HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-08/15/1988Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1935
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
PL3aXlNING BOhRD MINUTES
AUGUST 15, 1988
The Southold Town Planning Board held a regular meeting on
Monday, August 15, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall,
Main Road, Southo!d.
PRESENT WERE:
Bennett Orlowski.,Jr., Chairman
Member William Mullen
Member G. Ritchie Latham
Member Kenneth Edwards
Town Planner Valerie Scopaz
Planner Melissa Spiro
Victor Lessard
Secretary Jill Thorp
ABSENT: Richard Ward
Mr. Orlowski: Good Evening. I would like to call this meeting to
order. First order of business is 7:30 p.m. Chardonnay Woods-
Public hearing on the question of preliminary approval for this
major subdivision. This parcel is on 44.376 acres located at
Southold. SCTM ~!000~51-3-3. At this time everything is in o~der
for a preliminary hearing. We have proof of publication in the
Long Island Traveler/Watchman and in the Suffolk Times. At this
time I will ask if there are any objections to this major
subdivision?
Mr. Kahil: My name is Greg Kahil. I own a piece of land on the
south side of Old North Road and the south side of this
Particular piece of property. We have a significant water
problem when we get very heavy_ rains. I am worried that the
development could make the Water problems worse. What I mean by
water problems is if we get heavy rains all North Road can be
closed for days. I am talking about a stretch of two hundred,
three hundred, yards under about two feet of water.
PlaP~%ing Board 2 August 15, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Are there any other objections to this major
subdivision?
Ms. Scopaz: Mr. Ortowski, if I may answer this mans question. We
have our Town Engineer working very_ closely with the Highway
Department to address, specifically, the problem that you are
speaking of. The applicant did revise the map several times in
order to accommodate proper drainage for that area. Because we
do not want this new developement to create.., to make the
existing situation any worse then it is. My understanding is
that the engineers have resOlved the problem. You are welcome to
review the drainage plans in the file.
Mr. Kahit: I did look at the drainage plans. I looked at the
files today and I see that there are four retaining areas. The
one I am concerned about is what they call retaining area one.
It is right across the road frem us. I guess my question is, I
am not an engineer, if that builds up will it drain somewhere
else or will it overflow as it does today? Will it hold as much
water as it does today or will it be worse? How can anybody
reassure me?
Ms. Scopaz: Do you mean on the subject property?
Mr. Kahil: Yes.
Ms. Scopaz: Ail the runoff that a property generates.., when a
piece of property is developed all the stozmwater runoff that
the property generates as well as what it will generate after it
is constructed has to be contained on site. That is what we have
our Town Engineer review. In other words, the applicant does all
the drainage calculations and the engineers review those
calculations to make sure that the proposed potential runoff
that could come off of that site can be held on that property.
We could not approve pushing off to some one else's property.
The Engineers are saying, yes, the proposed drainage plans as it
has been worked.., you should realize that there were several
revisions to those plans, primarily because of that problem.
There was a lot of discussion on different ways of handling the
run off. Our engineers are saying that it does meet that
criteria. Lets hope they are right.
Mr. Or!owski: Any other objections to this subdivision?
Mr. Li!-lis: My name is Gary Lillis. I am a neighbor of Kahil~s.
Is the Planning Board familiar with conditions in that area
during storms?
Mr. Orlowski: We have our engineers that go out and check this.
Mr. Lillis: So you as the Planning Board are satisiied with the
plan for drainage for that area?
Mr. Orlowski: Yes.
Pla~%ning Board ~ Aug~st 15, 1988
Mr T~ l~ ~ ~. You .are f~miliar '~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~
........ w .... the ~nd~ns.
Mr. Orlowski: Our engineer is. i am not a professional, but they
have to retain the water on site as Ms. Scopaz ~has said. Our
engineers are guaranting us ~hat.
Mr. Lillis: .And they also are guaranting that the Old North Road
will beopen during these conditions?
Mr. Or!owski: That is what they tell us and that is what all the
reports say. We have to go along with that.
Mr. Lillis: We do have some photos.
Mr. Orlowski: Do you have other engineering information or
~alu~_~t~ ~]- .... ~s that ~an~ prove that ~ ~ not work?
Mrs. Donapria: We hav~ p%otos tb~at .~re t_~-ken during stozms.
These photos were taken during a ~to~ in ~2. I think that the
guarantee that the people are !o~ing for is that these
conditions will not happen again. We do not want just the new
developement to be protected, we want this entire road to be
protected. We want a guarantee for that. _~b..is was not water.
This was a river. We have pictures of people boating. The road
was closed at least four or five days. This is a severe storm.
Mr. Li!tis: It characterizes the most severe area in Southold
Town. Quote Mr~ Dean in the Suffolk Times I have a copy of the
Suffolk Times also with this quote.
Mr. 0rlowski: M~. Jacobs, who is there now, is satisfied, with
this system the way it is. Mr. Ward ~no is a Board member who
lives down there ~nd is an engineer, is satisfied. These
co~.,,ents wilI be taken into consideration, and we will have them
look it over again and make sure. We are not going to create a
problem down there. We can not take a subdivision and pump the
water onto any where else but that area.
Ms. Scopaz: There is one thing you should be aware of, and that
is the Planning Board has the right to ask a developer of a
piece of property to take care of his property and any problem
associating with his property. It cannot ask a developer to take
care of existing drainage problems on a Town road that is not
related to his property. In other words his property is not the
main cause of the flooding. What the Board has done is made sure
that this propert~will not add to the problem. You should be
aware also that at the present time some of the water on the
North Road is being channeled onto the developer's property and
he has worked.his drainage plan to take into account that water.
That is already coming onto his property at this time. Tb~t
water that is going onto his property now is not going to stay
on the North Road, it will continue going onto his property. If
you feel that the problem is larger then that, for instance that
it involves drainage from a longer stretch of the road then the
~lanning Board 4 August 15, 1988
appropriate form would be for you to go to the Town Board and
make it known to them that the drainage problem is s~ serious
that it goes beyond just the initial property in question. I
think the Board is sympathetic to what you are saying, but
Please recognize that they are constrained. They canonly ask
the developerto handle what his property will add t~ it. He has
already done that. If there is something there that ~s a
deficiency that preexisted it, they can not ask him ~o address
something that was a result of someone else's property. You may
want to consider going to the Town Board and presenting your
problem to them. Thank you.
Mr. Orlowski: Just so you know, this application was
1985 and our biggest concern was layout and draiP~ge,
been working with the applicant since that. It was ti
to get to the prelimina~ hearing, which is one tease
get yelled at for being se slow, but we try to make
not creating problems on this site or for other peep]
Valerie says, we can not control the other areas and
not happen. This site will retain all its water. Any
objections?
Mrs. Wacker: I have one. I would like to ask you if..
appreciate you are concerned about a devel°pe~ addin¢
problem. If there is a problem there why is it that
approves or accepts an application for a project whi
does not add to it, it certainly does not help. Shou]
Situation be remedied before you add any~3~ng~.~more t¢
Obviously if you are adding more buildings you are ge
create more problems. It is inevitable. I don't know
your problem or the Town Board's. It certainly se~ms
this is something that should be investigated and st%
any other developement is added to what is already a
Mr. Orlowski: When someone comes in to s,,hdivide, th~
is to handle all the runof! from their property. And
their problem. In this case since 1985 they have be~
handle that problem to our satisfaction, our enginee~
satisfaction. We believe that it has been handled no%
the best we can do. They have the right to make an ~
to subdivide their property underthe current zoning.
have the responsibility to maintain the water' on theJ
Like I said, it has been three years already since tl
application. You have seen our engineering bills for
property, they are quite steep. We just wanted to m~
wanted all the answers ~or the last three years, we ~
satisfied now. Our engineers have given us the repor~
needed.
Mrs. Wacker: Wouldn't you agree that if you don't ex(
application from another group that wants to develop~
problem is corrected. Wouldn't you, as a re~o~ble
say, yes we should do that. I don't where that falts~
something that should be considered.
stazted in
we have
res years
n why we
ute we are
e. Like
say it will
other
I ca/%
to a
he Town
h if it
dn't the
it.
.ng to
if this is
to me that
.died before
oroblem.
_r problem
that is
trying to
~s
'. That is
~lication
They also
z property.
.ey made an
this
~ sure. We
.re
.that we
~ept an
until that
~umanbeing
but is
Planning Board 5 August 15, 1988
Mr. Or!owski: Everyone has a right to...
Mrs. Wacker: Nobody can say ~nat the developer can be concerned
about the problem that is there. If there are problems we should
all say well lets fix this before we except any more
applicatior~.
Mr. Orlowski: I don't see how we can handle that. Everyone has a
right to subdivide their property. They cannot subdivide and
cause another problem somewhere else. That is the only way we
can handle it. There is a problem in that road. It is a Town
Road. I suggest that you go before the Town Board and petition
the Town Board to handle that problem. They are the ones that
are responsible.
Mrs. Wacker: It just seems to be too bad that we don't figure
the cumulative effect of ~nything. We say this fellow has the
right to develope. It is according to our constitution to look.
We don't say if he developes and this is going to happen and the
next guy who developes and that is going to happen it is all
around the lot. Then you have the tragedy of the Commons. Where
each person is going to do a little more then he should.
Somebody in the government should be figuring what is going to
happen if the whole area, the whole neighborhood is developed.
Mr. Orlowski: Right. I think we are getting out of the
boundaries of this subdivision, and the Planning Board can not
do that. We are looking at one piece of prDp~rty and we have
boundaries we are confined to and that is what we are going to
address. A problem like that should go to the Town Board. I am
going to have to go on with this .hearing. It is a good question
and if there is that big a problem created by other properties
along side the Town Road then I suggest that it is the Town
Board you talk to. This. Board is only addressing the project
that we have before us.
Mrs. Wacker: I think this is a problem in many areas in the Town
and maybe the proper avenue is to go to the Town Board.
Mr. Or!owski: Right, Town Board. Any other objections to this
subdivision? Hearing none, any endorsements to. 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 the Board?
Mr. Rego: Mr. Or!owski, my name is Neil Rego, i am the developer
of the 45 acre parcel that is in question on the preliminary
hearing tonight. With all do respect to the Board, i have to say
they did a fantastic job for the Town. My engineer
unfortunately, Ed Bullock, is supposed to be here. I hope
momentarily but we are not only taking care of our 45 acres of
water. But the Planning Board saw fit to let us take in another
65 acres worth. I think if you check the calculations here, I
Planning Board 6 August 15, 1988
think we are taking care of one hundred acres. I was not happy
to do itt but you made me do it. It certainly should be noted.
Mr. Orlowski: We touched on that. We did try to make sure we got
every little bit that we could, tt did take us a long time but
we got there. That is where we are and we thank you. Any other
comments. Bearing none, any questions from the Board? F~r. Mullen?
Mr. Mullen: Yes, I have a comment. Number one I invite the
people to check the file. This project has been engineered as
recently as August 8. In addition I might recommend that we make
a consideration to the engineering fizm when they make their
recommendation for a bond for the subdivision, that perhaps they
give consideration to protecting us for indication in regard to
the drainage situation.
Mr. Latham: Good point.
Mr. Orlowski: Fir. Latham?
Mr. Latham: Nothing other then that.
Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Edwards?
Mr. Edwards: No just that I agree with Mr. Mullen's comment.
Mr. Orlowski: Ms. Scopaz?
Ms. Scopaz: No, nothing to add.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Being no further questions I will declare
this hearing closed and thank you for coming down.
Mr. Orlowski: Elijah's Lane Estates, Section III- Public
hearing on the question of preliminary approval for this major
subdivision. This parcel is located at Etijah's Lane, Mattituck.
SCTM ~1000-108-4-7.1. Everything is in order for a preliminary
hearing. We have proof of publication in the Long Island
Traveler/Watchman also in the Suffolk Times. I will ask if there
are any objections to this major subdivision? Hearing none, are
there any endorsements to this major subdivision?
Mr. Popkin: Irwin Popkin, the applicant.
Mr. Orlowski: t think that is a yes.
Mr. Popkin: That is a yes.
Mr. Ortowski: O.K. Is there anyone out there neither pro nor con
but may infoz~ation pertaining to this s,~hdivision that would be
of interest to this Board? Hea~ing none, any questions from the
Board? Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards?
Planning Board 7 August 15, 1988
Reply of the Board: No.
Mr. Orlowski: Ms. Scopaz?
Ms. Scopaz: No.
Mr. Orlowski: Being no further questions, I will declare this
hearing closed and thank you for coming.
Mr. Orlowski: Going onto subdivisions. East Marion Woods-
Beard to make a determination on the final maps of this major
subdivision, survey dated March 2, 1987. This parcel is on
59.827 acres located at East Marion. SCTM ~1000-30-1-5.1. I
think any approvals should be subject To the fire wells as
recommended by the East Marion Fire District and street trees.
We also need a map with updated Health approval. What is the
pleasure of the Board?
Mr. Mullen: Approval s~bject to.
Mr. Latham: Yes. Subject to those things.
Mr. Or!owski: Motion made ~ud seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Edwards.
Mr. Ortowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: DBM-Cluster proposal- Board to make a
determination on the preliminary maps on tb~s major s~hdivision,
survey amted March 24, 1988. This parcel is on 37.762 acres
located at Southold. SCT~ ~1000-55-6-15.1. Any approvals should
be subject to the drainage Plans by the Engineer. Everything
else is in order.
Mr. Edwards: Approval subject to the drainage plans.
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Beard; Ayes: Orlowski, Mutlen, Latham, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: The Woods at Cutchogue~ Board to make a
determination on the prel~narymaps on this major subdivision,
survey dated May 25, 1988. This parcel is on 29.540 acres
located at Cutchogue. SCTM ~1000-!02-t-4. Everything is in
Planning Board 8 August 15, 1988
order. We should comment that the final plans should show
complete road and cross sections so the applicant will be ready
to do that.
Mr. Latham: I will move subject to the final showing that.
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any question~ on the
motion? All those in favor? ~
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Oriowski, Mullen, Latham,~E~wards.
Fir. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Hanoch & Watts- Board to take action on the
sketch map for this minor subdivisien, survey dated as amended
May 26, 1988. Boazd to start the coordination process to
determine lead agency and enviroD~ental significance. This
parcel is on 12.623 acres located a Cutchogue.
SCTM $1000-101-1-14.1. I entertain a motion to take lead agenc~
and coordinate that with the other departments.
Mr. Edwards: So moved.
Mr. Latham: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded..~yquestions on the
motion? All those in ~avor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Edward~.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. What is the Board's pleasure
on the sketch? At this time I ~nink that we should ask for no
further subdivision.
Mr. Latham: Approve subject to covenants.
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, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: August Acres- Board to review David Emilita,
Planning Consultant, comments of August 12, !988 on this major
subdivision. SCTM $1000-53-4-44.2. Ms. Scopaz you have a co,.,ent?
Planning Board 9 August 15, 1988
Ms. Scopaz: Yes. I just handed you a memo pertaining to A',~gust
Acres section I. You have received two sets of co, t~,,,ents. The
first from the State Depart~ment of Environmental Conservation
which has requested additional infozmation pertaining to the
soils on site. The applicant has been asked to provide that
infoz~tion. We have not received it yet. The DEC did not have a
problem with this Boards initial determination of
non-significance. The Board's environmental consultant, Dave
Emilita, does feel that the proposed action will have an impact
on the environment. Consequently he recommends issuance of a
positive declaration on the grounds that, I will just s~L-,arize
it. I will read into the record his actual report. Basically he
feels that the mitigation of the environmental impacts on the
pond must be addressed. The site is inadequately drained at
present. The second phase of the pro3ect must be discussed at
this time in ordez to avoid segmentation under the State
Enviro~mentai Quality~e ~ ~7~w~ procedures~ Further, Mr. Emilita
has recommended that an archeolo~ical survey be conducted.
Basically to summarize his con~r~ents, he itemizes four basic
impacts that he was concerned about. ~e first is the impact on
the land. I am reading the last page of his report which was
received this afternoon. Construction is supposed to continue
for more then one year. This can be mitigated by adopting a
title construction schedule and providing certain environmental
controls during construction. There is an existing one acre pond
on site which is supposed to be used as a drainage area. This
can also be mitigated by project change. The second impact of
which he is concerned about is impact on ~the ~water. The proposed
action will likely cause siltation into an existing body of
water. Namely the one acre pond on lot number one. This can be
mitigated ~by providing erosion control measures and placing the
pond in a conservation zone of open space. The proposed action
will alter surface water runoff and may cause Substantial
erosion .... is not shown on the plan. It runs from the drainage
area and must be evaluated. It is possible that a direct
connection contin~ to lot number one onto the Sage Property,
which is to the West of this property. No correspondence from
the New York state Department Environmental Conservation with
respect to a connection to title wetlands exist. I would like to
mention that the Trustees have also informed this Board that
they do have a permit on file for permission to run a discharge
pipe from the recharge basin into the wetlands. The applicant
would have to proceed with that as well. Back to the-memo,
impact on drainage, several low spots pond during periods of
rain fall. The drainage system does not function properly and
must be redesigned. Some new construction of roads and drainage
may be necessary. The purpose of the fifteen foot wide easement
to land now or formerly of Paconca needs to be explained ar~ its
impact assessed. Fourth, impact on growth, phase two needs to be
incorporated into the plans at this time to avoid segmentation
under SEQRA. I have included here a copy of the tax map showing
the location of the proposed section two, which is not shown in
the file. This is a rectangular piece of property to the north
of the section one. It is adjacent to State Route 25.
Planning Board 10 August 15, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: It appears that we should positive dec. this. What
is the pleasure of the Board?
Mr. Edwards: So moved.
Mr. Latham: Second.
Mr. Ortowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Edwards.
Mr~ Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Norris Estate Development- ~rM to review the
correspondence fr~m David ~mi!ita, Engineering Consultant, dated
July 22, 1988 in reference to the Preliminary Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. Board to send the Preliminary
Draft Environmental i~urpact Statement to David Emitita for his
review. This was received by the Planning Board oEfice on August
12, 1988. Board to take a 30 day extension for the review of the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, from September 11, 1988 to
October 11, 1988. Ms. Scopaz do you have any co~m~ent on this.
Ms. Scopaz: No. Other then the correspondence that was received
from Dave Emitita, the applicant bmm informed us that the Draft
EIS supposedly incorporates all those comments, When we review
it for completeness we will have to revieWit with Mr. Emilita's
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. I will entertain a motion to send the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement to Mr. Emilita for his review.
Mr. Latham: 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, Mutlen, Latham, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Also Board to take a thirty
(30) day extension to review the Draft Environmental Impact
Statementl
Mr. Mullen: So moved.
Mr. Edwards: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Planning Board 11 August 15.. 1988
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Ortowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Angel Shores- Board to review the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement. This parcel is on 92.7
acres located at Southold. SCTM %t000-88-6-4,5,t3.t. Ms. Scopaz
do you have comments on this.
Ms. Scopaz: We have several comments from several agencies. I
will start off by giving a brief synopsis of what their response
has been. We have any August 15, 1988 report from the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services. They basically find the
document incomplete for public review. David Emilita, the
Environmental Planning Consu!tant~ sent a August I1, 1988
report, he also finds the doc=ment incomplete, ,unsatisfactory
for public review. We have comments from Joe Hall from the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and in his
report dated July 19, 1988. He asks for additicna! information
before proceeding with his review. The Town Trustees in their
report dated July 2.7, 1988, did not make a statement on the
completeness of the report but.they did say they prefer the
third alternative besides the no action alternative. I think
their comments are a little premature at this time. We will
address them after the document is completed. Finally, we have
received co~ents from Frank Panack, who is another review
person in the State Department of Environm. ental Conservation,
but their Stony Brook office. Joe Hall is from the Albany
office. In his report (Frank Panack) dated July 28, 1988, he
also makes additional com~ents pertaining to the accuracy of
some of the data that is in the report. If you want I can just
read what the insufficiencies that are in the report.
Mr. Orlowski: I think that this Board is going to make a
determination that this impact statement is inc~uplete and
therefore, send it back to the applicant. There is no sense
wasting any more time on it.
Mr. Moore: William Moore, on behalf of the applicant. I did not
have the benefit of getting at least three of those sets of
comments. If it is your intention and desire to return the DEIS
for additional material, I would ask in making a resolution
whether you incorporate these documents by reference or
otherwise, to keep this SEQRA to go along properly, set forth
the reasons why you are returning the document to us.
Mr. Orlowski: All Of these will go back with the resolution.
Mr. Paterson: I would like to speak too. George Paterson,
president of the Terry Waters .Association, which is contiguous
to this proposed construction; Angle Shores. Before I speak on
my particular point, I want to second the lady that suggested to
you as a group that you should look at the overall impact to the
Planning Board 12 August 15, 1988
additional housing in this area. It makes be think that people
in New Am~terdam three hundred years ago, if they had a Planning
Board could have said to them about lower~anhatt~u which
proceeded upward and is the present way now. We have question, a
very serious question about the ~mou_nt of water that is going to
be available after Angel Shores is completed and The Cove.
Whether they are connected legally or by ownership rights. There
is talk about that. I don't know, but I do know they are being
built and The Cove is being sold. It is a serious problem for
the local residence. You can not get any more local they we are,
our two blocks. We have been a long time and we are very
concerned about this particular problem. We hope that you will
look into to this more seriously and be extra cautious about
that. Frankly, we would prefer you turn the whole thing down.
Another question and objections is to a road, which I have seen
on the proposed plan, going into Terry Waters. Going into
Rambler Road Extension. Rambler Road Extension and Rambler Road
is a small Town Road. Nothing big at all. We would certainly not
like to have this invasion from these other people through our
road and going up to the Main Road. Of course who knows where
they will be going and what times of day or night. We would not
like to have that road permitted at all. You may say, well they
need a second egress. O.K. let them get a second egress through
someone else, not through us. We are very concerned about that.
My next point is serious concern about the wetlands. If you look
at the wetlands, it is right in front of cur houses. We are
looking right at what used to be two ponds there. The swans used
to be in the larger pond. There is not anglo.pond now. It is a dry
bed. Can I prove that happen because of Angel Shores? No. But I
am very concerned about it. Already the local residence, not
only on Rambler Road Extension but the continuation Rambler Road
have been deprived of something which has been there siDLe the
year one. ~e are very concerned about the wetlands issue. For
our sake and for everyones sake. We notice thak they are piping
on the Main Road from Angle Shores straight down. It is very
extensive, I think to the Cove.
Mr. Orlowski: Yes, they are.
Mr. Paterson: There must be some kind of an agreement or
ownership. I am nou interested in that part. I do know that they
propose to take care of Angle Shores and The Cove. I don't 'blame
them for investing money in it. But, what I am afraid of is that
wiilleave Terry Waters and other properties on the o~h~r side
of Main Bayview and also others, out without a drink of water.
If you approve of all of these things and don~t protect us as
your first clients, who have been here all atong~ I think that
would be objectionable. I would like to ask a question. Who is
paying for the piping?
Fir. Orlowski: It is between both applicants. The Cove and Angel
Shores. i would, just like to say that water system is something
that has been approved by the Suffolk County Department of
Health.
Planning Board 13 August 15, 1988
Mr. Paterson: I don't care who appreves it. It is ...
Mr. Orlowski: When it comes to water approvals it comes out of
our hands and puts it in theirs. They have the responsibility to
make sure that there is no adverse effect to the surrounding
area.
Mr. Paterson: That is not totally comforting, especially if our
water begins to taste salty. They can go home at night to where
ever they go but we will be stuck there while Angel Shores and
The Cove is well taken care of. I am asking you to execrcise
everything that you can to protect your own neighbors here in
this area. Thank you.
Mr. Orlowski: We have walked this project, I don't know how many
times. This has been in Court twice. Weare getting dizzy with
this. Right know we are worrying about the Environmental
Impact. We have a Draft Environmental Impact Statement that we
feel is not complete. It does not come close to answering all
the questions. Tonight we are going to declare it incomplete and
with all our comments send it back to the applicant. A lot of
questions will have to be answered. We can only go from there.
We are very much concerned. We have been around those ponds and
in that low area for many years now. We make at least two
inspections a year and we will look at it closely.
Mr. Paterson: As I said before you only have to look at one
pond. What else can we, as Terzy Waters Ass. ociation, do to help
this?
Mr. Orlowski: Any c~,~nts, you can address in writing to this
Board and when the impact statement is complete it will be
available for review. If you have any comments to make on that
you will have a period to make comment. The Board will review
them and send them back to the applicant to address them.
Mr. Paterson: How will we know when it is ready?
Mr. Orlowski: We will advertise. On this case we will probably
have a public hearing.
Mr. Paterson: Thank you.
Ms. Scopaz: If you want to read the coa~uents that will be sent
to the applicant, you can stop in the office.
Mr. 0rlowski: I have a motion made and seconded to send it back.
Mrs. Wahl: Cmn I say something?
Mr. Orlowski: This is not a public hearing. I would like to get
on with the meeting.
Planning Board 14 August 15~ 1988
Mrs. Wahl: I know I am going to be i~t~ediately effected by it.
My name is Ester Wahlo I am surrounded by Angel Shores. Right
know I just want you to know that I bottle my water, because the
water table is so shallow. Salt intrusion.., having that pumped.
What ever water I do have, Thompsons as well as the Mul!en's,
that little cluster of people that live at the very edge will be
effected tremendously. How will I or how canyou help me?
Mr. Orlowski: You have to put these co~m~lents in writing and we
will send them to the proper people and get some answers. That
is all we can do.
Mrs. Wahl: I have surveyors going to my property all the time.
They are chopping branches down ~nd trees.
Mr. Orlowski: They can't do tk~t.
Mrs. Wahl: ! know, today i told them the~l better not. I called
the police. I don't know who to call.
Mr. Orlowski: Right, well I would call the police. They can not
come on your property and cut your trees down.
Mr. Wahl: They are. They said they can't get through. I said if
you can't get through, you are not going to.
Mr. Orlowski: They can not do that. Put the c~:~:~nts in writing
and we will address them.
Mrs. Wahl: One other thing if I may. I know this is not a p~blic
hearing. Everything has been a history of errors. Accidentally
not knowing. Having errors has been the history.
Mr. Orlowski: We will do everything we can to make sure there
are no errors.
Mrs. Wahl: Thank you. There is a little part marked on the map
as park and recreation area. How could that acc~m~odate
approximately seventy to eighty families?
Mr. Orlowski: We are not sure that we are going to except that
yet. We are probably going to take money in lieu of. Any other
co~l,~ents please send in writing.
Mr. Luca: Just a clarification. You said the Planning Board does
not take into consideration well water. A water supply of a
subdivision you approve?
Mr. Orlowski: Yes we do. The County Health Department has to
approve everything.
Mr. Luca: You approve it.
Planning Board 15 August 15, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: We approve it after they give their approval. By
Article Six in Suffolk County they have to provide palatable
water.
Mr. Luca: The County Health Department approves the quality of
water not the volume?
Mr. Orlowski: Everything. They address everything. This water
system that is going in now. If you want to address the County
and find out what is going on down there, I would do that. We
are going to need some answers for this project also. It will be
in this impact statement which is no whereas near complete.
Mr. Luca: One question, when they approve it, that means that it
will be sufficient and palatable for Angel Shores and The Cove?
Is that it?
Mr. Orlowski: It appears right now that is the way it is. At
least for The Cove.
Mr. Lucas: That don't say anything about the impact upon the
other tax payers around.
Mr. 0rlowski: They should be addressing that and I am assuming
they are. That is part of their responsibility. When they give
their approval it should be where it is effecting anyone else.
Mr. Lucas: You said it should?
M~. Ortowski: I will not speak for Sufiolk County.
Mr. Lucas: O.K.
Mr. Orlowski: Can I have a motion made and seconded.
Mr. Mullen: Yes.
Mr. Latham: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Any questions on the motion? Ail those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Multen, Latham, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Ortowski: Next we have Charles DeLuca- Board to accept and
request compliance with the Engineer's report dated August 1,
1988. This parcel is on 10.38 acres located at Southnld.
SCTM %1000-66-2-2.
Mr. Latham: Move it.
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Planning Board 16 August 15, 1988
Mr. Or!owski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? Ail those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Richard Cron- Board to discuss the Engineer's
report dated July 1, 1988. This parcel is on 3.725 acres located
at East Marion. SCTM ~1000-35-5-5. Sidney Bowne, our Engineer
rec~ends acceptance. On our own inspection in the field, we
have our report. The road service is thin and weeds are 9Towing
through the ro~8, yet Sidney Bowne's report stated ~h~t the
stone blend service was placed satisfactory and they recommend
expectance. I think we should look into this and at least make
sure the weeds are out of the road way beiore final approval.
Mr. Latham: I'll move for 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, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Gilbert and Ann ~iaGa- Board to discuss Suffolk
County Planning Cona~ission comments of August 4, 1988. This lot
line change is located on the North Road at Southold.
SCTM ~1000-135-1-23 & 24.
Mr. Latham: Recommend compliance.
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, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Hillcrest Estates Section I- Board to accept and
request compliance with the Engineer's report dated July 20,
1988. SCTM ~t000-t3-2-8.3,8.36,8.10.
Mr. Latham: Move it.
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Planning Board 17 August !5~ 1988
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. ~y questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Ortowski, Mullen, Latham, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? $o ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Winds Way Cor~.- Board to accept and request
compliance with the Engineer's report dated July 6, 1988. This
site plan is located at Cutchogue. SCTM $1000- 117-8-6.
Mr. Latham: $o moved.
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded..Any questions on the
motion? Ail those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Francis Greenbezger- Board to grant a six (6)
month extension, frum September 7, 1988 to March 7, 1989, for
the filing of the final maps for this minor subdivision. This
Parcel is on 15.581 acres located at East Cntcho~ue.
SCTM ~1000-97-3-18.1.
Mr. Edwards: 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, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Scott Ka~man- BOard to grant a six (6) month
extension, from September 7, 1988 to March 7~ 1989, for the
filing of the final maps for this minor subdivision. This parcel
is on 6.889 acres located at East Cutcho~de. SCTM $1000-97-3-20.
Mr. Edwards: So moved.
Mr. Latham: Second.
Mr. Ortowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Planning Board 18 August 15, 1988
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Charles Simmons- Board to grant a six [6) month
extension, from September 7, 1988 to March 7, 1989, for the
filing of the final maps for this minor .subdivision. This parcel
is on 57.7 acres located at Mattituck. SCTM ~1000-112-1-8.
Mr. Latham: 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~ ~lten, Latham, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Site Plans: Mutten Motors- Board to approve the
site plan subject to five (5) conditions. This parcel is located
on the Main Road at Southold. SCTM ~1000-62-3-20. The conditions
are:
The grassed area shall extend to. the westerly
property line.
The sidewalk which is shown as being 3' wide, but is
scaled at 5' shall be consuructed at the 3' width.
The grassed area between the sidewalk and the curb is
shown a~ being 2' in depth. It shall be constructed so
as to extend from the edge of the sidewalk to the
curb, which is to be installed as per NYSDOT standards
and specifications.
The street, trees shall be planted in accordance with
the provisions of Section A108-41 of the Highway
Specifications.
Any exterior lighting that may be added to the facade
of the addition or to the existing structure in order
to illuminate the facade of the addition shall be
shielded so as not to throw light beyond the propert~
boundaries.
Mr. Edwards: Move to except s~bject to t~se five conditions.
Mr. Latham: I think we should move it aftez he does it. Who is
going to put trees in during the next two months?
Planning Board 19 August 15, 1988
Mr. Mullen: There are five conditions~ not just one.
Mr. Ortowski: The only thing, Mr. Muilen (Richard) has a good
comment, is planting trees in a car dealership creates havoc
with the paint on the cars. That there, I could probably go a
long with. There are no trees a long that area. There is grassed
area.
Mr. Latham: He couldn't plant trees now anyway,
Mr. Or!owski: The rest of this work can be done and we c~n hold
it.
Mr. Latham: I don't think that the trees are right there.
Mr. Orlowski: That is just my opinion.
Mr. Latham: That is a good point.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Send those comments over the applicant?
Mr. Edwards: There has been a motion made and not seconded.
Mr. Latham: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Anyquestions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Discussions: A Local Law in Relation to Zondn~q
~buitding lot yield)- Board to make a reco~m~,endation to the
Town Board on this amendment pertaining to building lots. This
is to change the code.
The Code in the Town of Southold is hereby amended to read
as follows: The total building lot yield of a standard
subdivision, meeting applic~hls requirements, shall he used
to determine the number of building lots which the Planning
Board make grant in a cluster subdivision.
This eliminates a penalty clause for clustering, which we
feel clustering leaves more open space.. We can eliminate the
penalty and use the yield map, which we can use on all
subdivisions. What is the recommendation to the Town Board?
Mr. Mullen: I suggest approve the amendment on the floor.
Mr. Edwards: Second.
Planning Board 20 August 15, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and secOnded. Any questions on the
motion. All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So o~dered.
Mr. Orlowski: A Local Law in relation to Zoning (Abstract of
title)- Board to make a recgmmendation to the Town Board on
this amendment. I am not going to read this. I know the Board
has reviewed it. It is another one that they are in favor of.
What is the pleasure of the Board?
Mr. Mullen: Approve and advise the Town Board accordingly.
~r. Latham: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? Ail those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Ortowski, Mullen, Latham, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Peconic Trails- Board to discuss
this application for a major subdivision~with the applicant.
This parcel is on 44.6282 acres located at Peconic.
SCTM $1000-74-1-38. Mr. Saland, I guess you represent the
applicant?
Mr. Saland: Originaltywe came in with a standard subdivision
plan. That was well over a year ago. We met with Valerie and
listened to her advise on how she would like to see the piece
developed and the fact that the Town was thinking about a water
protection area. We should ~luster our lots to the north and get
together with our neighbor to the west, put in one road. Protect
the homeowners up on the Sound and do a joint venture. We have
~one down this path for well over a year now an~ come up empty
handed. We are frustrated. We have listened, to what she would
like us to do and we can't ~emply. We have come back to the
Board and we would like to proceed with our original map and get
on with it, Mr. Adams will not entertain a joint venture on the
road..Any reasonable compromise that the Board wishes me to do,
I am more then happy to comply with.
Mr. Orlowski: How about clustering to the North?
Mr. Saland: The problem in ~lustering to the north is that, I am
willin~ to go uppartially, but the road cost are astronomical.
You are talking so many thousands of feet of road. It is
condemning my property. I d~n't know if you ha~e noticed or not
we are not in a boom right now on the North Fork.
Planning Board 21 August 15, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: Really?
Mr. Saland: No, we are not. Lots have been sitting and
developers have been suffering.
Mr. Orlowski: How about clustering to the south?
Mr. Saland: T?~t was my original plan, was clustering to the
South, but Valerie had mentioned to me that the Town in it's
wisdom was talking about a water shed area that I would fall
under And I had to cluster all my lots to the north. I find out
that..
Mr. Ortowski: I am just asking questions. I sm not telling you
what to do right now.
Mr. Saland: Fine. T?~at was ray pl~u to cluster to the south. I.n
fact, I am_ willing to work ou~ a coastwise, if some land to the
south is left open, don~t make me put tM road~ all the road up
to the north. Strike a balance. The parcel to the east, the
development rights have been sold. ~nat will not be developed.
Mr. AdAms plans to land bank his piece for now. That's why we
came up half way.
Mr. Orlowski: I definitely thi~k the Board would want to have it
clustered and at least get these lots down to 40,000. square
feet.
Mr. Saland: I am more then happy to do t_hat.
Mr. Oriowski: Does the Board have any other co~ments?
Mr. Latham: I don't off hand, but I don't want to see it all
clustered to the south.
Ms. Scopaz: I might just suggest that you might want to schedule
this for a field inspection. A decision has to be made with
regard to ~ne Michael Adams subdivision. Whether that
application is still going to be pending or whether they are
withdrawing. Have they indicated to you, Dave, whether they are
withdrawing their application?
Mr. Sat~n8: Ail I have is a letter from Mr. Raynor, the agent,
that they don't plan to joint venture with us or proceed with us
at this tLme. So as far as I am. concerned, it does not do me any
good to work with Mr. Ad~ms. i have gon~ down that path twice
and three times. He is elderly and whether he vacates or he does
not care, I don't know. I can't hold my partners. I have been
here for a year. I have gotten no where.
Mr. Ortowski: Mr. Ra!rnor did not have to go to far to send you
that letter, did he?
Planning Board 22 August 15, 1988
Mr. Saland: Not he didn't. I have tried. I am willing to
compromise. I am willing to work.
Mr. Latham: Would you like to keep in the middle, away from
Sound or away from the Highway.
Mr. Saland: That is what I am saying. I am saying maybe that is
the solution.
Mr. Orlowski: You are willing to go down to the 40~000.?
Mro Sa!and: Absolutely.
Mr. Ortowski: I think that the Board will definitely have to go
out in the field and make an inspection.
Mr. Sa!and: The only other *~* that I ' ~-
~-~..~ ha= ~as for the first
lot should be a la~ge lot, clusterin~ some lots in the middle
and then the last lot should be a !azGe lot. That way you would
have the least ~act on the water and visual, it would be the
best use of the property.
Mr. Orlowski: Do you ha3~e any sketches of this?
Mr. Saland: No. What I am afraid to do so I keep coming up with
sketches, it cost me money, it cost me time.
Mr. Orlowski: I know this one did take a~ot of~.~time. It was
basically what the Board was looking for. We can't make Mr.
Adam's subdivide, because we are not here to do that. Let us go
out in the field and take a look at it. We know you are will to
go down to 40,000. Lets see what we can do with it and maybe
give you a rough sketch on what we would like to see,
Mr. Saland: Very_ good. Thank you.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Sun Refinin9 and Marketin~- Boa~d
to discuss this application for a site plan with the applicant.
This parcel is located on the Main Road at Mattituck.
SC~ $1000-142-I-27.
Mr. Depietro: My name is Author DePietro. I am a lawyer. I am
with the firm McNulty, DePietre and Spiess on Main Street in
Riverhead. I have with me tonight my associate Michael Walsh.
Who has submitted some of the doucmentations to your staff up
until now. Also, with me is Linda .... engineer, from the firm
Sunoil refining andmarketing to answer any questions that you
or your staff may have. This is an application to revise the
existing service station on the northeast corner of Main Road
and Factory Avenue in Mattituck~ adjacent to the A & P Shopping
Center. I anticipated in connection with this application that
we will also be going to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a
special exception permit and perhaps also either a variance or
Planning Board 23 August 15, 1988
an ordinance. This is in the general business category. What we
want to do is put in a what is c~muonly known as a "Gas and Go
service facility". Self service gas pumps. Eliminate the repair
facility and put in its place a convenience store. In connection
with that it is going to he our position with the Zoning Board
that the convenience store constitute a permissible accessary
use under the Zoning Ordinance. I don't think we need to get
hogged down in those legal interpretations because that is a
Zoning Board matter and not your Board's matter. What I really
want to discuss is the general layout of the site plan as Sun
has proposed it. And receive some co~m~ents from your Board and
your staff with regard to that. So that we might refine the site
plan and move ahead. I believe we have submitted several copies
of the revised site plan. I have one with me..
Mr. Orlowski: First question is, ~ we need another convenience
store?
Mr. DePietro: I don~t think it is a question of need. I know
that your Board has an obligation to balance uses so that there
is not saturation in the co,~,~lanity, i submit ti~at if it is a
permitted use, as we believe it to be and as we believe the case
law in New York states it to be and Sunmarketing in its wisdom
as well as the other oil companyts are making a finding that
this is the way to go. In a lot of statistical studies done
where these convenience stores are exactly how I am
characterizing them. Accessary to the main function of pumping
gasoline. They usually generate ahout tw/e~ty to twenty five
percent of the total ~dsiness of the gas station facility.
Fortunately ninety percent or more of the people who use the
convenience store came to the site to buy gasoline. Less then
ten percent of the people come ~ust to the convenience store and
that might be late at night to buy a pack a cigarettes or
something. The g~ statinn is the magnet that draws to the site.
The convenience store is there for the gasoline customers.
Mr. Orlowski: Are they looking at all-night operation here?
Mr. DePietro: I really don't know what hours of operations they
are talking about at this point.
Mr. Lowry: Next thing you know the A & P is going to want to
pump gas.
Mr. Orlowski: This is not a question and answer period.
Mr. DePietro: The gentlemen's co~m~nt is appropriate. It is
something for your Board to consider. It is snmething that I
would like to speak of. Again, the marketing' studies that are
being done nation wide and the plannin~ and zoning studies that
are being done nation wide sho~ a two fold thin~ occu~ing. It is
almost like a two prong thing meeting in the middle. We have in
the south and in the south east, the Cumberline chain of stores,
the Seven-Elevens, even in Brookhaven Town, that now ~ve gas
Planning Board 24 August 15, 1988
pumps in front of them and we have service stations ~hat have
convenience stores. There is sort of a corifluence there. It is
almost historically like we are coming full circle. If you
recall in this Town and all over the east end, the first place
that we ever saw gas pumps w~ in front of a general store. Now
we have the tail wagging the dog, so to speak. I think
traditionally whether you think of the gas pump in front of the
general store or the convenience store behind the gas pump it
just establishes what we are contending, that there is an
intimate relationship between the sale of gasoline. Especially
in a mobile society ~nere people spend a lot of time in their
cars and the sale of some other items consistent with theuse.
Mr. Orlowski: You had to give them that idea?
Mr. DePietro: I think the fo£m for +_hat is the Zoning Board.
Mr. Orlowski: Is the Zoning Board, that is just my_ qUestion.
Just a few comments on the site plan itself. The curb cut on the
west side is too closa to the intersection. A minimum of 75'
Mr. DePietro: There is an existing curb cut at that point. What
we are doing in the revised site plan is movin~ it further from
the intersection than it already is. I would think that legally,
since this is a valid preexisting lot in single and separate
owner ship, that we would have a right to maintain the curb cut
and the apron where it now exist. What we are.trying to do with
this is to mitigate the impact to some e~ent and improve the
site and the site plan by moving it further to the east.
Ms. Scopaz: Would you have any objection to removing that
additional curb cut?
Mr. DePietro: Yes. The reason being, if you note from the site
plan, we have.angled the entry way so that the eastern apron
looks and is designed to appeal to west bound traffic to come
in. The western apron is angled off to the south to appeal to
east bound traffic. If the east bound traffic were forced to use
the only remaining curb cut on the Main Road, namely the eastern
one, I believe there will as much, or more negative traffic
impact then maintaining the two curb cuts as we now have them.
Mr. Orlowski: I don't now if the Board will agree with that.
Also, this canopy is too close to the Main Road. The way it sits
right now.
Mr. DePietro: That is a modification that we were considering to
move back.
Mr. Orlowski: It appears that parking is insu~!icient for the
sales area. We would like to see street trees instead of these
shrubs.
Planning Board 25 August 15, 1988
Mr. DePietro: Would you~be thinking of a tree like the
Ornamental pear, they have been doing a lot of planting with.
Mr. Orlowski: Something that you can see aha not drive over.
Mr. DePietro: But, also something that can be pruned up high so
there will be sight distance.
Mr. Orlowski: We want to keep the sight. We don't want a bunch
of Christmas trees in there. Does the Board have any other
co.,~ents?
Mr. Mullen: Can you give us a list of products that you
anticipate selling.
Mr. DePietro: It would be part of the site plan. I am not
prepared to...
Mr. Mullen: I am quite disturbed, because one in particular in
Peconic, the Mobile Station. I go in there and they sell babies
diapers, stockings, charcoal, beer. You can get a meal there. I
don't believe, this is my personal opinion, that we should have
a gas station go into a full service operation with everything
except a funeral parlor. That is what we a~e getting out here.
We don't have the parking facilities. That is a very, very
severe area as. far as traffic, as you are well' aware of. There
is going to be a bad one there. With the new construction they
are anticipating in that area, it is going./to be murder. I sat
here a year or so ago with another situation, and they were only
going to sell soda, beer and this. I have gone in there and I
don't buy gas there on purpose and it is a real disaster in what
they sell. I would appreciate if you would give us some input as
to what you anticipate doing. I want to alert you to the fact
that this is going to be kept in our file. I will personally
bull dog you if you get this approved and you over step. I don't
mean a couple of items. If you start to sell for example,
furniture in there. Don't laugh, it has happened.
Mr. DePietro: I can fully sympathize with the Board. If an
applicant makes a representation and you set some ground rules,
you should to held to it. What you are suggesting to m~, is that
we create a categorical list of items. We are talking about
apples and not oranges. Or we are talking about items... I would
assume we are talking about convenience items related to people
who come into a gas station, get some gas. They stop in and they
want to get cigarettes, candy, coffee, a soft drink and
something related like that.
Mr. Mullen: Right.
Mr. DePietro: I don't think we are talking about furniture.
Mr. Mullen: That is what I would like to see.
?laD~ing Board 26 August 15, 1988
Mr. Latham: I believe in the sale of beer but not in a filling
station.
Mr. DePietro: I agree. Even the state of Texas has finally
passed a law tP~t you can not have open beer in the car. There
are a lot of good old boys that are very upset about it. I agree
with you that gasoline and beer don't mix.
Ms. Scopaz: Mr. 0rlowski, I 'think Mr. Mullen brought up a very
good point which could be used to perhaps address the problem
that you discussed earlier with regard to removing one of the
curb cuts. Perhaps the applicant could back up his assertion
about leaving the curb cut in by providing the Board with some
traffic ~nalysis. Since they are aL.ming to increase the volume
of business on the site, it is reasonable to expect that there
will be a proportionate increase ~n ~3r=~ v~l~ ~ traffic.
Perhaps we can ask them te present a small =raffic analysis of
that corner and to discuss in ~n~re h~;' ~ne proposed change will
have a beneficial impact on that. We could then use that to make
the decision as to whether we want tc remove the curb cut or
perhaps restrict it to one way only.
Mr. DePietro: We would be very happy to provide a traffic study.
substantiating what we think is the reasonableness of this
application.
Mr. Mullen: Could you make that in the summer time rather then
in January or February?
Mr. DePietro: We Will try.
Mr. Orlowski: Labor Day weekend will be alright.
Mr. DePietro: Linda, do you have anything to'add?
Linaa: Just that they had mentioned ~hout the canopy being too
close to the road. How far would you like it to be?
Mr. Or!owski: I am just looking at it and I can tell it is
already too close. You would have to go to the Building
Department and see what the set back is. I am not exactly sure
what they are going to ask.
Ms. Scopaz: Thirty five feet.
Mr. Orlowski: Thirty five feet?
Ms. Scopaz: There is nothing else along that stretch of road
that is that close, with one exceptiom, and ~h~t is the North
Fork Bank drive-in over hang. I would have to check that. You
might want to check that out. The front yard set back is thirty
five feet.
Planning Board 27 August 15, 1988
Mr. DePietro: That would be from the property line not the curb
line?
Ms. Scopaz: The property line, right. The curb line~ was set by
the State, but it would be from your property line.
Mr. 0rlowski: These c~nopies to look pretty Lm~ense out there. I
don't know what to tell you as far as dressing it u~. I don't
know if we have an elevation here or not. We would like to have
an idea of what it is going to look like.
Mr. DePietro: We have three, as far as the store itself is
concerned, we have three alternate designs.
Mr. Mullen: You have other stores set up already ia the County.
Mr. DePietro: Yes.
Mr. Mullen: Can you give us a cc~p!e of locations ~hat are near
by that we can take a look at.
Mr. DePietro: Sure. When I sLubmit the other items Ii will give
you a list.
Mr. Muilen: They are already established?
Mr. DePietro: Correct.
Mr. Latham: You are going to operate this?
Mr. DePietro: It is going to be operated by Sun OiL, to my
understanding, I have not gone into any great detail on that. I
believe they are going to operate it out of a parent corporation
with employees. If they intend to license it or fra~nchise it, we
have nothing to hide. We will let you know.
Mr. Latham: It is probably not a proper question any way, I just
thought I would ask it.
Mr. 0rlowski: Ms. Scopaz any other c~m~ents?
Ms. Scopaz: I just want you to be aware of one thing. The Board
has reviewed other gas stations and it's position on lighting
and canopies. You should be aware of when you come in with.your
canopy~ ~hat all the lighting, when it's installed,, has to be so
directed downward that it does not shine off site.
Mr. DePietro: I understand.
Ms. Scopaz: Does your proposed canopy have light around the
outside of it?
Planning Board 28 August 15, 1988
Mr. DePietro: I believe there is rear illumination through
letters and logos. It is florescent lighting coming through
panels.
Ms. Scopaz: Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think this
Board has approved any canopies like that. All of the canopies
that have been approved are dark and the lighting is underneath.
Mr. Orlowski: I think all of the existing canopies in this Town
are up there unapproved, so we just want to forwaEn you that we
are not going to put up with it any more. We want to do it right.
Mr. DePietro: I have copies of all the cases you refer to and
that is why we are here before a formal application. Sun, when
they contacted me said we know that there has been problem, we
know that there is teP~ion. They wanted me to go to the Board
wide open and candid and have a good dialog with you as to what
ever we are going to do. Rather then build it first.
Mr. Orlowski: We appreciate that and. that is why we called you
in so we could let you know how we feel.
Mr. DePietro: This particular site is not impacting in any way
shape or form on the i~mL,ediate surrounding residential area. It
is probably the most intensely developed cores of Mattituck as
far as shopping center business is concerned. I did not mean to
be facetious but the architectural design of the movie theatre,
the A & P the stuff on the south side man~ of which the lots
don't have any curb cuts. I don't really feel to bad making this
application.
Mr. Orlowski: That was another Board that approved the rest. We
would like to see it done right. When these canopies go up,
especially right there at the top of the hill. I know now with
out it being there that it's going to be a site for sore eyes.
We would like to see it done in good taste and with some kind of
facade that is the best looking thing there that is possible.
Mr. DePietro: Any design input your Board may have, we are happy
to...
Mr. Latham: Something like. the North Fork Bank.
Mr. Mullen: We will see what they have in other areas.
Mr. Latham: Is there going to be any diesel or large trucks or
don't they .have room for that?
Mr. DePietro: I don't believe they intend to pump that.
Mr. Mullen: It does not show it on the map.
Mr. Orlowski: Are those canopies needed?
Planning Board 29 August 15~ 1988
Mr. DePietro: It is hard to do self service in this climate
without something over your head.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Any other questions from tb~ Board?
Board: No.
Mr. DePietro: If there any questions that come up feel free.
Mr. Orlowski: Well, get us this information and if there are
some others that you can get us pictures of, we sure would like
to take a look at it.
Mr. DePietro: Thank you for your time.
Mr. Orlowski: Thank you.
Mr. Orlowski: We hav~ to set the next meeting. Lets make it
Tuesday, the 30th. I will entertain that motion.
Mr. Edwards: 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, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
RECEIVED AND FILED BY
SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK