Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-07/16/1990PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward ~'Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (5 ! 6) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 MINUTES JULY 16, 1990 Present were: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Richard Ward Kenneth Edwards Mark McDonald Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Melissa Spiro, Planner Holly Perrone Mr. Orlowski: Good evening, public hearings our first order of business. 7:30 p.m. Margaret J. Gada - This minor subdivision is for three lots on 4.25 acres located on Fishers Island. SCTM $1000-10-7-2.1 Everything is in order at this time for a final hearing. We have proof of publication in the local papers and I'll ask if there are objections to this subdivision? Hearing none, are there any endorsements of this subdivision? Hearing none, is there anyone out there neither pro nor con that 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. Does the board have any pleasure at this time on this subdivision? Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion. WHEREAS, Margaret J. Gada is the owner of the property known and designated as SCTM $ 1000-10-7-2.1, located at Fishers Island in Southold; and PLANNING BOARD 2 JULY 16, 1990 WHEREAS, this minor subdivision, to be known as Margaret J. Gada Subdivision, is for three lots on 4.25 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 February 13, 1990; and WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said subdivision application at the Town Hall Southold New York on July 16, 1990; 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 approve and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final survey dated 2-28-90. 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. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. (Chaizm~u~endorsed maps~ Mr. Orlowski: Next order of business at 7:35 p.m. Francis P. Mell¥ - This lot line change is to add 1018 square feet to an 11,495 square foot parcel, located at Cutchogue. SCTM ~1000-68-1-4.5. At this time everything is in order for a public hearing. I'll ask if there are any objections to this lot line change? Hearing none, are there any endorsements of this lot line change? Hearing none, any questions from the board? Board: No questions. Mr. Orlowski: Being there are no questions, I will declare this hearing closed. Right now, the Planning Board is waiting for five paper prints and two mylars which state that a declaration of covenants and restrictions have been filed. So we will wait for those. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., hearings held over from the previous meeting at The North Forty - This major subdivision is for thirteen lots on 30.3565 acres on the south side of Oregon Road; 621 feet west of Depot Lane in Cutchogue. PLANNING BOARD 3 JULY 16, 1990 SCTM # 1000-95-4-14.1. Does anyone have any questions or comments on this? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to keep it open. 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. Orlowski, Mr. McDonald. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Baxter Sound Estates - This minor subdivision is for two lots on 5.022 acres located on the north side of Oregon Road; 1100 feet west of Bridge Lane in Cutchogue. SCTM 9 1000-72-2-2.1 & 3. I'll ask if there are any questions on this subdivision? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to keep this hearing open also. Mr. Edwards: I'll make a motion to keep this hearing open. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Wa~d, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. MAJOR AND MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, LOT LINE CHANGES AND SET OFF APPLICATIONS Final Determinations: Mr. Orlowski: Sidney W. Olmstead~ Jr. and Robert W. Olmsted - This minor subdivision is for three lots on 3.3 acres located on the north side of Westphalia Avenue; 123 feet west of County Road 48 at Mattituck. SCTM $ 1000-114-7-14. Mr. Ward: ~r. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. WHEREAS, Sidney W. Olmsted, Jr. and Robert W. Olmsted are the owners of the property known and designated as PLANNING BOARD 4 JULY 16, 1990 SCTM ~1000-114-7-14, located on the north side of Westphalia Avenue; 123 feet west of County Road 48 in Mattituck; and WHEREAS, this minor subdivision, to be known as Sidney W. Olmstead, Jr. and Robert W. Olmstead, is for three lots on 3.3 acres; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8), Part 617, declared itself Lead Agency and issued a Negative Declaration on December 5, 1988; and WHEREAS~ a final public hearing was closed on said subdivision application at the Town Hall, Southold, New York on June 4, 1990; 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 approve and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final survey dated April 16, 1990. 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. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. (Chairman endorsed maps) Mr. Orlowski: Margaret Gada That has been done already. Mr. Orlowski: Pauline W. Ketch~ - This lot line change is to add 5187 squ'are feet to a 7500 square foot parcel located at Cutchogue. SCTM # 1000-137-5-17. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would to offer the following resolution. RESOLVEDthat the resolution of June 25, 1990 setting Monday, July 16, 1990 for 7:40 p.m. for a final public hearing on the maps dated June 20, 1990 be rescinded. Mr. Ward: Second. PLANNING BOARD 5 JULY 16, 1990 Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a further motion. WHEREAS, Pauline W. Ketcham is the owner of the property known and designated as SCTM ~ 1000-137-5-17 and Edwin J. and John P. Reuttiger are the owners of the property known and designated as SCTM$ 1000-137-5-16, located at Hamilton Avenue and Glenwood Road in Cutchogue; and WHEREAS, a complete application for the approval of this lot line change, to be known as Pauline W. Ketcham Lot Line Change was submitted on September 14, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planing Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8), Part 617, declared itself Lead Agency and issued a Negative Declaration on May 14, 1990; and WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said subdivision application at the Town Hall, Southold, New York on June 4, 1990 at 7:40 p.m.; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; and now therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final survey dated June 20, 1990. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. McDonald. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. (Chairman endorsed maps). Final Extensions: Mr. Orlowski: August Acres - This major subdivision if for 36 lots on 43.062 acres located at Arshamomaque. PLANNING BOARD 6 JULY 16, 1990 SCTM % 1000-53-4-44.1 & 44.2. Mr. Edwards: I would like to offer the following motion. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a ninety (90) day extension of conditional final approval. Conditional final approval was granted on January 18, 1990, the extension will run until October 18, 1990. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. MAJOR AND MINOR SUBDIVISION, LOT LINE CHANGES, SET' OFF APPLICATIONS _ STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Determinations: Mr. Orlowski: Puritan Farms (formerly Michael Hunt & Pamela Hunt) - This major subdivision is for eight lots on 17.5551 acres located on the southwest side of Ackerly.Pond Lane; approximately 1040 feet northwest of Lower Pond Road in Southold. SCTM % 1000-69-5-7. Mr. McDonald: 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 detezmination of non-significance, and grant a Negative Declaration. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Salvatore & Jeanne Catapano - This minor subdivision is for three lots on 13.73 acres located on the easterly side of South Harbor Road at Southold. SCTM ~ 1000-69-6-9.2. PLANNING BOARD 7 JULY 16, 1990 Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the following motion. 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. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. SITE PLANS Final Detez~.inations: Mr. Orlowski: Antoinette Notaro, M.D. - This site plan proposes to change an existing residential dwelling into a doctor's office. SCTM $1000-61-4-18. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer~thefollowing 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. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution, WHEREAS, Antoinette Notaro, M.D. is the owner of the property known and designated as Antoinette Notaro, M.D. SCTM $1000-64-1-18, located at 170 Mechanic Street, Southold; and WHEREAS, a formal application for the approval of this site plan was submitted on June 28, 1990; and PLANNING BOARD 8 JULY 16, 1990 WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; and RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant conditional final approval onthe surveys dated July 11, 1990, and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final surveys subject to fulfillment of the following conditions. All conditions must be met with six (6) months of the date of this resolution. 1. Health Department approval. 2. Certification by the Building Departm-ent 3. Acceptance by the PlanningBoard of a landscape plan showing buffer plantings between parking area and south property line and the retention (to the extent pessible) of buffer vegetation on the north property line. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a point that the conditions included in this are only being granted because the applicant has indicated that there is going to be extreme hardship if this is not granted. This is not going te be a normal course of events that some are granted prior to certification by the Building Department or Health Department approval and this not some kind of new standard on our part, it is only because of the extreme hardship that she is pleading for this case, that we are granting this. Mr. Orlowski: You are rightMr. McDonald, we are not setting a precedent but there is a hardship here. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. SITE PLANS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWACT Antoinette Notaro~ M.D. - We have done. LOCAL LAW PROPOSALS Mr. Orlowski: Local law to increase required minimum acreage for Motel/Hotel uses in Hamlet Business district. PLANNING BOARD 9 JULY 16, 1990 Mr. Orlowski: The required lot size now is one acre but this will be increased to three acres. What is the pleasure of the board? Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I offer the following resolution to reco~u,end the adoption of this local law. Mr. McDonald: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. McDonald. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Board to set Monday, August 13, 1990 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. Ward: So moved. Mr. McDonald: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, F~. McDonald, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Approval of the June 4th Planning Board Minutes. 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, ~r. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. McDonald. Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Orlowski: Chairman to re-endorse the maps. Opposed? So ordered. Scott Kaufman - Board to authorize the SCTM ~1000-97-3-20. PLANNING BOARD 10 JULY 16, 1990 Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED THAT THE Southold Town Planning Board authorize the Chairman to re-endorse the final surveys date July 31, 1989 with the following condition: That no building permits be issued until the fire well has been installed by the Developer and accepted by the Cutchegue Fire District. This subdivision was approved on April 30, 1990 and endorsed on the same date. However, as the Health Department approval expired prior to the filing of the maps, it was necessary that the maps be re-endorsed by the Chairman. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: maps). Opposed? So ordered. (Chairman re-endorsed Mr. Orlowski: Mr. James DeLucca scheduled an appointment regarding the Mendelson Site Plan. Mr. DeLuca is here and will answer any questions you may have. Mr. Delucca - I brought some sketch plans that maybe the beard would like to take a look at while I am talking so that they may get a better understanding of what I'm talking about. Mr. Orlowski: ~e these new ones? Mr. DeLucca - Basically, it addresses some of the things that were in the letter and it is just a sketch plan so as I'm talking to you, I feel that sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. I only brought slx copzes. I have three ~heets. Addressing the code t~ the letter as (inaudible). Just a couple of, I tried to do my homework on this over the week-end and just to bring out a relative matter before we go any further with this. If o~e of the requirements that was proposed to me since this conception of this project was to adjoin the parking lot to the east, the existing parking lot. Upon examination of that site next door and I just want to run some statistics by you so you can understand where I'm coming from. Basically, those buildings are all doctors almost 90% are doctors or for medical use. There is, approximately, next door 8,700 square feet of office space and approximately 70 parking stalls~ Out of that 70 parking stalls, 22 of them do not meet the code at all. They don't even approach meeting the PLANNING BOARD 11 JULY 16, 1990 code. Back up distances are off by 4 to 8 feet, no turning radius and 7 of them can't even be entered properly. The interconnecting driveways are twelve feet where they are suppose to be twenty-four feet so if you start backing down into numbers which this is the question we are talking about here, numbers as far as parking stalls relevant to area. If you take the total number of 70 and divide it out the square footage that they have next door, you have one stall for every hundred and twenty five feet of area. If you back out the illegal stalls, iwhich again do not meet the code at all that was in place when those buildings were built, you have. a parking area of one-hundred and ninety-three feet of floor area for parking stalls.~ Now, it is basically my observation of those buildings, I found that most I've seen probably twelve cars or maybe fifteen cars in there at most at one particular time. Now, one of the requirements was for me to connect my driveway or our parking with that which is existing. If I were to do that I would wipe out all of these p~rking stalls because that is only thirty-eight feet wide. You have interconnecting driveways, you have to have two way traffic, you have to have twenty-four feet. I would.wipe out seven legal stalls that he has there plus another nine on the other side so you are talking about reducing his parking by about sixteen stalls for me to interconnect which is bringing down his number significantly and bringing up his ratio probably close to two-hundred and fifty square feet per parking area so that is one way and I don't know how we can agree to do that because ~'11 have to take the man's parking for ia drivewaY. The second thing is, I was told to push my buildings forward to meet his building and I agreed with that in prinCipl~ andif you look, at all of the sketches one, two and three were basically very even with his, with the corner of that building, (inaudible) beyond the required setback. Far beyond what is required by the cede. Then I was told to add a planting buffer on the south side which you can see on drawing two. Drawing two shows the stingfootprint th~ same as drawing one with an ~rea of ,700 feet in building area and basically what I did was I reduced the front of the planting buff from twenty-five to twelve feet which is also permitted and is still keeping the buildingbasically in line with the other one. Thereby, if I still keep the same ratio, five parking stalls per dental office, I'm still over the required number of parking stalls at one-hundred a~d fifteen. NOw, if in fact I go for the true parking requirements that is suggested in the letter, if you turn to drawing three, the site the building comes out to 13,400 square feet and I have one-hundred and thirty,four parking stalls. Two-thi~ds of the site or better ~han the three to one ratio is covered with pavement. Now, if next door has a similar use and has an area of one stall per 190 feet, you want me to have a parking area of one stall per hundred square feet and I don't know where we're going here, something is basically wrong. As you can see, this is to the code and you have almost all pavement. For every hundred square feet of building area you have three-hundred and fifty feet of asphalt. So as far as my interpretation of the PLANNING BOARD 12 JULY 16, 1990 ordinance, if you are having seventeen doctor's offices at most and the ordinance says you are required to have five parking stalls per physician and we're having seventeen physicians in that building, to me that adds up below the parking requirement that we originally put on the first drawing. At that ratio, on the first drawing we would have ninety stalls and I provided one-hundred and fifteen. If I dropped down to the assumption that the plans examiner says that we are going to, then we are going to have mixed office use~ We are going to have doctor's offices and we'll sign a covenant to that effect but they're telling me "no we're not going to have doctor's offices there, we're going to have other people in there" and we're telling you it is a medical center; but you can see the ratio of parking here is - - in that other place we're 8700 square feet and if there are twelve cars in there it's a lot. I made a study, I've been there about eight times in the last two weeks and the most I counted were twelve cars in that parking lot. Ward: Who is the developer? Mr. DeLuca: Stanley Mendelson, who owns Steadman Building Products. Mr. Ward: Is he going to have a lease with the doctor consortium? Mr. DeLuca: Yes, that is what he proposes, that is what he is going to do. I'm making this proposal to you people. Mr. Ward: What we have done, when we have less parking, you take your scheme three, which would be as if it didn't go that way you obviously went one retail, one business or whatever it was, your scheme three would have the adequ/ate parking for it. We have taken scheme three and reduced parking to allow for that but we have not allowed for the additional building. Mr. DeLuca: We proposed it as physicians and we stand to what we originally proposed but as you can see in scheme three if you go to that parking, look at the enormous amount of cars that you have. You couldn't have all those people in that building if the cars came in there. Mr. Ward: Our problem is down the road if the use changes then the parking could be developed whereas if we go the other way it can't be. Mr. DeLuca: I don~t disagree with you but if you take a look at scheme three I think you will have to agree with me. Look at the enormous amount of parking that is on this, you couldn't fit the people in the building. Mr. Ward: It is more than you would need for a doctors office. PLANNING BOARD 13 JULY 16, 1990 Mr. DeLuca: Absolutely. I think if you take a look at the elevations. They propose a nice looking building, it is all brick veneer and all colonial style and if we landscaped it adequately, I mean we have not objected to anything but some of the things proposed, I mean it is just impossible to do. Mr. Orlowski: Is this all red brick? Mr. DeLuca: Yes, the elevations are over there. I gave them along with the proposed building. Again, if you tie that in with the parking lot, we'll wipe out his parking if we tie into him. Mr. Ward: Just what do you propose to do? Mr. DeLuca: I would like to do scheme two. Mr. Ward: You can't do scheme two because we don't have any covenances or anything. Mr. DeLuca: I want to develop in that sense. I don't want to go through all the drainage requirements and the landscaping plans and everything again. Mr. Ward: We have to see it upfront in order to deal with that. We have to see leases etc.. Mr. McDonald: We've discovered that everythi~g~is promised and as soon as the site plan approval is granted everything else happens. Mr. DeLuca: We'll give you a covenant. Mr. McDonald: Who is going to enforce the covenant? Mr. DeLuca: We have to get use permits for every use that goes into the building. We have to get use permits for everything. Mr. Ward: I would rather see you file number three with less parking and then at least if it does go to retail or some other use you can always add a parking lot. Mr. DeLuca: I don't follow what you are saying. Mr. Ward: I'm saying take scheme three which is less building and if you ever do anything else in the future you can always add the parking. Mr. DeLuca: So in other words you are saying eliminate the parking. PLANNING BOARD 14 JULY 16, 1990 Mr. Ward: No I'm saying with scheme three with 13,500 foot square building or whatever it is, it allows for any use to go Mr. DeLuca: We don't plan to use it for any use, we plan to go to physicians. Mr. Ward: Fine, in the meantime we can go according to code and eliminate some parking and have some more landscaping. Mr. DeLuca: Fine, that is exactly what we want to do. Mr. Ward: But we are looking at scheme three and not at two. Mr. DeLuca: Well the thing is, are you going to require me to go five parking stalls per physician or are you going to require one per hundred square feet. That is the question this proposes. Mr. Ward: I would assume, that if we had a covenant that it was going to be medical offices, and we went with scheme three, we could develop less parking and it would also be less building. If it changes we can add the parking back. Mr. DeLuca: But, if we are keeping it five stalls per physician then we are entitled to a larger building. Mr. Ward: Not necessarily. Mr. DeLuca: Well if we meet all the requirements under our filed office areas and we file a covenant that we are going to file that they can't issue building permits over and above what we are applying for. Mr. Ward: What do we do, then we get back into the position of hardship. Mr. DeLuca: That's the Zoning Board of Appeals° Mr. Ward: We're not interested in that kind of a situation. Mr. DeLuca: We're proposing a building. In other words if I come in and I tell you I'm going to use a building as a restaurant you~can't say to me, well you might make a movie theater out of it. We're not proposing that, we are proposing a physician's office. Mr. Ward: We would need something in writing from the developers as to what his intent is and for our Town Attorney to start with. Mr. DeLuca: The reason I am presenting this and I don't want to go through spending this man's money going through all kinds of calculations and drainage profiles and everything else, I mean these drawings cost a lot of money to produce and I don't PLANNING BOARD 15 JULY 16, 1990 want to do that unnecessarily if I'm going to work on the premises. Mr. Ward: You have got to realize that you are going to be limited. Mr. DeLuca: He understands that. Mr. McDonald: building and I appreciate that you h. you can do better in terms of parkin, whatever building is here doesn't h~ have any real high visibility at all be any retail in it. I know that this is in line with the adjacent ~ve done that but I think ~. Especially since ~e to be visible, it doesn't since there's proven not to Mr. DeLuca: I don't disagree with t~ lat at all. What I am asking for is input on your part to give me a direction to go to where we can strike a happy medium, of the law you've got parking all ow Mr. McDonald: I think what Mr. Ward step. We need to see something from his intentions of the use then we'll be a good starting point. Mr. Ward: Because otherwise we woul any guarantees. )ut as you see at the letter ~r the place here. has said. would be the first your applicant that shows go over it and that would be looking at it without Mr. DeLuca: We would be willing to ~ovenant the building. If the owner of the property is going tO lock himself into ~ use, that's his problem it's not my problem or anyone else's. Mr. McDonald: Do you think we could work together and submit it so we can get it over with. We~ve g~t a start now and we just have to get a little bit of paper work together. Mr. Orlowski: Can these parking lots be connected on the southeast corner of this property? Mr. DeLuca: That parking area doesnltmeet the code either. It is only thirty-~ight feet wide. The driveway doesn't meet the code either, it is only twelve feet wide and isn't a two way driveway. I don't know how they could do it but that's history already. Mr. Orlowski: Well, we learn a lot from our mistakes. Mr. DeLuca: What I'm saying is how can you tie into other areas that do not meet the code. Mr. McDonald: We have to weigh the relative merits of what is gained and what is lOst. That is one of the reasons we here to see if that connection causes more good or more harm. PLANNING BOARD 16 JULY 16, 1990 Mr. DeLuca: I have the measurements just briefly on that back parking loto It has got seven stalls and it's four foot short of backup distance and then it's got a twelve foot driveway which is only one way and then that leads into a parking area that is only thirty-six feet Wide which is approximately eight feet short and that only has a twelve foot driveway. So as far as two way traffic in and out of any of these driveways that is adjacent to this building is totally impossible because they are only twelve feet wide. Mr. McDonald: Why don't you leave that to us. Mr. DeLuca: I'm talking about two way traffic. Mr. McDonald: There may be other options as well. We'll review that. Mr. Orlowski: Ms. Scopaz, do you have a question? Ms. Scopaz: I would just like to draw out a suggestion. Perhaps the board would like to schedule a field inspection and we'll take all of Mr. DeLuca's prints out and then get back to him as to an answer to his question both on the parking issue as well as the connecting of the two places. Mr. DeLuca: Absolutely, and on that field inspection if I could possibility accompany you on that inspection, I would be more than happy to take the time to do that. Mr. Orlowski: I would like tO get some internal connections here somewhere if we cant Mr. Ward: Well, we'll take a look. Mr. DeLuca: My client is more than happy to work with the board. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., but we need covenants and restrictions. Mr. DeLuca: Sure~ I'll take care of that. I'll have his attorney draw it up and it will tell you that basically the building is going to be used for medical offices. Ms. Spiro: Do you.want these back? Mr. DeLuca: No, I made plenty of copies. You can have them. The scale is there but the lines were quickly drawn. Mr. Orlowski: Alright. Mr. DeLuca: I want to thank the board. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., I have nothing left on my agenda. Any questions from the board? Are there any other public comments? PLANNING BOARD 17 JULY 16, 1990 Mr. R. Goldman: I'm representing the North Fork Environmental Council. For the record, we have a memo tonight for the board concerning the August Acres subdivision. You all have copies. Would it be alright for me to just read this since there are so few of us here tonight? If you just want to go through it. If you have any questions ~hout it. I think what we would like to do is get together with you folks at some point and start talking about this particular situation in that whole general area between Pipes Cove and Long Pond. Mr. McDonald: Will you send a copy of this to the Town Attorney's office. Mr. Goldman: Yes, we will. The memo reads as follows: After review of information contained in the Planning Department's records, the Southold Town Code, and SEQRA regulations we note the following: The application seems to have become null and void between the dates of December 24th, 1975 and June 21st, 1976. Final conditional approval was granted by the Planning Board on 6/23/75. Section 106-24-F-2 of the Southold Town code states in part that the conditional approval shall expire 180 days after the resolution of the Plarming Board to approve a final plat subject to conditions and that the applicant has the right to petition the board for two 90 day extensions. The applicant himself states in a letter of the board dated 4/20/89, "Since conditions of the final approval were not complied with within the 180 days allotted, the final approval lapsed." However, the applicant proceeded to install roads and drainage systems on the property. This seems to us to have been illegal. Fourteen years later the applicant requested a final hearing in front of the Planning Board, apparently to gain final approval. The board required the applicant to pay fees, make a Wetlands application to the Trustees, and prepare a long form EAF and an EIS as per SEQRA. Subsequently, the Town Attorney ruled that the project was not subject to SEQRA. (Letter from J. Schondebare to Stern & Altamari - 1/27/89). We would submit to the board that: 1) The initial application was and is null and void and that consequently: ae The Town should not have allowed the applicant to construct roadways and drainage systems on the property. B. The applicant should have been requested to PLANNING BOARD 18 JULY 16, 1990 re-file for sub-division under existing zoning. Ce The board should have required the applicant to re-file for subdivision when he requested a final hearing in 1988. 2) The board was essentially correct to require the applicant to prepare a long form EAF and was essentially correct to require a full EIS. The granting of a preliminary plat approval in 1974 is not necessarily an "excluded action" under SEQRA regulations. Section 617.2p states that "In the case of an action where it is still practicable either to modify the action in such a way as to mitigate adverse environmental effects, or to choose a feasible or less environmentally damaging alternative, the commissioner may, atthe request of any person, or on his own motion, require preparation of an environmental impact statement;.." We would reiterate however, that the application was null and void and that any resubmittal for subdivision occuring after 11/1/78 would be fully subject to SEQRA. 3) August Acres is only one of several subdivisions proposed for the area between Pipers Cove and Long Pond. NFEC feels that the cumulative impacts of these subdivisions including Bayview, Bayberry Estates, Long Pond Estates, and Port of Egypt expansion should be examined via a GEIS under SEQRA. Mr. Goldman: Holly, would you please give Mr. Arnoff a copy of this? golly: Sure. Mr. Orlowski: This application dates back to 1975. Mr. Goldman: Before, 1974. It's ancient. Mr. Orlowski: What is the goal of the Environmental Council as far as this application? Mr. Goldman: Well, it is sort of a red flag as to the whole situation. In that general area there is about four or five subdivisions and a large marina expansion going on there at Port of Egypt and we feel that there is some Environmental Impacts that need to be taken a look at in a cumulative way. Especially on the Arshamomaque Pond, which apparently has lost shell fishing this yearbecause of some chloroform problemswhich may be caused by road run off but with the addition of thirteen lots here and another eighteen there, thirty six there and the marina expansion, all this stuff will have an impact on that set of waterways. There is another small creek near Pipes Cove and small ponds and wetlands and it is a pretty sensitive area and PLANNING BOARD 19 JULY 16, 1990 SEQRA is a very good tool for exploring all that and helping to make wise decisions up there. As far as the procedure and the process on this one it is a convoluted tale. The end result would be that we would like to see some SEQRA applications for that whole area. Mr. Orlowski: Now as these applications are coming in surrounding this one there will definitely be a detailed environmental impact statement's done on all of them. I mean this dates back to 1974. Mr. McDonald: I might suggest there is a model what Suffolk County in the Town of Easthampton did there in (inaudible) which is a very similar water body situation to Arshamomaque. What they did was a pre-study sort of based on some DEC guidelines and DEC has management guidelines and they did a fairly extensive environmental impact study of creek area. They didn't look at it as a project by project area, they took a look at the resource first. Mr. Ward: Did DEC do that? Mr. McDonald: No, Suffolk County Planning Department did it at the request I believe of the Town of Easthampton and they had a very good handle on what the resource could hand and what the resource was all ~out as opposed to looking at it from a project point of view. They looked at it from the waterbodies point of view and that is always preferable to. looking at it saying well how many units can we get in there. It is more like we'll look at the stream and what is this stream all about and what is this waterbody all about and what can it handle. Mr. Orlowski: We've inquired about those monies and a lot of that has dried up right Mark? Mr. McDonald: There is no money coming in the near future for these kinds of projects. Mr. Goldman: We would be happy to sit with the board and try to loosen something up, there is always money someplace. Mr. McDonald: Are you proposing a geneic? Mr. Goldman: It is probably a good idea for that area. If we can get some definition of what the area is. Mr. McDonald: Who would pay for the generic? Mr. Goldman: Well, that would be the responsibility of the Lead Agency. I think what we need first is to sit down and have a think session about how to deal with this one before we make any hard reco~endations about who is going to pay, who is going to be Lead and where it is going to come from. PLANNING BOARD 20 JULY 16, 1990 Mr. McDonald: What kind of response are you expecting from this? Mr. Goldman: Just a meeting with you all to discuss it further and get a dialogue going. Just so we can figure out who else should be involved. Mr. McDonald: This is specifically pointed out at a subdivision, although you mentioned the fact that there are others. Your points are pointed at one subdivision rather than other subdivisions as well. I'm specifically referring to those A, B and C. Mr. Goldman: Well, that is a very sticky situation. It's highly unlikely that you are going to turn around and say to this guy clear up your road I mean what would you do with the stuff anyway at this point. Mr. McDonald: I guess what I'm asking is you don't have to tip your head, but are you considering litigation? Mr. Goldman: We haven't thought about it yet. Mr. Ward: What we have at this point is your North Fork Environmental Council, I guess what you're saying has identified this area as the most important environmental area in town to do a study on. Mr. Goldman: No, No that is not what we are saying. We're saying that this particular subdivision sort of sets off a red flag for us to look at this whole area. We always say to the So~thold Town Board that we respectfully remind the boards that there is pending litigation and basically all bets are off until that litigation is resolved so if nothing else, it gives us some time to sit down and put our heads together and get creative about what really could be done and what really can't be done. That is all we're saying here. We need to sit down. Mr. Orlowski: You know I don't know how much time the board would have to sit down. This is a massive project, a generic impact on this area because you know and we do have some active applications in this area. I would suggest that yo~ and somebody from the council come in and start something on your own and take a look at it. Mr. Goldman: Well, we're not really equipped to do scientific research and that kind of thing. We like to take the position and you folks are the decision makers and we want to work with you to come up with creative solutions to solving some of the problems. Mr. McDonald: What else do we have in the area? Mr. Goldman: The Sage property. PLANNING BOARD 21 JULY 16, 1990 Mr. McDonald: Other than the Sage property and this, what else is in the area? Mr. Goldman: There are a couple, but they are about three or four miles away on the other side of the pond. You've got Bayberry, Balrview and Long Pond and then you've got at the bottom of the creek, Port of Eglrpt which wants to expand. Mr. McDonald: O.K., we are talking about other subdivisions which are on different bodies of water. Mr. Goldman: Right, but they probably all have some cumulative impact because they are all going to feed out on to Route 25 onto the Main Road and they are all going to have some impact on that and some effect on the groundwater up there. Mr. Orlowski: This is a huge project. Mr. Goldman: It could be. Mr. Goldman: There may be another way to deal with it. Mr. McDonald: If you're thinking about where the money is going to come from to do this inside the town, I have to say that this really is not very feasible that there will be any money coming into the town for a study lime this. That doesn't mean that there may not, as you said, be other avenues available. Mr. Goldman: I believe there will be. We are working with DEC and the group on the bond act and one of our ideas is that some of the money should be used for land use planning and assessment of properties and also we feel there is a real good shot with national Cinaudible) money to use it for the kind of assessment that I described in the (inaudible) study. We have to take a look at all the waterways but how do you ~eal with that. Let's get a good assessment of what is in there and what the resource can bear and that kind of document can be used for all kinds of things and maybe some of these properties should be preserved as open space, some of them may be preserved as ground water return or some of them may be preserved as habitat and some of them should be reserved maybe for marine related uses, shellfishing uses. Mr. McDonald: How much of this is already taken up then? STPA study or the Waterfront Revitalization study? Mr. Goldman: Maybe a lot of it, but I'm just suggesting is that we ought to start working on it. We have the time. In this case we have the luxury of time because the court is not moving too quickly. Mr. Ward: Does the council have a member on the Waterfront Revitalization study? PLANNING BOARD 22 JULY 16, 1990 Mr. Goldman: I don't think of the members are. There may be any number of ways to deal with this. I'm just suggesting that this was a red light to us. Mr. McDonald: What Mr. Ward said, the point you brought out was that you felt this was one of the most important areas in the town. Obviously, that wasn't what you felt but~what would be of some interest to me is what is your list of the some of the biggest problem areas and the biggest problems, which is not to belittle this one because perhaps this is on the top of the list, but I would be interested in seeing it considering the fact that we have limited resources, we have to target what we do we would be interested in knowing what you felt is most important. Mr. Goldman: Well, we have done some preliminary work around, ~ou know the bond acts but that is as close as we've come to priorities. We are trying to get a little more focused on the priorities of what we are dealing with. We do so much, I mean the solid waste thing and I handle Riverhead too. We definitely have got our hands full there and basically it is being reactive instead of proactive. I wonder in keeping with what Mr. Ward said. Mr. McDonald: Not to curtail your co~muents, but I wonder if I could make a motion that we adjourn. Mr. Ward: Second. Fir. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Ail those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards, Mr.. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Respectfully submitted, Jane Rousseau Ben~e~tt Orlb~sk~ ~r.', Chain/an P. ECEIVED AND FILED BY ~ SOUTHOLD TOWN CLE~