Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-09/30/1991PLANNING 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 Yorl~ 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 SOUTHOLD TG~ PLANNING MINUTES Present were: SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 Bennett Orlowski Jr., Chairman G. Richie Latham Richard Ward Kenneth Edwards Mark McDonald Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Melissa Spiro, Planner Holly Perrone, Secretary Jane Rousseau, Secretary Mr. Orlowski: Good evening, I would like to call this meeting to order. First order of business is to set Monday, October 21, 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. Latham: So moved. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Final Subdivisions Mr. Orlowski: 7:30 p.m. Mattituck Creek Estates (James Cohilt) This major subdivision is for six lots on 19.1220 acres located on the southwest corner of Mill Road and Grand PLANNING BOARD 2 SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 Avenue in Mattituck. SCTM % 1000-107-1-2. We have proof of publication in both the 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 conbut 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: O.K., hearing no further questions, we have a Engineering Report, I'll entertain a motion to adopt it. 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. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ortowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: We have the bond estimate. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED to adopt the bond estimate dated as revised September 20, 1991, and to recommend same to the Town Board. This bond estimate is to take the place of the bond estimate adopted bythe Town Board on March 13, 1991. The current bond estimate is in the amount of $77,900, with an inspection fee in the amount of $4,674.00. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Orlowski: to the map} 1. Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald. Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Opposed? So ordered. The Board would also like to see some revisions The "Open Space Easement" shown as part of Lot Number one is to be re-labeled as "Agricultural Reserve Easement Area." pLANNING BOARD 3 SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 The actual building e~velope, with proper set-backs, is to be indicated for Lot one. The general building envelope shown of 33,965 square feet is not acceptable. The Planning Board is also requiring a declaration of Covenants and Restriction for the Agricultural Reserve Easement area. A copy of these covenants and restrictions will be in the office for anyone to take a look at. They will be available tomorrow morning. That is all I have here, I'll entertain a motion to close this hearing. Mr. Latham: So moved. 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. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: 7:35 - Baxter/Terp - This proposed lot line change is to subtract 8,352 square feet of land from a 121,051 square foot parcel and to add it to a 28,550 square foot parcel located on the east side of Griffing Avenue and State Road 25 in Cutchogue. SCTM ~ 1000-102-5-9.3. We have proof of publication in both the local papers. At this time I'll ask if there are any objections to this lot line change? Hearing none, are there any endorsements? Richard J. Cron: On behalf of the applicant. In the light of the fact that all required documents have now been submitted to this Board, I would move on behalf of the applicant that the application be approved as submitted. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., any other endorsements? Hearing none, is there anyone out there neither pro nor con but may have information pertaining to this application that might 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 entertain a motion to close the hearing. Mr. McDonald: I make a motion to close this hearing. Mr. Latham: Second. ~LANNING BOARD 4 SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Ail those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. McDonald: I would li~e to make a further motion. WHEREA~, William J. Baxter, Jr. and Alfred J. Terp, Jr. are the owners of the property known and designated as SCTM ~ 1000-102-5-9.3 & 5, located at the north side of Route 25 in Mattituck; and WHEREAS, this lot line change, to be known as lot-line change for William J. Baxter, Jr. and Alfred J. Terp, Jr., is for a lot line change subtracting 8,352 square feet from a 121,051 square foot parcel owned by William J. Baxter, Jr. and adding it to a 28,550 square foot parcel owned by Alfred J. Terp, Jr.; 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 August 12, 1991; and WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said lot line amendment application at the Town Hall, Southold, New York on September 30, 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 August 8, 1991, and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final surveys subject to fulfillment of the following conditions. These conditions must be met within six (6) months of the date of this resolution. The submission of corrected surveys showing the tax map number of both lots and the tax map number and area of the portion of the lot to be conveyed. The filing of the deed pertaining.to the merger of. 8,352 square feet from a parcel now owned byWilliam J. Baxter, Jr. and designated as SCTM %1000-102-5-9.3, with a 28,500 square foot parcel now owned by Alfred J. Terp,Jr. designated as SCTM %1000-102-5-5, resulting in a merged parcel of 36,902 square feet. A copy of filed deed must be submitted tO the Planning Board and Liber and Page number of the filed deed must be placed on the survey. ~ ~LANNING BOARD 5 SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and secomded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr, Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: 7:40 p.m. - Porter J. and Mary Goss - This proposed lot line change is to subtract a .09 acre of land from a .74 acre parcel to add it to a .9~ acre parcel on Fishers Island. SCTM ~1000-2-1-13 & 14. We have proof of publication in the local papers and at this time everything is in order to for a lot line change. I'll ask if there are any objections to this lot line change? Hearing none, are there any endorsements of this lot line change? Steven Ham: I am here on behalf of the applicant and request that you approve as submitted. Mr. Orlowski: OoK.~ any other endorsements? Hearing none, is there anyone out there neither pro nor con but may have information pertaining to this application 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 entertain a motion to close this hearing. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. OrlOwski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Does the Board have any pleasure? Mr. McDonald: Mr.-Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution: W~RREAS, Porter J. and Mary Goss are the owners of the property known and designated as SCTM ~1000-2-1-13 & i4, PLANNING BOARD 6 SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 located on the east side of a private road on West Harbor on Fishers Island; and WHEREAS, this lot-line change, to be known as Lot Line Change for Porter J. and Mary Goss, is for a lot line change to subtract .10 acre of land from a .74 acre parcel owned by Porter and Mary Goss and to merge it with an adjoining .99 acre parcel also owned by Porter & Mary Goss; 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 March 11, 1991; and WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said lot-line amendment application at the Town Hall, Southold, New York on September 30, 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 datedNovember 20, 1990, and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final surveys subject to fulfillment of the following conditions. These conditions must be met within six (6) month~ of the date of this resolution. The submission of corrected surveys showing the tax map nu~ers of both lots and the tax map number and area of the portion of the lot to be conveyed. The filing of the deed pertaining to the merger of .10 acre from a lot designated as SCTM ~1000- 2-1-13, with a .99 acre parcel designated as SCTM ~i000-2-1-14, resulting in a merged parcel of 1.09 acres. A copy of the filed deed with the notation that SCTM ~ 1000-2-1-13 is not a separate building lot, must be submitted to the Planning Board, and the Liber and Page number of the filed deed must be placed on the survey. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowksi. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. PLANNING BOARD 7 SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: 7:45 p.m. Porter and Mary Goss and Michael Laughlin - This proposed lot line change is to subtract a .66 acre of land from a 5.47 acre parcel and to add it to a 1.16 acre parcel~on Fishers Island. SCTM ~I000-2-1-15.1 & 16. We have proof of publication in both papers and at this time everything is in order for this hearing° Do you have any objections to this lot line change? Are there any endorsements for this lot line change? Steven Ham: For the applicants. This is a related application as you know and I urge you to approve this. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., any other endorsements? Hearing none, is there anyone out there neither pro nor con but may have information pertaining to this lot line change that may be of interest to the Board? Hearing none, any questions from the Board? Board: No questions. Mr. 0rlowski: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Ward, Mr. OrlOwski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. WHEREAS, Porter & Mary Goss and Michael Laughlinare the owners of the property known and designated as SCTM ~I000-2-1-15.1 & 16, located at the east side of a private road on West Harbor on Fishers Island; and WHEREAS, this lot line change, to be known as Lot line change for Porter & ~ary Goss and Michael Lau~hlin~ is to subtract a .66 acre of land from a 5.47 acre parcel now owned by Michael Laughlin and add it to an adjoining 1.16 acre parcel now owned by Porter and Mary Goss; 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 March 11, 1990; and PLANNING BOARD 8 SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said lot-line amendment application at the Town Hall, Southold, New York on September 30, 1991; and WHEREAS, allthe 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 November 21, 1990, and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final surveys subject to fulfillment of the following conditions. These conditions must be met within six (6) months of the date of this resolutions. The submission of corrected surveys showing the tax map numbers of both lots and the tax map number and area of the portion of the lot to be conveyed. The filing of a new deed pertaining to the merger of .66 acre from the lot owned by Michael Laughlin and designated on the survey as SCTM$1000-2-1-16, with a 1.16 acre parcel owned by Porter and Mary and designated as SCTM #1000-2-1-15.1, resulting in a merged parcel of 1.82 acres. A copy of the filed deed must he submitted to the Planning Board, and the Liber and page number of the filed dead must be placed on the survey. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Hearings Held Over From Previous Meetings: Mr. Orlowski: Eleanor Sievernich- This minor subdivision is for two lots on 3.748 acres located on the east side of Cox Neck Lane in Mattituck. SCTM ~1000-113-8-5. There are no questions or co~m~ents on this subdivision so I will entertain a motion to keep this hearing open since it is subject to a Article 78 proceeding at this time. Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. PLANNING BOARD 9 SEPTEMBER 30, i991 Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. MAJOR ANDMINOR SUBDIVISIONS, LOT LINE CHANGES AND SET OF APPLICATIONS Final Determinations: Mr. Orlowski: Harry & JanetHohn This minor subdivision is for three lots on 7.368 acres located on the southwest corner of Aborn Lane and Nassau Point Road in Cutchogue. SCTM %1000-118-6-t. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion. WHEREAS, Eda L. McKnight Ko,be is the owner of the property known and designated as SCTM ~ 1000-118-6-1 and 3.1, located at Nassau Point Road and Aborn Lane in Cutchogue; and WHEREAS, this minor subdivision, to be known as Minor Subdivision for Harry G. and Janet Hohn, is for three lots on 7.368 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 March 11, 1991; and WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said subdivision application at the Town Hall, Southold, New York on September 9, 1991; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulation of the Town of Southold have been met; and RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board approve and authorize the Chairman to endorse-the final survey dated September 16, 1991. Further I would like to go on record to say that in no way shall the Planning Board's approval refer to anywhere outside the boundary of the subject parcel, not bounded by the C & R's imposed on this parcel. Mr. Ward: Second. PLANNING BOARD l0 SEPTEMBER 30¥ 1991 Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. (Chairman endorsed maps.) Mr. Orlowski: Porter J. and Mary Goss - SCTM %1000-2-1-13 & i4. Already done. Mr. Orlowski: Porter & Mary Goss and MichaelLaughlin - SCTM ~ 1000-2-1-15.i & 16. Already Done. Mr. Orlowski: William J. Baxter, Jr. and Alfred J. Terp, Jr. SCTM %1000-102-5-9.3 & 5. Already Done. Preliminary Extensions Mr. Orlowski: Pamela Hunt (Puritan Farms) - This major subdivision is for eight lots on 17.551 acres located on the southwest side of AckerlyPond Lane; approximately 1040 feet northwest of Lower Pond Road in Southold. SCTT4 %1000-69-5-7. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a six (6) month extension of preliminary approval from October 1, i991 to April 1, i992. Conditional preliminary approval was granted on April 1, 1991. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Ortowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Edwards, Mr. McDonald. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Sketch Determinations: Mr. Orlowski: The Fields at Mattituck - This major subdivision is for twenty-seven lots on 60.4 acres located on the north Side of Bergen Avenue in Mattituck. PLANNING BOARD 11 SEPTEMBF~R 30, 1991 SCTM %1000-113-2-1.1. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant sketch approval on the map dated April 26, 1991 with the following conditions: 1. Proposed Lot Number 4 and proposed Lot Number 5, are to be combined and shown as one lot. 2. Proposed Lots 1, 2 and 3 are to be re-divided as two lots. e A building envelope is to be indicated for the area currently shown as "Open Space Area." All building setbacks must be indicated for the building envelope. A Homeowner's Association will be required for the road and drainage area prior to any final approval by the Planning Board. J Covenants and Restrictions, as determined bythe Planning Board, and a Soil Conservation Management Program, as determined by the Suffolk County Soil Conservation Service will be required for the "large lot" prior to any final approval by the Planning Board. Mr. McDonald: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, FAr. Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: John and JoanPetrocelti - This minor subdivision is for two lots on 9.8 acres located on the east side of Paradise Point Road in Southold. SCTM ~1000-81-3-19.5. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following motion. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant sketch approval on the map .dated August 24, 1991 with the following conditions: 1. There shall be no further subdivision of Lot ~1 '~ ~LANNING BOARD 12 SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 in perpetuity. 2. Any further subdivision of Lot ~2 shall be considered a major subdivision. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. McDonaldt Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Samuel S. Polk - This minor subdivision is for two lots on 4.88 acres located on East End Road Chocomount Hill on Fishers Island. SCTM ~1000-4-5-5.9. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant sketch approval on the map dated April 30, 1990. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Ortowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Michael Adams - This minor subdivision is for two lots on 71.42 acres located on Sound Avenue in Mattituek. SCTM ~1000-121-5-4.1. Mr. Raynor: Mr. Chairman, I represent Michael Adams or the estate of Michael Adams and would ask that the Board make a determination with regard to the sketch. I would like to bring the Board's attention to a resolution, correspondence to the Board in March of 1988. (Gave copies to the Board) I am sure that the Board is well aware that this was a set-off that was granted by resolution of this Board as well as a SEQRA determination granted by resolution of this Board at that time. Certainly I would stand before you saying that there has been some time that has been consumed on those, primarily with the Michael Adams' passing, as well as changes in regard to map PLANNING BOARD 13 SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 specifications of the County. However, should the Board determine to go on with a minor subdivision on this property, I would certainly want them to include and affirm their resolution both with regard to-SEQRAand the sketch approval that was given in 1988. Mr. Orlowski: Ms. Scopaz, do you have any comment on that? Ms. Scopaz: No, other than to say that the Planning Board has been proceeded originally with the application as a set-off and then the application sat for a number of years and when it was revised the decision of the Board was that under our current rules and regulations it would be treated as a minor subdivision and so we're in a sense, picking up where we left off but we are treating it a little bit differently' and in order to prevent there being any confusion as to whether we are treating it as a set-off or a subdivision we were essentially processing it all over again. Mr. McDonald: Are we saying that the SEQRA on this is good still? Ms. Scopaz: Pardon? Mr. McDonald: The SEQRA has been done on this? Ms. Scopaz: I don't believe the SEQRAhas been done on this. Mr. Raynor: I would call your attention to page two and three with regard to some typos. It reads "resolved that the Southold Town Planning Board declare itself Lead Agency on this State Environmental Quality Review Act." You also, that evening approved the set-off by resolution. The minutes are somewhat out'of order which leaves the question in my mind. However, on the prior page, page nine it says "the board to take action on this set-off located on Sound Ave., etc. etc., to determine the Lead Agency statu~ and it goes on." I have no objection to this being held over to the next meeting to clarify where we are or what we are doing. I thought we had been put to bed but apparently, there seems to be some question. Ms. Scopaz: I would like to point out to the Board that even if theSEQRA had been done, the action has not proceeded and the property in question lies within an area that has been designated as part of the special ground water protection area and in a sense had information that it has to consider before proceeding with this set-off or snhdivision regardless. Mr. Raynor: I would also like to point out to this board that there has been no change in this application prior to 1988 or subsequent there to outside of the change that has been initiated in the zoning use in regard to this property. There PLANNING BOARD 14 SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 is no change and you have had the site plan in your possession since 1988. Mr. McDonald: So, any copies that we would be endorsing would have the same date on them as this resolution. Mr. Raynor: I can't speak for what you may have in your file outside of what I have submitted. Mr. McDonald: Obviously, we're not going to approve anything you haven't submitted. Mr. Raynor: The final site plan is not so dete£mined because we went back to polish the thing off with regard to species of trees, planting, set back and we have reorientated the building approximately fifteen degrees. There was some grading specifications as well as a designation set back in the southwestern corner for wetlands. All of which have been complied with. The final site plan has not happened. Mr. McDonald: I would like to ask that we hold this over until the next meeting and review the file. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. McDonald: I have two questions in mind. Is what we are doing the exact same plan as what was done before? If it is, then certainly their conferment that they have done the SEQRA is valid. If it is different, then a change in the plan would warrant another SEQRA. Second of all~ there have been a change of circumstances in the fact that where it previously was an unlisted action, it is now a type I action. There has been a change of circumstances that might warrant it but then again it might not and I would like to see the file to see if there is any change° I don't want to get opinions here, I would just actually like to see the file. Ms. Scopaz: The information that you have submitted here someplace says that the Planning Board started the Lead Agency process, it did not make a determination. Mr. Raynor: I didn't stipulate that it did. Ms. Scopaz: If there was no determination made, then that is the key issue here. Mr. Raynor: I did not vote on the Planning Board, that was there volition, not mine. That is why I brought to the Board's attention that I questioned the sequence that the minutes have been typed in. If you loOk at page ten, as designated it seems to be that the Resolutions are out of sequence. Mr. McDonald: Could you send roughly a letter of your basic intention or would that be too much. PLANNING BOARD 15 SEPTEMBER 30,. 1991 Mr. Raynor: Not at all. But again, I have a copy of the resolution with regard to the statement of the Board with regard to the action then. Mr. McDonald: (Inaudible) Mr. Raynor: No. I would just ask the Board to review it before duplicating. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., we will hold that one up. Mr. Orlowski: ACTM Corporation - This proposal is to set off a 80,000 square foot parcel from an existing 47.0520 acre parcel located on the northwest side of Oregon Road in Cutchogue. SCTM $1000-95-1-3. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following motion. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant sketch approval on the map dated April 10, 1990 with the following conditions: The scale of the final maps must be one inch equals one hundred feet (the current maps are 1" = 200'). 2. The name of the set-off must be revised from ACMT to ACMT. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: DonaldSwahn - This proposal is to set off a 22,000 square foot parcel from an existing 58,500 square foot parcel located on the south side of Park Avenue and Bungalow Lane in Mattituck. SCTM 91000-123-8-8. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. 'PLANNING BOARD 16 SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 RESOLVED THAT THE Southold Town Planning Board grant sketch approval on the map dated April 9, 1991. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Sketch Extensions: Mr. Orlowski: FrankCichanowicz & Thomas Jerome - This major subdivision is for seventeen lots on 35.7022 acres located on the north side of Main Road (SR 25) off Maple Road in Southold. SCTM $ 1000-75-2-8 & 9. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a retroactive six month extension of sketch approval from July 14, 1991 to Januar~ 14, 1992. Mr. McDonald: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: A. P. Sepenoski - This proposal is to set off a 90,697 square foot parcel from an existing ten acre parcel located on Main Road, East Marion. SCTM $ 1000-31-1-5.2. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following motion. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grants a twelve (12) month retroactive extension of sketch approval from February 13, 1991 to February 13, 1992. PLANNING BOARD 17 SE~EMB~ 30, 1991 Mr. McDonald: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Review of Reports: Engineer's Report Mr. Orlowski: Mattituck Creek Estates - SCTM $1000-107-1-2. Has been done already. Bond Determinations: Mr. Orlowski: Mattituck Creek Estates - SCTM ~i000-107-1-2. Has been done already. MAJOR AND MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, LOT LINE CHANGES, SET OFF APPLICATIONS STATE ENV/RO~NTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Lead Agency Process: Mr. Orlowski: The Fields at Mattituck - SCTM $1000-113-2-1.1. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the lead agency coordination process on this unlisted action upon receipt of maps revised in accordance with conditions 1, 2 and 3 of the conditional sketch approval. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? Ail those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. ~LANNING BOARD 18 SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: Harbor View Landing - This major subdivision is for ten lots on 83.117 acres located on Sage Boulevard in Greenport, Southold. SCTM ~1000-53-5-12.5. Mr. McDonald: Fir. Chairman, I would like to offer the following motion. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the lead agency coordination process on this Type I action subject to revised maps as per the Planning Board's last letter. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Fir. Orlowski: Ethel H. Betz - This minor subdivision is for two lots on 1.281 acres located on Calves Neck Road in Southold. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offez the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the lead agency coordination process on this Type I action. Mr. McDonald: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: John & Joan Petrocelli - SCTM $1000-81-3-19.5. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion. RESOLV~m that the Southold Town Planning Board start the coordination process on this Type 1 action. Mr. Ward: Second. PLANNING BOARD 19 SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: ACMT Corporation - SCTM # 1000-95-1-3. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following motion. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the coordination process on this unlisted action. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Samuel S. Polk - SCTM $ 1000-4-5-19.5. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the coordination process on this Type I action. 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. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Michael~Adams - SCTM $ 1000-121-5-4.1. We're holding this is abeyance. Mr. Orlowski: Donald Swahn - SCTM.$1000-123-8-8. ~LANNING BOARD 20 SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following motion. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the coordination process on this Type I Action. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Determinations: Mr. Orlowski: William & Viola DeLuca - This minor subdivision is for two lots on 2.468 acres located on the west side of Breakwater (Luther's) Road in Mattituck. SCTM ~ 1000-99-2-18. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following motion. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, establishes itself as Lead Agency, and as lead agency makes a determination of non-significance, and grants a Negative Declaration. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. 'Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Thomas L. Shalvey - This set off is on a 21.782 acre Parcel located at the southeast corner of Middle Road (CR 48) and Bridge Lane in Cutchogue. SCTM # 1000-84-2-2. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. PLANNING BOARD 21 SEPTE~ 30, 1991 RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, establishes itself as lead agency, and as lead agency makes a determination of non-significance, and grants a~Negative Decla~ation. Mr. McDonald: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Final Environmental Impact Statement Mr. Orlowski: Angel Shores Board to adopt the Final Environmental Impact for the proposed subdivision of Angel Shores. A findings statement will be issued on or before the next public meeting on October 21, 1991. SCTM ~ 1000-88-6-1~ Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman~ I would like to make the following motion. RESOLVED that on this day the Planning Board hereby adopted the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed major subdivision of Angel Shores, Sections I and II, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a preliminary hearing on subdivision maps that have been revised to comply with the Findings Statement be set for November 18, 1991, subject to receipt of such maps by November 1, 1991. The Planning Board will distribute copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement to all coordinating and involved agencies to which the DEIS was sent for review. Copies of the Statement will also be made available to the public through the Planning Board office and through three public libraries located at Southold, Cutchogue and Mattituck. The Planning Board Will issue a Findings Statement after October 9, 1991,.but no later than its next public meeting on October 21, 1991. On November 18, 1991, the Planning Board will hold a preliminary hearing on the revised plans for this subdivision. Ten copies of subdivision plans that eomply with the substance of the Findings Statement shall be submitted to the Planning Board office by November 1, 1991 so that the legal notice can be prepared in time to advertize for the November 18th hearing PLANNING~ARD 22 SEPItEMB~ 30, 1991 date. If revised maps in compliance with the Findings of Fact are not received by this date, the hearing will be rescheduled. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Edwards, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. SITE PLANS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIE~ ACT Lead Agency Coordination Mr. Orlowski: William A. Hands - This proposed site plan is for an extension to a vehicle storage shed located on the north side of Route 25 in Orient. SCTM $ 1000-18-2-32. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the coordination process on this unlisted action. The Board makes an initial determination of non-significance. Mr. Latham: 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. McDonald. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Village Marine - Board to start the coordinated environmental review on this action to remove an existing building and replace it with another. This action is considered a Type I aCtion. SCTM $ 1000-122-3-15. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, t would like to offer the following motion. PLANNING BOARD 23 SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 RESOLVED that the Planning Board hereby starts the lead agency coordination process on this Type I action subject to the receipt of the long environmental assessment form. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Determinations Mr. Orlowski: McDonalds Corporation - Board to respond to the Zoning Board of Appeal's request that the Conditional Negative Declaration be rescinded. SCTM $ 1000-i22-7-3.1. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to read the following letter into the record. This letter is addressed to the law firm of D'Amato, Forchelli, Libert, Schwarz, Mineo, Laurino & Carlino. It say's: The Planning Board read the following statement into the record at its September 30, 1991 meeting. "On July 22, 1991, the Zoning Board of Appeals sent this Board a memorandum asking that we rescind the Conditional Negative Declaration that was filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation on February 12, 1991. Copies of this memo were sent to the applicant, as well as to all coordinating and interested agencies that had participated in the initial environmental review. The Planning Board has reviewed all the correspondence that has been generated by the Zoning Board's request, including the written responses received by the general public. In addition, the Town's Solid Waste Task Force, which has been workin~ with the Town Boardto develop and implement a Solid Waste Management Plan, was asked to review and comment on the responses. Upon review of the information that was sutzmitted, and a review of the Town's Solid Waste Management Plan, the Planning Board has decided not to rescind its Conditional Negative Declaration. The reasons for not rescinding the conditional Negative Declaration are noted here for the record. PLANNING BOARD 24 SEPTEMB~ 30, 1991 First, in our review of the Town's Solid Waste Management Plan which was adopted on March 12, 1991, we noted that the plan specifically calls for a ,a "resource recove~ system: that could effec%ively dispose 70% to 75% of the total waste stream through elements of reduction, re~se, recycling, household hazardous waste removal, and yardwaste compoSting.' (Page S-6 in Solid Waste Management Plan/Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement". However, the plan does not mandate limits to the amount of garbage that may be generated by any commercial, industrial, and institutional operation. Rather, the plan emphasizes the need for legislation and education, specifically in the area of waste reduction. "Reduction of the volume of waste could be achieved through Town support of legislation and other ~niatives that aim to encourage residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional establishments to reduce waste generation at the source or point of packaging. This would effectigely reduce the volume of waste that the Town would need to make ~ collection, processing, disposal, financing.' (Page S-7) "In addit all sectors of the Town (public, ¢ institutional establishments) wou] reduce the generation of waste wh~ responsibility of the Town to hand accomplished through local and re¢ rovisions for with regard to administration, and ion to legislative actions, o~m~ercial, industrial, and d be encouraged by the Tow~ to ch would ultimately become the le and dispose. This can be ional public education programs coordinated by the State." (Page S-8). These proposals are repeated in more detail in Section~5 of the Plan. Second, there is insufficient data upon which to decree hat McDonald's Restaurant would ~se any more or less of a urden on the Town's landfill than any other business. Since the Management Plan lacks a detailed inventory of the volume of waste generated monthly by co~mr~er~ial operations within the Town, it was not possible to compare whether McDonald's projected monthly volume was excessive. The information presented in Table 2.2.2-2 was apDlica~le to Institutions only. Third, the discussion in Section 4 of the Plan emphasized the need for national and State initiative. While there is mention of a two-tier fee system '~hat Would encourage recycling by creating a financial incentive for commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors to recycle ~nd reduce the volume of waste [Page 4-5), there are no proposals to place'caps on the volume of garbage generated by co~m~ercial operations~ Given that there are no specific guidelinesor standards in the Town's Management Plan agains~ which to judge whether the McDonald's Corporation has mitigated the potential environmental impact of its waste stream, this Board finds that it cannot substitute its own judgement in place of the Plan itself. If and when the Town decides to impose a mandatory waste reduction program on all existing commercial and industrial PLANNING BOARD 25 SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 operations, this Board will address this during the environmental review of all proposed commercial and industrial projects. OTHER Mr. Orlowski: Mr~ Cron is here with Mr. Friemann tonight and would like to discuss Mr. Friemann's application. Mr. Richard Cron: I'm here tonight to address the Board with respect to it's letter of March 12th, 1991, addressed to S. H. Frieman and others, with respect to an application made to the Board for a minor subdivision. The results set forth in your letter to Mr. Friemann was to the effect that basically you had converted his application from a minor subdivision to a major subdivision. The basis for that being that there was road construction going to be required by the Board. In turn you enlarged the width of the existing road or street from twenty-two feet to thirty feet, and requiring at the same time a twenty four foot pavement width. The street that is in existence is twenty-two feet in width and is paved to the same extent, and has been in that local for as long as one can remember. The street had the Zoning Board of Approval in terms of Section 280A of the Town Law. If one looks at what this application is all about, there is little or no change with respect to this aPPlication even as to the proposed minor subdivision. What you have is two parcels of land, one of which fronts on Main Street, 132 feet in width, which is currently improved as a business parcel. The application went before the Zoning Board of Appeals basically to get a variance with respect to the parcel, and an adjacent piece to the rear likewide zoned B-business. That is an unimproved parcel. The larger parcel to the rear is in an AC zone which would require clustering in terms of any residential development, and consists of somewhere in the vicinity of seventeen plus acres. The extent of the minor subdivision is basically getting the approval of the unimproved business lot. There is no subdivision pending with respect to the seventeen acres in the rear which houses a perennial nursery operation. There is no contemplated change to that operation. There is no contemplated improvement to the vacant business parcel on the Main Road. I do not believe that this Board has the power, where there is an existing street, Zoning Board of Appeals approved, under Section 280A of the Town Hall, to require a substantial improvement in terms of the construction of that street to a width greater than exists. Not for the purpose of this minor s~bdivision. If you read your own statute, the construction that is talked about in PLANNING BOARD 26 SEPTE~ 30, 1991 subdivision regulations is with respect to a major subdivision. I think the Board itself recognize you could not require such construction certainly with respect to a minor subdivision. Moreover, the construction that the statute.speaks of is with respect to a new street.' A new road in a major subdivision, not an existing road. What you want this application to do, on the basis of a minor subdivision to this Board, is to substantially improve, at great hardship, and cost to this applicant, an existing street which is already approved. I do not believe this Board has the power to compel that. In the light of that, 'I would respectfully request that you reconsider the requirements set forth in you letter of March 12, 1991, and after viewing it, in the light of what I have indicated, make a new determination that the applicant may proceed with his minor subdivision on the basis of the existing road, which is already paved, and has been found by the Zoning Board of Appeals to be in excellent condition, such as to warrant Section 280A Town approval. T~at's basically my pitch to the Board this evening. I think it is an unjust determination by the Board that places this particular application in a major subdivisionarea. I believe the purpose of it is to compel the construction of a street which needs no construction, not for these three lots. Mr. Orlowski: Does the Board have any comments? Board: No co,m~ents. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., we'll look into that. Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Mr. Baxter. Mr. Baxter: I could probably save a lot of time by just saying ditto. Mro Orlowski: Do you want to do that? Mr. Baxter: I won't take much time. As the map indicates there is an existing house on the property. We owna strange h0rse shoe shaped piece of property o~er on the sound and Gallagher has been living in between the horse shoe for, my guess is, thirty years. It Could be thirty-five or fortyyears and he has had this access road right- of- way that is drawn on the map that he uses to go back and forth driveway, as a driveway or what ever you want to call it, an unapproved road and that is what he has been using for forty years to go back and forth to his house. We weren't aware that this was two lots. It was treated as one lot, we thought it was two lots and Bill Wickham discovered a couple of years ago that it is really treated as one lot so we started to.process it by subdividing it and then came up with the proposal from the Board to improve the road. Pave it with catch basins and trees etc. Mostly everything that Dick Cron said applies here. I could really stop there if you PLANING BOARD 27 SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 would like because it is obviously a hardship and I think there is some merit in leaving the road as is. I had. other property just to the east of that with improved roads and they get all gravely and they are difficult to drive on . This path going to Gallagher's house you can ride a bike on. It is a well traveled, useful path. There are only two houses that would ever go there and we are not planning to do anything with it now. Obviously, at some date we could sell the lots. Incidentally, I got another estimate from Young and Young and his estimate was nintey-five hundred dollars higher than the Town Engineer's estLmate so it seems ludicrous to spend $100,000 on a lot that is probably only worth $200,0001 As far as the trees are concerned, I like trees but part of the beauty in the area is the openness, the flatness, there is a real appeal to that and I am not sure at all that trees are going to add anything to the visible environment. I won't comment on the firewell because that is something I don't have any knowledge of and if the Board feels its necessary I couldn't quarrel with that. As far as putting in all the asphalt and improving the driveway that has served so well for thirty-five years, I feel is unnecessary as well as the catch basin. I would appreciate it if you would consider it. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: We'll go out and take a look at it. Mr. Baxter: Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Any other questions or comments from the audience? Mr. Bill Moore: Good evening, I'm here on behalf of the Mohring family. I got a phone call today from Paul Caminiti to ask me to appear here to discuss with you or raise for a brief moment some problems that have developed with same covenants and restrictions that were imposed on Long Pond Estate subdivision which was approved by the Board in November of last year. I have got a copy of the map if you will take a quick look. What these people are seeking is relief from this covenant and restriction. The covenant required common driveways on lots that were paired and we are not getting a lot of cooperation from the purchasers of the lot, in wanting to comply with that covenant. One in particular is troublesome for us now which is lot number thirty~ four. In laying out their property, the buyers had the Mohring's put the garage on the north side of the property. On that piece the curb cut is shown on the south side of the property. Now, everybody bought these lots or are buying these lots and signed the contracts subject to those covenants and restrictions. Having said that it's great to say well, you know stick it to them and we don't like that. But the problem is that we have got one acre lots here with people who are squawking and moaning. You've got garages PLANNING BOARD 28 SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 that have to satisfy the Town's side yard set back. Even on those lots in which the garage is located properly on the same side of the curb cut, the way the covenant is written, you would have to swing your driveway down to the edge of the property. That C & R is written such that you have to share that curb cut with your adjoining lot owner. No one seems to be appreciating the thought process that the Board went to in terms of acquiring it in the first place. I took exception to your acquiring it for a couple of reasons, one of which was my experience has been that you don~t try .and force property owners to work together involuntarily. If you and I are neighbors and we chose to share a hedge or a driveway or share the responsibility for it that is great we can elect to do so as neighbors. But to force it upon neighbors can create a problem. The one I thought of was if someone chose a asphalt driveway and the next guy chose a bluestone driveway you would have different surfaces right there and you could people irritated right off the bat for having to share a curb cut and where these things approach. Any event, the only relief you can give us as I read those things is to have a public hearing with a request from the owners' to amend that covenant or to waive that covenant as to that particular lot. So I'm here tonight to ask that perhaps you'll put it on your next agenda to open that up and I would be happy to have these various lot owners come in and explain, their thought process as to why they don't like this. At the present, we are seeking Certificate of Occupancy for the Flatley's who have built and the Conway's who have built and the Building Department doesn't want to issue us a C.O. unless we can put the driveways in, in satisfaction with that covenant and restriction. I'm not sure how we are going to solve that problem. They've got bank financing and things that are running out on them.. We can work that out with the Building Department for the time being but it is a problem we have got and we're going to have to seek some relief here. Mr. McDonald: You said that Mr. Mob_ring placed a garage in that location. He did the subdivision as well, right? Mr. Moore: Right. Mr. McDonald: So he was well aware of the covenants and restrictions when he placed the garage. Mr. Moore: Right, absolutely. When the people bought the lots and contracted for the houses, those were subject to that covenant And restriction also. The bulk of them worked out even though the people don't like ...... You have lots twenty-five and twenty-six, the garages were put on the respectively south and north sides. The people still don't like the notion the driveways go down, the driveways don't come down to the exact corner. I haven't checked this physically, with a survey to see but I'm told the driveways don't go down to the corner. They are at least on the same side in that theory. The same goes for the pair of twenty-seven and twenty-eight. The PLANNING BOARD 29 SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 next required pair then is thirty-two and thirty-three which is not a problem at the moment. Flatley's house has the garage on the north side, it can go down to that if it absolutely has to. In the processof getting the Certificate of Occupancy, they asked please, please, don't make us put the driveway down on the corner down there. Intheir case, the garage faces north so somehow in terms of doing it, sweeping curb to get into their garage when you come in from the corner it doesn't work. I don~t know, I don't design driveways~ The one where it has become a real problem is in the Conway house, the garage and the house as it was laid out as the Conway's wanted it and the Mohring's built it, they put the garage on the north side and that is the most glaring problem because the curb cut in that one does'nt share because it curves to the south. There is the problem. Mr. Orlowski: Didn't the Mohring~s have an idea that they had a problem? Mr. Moore: The only one that came to be a problem was Conway and I don't know if it was an oversight on everybody's part or what have you. Everyone else is matched up fine. Mr. McDonald: In reality, they may not be matched up at all. Mr. Moore: In reality, it may not be down to the corners of the lots. One of the problems was, and I didn't even realize it at the time, is there is no curb, this is the town,road. Laurel Avenue is a town road and in fact there is no fact there is no curb there. Had the curbs been placed byMohring, you would see the curb cuts and we would all say, well there they are and they would have been very visible to see. There is certainly no intention to slide something pass this Board because it doesn't do any good. Mr. Orlowski: You've got C.O.'s on the other lots don't you. Mr. Moore: I've.got C.O.'s on the other ones so I can only assume that the TOWn and building people didn't notice that on the survey's that were given to them. At least some of.the survey's that I have seen have the curb cuts shown down on there and whether or not the thing actually goes to it I don't know. Interestingly enough., something that strikes me as why I took exception to that covenant in the first place. Although I understand it on multiple lots fronting on a road,~.. Mr. Ward: Part of the deal was to allow it on the road rather than build them all off an interior road. So the subdivider got a break to start with by doing that. We shouldn't have to force these peopleto have to work together. Let me. ask you, if there were two flag lots in the back, and rather than building a road we told them they could have a conauon driveway with flag lots, would .you be opposed to that? Forcing the two neighbors to work together. PLAk~NING BOARD 30 SEPTE~I~ER 30, 1991 Mr. Moore: Yes, I am.always troubled by that because when I sit here for a developer and we've got to debate agreeing to a condition on a map to accomplish the map, and then trying to market that map, yes, I really am troubled by sharing those things beca~se you do require then all kinds of agreements and people who are willing to work together, some people just don't want to do it. Something like this you really are pushing neighbors. Mr. McDonald: Can we tell Mr. Baxter on legal counsel for Mr. Moore that we can't do flag lots there. Mr. Latham: Do people choose the surface of their driveways in this development? Mr. Moore: They can. Mr. McDonald: There are no specs on the driveway so you can do whatever you want. Everyone talking at once. Mr. Moore: Another interesting point to think about and maybe it is more appropriate to argue it at a public hearing to re-open this is that the-way that curb cut language was required of you and I took your language and put it in a covenant and restriction. There is no restriction on the number of curb cuts so theoretically the Conway's and Flatley's the Conway's may have to put in a circular driveway. A lot of discussion. Mr. McDonald: The minutes should show clearly that our intent was to reduce the number of it, so that it is on record that that is the purpose of this. Mr. Moore: I am just saying that I'm dealing with the purchaser's attorney who bought a piece of PropertY subject to the covenant who liked the house this way. Whether it was an oversight on everybody's part or somebody who knew and didn't say anything, like I said there is no benefit for us to play games like this. Mr. McDonald: Well, we're going to go out and take a look at that too. Mr. Moore: I'll confirm a request in writing to open this as a public hearing, pursuant to the C & R'swhich has the language for a public hearing ..... majority plus one. Mr. McDonald: I'm sure you will get a letter from us either saying you are going to get a hearing or that we're going to enforce. PLANNING BOARD 31 SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 Mr. Moore: Well, I'm still entitled to request a hearing. You can deny the hearing. Mr. Orlowski: We'll just take a look and review the whole thing. 5ir. Moore: O.K., thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Anyone else out there that would like to say anything out there tonight? Nancy S.: I would just like to say that I was very happy to'see you at the ~aster Plan that was put on the other night and I was very disappointed that Scott Harris wasn't there and I congratulate you Benny for caring about our Town. Now that 'you've not rescinded your negative declaration on McDonald's does that mean that it won't go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals now you'll ....... Mr. Orlowski: No, it's at the Zoning Board of Appeals. They have to make a determination. Nancy S.: They just handed their site approval in the other day. Mr. McDonald: No, we're not doing anything until the Zoning Board of Appeals makes their decision. Nancy S.: I would like to give you this article that Hampton Bays didn't get their approval for a zone change. Mr. Orlowski: This is a zone change, they wouldn't have gotten it here either. Nancy S: Well, it's just interesting, maybe you didn't see it. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. all those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Being there was no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m~. Re~ct fully~itted, ~ane Rousseau, ~ennett Ofl6w~ski Ur. , Ch~i~man~