Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-02/06/1989Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD FEBRUARY 6, 1989 The Southold Town Planning Board held their regular meeting on Monday, February 6, 1989 at 1:00 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold. PRESENT WERE: Bennett Drlowski, Jr., Chairman Member William Mullen Member G. Ritchie Latham Member Richard Ward Town Planner Valerie Scopaz Town Environmental Consultant Dave Emilita Planner Meiissa Spiro Jane Rousseau ABSENT; Kenneth Edwards Mr. Orlowski: Good afternoon, I would like to call this meeting to order. First order of business is the public hearing of Sally & Anthony Pierra - Final map dated as amended September 17, 1987. This minor subdivision is on 5.208 acres located at Southold. There is proof of publication in the Suffolk Times and also the Long Island Traveler Watchman. At this time everything is in order for a public hearing so I'll ask if there are any objections to this subdivision. Hearing none, are there any endorsements? Rudolf Bruer: On behalf of the applicant I would like to request that the board look favorably upon this, i think everything has been said over the years with respect to this application as presented and we ask that the board approve it. If you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them. Mr. Orlowski: O.K.. Any other endorsements of this subdivision? Hearing none, is there anyone out there that is neither pro nor con but may have information pertaining to this subdivision that would be of the interest to the board? Any questions from the board? Hearing none, I declare this hearing closed. Thank you for coming. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 FEBRUARY 6, 1989 Mr. Orlowski: Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Cove Beach Estates. Proof of publication in the Suffolk Times and the Long ISland Traveler Watchman. At this time everything is in order for a hearing. Are there any coiaments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement? I'll start on my left. Ronnie Wacker: I represent the North Fork Environmental Council. What I would like to address myself is Habitat. There was mention of various species that might be endangered. It is only recently that we have become aware of what we're doing to planet earth, how chopping down rainforests in Brazil destroys the entire species and affects climate in our part of the world, how bull- dozing one hundred acres in Southold Town destroys the habitat of many different animals and birds. We don't even know exactly how this affects our own species - man, but we are learning that we are all interdependent. On the Dam Pond property there are various endangered and threatened species. That we do know. It may sound funny to hold up an entire project because it may destroy the Yellow Warbler or the white-tailed deer of the least tern or the green-backed heron or the little housefinch. Our previous president expressed the attitude of many of us years ago when he said "if you've seen one redwood tree, you've seen them all." But apparently, as we are learning, birds, animals and plants have an interconnectiono You can't say what is the importance of a green-backed heron when we Can't even figure the importance of man in the scheme of things or even why he is on earth. Suffolk County legislature has recently become aware of the importance of habitat and is now considering a bill to con- trol building in areas in which habitat may be destroyed by construction. Time magazine gave over its man of the year cover story to a searching exploration of an endangered species - Planet Earth - in which it warned that earth may have a limited time in which it can support life unless we all dO an about-face in our attitude that the natural resources of earth, land and water are limitless. The state Department of Conservation has been asked to include the Dam Pond property on its list of properties for ac- quisition. The County Office of Ecology has found twelve species of birds on the site, three of which are endangered, threatened or of special concern in New York State. There are a number of plant species on the property on the New York State Protected Plant Species list. The time has come for all of us to work together to preserve properties like Dam Pond that are important to the town. What we might all be doing is writing letters or otherwise tugging on the sleeve of the DEC to urge immediate action on the acquisition. This may be our last chance to preserve this extraordinary and important area of Southcld Town. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3 FEBRUARY 6, 1989 Mr. Orlowski: Any comments from my left? Any comments from the center section here? Any comments from anybody? Any comments from the board? Mr. Mullen? None. Mr. Latham? Mr. Latham: Just one. Wasntt this area zoned industrial changed to residential? Mr. Orlowski: I believe that on the master plan it was automatically done. Mr. Latham: O.K.. It should be stricken off this map Mr. Orlowski: I think it was done. Mr. Ward? None. Ms. Scopaz? No, any comments I'll send in by.the 16th. Mr. Emilita do you have any comments? No. O.K., the comment period will stay open until February 16th, so if there are any comments they can be addressed in writing to the board. At this time, I think we can attain a resolu- tion so Dave can start the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Ward: Subject to completion of the comment period. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? Ail ' ~ those mn favor. Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. O.K., I'll declare this hearing closed. Thank you for coming. Mr. Orlowski: The board to set Monday, February 27th, 1989 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. Mullen: Second. · i Mr. OrlowSki: Motion made andiseconded. Any questions on the motion? Ail those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, iMr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. SCUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4 FEBRUARY 6, 1989 Mr. Orlowski: We have Walsh Park - Board to keep the public hearing open from October 14, 1988 pending receipt of revised preliminary maps. This affordable housing project is located on Fishers Island. SCTM # 1000-6-2-3.1. I would like to obtain a motion to keep this open? Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? Ail those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: I would like to approve the miniutes of the regular meeting of January 23, 1989, Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? Ail those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed. So ordered. Mr. Orlowski - Howard Rosenstone - Board to make a determination on the granting of a six month extension on sketch approval from January 25, 1989 to July 25, 1989. This major subdivision is on 13.64 acres located at Cutchogue. SCTM #1000-83-3-2. Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? Ail those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 5 FEBRUARY 6, 1989 Mr. Orlowski: Thomas Shalvey - Board to make a determination on the granting of a six month extension on sketch approval from January 25, 1989 to July 25, 1989. This minor subdivision is on 5.9130 acres located at Cutchogue. #1000-84-4-11. Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second~ Mr. Orlowski: Any questions on the motion? Ail those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr~ Orlowski: George R. Furse - Board to make a determination on the granting of a six month extension on sketch approval from March 12, 1989 to September 12, 1989. This set-off is on 3.64 acres located at Fishers Island. SCTM # 1000-9-3-2. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Ward Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Charles Acres - Board to make a determination on the granting of a six month extension on preliminary approval from February 9, 1989 to August 9, 1989. This major subdivision is on 32.8 acres located at Peconic. SCTM #1000-86-1-10.3. Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 6 FEBRUARY 6, 1989 Mr. Orlowski: Public Hearing on North Road Associates Final map dated as amended August 20, 1987. This minor subdivision is on 16.886 acres located at Orient. SCTM #1000-18-4-1. Proof of publication in the Long Island Traveler Watchman and the Suffolk Times. At this time everything is in order for a hearing. Are there any objections to this minor subdivision? Hearing none, are there any endorsements of this subdivision? Rudolph Bruer: Mr. Chairman and Member of the Board. Again, I would ask that the board grant the application. I think it has been reviewed for the last four years and I think every- thing has been said pro and con about it and we would request that the application be granted. I will answer any questions you might have, Mr. Orlowski: Any other endorsements of this subdivision? Hearing none, is there anyone out there neither pro nor con but may have information pertaining to this subdivision that would be of interest to the board? Hearing none, any questions from the board? Mr. Mullen? Mr. Latham? Mr. Ward? None. O.K., at this time because we do not have the Suffolk County Planning Commission's report back we will hold this hearing open and I would like to entertain that motion. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed. So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: On SEQRA Determinations - Town of Southold at Sound View Avenue - Board to start the coordination process to determine Lead Agency and Environmental Significance. This major subdivision owned by the Town of Southold is on 5.83 acres located at Southold. SCTM #1000-59-9-10. I would like to entertain a motion to start the coordination process. Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. motion? Ail those in favor? Any questions on the PLANNING BOARD PAGE 7 FEBRUARY 6, 1989 Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Mnllen, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Angel Shores - Board to review the Revised Environ- mental Impact Statement for Completeness. This major subdivision is located at Southold. SCTM #1000-88-6-1,4,5. Mr. Emilita do you have some comments on this? Mr. Emilita: I believe we submitted those comments and they are part of the record. Mr. Orlowski: Do you feel that this is complete yet? Mr. Emilita: Yes. I believe our comments reflect that. Mr. Orlowski: The Department of Health has asked to hold over this comment period until February 27th, 1989. I don't see us making any determination today as to whether this is complete or not until the Health Department makes theirs. Does the board have any comments? Mr. William Moore: Mr. Chairman may I be heard on this? Mr. Orlowski: Yes. Mr. William Moore: I am the attorney for the applicant. Believe it or not making sure the SEQRA process is done right is in the applicants best interest. If it is not done right all of your approvals are subject to challenge. I am up here to tell you that my legal opinion, the process you have been taking for SEQRA review is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. I'm doing it understanding that I would be hurting myself if I thought I was wrong. You are the lead agent, by allowing every other agency to review this document, and rereview their comments and response to those comments you have the tail wagging the dog~ You guys are the dog, you're in charge, you are the Lead Agent. I've never seen you buck Mr. Emilita when he recommends denial, you go along with that, he has now been paid and has recommeded you accept the document, at which time it is open for public comment and review. It is at that time that the agencies can put in all their feedback and the applicant has to respond to it. The same goes true for the public which sits blocked from comment and review at this point until a public hearing is scheduled. I understand from Valerie that you've got legal opinion that defers with me on this. I stand here and still tell you that I think the process is being handled wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. If you do not wish to use the SEQRA regulations thai were adopted by DEC as were set forth by DEC, the town has every right to change those regulations but do it in writing. Don't do it by some policy that the boards agree upon how we're going to handle this thing, then it can be open for all the comment and a public hearing as to how SEQRA will be done in the Town of Southold. Right now it's being done wrong, wrong, wrong. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 8 FEBRUARY 6, 1989 Mr. Orlowski: Well, that would be one attorneys opinion against our own. We would like to wait for the health department, we feel they have ~a lot of comments, t~at need to be addressed, that being water. They've ~sked that w_e hold up and ~a~t for' them to make there comments, so we're going to do that and our attorney has advised us that we can do that. We will hold this declszon over until the 27th. When the comments are deemed complete, they will be available for inspection. We want to make sure that we have all our comments in from the Board of Health. We feel that it's comments that should be addressed and put in so that is what we are going to wait for. Does the board have anything else? Board: No. ********** Mr. Orlowski: Moving on. Cliffside/Tidemark - Board to review the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Completeness. This malor subdivision in located at Southold.. SCTM 91000-88-6-1,4,5. Da~e, do you feel that everything is in order to accept the Final Environmental Impact Statement? Dave Emilita: We have as you know a Final Environmental Impact Statement that consists of the draft in this case by reference or comments made during the comment period and the lead agency response to those comments. We have prepared as advisors to the board a Final Enviomental Impact Statement which we are presenting today for the boards acceptance following that acceptance there will be a public comment period of a length to be determined at which the public can then review the final or any additional comments it wishes to make. So that is the step that we're at right now. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., since by law it cannot be less than ten calendar days, I think if we open this comment period until the next meeting, the 27th, that will be three weeks. That should be sufficient. Is that O.K. Dave? Do you think that will be alright? Dave Emilita: Yes, that's fine. Mr. Orlowski: I'll entertain a motion to accept the Final Impact Statement and open the public comment period to the 27th of February. Mr. Mullen: Motion made. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 9 FEBRUARY 6, 1989 Mr. Orlowski: Harbor View - Board to recommend to the Town Board to accept the extended letter of credit,' dated December 20, 1988 and received by this office on January 21~ 1989. This major subdivision is on 49.140 acres located at Mattituck. SCTM ~1000-i15-17-17. 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. Mullen, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: ~enr~ Arbeen¥ - Board to review the revised bond estimate dated as amended January 27, 1989. This major sub- division is on 7.592 acres located at Southold. SCTM ~1000-59-7-31. Sidney Bowne has revised the bond estimate again, we now have it at $48,262. I believe everyone is in agreement. What is the pleasure of the board? Mr. Bruer: With respect to the bond estimate, I'm still at a loss, particularly since the estimate calls for the driveway aprons and so on and so forth. Where and why I need sixty- eight tons of asphalt, since we're not putting in a road? Mr. Orlowski: I believe you had a conversation with Mr. Bruer: He still did'nt tell us what to do with it. I don't know whether to put it in one big pile, two piles, or spread it over. Mr. Orlowski: Well, as we get going we'll look into it. Mr. Bruer: Would you ask? Mr. Orlowski: I'll ask. Mr. Bruer: A couple of other questions with respect to it. think, hopefully positive comment. Some of these thing like the driveway apron, possibly topsoil, planting trees, and so on and so forth. Wouldn't that be particularly on commercial property, a business property an area you would consider and require at the site plan approval at such time when somebody is actually going to build there? Mr. Orlowski: Well, Mr. Jacobs is having a lot of problems on building lots and driveways off the town roads and he has asked us to put this in so he knows that if something is going to start there right away, he'll be able to go back to them and get an apron or something because he's having to fix a lot of these town roads where they are coming into. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 10 FEBRUARY 6, 1989 Mr. Bruer: Was it wise at this particular stage to ask for the driveways to be started when you don't even know where the building is going to go? Mr. Orlowski: Well, as we go along, maybe we can address that, what you are going to do. Mr. Bruer: Because that is something that you're going to require somewhere else from somebody else down the line. It seems to be wasteful to ask for it twice, that's my point. I agree with most of the items here but I think on a couple of them, particularly commercial property, it's really something that should be addressed to the site plan. Mr. Orlowski: At that point, when you are ready to have an inspection, we'll go over it with the engineer. They are not here right now, so I can't give you a lot of answers to a lot of these questions, or Mr. Jacobs who is .... Mr. Bruer: I would ask that the board in the future maybe keep some of these items in mind with respect to certain subdivisions. Mr. Orlowski: For right now it could be considered flaging some of these problems that come up and pointing them out and maybe on the end when the time comes to get relief from the bond we'll do that, I don't know. Mr. Bruer: O.K., I would like to know about the asphalt. Mr. Orlowski: In some cases if you started building and construc- tion was going on, on the town road we find that it gets pretty well torn up in the front and going in and out with heavy equip- ment and we would like to be protected for a while. Mr. Bruer: If that is the answer, then maybe I can accept it, but I just don't know what it is for. Mr. Orlowski: That's all I can tell you right now. Mr. Bruer: Thank you very much. Mr. Orlowski: Ciletti & Claps Board to review the as built plans for this site plan received by this office on January 11, 1989. This site plan is located on the North Road at Southold. SCTM #1000-63-1-17,18. It's already been certified so we don't have to recertify it. I think that we can approve this with the condition~ Ghat ~kase II .c~rbin~~ and drainage ~ Us to be brought to proper standards upon any further develop- ment of this site. I would like to have that in the motion. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 11 FEBRUARY 6, 1989 Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. (Chairman signed maps) Mr. O~l~w~ki: Lucas Ford - Board to start the coordination process to determine Lead A~ency and Environmental Significance. This site plan is located on Hortons Lans at Southold. SCTM ~ 1000-59-3-32.1. Mr. Mullen: I would like to refrain due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Latham: Motion made. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.- Mr. Orlowski: High Point - Section 3 - Board to discuss this proposal with the applicant. Richard Israel. SCTM #1000-33-3-11.25. Mr. Israel: Basically this is something we have gone through. A lot of process remains the same. Now that the Master Plan has been approved we're back in a one acre zone so we're looking for approval of the three lot subdivision. We had already gone to the Health Department and everything else on this we don't know where to begin now. Do we start a new application? I would like your corament on the map now under the new law on what you would like, if anything, done with it so that we can resubmit it. Mr. Ward: I think what we need here is a cul-de-sac turn around a 25 ft right a way would be alright. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 12 FEBRUARY ,6, 1989 Mr. Israel: O.K., so the real question comes down to, when I was speaking to Melissa, she said to give us a 100 ft. radius and that is kind of absurd on that road. The road is basically to only service the two rear driveways, the utility easement as you see comes from the North. Mr. Ward: Give us the turning radius, you don't have to landscape in the middle, just carry your 20 ft. around. Mr. Israel: So you want a 20 ft radius. Mr. Ward: No. Just carry the 20 ft. road around the center doesn't have to be all paved. Mr. Israel: O.K. so what should be the radius or the diameter of that? Mr. Ward: Standard radius, so we can get truck delivery or anything else that gets back in there they can get back out. You may have to go to the other lots a little bit to do it Mr. Israel: We don't mind that. We don't mind the turn around either, its just that, well O.K.. Do we have to go back to the Health Department and start that all over again considering it was previously approved? Mr. Orlowski: Yes. It has to be on the map. Also, you have another one, Herbert Mandel? Mr. Israel: Yes. Mr. Orlowski: Board to discuss this proposal with the applicant. SCTM ~1000-31-4-15. Mr. Israel: This is a set-off in East Marion which now is going to be changed to a one-acre set-off, which we have drawn on the previous map, again its in a R-40 district .... I've got a couple of more maps here. Where we have red penciled in the one acre set off. Mr. Orlowski: What about the piece in the back now? Mr. Israel: Well there is an eight foot right of way adjacent to that which has always serviced it. Mr. Orlowski: Well we're not going to leave eight foot here to service ten acres. Mr. Israel: The other problem that we have is that you only have, we're trying to keep the road away from the house. I canngt give you a 50 foot right of way, it doesn't exist. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 13 FEBRUARY 6, 1989 Mr. Orlowski: What do you have there? Mr. Israel: There is 48 feet there, but there are also substantial trees there which we feel is important to the house also. The other thing about this remainder is we feel we can get better access from a different area. It seems that from what has happened in the past, ---. Mr. Orlowski: I think before we entertain anything we want to see how you're going to get a better access to the back of this property. This board is not going to go along with eight feet. Mr. Israel: Well, if I were to bring that right of way up to 25 ft. taking in the eight and a quarter feet of the pre-existing road, which is not much of a road. Would that be sufficient? Mr. Oriowski: No more than four lots in the back? Mr. Israel: There is no way you're going to do a major, because then you would need the wider road. Mr. Orlowski: I think you should show us how you are planning to--. Mr. Israel: O.K.. I can show you that. I think that's a whole different scenarial then from the set off. There is a reason we're pushinq for the set off. Mrs. Mandel is very ill and its her wishes, she owns the house, they are looking to move as quickly as possible to se~ off the house that will be in her name, her estate. That is why basically, if we can come to some kind of agreement today, we will go ahead and draw up the maps that can be done to allow this set off. We as developers feel there is a better Way h~re.~-a~d-we,re, going to try a.~nd get._it with your help and I will show it to you. I don't really want to hold off the set off because the other thing is not an easy thing. Mr. Oriowski: You're going to have to show access to that back parcel. Mr. Israel: So if we were to give you a 17 ft. right of way for the use of this back parcel, if and when it is ever developed. Mr. Orlowski: 17 ft. wouldn't be enough. Mr. Israel: 17 and 8 is 25. Mr. Orlowski: Where is the 8? Mr. israel: The eight is the Old King Road. The Old King Road, which nobody seems to own anymore, is here. It's eight and a quarter feet. So if we give you 17, it will give us a 25 ft. right of way. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 14 FEBRUARY 6, 1989 Mr. Israel: I pulled the tax map just so you could see the overall layout of this property here. Fifteen happens to be that lot there. Mr. Mandells piece is here. This piece is owned by me What we're ~eally proposing to do, to 'hel'p develop this property properly, is we want to open this road and we will pay for that road. Mr. Orlowski: Do you own that lot? Mr. Israel: No we do not. I feel that is out of a mishap with the Planning Board because actually who ever did this development did not dedicate the. road because he did not want to put it in. I guess 20 years ago, this was done in 1969, the Town did not want to take it over, the guy didn't want to dedicate it so it was just left to sit. The county tax maps picked it up as a lot because it is a taxable parcel. I propose we can do a very good road which will extend across my piece and onto Herbs piece and create good access for everybody in here. The other problem that I think has come about was originally this was the first filed map and he was also filing a map of the second section here which would have also gave a major road through here. That was never done, it was never completed. Basically, everybody in this area seems to be landlocked. Mr. Orlowski: It does seem like that doesn't it? Mr. Israel: What ts good about this suggestion that I have made, I know there are other developments going on up here etc., if they need access to it that can be arranged. That just makes the scenaria scarier I guess in the long run to ever getting it adopted. Mr. Orlowski: I think what you have to proceed with now is to show us an overall sketch of your intentions. You should find out who owns this piece of property. Mr. Israel: I know who owns it. Wasn't the filing of this map, with this lot, not being a lot, what was suppose to happen to this piece and why was it never addressed. Mr. Orlowski: I wasn't here twenty years ago, so you're asking the wrong person. Mr. Israel: O.K., but who corrects the mistake? Mr. Orlowski: We don't know if that is a mistake. Give us a sketch of your total intention on the whole parcel. We have to know so we can't just set this off leaving this parcel landlocked. Mr. Israeli If I were to give you a 20 ft. right of way, which would almost come out to 28, 30 ft. would that be sufficient? Mr. Orlowski: I would like 25 ft. What would the rest of the board like? PLANNING BOARD Mr. Orlowski: follow that? PAGE 15 FEBRUARY 6, 1989 What does the board think about that? Do you Mr. Ward: We follow it but there is no chance of there being a total of four lots? Mr. Israel: On the upper lot? I would just say that due to rules and regulations, it doesn't pay to do a major versus a minor on ten acres. Therefore, due to economics, if it evsr does get developed to its fullest capacity, it's in a two acre zone. Mr. Ward: Why don't you give us the layout on the overall show what you are proposing to do. Mr. Israel: We're not proposing to subdivide this piece of land. Mr. Ward: We're not going to lock in by setting off the forty thousand in the front and be locked in with two narrower right of ways in the future. Mr. Israel: If it was a major, so it's basically impossible to do it from this side, because fifty foot does not exist there. We will go under the condition that a major cannot be done there if that is what you would like. A minor will be allowed. Ms. Scopaz: Mr. Chairman, if I could suggest there are obviously a lot of options to be explored here including shifting the road to the other side of the property where he would have fifty feet, perhaps the board would want to get all the information on a sketch and then review it. Mr. Orlowski: Yes, we're going to have to. We would like to know what the idea will be base~ on the two acre density because I am going to tell you now, if you come back and try to get four lots on there that is a ma]or subdivision. The county is going to look at it as a major and we may look at it as a major. Mr. Israel: Let me show you the other access that we're hoping to get. it does need Planning Board help and approval. There was a subdivision done many years ago called Sound Crest Woods, which is on Stars Road. This is a copy of the map that is in the county of the lots and if you will look at lot number 10 and 11, between there, there is a, I believe the reason it is 69 in front is because who ever did this map did not want to burden the school with a right of way and therefore there is fifty foot back here on this property. This is not a road, it was never dedicated as a road but in most surveyers opinion, it is a road and was meant to be one. There was no lot number assigned to it. PLANNING BOARD PAGE FEBRUARY 6, 1989 Ms. Scopaz: How wide is the right of way on the adjacent property? MN. Israel: 8¼ feet. That's a fire road. Big enough to get a big fire engine in. Ms. Scopaz: How many people have access off of this now? Mr. Israel: Currently built to the North of this road there seems to be two houses over here which sit on two to three acre parcels and there are two ten acre parcels on the sound which each have one house currently. So there is only four homes. Ms. Scopaz: What about these lots here? Mr. Israel: These are all serviced by this small road. This right of way changed drastically once it comes here because here it's a dirt road and its not well kept. Ms. Scopaz: So we have the possiblity of say fifteen residences off this? Mr. Israel: I guess so. Mr. Orlowski: O.K.. I think you're just going to have to address it, we're going to want 25ft. it you're going with just three lots in the back, if you plan on going with four lots or more, we're going to want to see how you're-going.to connect them. We're going to want 50 ft. on the Main Road even if that barn has to be removed on the other side and obtain access. If we set one off and make four more back there that's a major sub- division. That's five lots. Mr. Israel: Well, the true intention is hopefully we will fix the other scenario. If we bring back that one acre map showing a 25 ft. right of way and give you some idea of what we're going to do .... . Mr. Orlowski: We want 50 if you plan on putting four back there. Mr. Israel: If I give you a 50 ft. right of way on the other side that would be O.K. with you? Mr. Orlowski: You might have to do it that way. Mr. Israel: The only thing I thought of as far as that goes is, I know the state is really not looking to put curb cuts in and they would probably want to see this utilized. So I wanted to try and work it as best we could to utilize the current curb cut because basically once that road does go In, the first road of this property was developed would get the use of everybody. If I put the 50 ft. right of way, like you're suggesting on the west, its only going to service the lots above here and you're still going to have PLANNING BOARD PAGE 17 FEBRUARY 6, 1989 Mr. Orlowski: You're still going to have to decide what you're going to do on the back parcel. Give us a sketch and we will go over it and get back to you. Mr. Ortowski: Next order of business is Stocken - Board to discuss this proposal with the applicant. SCTM #-1000-45-6-5. This site plan is located in Greenport. Garrett Strang: Good afternoon. The reason we're here before you today, obviously, is to continue with our application process on this particular site plan. We had to appear before the board when we submitted the site plan a while back. They had resumed some comments on that site plan as well as indicating the need for an action by the Zoning Board of Appeals which has been taken/ I believe the action granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals addresses the issues the Planning Board raised. Along those lines we now are in front of the board today hope- fully to address in specific terms the issues that were brought up regarding site plans. I know that there were some comments noted on the site plans from the board members and two of those I would like to address at the moment. First, the need for some planting in the front of the building or in front of the site. Given the nature of the use that is there presently, that being gasoline service. Obviously, there is a need for a fair amount of driveway and circulation space in the area. However, we're certainly not adverse to providing some sort of planting area possible along the lines of what the Mills site adjacent to the west that provided planter boxes that we can place along the property line and that way we can provide some planting along the front, as I'm sure you are aware of now is all asphalt paved, it would be difficult at best to try and break the asphalt up to do a regular type of planting arrangement there and also would be difficult to maintain planting that sort of arrangement due to the run off from the site and the road. We felt that similar to what the Mills did by elevating the planting in contained planter boxes and we can maintain it on a year round basis without having to deal with the effects of the run off from both the road and the site. By the same token, the second comment that you made had to deal with two well defined curb cuts, I think we can address that issue by the placement of the planter boxes in such a way that there are two distinct egress and ingress locations on the site. We would like the board to give some comment with reqard to those two particular situa- tions as well as if the boar~ would advise us accordingly as to the third commen% that they made on the plan which, I think, internal circulation and parking layout needs to be improved. I think to be of myself, my client and the board. If we could get some more dire ~ '. -~ . · we -~ ~' ~.~?~_ ~ ~ ~ d. concerns are, .can ~a~ress ~n~a~~ partic~ ~re~. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 18 FEBRUARY 6, 1989 Mr. Orlowski: Does the board have any commens on this? Mr. Ward: There really wasn't anything labeled here that said it's one way. Mr. Strang: Yes, the intention here was for one way circulation from the East side around and exiting on the West side which is really the only way that type of diagonally parkinq can function properly and it is certainly easy enough to designate a section and put circulation arrows on the pavement if need be. Mr. Ward: I think we just have general comments that we're dealing with here, trying to make improvements on the existing building, and we're basically floating in a sea of asphalt which is right to the property lines, and I realize you can draw the lines on the pavement. Even if we have to ease it into this little area in the back, the grass area in the back, with some tree planting the paving is remaining right to the building, it's just that if we were starting from scratch, I realize that you would not be doing it this way but we're dealing with existing conditions. If think we would like to see something addressed that would be specifically more pleasing than what is here. Mr. Strang: We do have two issues to deal with obviously, the first and foremost being the exisiting conditions there on site and the pavement on the site. The second being the use of the building, the front building, the existing building being pro- posed to include grocery sales, the immediate need then is park- lng to be as close to that area as possible and to place all the parking remote is obviously not a good planning point of view either, as far as making pedestrian travel to the building difficult, so our first approach was to provide as much parking toward the front which would be as easily accessible to the building as possible. The obvious location for that was on the easterly property line. That in itself, the paving is already there and it sort of concluded us from having any planting along the easterly property line. There is no planting there presently, as it exists it is O.K.. Mr. Ward: Also, when you turn from the diagonal to perpendicular parking, someone pulling out of perpendicular parking in the back of the building has got two choices to make, either go the wrong way into the one way or the other way. I think directionally, we ought to correct it so it's all in the same direction. Mr. Strang: That can be addressed without a problem. Mr. Ward: Maybe what we will have to do, is tc take a site visit and get back to you in detail. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 19 FEBRUARY 6, 1989 Mr. Latham: That new building in the back, is it for repairs or body work? Mr. Strang: Automobile service similar to what exists in the building that is there now. Basically, the whole idea behind this is to relocate the use that's now in the front building to the new building in the rear, and convert the front building to grocery use. Ms. Scopaz: Mr. Chairman, if I may add~ress the board. I would just like to draw your attention to that which Mr. Strang suggested, that the board allow them to do what the adjacent property was allowed to do, as far as landscaping was concerned. You should be aware that the NYS Department of Transportation was not happy with the way the landscaping was put in, they thought that it was intrusive on the right of way and if the board is considering any changes, I would strongly recommend that they coordinate with the NYS Department of Transportation so as not to recommend some- thing that is contrary to what they would give approval for. Mr. Strang: I'm not sure where the Mills planting falls, I don't know~.if it fatls~outward.of~the~propertY~tine. Mr. Orlowski: I wouldn't use that as an example because we got our wrists slapped for that one. The State now is being very demanding on how we approve our site plans, even with driveways in residential areas onto any of their roads. They are going to look for something maybe a little more substantial than a planter. We're going to be addressing that and coming up with something else I'm sure. We'll go out and look at this and get back to you. Mr. Strang: O.K., that would be helpful. Is there any idea as to when the board may be able to schedule that? Mr. Orlowski: This week or next week. The procedure is, you should hand this in and we put it on the work session and then take it right out in the field with us and then get back to you. Once we get out there I'm sure we're goig to do a lot of work on that. Mr. Ward: The main arrow in the front is the only entry? Mr. Strang: The pedestrian entry is here at the moment, ...... or suggestive location .... in the building. I'll discuss that further with the owner in case there is some alternative ideas along this line. The thought was that corner would be the principle entry to the building. Mr. Orlowski: O.K.. Mr. Strang: Thank you gentlemen. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 20 FEBRUARY 6, 1989 Mr. Orlowski: Board to discuss the hiring of the Consulting Firm of Cramer, Vorrhis and Associates. This will be for the Laurel Lake Impact Statement. Mr. Ward: Now this would be that coordinat~ review? Mr. Orlowski: Right. Mr. Ward: Since we do have a proposal which we feel is reasonable I think we should propose a resolution that we address the Town Board to retain them. Mr. Orlowski: O.K.. Do I have a second? Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Ward, Mr. Oriowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: I have nothing left here. I'll ask if there are any questions or comments from the audience? Dorothy Phillips: A member of our group, Mrs. Ceil Loucka, from Hog Neck wrote and asked if she could speak at this meeting the meeting of February 6th and when I came in on Friday to check we found out that the meeting had been changed from 7:30 p.m. which we thought was the usual time, to 1:00 in the afternoon. She was not informed of this and she is in her classroom and cannot leave. We think it was rather discourteous of you that you did not tell her, she was only a telephone call away. Consequently, she feels she was not given the opportunity or courtesy that she should have been. I'd like to make a few statements on the subject of Angel Shores if I have your per- mission to do so. Well we would like to make the following commments. it is approximately one mile between the Cove and Angel Shores on Main Bayview. There are fifty houses in the Bay Haven Development, 53 houses in Terry Waters, and 24 along the North side of Main Bayview - - a total of 124 homes. An additional 84 homes between the Cove and Angel Shores would mean an increase of 66% in the number of homes along this stretch. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 21 FEBRUARY 6, 1989 This is a significant increase in population density, noise, traffic, beach use, road run-off,'and attendant problems with people behavior. It may happen slowly but a more congested and stressful life style will certainly affect us all along this stretch of road. There are those who will say this is not important but it is important to us. We realize the owner has the right to use his property as he wishes but we also have a right to protest what we feel will be injurious to our lifestyle and the environ- ment we will share. On the problem of water the County Department of Health Services said ~ngel Shores had to have a common water system. Why was that? Because it was not wise to sink individual wells in the shallow aquifer of Hog Neck. Why did the DEC insist upon slow-water pumping from the wells and above ground storage? They feared for the quality of the water from salt water intrusion. Why were the wells placed so close to Main Bayview? They could not depend on the quality of water nearer the shore. Why was a satellite system installed to service the Cove? Members of the board now find this a frightening precedent. Why does the Department of State in its December 1st letter state that the use of fertilizers and pesticides for lawn treatment should be prohibited? It's because of their concern for the quality of the water. Lastly, why did Greenport Water District refuse to own the satellite system? They feared~the fragility of the system, the likelihood of salt water intrusion and lawsuits. There is a definite problem with water on Hog Neck. Our aims as a group are: to minimize the effect on the environment. We are currently seeking signatures on a petition to encourage the Town of Southold to acquire Section I of Angel Shores. Please go down and look at it. It is a beautiful and diverse area of lang. The NFEC has suggested that this land be purchased. The Suffolk County Depart- ment of Health Services has suggested twice in letters to the Planning Board that this land be purchased. And why not? The Town of Southold has $1.75 million available for the purchase of open space. This is a prime example of property worthy of preservation. We feel the project is too large for the stretch of land for which it is proposed. Can't something be done about the yield? We thank you for giving us the opportunity to present our views and we assure you of our intention to continue our strong opposition to Angel Shores as it is now planned. Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments? Dave Saland: I would like to show a new map on Peco~ic Trails. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 22 FEBRUARY 6, 1989 Dave Saland: I have given open space here, the road comes up on this side. I have two large lots including under the high tension wires but I've made my building envelopes here, which is North of the high tension wires. Ten lots in the woods, using this as the open space part. I might have to give a little more open space but I can cut down on this lot. To keep Sophia happy as f~ar as the salt water intrusion I've give two large lots to the North. What I proposed was a major road, i'll put %he major road in to start, for the ten lots and then at the same time or perhaps a little later go in with a minor a,b,c, and d. Everything South of the high tension wires · s open space and this will be open space, again building envelopes here Mr. Orlowski: You have five acre lots, over five acres, and if w~ allowed the road to be less %han a major, would that interest you? Mr. Saland: The whole thing? In other words coming back with say eight or nine five acre lots? Mr. Orlowski: Yss, with a substandard road. I'm just asking a question. The minor road. Mr. Saland: If you went back to your original. Mr. Orlowski: You Would save about two years at the County. i'm just asking, I'm not telling you to do it, we'll go out and look at this. Mr. Saland: t have 44.7 acres so we're talking about say five acre lots so I do eight lots? HoWever, you would want a minor, you would also cluster the lots on me. In other words, t'if I~ came ~n~with ~ig.k~~ lots yQ~Wo~!~ say to me fine? Mr. Orlowski: I don't know if we can. Mr. Saland: Well it depends on what the road specs would be. Mr. Ward: The minor specs, 20 f%. wide. It's only eight foot difference. Mr. Orlowski: Drainage is going to be a lot less because its going to be less run-off. I would like to look at the wooded area because this does layout in the wooded area and leaves the open space open. Just think about that. Mr. Saland: You know there might be another thought. I have to do 20 feet of road, I split the piece in four parcels. I can't see coming up with 3,000 feet of road or 2,500 feet of road for four parcels. Mr. Orlowski: And no further subdivision in perpertuity, yes, we might do that. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 23 FEBRUARY 6, 1989 Mr. Saland: I'~~ go back to some kind of arrangement for a road whether it is 15 foot gravel, that gave us so much leverage when we were developers. The road costs are what kills us today. Let me try eight lots and I'll also work out a senarial for four large lots. Mr. Orlowski-: O.K. I would also like to entertain a resolution to send over to the Town Board an acceptance of a park and playground fee of $32,500, for Wolf Pit. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Any questions on the motion? Ail those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Dan Ross: Baxter request for a waiver of site plan. I was here today mn the event that the board was going to consider it based on the agenda. I know more information has been gathered by your staff. Mr. Ward: Do you know how many employees are going to be there? Mr. Ross: The tenant is going to be putting cars together. He,told the ZBA that he was going to be the only person, the only employee. I intended 'to have him here but I also thought it was a regular meeting and I can get that in a letter from him if you want. Mr. Ward: O.K. The number of employees because we want to work on the existing plan we have. Several parking spaces lust to accomodate the site plan. Our concern is down the road if there is a sale or reuse that the new outfit that comes in that they realize they only have approval for two or three parking spaces. Mr. Orlowski: How about landscaping too. Mr. Ross: We didn't propose landscaping. Do you want it shown on the map? Mr. Orlowski: Yes. Mr. Ward: So if we can address the parking related to employees. Also, there is to be no outside storage. Mr. Ross: That was in the ZBA. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 24 FEBRUARY 6, 1989 Mr. Ward: Maybe you can just say that. Mr. Ross: O.K.. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments? Mr. Strang: Two pending applications have come up on the agenda that I wanted to ask the board f.or~some inp~t~on it. One was sub- mitted in sketch form two weeks ag6~ i guess for a building on the corner here immediately next to Thompsons Emporium, Thompsons Sportswear Emporium. The reason for the sketch sub- mission was just to get some lmput from the board as to whether they had any comments on it prior to our making a formal applica- tion or if we can proceed with the formal application. Mr. Orlowski: We'.ll put it on the work session. Mr. Strang: The other question had to do with a different application. It was nearing completion, I believe, having to do with the board requesting submission of a floor plan of the building. I am of the impression that the board asked that because they, the trade off between the building size gross and the building size net as it relates to parking spaces provided. The reason we're reluctant to supply a floor plan is because the building obviously is a retail use or office use is subject to the needs of the tenant and even if submitted to the board would be subject to chan~e. We did try to address your concerns to how much would be used for either office or retail by denoting some much area would be used for that. The other question is in reviewing the new code that is part of the master plan adoption. The parking criteria has changed somewhat with respect to retail use and those parking criteria we exceed considerable parking spaces that would be needed. Mr. Orlowski: Maybe we can put more landscaping in. Mr. Strang: If we reduce the number of parking spaces we can put in more landscaping. Mr. Orlowski: We'll take a look at that. Mr. Strang: Can the board address a letter to us on that? Mr. Orlowski: Yes. Any other comments? Hearing none, any question from the board. None. Someone make a motion. Mr. Mullen~ So moved. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Ail those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. 0rtowski: Opposed? So ordered. Meeting closed at 2:35 p.m. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 25 FEBRUARY 6, 1989 Being no further business to come before the board, on motion made by Mr. Mutlen, seconded b y Mr. Latham, and carried the meeting was adjourned ak 2:35 p.m.. RespectfUlly submitted, Temporary secretary SouthOld Planning Board Chairman RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK D~.T~ ~/~/~ ~ouR ~.'~ Town Clerk, Town o~ Southold