for ready access. This was done in order to provide maximum fire protection for property and persons and for the safety of the fire vehicles and personnel. Now, in order to protect that subdivision, we would need two pumpers in line from the well 1800 feet away. East Marion Fire Department has two pumpers. There are no pumpers available at that point in time for the protection of any of the PLANNING BOARD 6 June 4, 1991 buildings within that subdivision. We would then have to go on a mutual aid to call in either Orient, Greenport or Southold. We need to call mutual aid for a third pumper to protect the house and, really, you should have a fourth one to protect those inside the house, if for whatever reason an engine blows up or what have you. Our purpose is strictly for the prevention of loss of life and property. Along those lines, going for mutual aid, in Order to protect any structures, we would require at least eighteen to twenty-five minutes to set up. This is the words of our Chief at East Marion Fire Department who is also the chief of the Plum Island Fire Department. NFPA also states that the nearest hydrant to the furthest structure should be, should not exceed 1000 feet. I unfortunately do not have the numbers of the National Fire Protection Agency with me but it can be provided to anyone who wishes it tomorrow. We feel, as I said before, that we the Board of Fire Commissioners are elected publicly for the prevention of loss of life and property within our district and we feel that this well should be placed where we so indicated. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Any other co~tuuents on this? Mr. William Moore: Mr. Chairman, I am here on behalf of the applicant. Let me begin with all due respect to both the Fire Commissioners of East Marion and this Board we don't question the need for fire protection and fire wells, but this whole issue has been about the absence of standards to insure that fair and even handed application, of whatever standards there would be, to all parties, all properties and everyone involved. And I also add, let me protest formally for the record, the holding of this hearing. We had our final plat pub.lic hearing April 22, a Closed public hearing, and now you ~ave a letter in the file dated February 25, 1991 which was then corrected for a typographical error of April 19, 1991 by the Fire Cof~dissioners. Apparently their information wasn't adequate, for you to make a decision, and here we are tonight with a whole new hearing, which has no provision in law with the Town Code, Town Law or otherwise, so I protest the fact of having this hearing tonight. Particularly since it is really an attempt to provide both this Board and the Fire Commissioners a chance to further explain the justification for the fire well. Now, explaining why you have to have something doesn't constitute standards. You are backpedaling, you're saying, I well, I made a decision and here is why; but it doesn't establish standards and that is what it is all about, standards. You have standards in the Town Code for roads, for drainage, for curbs, for street trees. Standards for fire wells now we have NFPA cited in the letters for us, and that is terrific. There are twelve volumes. I have for you, tonight, more than just the one page provided, I've got the "Rural suggestion for fire fighting standards." Town Law Section 277, if you will bear with me for one moment, I've got a copy of it with me. Town Law, Section 277, a section you are very familiar with, talks of the approval of plats and the requisites for doing same. Let me read you a portion Of PLANNING BOARD 7 June 4, 1991 that and listen carefully. I will stop and emphasize the language that is very important in 277. And I will admit it is a tough section to read, it must have been written by a lawyer, because it goes on for two full pages in one paragraph, with no grace. So let me start right in. Improvement Standards - Street signs, sidewalks, street lighting standards, curbs, gutters, street trees, water mains, fire alarms, signal devices including necessary ducts and cables or other connecting facilities, sanitary stores and storm drains or combined sewers, shall be installed. Here is the magic language. All in accordance with standards, specifications and procedure acceptable to the appropriate town departments. Not just specifications but standards as well. There is a reason for that. I mentioned it before. It's the even handed application of the rules of the game to all property owners you shouldn't have to come in a feel geez. I got a two lot subdivision or three lot; I need a fire well. But when Herb did Sections I and II, fifty lots, he only~needed one. There doesn't appear to be a set of standards available to someone to walk in to the Planning Board, just as you would with your expectation for street trees and roads and curbs etc.. There is no reason for that. Now I have for you an opinion of the Attorney General's Office. It is capital letter "I" number 90-74. And the question was posed in this opinion was, "Can a Planning BOard require fire hydrants?" Good question, because Section 277 doesn!'t expreSSly say fire hydrants~ I will be the first to admit to .you that you can require fire hydrants or firewells and in fact this opinion so states. But the magic language in the opinion~ i~ the last to next paragraph. "We conclude that a Town Planning Board may condition the approval of the proposed provisions subdivisions upon provision of firehydrants, in accordance with Town standards. "There you have it, standards. Let me give you a copy of that. (Submitted copy to Board). We don't have standards in our ~Town Code, to explain, we don't Rave the benefit'of NFPA adopted by either this planning Board, or at least made by reference to East Marion's decision to go by NFPA. Let me suggest that you look at the codes i~ East Hampton and Southampton. East Hampton sets forth in great detail their standards and conditions and specifications for fire wells. Southampton is not so .specific, but they specifically state that the various fire departments in that town must put the standards on record in the Planning Board. That is fair. Now, we are talking about prior litigation. I don't know if we call it present or pending,.because the judge made his decision and we are living by his decision, I as were you were here, or we had that rehearingApril the 22nd. I protest why we are here tonight. In the course of that litigation, East Marion Fire Commissioners submit what we call a verified answer to our petition. In the course of that answer, they agreed they had no written standards for fire wells. Specifications, as to speciiic size, the pumps, the capacity, fine, but no standards. Mr. Cl~airman, you yourself signed an affidavit in the course of that ~itigation agreeing to no PLANNING BOARD 8 June 4, 1991 specific guidelines in Southold Town Code as to fire wells. And I agree. And that's what that litigation was all about last year. I am here tonight making the same complaint. We hear about NFPA, now we are back pedaling. We are explaining, we are justifying a decision. We're not establishing standards. I mentioned before if we are going to use NFPA standards, let's just think about this. Highpoint Section I and II consists of, Herb correct me if I am wrong, I will say 50 lots, or 49? Mr. Mandel: 49. Mr. Moore: Now my math was done with 50 lots but I will do 49, possibly an acre each. Using 50 lots, it is approximately two millioa square feet of land. NFPA Standards we heard about tonight, were every 860 thousand square feet. Sections I and II did two million square feet of land with one fire well. I think you can appreciate some of the surprise and misunderstanding or lack of comprehension as to why suddenly three one acre lots, of 120 thousand, feet approximately, then generates the need for a fire well. I would not accept that, as it was hinted at in an affidavit by the Chairman, that perhaps they were saving and holding off on an economic impact on the client. It is entirely conceivable that at the time Sections I and II were developed, that Section III would never be developed. And if the idea is that this well would cover more than j~st the three house and would cover Section I and II, it was based on an erroneous foundation. Section III may never have been develOped~ It could have been sold as a single family residence, and there would be no additional fire well there. Now, in the letter that was read to you it stated that without a fire well within in the subject subdivision the structure therein would be inadequately protected, and that comes from the April 19th letter from the Fire Commissioners. That is a little bit surprising because the same fire department requested, and obtained consent from Herb to burn a building down on that same three acres. They did the exercise, ali had a fire well. Next, NFPA standards suggest a hydrant for every 160 thousand square feet. I believe that you would accept, and perhaps the fire districts could explain more fully, if they would distinguish between a fire hydrant and fire well. There is a distinction. The standards that I will give you. tonight describe those distinctions. In fact the letter from the Fire Commissioners chides us for our belief that the fire well, if it is put in, would be used by the Fire Department to fill their tankers. They say no, we don't use a fire well, we use a hydrant. So they too recognize a diStinction between a hydrant and a fire well. Now I will give you tonight Sections 12-31 and I believe 13-41 which are the fire fighting standards NFPA. That is what we should be talking ~hout. BUt not after the fact. We're at this point now, where we are explaining what we have done with'.no standards in place, and it just isn't fair. That's just not the. way it is done. Town law requires standards, and we don't have them. Now, in the course of the standards, 3000 gallons is a minimum'figure that is used for structures of a type that are going to be built on those three PLANNING BOARD 8 June 4, 1991 I agree. And that's what that litigation was all about last year. I am here tonight making the same 6omplaint. We hear about NFPA, now we are back pedaling. We are explaining, we are justifying a decision. We're not establishing standards. mentioned before if we are going to use NFPA standards, let's just think about this. Highpoint Section I and II consists of, Herb correct me if I am wrong, I will say 50 lots, or 49? Mr.~Mandel: 49. Mr. Moore: Now my math was done with 50 lots but I will do 49, possibly an acre each. Using 50 lots, it is approximately two million square feet of land. NFPA Standards we heard about tonight, were every 860 thousand square feet. Sections I and II did two million square feet of land with one fire well. I think you can appreciate some of the surprise and misunderStanding or lack of comprehension as to why suddenly three one acre lots, of 120 thousand feet approximately, then generates the need for a fire well. I would not accept that, as it was hinted at in an affidavit by the Chairman, that perhaps they were saving and holding off on an economic impact on the client. It is entirely conceivable that at the time Sections I and II were developed, that Section III-would never be developed. And if the idea is that this well would cover more than just the three house and would cover Section I and II, it was based on an erroneous foundation. Section III may never have been developed. It could have been sold as a single family residence, and there would be no additional fire well there. Now, in~the letter that was read to you it stated that without a fire well within in the subject subdivision the structure therein would be inadequately protected, and that comes from the April 19th letter from the Fire Commissioners. That is a little bit surprisingbecause the same fire department requested, and obtained consent fromHerb to burn a building down on that same three acres. They did the exercise, all had a fire well. Next, NFPA standards suggest a hydrant for every 160 thousand square feet. I believe that you would accept, and perhaps the fire districts could explain more fully, if.they would distinguish between a fire hydrant and fire well. There is a distinction° The standards that I will give you tonight describe those distinctions. In fact the letter from the Fire Commissioners chides us for our belief that the fire well, if it is put in, would be used by the Fire Department to fill their tankers. They say no, we don't use a fire well, we use a hydrant. So they too recognize a ~istinction between a hydrant anda fire well. Now I will give you tonight Sections 12'31 and I believe 13-41 which are the fire fighting standards NFPA. That is wkat we should be talking about. But not after the fact. We're at this point now, where we are explaining what we have done with no standards in place, and it just isn't fair. That's just not the way it is done. Town law requires standards, and we don't have them. Now, in the course of the standards, 3000 gallons is a'minimum figure that is used for structures of a type that are going to be built on those three parcels. Single family residences, the proper separations of PLANNING BOARD 9 June 4, 1991 buildings and things like that. My information is .slightly dated. My information is dated 1987 but, my understanding is that East Marion had capacity on its trucks alone of 5500 gallons. That is already dated information, I assume it is more than that by now, I hope so anyway. That is almost double the minimum requirements under NFPA itself. If you look at the 320,000 square feet ground area when NFPA standards call for for 160, NFPAstandards say minimum 3000 gallons of water they can bring to the site, at least as of 1987, they could have brought 5500 gallons of water to the site. I really question the necessity for this fire well. And more importantly the necessity for this hearing, and most troublesome the absence of standards that can guide this Planning Board throughout each of the Fire Districts in our Town. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., any other comments. Mr. Moore: If I may just make a reference to NFPA 12-31 and 11-41, I'm sorry, I missited myself for you to have for your information. Herbert Mandel: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Southold's code provides your Board the right to determine fire well locations in subdivisions. But since $outhold became a Township, your Board has only until recently, not exercised such a right in minor s~bdivisions. That's four or less units. The BOard in dete~ining the necessity for a fire well obtains information from thelocal fire district, whicki~ this case recommended the installation of the well in ques~i0n~ This subdivision has been on the maps as Highpoint at East Marion Section III Inc., since 1984. When originally mapped was shown as a future section. The reason it became a future section was because this Fire District requested consideration for a parking area to be given them by the developer of this property. And the developer exceeded to the request that said, yes, we will give you a quarter acre of land for parking. It then took two years for the fire district (changed tape) to determine whether they wanted that 10,000 square feet, and in which portion of the three acres. When they finally determined where they wanted it and what they would agree to accept finally, it then became, this three acres became a two acre zone. The zoning having been changed during this period so that there upon the ability to make it into three units was gone. The developer went into court to try to get the court to adjudicate the matter and make it three acres, and lost. But the week after the lOss, the Board in its own reliction, changed the maps and made it one acre. So now, three years have gone by and the land was still laying there in the same condition that the developer purchased it. So we have been through the mill with our neighbors, the Fire District although they asked us permission to burn down a piece of building they had on the property as a practice session and we gave them that permission to do that. And they did burn it down. They required us to put in one fire well for the development which we did. But the map'that we put that in on PLANNING BOARD 10 June 4, 1991 included the future subdivision. It couldn't have been mapped because we didn't know where they were going to take that 10,000 square feet. So we were held up pretty good and hurt substantially as a result. Now, you know, we as most people, respect the fire people, the firemen, the co~,m~issioners, we respect them from a political standpoint, and we respect them from an actual fighting a fire standpoint. But the requirements of putting a fire well in, so that we might be able to build two additional houses, is an unconscionable abusive of authority to require this, on anybody's part whether it be yours or the Fire Commissioner or whoever. There is absolutely no reason for it. Now, these houses, the houses on this property, is built in 1930 before the fire house existed. So the possibility of a hazardous fire always exists, but new, two new houses put up on this property with the building codes advanced as they have been many, many, times since 1930, are much more fire resistant then anything that existed prior to that time. So the reasoning that they have becomes very filaceous. There is no reason to put a fire well for two houses. Sure it would be nice if we had a fire well in every house. It would be nice if ever~house was sprinkled. But you have to establish reasonable standards so that builders or investors or whoever will know when they come into town this is what they must do. They must have a fire well for ten houses, five houses, two houses, whatever you decide. But you can't leave it open so that it becomes a matter for the individual who may get up on the wrong side of the bed one morning and say well, he needs a fire well because he's putting up two houses. I think it is really a terrihlething that we have to be here to complain about a matter that should be judicated on the surface, just on the bare facts. In all of East Marion, with hundreds of homes and many hundreds of acres, between Pebble Beach and the causeway, there are two fire wells. One of them I put in. Now, to say to build two more houses to have to put in another fire well it is a, I think it is a terrible abusive of authority. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Any other co~L,~ents. Mr. Kevin McLaughlin: Members of the Board, I am here on behalf of the East Marion Fire District. With all due respect to the applicant and his attorney, I believe what we have presented to you this evening are in fact those standards on which the Fire Commissioners have based their determination of the necessity for, and the location of, the fire well. It's based on written Standards that are available, and it is also based on the fire fighting experience of those professionals that are involved with the fire district. I would submit to this Board that the only evidence that has been presented to this Board either written or oral, on behalf of anyone who has any knowledge about fire fighting, has been by the East Marion Board of Fire Co~tm~issioners. Nothing from the applicants or his attorney is in anyway relevant in that. They could have brought someone in, they could havebrought someone in who has had some fire fighting expertise and said, look the standards of these PLANNING BOARD 11 June 4, 1991 people are trying to impose are improper Or are way beyond the scope of reasonableness, they haven't done that. We are here tonight and this Board has had this hearing pursuant to litigation and pursuant to the order of a judge and we have presented to you tonight exactly the rational and the factors upon which this determination was made. As has been presented to you, the closest fire well is over 1800 feet away, we do not have in that fire district the requisite numbers of pumpers to pump water from a fire well 1800 feet away, keep up the pressure, and have adequate pumpers at site in order to fight a fire. That, I think is the main consideration here. To elude to a planned fire at the location where a small building was burned under conditions where everybody knew it was about to be burned and to try to equate that to a fire alarm where a unanticipated fire breaks out, I would submit to this Board is ludicrous. We have presented the standards to you on which this determination was made and I think you now have all the information you need in order to determine whether or not this fire well is necessary. Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments? M~r. Mandel: I would like to point out one other thing to the Board. The property is contiguous to and adjacent to the fire house. I don't know whether that was made clear so that the response time on the part of the fire district on this particular piece of property that we are discussing is negligible because they are right there. Mr. Ralph Martin: In response to Mr. Mandel, yes, the response time is right, Mr. Orlowski: Just everything respond to the Board. I don't want to get this into a argument. Mr. Ralph Martin: I'm just clearing his facts up Mr. Orlowski, yes, we are right there but I am speaking before that I8 to 24 minutes to get a sufficient amount of equipment there in order to do a proper job in the extinguishment of the fire which we all know. It is not just rolling a truck out and saying we have enough water. There is never really enough water to fight a house fire with. Thank you. Nancy Swaticinowicz: I would like to say that with all the pressure of the development and the future houses that are going to be built, I would like to have the Town to have the developers pay for these fire wells rather than the taxpayers. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: O.K.. Any other comments? Hearing none, does the Board have any questions? Mr. Latham: No. PLANNING BOARD 12 June 4, 1991 Mr. Ward: No. Ken Edwards: Just one question, the fire house is adjacent to this property. Is the fire department volunteered. Are the people at the fire house twenty four hours? Mr. Ralph Martin: No, the people are not at the fire house twenty four hours, we are full volunteer. Mr. Edwards: Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Anymore questions? Hearing no further questions, I will declare this hearing closed. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., moving on. HEARING HELD OVER FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING: Mr. Orlowski: The North Forty - This major subdivision is for thirteen lots on 30.3565 acres located on the south side of Oregon Road; 621 feet west of Depot Lane in Cutchogue. SCTM %1000-95-4-14.1. Mr. Bob Kozakiewicz: Good evening, this has been on a number of times as you know, the reason being we wanted you to consider the open space option in the form of large lo.ts. At this point in time I think we have gone through it enough. We have rehashed everything and have asked the board to close the hearing. Obviously, for the applicant, we would like you to consider the large lot as opposed to open space with homeowners, for the reasons we previously presented. But at this point and time what we ask more so is that the hearing be closed and that you decide upon the subdivision. Everything is in order and is in a position to be finally resolved. Mr. Orlowski: Did Mr. Danowski send in a letter to ask that this be kept open? Fir. Kozakiewicz: That was my question too. He was in Federal Court today on a trial and I spoke to him by telephone at approximately 7:00 and at this point and time as opposed to keeping the matter open and attempting to continue perhaps or persuade you concerning the large lot concept, he simply asks that the map be resolved. Perhaps you have information that has not made been made known to me, but this is what our conversation entailed. Mr. Orlowski: Well, I wasn't exactly sure that we were going to be keeping this thing open so long. Mr. Kozakiewicz: I know, that is exactly my point. We have gone on and on and I think it has been open a number of PLANNING BOARD 13 June 4, 1991 occasions. We've gone to Town Board and have also presented the large lot concept to this Board and I think at this point (Ms. Scopaz interrupted). Ms. Scopaz: You are saying that your client wants to go with the large lot concept but they are or are not in agreement to flipping the layout which I believe (Mr. Kozakiewicz interrupted). Mr. Kozakiewicz: There was a discussion about that and that point I am not particularly aware of. I know there was a discussion and I don't know what the final agreement was between the applicant and the Board. Ms. Scopaz: There was one question that the Board did ask. Mr. Kozakiewicz: If you want to hold on a second, I know one of the applicants is here and perhaps he will have knowledge of what (inaudible). Please bear with me a second. My client relates to me that when he spoke to Mr. Danowski about the concept Of flipping the lot, at that point he said he would rather pursue it as it is or as previously depicted to the Board~ Mr. Orlowski: So, if it is the homeowners association let it be them. Mr. Kozakiewicz: I think at this point, what has been related to me is that if that is what the Board wants to decide, so be it so we can move forward and get this finally resolved. Mr. Orlowski: Because I did have a conversation with Mr. Danowski about taking these two lots out and leaving this one large lot. Mr. Kozakiewicz: Reducing the yield, right. They also are opposed to that concept. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., alright. Any other comments? I will entertain a motion to close the hearing? Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Anyquestions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. PLANNING BOARD 14 June 4~ 1991 Mr. Orlowski: Eleanor Sievernich - This minor subdivision is for two lots on 3.7648 acres located on the east side of Cox Neck Lane in Mattituck. SCTM ~1000-113-8-5. What is the pleasure of the Board? This hearing is held open, is there anyone out there who would like to give comments while it is open? Hearing none, what is the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Latham: I would like to offer the following resolution. The final public hearing, which was opened on October 2, 1990, was again kept open. The hearing is being held open due to an Article 78 proceeding instituted by the applicant. Mr. Ward: Second. Mro Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Ortowski: Kay Dee Estates - This minor subdivision is for three lots on 5.959 acres located at Leslie Road in Cutchogue. SCTM ~1000-97-4-17. Mr. Robert Kozakiewiczfor Peter Danowski: Attorney for the applicant. The last time it was left open for a decision or input from the Fire Commissioners in Cutchogue. I believe the Board has a letter from the Cutchogue Fire District and I believe the matter can be closed at this point. I would ask the Board to approve the subdivision and I believe everything is in order to do so with respect to the recommendation or the letter from the Fire Distr~ct we would ask the Board its approval to amend or affect or reduce. In other words, the bond estimate based upon that letter we would also feel that the 6% inspection fee would likewise be reduced. Mr~ Orlowski: O.K., I believe everything now is in order to close the hearing. Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, PLANNING BOARD 15 June 4, 1991 Mr. Ortowski: Opposed? So ordered. Does the Board have any pleasure? Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. WHEREAS, Patricia Bailey is the owner of the property known and designated as SCTM 61000-97-4-17, located at the north side of Leslie Road; 479.75 feet east of Skunk Lane in Cutchogue; and WHEREAS, this minor subdivision, to be known as Kay Dee Estates, is for three lots on 5.959 acres; and WHEREAS, THE Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8), Part.617, declared itself Lead Agency and issued a Negative Declaration on June 12, 1986; and WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said subdivision application at the Town Hall, Southold, New York on June 4, 1991; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; and be it therefore, RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant conditional final approval on the surveys dated April 4, 1990, and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final surveys subject to fulfillment of the following conditions. All conditions must be met within six (6) months of the date of this resolution. 1. Submission of five (5) paper maps and two (2) mylars of the final maps. All'maps must: A. Contain a valid stamp of Health Department approval; Contain a notation that a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions has been filed. This notation must include the Liber and Page number o e Submission and approval by the Planning Board and Road Inspector, of maps revised in accordance with the Road Inspector's March 20, 1991 report. Once approved, five (5) copies of the final road and drainage map must be submitted. 3. Submission of copy of the filed Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. PLANNING BOARD 16 June 4, 1991 Submission of a passbook, Letter of Credit or its equivalent, in the amount of $56,285.00, less the firewell,( total $46,285) and acceptance of same by the Town Board. 5. Submission of an inspection fee in the amount of $3,377.00 or as adjusted. (total $2777.00) Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Any questions on the motion? Ail those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski, Mro Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. MAJOR AND MINOR SUBDIVISION, LOT LINE CHANGES AND SET OFF APPLICATIONS Final Determinations: Mr. Orlowski: Highpoint at East Marion, Section Three This major subdivision is for three lots on 2.9189 acres located in East Marion. SCTM $ 1000-31-3-11.25. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chaizman, I would like to offer the following resolution: WHEREAS, Herbert Mandel is the owner of the property known and designated as SCTM $1000,31-3-11.25, located on the north side of NYS Route 25; 364.42 feet west of Stars Road in East Marion; and WHEREAS, this major subdivision, to be known as Highpoint at East Marion, Section Three is for three lots on 2.9189 acres; and WHEREA~, 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 October 16, 1989; and WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said subdivision application at the Town Hall, Southold, New York on April 22, 1'991; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; and be it therefore, PLANNING BOARD 17 June 4, 1991 RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board approve and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final survey dated November 27, 1989 subject to the Planning Board's determination for the need of a Fir,well. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Setting of Final Hearings: Mr. Orlowski: Southold Villas - This proposal is for both a subdivision and site plan. The subdivision is for seventeen affordable lots and the site plan is for sixteen condominium units. The parcel is located on the west side of NYS 25 approximately 1,400 feet north of Ackerly Pond Land. SCTM ~1000-70-1-6. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, June 24, 1991, at 7:40 p.m. for a final public hearing on the subdivision maps dated, February 2I, 1991, which are to be revised as detailed below, and the site plan maps dated, May 14, 1991. The hearing will be rescheduled if maps containing a valid stamp of Health Department approval and a valid water contract are not received prior to June 21, 1991. The following information must be shown on the subdivision map. The street name "Orchard Lane" must be changed as there already exists a street named Orchard Lane in the hamlet of Southold. The one hundred (100) foot buffer zone which was required by the Town Board, and which was shown on the preliminary map, must be stated on the final map. In addition, a detailed landscape plan must be submitted. Building envelopes must be shown for all lots. In addition, the following restrictions must be noted on the map: A. Lots 6 and 15 shall not have access to PLANNING BOARD 18 June 4, 1991 Orchard Lane. B. Lot 3 shall not have access to Orchard Lane. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. McDonald. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: We have a question on the Homeowners Association, about forming it. Do you want to bring that up tonight or not? Issac Saidmahr: Yes. ~ne question is that on the affordable side we have two small areas of 100 by 100 which we made as open space at the request of the Town and we were wondering if the TOwn could take those areas over so it would eliminate the need to form a Homeowners Association. The reason for that is we are getting a grant from the State, asyou know, and t~e State does not like to see that the affordable homes that are getting this grant get a maintenance monthlysheet for maintenance so if the Town would take this over, it would eliminate the need for a Homeowners Association. We even looked into combining the open areas in the Affordable Section with the open areas of the condominums and having the condominums pay for everything but that can't be done either. Mr. Ward: Can we see that on the map? This is the affordable section. Issac Saidmahr: This is the hundred, we had to leave a buffer. Mr, Ward: Oh, you mean all of the open space. Issac Saidmahr: Yes. Mr. Ward: Another option I would like you to pursue with the Planning Board Staff would be to see if you could replot the lots and create that open space as a conservation easement by making larger lots. Is Merle working with you on this? Mr. Saidmahr: Yes. Mr. Ward: In other words, if you were to take all of these and extend them back and lets gobble up all the open space and give us all the building envelopes we are asking for on the plots and where they should be, it may mean you have got a couple of PLANNING BOARD 19 June 4, 1991 larger lots but it would eliminate the homeowners association. Give us a dotted line as a Conservation Easement or Buffer per presidence for the remain. That is essentially what we did at Cedarfields too and that would essentially eliminate the homeowners. Merle Wiggins: There are a couple of minor changes. Mr. Ward: Yeah, we have asked for changes. Why don't you come in and discuss it with the staff. Mr. Saidmahr: Another thing we were asking in that letter was that if we are going to form a Homeowners Association for the other side, the condominium side, we were required to do that by law. What we wanted to ask you was not to make out a condition of a site plan approval but to let the site plan go ahead and we will do that eventually because we have to do that before we can sell any units anyway. The reason I am asking that is because the Village of Greenport wants to raise the rates and we told them that we are going to start construction in ninety days in that letter we sent and we have already bids from contractors and everybody to go ahead and do this project. If we have these delays, it is going to increase our cost a lot. Mr. Orlowsk±: Well, right now we are looking at the affordable site anyway. Mr. Saidmahr: The hearing on the 24th is for both sides. Mr. Orlowski: Yes. We will take that into consideration. Mr. Saidmahr: Thanks. Preliminary Extensions: Mr. Orlowski: Mattituck Creek Estates (James Cohitl) - This major subdivision is for nine lots on 19.1220 acres located on the southwestcorner of Mill Road and Grand AVenue in Mattituck. SCTM ~1000-107-1-2. Mr. Latham: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant an additional six month extension of preliminary approval from May 20, 1991 to November 20, 1991. Please note that this is the last extension that the Planning Board will be granting. Mr. Ward: Second. PLANNING BOARD 20 June 4, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Thorton Estates, Section 1, 2 and 3 - This major subdivision is for thirty-five lots on 80.6146 acres located north of Sound Avenue and east of Bergen Avenue in Mattituck. SCTM $ 1000-121-1-i P/O 19. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Planning Board grant a six month extensions of preliminary approval for Sections Ir I and III of the major subdivision of Thorton Smith. These extensions will expire on November 20, i991 unless a complete application for final approval for all three sections is received by that date. This will be the last extension that the Planning Board will be granting for any of the Sections. In a letter dated July 10, 1990, from the Planning Board, you were notified that an extension for Sectian 1 was not required as the final maps had been submitted. This statement was incorrect. Although the final maps had been submitted, the final application was not complete. In light of this error, the Planning Board has granted an extension of the preliminary approval for Section I. The Planning Board has also granted an additional extension for preliminary approval for Sections II and III. As stated above, this will be the last extension that the Planning Board will be granting for any of the Sections. Expiration of the preliminary approval will require resubmission of the application and application fee. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Ortowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, 'Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Sketch Extensions: PLANNINS BOARD 21 June 4, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: John and Margaret Guest - This minor subdivision is for three lots on 13o7 acres located on the west side of Crescent Avenue on Fishers Island. SCTM ~ 1000-.6-1-5. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a six month extension of sketch approval from May 30, 1991 to November 30, 1991. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Review of Reports: Engineering Mr. Orlowski: North Road Associates - This major subdivision is for four lots on 16.886 acres located in Orient. SCTM 41000-18-4-1. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion. RESOLVED to adopt the Road Inspector's report dated May 23,-1991. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. MAJOR AND MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, LOT LINE CHANGES, SET OFF APPLICATIONS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Determinations: Mr. Orlowski: -Conrad Bagenski, Jr. - This minor subdivision is for three lots on 6.212 acres located on the north side of Main Road; 1332.92 feet east of Elijah's Lane in Cutchogue. SCTM %1000-108-3-9. PLANNING BOARD 22 June 4, 1991 Mr. Ward: Fir. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, make a determination of non-significance, and grant a Conditional Negative Declaration based on the condition that the steep slope area of Lot ~1 poses a constraint, and any use of this lot must employ soil erosion control measures along with proper grading when the house is placed in order to avoid erosion and possible sediment transport off the site. Soil erosion control measures and grading plans shall be submitted to both the Planning Board and the Building Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. If the house is situated in the steep slope area, the grading plans shall incorporate all appropriate structural erosion control measures including retaining walls, stepping the foundation into the hillside, the use of snow fencing to delineate limits of clearing on the down hill side, and placement of hay bales on the cleared side of the fence in order to preclude erosion and sediment transport. The reasons for supporting this determination is an Environmental assessment has been submitted, reviewed and it was determined that the impacts of the project can be mitigated provided the conditions noted above are followed. Because there has been no correspondence received from the Department of Health Services in the allotted time, it is assumed that there are no co~m~ents or objections from the agency~ Because there has been correspondence received from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and that agency had no objection to the Planning Board assuming lead agency status, and had no~co~tu~ents on the action. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham , Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Bergen Hollows - This minor subdivision is for four lots on ten acres located on the north side of Bergen Avenue in Mattituck. SCTM # 1000-112-1-16.1. PLANNING BOARD 23 June 4, 1991 Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, make a determination of non-significance and grant a Negative Declaration. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Final Determinations: Mr. Orlowski: NOrth Forty. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. WHEREAS, Walter Gatz and George McDowell are the owners of the property known and designated as SCTM %1000-95-4-14.1, located on the south side of Oregon Road; 1,465 feet east of Cox's Lane in Cutchogue; and WHEREAS, this major subdivision, to be known as the North Forty is for thirteen lots on 30.35 acres; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8), part 617, declared itself Lead Agency and issued a Negative Declaration on January 12, I989; and WHEREAS, a final hearing was closed on said subdivision application at the Town Hall, Southold, New York on June 4, 1991; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulation of the Town of Southold have been met; and be it therefore, RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant conditional final approval on the surveys dated December 21, 1989, subject to fulfillment of the following conditions. All conditions must be met within six (6) months of the date of this resolution. PLANNING BOARD C ~ 24 June 4, 1991 Se 0 Submission of a bond, Letter of Credit, or the equivalent in the amount of $319,730.00. Submission of the inspection fee in the amount of $19,183.80. Submission of the Park and Playground fee in the amount of $26,000 ($2,000 per lot as per Section A106-38E of the Subdivision Regulations). Updating the Health Department's approval. Formation of the Homeowner's Association to manage the the clustered open space. 6. Filing the Declaration of the Covenants and that prohibit access from Lot one to Oregon Road and to designate a scenic buffer on lot one to remain undisturbed. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Draft Environmental Impact Statements: Mr. Orlowski: Macari at Laurel - Board to review the revisions to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement received on May 13, 1991, for completeness. SCTM ~ 1000-121-4-9. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board accept the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated March 1991r together with the six pages of revised text, received by the Planning Board on May 13, 1991 as complete for the .purpose of public and inter-agency review. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Ortowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. PLANNING BOARD Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Edwards: 25 June 4, 1991 Opposed? So ordered. I would also like to move that: RESOLVED that the Planning Board initiate a public comment period of thirty (30). calendar days from the date of this resolution. The public comment pekiod will run until July 5, 1991. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. W~rd, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Edwards: I would also like to move that: RESOLVED that the Planning Board set Monday, June 24, 1991~ at 7:30 p.m. for a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. APPROVAL OF PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Mr. Orlowski: Board to approve the minutes of April 22, 1991. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordere~. PLANNING BOARD 26 June 4, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: I'll entertain a motion to update our estimated unit price bonding of sUbdivision constructions. This is a list that is kept in the office for putting together our performance bonds. Mr. Latham: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board update the estimated unit prices for bonding of subdivision cOnstruction. There is a list that follows which will be on file for anyone who would like to see it. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Are there any question from the audience? Mr. Fuchs: This is my partner, Mr. Joseph Fishetti and we would like to discuss with you the subdivision~filed with this Town by the name "The Woods at Cutchoque". In 19'88, Mr. Chairman, the Town requested, and was given a bo~d for th~s subdivision whichwas filed in the amoUnt of $323,000 dollars and we felt at that time that that bond amount was approximately twice what it would take up to actually put iln the improvements and to be perfectly frank our feelings were accurate in that matter. In May of this year, we submitted to the Town Engineer, Mr. Richter, a letter indicating items of improvements which we have completed and have been inspected and approved by him and listed for him some seven items which we have yet to complete. Using the Towns figures, these seven items come to a total of approximately $78,000 dollars. Now, I point out again to you that our costs are bearing out the fact that this $78,000 dollars is .approximately twice what it is going to cost us to actually install these items. Now, we are here tonight to ask you for a bond reduction. Not to $78,000 dollars which is your figures but to $150,000 dollars. Now, I make this Point only because we figure we can do this for about $35w000 dollars and understanding the Town needs, and is entitled to a margin of safety, we offer not your figures but a figure 50% in excess of your figures. Now, basically why we are requesting this is because first of all we are not planning to proceed immediately, we have houses to construct there and most of the time it is considered favorably if the final improvements to finalize it is put off a while while this construction goes on because most of the time it is considered an advantage if the improvements as PLANNING BOA~ 27 June 4, 1991 they are in now go a winter or two so they.can be tested by the frost cycle and so on to make sure everything is installed properly. So generally speaking, keeping the amount of the bond as it is is a burden on us financially, it is a burden on us from the point of view of the bonding companies point of view and we feel that this project will be completed and it will be completed in a timely fashion and a delay at this point of a season or so will actually work in the Town's favor. We have no other reason other than that except we will point out that regardless of the amount of the bond, of course the only coverage under the bond would be for the actual improvements yet to be done so if the bond is $150,000 or $300,000 or twice that the Town is only going to be reimbursed for the amount of the actual cost of the improvement. If it is consistent with the Board policy, we would hereby request a reduction in our Bond amount to $150,0.00 dollars. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., the only co~ent I have, is that in your letter here you didn't .put in the cost of the fireweli. Has the firewell be installed yet? Mr. Fuchs: It is not a bonded improvement. Mr. Orlowski: I don't have a problem with the number. I am just asking about the firewell. Mr. Fuchs: Water installation and electric installation are generally not bonded. Mr. Orlowski: We would just like to see the well go in before construction starts in there. Mr. Fuchs: Yes, that is our understanding and it is our intention. Mr. Orlowski: That is our only question. I don't have any problem with reducing it to $150,000 dollars. Mr. Fuchs: We don't have any problem with a fire we'll either. We know it has to go in. Mr. Orlowski: I will entertain a motion to reduce the bond. Mr. Edwards: So moved. Mr. Orlowski: What was that number? Mr. Fuchs: What was in the letter? The letter was $125,000, I'm sorry. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., how about $120,0007 'Motion made and seconded to recommend to the Town Board to reduce it to $120,000 dollars. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? PLANNING BOARD 28 June 4, 1991 Ayes: Mr~ Edwards, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Any other questions or co~ents for the Board tonight? Mr. Edwards: Mr. Lark was going to be here tonight to discuss FIDCO map because he met me in the hall on the way in and wanted to know if the Chairman was going to sign them and I said I had no idea what the Chaizman was going to do and I advised him that the Chairman would not sign them without authority from the Town Attorney who has been advising us so he disappeared. Mr. Orlowski: So what do we do? Mr. Edwards: I wouldn't do anything without contacting our Town Attorney. Mr. Lark is claiming that FIDCO is going to sue the Town. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Orlowski: Ail those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Oriowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Being there was no other business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.. / Ja~fe Rousseau, Secretary RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK DATE ~-//-e/ HOUR /~:~/~z Town Clerk, Town of Southolcl