HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-03/07/1988 P~ D
TIeD
S1
Southold. N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
I~JIRCH 7, 1988
The Southold Town Planning Board held a regular meeting on
Monday, March 7, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Ball,
Main Road, Southold.
PRESENT WERE:
Bennett Orlowski,Jr. Chairman
Member Richard G. Ward
Member Kenneth Edwards
Executive Administrator Victor Lessard
Town Planner Valerie Scopaz
Planner Melissa Spire
Secretary Jill Thorp
Absent: Ritchie Latham, William Mullen
7:30 p.m. Public Hearing on the question of preliminary approval
of the major subdivision of Wolf Pit Associates located at the
Southwesterly corner of Mill Road and Mill Lane, Mattituck.
SCTM # 1000-107-4-2.1.
Mr. Orlowski: We have proof of publication in the Suffolk Times
and proof of publication in the Long Island Traveler/Watchman.
At this time everything is in order for a hearing. I will ask if
there is any objections to this subdivision? Hearing none are
there any endorsements to this subdivision?
Mr. Saland: I am the developer of this project, David J. Saland,
general partner Wolf Pit Associates. My partners and I went to
five acre zoning at the urging and with the cooperation of David
Emilita and the Town. We feel that we have been more than
cooperated with the Town and I urge passage of preliminary
approval. We are hear to answer any questions of neighbors or
any one who might have any.
Mr. Orlowski: I'll ask for any other endorsements of this
subdivision? Hearing none any one out there neither pro nor con
but may have information pertaining to this subdivision that
would be of interest to this Board?
~ PL~NNING Board page 2 MARCH 7, 1988
Ms. Scopaz: Mr. Chairman may I raise a question? Have you made a
determination as to whether you would donate Park and Playground
land or money in-lieu-of?
Mr. San Andres: Do we have to answer that now?
Mr. Orlowski: You do not know right now then?
Mr. San Andres: Unless it is essential to determined that now.
Mr. Orlowski: No, He's not sure now.
Ms. Scopaz: We will discuss it.
Mr. Saland: If the Board has a strong feeling one way or the
other, we are more then Willing to cooperate.
Mr. Orlowski: Any other questions? Any questions f~om the Beard?
Mr. Ward?
Mr. Ward: Just one. One we may consider and maybe talk about in
terms of property would be the natural slope between the park
district property and the lots 10 and 11. There may be some
consideration there that might be put into cash, lets talk about
that. I don't know if that will foul .up your lot in terms of
acreage. The strip between Wolf Pit lake and lots 10 and 11 its
actual shown as a...
Mr. Saland: What where you saying?
Mr. Ward: Well what I was saying was the possibility of just
enlarging the park.district property to accommodate the slope
that's in there so they have control. That's the only thing I
can say is that's the only possibility.
Mr. Saland: The problem I have with that is that will lower my,I
just made it under 13x5 ...
Mr. Orlowski: Being no further comments I will declare this
hearing closed and thank you for coming.
7:50 Public Hearing on the question of final approval of the
minor subdivision of Anthony and Sally Pirrera, survey dated
September 17, 1987. Board to take action on the sketch plan for
this subdivision. Board to declare themselves Lead Agent under
PLANNING BOARD Page 3 MARCH 7, 1988
the State Environmental Quality Review Act. This proposal is for
2 lots on 5.208 acres off CR 48, Greenport. SCTM~ 1000-40-1-20.
r- Orlowski: This was scheduled ahead of time. I will open the
earing and ask for a comment and close this hearing because we
have not granted sketch. I would like to proceed with sketch and
also Lead Agency so then we can set this up within the next
month for a hearing and do it proper way. Since we have
scheduled a hearth§ I will ask if there is any comments.
Mr. Bruer: Mr. Chairman members of the Board, Rudolph Bruer I'm
here for the applicant. This has been on for a while. I grant
you sketch plan has not been granted but I dontt think the Board
is required to do sketch plan if they don't want to. If you look
at your general schedule of events over the past year you would
find have this thing snuck on maybe a month or so earlier this
would have been a set-off rather then a minor subdivision. It's
basically a division of a lot and a half. We have the ZBA. The
only thing that is not before the Board is the official comments
from the Health Department because they want comments from the
Greenport Water Authority which is not very easy to get. Matter
of fact, I was up there at their meeting on Friday. I prepared a
document for the Superintendent to say he will or will not, all
that he had to do is cross out will or will not. I gave him an
envelope and I still don't have it. I think the Board could
please consider this. I think everything is in order and what
ever you could do to expedite it we would appreciate it. Again I
know you really don't have to go to sketch.
Mr. Ortowski: Well, it's our policy and we still have to do
SEQRA. In this case the Board has decided to proceed with sketch
and as diligently as possible to set for the hearing.
Mr. Bruer: I understand the Board is going to do what its going
to do and we would appreciate what ever you could do to speed it
up. Thank you ver~ mUch.
Mr. Orlowski: Yes, we guarantee you speed. Any other questions?
Questions from the Board? Ms. Scopaz? O.K. I will declare this
hearing closed. I'll ask for a motion for sketch approval.
Mr. Edwards: Moved.
Mr. Ward: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Motion made and seconded. Any question on the
motion? All those in favor?
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant the sketch
approval on this proposal for 2 lots on 5.208 acres off CR 48,
Greenport.
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Ortowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Also a motion to take Lead Agency.
PLANNING BOARD Page 4 MARCH 7, 1988
Mr. Ward: So moved.
Mr. Edwards: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and secondedl Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare itself
Lead Agent under the Environmental Quality Review Act.
VoEe of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Ms. Scopaz~ Mr. Chairman I would like to make one point of
reference. Because of the way the SEQRA law is set up, old
set-off's have to go through the SEQRAprocess just as site
plans and any other subdivision. It is a nuisance, granted.
don't have to tell you what the paper work involves in our side
of it. The law requires it. What we are working on is setting up
a system to automatically get the SEQRAprocess moving as a
matter of course .... I think in the future when the application
comes in we should automatically start the SEQRAprocess to
avoid this lapse in time.
Mr. Orlowski: Board to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting of February 8, 1988.
MR. Ward: So moved.
Mr. Edwards: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the
Minutes of February 8, 1988.
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Ortowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have George Schade-Board to take action on
this set-off located at Cedar Lane, Southold. SCTM #
1000-78-7-42.
This was denied by the ZBA. This leaves us no choice but to deny
without prejudice.
Mr. Ward: So moved.
Mr. Edwards: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? Ail those in favor?
PLANNING BOARD Page 5 MARCH 7, 1988
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board deny without
prejudice the application for the set-off located at Cedar Lane,
Southold.
Vote of the Board;Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Deborah Edson-Board to authorize the Chairman to
endorse the final surveys dated December 31, 1986 for this major
subdivision at Depot Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM ~ 1000-102-2-6.1.
Everything is in order. What's the pleasure of the Board?
Mr. Ward: So moved.
Mr. Edwards: Second.
Mr. Ortowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board authorize the
Chairman to endorse the final surveys dated December 31, 1986
for this major subdivision at Depot Lane, Cutchogue.
Vote of the Board;Ayes: Oriowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Franklyn J. Born-Board to set Monday,
March 21, 1988, at 7:30 p.m. for a Public Hearing on the final
approval of this minor subdivision, survey dated and amended
January 11, 1988. This proposal is for 3 lots on 6.369 acres at
Old North Road, Southold.
Mr. Edwards: So moved.
Mr. Ward: second.
Mr. Ortowski: Motion made and seconded. An~ questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board set Monday, March 21,
1988, at 7:30 p.m. for a Public Hearing on the final approval of
this minor subdivision, Survey dated and amended January 11,
1988. This proposal is for 3 lots on 6.369 acres at Old North
Road, Southold. SCTM #1000-55-2-25.
Vote of the Board;Ayes: Ortowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Nicholas Aliano. First to keep within
the time frame, Board to grant a ninety day extension for
PLANNING BOARD Page 6 MARCH 7, 1988
preliminary approval. It was misprinted saying final hearing but
that should be preliminar~ approval.
Mr. Edwards: So moved.
Mr. Ward: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? Ail %hose in favor?
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a 90 day
extension for setting a final hearing.
Vote of the Board;Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Next to set Monday, March
21, 1988 at 7:45 p.m. for a Public Hearing on final approval on
this major subdivision.
Mr. Ward: So ~ved.
Mr. Edwards: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? Ail those in favor?
RESOLVED that the Southotd Town Planning Board set Monday, March
21, 1988 at 7:45 P.m. for a Public Hearing on the final_ approval
of this major subdivision, survey dated January 14, 1988. This
proposal is for 8 lots on 16.83 acres off CR 48, Peconic. SCTM #
1000-74-4-4.
Vote of the Board;Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we hav~ Sunbeau Associates-Board to set
Monday, March 21, 1988, at 8:00 p.m. for a Public Hearing on the
final approval of this minor subdivision, This proposal is for 4
lots on 30.637 acres off Sound View Avenue, Mattituck.
Mr. Edwards: So moved~
Mr. Ward: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? Ail those in favor?
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, March
21, 1988 at 8:00 p.m. for a Public Hearin~ on the final approval
of this minor subdivision. This proposal is for 4 lots on 30.637
acres off Sound View Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM ~1000-100-2-5.1.
Vote of the Board;Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
PLANNING BOARD Page 7 MARCH 7, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: Next, Board to set Monday, March 21 1988, at 8:15
p.m. for a Public Hearing on the final approval of this
subdivision.
Mr. Edwards: So moved.
Mr. Ward: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? Ail those in favor?
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, March
21, 1988 at 8:15 p.m. for a Public Hearing on the final approval
of this subdivision. SCTM ~ 1000-51-3-12.1.
Vote of the Board;Ayes: Ortowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next is Chester Mayer-Board to take action on this
lot line change located off King Street, Orient. Board to
authorize the Chairman to endorse the surveys dated and amended
July 21, 1987. Everything is in order. What's the pleasure of
the Board?
Mr. Ward: I'll move for approval.
Mr. Edwards: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded any questions on the
motion? Ail those in favor?
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board to authorize the
Chairman to endorse the surveys dated and amended July 21, 1987.
SCTM~ 1000-20-2-43.2,43.5~
Vote of the Board;Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered°
Ms. Scopaz: Mr. Chairman, if I may ask one thing? Just for the
clients benefit, I would like to recommend, after he records all
his property deeds and survey's, that copies be submitted to the
Town. To take care of a minor problem. The Assessor's records
don't match up with the property records. We have been trying to
help straighten out the problem. If you could just bring the new
survey and deeds in, so that we could strai§hten out the problem
with the assessor's office.
Mr. Bruer: O.K., but I just wasn't sure if had to do a deed at
this point s~nce we have this approval we could sit back and...
You normally wouldn't do a deed til the Board approves it unless
I intervene, i guess we could do deeds if you want.
PLANNING BOARD Page 8 MARCH 7, 1988
Ms. Scopaz: I'm just taking a long range..° The Assessor's
office has recorded it as three separate lots.
Mr. Bruer: I understand what happened, one of the small lot
changes got in there as a separate deed.
Ms. Scopaz: Right, there is a building permit that's used ... In
order avoid confusion with that. In other words, it looks like
the third lot when it is part of the adjoining lot.
Mr. Bruer: I can promise the Board with whatever deeds we do at
the time., but I don't think it should be made a condition of the
subdivision because its not really part of it. I understand the
problem.
Mr. Orlowski: It was not in the approval. She is making a
recommendation to your as the attorney for the applicant.
Mr. Bruer: How do I make him do it?
Mr. Orlowski: I don't know.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Francis Greenberger-Board to take
action on this sketch plan for 4 lots on 15.581 acres, located
off Eugene's Road, Cutchogue. Everything is in order. What is
the pleasure of the Board?
Mr. Ward: Move for sketch approval subject to C & R's being
filed.
Mr. Edwards: Second.
Ms. Scopaz: I believe the Board had asked Fran Greenberger about
changing one of the lot lines to a flag lot. The applicant is
not particularly interested in doing that° So, it is your
decision whether you wish to change it. He wilt end up with one
flag lot with 25' frontage on the road. There is enough propert~
to alter the line if you wish. The applicant is inclined to
leave it as it is.
Mr. Orlowski: Well I think we~can address that as we go along.
Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those
in favor?
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant sketch
approval subject to Covenants and Restrictions being filed.
Vote of the Board;Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Board to take Lead Agency on thisapptication.
Mr. Edwards: So moved
Mr. Ward: Second.
PLANNING BOARD Page 9 MARCH 7, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? Ali those in favor?
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare itself
Lead Agent under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
Vote of the Board;Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. 0rlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have ScottKaufman-Board to take action on
this sketch plan for 3 lots on 6.889 acres off Eugene's Road,
Cutchogue. This is an adjoining parcel. What's the pleasure of
the Board.
Mr. Ward: Move for sketch approval.
Mr. Edwards: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
RESOLVED that the Southotd TownPlanning Board grant sketch
approval on this 3 lots on 6.889 acres off Eugene's Road,
Cutchogue.
Vote of the Board;A~es: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Or!owski: Opposed? So ordered.
Board to take Lead Agency.
Mr. Edwards: So moved.
Mr. Ward: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Boardldeclare itself
Lead Agent under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
SCTM ~ 1000-97-3-20.
Vote of the Board;A~es: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Adams Industrial Park-Board to take action on this
set off located off Sound Avenue, Mattituck. Board to determine
Lead Agency status under the State Environmental Quality Review
Ac~. I think we should take Lead Agency. I'll entertain that
motion first.
Mr. Ward: So moved.
PLANNING BOARD Page 10 MARCH 7, 1988
Mr. Ortowski: Motion made and seconded. I seconded it. Any
questions on the motion? All those in favor?
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the
set-off of Adams Industrial Park located off Sound Avenue,
Mattituck.
Vote of the Board;Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. In regards to approving the
set-off, do you want ~o do it or wait.
Mr. Ward: No, we...
Mr. Orlowski: Was that your motion? Then we need another motion.
Mr. Edwards: I'll move it.
Mr. Ward: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? Ail those in favor?
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare itself
Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
SCTM ~ 1000-121-5-p/o 4.1.
Vote of the Board;Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Chardonnay 'Estates-Board to take Lead
Agency under the State Environmenta~ Quality Review Act.
Mr. Edwards: So moved.
Mr. Ward: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare itself
Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
SCTM ~ 1000-51-3-3
Vote of the Board;Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Ortowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Field Inspections on Murray/Mohring. Board to
discuss field inspection report. This is located in Cutcho~ue.
This has been inspected by the Board. The area on the east-side
of the road that has been cut into by the road, the road has
been stabilized, however on the west side pine trees have been
PLANNING BOARD Page 1 1 MAikCH 7, 1988
planted which are not acceptable, as they will grow to obstruct
the road.
There are posts at the entrance of the road, which need to be
removed as they also obstruct the width of the road.
As per the last field inspection, the road should be named and
signed with same.
Mr. Ward: Move for compliance with report.
Mr. 0rlowski: Since this road was in pretty good shape, do you
want to approve subject to thbse conditions?
Mr. Ward: Yes, they were minor. So moved
Mr. Edwards: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded to request compliance and
approve subject to compliance to those conditions. Any questions
on the motion? All those in favor?
RESOLVED ~hat the Southold Town Planning Board accept and
request compliance to the staff field inspection report subject
to compliance to the conditions in the report.
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Mohring-Board to discuss field
inspection report. Sidney Bowne's site inspection was conducted
in reference to the rip-rap installed at the pond site on the
south side of this development.
We suggested that rip-rap be installed to curtail the erosion at
the pond area. This has been completed. However, the material
utilized for rip-rap is broken cement blocks, which by
composition are porous and as such, unstable.
We recon~end that this material be removed and replaced with a
clean, durable, large stone or gravel, and the installation be
inspected during construction.
Also, the Board has made their inspection. The road needs to be
brought up to satisfactory condition. The site was inspected on
a rainy day, and at that time the road was for the most part
impassable. The rip-rap has been installed to curtail erosion at
the pond area. However, as Sidney Bowne's has stated its not
proper. The northerly drain is not in the correct position and
is causing erosion of the road on the opposite side of the road.
What's the pleasure on the report.
Mr. Ward: There was one other item, that was we are getting run
off from the adjacent farm field that's traversing the road
going into that long pond. That is going to create a hazard in
the winter conditions.
PLANNING BOARD Page 12 MARCH 7, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: Excuse me, we do have tha5 in here. A pipe for
drainage should be installed under the road to avoid this
potentially dangerous situation.
Mr. Ward: O.K. Move for compliance.
Mr. Edwards: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board accep~ and
request compliance with the field inspection reports of the
Town's Engineer dated March 3, 1988 and the Southold Town
Planning Board dated March 7, 1988.
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Hillcrest Estates, Section 1-Board to discuss
Engineer's report dated March 3, 1988. SCTM ~1000-t3-2-8.3
Site inspection of the street trees planted within the
subdivision was conducted. We find that fifty-five trees have
been planted within the right-of-wa~ and appeared to be
acceptable in both type and condition. However, we find that the
berms established are inadequate, are nonexistent~A,¢o~r~sction
should be made immediately and we have attached a copy of our
tree planting detail for ~our information.
What's the pleasure of'the Board?
Mr. Edwards: Request compliance with report.
Mr. Ward: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? ~11 those in favor?
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board accept and
request compliance with the Engineer's report dated March 3,
1988.
Vote of the Board; A~es: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Cliffside-Board to extend the public con~nent
period for a period of 15 days from Februar~ 26, to March 12,
1988, at the request of the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental
Conservation. We checked with our attorne~ and this is perfectly
legal.
Mr. Edwards: So moved.
Mr. Ward: Second.
PLANNING BOARD Page 13 MARCH 7, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
RESOLVED that the Southotd Town Planning Board extend the public
comment ~eriod for a period of 15 days from February 26, to
March 12, 1988, at the request of the N.Y.8. Department of
Environmental Conservation.
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowskd: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have site plans. Rose and Richard
Sahm-Board to authorize the Chairman to endorse this site plan,
survey dated and amended February 23, 1988, located off Main
Road in Southold. SCTM $1000-69-6-1. This has been certified by
Mr..Lessard. This the Antique Store.
Mr. Ward: So moved.
Mr. Edwards: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? Ail those in favor?
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board authorize the
Chairman to endorse the site plan, survey dated and.~amsnded
February 23, 1988.
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Harborview Realty Co.-Board to set
March 21, 1988 as the presentation date for this change of zone
petition.
Mr. Ward: So ~ved.
Mr. Edwards: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
m~tion? All those in favor?
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set March 21,
1988 as the presentationdate for the change of zone petition.
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. This is the Sage property. It
is from A to M-1.
PI2YNNING BOARD MARCH 7, 1988
~ ~ Page 14
Mr. Orlowski: Next is discussions and correspondence. I have
Charles Simmons-Board to discuss this minor subdivision. Mr.
Simmons is here.
Mr. Simmons: I would like to read to you some of my notes which
I think describes what my problem is and what my attitude is
about it. This letter is in reference to a minor subdivision of
my farm, 58 acres opposite Jen's Nursery. Since 1975 my wife and
I rented a small house on the Sound behind Rose Berleski farm.
And continued renting it for four year's. We like the north fork
and decided to buy a house out here. When the farm of Richard
and Helen Price came on the market, just to the west...We
bought. At the time the County's plans to buy the government
rights of Suffolk farm land. The rights were bought in 1986.
Getting back to 1980, when I sought a minor subdivision, m~ plan
being to sell some of the south lot property and retire here and
that is still ~ry plan. This is some of the legal aspects, in 63
I retired from my job. I used the service of a local attorney
and I finally got preliminar~ sketch approval. I then agreed
with the attorney to prosecute this on my own with her help if
questions come up. I dug a well and tested the soil, applied to
the County for their approval and it came through in July of 87.
My understanding was that that was the end of the process. The
surveyor that I worked with and fellow at the county, I ask if
this was the end and apparently they misunderstood my question
and they both assured that it was the end. I assumed that the
minor subdivision process was done. Then a month or so ago I
called up a couple of road builders to get road estimatss~.~They
said what kind of road did I have to ~build. The pretiminar%
sketch plan called for a 15 foot road and a 25 foot right-of-way
on the west boundary of my property. Actually the 25 foot
right-of-way has been excluded from the sale of the development
rights so that the road can be built without any problem from
the Town. In fact there is just room for a 15 foot road as it
passes my farm house. A telephone pole lines up with the 15 foot
road as it runs one third of a mile from the house to the Sound.
Anyway, I called up the Planning Board and was told that I did
not have a minor subdivision. This came as a complete surprise
to me. I am now back here asking to have my original sketch plan
reinstated so I can finish my subdivision process. I might say,
by the way, that whenI s01d the development rightsofm~ farm
to the Town, my understanding was that I would keep the farm as
it is. In fact I sold the development rights in order to keep
· the farm the way it is. What I've done is to take pictures of
the road from the farm house south toward route 48 and from the
farm house door toward the Sound. A wider road would in effect
destroy the farm house. I would like to give these to you and
also a close map that Mr. Van Tuy1 made for me a couple of years
ago showing the road and the trees and principle matter along
the side of the road and where the polls are. And that is my
problem.
Mr. Orlowski: Alright, as far as the sketch plan expiring, we
can't do anything about that. We will just go on and grant a new
sketch approval and make your application. If you have your
Board of Health approval we can proceed to a final hearing. As
far as the road you have to build a road to the spec's, it's 20
PLANNING BOARD Page 15 MARCH 7, 1988
feet. I think there is enough room to do it. It is not a 50 foot
road, it sure looks like enough room.
Mr. Simmons: I don't have the road here, you can come up and
take a look. You can see that it wouldn't go through my living
room, but pretty near. My feeling is that it would destroy the
charm of the house. I would have to say again, that if I had not
got preliminary sketch approval calling for a 15 foot road I
would not have sold the development rights the way I did° I feel
what happened was equivalent to a clerical error. In other
wards, my understanding is, tell me if I'm wrong, if I had taken
the map of the county and brought it back here the thing would
have gone through, presumably. I don't live here all the time, I
didn't know I was to do that. What I am asking for is
essentially is forgiveness for this error. It is not only wildly
more expensive, it changes the look of the place. I did not sell
the development rights to have that change. I don't know how
sympathetic you are to this, but I can tell you it is not what I
had in mind. I am not a developer, I am not out here to make
money. I am out here to live, to live on a farm that looks like
a farm. To live in a house that doesn't have, as I say, a road
going through the living room. This is the way t feel.
Mr. Orlowski: Well, we can understand that. The way things are,
I don't know. What does the Board think?
Mr. Edwards: I think we can take another look and maybe get some
legal advice.
Mr. Orlowski: We will take another look. You will have to
reapply. We can go through sketch and take Lead Agency tonight
and make your application. You have your maps. As far as the
road goes we will have to come out and take another look.
Mr. Simmons: Good, that is just what I want. May I ask you, the
maps just what do I do.
Ms. Scopaz: When you come in with the maps they should not show
the two acres that you have to the house.
Mr. Simmons: See I had that taken off. On the final map...
Ms. Scopaz: Ail the other maps in our file show the five lots.
Mr. Orlowski: We have this. This is what we want, but we can't
use just a copy.
Mr. Simmons: O.K. How many shall I bring in. That's the only
thing I have. When I thought I had the approval I chucked
everything. But I can go to the County.
Mr. Ward: The surveyor should have it.
Mr. Orlowski: Your surveyor can make it for you and you can get
the copies signed up there. I am sure.
Mr. Simmons: ! don't know if the surveyor would have it.
PLANNING BOARD Page 16 MARCH 7, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: This is a copy so...
Mr, Simmons: He gave me the one copy we had and I can't find it.
I can go to the County and get a map from them.
Mr. Orlowski: Yes, rather then a copy.
Mr. Simmons: Would one be good.
Mr. Orlowski: Six, we need six. We will need one signed by the
County.
Mr. Simmons: O.K. I'll get right on it.
Mr. Orlowski: What is the pleasure of the Board in regards to
Sketch?
Mr. Ward: Vote for sketch approval.
Mr. Edwards: Subject to a new application.
Mr. Orlowski: No, that is automatic.
Mr. Edwards: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant skesch
approval for the minorsubdivision of Charles Simmons.
Vote of the Board: Ayes; Orlowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Can I have a motion to take Lead Agency?
Mr. Ward: So moved.
Mr. Edwards: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare itself
Lead Agent under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Bob Melrose-Board to discuss this
minor subdivision.
Mr. Melrose: A week ago last Friday I picked up, from the
Suffolk County Board of Health, a permit on a minor subdivision
which has been before your Board. This process of getting this
PLANNING BOARD Page 17 MARCH 7, 1988
took a year and a half. Back in July of 1967, the Planning
office here advised me that I had to get a specific Board of
Health approval for this minor subdivision which had been
previously approved by this Board. I guess you call it sketch
approval and a Negative Declaration, that was dated August
15,1985. I had been operating since I started this process which
I guess started way back in 83. A book I was given called Zoning
Chapter 100. t guess, do to my ignorance, I assumed that was the
set of rules and regulations I had to operate by. In the last
couple of days I learned about Chapter Ai06-1057. Its in that
area which minor subdivision cases exist. I was totally unaware
of that. I'd also explain why it took so long to get the Board
of Health permit. The application was filed in July, in August
or the beginning of September they came back to me and told me I
had to get Greenport Water hook up contracts for those three
lots. It took me from that time to December 3rd, 1987 to get
this through Greenport and I will assure you that I followed
this
up on a weekly basis with them. If I had not done that there
would still be no approval. Two months after that the Board of
Health came through with their approval. I have spent a lot of
time and a lot of effort on this thing. I regret that I was not
better informed as to what your laws were. Actually at the time
that the Planning Board people here told me to go get the Board
of Health approval I guess m~ minor subdivision had already been
terminated. Nobody ever told me that. So that is my stor~. I am
asking for relief from this termination process so we can
proceed and I can conclude this matter. Thank you ....
Mr. Orlowski: I can sympathize with you. I don't think with our
policy and the way it is written that we are in any other
position but to proceed with a new sketch approval and go from
there. It would be the quickest and the easiest. I know that
these other agencies can slow you down but we can not take
responsibility for those other agencies. It is the only way I
can see it being handled, unless the Board has any other ideas.
Mr. Ward: No, I think we could move for sketch.
Mr. Orlowski: And proceeda I can remember this application way
back. It was a site plan on the commercial property and a
subdivision all atonce and worked on the site plan and finished
that up right away and you proceeded with the subdivision. We
can s!a~pathize with you. What we can do tonight is start the
procedure and grant sketch again, immediately and make an
applicationand do the SEQRA and go from there. You have your
approvals from Greenport water and the Board of Health so it
shouldn't be that much longer. As policy, that is the best we
can do. Sticking to policy and being fair. There is a prevision
in the Town Code, but talking with the Town Attorney I think
that means probably death of the whole Board or something like
that. Could be. But that is the way I see this proceeding.
Mr. Ward: So moved.
Mr. Edwards: Second.
PLANNING BOARD Page 19 MARCH 7, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion to grant sketch? All those in favor?
RESOLVED that the 8outhold Town Planning Board grant sketch
approval for this minor subdivision.
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Also to take Lead Agency?
Mr. Edwards: So moved.
Mr. Ward: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare itself
Lead Agent under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Birndorf and Rizzo-Board to discuss Attorney's
request for change in Board's revision of ta¥out. SCTM
#1000-97-3-1.
Ms. Scopaz: If I can clarify that for you, the Board recently
extended the preliminary approval for six months. At the time of
the extension it requested that instead of having the two lots
on 25 that all four lots have access off the right-of-way. Mr.
McClaughlin, on behalf of his client has requested that the
Board reconsider that to allow his client to have two access
points out to leave the second lot, the lot that is adjacent to
Top Sail Realty, to have access to 25.
Mr. Mclaughlin: Kevin Mclaughlin for the applicant. Basically my
understanding of the Board's request is based on the number of
access points out on the Main Road. My suggestion after speaking
with m~ client is that perhaps we could have a common drive
between the two parcels out fronting along the Main Road. That
way there would only be two access points on to the Main Road,
which would be the same amount that we would have if we stacked
the four lots with only one on the Main Road. There is an
existing drive into the existing structure there. They where
going to have a 25 foot right-of-way. This would provide for the
same number of access but would allow us to continue to have two
lots with frontage on the Main Road.
Mr. Ward: Your client believes the frontage on the Main Road for
residential lots would be better?
Mr. Mclaughlin: He prefers it that way.
PLANNING BOARD Page 20 MARCH 7, 1988
Ms. Scopaz: My only recommendation is that if you have one
right-of-way with all four lots having access over that. You
will create three lots off of the Main Road leaving the front
lot with the front lawn intact. My recommendation is that you
stay with your change, but that is the Board's decision.
Mr. Lessard: If I might point out to you, sir, through the
chair. For every lot or right-of-way that hits the Main Road you
need a 239K and the state is very tough on that. I wish you
would keep that in mind. They may just say no! Regardless of
what happens whether you need one or two it has to be applied
for. I think what this Board is trying to do is to cut down on
the amount of entrance onto a State Highway. I think that is
whatthe intent is here. But again, regardless you might have to
go for two 239K's or access approvals if you are going to design
the property so that touches the Main Road plus the access
touching the Main Road.
Mr. Mclaughlin: But we have an existing access. What we are
looking for, one way or the other, is to get approval on the 25
foot right-of-way.
Mr. Lessard: O.K. I just wanted you to be aware of it Kevin.
Mr. Orlowski: What is the pleasure of the Board?
Mr. Ward: Personally, I feel it is a better layout then what we
are recommending. I don't know. Unless there was something with
lot one as to the configuration, I am missing something
somewhere as to why they would want to stay with this
configuration.
Mr. Mclaughlin: I don't really know the answer to that other
then that is the way they proposed it. When I went to them after
the last meeting where you indicated your preference for this.
They indicated a definite preference if the Board would approve.
Mr. Ward: You know if there was something we did not know about,
lets say behind the garage or something that should be part of
that lot. Sitting here looking at it I don't know that there is
any reason not to do what we are requesting. Maybe there is some
reason. Maybe you would want to look into that further and get
back to us.
Mr. Mclaughlin: Why don't I do that.
Mr. Orlowski: Your also next to an existing B-1 zone and
squeezing in another residential lot between a house and that
B-1 makes things tight. I think far more ahead putting lot 2 in
back of lot 1 and keeping away from that B-1 zone which is
there. I would not look for any further thought of extending
that B-! zone over to that piece of property. If that is the
case I think they should forget that. To put that lot in the
back, would mean its off the Main Road and to me it would make
it a more salable lot.
PLANNING BOARD Page 21 MARCH 7, 1988
Mr. Mclaughlin: Why don't I discuss that with my client and get
back to you.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K.
Mr. Mclaughlin: Thank you.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Papadopoulous and Maragos-Board to
discuss attorney's letter requesting clarification of its
February 25th decision. Mr. Bruer.
Mr. Bruer: Members of the Board. I think the letter is pretty
clear. What we are doing here is that we have had final approval
of the map subject to certain conditions which related to a
report from Mr. Davis and a Bonding report from the other
applicant, which came just before the expiration of the time
frame of the conditions. The Board was gracious enough to extend
it for a period of tim~. What bothers us is they have the one
engineer that is now talking about a preliminary map. Obviously
this has been granted a final hearing. It is kind of hard for a
developer to now start discussing with an engineer, a
preliminar~ map and believe me for me to explain to him, you
know, something is obviously wrong. Obviously what the Board
probably wants is something so that on this existing Town road,
which has been around for a long long time,to make sure that it
has proper drainage. If as a result of this subdivision. I guess
what we are here for is, could you please clarify with not only
your people but for therecord that number one we are~ in our
extension period and I am dealing with an engineer that thinks I
have preliminary map.
Mr. Orlowski: Well, in the engineer's part I think that is just
a mistake. We know that we are looking at a approved
subdivision. As far as the engineer's report in what he has
picked up. Do you have any problem with the report.
Mr. Bruer: No, I gather with the conversations my office has had
with Valerie. What the Board really wants is us to supply the
Board or your experts with a topo of the road to show were we
should put our basins. I have ordered this already. As long as
we understand each other that I do have a final map and this is
what we are doing. And what we are doing is to put in the final
drainage, which we have already contracted for as I stated at
the last meeting. We have paid half the Bill already.
Ms. Scopaz: If I could clarify, apparently the wording in Sidney
Bowne's letter was stated in such a way that it was as though if
he did not have approval. I think in the future I will talk with
them about, it is simPly a technical matter in the field. They
were asked to state were the drainage should go. When they got
out there they found out it was a little more complicated then
they thought. They did not want to just eyeball it and say, well
we think here...because if it didn't work out they would be in
hot water.
Mr. Bruer: Right, because even when Mr. Van TUy1 was out there
said based upon the original report you really probably don't
PLANNING BOARD Page 22 MARCH 7, 1988
want that there. It's frightening to tell a client that he is in
the preliminary after three or four years and now we have a
final hearing. We asked for an extension.
Mr. Orlowski: That is the Engineer's comments and he made a
mistake and we can apologize for that.
Mr. Bruer: t understand we are to get a Topo of the road, right
Valerie?
Ms. Scopaz: Right.
Mr. Bruer: And put it where...
Ms. Scopaz: The elevations of where the road is and the
adjoining land. Ail they want to know is the high points and the
low points, so they can make a determination as to where the
basis should go to be most effective. I think that should
resolve the problem,
Mr. Bruer: W~at bothers me and I'll go into it at the last
matter that we are going to discuss tonight. I apparently have a
meter running and do not have the information to comply. I am
trying to get it. We are on our first extension. I am trying to
work.
Mr. Orlowski: Well, we are trying here too. We have a lot of
changes going on in this office and it is all for th.e~ ~etter. It
seems we don't have any problem here at all.
Mr. Bruer: Thank you very much.
Mr. Ortowski: O.K. Dawn Estates Shopping Center-Board to discuss
attorney's letter.
Mr. Mclaughlin: I wroEe a letter to the Board on this lot number
four. It is part of a minor subdivision back in 1980. On this
particular lot there is a very large, dilapidated old building
that is starting to fall in around itself. Originally I think
the building that the building wasutilized as some kind of barn
facility. Later years it had been used somewhat as a storage
facility for a present day condominium. The roof is falling in
on the building. At any rate as part of the minor subdivision
approval there was restriction placed on this lot, which
basically restrictedfrom being used for anything other then
utilizing the existing building or any future building as a
storage facility for the present day condominiums. What I have
requested, in letter form to this Board, is to entertain the
possibility of allowing this lot to be developed for one family
residence. The building that exists there now is, as I said, is
in horrendous condition. To try to bring it up to anything that
is usable anymore is prohibitive. The alternative if we can't
get any kind of relief from this restriction is the building is
not going to be used, it is going to continue to deteriorate and
it is going to become more of an eyesore. I think if you 10ok at
a lot of the surrounding lots of Cleaves Point you will see that
the 'lot size is in substantial compliance with many of the lots
PLANNING BOARD Page 23 MARCH 7, 1988
there. Basically what I am doing is asking the Board to
reconsider the restriction that were placed on lot number four
and remove the restrictions preventing it to be utilized for one
family residential purposes.
Mr. Orlowski: It is there an existing M-1 map? Are you going to
remove that building?
Mr. Mclaughlin: That is the plan, to move that building and to
sell the lot as a vacant lot and allow someone to develop for
one family.
Ms. Scopaz: I believe there is a letter in the file from the
ZBA. It said something about you couldn't use it for multi.
Existing buildings on subject lots can only be used for storage
or for conferences by the proposed purchaser, and shall never be
used as living quarters or muttiple-femily,~ or single family
residence. It seems to me that since the Zoning Board of Appeals
se~ the original restrictions that you may have to go back to
the Board that set the restrictions. This Board only follows
suit.
Mr. Mclaughlin: I intend to. My reason for being here first is I
spoke with the ZBA and he said, "fine file an application." By
letter request, I asked this Board to consider that possibility.
Frankly, I did not know the procedure to have this restriction
removed. So I wrote a letter asking so it would be put on before
the Board so that I would know what procedure to us~ Igotback
correspondence from this Board preliminary indicating that they
had no intention of lifting that restriction. If this Board has
no intention of lifting that restriction I think there is no
sense of going to the ZBA witk that application. Both Boards
have put that restriction on. I guess what I am really asking
you for is if I can proceed with an application before this
Board to lift that restriction. If I get the ability to do that
I got the application form~ in the file to go ahead and file
with the ZBA to get their approval to lift that restriction.
Mr. Orlowski: Does the Board have any problem with that?
Mr. Ward: I am not so sure I know enough about it, but it sounds
reasonable.
Mr. Orlowski: I don't think the~e is, do you Valerie?
Ms. Scopaz: Legally, the fact that the ZBA set the restrictions
first it would have to go back to them first. You have the right
to file with the Planning Board at the same time. The Planning
Board can't say "well, no we won't entertain the application at
all".
Mr. Mclaughlin: They have done that.
Ms. Scopaz: They indicated that they weren't in favor of
changing the restriction. I think the decision is basically
yours whether you were to make two final payments with the
applications in which case, knowing that if the ZBA declines to
PLANNING BOARD Page 24 MARCH 7, 1988
grant your request, you would have spent money with the Planning
Board application that has been lost. You may just want to make
an application with the ZBA. ZBA as a matter of course always
refers to the Planning Board for their approval. What you can do
as a courtesy is submit copies to the Planning Board so it has
it on file. Then it can send its comments back to t/~e ZBA. If
you don't get it, then you haven't lost your application fee to
the Planning Board. If you do get it, then you can proceed with
the Planning Board application.
Mr. Mclaughlin: And by what mechanism do I applyto the Planning
Board to have it's restrictions removed.
Ms. Scopaz: That will become part of your application.
Mr. Mclaughlin: Under what? What application? It's obviously not
a site plan or a set-off.
Ms. Scopaz: I would say it is an amendment of a subdivision map.
Was it a minor subdivision? We would have to amend all your
approvals that went with that map.
Mr. Orlowski: We are looking at a single and separate lot
though. That is in an M-1 Zone.
Ms. Scopaz: Maybe we should refer the question to the Town
Attorney and ask him for an opinion as to how this Board can
consider the specific request that he is asking. How. do yOU
change the restriction on it. I don't think you can change the
restriction on just a single separate lot, because the
restriction was, the wording of it was such, the wording is in
reference to the entire subdivision in Cleaves Point and section
four, subject to a restriction. There is some mention on the
approved map that states that there is a restriction. I think
you would have to emend the subdivision map so the new map does
not have this.
Mr. Mclaughlin: I have a copy of the approved map and it doesn't
show this restriction, but I do have a copy of a March 31, 1980
letter from the Board, specifically referring only to lot four
and putting that restriction on it. That it can only be used for
conferences and storage, but I don't think it was ever a part of
approved subdivision map per say. However I have to do this, as
long as someone can indicate to me how I can get in front of
this Board. I will be happy to go through the ZBA first. And
again, my preliminar~ letter was only trying to find out how to
go about this. That is still were I am. Trying to figure out how
to go before this Board procedurally so that you can,make a
determination as to how you want to proceed on m~ application.
Mr. Orlowski: I would proceed with the Zoning Board of Appeals
and simultaneously file with this Board. We will touch base with
our Attorney. If there is any way we can cut any corners during
that process we will give it a shot. That M-1 zone is existing
on that single and separate lot. We will have to find out how
this effects this whole application.
PLANNING BOARD Page 25 MARCH 7, 1988
Mr. Mclaughtin: The deed of that tot into my clients does
specifically contain that restriction in it.
Mr. Orlowski: It is in there, O.K. then that answers that. I
think two applications, one to the Zoning Board and one to this
Board and we can proceed. We will touch base with our Attorney
first thing tomorrow.
Mr. Mclaughtin: O.K. And I will get a hold of Val?
Mr. Orlowski: Yes. Next Sterling Idea Ventures-Applicant to
discuss letter to the Planning Board.
Mr. Strang: I have addressed several ketters to the Board, I am
not sure which one they are discussing. I'll discuss any or all
of them.
Mr. Orlowski: You sure have enough of them here. O~K. let's just
go with the last one. Conference with the Board.
Mr. Strang: I requested a conference with the Board in the hopes
of that I could maybe more clearly present to the Board the site
plan that is in the application. Answering questions and
hopefully alleviate the request that the Board has with respect
to that the withdrawing the present site plan approval. And act
on this as an amendment to that. I think it would be mutually
beneficial to both the Board and my client. First hurdle,
obviously, I think has to deal with whether the Boa~
entertain this site plan as an amendment or if the Board will
entertain this site plan conditionally; that its approval will
supersede the prior application, the prior approval.
Mr. Orlowski: This amendment is a complete overhaul, as far as t
can see.
Mr. Strang: It is an overhaul in site utilization. It's a
business use. It's the same zoning, the same essential bottom
line uses which was originally proposed. Our presentation
differs from that which was approved in that there was two
buildings originally proposed. Ours is a single building. We are
probably grossing over a few hundred square feet that was there
originally. It is about nine hundred more square foot more gross
area from what was there originally. We are providing more
parking and I think our application in working with some
comments that Valerie has is a much more viable alternative then
which was originally presented. In that you now have a buffer at
the road which you wanted but you didn't have formely. You have
more landscaping in front on the street side which you didn't
have essensally under the former application. The problem, I
guess, stems from the fact that my client purchased the property
with the approval which gives it a certain market value,
obviously. If he then withdraws that approval he is left with a
parcel that is less valuable, until such.time as the new
approval is given. We are not certain at this point in time what
the Board's feelings are, they have not encountered it yet.
PLANNING BOARD Page 26 MARCH 7, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: Personally, we went through a lot and approved
that one site plan. You're in a commercial zone, so I don't see
where value is gained or lost. I don't see how we can take a
whole new site plan on top of one that is already existing and
call it amended site plan. I think it is a completely new site
plan. As far as I can see it is much more than any amendment,
which we do entertain. We should have the original withdrawn and
move on to a new site plan.
Mr. Strang: O.K. again I am speaking on behalf of my client who
is not able to be here this evening.
Mr. Orlowski: What you are saying to us is if you don't like
what we say about this one you are going to go back to the other
one. And then they are going to waste our time doing this one
and I do not think that is fair to this Board.
Mr. Strang: It is not that we don't like what you are saying. We
are trying to move it along and we have been obviously very
receptive to what the Board says, because I have had several
meetings with Valerie. Every comment that Valerie has presented
to me which from the Board has been, to the best of my
knowledge, incorporated into the site plan. We have revised it
twice: trying to address all the issues the Board has presented.
The bottom line is that we are looking to have a workable site
plan that is acceptable to the Board, that is acceptable to my
client and not have him give up something that he paid to buy
originally. He is not looking to do what was ther~riginali.~,
he would rather not. It doesn't make sense to him to do what's
there.
Mr. Orlowski: Then I would withdraw it.
Mr. Strang: He is willing to withdraw it, but withdraw it at the
same time or in conjunction with your approval of the present
that has been submitted.
Mr. Orlowski: What is the Board's pleasure?
Mr. Ward: Do you want to talk to Jay and see if there is any
time involved that can be done.
Mr. Orlowski: I think we would have to entertain a new
application fee.
Mr. Strang: Excuse me, a new?
Mr. Orlowski: A new application Fee.
Mr. Strang: That has already been submitted. There has been an
application and a fee submitted. It was really a matter of
semantics as to whether this was going to go on as a withdrawal
in conjunction with an approval or withdrawal prior to an
approval. I guess my client is just trying to protect his
investment, if you will. Unfortunately the real estate market is
such that if son, one has a piece of property with an approval on
it's market value is considerab'ly higher then a piece of
PLANNING BOARD Page 27 MARCH 7, 1988
property without an approval on it. You do pay for those
approvals. That is one of the reasons he is reluctant, seriously
reluctant to give that up.
Mr. Ward: Is he planning to do this?
Mr. Strang: Is he planning to build the structure?
Mr. Ward: Yes.
Mr. Strang: To the best of nrf knowledge he is. He has not
advised me otherwise.
Mr. Ward: If he is planning to build it, it does not seem like
there is any problem with.., with what you have. If you are
doing it for spec purposes then I can see why maybe he is
nervous.
Mr. Strang:... Possibility while we are discussing it if we
could discuss the other aspects of the site that the Board had
difficulty with. Maybe we can resolve that as well.
Mr. 0rlowski: It has always been a policy of this Board to
rescind one and start with another. We have been in the position
where we have two then, when we get to the end they say never
mind. It seems like a waste of time. I do not see where the big
problem is. I do not see where we are creating a problem or
losing anything. You have an existing zone there. ~Qu~have the
approval. I think you even have a variance on this lot, don't
you?
Mr. Strang: I think there was a variance that was granted to the
former applicant on which the existing approval is there.
Mr. Orlowski: That is still there.
Mr. Strang: Well, that goes with the land.
Mr, Orlowski: That is right. So we are not taking anything away
and we are not playing games either.
Mr. Strang: I know. I guess all I can say in he...
Mr. Orlowski: We will run it by our Attorney but I know the
policy hasbeen what ever the Board wants to do.
Mr. Strang: Is there anything that the Board can share with me
this evening with respect that in the event that my client does
agree to withdraw the application to proceed on the new site
plan. Is there anything ~ou can see that is a major stumbling
block? Again if he does withdraw his application he would
undoubtedly want to streamline the process for the new
application if we could have it place as soon as possible.
Mr. Ward: I would say probably the through road.
Mr. Strang: The circulation around?
PLANNING BOARD Page 28 MARCH 7, 1988
Mr. Ward: Yes. It looks like you can put your curb line right on
the property line in the back because you have the recharge
basin. In other words, we are not tr~ing to buffer anyone back
there.
Mr. Strang: No that is true. I think that curb line is pretty
close now. If I'm not mistaken. The problem that I had, and I
addressed in one of the letters, is that by putting the
circulation loop behind the building, to leave the parking
spaces that are back there, thereby reducing the ultimate number
of parking spaces we could provide. The curb line is four feet
of the property line. If we were to put it directly on the
property line, we could probably maintain two of the four spaces
back there if that is such a great situation. The other question
I guess I have, is the absolute need for that circulation route.
This is not a Key Food or a King Kullen type shopping center. It
is a relatively small cluster.
Mr. Ward: We prefer to see that loading zone out back and not in
front. That was our concern with that~ So you could use part of
the strip out back and maybe gain another space here.
Mr. Strang: So ultimatel~ the Board is steadfast on the
circulation route, as long as t know that we will deal with it
as best we can.
Mr. Ward: It could stay oneway. It is a small enough site that
it could stay oneway .... _~
Mr. Strang: O.K. Is there anything else that we can discuss that
we have to get over?
Mr Orlowski: Any other co~¢aents?
Mr. Strang: I know there was question in one of the letters with
regards to the curb cut location. That pretty much dictates the
configuration of the site and again the question was with
respect to the circulation, conflict with Van Duzer. Van Duzer's
really not operating a quote un-quote "retail establishment".
The amount of traffic that he generates, it is minimal.
Mr. Orlowski: That is it. O.K. we will touch base with our
attorney in the morning and get right back to you. I think we
are going to proceed the way we have been, but we will let you
know tomorrow.
Mr. Strang: O.K. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Mr. Orlowski: Now, Arshamomague Island-Board to revie~
applicants request for grading on road specifications.
Mr. Bruer: Mr. Chairman, Rudolph Bruer. I think it goes beyond
that. The best I could on Februar~ 12, I wrote Ms. Scopaz a
letter, which I would like to make part of this record tonight.
If the Board would stipulate to that we will just assume that it
P/J~NNING BOARD Page 29 MARCH 7, 1988
is in here rather then me read it. It is three pages. We don't
need that.
Fo~ the record, see letter:
~EFFE~TSP.£OSON (Retired)
February 12, 1988
Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
Southold Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, N.Y. 11971
Re: Arshamomaque Island Subdivision
Shalette (formerly Ofrias).
Dear Ms. Scopaz:
The above referenced minor subdivision was approved by the Town
Planning Board on July 14, 1986, subject to: (1) filing of covenants
and restrictions and (2) improvement of right of way to requirements
of Inspector within 6 months. Subsequent to the initial 6-month time
limitation, two 90-day extensions were granted by the Board, which
extensions expired on July 14, 1987. On July t3~ 1987, this office
requested additional time to comply with the conditions of this
approval on behalf of Dr. and Mrs. Benson Shalette who purchased the
subject property on April 2, 1987. I met with you personally on July
23, 1987, to discuss this matter and, if I recall correqtly, you
explained that the Town Code would~ot permit the Board to grant any
additional extensions. Your recommendation was to resubmit the
original application, with the understanding that additional fees may
be required.
The PlanDing Board's July 27, 1987 meeting agenda called for
consideration of our request for an extension on the conditions of
final approval, and acceptance and request for compliance with report
No. 602 from Inspector Davis. with regard to the right of way
improvements. Assuming Chis repor~ No. 602 constitutes the same
'requirements of InspeCtor' made a condition of the 7/14/86 approval,
which I believe it does, please take note that said report is dated
June 30, 1987 (14 days prior to the expiratzon of time to comply with
same) and did not come before the Board for acceptance until July 27,
1987 (13 days after ~he final extension expired). Theoretically, our
clients were permitted 14 days time in which to Complete rzght of way
zmprovements on the basis of a report which had not yet gained the
Planning Board's acceptance. I believe the inequity is clear.
V. Scopaz
-2- V~ ~e~"- February 12, 1988
On August 18, 1987, this office formally requested that the Planning
Board reinstate the original application, that the form and substance
of same remain unchanged, and that the Board update and reaffirm their
7/14/86 approval. In response to this request, the Board's September
2, 1987 letter states that "they would accept a new application With
new (additional) maps" and filing and inspection fees totaling
$750.00. We note here that the Board's 8/24/87 adoption of its new
policy with'regard to the construction of minor subdivision roads was
in place at this time, but no inference is made, nor taken, as to its
applicability with respect to this project. On September 25, 1987, we
complied "to the letter" with the Board's 9/2/87 advise, once again
requesting that this application be reinstated and the 7/14/86
approval be updated and reaffirmed.
On October 27, 1987, a letter from the B~ard states that the new
application has been reviewed. They request certain maD revisions,
and~road improvements, to be bonded and constructed to Town
specifications. These requests were totally inconsistent with our
understanding of the Board's position on this application.
On December 11, 1987, Mrs. Shalette and I met with you and stated our
position, as follows: (1) That applicants were prevented from
complying with the conditions of the 7/14/86 approval, prior to its
expiration, due to the nonexistence of accepted "requirements of
Inspector"; and, (2) that, besides being inequitable due_to the
particular circumstances of this application, the imposition of road
improvements to Town specifications would be cost prohibitive for this
project; and' (3) that our repeated requests that the 7/14/86 approval
be reinstated', updated and reaffirmed were never acknowledged by the
Board, although we had been led to believe that the Board was amenable
to this procedure, based upon my discussion with you on 7/23/87 and
the Board's letter of 9/2/87. .~.
At this 12/11/87 meeting, 'you assured us that the matter would be
addressed at the Planning Board's 1/8/88 work session and that we
would have their response on 1/11/88. No response issued from that
work session. Thereafter, we understand, the 1/15/8.8 work session was
cancelled due to a snow storm and this matter was not addressed at the
1/22/88 work session, nor ~t the session on 1/29/88.
From what I gather, a consideration of this matter is being made part
of protracted general discussions on the new road requirements and the
"grandfathering" of certain minor subdivisions with respect to same.
This should not be the case. The points of contention we have raised
are specific to this application and exclusive of any such
discussions.
Please advise.
Sincerely,
Rudolph H. Bruer
RHB/df
cc: Dr. and Mrs. Benson Shalette
Southold Town Planning Board
James A. Schondebare, Esq.
PLANNING BOARD Page 30 MARCH 7, 1988
I will assume the Board has read it. I think the major thrust
of this is, this is a subdivision that was the former home of
Mr. Ofrias, which I think the members of the Board agreed with
and the application as it went through. The thrust here is more
than just the roads. The roads are a definite part of this. But
what happened I believe, according to what I can garnish from
the record, is that the Planning Board on July 14, 1986, granted
conditional approval of this minor subdivision. Onesubject to
filing a covenants and two putting in the improvements to a
right-of-way pursuant to the inspection within six months.
During that six month perio~ of time, Mr. Ofrias came along and
got, I guess a ninety day extension and sold the property to my
clients who got a second extension. The second extension brought
it out to a year. The problem, basically, is that this was a
conditional approval. Now the conditional approval was basically
the engineer and the engineer had to get up the specs and tell
what the road was. According to my investigation of the records
that the Board is willing to accept, I understand, is that Mr.
Davis's report was finally forthcoming on June 30, i987.
Fourteen days prior to the expiration of the second extension,
which really didn't leave the applicant too much time to put the
road in, particularly during the first extension. It is also my
understanding from reading the records that the Board did not
accept that report till, I think, 13 days after the expiration
of the second extension. Which I think is kind of unfair,
because they really could not have put the road in if they
didn't know what it was supposed to be. I guess what if comes
down to is in the mean time I've had a number of c~rs~ions
with Ms. Scopaz. One of the problems with respect to this is the
position of the Board is that after the second extension
expired, the subdivision expired. Therefore we had to reapply.
It was my understanding at that time and the easy way to do it
was to reapply. Everything would kind of go along they way it
was. That did not happen. The Board in the meantime came up with
different road specs as the general policy which is not to the
liking of my client, who purchased this property with the
understanding that it had a subdivision or they had a
subdivision. Not only that, I guess, the new Trustees' laws came
in with the respect of being 75 feet away from wetlands, which
may or may not be a problem with the old Ofrias subdivision.
What I mean by that is, I may have to go back and try and get
relief as far as the new law that came in after the so called
expiration of this subdivision. I'm sure I talked to the Board
and I'm not going to up hold you. I think what has happened is
very unfair.
Mr. Orlowski: As far as what?
Mr. Bruer: Well, to give a person a approval of a subdivision
and tell them they have to put in a road pursuant to the
specifications of the engineer within six m~nths. And the
engineer not give the specs until nine months later. That's
unfair, the Board through, I rather not argue about this. The
Board in itself has prevented the applicant from complying. I
would like to suggest to the Board, I don't think I really want
to debate with you, is I think the Board should think about what
I am trying to say.
PLANNING BOARD Page 31 MARCH 7, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: Were you ready to put the road in ir~nediatetyt
right then and there.
Mr. Bruer: On ttkirteen days notice?
Mr. Orlowski: No, prior to, when you first got approval. It
appears that thing was jerked around so many ways tn the very
beginning.
Mr. Bruer: As I said, the merits of the road if you want me to
bring that to you, I can't do that. I was not present. Mr.
Ofrias has been viewed with respect the conditional approval.
His view is, to my understanding, is different from What the
Board says those conditions are. The conditions happen to be
some type of a penciled in notation with respect to this
condition. I don't think that it should be argued at this
particular point. What I am suggesting to the Board, if I may,
is that when you give conditional approvals subject to a
engineers report, so to speak, that the time frame doesn't start
to tick until the Board
has given the applicant
its decisions to do the
Board here to do, would
the very least that the
the material or the information to make
job. What I am hoping to influence the
be at this particular instance to say at
original time frame of this subdivision
should not have started to tick until the Board had approved Mr.
Davis's report. Then the proper decisions could be made. I think
the equities in terms of everybody, members of the Board, the
applicant, would be fairly analyzed as to whether ~t~p~d or
not or jerk around. I think that has happened and I think your
other applications before the Board I am starting to see that. I
think maybe I would impeach the Board that in their future
policy thinking in these terms generally you could consider what
I just said.
Mr. Orlowski: I don't see where the hardship is really. You are
talking bottom line, other then the Trustees and what their
problemis with it is the road, right?
Mr. Bruer: Assuming the utmost good faith on the part of my
client she could not have done what she was supposed to have
done because the Board did not approve the engineer'sreport,
the work to be done, until after the second extension. It did
not exist, how could she comply with it?
Mr. Orlowski: Why didn't you make a few more requests to improve
it. It appears there was no intent to approve that road anyway.
Mr. Bruer: Well, we came here for an extension. It was an
extensional matter. The interpretation of the Board was at that
time, I don't know if everybody thought it all out, was that the
time it expired and therefore, it was removed and they had to
reapply. You can not grant something and not allow them to do
it. I would please suggest that you speak to Mr. 8chondebare and
my letter before you make a decision. I'd rather not back
everybody into a corner tonight on the issue. I think my letter
is fairly clear. I think if everybody thinks it out and if you
make a decision contrary to what I am asking I would appreciate
PLANNING BOARD Page 32 MARCH 7, 1988
that. I think it should be with great care and I don't think it
is going to env~ you.
Mr. Orlowski: You are talking that you would rather go with Mr.
Davis' report rather then our new specs.
Mr. Bruer: I am saying to the Board not only don't I have a... I
don't have a subdivision, I don't have specs, I don't have a
subdivision.
Ms. Scopaz: If I may, I could briefly recount the histor~ of
this in more detail. He is giving you the bare bone, outline. He
did not represent Mr. Ofrias, so he was not a party to that at
that time.
Mr. Bruer: You missed something Valerie, when Mr. Ofrias left I
think you missed something. You would have enjoyed it.
Ms. Scopaz: There are two issues that are being raised here.
Maybe I can clarify them, I em not going to get involved in the
discussion. Back in July 18, 1986, the Board did give Mr. Ofrias
Conditional final approval. It was a practice that the Board did
at that time with minor subdivision. Now any approval it grants
with minor subdivisions, it requires that the road be bonded so
that the applicant has more time in which to comply with plans
of the proposal. But, at that time it was not done. I am just
going to read through the correspondence here. August 25, 1986
the Planning Board asked Jack Davis to please come: ~p~itktke
road specs and then in September of 1986 the Planning Board
asked Mr. Ofrias at the request of Mr. Davis to please set the
road and to provide some kind of profile. Evidently Jack needed
some more information. In November of 1986, Mr. Ofrias sent a
letter to the Board asking that the right-of-way be left
unresolved until such time that someone came in for a building
permit on either of the two remaining lots. He made it clear
that he really wished not to put the road in at this time. In
December of 86 the Board in response to that ~etter granted a 90
day extension on the conditional approval. Once again reiterated
that it wanted the right-of-way to be improved. In April of
1987, Jack requested that additional information be provided to
the surveyor in regards to the road profile, and on April 8th,
the road profile was amended by the surveyor. On April 13th,
there was a second 90 day extension of conditional final
approval in order to complete the road. On April 22, Van Tuy1
submitted an application. June 30th there was a letter to Jack
from the Board and then in July there was the request to extend
the approvalan additional 90 days. But under state law the
Board could not extend the approval again. It was at that point
the new person involved. Now I understand the current owner
bought the property sometime in the spring of 1987. The letter
in the file is from April. What transpired between December and
April I don't know.
Mr. Bruer: There is a serious issue of facts that I don't think
should be debated here. Is to whether the actual subdivision was
a conditional subdivision of the roads having to be put in or
being put in as such time as the lapse of time. If you recall
PLANNING BOARD Page 33 MARCH 7, 1988
back at that particular time you were phasing out that type of
subdivision. But up until that time, you would allow a developer
to put-in a minor subdivision or grant him approval of a minor
subdivision and the roads did not have to be put in until such
time that somebody came and said I wanted to build there. At
that particular point they would have to come back to the Board,
despite the years after the original granting of the approval.
As for the going to the Building inspector, you would say go to
the Planning Board and what are specs that are required. That is
the way things were done. I know the Board is getting out of
that. It 'is a factual questionnaire and I. Valerie and I are
pretty much on. the same wave length.
Mr. Orlowski: Alright, let's talk to Mr. Schondebare tomorrow
and see what he has to say. That is a horrendous road unless it
has been fixed up. The last time I was down there it was just a
bad road, period.
Mr. Bruer: Well, I know Mr. Mullen likes it because he is
selling his Cherokees. If the Board would please, if there is a
meeting I would like to be present, with Mr. Schondebare.Please
indicate to him I would like to talk to him about it. I would
like to work it out and I think it should be worked out. The
Board has always been fair, generally speaking.
Ms. Scopaz: What I would recommend is to draft a letter or a
memo to the Town Attorney. I have already spoken 'to the Town
Attorney about setting up meetings. Mr. Bruer is n~,~/~e £irst
attorney or applicant to request a joint meeting with the
Planning Board and Town Attorney. Given that they are still
setting up there office, what we have agreed on is that we will
write a memo, talk to the applicant, talk to the Town Attorney,
and he will responce to us in writing. If there is still any
unresolved question at that point, then we can talk about
setting up a meeting. For the time being that is what he
suggested.
Mr. Bruer: That would be fine. I would like that, I would like
to be able to say to my client I could expect future report with
the Board on this. I just like to throw out as my suggestion, I
don't expect any comment back on that, is when you have
conditional approval and if there is something there that the
Board is suppose to do, please lets not have the meter run. I
mean the taxi driver doesn't charge you till you get in the cab.
Mr. Orlowski: But when you don't know where you are going, the
meter is sure running. We will work it out to the best of our
ability, because personally I would like to get rid of this
thing myself.
Mr. Bruer: Thank you ver~ much.
Ms. Scopaz: There is just one more item which I forgot to put on
the agenda. It is my fault, not the computer's fault. On
Februar~ 25th the Town Board had an interesting meeting with
Greenport Village Board to discuss certain problems. It was
PLANNING BOARD Page 3 4 MARCH 7, 1988
intended to be a forum to discuss two issues. One was the
problem Greenport is having with the Suffolk County Health
Department with regard to continuing hook-up with public water.
The second issue had to do with the status with the sewage
treatment plant. I was asked to attendl One of the problems that
was discussed at the meeting, which has relevancy to the
Planning Board, was the fact that there have been some
subdivisions and site plans which the Board has granted final
approval in an endorsement on the grounds that it had received a
valid contract from the Greenport Village. As you know, we have
discussed this many times before. The Board .has required that
contract as proof that there was water available. What happened,
however,is that contract is not sufficient because what it is
basically, is simply an agreement between the Village and the
Applicant. The agreement is this, the village says if you do X,Y
and Z to our satisfaction we will allow you to hook up to our
public water system. There has been a number of cases where
there has been a valid contract and a year to two years later
that contract has been declared null and void by the Village. In
the meantime, the Planning Board has already granted approval to
a map or a subdivision or site plan.
The plans were filed in Riverhead or the project was sold with
the stipulation. It is in a sense a false approval. We have had
that problem on a number of applications. Victor Lessard has
mentioned that Building permits have been issued for
construction only to find out that the Water contract was null
and void. What was discussed was the possibilit¥of the Planning
Board changing its conditional approval to read tk~b~.final
approval will'be granted, the endorsement of the map or the site
plan will be granted when we get a letter fromthe Village
stating "yes, all the terms of the contract have been met to
their satisfaction and there is actually going to be a hook up".
Mr. Orlowski: I think that is an excellent idea.
Mr. Lessard: In essence we want to see the contract, period.
Because it has a hell of a bearing when you get into an M zone
and what not as far as your lot coverage is concerned. When this
Town issues permits in December on something thatwas cancelled
out in May it is a little a~kward, to say the least. Valerie has
made that point understood by Greenport and they are supposed to
agree to send us back. But in the mean time, I think it behooves
this Board not give final anything until we see it in front of
us, understand the time periods, the whole bit.
Mr. Ward: What are you saying, no final ~p until the conditions
are met?
Mr. Lessard: If it involves city water and/or city sewage the
Planning Board should have a copy at least of the contract in
its file before it m~ves on the final.
Mr. Ward: We would need a letter from the Village saying they
have complied with all the requirements.
Mr. Lessard: That too.
PLANNING BOARD Page 35 MARCH 7, 1988
Mr. Ward: We have been getting the contracts, but what is
happening now that the Village is finding that there is broken
contracts.
Ms. Scopaz: The second thing is that they have also agreed that
they will notify us when they have cancelled contracts. Now, you
should be aware that the limit of their time periods seems to be
flexible. They give an applicant two to three years to comply
with their terms. Apparently it is renegotiated with ever~
single contract. I made it clear to them once the Planning Board
grants conditional final approval, that conditional final
approval can only run for a year, as Mr. Bruer's case was
illustrative of. The Village understands that. They, in turn,
are going to have to make it clear to the applicant that, if you
don't comply with these terms within the year you run the risk
of losing your Planning Board conditional final approval at the
same time. It has to be a mutual Bnderstanding on both sides on
how we are working this out. We were just talking at a meeting
and I think it would be good if the Board sent a letter to the
Village that this will be our policy. So it is in writing and
everybody knows where everybody is.
Mr. Ward: I move that we adopt that as a policy.
Mr. Edwards: I second that.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor? ~-
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board adopt the policy
that the applicant have a valid contract with the Village of
Greenport within the year's time frame of conditional final
approval. When the .applicant has met with the terms the Village
of Greenport will send a letter to the Planning Board stating
that fact. Further, if a contract has been declared null and
void the Village will notify the Planning Board of Same by
letter.
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: There is nothing left ~onm3f agenda. Any questions
from the Board? Mr. Edwards? Thank you for coming so that we
could have this meeting. Everybody else is out of the Country.
Mr. Edwards: The only comment I have Benny, is that I missed the
last meeting due to the weather, but I enjoyedmy trip to the
Association of Towns and particularly enjoyed the lecture of Mr.
... and the Complement he gave Tuesday afternoon. He spoke quite
at length about our Town of Southold, not mentioning its name.
It was an interesting lecture, unfortunately I think I was the
only one there from the Town present. I did have a change to
talk to him after wards.
PLANNING BOARD Page 3 6 MARCH 7. 1988
Mr. Orlowski: Being no further business to come before the
Board, on a motion made by Mr. Ward, seconded by Mr. Edwards,
and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
M. Thorp, Sdcretary
Southold Town Planning Board
~Benn~{t -Orlow~kl, ~r.
/