HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-10/17/1988PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman
George Ritchie Latham. Jr.
Richard G. Ward
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Telephone (516/ 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 17, 1988
SCOTT L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
P.O Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
The Southold Town Planning Board held a regular meeting on
Monday, October 17, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall
Main Road, Southold. '
PRESENT WERE:
Bennett Orlowski,Jr., Chairman
Member William F. Mullen,Jr.
Member Richard Ward
Member Kenneth Edwards
Town Planner Valerie Scopaz
Planner Melissa Spiro
Building Inspector Victor Lessard
Secretary Jill Thorp
ABSENT WERE:
Member G. Ritchie Latham
Mr. Orlowski: Good Evening. I would like to call this meeting to
order. First order of business is Amendment to Chapter Al06
(Subdivision of Land)- This is a public hearing on the question
of the amendment to Sections 22. A. (2) and 23. A. (2)
pertaining to an increase in fees for minor and major
subdivisions. As it reads right now: All applications for plot
approval for a minor subdivision shall be accompanied by a fee
of five hundred dollars per lot together with an inspection fee
of one thousand dollars. Major: One thousand dollars plus one
hundred dollars per acre or part thereof in the proposed
subdivision and an inspection fee equal to six percent of the
amount of the approved performance bond. We seem to be running
short of money to run this office, so we have to increase our
fees. I will ask if there are any objections to this?
Mrs. Hussie: I am Alice Hussie. I live in Southold. I am
speaking as a private citizen. My comments at this public
Planning Board 2 October 17, 1988
hearing are being made as an observer of Town practices. The
unspoken purpose of this amendment to Chapter Al06 appears to be
discouragement to development. Raises in fees for filing and
inspection effect everyone. Not only the big time developers,
but also the local land owners. I oppose the amendment for three
reasons, Number one: The amendment strives to control
development through fees. Control of development should be the
result of proper zoning. Number two: while the developer is ~ble
to afford these fees, the impact on the owners of large tracks
of land such as farmers, is devastating. Number three: it is
difficult to understand that the Planning Department has been
operating with a deficit that requires increases so huge. A
raise for instance of 250 percent for filing. From two hundred
dollars to five hundred dollars. And 667 percent for inspection.
I can understand that increases may be needed, but these
proposals are out of line. Further more, the reason given for
the increase to become self-supporting is not in itself proven
rational. Fee increases were granted only four years ago, which
were intended to serve the same purpose. I might also call your
attention, if the notice written in the Snuffle Times is the
same one that you are proposing here, in paragraph two you do
not say whether those fees are for major or minor subdivision.
Thank you.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Any other objections to this change? Any
endorsements o~ this change? Any questions from the Board?
Comments from Board: None.
Mr. Orlowski: Ms. Scopaz?
Ms. Scopaz: None.
Mr. Orlowski: Being no further comments or questions, I will
declare this hearing closed.
Mr. Orlowski: Moving on. Wild Oats- Board to review the
Engineer's report dated October 4, 1988. This major subdivision
is on 14.734 acres located at Peconic. SCTM ~1000-86-4-6. What
is the pleasure of the Board?
Mr. Ward: I believe at this point we should request compliance
with the Sidney Bowne report.
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.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
******************************
Planning Board 3 October 17, 1988
Mro Orlowski: Next we have Cove Beach Estates- Board to review
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for completeness. This
major subdivision on 96 acres is located at East Marion. SCTM
$1000-22-3-15.1 & 18.3. Ms. Scopaz, you had some co~L,ents?
Ms. Scopaz: I just want to mention that Dave Emilita is
recommending its acceptance of public review, however the
Suffolk County Health Department has sent a strong
recommendation in that the draft not be accepted, on the grounds
that it fails to provided specific information that they had
requested at the time for the Scoping session. I was unable to
contact Dave in time of this meeting to confirm if he had a copy
of the County's reco~£m~endation. He may not have been aware of
their position at the time that he sent this letter into this
Board recommending acceptar~ce. If you would like, I will just
briefly go over their recommendations. "Based on our preliminary
review of the document we find it incon~plete. ~nerefore
inappropriate for the propose of the decision making. We are
concerned particular of the lack of detail in attention to site
specific characteristic design details and presentation of
alternatives." They outline ~hout eight specific areas of
concern. One dealing with sanitary code, the second dealing with
a site description. This might have been an oversight, the
document did nou have a copy of the proposed subdivision map.
When the County reviewed it they had no idea what they were
reviewing. I think that can be rectified if we can just get
additional copies of the plan and send them off. They also had
concerns abOUt the description of wild life resources, fresh
water wetlands and other accumulative impacts. If you want I can
read the whole four page memo into the record. It is up to you.
My reco~u~endation is that the memo is very strongly worded. They
claim that they requested this information at the Scoping
session~ Since, we are suppose to be coordinating with them, I
think that you should ask the applicant to provide the specific
information that the County is asking and then proceed with it.
Mr. 0rlowski: O.K. Does the Board have any c~ents on this?
Mr. Ward: I feel that we should pass that on to the applicant
and leave it incomplete until we have satisfactory answers to it.
Mr. Orlowski: The applicant is here. Are you ~amiliar with the
Health Department's comments?
Mr. Coenen: No sir, I am not~
Mr. Orlowski: They say it was presented at the scoping session.
Mr. Coenen: There was a document from the Health Department at
the Scoping session and I believe when I wrote the impact
statement all the points that were presented in that memo where
addressed in the impact statement.
Planning Board 4 October 17, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. We have a copy here. They made it four pages
long. They say it is not addressed the way they would like it.
we can get this to you and you can answer these questions and we
can proceed from there.
Mr. Coenen: If you have a copy available tonight, I will take
one.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. So we will just hold that over as incomplete.
Mr. Mullen: I suggest that we give the applicant complete input
of what we receive, not only from the Health Department but of
Ms. Scopaz memo, so there will be no confusion as to what we are
looking into.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K.
Mr. Orlowski: Next order of business is 7:45 - Coram Reatty
Company- Public hearing on ~the question of final approval for
this minor subdivision. This parcel is on 4.178 acres located at
Mattituck. SCTM $1000-122-7-3. We have proof of publication in
the Long Island Traveler/Watchman and. also in the Suffolk
Times. At this time everything is in order for a public hearing.
I will aSk if there are any objections to this minor
subdivision? Hearing none, are there any endorsements of this
subdivision?
Mr. Cuddy: For the record, My name is Charles Cuddy. I
represent Cofam Realty Company. This is simply a two lot
subdivision on the Main Road in Mattituck. The Board, I know,
has taken a look at it. It meets all the requirements of the
Town Code. I ask that it be approved by the Board. If ther~ are
any questions, I will be happy to answer th~m.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Any other endorsements? 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? Hearing none, any questions Erom the
Board?
Comments of Board: None.
Mr. Orlowski: Ms. Scopaz?
Ms. Scopaz: No comment.
Mr. Orlowski: No further comment, I will declare this hearing
closed.
Mr. Orlowski: Board to set Monday, October 31, 1988 at 7:30 p.m.
at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold as the time and
place for the next regular Planning Board meeting.
Planning Board 5 October 17, i988
Mr. Mullen: 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, Mutten, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Norris Estates- Board tO review the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for completeness. This
major subdivision of 27 acres is located at Mattituck.
SCTM $!000-122-5-4. Mr. Emilita's review and response is
that the q~estions have been answered and we should accept it
when all documents are incorporated under the same cover. We can
make that motion to accept it subject to that. Which means it
all has to be in the same binder, which I think the applicant
can accomplish.
Mr. Raynor: It is at the printers now.
Mr. Orlowski: As soon as it arrives here the thirty day period
will start.
Mr. Ward: So moved.
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? You understand, that when it arrives here undercover
that is when the thirty days start.
Mr. Raynor: Yes.
Mr. Orlowski: Ail those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Ortowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Cliffside/Tidemark- Board to review the
revised addendum to the Draft Environmenkal Impact Statement for
completeness. This site plan is located at Southold.
SCTM $i000-45-1-1. Everything is in order. Mr. Emilita has
recommended acceptance and to open a thirty day public co~m~ent
period. What is the pleasure of the Board?
Mr. Edwards: Move for acceptance.
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Planning Board 6 October 17, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. A~y questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Ortowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Raynor: Mr. Chairman, I recoim~end a request from the
Board. A rec~],,endation for transmittal to the Zoning Board of
appeals. This application needs a Special exception in order to
be processed further. The length of the time necessary to
schedule the public hearing for the ZBA is considerable
shorten that recommendation for transmittal to be fourth coming
tonight.
Mr. Orlowski: I think the Board would rather just open up the
thirty day comment period at this time since the Chairman of the
Board of Appeals seems to have the most problems with it, at
this point and quite a bit of co~f~fLent about that.
Mr. Raynor: Thank you for your consideration.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K.
Mr. Sigman: Just one question on the Norris property. Is there
any comment from the Health Department? In referenceto what
they are asking for.
Mr. Ortowski: Comment, as of yet? No. It will be opened up for
review when we get everything under cover.
Mr, Sigman: That is when you will have the hearing set up?
Mr. Orlowski: Yes.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Georg~ Furse- Board to make a
determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
This minor subdivision on 3.46 acres is located at Fishers
Island. SCTM ~1000-9-3-2.
Mr. Edwards: M~. Chairman, I would move for a negative
declaration based on the fact that there will be no additional
impact.
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.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Planning Board 7 October 17, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: Cox's Lane Industrial Park- board to make a
determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
This site plan is located at Cutchogue. SCTM ~1000-84-1-26.
Mr. Mullen: Fir. Chairman, I must refrain from this situation do
to a possible conflict of interest.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K.
Mr. Ward: Mr. Chai£~an, I present a motion for a negative
declaration based on the fact that the applicant has complied
with all of our requirements in terms of landscaping and site
coverage. It is an allowable use within the zoning district. It
will not have an adverse impact on the area.
Mr. Edwards: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards.
Abstain: Mr. Mullen.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Gristina Vineyards- Board to make a
determination in regard to SEQRA. This is a site plan located
at Cutchogue for a Winery. SCTM ~1000-109-1-p/o13.
Mr. Ward: Again, I would like to present a motion for a negative
declaration. Here we are dealing with a fairly minor improvement
on a large parcel of land. We are dealing with a winery in
keeping with our agricultural interest in the community. They
have reacted to our site plan co~m~ents to mitigate any problems
with drainage. We certainly have landscaping and buffering that
will be on the project. We see no adverse problems with this
project.
Mr. Mullen: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: RepOrts: Charles DeLuca- Board to review the
Engineer's report dated September I9~ 1988. This minor
subdivision of 10.38 acres is located at Southold.
Planning Board 8 October 17, 1988
SCTM %1000-66-2-2. This is in order to accept and recommend
compliance.
Mr. Multen: So moved.
Mr. Ward: Seconded.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board: Ayes; Orlowski, Mutlen, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Change of Zone: George Kokkinos & Steve
Tsokanos- Board to make a recommendation to the Town Board on
t he proposal for a change of zone from "A" Residential and
Agricultural District tc "B-I" General Business District located
at Route 25, Peconic. SCTM $1000-75-1-16. What is the
pleasure of the Board?
Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, in reviewing this application it is
inconsistent with our proposed master plan, the plan as we
adopted as a Planning Board. I think we would be remiss if we
did not recommend denial.
Mr. Mullen: Second the motion.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded to make that
recommendation to the Town Board. Any question on the motion?
All those in favor?
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered,
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Friemann/Rienecker- Board to
review the final maps dated at amended September 12, 1988. This
site plan is located on the Main Road at Cutchogue.
SCTM ~1000-102-2-24.
Mr. Ward: Mr. Chaizman, I reco~m~end approval subject to a couple
of items. One, the construction of a minor swaleto channel
runoff from the new parking area to the new drainage basin.
Secondly, the COnstruction of a small berm along Sterling Lane
to prevent runoff from entering the proposed parking area. I
think these are minor comments. The applicant addressed all of
our concerns, and I would therefore, rec~m~end approval subject
to those two items.
Mr. Edwards: Second.
Planning Board 9 October 17, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion?
Mr. Julius S...: I have a question. My name is Julius ... I
represent S and E Realty Company. There is a right-of-way
between our properties that has not been questioned. I have
never been informed of this meeting. I was not infoEmed of the
last meeting. I think there is a question in reference to
right-of-ways. I wonder if that has been discussed? With this
building going up now, there is going to ~e parking. This street
is not going to be a right-of-way. It is going to become a
street with heavy traffic. You have an engine shop going in
there. It is only a right-of-way. I want to now if that has been
discussed at the Planning Board.
Mr. Orlowski: It has been discussed. We brought it up to our
Attorney, he tells us that it is out of our jurisdiction as far
as the right-of-way. There is a right-of-way there to the back
of the property. They have access over it. We can not deny
anything because of that.
Mr. Julius ...: What about the flooding that has taken place
on the right-of-way?
Mr. Orlowski: They have their drainage taken care of. They will
have to take care of that runoff from that property.
Mr. Julius ...: Will they be putting drainage in the
right-of-way?
Mr. Orlowski: Well, the right-of-way itself is between you and
the applicant, if it does create... (inaudible)
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Muller, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Rita Brown- Board to review the request for an extension of
sketch approval from November 6, 1988 to May 6, 1989. This
cluster subdivision on 12.5 acres is located at Mattituck.
SCTM ~1000-94-3-1.3.
Mr. Edwards: 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, Muller, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So moved.
planning Board 10 October 17, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: Birndorf/Rizzo- Board to discuss the request
for an extension of sketch approval from June 8, 1988 to June 8,
1989. This minor subdivision of 9.111 is located at Cutchogue.
$CTM 91000-97-.3-i. It would be O.K. for a retroactive
extension.
Mr. Ward: So moved.
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? Ail those in favor?
Vote of tP~ Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: A Local Law in Relation to Zoninq (fees)- Board
to make a recommendation to the Town Board on this Local Law
pertaining to fees for affordable housing proposals and site
plaRs.
Mr. Mullen: I recommend that we forward it to the Town Board
with the request of approval.
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, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: The Woods at Cutcho~ue- Board to reEer this
subdivision to go the Town Board for a determination on the
amount of money to be deposited with the Town in lieu of land
for park and playground. This major subdivision of 29.54 acres
is located at Cutchogue. SCTM %1000-102-1-4.
Mr. Ward: Did we skip one.
Mr.- 0rlowski: Yes, I skipped one.
Mr. Fechetti: Gentlemen, I am Joe Fechetti, one of the
partners on the Woods at Cutchoque. As you know on this
parcel, we have been working Bob Villa, Water Advisory
Committee. The parcel they wanted to purchase last year. We
worked it out so that we clustered this parcel out and donate
this water site to the Town. As you know it is going to be
dedicated to the Town as a water site. I would like to request
that the Planning Board ask the Town Board to waive the Park
Planning Board I1 October 17, I988
fees in lieu of our dedication of that parcel of land to the
-Town.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. It is policy of the Board to proceed with the
Park and Playground fees because it is for the people in that
subdivision. You are going with a standard cluster. Whether the
Town Board takes that open space or not, is up to the Town
Board. We want to make sure we get the money for the Park and
Playground fee. I don't know if the Board has any other comments
on that.
Mr. Ward: I am in the same position.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. I will entertain that motion.
Mr. Ward: So moved.
Edwards: 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.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Amendment to Chapter A106(Subdivision of Land)-
Board to make a determination on the amendment to Chapter A106
Section 33 pertaining to road specifications. We had a public
hearing on October 3, 1989. The Town Board has already adopted
it. This would just be adopted into the Subdivision regulations.
What is the pleasure of the Board?
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, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mro Orlowski: Beachwood Acres- Board to discuss this minor
s~bdivision with the applicant. This 7.162B acre parcel is
located at Southold. SCTM $1000-68-4-2,3. The applicant is
here. When the Board made their inspection we saw a little
wetness down there.
Mr. Johnsen: The Trustees have no jurisdiction on this property.
Is that correct?
Planning Board 12 October 17, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: That is what we have here, correct.
Mr. Johnsen: You asked for a building envelope not including t~e
wetlands. Staying off the wetlands. There are wet spots when in
rains. My surveyor came down and looked at it and couldn't
outline any wet areas. So what he did was but a building
envelope which does not include any low areas.
Mr~ Ward: We just wanted to make sure that who ever ended up on
the property wouldn't be building in those areas.
Mr. Orlowski: Do yo~ have a copy of the Engineer's report dated
July 217
Mr. Johnsen: Yes.
Mr. Orlowski: Do you have these other things that they are
asking for?
Mr. Johnsen: Profiles?
Mr. Orlowski: Yes.
Mr. Johnsen: No. Number one, you asked for a turn around and a
proposed road which I Made. I did a preliminary some time in
June. You approved the preliminary and you said to put it on the
final map, which I did. It is on that map as well as on the
other map. I assume we can go along with the road that was
proposed on that map. Six inch blue stone blend. This was
approved before the Town Board's new road specs.
Mr. Orlowski: Does the Board have any comment on that?
Mr. Ward: Did we have an approved road at that point? In other
words was there an engineer's report that is filed with one
approved road?
Mr. Johnsen: No. You asked for a turn around and a proposed
road. I gave you a rough draft of a turn around and a proposed
road and you approved it and said go ahead with it on the final
map. That was it. No engineer's report. As far as putting in
drainage, it does not work. This here is all clay down to a low
spot, which is the spot in question earlier. It was wet after it
rains. Now it is dry. The road drainage is contained on the
property just by the shape of the land.
Fir. Ward: Where are you differing between what the current road
spec would'be and what you are asking for?
Mr. Johnsen: The new road spec. that the Town Board drew up is a
bit ridiculous. What we are looking for here is what we
proposed, a twenty foot wide blue stone road.
Mr. Ward: I think for the for the four lots, we...
Planning Board 13 October 17, 1988
Mr. Johnsen: It is only s~rvicing two. Two on Sound View Avenue.
Servicing the two rear lots.
Mr. Ward: I think the whole intent was that these lots would be
serviced off this right-of-way.
Mr. Johnsen: They could be.
Mr. Ward: They should be. I understand the one is there. The
other three, our intent was that they would be serviced off this
right-of-way rather then another curb cut onto Sound Avenue.
Mr. Johnsen: Right.
Mr. Ward: I think the minor spec. road that you have is very
similar to what you are proposing here. I don't see where there
would be a problem.
Mr. Johnsen: The new spec. is not going to do you any good. The
new spec. is going to make majors out of minors. A cost of
making that new spec. road is as much as doing a major
subdivision.
Mr. Orlowski: I don't think so.
Mr. Ward: You are not familiar with what the minor road spec.
would be?
Mr. Johnsen: What is it now? I know what it has been.
Mr. Orlowski: It is twenty two foot improved, less curbing. You
still have to handle your run-off.
Mr. Ward: You could go with an oil and stone surface or with
asphalt.
Mr. Johnsen: It holds up well and drains well with blue stone
blend. What I am asking is that we be allowed to do the road
that is specified on the drawing now?
Mr. Ward: Do you have a profile?
Mr. Johnsen: There is no profile it is just written in there. I
think it is six inch blue stone blend.
Mr. Ward: Stone blend driveway is all it says. I think you
should look at the minor spec. I don't think it is much
different then what you are going for.
Mr. Johnsen: I looked at it.
Mr. Ward: So it would be twenty two feet instead of twenty.
Planning Board
Mr. Johnsen: They would put do,
PUt down ten inches of sand, yc
it.
October 17, 1988
n ten inches of sand. Once you
u can't even back a truck over
Mr. Ward: What I am looking at is getting the basis of getting
t~ stone blend in and an oil and stone chip surface which would
be the minorspec, road. Why dQn't you propose what your section
is going to be and then we will re-do it. How is that?
Mr. Johnsen: We have been proposing this to death. This is what
I am proposing, the stone blend.
Mr. Ward: Tonight personally I wouldn't be in favor of voting on
it until I see the road profile and see what you really have
proposed. Then we will look at it against ~he road specs. You
are asking for approval right ~ow. I think our engineer has to
look at it.
Mr. Johnsen: This was going to
Mr. Ward: You are approved as f
don't think our Town Engineer's
am wrong. I am just saying I di
a report back from the Town Eng
They normally wait for the prof
0e approved in the end of May.
~r as the right-of-way goes. I
approved this. If I am wrong, I
ln't know about it. I did not see
[neet as to what is happening.
kle and information.
Mr. Johnsen: We haven't had a p
Mr. Orlowski: We asked you for
Mr. Johnsen: I didn't know abou
found out about the copy of tha
Melissa in October and said wha
thing. You got a letter back fr
nothing until October.
~ofile.
~hat July 21.
that at all. ~ne only way I
letter was when I went to see
is going on. I didn't hear a
)m the Engineer July 25. I had
Mr. Orlowski: I don't think so. I think you came in and picked
one up.
Mr. Johnsen: I did. In October.
Mr. Orlowski: The Board is going to want to have a road profile
and a center line road profile ~howing existing grades and
proposed grades. Paving and drainage requirements as shown~ on
the attached sketch. I don't think the Board is going to take
any action until they receive that. Alright.
Mr. Ward: That is what we keep saying'. We have to have our
engineer's review.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K?
Mr. Johnsen: It is not O.K. I guess it will have to be.
Planning Board 15 October 17, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: Also I think we have asked that all C & Rs be
placed on the map that these wet areas not be filled in.
Mr. Johnsen: It depends on when you go there. They are not
really wet areas today.
Mr. Orlowski: Well, I guess we have to wait until a rainy day to
make sure.
Mr. Johnsen: How do you define the wet areas when they are not
there?
Mr. Orlowski: I am sure you know where they are.
Mr. Johnsen: You can't measure th~m when they are not there.
Mr. Ward: He has said that he has put the building envelope on
to be sympathetic to those areas. I think that that is really
enough on that. I think if we, at this time, tackle ~ne road
profile and get it reviewed.
Mr. Johnsen: Nobody is going to fill in the hole. There are a
couple of depression there where the water fills up after the
rain.
Mr. Orlowski: We know that. After you sell the lot, the owner
may not know that that is a wet area. With these building
envelopes when they are on the approved subdivision, we will
hold him into that area. It will help out the buyer of the
property.
Mr. Johnsen: O.K. These do not include the low spots.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Now all we need is the road profiles and we
will go from there.
Mr. Johnsen: You consider this part approved?
Mr. Orlowski: No. Not until we have the road profiles.
Mr~ Johnsen: Thank you.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Long Meadow Estates- Board to
discuss this major subdivision with theapplicant. This major
subdivision is on 36.9636 acres located Mattituck.
SCTM ~1000-113-7-19.2.
Mr. Cardinale: Good Evening.
Mr. Orlowski: Good Evening.
Mr. Cardinale: Phil Cardinale representing Richard
Mohring, Jr. who is here. Basically what we wanted to discuss
Planning Board 16 October 17t 1988
with the Board was getting this subdivision scheduled for the
public hearing for the final map. Sketch approval was granted on
May 12. Shortly there after the maps, which have been discussed
at great length with the Town Planner, where submitted. Recently
a negative dec. was granted. The thing that is disturbing us,
the reason we asked to meet with you tonight was this letter of
August 24th. I have copies. This was from your Engineer's. It
probably surprised you as much as it did us. The basic problems
that this letter points out did not exist in the original plan
that we submitted to the Board. Specifically, they address the
need for a pool system, which this system was in our original
map back in 1986. This system was changed at the request of the
Town. It came as a great surprise to us that they are now saying
that we should not us drainage swales. I would have thought
that certainly that issue had been addressed and discussed at
great length in 86 and 87 prior to our sketch plan approval.
Effectively you now have before you, two plans. One with the
system that they suggest in this August 24th letter and the
new one which was specifically set forth at the reco~uendation
of the Town. The new one moves the road and the new one uses a
swale system. The two things that the Engineer's now say is
that they don~t tike the swale system and they don't like the
location of the road. Frankly, we don't care either way. Either
in the first plan or the second plan. Since this is basically an
engineering concern and secondly since as a practical matter we
are going to do what ever you prefer. We would not like to see
this delayed further, and would like the movement of the map to
the preliminary hearing. We had hoped that it would be on
tonight for the setting of that hearing. I realize that is
impossible, but our purpose is to ask the Town what its
inclination is as to the two alternatives. Either they are the
ones the Town Planner has suggested, swale system and the
location of the road as indicated on the sketch plan. Or what
the Town Engineer's are suggesting. That is the first question.
Second question is, regardless of what the answer to that
question is, could we be scheduled for the next, I guess it is
now November. First meeting in November to post for advertising
for the preliminary plan. That is basically it,
Mr. Orlowski: Does the Board have any comments?
Mr. Ward: Yes. I would assume that Sidney Bowne's concern with
the swale system is one that without having the, at the time I
don't know whether they had the test boring ~re not, they have
given us feed back from time to time when we have pursued going
the swaled route then we have clay soils or other
possibilities, which would not be suitable. We can verify with
them that based on these.., see there is a clay layer in here of
some substantial amount on test hole one and two to a depth of
six foot. I think that is what their concern is. They probably
want to punch through that with some basins...(inaudible) I
think that it could be worked out engineering wise and still
remain with the swales. I think that that can be worked in
terms of any drainage solution. The intersection of the road at
Planning Board 17 October 17, 1988
Cox Neck, I think they have a valid co~m~ent in terms of sight
distance and putting the road at the high point in the road.
Maybe that can be addressed.
Mr. Cardinale: The location of the road was originally some
three hundred feet to the north of its present location. It was
moved there, again, at the request of the Town. We just put the
road where we put it and then you said put it over here. We will
put it any where you want to put it. I think the difference is
this if I understand it Richard, I assume you are going to ask
us to grade Cox Neck Road?
Mr. Ward: Right.
Mr. Cardinale: The problem with that is that we have moved
that to that location at the request of the Town which is fine
with us, But now that it is there it is lousy planning,
apparently, to put it there. That is what your own engineer is
saying. If we moved it back. It was in a better location to
begin with. We have no problem leaving it there. I guess the
problem is basically is by putting it there, it is in the wrong
place and to put it in the right place it is going to cost
$12,000. and we are fixing the Town Road. That was a big
surprise to us too, obviously.
Mr. Ward: I think those two issues are separate. The request to
improve the Town roads that adjoins your particular property.
The request to move the road to the high, point at Cox Lane for
the intersection for site distance purposes is really a separate
discussion.
Mr. Cardinale: Are you referring to 45, the poor sight
distance that exists on Cox Neck Road where Melissa Lane will
intersect? The existing road should be lowered fora length of
approximately 350' south. I guess what I am saying is that the
road is there. AS a function of the original review of map, you
put it there. It was not there initially. It is now there and is
apparently not a good spot for it. Effectively, if you adopt
that resolution of your engineer and say you want it there and
you want us to fix it, we are being penalized for putting it
where you wanted us to put it.
Mr. Ward: The fixing of Cox Neck or widening of it isa request
regardless of where the intersection of this road taps into Cox
Neck Lane.
Mr. Cardinale: That is 9'7. What I am talking about is what is
expensive is that the existing grade on Cox Neck should be
lowered for ... approximately 350'.
Mr. Ward: O.K.
Planning Board 18 October 17, ].988
Mr. Cardinale: That is the one we have a problem with because
from what Richard tells me, this is all Greek to me, the
engineering.
Mr. Ward: It would se~m to me that bringing the connection down
the 150' south to the high point in the road rather then where
it is should give you the site distance in both directions and
not necessitate regrading.
Mr. Cardinale: The final question, as I said we will do either
plan, ...
Mr. Mohring: There is a third plan.
Mr. Cardinale: Which is?
Mr. Mohring: A combination of one and two.
Mr. Cardinale: W~ich is the moving of the road.
Mr. Mohring: In other words he wants leaching pools and
swales and move the roads.
Mr. Cardinale: You are contemplating moving the road again and
doing leaching pools and swalss.
Mr~ Mohring: Yes, a combination of both plans now.
Mr. Ward: With the engineering review we are getting enough feed
back at this point.
Mr. Cardinale: Since these are engineering concerns, do you
have conceptual difficulty with posting it for at least for the
preliminary map? These concerns obviously ars going to be with
us right through to the final map.
Mr. Ward: Right.
Mr. Cardinals: They have to be resolved on a practical basis.
We are going to do it whichever way you want us to do. We would
like to get this posted for the preliminar~ subdivision hearing
which we have yet to have. Is there anything in what you see in
this letter which would prectuds that, and if not would you
schedule it from two weeks from today for that purpose?
Mr. Orlowski: What do you want to do?
Mr. Ward: I think that we should co~£~unicate with the engineers
and let them know what our position is and set it. I don't see
where we are changing the concept of the map. The drainage and
things has to be things that are going to be worked out between
now and final.
Mr. Orlowski: Then we need the maps.
Planning Board 19 October 17, 1988
Mr. Ward: We have to have the map but we could pursue it. The
map is not changing substantially from what is here.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Your biggest problem is item 5 on here.
Mr. Cardinale: Basically, what I am getting is the only thing
that would change the map at all would be the location at where
that road intersects.
Mr. Ward: That is a minor change.
Mr. Cardinale: That would be the only.
Mr. Ward: We could always adopt it subject to that and the
drainage to be worked out.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. We will talk to Sidney Bowne~s and get
right back to you as to how we are going to handle this.
Mr. Cardinale: I appreciate that and if we can glet it
scheduled in two weeks from now I would appreciate that.
Mr. Orlowski: Very good.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have the Cove at Southold- Board to
discuss the Planning Board's recommendations to the Zoning Board
of Appeals with the applicant. This site plan is located at
Bayview Road at Southold. SCTM $1000-87'5-20.
Mr. Charles Cuddy: Let me explain what we are asking the Board
to do. On October 4th this Board sent a letter to the Zoning
Board of Appeals, stating that there would be much of an impact
on Main Bayview Road, which is adjoining the entrance to the
Cove Condominium project. The impact that you where referring to
was the swimming pool, which is located in the front yard of
which we are before the Zoning Board of Appeals asking for a
variance. Or at least an interpretation. I was hopeful that we
could have come to terms before you made that decision because
there is some input that you should have. It is my understanding
that, Mr. Klatsky is here to confirm that, the map for well
over a year has been the way it is now. In other words, it has
the pool on it, it has the tennis courts. The Cove went before
the Trustees originally to discuss this project. Basically the
Trustees said to The Cove "don't put the pool out near the
water, put the pool up near the road". There was, on the other
side of the property, which is now vacant, the tennis court at
one time. The property is recessed, so when you drive by it is
lower by 6,8 or more feet int° the ground. It is virtually
impossible to see from a grade level what is going to be there.
It is not going to be a night time operation. It is a day time
operation. It is an amenity to those people who are ~oing to be
in the condominiums. At all times this has been the proposal
that has been on the maps, as I said, for more then a year.
Planning Board 20 October 17, 1988
Sidney Bowne had these maps. Sidney Bowne was the one who
put on the map I gave you, the buffer area and the trees and so
on. We had agreed to that but we where constrained to move the
pool to the present location. The only reason that we are before
the zoning Board of appeals is Mr. Lessard was a little
concerned that we should at least have a blessing from somebody
besides himself before we started building the pool. The
Trustees themselves had said this is the place to locate the
pool. That is in writing. I would have a copy of that with me
right now but that is in the Zoning Board of Appeals file. I
would hope that the Board could reflect upon it a little. Having
gone by the area a number of times, it seems to me that there
would be a minor impact upon Main Bayview. There is a new
house to the south of that. That has been built as the cove was
being built, so apparently the owner of that property did not
feel that it was going to be a serious problem with the
condominiums. There are a few houses across the street. There is
one house to the north. It seems to me the buffer, the fact that
it is recessed and the fact, most of all, that not only did the
consulting engineer for the Town see it but the Trustees asked
to put it in that location. Hopefully, we can move this Board to
remove the decision.
Mr. Ward: Our concern was that the original proposal that was
here was that the pool was within the community of the condos
rather the within the community at large. I realize now you are
getting kicked out of where you were. Is that something that you
have no option to go back into? Because, what we are doing here
is the pool is more oriented to the general neighborhood then it
is to the condo development. That was our concern.
Bill Klatsky: I responded to the Trustees over about a three
month period with a lengthy set of mitigation measures,
including this. Before I could re-start back at the Cove I
needed a work permit. The work permit included that plar~
by...(inaud~hle). It was probably the most extensive
mitigation plan that this Community has ever seen. We responded
and secured the Conservation. committee's approval as well as the
Trustees as well as the Zoning Board of Appeals on the first
issue, which was resolved and now we are back on the second
issue. There has been a lot of history on this particular
application. I am not sure the Planning Board was fully
appraised of the twists that have taken place since, basically,
last October. It has been a year since we have been wrestling
with this problem.
Mr. Cuddy: Again I will point out, your concern I certainly
understand, it is a recessed piece of land and you really can't
see a good part of it while you are going by. It is not going' to
be used at night. You say it has an orientation out for the
road. There is certainly going to be a buffer that is going to
be installed the~e.
Mr. Ward: This is residential next door, that will be next to it?
Planning Board 21 October 17, 1988
Mr. Cuddy: Yes. That is right.
Mr. Ward: Which is undeveloped, presently?
Mr. Cuddy: Yes.
Mr. Klatsky: I would suggest to the Planning Board that if
there were some additional landscaping that the Board wishes to
try to increase the protection.
Mr. Ward: Well, visually landscaping may do something, but
acoustic wise the use of the pool in somebody's back yard, even
though it is a future back yard, is a concern to us. That is
where we were coming from.
Mr. Cuddy: I could understand that. Likewise we were coming
from the Trustees. This was not a process of our selection.
Saying this is the place to put it. Initially, we thought
otherwise. After going through months of working it out that is
what we were asked to do.
Mr. Ward: O.K. Maybe what we can do is to get back to the
Trustees and see what is going on with it and we will get back
to you.
Mr. Klatsky: We are sort of hanging by our thumbs at this
point, gentlemen with the hearing date with the Board of Appeals
who are awaiting your response to them. It is unfortunate, I
guess it is almost impossible, either have a coordinated review
of what is taking place by the various agencies having a piece
of jurisdiction in this situation. I would just alert you that
we have been waiting over a year to finally resolve this
problem. I would hope that you can give some positive word back
to the Board of Appeals.
Mr. Mullen: I would like to also check and see what we have. We
have a couple of minors to the south of this property. Bitses
and a couple of others.
Mr. Klatsky: I went with an additional co~m~ent that if the
subject piece, which is in the residential zone, was subdivided
as a single family lot, it is possible and likely that the
Zoning Board of Appeals would grant the waiver and put a pool in.
Mr. Ward: I think the difference might, be is that we are dealing
with a back yard pool and there probably are a few parties a
year, with this many units on this property using that pool
everyday, that is a little different then a private backyard
pool.
Mr. Klatsky: Sure, but there would be a pool and a house.
Mr. Ward: Well, we will see what we can do and we will get back
to the Trustees and go from there.
Planning Board 22 October 17~ t988
Mr. Cuddy: We have no problem in representing. As I said it is
a day time operation.
Mr. Ward: No lighting?
Mr. Cuddy: No lighting. Do you expect that you would hear from
the Trustees in the next couple of weeks?
Mr. Ward: I hope so. We will pursue it.
Mr. Cuddy: Thank you.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. I have nothing further on my agenda. Any
comments or questions?
Mr. Cardinale: Can I bring up a matter. I had brought it up
with Melissa. We had met with my brothers piece in Mattituck on
the Main Road a couple months ago. We had discussed possible
getting that map filed as the minor. It is on the Main Road. I
gave to Jay Schondebare a covenant. He has spoken with my office
and indicated that he was going to meet with the Board and
determine whether the language was adequate. I think the way we
left it was that you wanted him to approve the language. I am
just trying to get a status on that.
MK. Ward: We are looking for a set off before we do it?
Mr. Orlowski: Yes. The way you have it set up now, it is a major
subdivision.
Mr. Cardinale: That is what Jay had discussed with Alan. It
isn't but here is what we wanted to set ~p. We wanted to file
the map as purposed. The map was approve~ in 1984. We went to
the Health Department. It took us three yea~s to get out of
there. We came back in July or May of this year and said here is
the map please stamp it for final. At that point you said there
is one lot that has both co~[~,ercial and residential portions. We
appeared before you two months ago and said in view of the fact
that we have been at this..the Board original approved it. It is
only good for six months but we were in the Health Department
for three years. Rather than make us go back and do a whole new
map, which this set of would require, would you apprc~e the map
as it is with a covenant that before the lots are established we
will immediately move for a set off of the residential portion
from the business portion o~ lot 17 Which is what the covenant
says that I gave to Jay Schondebare. The filed map is going to
be a minor subdivision. Four lots. That is all we are getting.
At that point, when we come back to you, what we are asking
basically, you can do it or not do it as you see fit, is to set
off from the six acres parcel, the two acres that are actually
in the commercial area and the four acres that are in the
residential area. It would be a second set off~ a second minor
Planning Board 23 October 17, 1988
if you have it, but it certainly wouldn't be a major. Because we
would be filing a four lot subdivision.
Mr. Orlowski: What is the problem now in starting with a set off
and separating that business property and than proceeding with
the minor?
Mr. Cardinale: Because to do that would.., that was the whole
purpose of the meeting in July or August. We could certainly do
that. The problem with doing that is that it would negate all of
the work between 84 & 88. We would have a different map. We have
an approved map in the Health Department now for those four
lots. We have a sketch plan approved map from the Town for those
four lots. The only justification which we were... I am not even
arguing that it is not good poli~y to do what you are suggesting
to be done. It is that it wasn't done in 84 when the sketch Pl&n
approval was given and the Heal~n Department there after
approved. In this case admitting you don't want two lots...
apparently the Planning Board feels that they don't want lots
which are in two zones. That was not raised initially in the
sketch plan approval. We got sketch. We got the Health
Department after three years. To do what you want now, we would
have to effectively start all over. Which would put us back to
1984. Justification in not doing that is getting the results you
want. Is saying if you will make an acception in this case as
discussed two months ago we will covenant that we will file the
four lot subdivision immediately and i~L~,ediatelymove to set off
the commercial piece. I think Jay said to me that he was going
to speak to you. I think he will confirm what I said, that it is
not a major.
Mr. Orlowski: The probtemwith the County is that even if you go
back with a set off, it automatically turns into a major
subdivision as far as they are concerned. All the criteria in a
major would have to be met.
Mr. Cardinale: You mean when ever you do a minor on a minor
they do it as a major.
Mr. Orlowski: Right and a set off is nothing but a subdivision~
It is still a subdivision. A minor subdivision.
Mr. Cardinale: Right. It is really a minor on a minor. I could
never really understand the set off concept at all.
Mr. Orlowski: It was made to quicken things for large land
owners that want to split off the farm and save the house or
something like that.
Mr. Cardinale: I guess the fall back position is... the only
justification for the argument on advancing is this 84 sketch
plan approval which of course is technically expired and the
fact that the Health Department has jerked us around for three
years. Immediately we presented it to the Board hoping that they
Planning Board 24 October 17, 1988
might... In fact what I did is make a re-application at the
request of Melissa. Because that is the way it was done. We
didn't expect this problem. I guess the only fall back position
we have is if you are disinclined to do what we had discussed
doing in August. If in the worst case scenario, if you feel you
want to give some relief to the applicant because he was
according to sketch plan approval in 84. It is a 16 acre piece
which we are getting four lots out of. You could approve the map
as it presently exist and even with a covenant that would be no
further subdivision of that piece. The negative result from you
prospective would only be that you have a mixed use lot. What is
your concern in regard to the mixed use? That we are going to
expand the business into the residential?
Mr. Orlowski: Yes.
Mr. Cardinale: It occurs to me that anything can be
covenanted. In other words maybe that is what you people had in
mind when you talked of a covenant in August. Not a covenant
that we are going to come and set off, but a covenant that if we
have a six acre lot that the portion of it that is residential
will not be commercially utilized. That is understandable. We
wouldn't do that anyway. On the other hand as I understand it,
we could put a house there.
Mr. Orlowski: I believe you could go into that lot for parking.
twenty percent. Something like that. I don't know what it is.
Mr. Cardinale: If that is the concern, we are willing to
covenant that portion that is presently marked residential will
not be utilized for business purposes.
Mr. Orlowski: We will have to talk with the Town Attorney about
that and see what he says. I still think you are going to have a
problem when you proceed at one point in time, that it is going
to be a major subdivision.
Mr. Cardinale: I would prefer you to let us file the map with
the covenant of a set off and when the problem came up we would
deal with them. If you. are disinclined to do that, the second
alternative is a possibility. In other words just file the map
and say you can't divide it any more and you have a covenant
that you are not going to use the co~m~ercial piece...the
residential portion of the co~fLercial piece for co~,.ercial use.
The least attractive alternative from the applicants stand
point, is do a new map. The yield on that map is lousy, not
necessarily because of you, because of the DEC', because of a lot
of other concerns that we have had there because of the wetlands.
Mr. Orlowski: Right.
Mr. Cardinale: It is a big piece but it is not really that big
when you consider the wetlands.
Planning Board 25 October 17, 1988
Mr. Ward: I think only if you are interested in segregated that
business from the.., to have two uses on the lot probably in the
long run the quickest thing to do is to go back do the set off,
do the minor and be done with it rather then going on and on
about what you would like to do. Sooner or later that is what is
going to happen. It seems like the way you are progressing it is
going to be later rather then sooner.
Mr. Cardinale: If we do the set off I assume what we would
present would be an initial set off like we did at Cox Neck
which sets off the business piece and lea~es the rest. That
would be the fourteen acres. Then the minor of those fourteen
acres into four residential units. It would make us go back and
do it all again. Effectively, we would wind up with the five
lots. Let me talk to him and maybe write a letter to you as to
what his preferences are and you can consider them.
Mr. Orlowski: Very good.
Mr. Cardinale: Thank you.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Any other comments or questions.
Mr. Edwards: I would just like to thank you Benny and Bill,
Ritchie and Valerie for making the effort to come to Fishers
Island last Friday for the Hearing for Watsh Park. I like to
see you over there and I wish you would come more often.
Mr. Mullen: It is a pleasure. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we
adjourn.
Mr. Ward: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
All Ayes: Orlowski, Multen, Ward, Edwards.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:55.
Bennett Orlowski, Jr. ,~Sairman
Respectfully submitted,