HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-03/21/1988Town Hall, 53095 Ma~n Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARDOFF~E
TOWN OFSOUTHOLD
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1988
The Southold ToWn Planning Board held a regular meeting on
Monday, Mar'ch 21, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall,
Main Road, Southold.
PRESENT WERE:
Bennett Orlowski,Jr. Chairman
Member William Mullen,Jr.
Member G. Ritchie Latham
Member Richard G. Ward
Member Kenneth Edwards
Executive Administrator Victor' Lessard
Town Planner Valerie Scopaz
Planner Melissa Spiro
Secretary Jill Thorp
Mr. Orlowski: 7:30 p.m. Public Hearing on the question of final
approval of the minor subdivision of Franklyn J. Born, 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.
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 final hearing. I will ask if there
is any objections to this minoL, subdivisions? Hearing none are
there any endorsements to this subdivision? Hearing none is
there anyone out there is neither pro nor con but may have
information pertaining to this subdivision that would be of
interest to the Board? Hearing none are there any questions from
the Board? Mr. Mullen?
Mr. Mullen: No.
Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Latham?
Mr. Latham: No questions.
Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Ward?
Mr. Ward: No
Planning Board Page 2 March 21, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Edwards?
Mr. Edwards: NOo
Mr. Orlowski: Ms. Scopaz?
Ms. Scopaz: The only question would be is, if the Board has
decided if a bond estimate is needed for any improvements.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Do you see any need there for a bond
estimate, Mr. Ward?
Mr. Ward: Offhand no, but you might want to look at the road
drainage.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Being no further questions, I will declare
this hearing closed. Thank you for coming. Everything is in
order for final approval. Does the Board have any pleasure on
this subdivision tonight?
Mr. Latham: We wanted to look at the drainage area. Is that a
big problem?
Mr. Orlowski: I don't think that is a big problem. Do you, Mr.
Ward?
Mr. Ward: No.
Mr. Orlowski: We can approve it subject to.
Mr. Latham: There is no road involved?
Mr. Orlowski: It is just checking the drainage, I don't believe
there is anything there. Everything else is in order.
Mr. Latham: I will move approval subject to that.
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Next order of business is a 7:45 public
hearing on the final approval of the major subdivision of
Nicholas Aliano, survey dated January 14, 1988. This proposal
is for 8 lots on 16.83 acres off CR 48, Peconic.
SCTM %1000-74-4-4. We have proof of publication in the Long
Island Traveler/Watchman and proof of publication in the Suffolk
Times. At this time everything is in order for final hearing and
I will ask if there are any objections to this major
subdivision? Hearing none, are there any endorsements to this
subdivision?
Planning Board Page 3 March 21, 1988
Mr. Raynor: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. My
name is Henry Ra!rnor and I am agent to Nicholas Aliano. As you
are well aware this is a final hearing for an eight lot
subdivision to be divided into two and two an a half acres on
the SoUth side of County Route 48, in Peconic. This received
sketch plan approval from your Board back in September 15, 1986.
We received a Negative Declaration on August 26, of that year.
We received preliminary approval from this Board on April 27th
of last year and reflect the amendments that this Board
requested of the applicant. On Jar~uary 29th we received the
final Department of Health Services approval. I believe that all
the requirements have been met. If we could have the Board's
approval of the same...
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 interest to this Board? Ms. Scopaz?
Ms. Scopaz: I realize that this application has gone through
many months of review and it is getting down to the wire.
However, for the record, I would like to say that I don't think
that this particular layout is the best layout that could be
had. I feel strongly about ... and clusters. I am very concerned
that the lots situated as they are on CR 48, backing up to the
railroad tracks and adjoining the gasoline service station, will
result in possibly eventual co~,~ercialization of the property. I
just think that in the future properties like thiscould be
clustered with a design of a cul-de-sac. It would have been a
much more private and marketable subdivision then the current
application.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Any questions from the Board? Mr. Mullen?
Mr. Mullen: No.
Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Latham?
Mr. Latham: No questions.
Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Ward?
Mr. Ward: No questions
Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Edwards?
Mr. Edwards: No.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Being no further questions I will declare
this hearing closed and thank you for coming.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. next, Board to set Monday, April 11, 1988, at
the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold as the time and
place for the next regular Planning Board meeting.
Mr. Mullen: So moved.
Planning Board Page 4 March 21, 1988
Mr. Latham: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Emilia T. Pike - Board to discuss the
disapproval by the Suffolk County Planning Commission. This
proposal is for 2 lots on 90,382 square feet off Main Road in
Mattituck. SCTM $1000-140-3-26. The ZBA has approved this with
conditions: No accessory buildings in the side or front yard, no
further lot area width reduction and no further division or set
offs. I think that we were happy with this and I don't see any
problem in overriding the Planning Commission's co~,~ents. The
comments are standard co~m,ents. They note in creating a
s~bstan8~rd lot, but they did not take into consideration that
the ZBA approval was granted. That is about it.
Mr. Edwards: Move to override.
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: August Acres- Board to set Monday, April 11, at
7:30 p.m. for a Public Hearing on the final approval for this
major subdivision.
Mr. Mullen: So moved.
Mr. Latham: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made an seconded. An~ questions on the
motions? All thoss in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mutlen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Young's Avenue Associates- Board to
extend the 45 day period for decision after Public Hearing in
order to concludS SEQRA. We are waiting for the Health
Departments response on this.
Mr. Latham: So moved.
Planning Board Page 5 March 21, 1988
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Manor Hill- Board to request
revised maps and to start lead agency status and SEQRA upon
receipt of same. I will entertain a motion to take Lead Agency.
Mr. Mullen: So moved.
Mr. Edwards: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Valerie did you talk to the
applicant about these changes?
Ms. Scopaz: Yes, Mr. Saland is here to respond to any questions
you might have.
Mr. Orlowski: Did you have any problem with those changes?
Mr. Saland: No, its been a little while, but I am more than
happy to cooperate. I understand, speaking to Valerie, if I move
the road more to the south so if we develop Section Two in the
future we will have a major road to it. We have already
clustered down the lots to forty thousand square feet. To meet
the 50% requirement desired for that area. We are more than
happy to cooperate.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Very good.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Next we have Wolf Pit Associates- Board to
take action on the preliminary map for this major subdivision
located at the Southwesterly corner of Mill Road and Mill Lane,
Mattituck. SCTM $1000-107-4-2.1.
Ms. Scopaz: Mr. Chairman, the only thing I want to add to that
is that there evidently there has been no agreement or I don't
think there has been agreement to what we are going to do with
the park property or the' money. We have not been unable to reach
the Park District. I suggest thatwe move ahead with your
preliminary approvals if you're so inclined. We can continue to
pursue contact with the Park District, prior to the final
hearing and resolve that. If that is alright with both of you
and the applicant.
Planning Board Page 6 March 21, 1988
Mr. saland: That is fine with me.
Mr. Orlowski: Do you have any problem with a minimum setback of
150' off Mill Lane.
Mr. Saland: 150' of Mill Lane.
Ms. Scopaz: Why don't you look at the map.
Mr. Orlowski: See the line we drew. This comes to 100'. Over
here where you have a lot of depth is 150'.
Mr. Saland: So it is less here than here.
Mr. Orlowski: Then what you show on the 60'. Lots this size does
not make any sense to put right on Mill Lane.
Mr. Saland: Fine.
Mr. Orlowski: What is the pleasure on this? Wolf Pit Associates
on the preliminary map.
Mr. Edwards: So moved
Mr. Ward: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Latham: Just s~bject to the Park District?
Mr. Orlowski: That will be in th~ final.
Mr. Saland: Thank you.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Henry Lytle- Board to take action
on the sketch map for this minor subdivision. Board to take lead
agency status under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
This proposal is for 2 lots on 9 acres. SCTM #1000-68-1-13.
I'll entertain~the motion for lead agency.
Mr. Edwards: So moved.
Mr. Ward: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. This proposal is for 2 lots
on 9 acres. It is a resubmission of an expired sketch. What is
Planning Board Page 7 March 21, 1988
the pleasure on the sketch map? We have approved this once
already.
Mr. Edwards: Move for approval.
Mr. Latham: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlewski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. I am going to skip Dorman and Townsend. Mr.
Townsend said he will be a little later and he would like us to
wait. I am going to go onto Edward and Eileen Deutsch- Board
to take action on this sketch map for this minor subdivision. I
am going to combine this with Too Bee Realty Corp. This is
also for a sketch action. Is there anyone here representing
Deutsch?
Mr. Raynor: Yes. As we have presented three or four sketches I
would like to see what sketch is proposed to the Board and that
you would take action on.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Mr. Ward you have some co~m~ents? Are you
representing Too Bee Realty too?
Mr. Raynor: I am not, I believe Mr. Kapell is.
Mr. Orlowski: You mean you missed one?
Mr. Raynor:...
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. on Deutsch, Mr. Ward, I believe you have some
comments on changes in the layout itself.
Mr. Ward: It would probably be best to look at them unless you
have seen the file at the office.
Mr. Raynor: If you have the one that you are referring to, I
would like to look at them, yes.
Mr. Orlowski: Not to throw anybody off, but these two lots are
contingent andwe would like to but them together so it makes
some sense.
Mr. Raynor: Let me just speak for Mr. Deutsch and I'll let Mr.
Kapell speak for Too Bee Realty if that would please the Board.
Mr. and Mrs. Deutsch have no problem in setting aside the
boundaries that is contiguous with Too Bee Realty, 25' One that
they have a problem with is creating improvements with the 20'
as set forth in the road specification by this Board to the
depth of the innermost lot. Both of which conditions I have
expressed to the Board. They do obviously have an objection to
Planning Board Page 8 March 2~, 1988
create a major subdivision road on a four lot configuration for
the benefit of the property holder that is adjoining them to the
rear. I am not speaking about Too Bee Realty, I am speaking in
this case of the Stepnoski property. We are not going to build
major roads were they are not necessary nor do I think it is a
good policy. The only other consideration I suggest the Board
take under with regard to Deutschs' property is if we were to
reverse these two lots and this would create road frontage. We
in no way intend to walk away to what we have committed to do.
But from a marketing stand point with regard to the property in
question, the reconfiguration of the front two lots accessing
onto Lighthouse Road as opposed to a private right-of-way will
stop the double frontage situation.
Mr. Orlowski: Does the Board have any co~m~,ent on that?
Mr. Ra!rnor: I think you will see the wisdom in reversing the two
front lots.
Mr. Kapell: What we are being asked to do is to redesign these
lots simply such that they front on this proposal.
Mr. Ward: Yes, Yes.
Mr. Kapell: The road is not at this point proposed to be on our
property line. To that my clients object. We have a property
that should not require a road. Inasmuch as the case may be they
can't see the justification in us being required to pave a road.
This is a big expense to my client.
Mr. Ward: It is to stop landmarking the property.
Mr. Kapell: But, that is not for our benefit.
Mr. Ward: It doesn't have to be.
Mr. Kapell: But it is at our expense.
Mr. Ward: Your expense on building part of the road. Yes.
Mr. Kapell: The road doesn't service us. It doesn't service our
needs.
Mr. Ward: It would if the lots got turned on that.
Mr. Kapelt: But that doesn't service our needs.
Mr. Ward: No, It may serve a traffic pattern better than what
you created.
Mr. Kapell: We had an meeting with Valerie and I conveyed the
outcome of that meeting to my clients. They declined and I
responded in writing to that effect. It seems to them, I must
say that I can understand their thinking, that they are being
saddled with a significant expense. Which is hard to justify in
terms of looking at it simply from the. standpoint of their
subdivision.
Planning Board Page 9 March 21, 1988
Mr. Ward: Maybe from their point of view.
Mr. Kapelt: Right. The subdivision complies with the Town
requirements. Can you offer me any other rationalization that I
can provide them.
Mr. Ward: It is basically so that we are not land locking the
property behind them°
Mr. Kapell: Maybe that gentlemen should pay for it~
Mr. Ward: Well, we are looking into what we can do with that. At
the present time we don't hav~ the need for approval.
Mr. Kapell: From what they say, I think you can understand it.
Basically you're taking a proportion of their property. And also
a demand for an investment in that property afterwards is a
double whammy. It is something they don't need.
Mr. Orlowski: Why don't we hold it until we can get out in the
'field on this one? Does the Board have any comments or questions?
Board: No.
Mr. Orlowski: Valerie had a couple of other ideas here. I would
like to hold until we can get out in the field and take a look
at it on Friday. Maybe we can come up with an answer. Would that
be alright?
Mr. Kapell: Thank you.
Mr. Raynor: On behalf of Mr. Deutsch, I would ask the Board to
expedite their decision with regard to the virtue to the two
front lots and the fact that we are in the position to give
forward the 25' or what have you. Thank you
Mr. Orlowski: Alright. Now I will entertain a motion to take
lead agency on the Deutsch application.
Mr. Mullen: So moved.
Mr. Latham: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Also I'll make a motion to
take lead agency on Too Bee Realty.
Mr. Latham: So moved.
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Planning Board Page 10 March 21, 1988
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next is 8 p.m. public hearing on the final
approval of the minor subdivision of Sunbeau Associates. This
proposal is for 4 lots on 30.637 acres off Sound View Avenue,
Mattituck. SCTM ~i000-100-2-5.1. We have proof of publication in
the Long Island Traveler/Watchman and also in the Suffolk Times.
At this point, everything is in order for a final hearing and
we'll ask if there are any objections to this subdivision?
Hearing none, are there any endorsements of this subdivision?
Mr. Raynor: Good Evening, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Orlowski: Hello, Mr. Raynor.
Mr. Raynor: I am also the agent for the Sunbeau Associates. The
Board is well aware that this is a minor subdivision proposing
four lots; two which are five acres, two which are ten acres on
an axcess of thirty acres. This is located on the South side of
Soundview Avenue. The plan received sketch approval by this
Board on the 30th of March of last year. Also at that time they
declared a negative declaration under SEQRA. The Board has
received the stamped maps from the Department of Health
Services. The applicant has agreed to and will file the record
of the Covenants and Restrictions pertaining to any additional
subdivision on this property. Coordinating with this Board's
records. I believe, at this point, all the reco~endations of
this Board as well as the County have been met, Article 6. And I
would suggest approval on this subdivision. I will be happy to
review any questions the Board may have on it.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Any other endorsements of this subdivision?
Hearing none is there anyone out there that is neither p~o nor
con but might have information pertaining to this subdivision
that would be of interest to the Board?
Mr. Roul: Mr. Orlowski and members of the Board, I own...
Mr. Orlowski: Do you want to give your name?
Mr. Roul: Robert Roul. I own property immediatel~ to the east of
the parcel. I just wish to say my concern pertaining to the flow
of water: a tremendous watershedarea that flc~s from the farm
to the east of my property. If there is any possible raise of
elevation on the right-of-way. I don't know if the grade of the
road will affect it, but there is a tremendous watershed there.
I have a small map of the Soil Conservation Service. I don't
know if the red marks mean anything, but they show water running
down through and across my property. Ail across and ends up
going down Oregon Road. If anybody, after a three inch rain,
rides down Oregon Road at the intersection of Mill Lane and
Oregon Road, a lot of water r~ns there. I am concerned about the
threat of water.
Planning Board Page 11 March 21, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: Alright.
Ms. Scopaz: Mr. Chairman, can I reco~ut,end that or suggest that
you adjourn the hearing to get more information from the
engineer about the drainage problem and also the possibility of
having a fifty (50') foot Right-of-Way easement in an east west
direction. About three or four lots west of this parcel, there
is a proposed clustered subdivision which runs from Oregon Road
north to Sound Avenue. Which providing for a continuation of the
east west traffic from Grand Avenue which runs up to the Sound.
I think it would be wise of the Board to make provisions for it
there. It would be some 50' right-of-way connection, so when the
adjoining lots east and west come in so we have somewhere to
connect them so we don't have roads running north and south.
Mr. Raynor: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to briefly respond
to Mr. Roul. You are well aware that subdivision regulations
specifically call for a retention within the 200' radius. All
subdivision property is developed as far as drainage is
concerned and the Highway Specifications specify the roads will
be as graded above. I ensure that any drainage that is incumbent
on the subdivision will be held on this subdivision. And, of
course, there will be further specifications to the Town from
Sidney Bowne's. Any grade with regard to road construction of
building elevation in proportion to 38 acres of property. The
building envelope is obviously minuscule and so would be the
road constructions. So in no way could I interpret that the 30
acres would be interupt any natural draina~e~.~ar.ea. I most
strenuously object to any new proposal with regard to east west
easements. As for twenty years there has been an existing
extension of Soundview Avenue that has been proposed to this
Town. I can't understand why we would ever want to create an
additional 50' right-of-way. The properties north of Mill Lane
and south of Soundview Avenue have already been severed with
developement right sales. I thank you for your consideration.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Any other questions or co~m~,ents? Ms. Scopaz?
Ms. Scopaz: No.
Mr. Orlowski: Any questions from the Board? Mr. Mullen.
Mr. Mullen: No.
Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Latham?
Mr. Latham: No.
Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Ward?
Mr. Ward: No, but, I think that we should look at the drainage
and also the possible easement right-of-way.
Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Edwards?
Mr. Edwards: No.
Planning Board Page 12 March 21, 1988
Ms. Scopaz: May I address a question to Mr. Ra!rnor?
Mr. Orlowski: Yes.
Ms. Scopaz: In the file is your client going to have covenants
that the lots will never be further subdivided? They are all
very large lots.
Mr. Raynor: We are.
Mr. Orlowski: We don't have those yet.
Mr. Raynor: As I have explained to the Board early if you are
willing to execute the signature and the map we are willing to
execute the same with regard to covenants and restrictions. You
have my stipulation on record to that.
Mro Orlowski: You mean that you want me to sign the maps first
before you give me the covenants?
Mr. Raynor: We might even sign the covenants and restrictions
first.
Mr. Orlowski: I'd rather you sign the covenants and restrictions
first before I sign the map. I don't see any need to keep this
hearing open. We have our comments, I think the applicant does.
I will close this hearing and we'll address those comments. If
they are not addressed properly~ then wewitlapprove or deny.
Any further questions? Hearing none, I will declare this hearing
closed and thank you for coming.
Mr. Orlowski: Next order of business is a public hearing of the
final approval of the minor subdivision of Frank Sawicki,
survey dated and amended February 24, 1988. This proposal is for
4 lots on 15.061 acres located in $outhold.
SCTM ~1000-51-3-12.1. We have proof of publication in the Long
Island Traveler/Watchman and in the Suffolk Times. Everything is
in order for a final hearing and I'll ask if there are any
objections to this sutxtivision? Hearing none are there any
endorsements of this subdivision? You might as well just stand
there.
Mr. Raynor: This will be the last time you will hear from me
tonight. I amagent to Frank Sawicki of Southold. This
subdivision has been before your Board for some time now. It
received sketch plan approval from this Board on the night of
November 1987. Ithas received Department of Health approval
this January, January llth. With regard to road frontage it has
ZBA approval for the lot widths on June 30th, 1987. I believe
the subdivision conforms with section 106A and I would request
approval. I would be happy to answer any questions with this
Board.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Any othgr endorsements of this subdivision?
Hearing none isthere-anyo~e out there that is neither pro nor
con but may have information pertaining to this subdivision that
Planning Board Page 13 March 21, 1988
would be of interest to his Board. Hearing none are there any
questions? Ms. Scopaz?
Ms. Scopaz: No.
Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Mullen
Mr. Mullen: No.
Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Latham~
Mr. Latham: No.
Mr. Orlowski: Fir. Ward?
Mr. Ward: I just think tk~t the proposal would have been much
better as a cluster. I think that it really limited the
development of a portion of the property by taking the position
that they have, but I am not opposed to it.
Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Edwards?
Mr. Edwards: None.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Being no further questions I will declare
this hearing closed and thank you for coming. Also everything is
in order, Health Departmgnt approval and ZBA approvals, I will
entertain the motion to approve. ~
Mr. Ward: So moved.
Mr. Edwards: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made
motion? All those in favc
Vote of the Board; Ayes:
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Sc
and seconded. Any questions on the
~r?
Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have RHR Realty- Board to take lead
agency status under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
SCTM 91000-59-3-16.1. I ~ill entertain that motion.
Mr. Mullen: So moved
Mr. Edwards: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. And also request revision
showing 50' right-of-way on east border of property, not to be
included in lot area. Is anyone here representing? Mr. Raynor?
Planning Board Page 14 March 21, 1988
Mr. Raynor: No.
Mr. Orlowski: Missed one? No one representing RHR? O.K. We will
address those comments to the applicant and set up a meeting
with Ms. Scopaz.
Mr. Orlowski: Peter Blank- Board to take action on the sketch
map. Also lead agency in regards to SEQRA.
Mr. Latham: I'll abstain on this one.
Mr. Ward: Move for lead agency.
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in Favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards.
Abstain: Latham.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Before we take action on the
sketch, I notice the map says set-off and it should say sketch
map. Does the Board want to take any action on this sketch map,
subject to that change.
Mr. Ward: Move for sketch approval.
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded subject to changing it to
say sketch. All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski~ Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Thorton Smith. You see on your
agendas, Board to take lead agency, we have done that. It was
done back in 86. It was a total project. This part of the
project is being handled as a set-off. The Environmental Quality
review is done on the total project already, so we don't have do
that. I will entertain a motion to set this set off for a public
hearing at our next meeting, April llth at 8 O'clock.
Mr. Latham: So moved.
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any ~estions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board;Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Planning Board Page 15 March 21, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Waterman- Board to set Monday,
April 11, at 7:45 p.m. for a public hearin~ on this lot line
change located on Fishers Island. SCTM 91000-3-1-2,3.
Mr. Latham: So moved.
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. OrlowSki: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Whitcom Investment Co.- Board to accept and
request compliance with the Engineer's report dated March 3,
1988. SCTM #1000-14-2-1.
Mr. Mullen: Request compliance.
Mr. Latham: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: ~randview Estates- Board to discuss an extension
on the letter of credit from January 21, 1988 to January 21,
1989.
Mr. Mullen: So moved.
Ms. Scopaz: Mr. Chairman, the letter of credit that existed on
this subdivision has expired. The applicant has been contacted
and asked to su~mit an extension to that. They were unable to
comply with the request in time for the meeting. So the Board
will have to handle it at some other date.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. rather then see it again, can we approve it
subject to receipt of the letter of extension. I don't think
that will be a problem.
Mr. Mullen: Did you confirm in writing to them?
Ms. Spiro: No.
Mr. Latham: When were they notified?
Planning Board Page 16 March 21, 1988
Ms. Spiro: Today.
Mr. Orlowski: They have no problems and they will get it in to
us rather then bring it back again. I would like to entertain a
motion subject too.
Mr. Ward: So moved.
Mr. Latham: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Fishers Island country Club- Board
to send this site plan, survey dated January 8, 1988, to the
Building Department for certification. This proposal is for a
3,250 square foot dining room addition. SCTM 91000-4-4-9. Mr.
Edwards that is your territory.
Mr. Edwards: Yes. After making field inspections and talking
with the president of the club I just had a couple of minor
problems, so I suggest we approve subject to the minor problems.
The storage area should be fenced in and possibly used for
additional parking; and the proposed drive and dirt road be
improved with crushed stones. It would make it better.
Mr. Orlowski: Did you certify this yet?
Mr. Lessard: No, it has to come over.
Mr. Orlowski: And also subject to certification which we will
send over? Did you put that all in one motion?
Mr. Ward: Yes.
Mr. Latham: I'll second that motion.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion. All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: OrloWski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next is Beachwood Cafe- Board to accept revised
site plan as an amendment. Also, since we have everything we
have asked for, recommend to the Building Department for
issuance of a C.O. based on amended plan only. What is the
pleasure of the Board on Beachwood Cafe?
Planning Board Page 17 March 21, 1988
Mr. Ward: Move for acceptance and recommend to the Building
Department for the issuance of a C.O. on the amended plan only.
Mr. Latham: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Hall did you have a
question?
Mr. Hall: No, I am here on behalf of another client, but very
seriously, on behalf of this client I would like to thank the
Board and Valerie with some reasonableness. It was a flexible
situation and it helped out.
Mr. Orlowski: Your welcome.
Mr. Orlowski: On Cliffside- Board to make a note of the ending
of the Public Comment period. I don't think that we have to have
a motion for that.
Ms. Scopaz: You don't need a motion for that, it is just that
now David Emilita your consultant to the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement has all the comments fro~-~he public comment
period in his possession. He will be reviewing them and he will
send his analysis ~o the Board in time for the next meeting on
April tl. You can make a decision as to whether to go with the
FEIS or request a supplemental based on his synopsis.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K.
Mr. Raynor: Mr. Chaizz~n, Mr. Averly is not able to be present
this evening. I ask if notification can be sent over to the
Zoning Board of Appeals as the applicant has desired to creating
a need for a special exception, that is required under Section
A100. As all the information has been inputted to this Board in
regard to SEQRA. There is no problem with the scheduling of this
hearing before the ZBA. However, it must have notification from
this Board as Lead Agency, which has been completed.
Mr. Orlowski: Alright, when Mr. Emilita reviews it, we will have
that answer.
Ms. Scopaz: He said possibly by the end of next week.
Mr. Orlowski: It is in his hands.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have the Shoppes at Southold- Board to
make a determination of Lead Agency.
Mr. Ward: So moved.
Planning Board Page 18 March 21, 1988
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. This proposal is located off
County Route 48 in Mattituck. I think the only problems we had
with it is the traffic study is being reviewed by Sidney Bowne's
office and there were a few other comments. Which we'll
entertain to send to the applicant. Any other coi~L~ents on this?
Board: No.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K.
Mr. Orlowski: Marina Bay Club- The supplemental DEIS received
by David Emilita on March 15, 1988. No comments available from
Dave at this time, but he is working on it.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Southold Savings Bank- Board to
send this site plan to the Building Department for certification.
Mr. Lessard: No.
Mr. Orlowski: Sorry, I only read the agenda's. Board to send
over for recommendation for final approval subject to a one year
review. I believe there is just one small piece of landscaping
missing, but other then that I sure Mr. Lessard will keep a
close eye on it. To inform us within this one year if it is
complete or not complete. I'm I right Mr. Lessard?
Mr. Lessard: Absolutely.
Mr. Orlowski: What is the pleasure of the Board?
Mr. Ward: So moved.
Mr. Latham: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Harborview Realty Company-
Presentation by the applicant for this change of zone petition.
Mr. Forchelli: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is
Jeff Forchelli. I am the Attorney for the applicant, which is
Harbor View Realty Company. The applicant is the owner of the
Planning Board Page 19 March 21, 1988
property. I see on the calendar you don't have the Suffolk
County Tax Map number. It is District 1000 Section 53 Block 5
part of Lot 12.3. What we are seeking from the Town Board is a
rezoning for a portion of the property.
Ms. Scopaz: Mr. Forchelli, can I ask you to project a little bit
more, because the microphones are picking up a great deal of
static.
Mr. Forchelli: Is that better?
Ms. Scopaz: Yes, thank you.
Mr. Forchelli: The subject premises of the application is the
"Sage Property", which is on both sides of sage Boulevard that
comes off Main Road. The area is a total of eighty three plus
acres. It is presently zoned A-Residential, Agricultural. It is
presently used for thirty one cottages, which are located along
the waterfront in this area. What we are seeking is a change of
zone on this portion of the property. The easterly portion. This
would be the division line. Then this property receiving the
rezoning, to the M-1 General Multiple Residents District. Then
what we would do is, the balance of the property, fifty eight
acres, which is from here over, including the underwater land,
out here and around, would be put into a nature preserve and
remain forever wild. And invalent to the development with the
exception of this access road which would provide access. This
is Sage Boulevard on the subdivisionmap which is about to be
filed and the improvements are in and this street is here. So we
pick up the street and provide access to our proposal. And
there, by leaving an angle of the property in an existing
natural state. Just to give you a brief history of the property.
It has been used for many many years, much longer than I've been
around, for the cottages here. That use continues and has
continued through last sua~er and will be continued this s~m~er.
That use would be discontinued and the cottages will be
demolished and any sanitary systems will be removed and replaced
with forty Town House units. They will be located in the
approximate location as shown here. The small cove, which is
here, would provide boat slips for the owners of the town house.
We would provide tennis courts here. An access for a key system,
there will probably a manned gate in the summer time. The
existing Sage Blvdl, which is here, will not be widen or
improved other then repairing the pot holes and pavement were
needed to provide suitable access to home owners that are here.
Other than that, Sage Blvd. will remain in its present state,
present width. A number of years ago there were a various
applications that came before this Board and the Zoning Board to
develop the property. Those applications did meet with some
public opposition, although they were pretty well on their way.
At the time we attempted, t was involved in those applications
also, we attempted to see what was good planning and what was
also good in te~ms of acceptance by the local community. I think
without and question the developement should be up along this
water front where the existing developement is. The balance of
the property to remain rather wild. With the spirit of
cooperation and attempt to prove that end we have had a number
Planning Board Page 20 March 21, 1988
of meetings and we believe we have developed a great deal of
trust with the standing COIL~L~n~ty and leaning towards that end.
That all culminated in a meeting we had on the 9th of March,
which is almost two weeks ago. Whereby we invited everyone that
received notice of the application being filed. We had the
meeting at the Mill Creek Inn. We presented this to the members
of the community, not that they have jurisdiction over it, not
to try and circumvent with this Board and the Town Board. The
majority feeling we got~ there was, with little exceptions, was
this was a good plan and a good use of the property. The
property presently has water on it in theGreenport Water
District. It goes through along the existing road way. We
realize that we have to deal with Greenport to make sure thier
water supply is there. We have access to a new road, thereby not
having to interfere with Sage Blvd., which is h~re. In terms of
the four homes which are here endure some difficulty with the
pot holes and what have you, we have indicated and agreedwith
them that if this is approved that we would repair the road were
needed. We will provide in our Covenants and Restrictions a
prospectus for the Homeowners Association for these cottages
that it is part of their monthly maintenance charge with the
amount set aside to make sure Sage Blvd. is kept in repair so
that these people are able to use it. It would also, Sage Blvd.~
could ride on emergency secondary access. We would be able to
provide a pretty well self contained Community, in here for the
forty home owners. These boat Slips here would provide access
for them to have their boating. They would be able to launch
their boats here. Thereby, to ~ome degree keep the boating
traffic and trailers somewhat ~ff the roads of the town. They
would be able to'stay right within the property, launch and come
out in the Fall and be stored in the garages or what have you in
the Winter time. We anticipate only small boats in here. We
believe most people who would ~ome here would be S~E~er
residents and they would be sleeping here and not out on boats
that they would come here and take off on large boats and go
away for the weekend. We would not provide for large boats here,
~just small bay boats. As I indicated the oak cottages will be
torn down and the sanitary systems which are there would be
removed and a new town houses would have all the modern sanitary
devices, which will be much more environmentally sound then what
is there today% We think it is a good use. We think it ~s a
proper use. We think it has support in the lo~al community for
it. As I indicated, the meeting we had was very positive. We
have spent a number of years dealing with the neighbors and some
of them in particular on the development of the property. I
don't know if any of them are here, but I know one fellow that
is here that will speak in respect to this. We have here with
us, the architects if there are anything further or any further
questions that I might be able to answer. I will be happy to do
SOo
Mr. Orlowski: Is there any questions from the Board?
Mr. Ward: Did we have a yield map originally?
Mr. Orlowski: A long, long time ago. I believe there was a yield
map, because they ask for a change of zone to accomplish this.
Planning Board Page 21 March 21, 1988
Mr. Ward: What I was looking at was in the spirit of what is
happening is that normally the provision in our code does not
allow to cluster to this degree. What we are really doing, and
that is essentially what we are doing. In the spirit of what we
are doing here I think that the density should be based on what
a real yield would be on the property rather than taking the
yield a particular piece under an M-zone.
Mr. Forchelli: Well, the reason we came up with this type of
plan for it was, when we were going through the approval process
last time there was, we have conversations and we actually had a
scoping session with Mr. Emilita. Various people at the time
including members of the Board, the Town Board, who attended
that and stated, and I think in the original proposals by the
Planners, it recommended that the development left up in this
area. There are at the present time thirty one cottages on the
property. We felt that a yield of forty was reasonable in terms
of the eighty acres, eighty three acres that we have. That is
how we came up with the number. We tried to equate what we felt
was reasonable with the economics of the situation and the
approvements that had to be done. The deeding of the property
and any possible clean up for the environmental preserve of it.
That is how we came up with the yield under the change of zone.
Mr. Mullen: Those boat slips will be utilized only for the
people that own the property.
Mr. Forchelli: Yes, they will not be ~ble to be commercially
leased out or any one else's slip goes with the unit. No more no
less.
Mr. Latham: Is Sage Boulevard closed off just at the head of
that.
Mr. Forchelli: We would put here a crash gate, which would allow
emergency vehicles to get through but other than that it would
be closed off. There would be no further access onto this
because we would have our access to it. Yet both sides of it,
here and here, will be part of the socalled nature preserve with
restricted covenants. So nobody will get on there but us.
Mr. Orlowski: What is the square footage of each unit?
Mr. Forchelli: Twenty five hundred square feet. They are two
bedroom units. We will have a total of eighty bedrooms.
Mr. Edwards: Are these going to be primarily summer residents?
Mr. Forchelli: We believe they would be, yes.
Mr. Mullen: There will be no possible utilization, and don't
laugh at me, in regard to affordable housing or a affordable
house in there. Or any possibility of getting some property we
might use for that. You can think about it. You don't have to
answer me now.
Planning Board Page 22 March 21, 1988
Mr. Forchelli: I don't think we would have an opposition to
that. We did speak with co~mLtunity members about the remainder of
this property being forever invalid.
Mr. Mullen: Don't misunderstand me, we are not looking for a
saturation of the property. They will require people to maintain
a hamlet situation and the way it is going now I don't know
where you are going to get the help because we don't have the
housing. If you can work on a situation where you figure you
would require so many people, say three or whatever, maybe we
can work down the line to build in some housing for these
people. It's a thought that's all.
Mr. Forchelli: It's a good one. Housing is a problem where ever
you go on Long Island. It something we will look at.
Mr. Mullen: Thank you.
Mr. Orlowski: Ms. Scopaz, any questions?
Ms. Scopaz: Just one. It is not really related to the change of
zone but°.. The road that you would come off of, Sage road,
there is about a ten or fifteen foot drop in elevation from the
end of that road down to your property. Since you are in a
sensitive area right there, can you indicate any problems in
construction? Any impact on the wet lands in the area.
Mr. Forchelli: Last Wednesday we were out here and prior to
coming to Town Hall we walked this. We walk it two weeks ago and
we met also. This configuration here may wind up being a little
different, but it is very high and dry up here. There is a
difference in grade here. I don't know if it is ten or fifteen
feet, but we estimated it about eight..~the grade in-coming
across here. There may have to be a cul-de-sac with a road off
it or however you do it. That is all subject to the zone change
and the site plan by the Planning Board. We felt it was very
easily to come in here with a road.
Ms. Scopaz: The proposed area for the boat slips, would you
require dredging in that area?
Mr. Forchelli: We don't think it would because there are
presently boat slips in there. We show here forty boat slips. We
are not sure that that is going to be the number. Probably there
will be a one on one boat to town house. There will probmbly be
a few less boat slips here and we. do not anticipate any
dredging. The way they are now, they are locust post with cat
walks that stand in wetland grass in here. There is floating
docks and both polls nose in. We believe that would be the... We
would not have to dredge it, because this is ~ite deep in the
middle here.
Ms. Scopaz: Would you be providing a ramp on site to load those
boats in?
Mr. Forchelli: There is a remains of a ramp here. With a four
wheel drive vehicle you can get in and out there, loading it. We
Planning Board Page 23 March 21, 1988
would anticipate approval by the Trustees and the DEC to improve
the boat launching in and out° Which once again, would be
limited strictly to the residents here.
Mr. Orlowski: Any other questions?
Mr. Lessard: That subdivision that you intend to hook into is a
private subdivision at the present time. That would require a
legal document for you to use that.
Mr. Forchelli: Yes, we realize that.
Mr. Lessard: O.K. One other question, the area that you wanted
to put the condominiums in, what would that acreage be? Do you
know off hand?
Mr. Forchelli: 24.95.
Mr. Lessard: I'm fishing for the yield is what I'm fishing for
as aposed to the over all.
Mr. Forchelli: We realize with the 24.95 acres under the zoning
we could possibly have a greater yield but we are not asking. We
are limited to that by covenants or whatever other method.
Mr. Lessard: I believe your forty units are alright under the
formula.
Ms. Scopaz: The off site sewer system, I believe you said
earlier that it was being handled by individual sanitary system.
Mr. Forchelli: Whatever is required by the County Health
Department. Whether they would be individual systems or whether
they would be... whatever the health department requires.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. You said you had a communittie meeting a the
Mill Creek and no opposition?
Mr. Forchelli: We did not have any vocal opposition. I think we
invited everyone to make their thoughts known. We received, very
positively, by the surrounding owners and the owners on Sage
Blvd..
Mr. Mullen: How many people appeared at the meeting?
Approximately.
Mr. Forchelli: Thirty or forty.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. The Board would like to just go out and take
one more look and review it. Thank you for coming down and
presenting it. If there are no more questions.
Ms. Scopaz: I have no more questions, but I suggest to the Board
that you.ask them if you can use all the material and review the
plans. If you have any more questiOns you will get in touch with
them and at your next meeting make a recommendation to the Town
Board.
Planning Board Page 24 March 21, 1988
Ward: Do we have prints of these.
Ms. Scopaz: I don't think we have prints of the other material.
We probably have just a site plan.
Mro Forchelli: We have either on this board or we have prints
which ever is easier for you to work with. These are a proposal
of what units could look like. We realize that if the change of
zone was ultimately granted by the Town Board we have to come
back to the Planning Board for its approval. At this time, we
are flexible on this in terms of height and so on. We would work
with anyone who would require us to come up with an acceptable
plan.
Mr. Orlowski: We will review this and by our next meeting we
will make a recommendation to the Town Board.
Mr. Forchelli: I think that a neighbor here would like to speak.
Mr. Orlowski: Well, this is your submission so, it is not a
public hearing, if you would like to have someone else speak we
will listen.
Mr. Flynn: My name is Flynn from Tarpon Drive, Southold Shores.
Which is in the immediatly vicinity of the property. I jotted
down some notes to make this relatively succinct. Some of you
may be aware that I have had more than a passing interest in the
past as to what happens to the Sage property. I have gone over
this plan in great detail and personally discussed with many of
my neighbors. Though I am speaking for myself, I am speaking
largely aswhat their reactions would be. My opinion is that
this plan as presented represents a fair and equitable solution
to what possibly could have been a contigious and litigious
proceeding. I think it is a balanced solution to this problem of
the unique nature that this property presents. When I say
balanced I think it is balance because there is something in
this plan to satisfy the requirements of everyone concerned.
Obviously, it satisfies the requirements of the developers,
otherwise they would not present this. I think they have built a
unique attitude and cooporation and respect for the environment
by doing what they have with what there is, obviously,
approximately 50 acres of fresh and saltwater wetlands. As far
as the neighbors are concerned this proposition would have the
merit of eliminating substandard rental housing. And
substituting for Substantial improvements. Which would have the
benefit to adding to the assessment of the co~u_nity and
contributing to the tax burdens that we bear. Particularly with
respect to the school district. The experience with all of the
condominiums, I have made a study of every condominium in the
Town and inCluding the Village of Greenport. They are rarely
occupied in the Winter. As a matter of fact it is not a 100%
occupancy in the summer. The rentals of these units is also
relatively great. First of all, because the rental requirements
of the owners is relatively high. And secondly, the owners in
the income bracket who purchase such condominiums usually have
them furnished in a manor that they don't want tenants
accompanying them and damaging the contents of the woodwork. So
Planning Board Page 25 March 21, 1988
really, you would look primarily to winter occupancy. The effect
of winter occupancy on the tax burden of the Town should be
quite apparent. There is also a threshold. When units have a
market value of upwards of two hundred thousand dollars, they no
longer represent a burden to the Town. The taxes that they pay
exceed the expenses that they create for the co~£,unity. From
these standpoints, I think these units will represent a plus.
From the standpoint of the Town, I believe that we have, in the
Town, an express to acquire as much open space as possible. I
believe there is a budget in the Town which is some currently,
correct me if I am wrong, within seven hundred thousand dollars
to acquire such open space. It is my oppion, based on some years
of experience, that what you are being offered as open space
here must exceed the value of what could be acquired by the Town
with the funds available. So, I say this a balanced
presentation. There is something here for everybody and nobody,
in my opinion, is hert by this plan. Finally, the impartial
recommendation of R.P...were almost specifically to this type of
development of the property. It is also in accord to every study
that has been made in this Town where desirable property should
be developed on a cluster basis. And property that constitutes
fresh and salt water wetlands should be acquired as open space.
That is exactly the proportion that is offered here. Speaking
for myself and for my neighbors, we are incoordination with the
development of this property as it is presented now. If their
arange changes in this presentation we reserve the right to act
accordingly. Thank you for your reception.
Person in Audience: Somebody spoke for, is it possible that
somebody could speak against?
Mr. Orlowski: I really would not like to make this a public
hearing at this time. There will be that chance at the change of
zone. Mr. Forchelli has come to make a presentation. It is his
nickel as they say.
Ms. Scopaz: May I make a suggestion, that you make your position
known to the Town Board.
Person from Audience: We have already. Thank you.
Mr. Orlowski: Being no further discussion, thank you for coming
and we will move on.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. next I would like to move on to the
GriSwotd-Terry-Glover American Legion Post- Board to discuss
previous resolution for this change of zone° Our Town Attorney
has told us that we have conditioned the change of zone based on
who owns the property. The courts have held that a change of
zone can not be for benefit of party, but ~st be based on a
comprehensive plan regardless of who owns it or who will ... the
parcel. So the Town Board is asking us for another
recommendation.
Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I don't see how we can endorse a
commercial zone there forever. It is not in keeping with our
Planning Board Page 26 March 21, 1988
comprehensive plan and the Griswold-Terry-Post will have to look
for different relief than through zoning. If that's the case.
Mr. Mullen: Can we change it so that it would be amended for
commercial operation but not for a profitable organization.
Mr. Orlowski: They have to change to zoning classification. We
don't have that right now.
Mr. Lessard: You can't have a change of zone with a
restriction, Bill. I know what you're after.
Mr. Orlowski: No, Bill is asking for another zoning
classification.
Mr. Bruer: Would the Board be interested in any co~mL~ent on this?
Mr. Orlowski: Why not. You Mr. Bruer, anytime! Use the mike.
please.
Mr. Bruer: You look at that, it has to be a commercial building,
I would think, in a B zone. I wouldn't think that you could sit
back and say that this should be typically an office. It is just
not suited for. Unless it is the Board's intention that if it
was ever stop being used for its present use, that it should be
bulldozed down and start from scratch. You have to remember,
here, that its present use, which is a business use, which is
what they are asking for, has been used as this particular type
of business since 1~48. I think it is unfair. I hope it was an
oversight, that the previous zoning that it was left in a
residential area. I think, looking at the street and I know the
potential zoning is in offices in light of the Planning is as
you leave Town you should have lighter and lighter business.
which I don't particularly agree with. But, you have an existing
situation here. I think to give it legitimacy in terms of the
actual zoning that it has rather then to keep it a bastard in
the community forever. Which it could very well be. I think the
members of this organization deserve that behind their thinking
rather then just saying willie,nillie somebody has decided on
the Master Plan and probably not given thought to the
preexisting use to this building, as they probably did not give
concern to as what was the Chevron Station being turned into a
Flower Shop. In the true facts of what is here today, we
recommend that the Board please reco~m~end to the Town Board that
they would approve the change of zone based upon the actual
conditions that are there. And that can remain there. On behalf
of the members we ask you to do that.
Mr. Orlowski: But it's preexisting and nonconforming, I still
don't understand the large problem that exists.
Mr. Bruer: The large problem that exists, maybe I'm incorrect,
the Building Inspector can tell me, if 51% of this building
burnt down we would be out of business in respect to our
operation. For instance, and I think this a large part of what
they are talking about. That is a big concern to the members.
Planning Board Page 27 March 21, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: If this place burned down tomorrow would you let
them replace it?
Mr. Lessard: Absolutely not. I couldn't, the law says no. You
would have to go to the Board of Appeals and have a good reason
for replacing a nonconformity once it is gone. That is the
object of zoning is to...
Mr. Bruer: Would you have one house there now? Under today's
zoning, which is what you have to think about.
Mr. Lessard: That is the one risk of a nonconformity. You loose
it, you kiss it good-bye.
Mr. Mullen: Has the Legion council changed their operation so
that they are now a corporation rather then an actual operating
primarily as a veterans post?
Mr. Bruer: Mr. Mullen, I think they are presently operating the
way they have been operating...
Mr. Mann: I can answer that.
Mr. Bruer: He is a member of the Legion.
Mr. Mann: The Legion has been a corporation for forty years.
Recently, we formed a holding company because when you have a
club liquor license, you can get involve~ in all kinds of
liabilities. By having the corporation, we call it Monument
Corners,~Monument Corners runs a catering event and they lease
the premises to the American Legion. The Legion is not liable in
the corporations. Actually they are both corporation.
Mr~ Mullen: So what are. Don't misunderstand me, I happen to be
a member.., reduce exposure?
Mr. Mann: Yes.
Mr. Mullen: Fine, thank you. That is all I want to know.
Mr. Mann: Also, there is one other point. The Legions tax status
is safer this way then it would be if we didn't have the...In
other words, the real estate tax businsss or any other tax
advantages that the Legion has to better the organizationare
safer this way then they would be if they had the other. And all
we want to do is to continue what have been doing for forty
eight years. The nonconforming doesn't serve that because if we
wanted to run two or three auctions a year or two or three of
anything a year, barbecues or what ever, if we didn't get
special nonconforming privilege we could only have one of each
of these things and we couldn't provide one auction and one yard
sale, one whatever.
Mr. Bruer: We are really talking survival.
Mr. Mullen: Mr. Chairman, I guess I am going to have to refrain
from commenting or voting. I just thought ~boutthat.
Planning Board Page 28 March 21, 1988
Mr. Bruer: If it is a positive vote, we don't have to.
Mr. Orlowski: We are going to put this on hold till we have a
little discussion. By the next meeting we will come up with an
answer. It has been the Board's policy at every application, if
it is inconsistent with the proposed master plan that we worked
so hard on we automatically recommend denial. Certain things
exist in this proposal which we would like to look at. Which
will take a coupie of weeks. I think that is best that we wait
right now and give us chance to review it. At our next meeting
we will send a recoi~uendation over.
Mr. Bruer: Thank you very much.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K.
Mr. Orlowski: We are going to step back, since Mr. Townsend is
here and go to Dorman, Townsend, Mackay and Millis- Board to
take action on the sketch map for this minor subdivision subject
to showing the 100 foot setback from the bluff, deleting the
unbuildable areas, and showing building envelopes. On this
proposal Board to take lead agency status under the State
Environmental Quality Review Act. I will entertain that motion
now.
Mr. Mullen: So moved.
Mr. Edwards: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and second any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. This proposal is for 4 lots
on 11.58 acres off Lighthouse Road, Southoldo We had some
co~m~ents. Ms. Scopaz would you like to start on this and make
some comments?
Ms. Scopaz: The only thing I would like to suggest is that the
Board look at this map in conjunction with another map for land
directly to the west under Plum Gut Properties. The Board is
well aware that you are looking at several subdivision
applications immediately west of this proposal and there is a
preponderence of right-of-ways going up. What we are ending up
with is an unusually high number of right-of-ways. One thing the
Board might want to consider is that, in this particular
instance the two application have two right-of-ways proposed to
go up parallel to one another. It is just a distance of several
hundred feet before splitting off. One will go further north and
the other will essentially turn to the west to meet up with an
existing right-of-way on the western border of the property.
Perhaps the Board can consider instead of requiring each
subdivision to put in two identical roads side by side to
request simply that each applicant provide a twenty five foot
right-of-way. One road going up in the center of that twenty
Planning Board Page 29 March 21, 1988
five right-of-way subject to two subdivision. In the interest of
reducing the total amount of overall paving and storm water
runoff that result from this.
Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Townsend do you have a problem with that?
Mr. Townsend: Firstly, I have not been able to get a hold of my
relatives. There are several family members involved, one of
them is in London and ones in San Francisco and one is in New
York. I have talk about it preliminary as far as merging roads
have not been able to get a concensis of opinion. I'll have to
take that back. That is also, there are other people involved,
even though my name appears on both applications, I don't
control both applications.
Mr. Orlowski: I think it is a good idea. It will save you all
Mr. Townsend: There factors of that to be looked at. The one
thing you mentioned about a road going up, one road, I would
gather in the middle of that would be a problem, because there
is some fairly old tree growth that runs inbetween the two. If
you were going to do that I would imagine that you would want it
on one side or the other of that. You would be cutting down some
substantial trees down at the bottom and that would hert the
runoff situation rather than help it. We are willing to consider
looking at it. I would hope that would be in the final stage.
~is would be more on a basis of a yield, the preliminary
approval. As you know I have been involved this for several
years and trying to get the Health Department to look at our
application, and now they are ready. The first sketch plan that
was approved expired, so this is the second time I have had this
in there. I suspect that one of the problems, and not to runoff
too long, is that I don't know if there are any immediate plans
to develop it. I don't have any immediate plans to develop it. I
just want to get it separated into my name. One of the problems
with the road, as you can see goes quite a distance, is that it
is going to be a very expensive luxury to have a piece of
property up there in my own name. At any rate are you saying
that we have to decide this before preliminary sketch?
Mr. Orlowski: No. I think we can move on. We are also concerned
with the 100' set backs being shown on here.
Mr. Townsend: That was our intention.
Mr. Orlowski: Just deleting out some unbuildable area and
showing building envelopes which would help us.
Mr. Townsend: There was one other thing that we discussed. Which
I am willing to consider also, is the reduction of the lots from
four to three if they all have frontage. The difficultly of that
property is that the width of it, I can't remember exactly, but
I think we are about twenty five feet short on the frontage. We
had to put two lots in the back. That is why basically there are
four instead of three. There are only three families there that
have an interest. Valerie suggested that we go with the three
Planning Board Page 30 March 21, 1988
lots instead of four. Reduce the density somewhat. Assuming that
they were equal value at each end. Once again I am not sure if
my relatives will go with that.
Mr. Orlowski: Well, we have a sketch before us. Are you telling
us that you might change it? Are you going to change this.
Mr. Townsend: No, I, that is, the yield I wanted to get at this
point it seems to be a variance to the zoning code, so I want to
get what is allowed under the zoning code. Then if we could
reduce the lots and make them, that is fine with me. We could do
that subsequently. This is just a yield consideration. That is
what I would like to have considered at this point. That was
approved about a year ago. Dave is related to property to the
west which we are talking about. Do you want to make a comment.
Mr. Kapell: I just wanted to ask one question. Valerie, at this
pointwere are considering the joint road to be located?
Ms. Scopaz: That has not been addressed. Just the question of
the Board is, is to consider it now. The question of where it is
located involves saving some trees. The Board considered asking
that the road be on one side or the other. I am sure that they
would be willing to consider that.
Mr. Kapell: Consider either side? Not only is there a road,
there is a pole line that goes up there. Matter of fact there is
a Lico easement that runs up the side. It would be impossible to
put it in the middle. It would either have to be on one side or
the other.
Mr. Orlowski: It could be. That would be when you get together
and figure out how it would work out the best with this kind of
thing. Instead of having two roads or taking things done to have
it together.
Mr. Kapell: The reason I ask is that on one side you have, on
the Plum Gut property there is an existing fifty foot
right-of-way. On the Millis side there is a twenty five foot
piece. Whether the Board will consider allowing the road to run
up the twenty five foot piece, I guess that is the question.
Mr. Orlowski: That would be up to. I don't think we personally
care were the road is as long as we have one and not two going
up there side by side.
Mr. Kapell: ... on the twenty five foot stretch?
Mr. Orlowski: Where ever it fits the best without creating the
most hardship.
Mr. Kapell: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. Townsend: I have no objections to those other stipulations.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. What is the pleasure on sketch?
Planning Board Page 31 March 21, 1988
Mr. Ward: Move for sketch.
Mr. Edwards: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board;Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Sal Prato - Board to discuss letter
from Mr. Van Tuyl and to authorize signature of the site plan.
Mr. Van Tuyl wrote, with reference to the subject item we have
oraily dicussed the situation with Merlin Wiggins of Peconic
Associates stating that we have no objects to the existing
procedure to his superimposing information on our survey for
site plan presentation. However, we have suggested that it might
take a better overall appearance to have him prepare his own
site plan if necessary or prior survey. We both trust that the
Prato plan will be processed as it stands. We can of course
sympathize with your position in the matter. Can I have a motion
to sign this?
Mr. Ward: So moved.
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Elijah's Lane, Section 2 & 3 -
Ms. Scopaz: The Board has been reviewing the two applications of
the two adjacent pieces of property. The Health Department in
response to the Planning Board's statement that it had lead
agency status has received a letter from the Health Department
stating that the test wells that have been dug on the property
indicated that there is an axcessible amount of Carbofuran
present in the water. The level that is present there does not
meet with the County Health standards. The applicant has been
asked to dig a deeper test well. The correspondence which we
have received today, it indicates that if they can not meet, ...
from the deeper wells ends up with have the same reading as the
previous reading then they are going to require a community
water system. Based on the information I suggest the Board
should perhaps wait for the results of the test wells before
moving ahead with preliminary approvals of Section Two. A SEQRA
determination has not been made at this point. I don't know if
you have enough information to make a SEQRA determination. What
I would like to suggest to you is to see the information from
Planning Board Page 32 March 21, 1988
the Health Department from the test well, which the applicant
has indicated that he is in the process of providing for them.
And that we keep on top of them and see what information we get.
Mr. Orlowski: That is about all we can do right now. The ball is
in their court. We will have to just keep an eye on it. Does the
Board have any questions on it?
Board: No
Mr. Orlowski: Is there anyone here representing Beachwood Acres?
O.K. I will go on to the new road specifications in the minor
subdivision. After meeting with the Highway Committee and going
over everything and arguing and hashing things out. I believe
the Planning Board has one more recommendation to put before the
Town Board for their blessing. This would be minimum standard
road construction within a residential subdivision, so be that
of a major subdivision specifications set forth in Chapter A108
of the Town Code with the following changes:
There shall be no curbs, the subgrade width shall be 22
feet, the finegrade width shall be 21 feet, the binding
course shall be 20 feet and shall be composed of either A.
one and a half inches of asphalt or B. double sealed coat
consisting of two layers of bluestone chips penetrated with
oil inaccordance with the State code. The latter option
would result in road having an appearance of a gravel road
while retaining all the benefits of a solid road base.
I think this answers the question of aesthetic in this second
option. I believe cost wise it is not that much more, is it Dick?
Mr. Ward: Probably a little less.
Mr. Orlowski: Probably less! So, all and all I think they are
pretty good recommendations. I would like to send this to, I
guess we will send this to Jean Cochran of the Highway Co~u~ittee
for her to present to the Town Board for their approval. I would
like to send it over and make it in a form of a motion to do
that.
Mr. Latham: So moved.
Mr. Ward: Second.
Mr. Bruer: Would the Board appreciate a co~,~lent on the matter?
Mr. Orlowski: Well, you can talk all you want.
Mr. Bruer: I know we have hashed it over and I know my comments
will be brief. I think, personally, and on behalf of a few
clients, that this is probably one of the most significant
things that is going on before the Town Government today. You
people have sat up there and spat out cost and things like that,
I don't think anything has really been on any particular record
nor has anybody really had an oppertunity to rebut you with
respect to cost and stuff like that. Normally I wouldn't make a
comment, but personally I think that this is such of great
Planning Board Page 33 March 21, 1988
importance and Will have such a great impact on subdivisions in
this Town. I think that very possible either you or the Town
Board should possibly give the public an idea of what is going
on. I don't think the public out there, who is going to be
affected by this, really knows the true cost and consequences or
have been given an oppertunity to really give their input to
this. I think I have already given to the Board, on various
occasions, on various applications, my clients and my own
objections to what the Board is doing. I can appreciate some of
the reasonings of the Board. I don't think they out weigh, I
think, the punitive damage that the Board is causing by the
strict reco~m,endations that you are coming forth with. I believe
at the prior conversation with the meeting with the Town Board,
Highway Co~m~ittee I believe some suggestions were made there
asking that the Board with that down a little bit with respect
to the road requirements that you just read.
Mr. Orlowski: To these here.
Mr. Bruer: Yes, I think that is the same thing that you
submitted to them two or three weeks before.
Mr. Orlowski: We have come up with a second top coat.
Mr. Bruer: What was there different?
Mr. Orlowski: Double Seal Coat.
Mr. Ward: Instead of the final inch and a half of asphalt you
can put a double seal coat of stone chip down.
Mr. Orlowski: Which comes out cheaper than asphalt.
Mr. Ward: What it concerns with is looking like rural roads.
Mr. Bruer: We are talking ~hout minor subdivisions, and again we
are talking about roads that I think everyone agrees will never
be part of the Town Highway system or it is not supposed to be.
O.K. but you are supposed to take the rules that exist. Not use
them in one instance for your benefit and in another not use
them. I think the situation that is here in a minor subdivision,
the use of these standards are going to kill a lot of minor
subdivisions.
Mr. Orlowski: I don't believe that.
Mr. Bruer: Well that Mr. Orlowski, I would appreciate something
more then just "I don't believe that". I think you could do
that. You have all these public hearings and I know you don't
have to have it here but I think it would be beneficial to the
co:m~nity to get public input here and then make up your mind.
Mr. Orlowski: You know right now we are only talking about a
policy. Number one there is no such thing as minor subdivision
road. We would like to make something. We would like to lessen
the standards that do exist. In doing that and making it safe we
feel we have come up with something very fair. We have used
Planning Board Page 34 March 21, 1988
Sidney Bownes, our engineer, we have done cost comparisons, we
have figured out that we are running ten dollars to maybe
fifteen dollars a foot more. Which we don't think figure that is
much greater. When we say go to a major road you are talking one
hundred to one hundred and fifty dollars more per foot. We feel
that the life and safety in these minor subdivision is much more
appreciated then somebody coming in and just putting down a
substandard road. If you want to go out some day on an
inspection with me and the rest of the Board and see some of
these fifteen foot wide roads that we now have, well you get
your four wheel jeep and we will go out and take a look at them.
I think that we are looking for something so when somebody comes
we are going to say here it is, here is your application, here
is the road you have to put in. There is no if's, ands or butts
or there is no sending an engineer out at five hundred dollars
an inspection to tell them what to put down. It is costing the
town money. We have ten different standards of roads out there
now. Out of the ten I think eight of them are so full of pot
holes and destroyed. I think it is a joke. I don't think the
third or forth owner down the road appreciates it much and we
can sit here and argue all day long as we had before and before
and before. But I think in the long run, I think you are way off
with your numbers and you probably think I am off with mine.
This is what we have come up with.
Mr. Bruer: I don't really express numbers, but I have been
informed that there are a lot more than what you are saying
there are. What you are saying is that you really have something
there that is really affecting zoning. It is being decided
without public input. I think it is that important. I think
either this Board or the Town Board should sit down and based
upon you have said, have public input into this.
Mr. Mullen: Suppose we make our recommendation to the Town Board
and you can take it up with them? I am a victim of a
right-of-way that is a disaster. I am verymuch opposed in how
it is being operated now. You, sir, have received no corse
factors. We have. I think what we are trying to do is perhaps
save a life or lives, believe it or not. Which. in my mind is
more impor, tant than a subdivider making a couple of dollars.
That is all I am going to say about it.
Mr. Bruer: Again, of course money is important and lives are
more important. I don't think we have a~y instance here that
there has been any loss of life or loss of property because of
the minor subdivision road in of it themselves. I take offense
when members of, not only this Board but other Boards, to make
it a point to point out that the developer or somebody else in
the community is making money. I think that is wrong.
Mr. Mullen: Just a moment please. We don't resent anyone making
a dollar but I said to you what I am looking forward to is to
perhaps save a life for a few extra dollars. That's what I said.
Mr. Bruer: I just like to call, let's not beat a dead horse here.
Mr. Orlowski: I think we are, so let's move on.
Planning Board Page 35 March 21, 1988
Mr. Mullen: Remember the town law says the minimum standard is
fifteen feet.
Mr. Orlowski: I have a motion made and second. Any questions on
the motion.
Mr. Lessard: Because of the position I am in, I hate to have to
say this. Five years ago we had the same problem. Because of
minor subdivisions or majors if you would, the ZBA is also
involved. Now through oversite,this last Highway meeting, now I
am not going to lay the blame at anybody's door, we overlooked
the ZBA. We overlooked me too. So I have no qualms with the
specifications you laid down. I think that that has a lot of
merit. What I am asking this board is to please coordinate with
the ZBA so everybody goes in the same direction. I don't want to
come up with two standards. We are in a positionwhere outside
the subdivision it belongs to the ZBA and inside it belongs to
the Planning Board and want to see the same answers on both
Boards. I know the end we are trying to reach, but I think that
in the process we don't want to leave somebody out and the left
hand does not know what the right hand is doing.
Mr. Orlowski: Let me just say that we have not adopted this as
plan policy of the Board, because we realize that this is
important. We want the Town Board, the Building Department and
the Zoning Board to be well aware the proper channel to run this
whole thing through it the Highway Committee. The Highway
Committee asks us at the last meeting to come up with these
specs, and hand them in. I am sure the Highway Committee will
invite the proper agencies.
Mr. Lessard: Don't get me wrong.
Mr. Orlowski: The Board is not adopting this tonight. You will
have your chance somewhere along the line. We are going to stick
by it. This Board will stick by it. I am tired of playing
Russian reulet with these minor subdivision roads. And we are
trying to set a policy here. All we want-everyone to be happy.
All those in favor?
Vote of the Board;Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Edwards: Opposed.
Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Edwards is in the negative.
Mr. Orlowski: Last but not least we have a letter from Ronnie
Wacker, president of the North Fork Environmental Counsel. It is
on conversion of potato barns. Mrs. Wacker says, the growing
issue on the North Fork is that of potato barns which are no
longer in use. They have been come attractive for various uses,
some of which requires a variance or a zone change. It seems
urgent to... zoning and variances. Valerie Scopaz recently spoke
to-this point stressing the process of thoughtful overall
Planning Board Page 36 March 21, 1988
planning with zone changes were believed desirable rather then a
building by building decision. Which might disregard the larger
ambiance of the area. North Fork Environmental Council urges
that the Town Board give this matter its careful consideration
as soon as possible. And the Town Board has sent this letter
onto the Planning Board for their co~,~ents. What does the
Planning Board think?
Mr. Latham: I just got the letter before the meeting I have not
had time to think anything.
Mr. Ward: It is difficult to give a lateral use for a particular
structure without knowing where it is and what it's impact is on
the surrounding properties. So I don't know how you ca~ takel
it, but on a case by case thing.
Mr. Latham: As a city boy I would like to take a look at some of
these potato barns with Benny and find out what it is all about
before we make any comment. And also get the input from Valerie.
Ms. Scopaz: If you would like I could give you a little bit of
the back round of the situation. An application to the Zoning
Board of Appeals to ask for permission to use an existing potato
barn, that was I believe one of the larger variety, 30 by 60,
concrete floor, steel framed building. The application was for a
change of use to the Zoning Board of Appeals. To allow for a
business to be placed within the building. The question that
this raises principally from planning point of view is under the
current zoning code any building in the agricultural/residential
district can only be used for a very preScribed list of uses. A
business is not one of them. If the ZBA had granted the change
of use, what that would have meant is that every other farm
building that was out there would have the right to come in and
partision the board to allow the change of use to a business
district. What you would end up with, potentially, is a
proliferation of commercial uses in residential areas. I think
that this is something deserves a serious look by the both the
Town Board and the Planning Board. I think we need to address
this issue because there are several buildings out there. There
will be more as some farmers decide to leave the business or
properties change hands. Some of these buildings and some of
these buildings will be misused. One suggestion that was made is
to convert these buildings into affordable housing units. There
is a serio,,~ question as to whether these buildings could
actually be converted under the State Building Code
Requirements. I think it is something that should be looked at.
There is no provision in our code whatsoever adaptive reusing
thesebuildings. I think it should be looked at, if we decide to
go ahead and allow all of these building to be converted to
business or commercial uses. It should be as a right and maybe
not required for each applicant to go for a change of use. A
change of use is something that should be used very very
sparingly by the Zoning Board of Appeals. If used otherwise it
can amount to spot zoning. Rather then abuse that unique escape
valve, I think that the Town should revise its code to allow
some other uses. Now, what those other uses should be, I think
J '~ ~ Planning Board Page 37 March 21, 1988
there should be a debate on that. I think there should be a
discussion. I think it should be examined from both sides.
Mr. Ward: Valerie, I don't really agree that allowing a barn to
go to a col~ercial use, if its'in the proper location, is cart
blanChes to every other barn in the town to go to a commercial
use. That is totally contrary to the whole concept of zoning.
That has nothing to do with a building structure. Zoning has to
do with land use and planning, not with content of what a
building is made up of.
Ms. Scopaz: Well, the question that comes into being is
location. If the barn is located on the State or County Road or
any of the Main Roads and has road frontage, maybe it wouldn't
be. Maybe what you are saying is true. Because if the farmer had
it in use, yes there would be tractor trailer trucks going up
and down. Loading whatever the product was that was being
loaded. But what happens to those barns when they are adjacent
to a residential subdivision?
Mr. Ward: This is why you have to do it on a case by case basis.
There are many barns that could be converted very easily for
co~£~£,ercial uses. There are others that shouldn't be. You can't
say just because it is a barn that it should be one or the other
in a code. You can't take that approach.
Mr. Mullen: I suggest we sit down and get all the input we can
from everybody. Mrs. Wacker from the North Fork Environmental
Council, you because we could be here all night going back and
forth. All I know about a barn is where they keep hay. I would
like to get to know.
Mr. Latham: There are a lot of barns around me that have not
been used for anything in fifty years.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Any other questions from the Board? No
further questions, I'll entertain a motion.
Mr. Latham: So moved.
Mr. Edwards: Seconded.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Ray Edwards: I have a comment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Orlowski: What's that, Councilman Edwards.
Mr. Ray Edwards: I am very pleased to see all of you gentlemen
wearing Fishers Island ties. I think you should take up a
collection for Mr. Latham, seeing he can't afford one.
Planning Board Page 38 March 21, 1988
Mr. Ken Edwards: I just want to inform the rest of the Board
members, that along the line of affordable housing, two of the
committee members will be flying over tomorrow to meet
informally with Benny for a few minutes in the morning and
Valerie, I think, and also the Town Board in their work session
just to bring them up to date with the progress in the
affordable housing project for Walsh Park.
Mr. Orlowski: Very good, I think Fishers Island will have
affordable housing before the mainland.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
BE~h~ETT- 0RLOWSKI, JR. , ~'IRMAN
Respectfully submitted,
RECEIVED AND ~/LED BY
THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
DATE //-/~-~F HOUR
~
Town Clerk, Town of Southold