HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-12/05/1988Town Hall, 5309~ Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York ! 1971
TELEPHONE
(516} 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Planning Board Minutes
December 5, 1988
The Southold Town Planning Board held a regular meeting on
Monday, December 5, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall,
Main Road, Southold.
PRESENT
Chairman Bennett Or~owski,Jr.
Member William F. Mullen,Jr.
Member G. Ritchie Latham,Jr.
Member Richard G. Ward
Member Kenneth Edwards
Town Planner Valerie Scopaz
Assistant Planner Mslissa Spiro
Secretary Jill Thorp
Mr. Orlowski: I would like to call this meeting to order. The
first order of business is Peter Blank- Public hearing on the
final maps dated as amended October 14, 1988. This minor
subdivision is on 1~0,000. sq.ft, located at Orient.
SCTM ~1000-27~4-p/o 10.1. Everything is in order at this time
for a public hearing. We have proof Of publication in the
Suffolk Times and also in the Long Island Traveler/Watchman. I
will ask if there are any objections to this subdivision?
Hearing none, are there any endorsements of this subdivision?
Mr. Angel: We endorse this subdivision. Mr. Blank and I are here
to answer any questions the Board might have.
Mr. Orlowski: Any other endorsements? Any one out there neither
pro nor con, but would have information pertaining to this
subdivision that would be of interest to this Board? Any
questions from the Board? Mr. Mullen? Mr. Latham? Mr. Ward? Mr.
Edwards?
Response of the Board; No.
Mr. Orlowski: No further comments or questions,
this hearing closed.
I will declare
Planning Board Page 2 December 5, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: Walsh Park- Board to keep the public hearing
from October 14, 1988 open, pending receipt of revised
preliminary maps. This affordable housing project is located on
Fishers Island. SCTM $1000-6-2-3.1. Do you have any comments on
that, Mr. Edwards?
Mr. Edwards: Yes, they had the maps a week ago, but there were a
few things missing. I told them to put them on before they hand
them in.
Mr. Orlowski: Alright, we will keep the ~hlic hearing open.
Board to set Monday, December 19, at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold
Town Hall, Main Road, Southold as the time and place for the
next regular Planning Board meeting.
Mr. Latham: Move it.
Mr. Ward: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen,. Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Frank Born- Board to review the endorsement of
the maps dated as amended June 10, 1988. This parcel is on 6.369
acres at Southold. SCT~ ~1000-55-2-25. Do you think this is O.K.
to sign? This was approved March 21st subject to drainage review
and a letter of credit has been accepted by the Town Board. What
is the pleasure of the Board?
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, Multen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Mary Bonkoski- Board to review the endorsement
of the maps dated as amended October 8, 1987. This set off is on
19.944 acres located at Cutchogue. SCTM 91000-101-2-24.1 & 24.2.
Planning Board Page 3 December 5, 1988
Everything is order to endorse these maps. The mylars are
coming, but everything else is here. What is the pleasure of the
Board?
Mr. Latham: So movedl
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
******************************
Mr. Orlowski: North Grove Estates- Board to make a
determination on the preliminary maps for this major subdivision
on 46.5712 acres located at Cutchogue. SCTM ~1000-95-4-4.1. What
is the pleasure of the Board?
Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I Would like to make a resolution of
approval as to these preliminary maps with the following
statements: That the Planning Board feels that the continuation
of Gold Spur's Street and the proposed ingress and egress at
Alvah's Lane will provide a convenient, adequate safe road
layout for the proposed subdivision. The Board feels that the
majority of the residence of the proposed~deue~opment will use
the tap road to Alvah's Lane rather the access through Oregon
View Estates, as this would be a more direct access to County
Route 48. The Board also feels that the continuation of Gold
Spur's will provide a relief valve for Oregon View Estates,
increasing the level of public safety of the residents living
within this subdivision. Throughout the Town, both in past and
present subdivisions, tap roads have been provided for future
access for adjacent parcels as is the case for Gold Spur's
Street. The Board feels that the revised layout, the road access
at Alvah's Lane instead of Oregon Road, adequately mitigates the
concerns of the residents of Oregon View Estates for both
reasons. The Planning Board has also reviewed correspondence
from the Suffolk County Planning Co~mission which states that
the rearrangement of the proposed road layouts will result in
better traffic flow control within that area. For those stated
reasons I move that we except the preliminary plan.
Mr. Orlowski: I would just like to add one thing. If you look at
the map on lot 13, I think we could eliminate that piece... We
can move it back.
Mr. Edwards: I'll second it.
Mr. Orlowski: We have a motion made and seconded. Any questions
on the motion? All those in favor?
Planning Board Page 4 December 5, 1988
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Gatz and McDowell- Board to start the
coordination process to determine Lead Agency and Environmental
Significance. This major subdivision is on 30.3565 acres located
at Cutchogue. SCTM ~1000-95-4-7 &14.
Mr. Latham: So moved.
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Frank & Myrtle Hendrickson- Board to start the
coordination process to determine Lead Agency and Environmental
Significance. This lot line change is located on Calves Neck
Road at Southold. SCTM $1000-70-4-43,44,45.
Mr. Edwards: So moved.
Mr. Ward: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: The Hamlet at Cutchogue- Board to review the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for completeness. This site
plan is located at Cutchogue. SCTM $1000-102-1-33.3. Mr.
Emilita, our reviewer, has asked for a thirty day eXtension to
January 9th at which time we will make a determination at our
January 9th meeting. What is the pleasure of the Board?
Mr. Latham: So moved.
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Planning Board Page 5 December 5, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Marina Bay Club- Board to review Supplement
Number two of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
completeness. This site plan is located at New Suffolk.
SCTM ~1000-i17-8-18. At this time the Supplement is complete and
we can accept it and open the thirty day co~ent period.
Mr. Edwards: So moved.
Mr. Ward: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. At this time we can set the
hearing for December 19th, at 7:30.
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, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Franktinville- Board to review the negative
declaration that was granted on November 14, 1988. This major
subdivision is on 35.8 acres located at Laurel.
SCTM ~1000-125-2-2.2. At this time we have to rescind our
negative dec. as told to us by the State Department of
Environmental Conservation who wrote the law. We can not grant a
negative dec. subject to.
Mr. Latham: I move to rescind the negative declaration.
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. At this time we are asking
for a site specific sediment and erosion control plan. After we
receive it and it is reviewed we will make our determination.
Planning Board Page 6 December 5, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: Hiawatha's Path- Board to review the conditional
negative declaration that was granted on November 14, 1988. This
minor subdivision is Town owned property on 1.9769 acres located
at Southotd. SCTM 91000-78-3-51. This too has the same problem.
We have to rescind it and start the lead agency process to
determine environmental significance.
Mr. Mullen: So moved.
Mr. Latham: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded to rescind the motion of
November 14th. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. I will entertain the motion
to start the coordination process.
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, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. At this time I would like to
grant sketch approval subject to Health Department approval.
Mr. Ward: So moved.
Mr. Latham: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Robert and Sidney Olmsted- Board to make a
determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
This minor subdivision is on 3+ acres located at Mattituck.
SCTM ~i000-114-7-14. At this time everything is in order for a
negative dec,
Mr. Edwards: So mo~ed.
Mr. Ward: Second.
Planning Board Page 7 December 5, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Mullen, Latham, ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered° I abstain for reasons I have
given previously.
Mr. Orlowski: Cliffside/Tidemark- Board to request that David
Emilita prepare a Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Mr. Raynor: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, might I address
you just a moment in regard to this. Before the Board makes a
determination in regard to the Final Environmental Impact
Statement, that under SEQRA, they could consider a negative
declaration~ which is an option of this Board at this time. This
has been in the process for an excess of four years and as a
result of lack of public controversy of this issue I would ask
that the Board consider a negative declaration. The Board will
also bare in mind that, if possible, we would like to get in
front of the Zoning Board of Appeals, as this actiQn requires a
special exception by this Board. I would ask you to take both of
those items into consideration. Thank you.
Mr. Ward: I move that we prepare a Final Environmental Impact
Statement. Traffic impacts alone are consideration enough.
Mr. Latham: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward,
Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Hanoch and Watts- Board to review the Suffolk
CountyPlanning Commission report dated NoVember 7, 1988. This
minor subdivision is on 12.623 acres located at Cutchogue.
SCTM $1000-101-1-i4.1. The Suffolk County Planning Commission
disapproved the layout and we also talked to the DOT, they are
not allowing.any curb cuts on County Route 48. Dave Kapell is
here representing the applicant. He might have some input first.
Mr. Kapell: I was hoping maybe I can get some guidance from you.
Mr. Orlowski: No. It looks like you are back to square one.
Mr. Kapell: This has really become a confusing application. Just
to back track a minute. If you recall we had sketch map approval
on this property for four lots, subsequently the time period
Planning Board Page 8 December 5, 1988
elapsed and we were asked to reapply, which we did° In the
reapplication we propose, now, three lots. We eliminated the
line between the two northerly lots. The reason for this factly
was in response to the Town's increase in the requirements for a
road in a minor subdivision. The people that own this
subdivision are not wealthy people. The burden of the new road
would have thrown it out of the realm of possibility. That is
why they gave up a lot in order to have three lots that would
not require a road. This latest term of events is really a
significant set back for us. Also the position of the County
Department of Transportation and the County Planning Board or at
least the Town Planning Board's reaction to the County Planning
Board's comments are contradictory, in that, as a result not
being able to use County Route 48. Having building envelopes all
the way to the front, actually exacerbates the problem that is
already bad for us. I want to bring one point to the Board's
attention. I have not come up against this before so I am really
asking a question that you may not know the answer. There is an
existing access driveway out to County Route 48 from this
property. It is about ten or 'twelve feet wide. It is in front of
the framed building that is shown on the map. Which by the way
we have no intention of using, I mean the building we have no
intention of using. I wonder if we have some entitlement to
access as a result of the fact that there is existing access
there?
Mr. Orlowski: I can't answer that. It is up to the County, and
they are pretty strict on these accesses.
Mr. Ward: I think our building envelope requirement is that we
are not really saying where to put them. It is a response to the
fact that the County is looking to create open space. We thought
maybe you can designate where you want the building envelopes by
mitigating the cluster concept too...maybe it should be changed.
There still is a piece of land to be subdivided off of Alvah's
lane.
Mr. Kapelt: That we rap around.
Mr. Ward: It my be worth talking to the people. If they came in,
if there was a cluster and let them put a read and have a
cul-de-sac here maybe that would solve the problem. I am not
saying that it will be a final result maybe it is worth
exploring. (disc. Re: Map put in front of P.B.)
Mr. Kapell: We can certainly contact them. I want to point out
to you that one of the two people that own this property has
already installed grape vines in this back portion, so these
fellows really don't have an intent in the short term of
developing the property. The other thing is, frankly, what I
think the net result that could be is that there is nothing to
be gained now by .giving up the forth lot as a result of the
County's requirement that we come in from Alvah's Lane. I think
we probably are going to come back with a four lot subdivision.
Planning Board Page 9 December 5, 1988
Which in a way is unfortunate, because there was an opportunity
here to cut the density back one lot. Nobody has any ideas in
regards to the route 48 problem?
Mr. Orlowski: I guess you can make an appeal.
Mr. Kapell: I think that is exactly what I would like to do. Is
to go down and see Mr. Baker and first of all, is to ask him the
question I have asked you about the existing access.
Mr. Orlowski: You only need one access in the middle and that
would be their only driveway for all parcels.
Mr. Kapetl: Do you suppose that there would be a way to create
an access from the easterly side from where the existing access
is?
Mr. Orlowski: No, but maybe one right smack in the middle of the
two lots and use that as a common access to 48. We would like to
see those building envelopes set pretty far back off of 48.
Mr. Kapell: Two hundred feet, you said.
Mr. Ward: If you would like to go further that is fine.
Mr. Orlowski: That can be part of your deal, is that the houses
are going to be set way back. There will be a middle driveway to
access them.
Mr. Kapell: Split off a single access.
Mr. Orlowski: Right.
Mr. Kapell: What I would like to ask the Board at this time is
if it would be possible to come back at the December 19th
meeting. By then I would have had a chance to go down to the
Department of Public Works and speak with Mr. Baker.
Mr. Orlowski: That is fine.
Mr. Kapell: Thank you very much for your time.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Tim Gray- Board to review the
Suffolk County Planning Commission report dated November 7,
1988. This minor s~bdivision is on 9.1568 acres located at
Southold. SCTM 91000-58-1-2. We didn't have any problem with
anything in this report except number five. It says in five that
the primary dune should not be disturbed in any manor, except in
construction in suitable access to the beach, by any general
construction, clearing of vegetation, or grading; especially
that clearing and grading of the dune to provide a view of the
sea. There shall not be any restriction placed on any valid
Planning Board Page 10 December 5, 1988
effort to preserve and rebuild the dune nor should there be any
restriction against removal of dead, decaying, deceased and
obnoxious vegetation that may crowd out or kill off other
vegetation.
Mr. Ward: This is the building site of what is proposed on this.
If we went along with this provision he wouldn't be able to
build his house where it shows on the plan. I feel that all the
other conditions from Suffolk County can be complied with. This
primary dune that they are talking about is some five or six
hundred feet back from the high water. The house being put there
Will stabilize it.
Ms. Scopaz: Would the Board want to substitute a condition of
its own that imposes some conditions that it feels are valid? I
understand what your p~oblem with that is. Would you want to
substitute something of your own in place of that?
Mr. Ward: I think possibly that a site plan be filed to show how
it is going to be. In other words at that particular time. It
puts it in the Building Departments realm. He certainly is not
going to blow it away, because he wants the view, I would
assume. But the way this is written, you would not be allowed to
put a house on it. I think the clearest thing is to leave it out
and override it and ask for a site specific plan to be filed
showing what is intended.
Ms. Scopaz: The primary dune was the first one that you hit as
you walk out of the woods. The only thing is that you might want
to say something ~hout that they should have some kind of board
walk or something on the sand to minimize damage to the wetland
areas for the main traffic to and from the house. There was
another house further down the beach where they were driving
four wheeled vehicles up and down the beach. Maybe you would
want to have some statement to the effect that they consider
using board walk areas to protect the integrity of the remainder
of the dune system there.
Mr. Orlowski: I think with the revised maps that we have asked
for showing the building envelopes also C & Rs on only one
driveway should take care of it.
Mr. Ward: I thought the only one that would be a problem would
be number five with the report.
Mr. 0rlowski: Do you want to make a motion to approve this?
Mr. Ward: Motion to override number five and accept one, two,
three, four and six, sevenr eight. So moved.
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Planning Board Page 11 December 5, 1988
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. The applicant knows that we
are looking for those building envelopes and also the C & Rs on
the driveway.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. on to discussions. Next we have RHR Realty-
Bo&rd to discuss this applicationwith the appliCant. This minor
subdivision is on 12.6351 acres located at Southold.
SCTM $10~0-59-3-16.1.
Mr. Rapp: Good evening my name is Rob Rapp. I am attorney from
Port Jefferson and also a partner in the proposeddevelopment of
this 12 acre site. Originally, we obtained a letter from the
Planning Board back in December, .1986 which approved the
subdivision. The configuration at that time showed a driveway
along the easterly side of the property, which driveway would
service two lots. The approval that I got in December of 86 was
contingent upon Health Department approval. Which we there after
obtained but I was told then that my sketch plan approval had
expired, The staff then informed me that we would have to start
all over again with a new application, which we did. In the
interim we were approached by Greenpo~t Water District who is
desirous of purchasing approximately two acres on the site for a
pumping station. The contract of sale .has been entered into with
Greenport to enable them to put that pumping station there.
Thereafter, in conferences with staff, it was requested ~hat we
dedicate to the Town the fifty foot strip through here, all the
way up to here. Six hundred feet by fifty.feet wide. I indicated
at that time that we have no problem with that since it did not
effect the yield. It made the large lots a little smaller, but
they are still oversized. I then received a letter from the
Planning Board asking me to submit road and drainage profiles.
For a road, apparently along this fifty foo~ strip. That I
complied with. I was told, I have to post a fifty nine thousand
~ollar bond. Finally water sank through the rack and apparently
it appears to me that the Planning Board wants me to put a
twenty two foot road there. What I am questioning is the need
for that to be put in. For the simple reason is that if you look
at the upper corner here, there are two large parcels
immediately to the east of me, which som~ day would very much
like to see a road or right-of-way or something there. I had no
problem with this. I don't mind giving the fifty feet of
property. I~fail to see why I have to put in a road. The
original plan called for a driveway. I have no problem doing
that. I will dedicate the property to the Town and reserve an
easement for my driveway till such time ~a road gets installed
there. That is the purpose for this matter being on the agenda.
Mr. Orlowski: It would have to become a flag lot in order to be
used as a driveway.
Planning Board Page 12 December 5, 1988
Mr. Rapp: I think we are doing our part with the dedication. It
would seem to me that that would be fair enough.
Mr. Ward: Would the road be for the entire stretch?
Mr. Rapp: Not quite six hundred feet. We had to stay away from
the wetlands area. The road would go up approximately five
hundred feet. The thing that puzzles me is the original sketch
plan did not require that.
Mr. Ward: I think for the intents of the layout, that it runs
with a turn around intersecting with lot four and not develope
it through. It would be the responsibility of the future
developer, who would have to connect it. You would have to have
a road that might be substantial as a cross road. What I am
saying is that if you come up with fifty or sixty percent and
develop a turn around here for this to service this and not
develop this. What you are saying is that you are being penalize
for because you are extending this. (disc. map in front of P.B.).
Mr. Rapp: Basically, yes. What I am doing is being asked to
provided the access for two much larger parcels. This one here
is twenty four, twenty five acres.
Mr. Ward: Whereas, if you came in here and developed a turn
around to serve these lots and not the back lots.
Mr. Rapp: Correct me if I am wrong, but whoever develops this
piece and this piece sooner or later, wouldn't they have to put
a fifty foot road in there?
Mr. Ward: Eventually.
Mr. Rapp: I am being asked to put in about half of one. For lack
of a better description. Ail the way up here, merely to service
the one lot.
Mr. Ward: What we are saying is that also these are our current
standards for a minor subdivision road. Other then that if you
just dead end it here you could...Part of the reason is also
that it is the same basis that it is not quite as wide. It puts
some options on the servicing. It allows easy extension...
Mr. Rapp: I guess the question I am asking is what you are
asking us to install with that will be ripped out at some point?
Mr. Ward: No, it would just be added too.
Mr. Rapp: Is there some term that you use that describes what
kind of road you want me to put in? Is it the one I had spec.'d
out?
Planning Board Page 13 December 5, 1988
Mr. Ward: I believe that it is. It is just that it would be
essentially the same hookup. It would serve what we are doing
right now and not penalize the next person.
Mr. Rapp: That is all I have to say. Is there any questions that
anybody has got?
Mr. Orlowski: Well, I think by using that turn around you will
probably shorten what you have got in there. That is the best
way to do it.
Mr. Rapp: Pave up to the northern boundary of lot four?
Mr. Orlowski: Right.
Mr. Rapp: Does this have to be paved?
Mr. Orlowski: To the Specs. The minor subdivision spec.
Mr. Rapp: Is that the number that the Town Engineer reflected
on? The minor subdivision specs?
Ms. Scopaz: They are not called min6r subdivision specs. They are
called alternative road specs.
Mr. Rapp: Do you know how many feet that this estimate covers?
Mr. Orlowski: What ever you gave us.
Mr. Rapp: Just one more questions, where am I with respect to
approval here? What is le~t? Do I have to post a bond?
Mr. Orlowski: Yes. If you want to go along with this. Do you
have maps with Health Department approval?
Mr. Rapp: Yes.
Mr. Orlowski: We .need them. We don't have any.
Mr. Rapp: O.K.
Mr. Orlowski: We have a bond estimate, so we can make a motion
to send it to the Town Board for their approval.
Mr. Rapp: Do you take letters of credit?
Mr. Ortowski: Yes.
Ms. Spiro: Do you have the fire well locations?
Mr. Rapp: Yes.
Ms. Spiro: That has to be on the final maps.
Planning Board Page 14 December 5, 1988
Mr. Rapp: O.k. Thank you for your time. Can I get a letter
saying that this is approved subject to dedication of the road?
Mr. Orlowski: Do we have the final maps? When we get those we
will have a final hearing and that is it.
Mr. Rapp: O.K.
Mr. Orlowski: We can send a recommendation to the Town Board to
approve the bond estimate.
Mr. ward: So moved.
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Harbor View Estates- Board to discuss this
application with the applicant. This major subdivision is on
49.14 acres located at Mattituck. SCTM ~1000-115-17-17.
Mr. Conforti: Good evening. Mr. Chairman~ members of the Board.
We requested a meeting to discuss this matter on a number of
points. First and fore most, the building inspector has refused
to issue building permits for construction of houses on lots
which are part of this major subdivision. My position is that
this is in violation of Town law since there is at present, in
lieu of the bond a million and one hundred and fifty thousand
dollar letter of credit that has been posted. At all times that
letter of credit has been in effect and the s'~bdivision
improvements have been proceeding. At the present, seventy five
to eighty percent of road improvements are complete. Sixty five
percent of the well drilling and the water treatment system is
completed. Aside from that, we also pay the Lighting Company,
Telephone Company and Cable Vision. Work is proceeding on their
end of the job. I have two request to make, number one, is that
this Board direct the Building Inspector to issue building
permits, according to the Town Law. Secondly I would request
that the Board lower the amount of the bond after an inspection
by the Town Engineer indicating the degree to which the required
improvements have been made, and at that point and prior to the
expiration of the current letter of credit we will furnish a new
letter of credit.
Mr. Orlowski: This Board has a policy in not making any
recommendation to the Building Department in issuing any
building permits. We approve a subdivision subject to the roads
going in and being finished and approved. We would like to see
Planning Board Page 15 December 5, 1988
it in there before we make any recommendation to the Building
Department. We don't know if it is going to be complete. We
don't know if the water is going to be installed. We have a
letter of credit for one year. If you build a house in the back
and don't renew the letter of credit, how do I make you do that?
There is no way to do that. So that is our policy.
Mr. Conforti: If may suggest this Mr. Chairman, certainly you
can, any developer not only us... I realize you don't want to be
in the developing business yourselves, but when in fact you said
the required subdivision improvements are proceeding.
Mr. Orlowski: We don't have any problem with that. We are not
going to make a recommendation to issue any building permits.
Mr. Conforti: It has always been a policy in this Town despite
the directors of the New York State Town Law and despite the
fact that a bond or other security required by the Town have
been posted, then nobody will get a building permit?
Mr. Orlowski: Even if they have access to roads.
Mr. Conforti: There is complete access in this particular
subdivision. Not only the road cut and stabilize, the curbing is
in..., no thay are not finished yet.
Mr. Ward: Maybe you are close to being finished. The thing that
we can do is have the engineer go make aB inspection at the
request of a bond reduction.
Mr. Conforti: If you can.
Mr. Orlowski: We will do the bond reduction. We have done that
before.
Mr. Conforti: And also the other. Requesting an issuance of
building permits. There are some people who have payed in money.
They are paying taxes and as have we, to the Town of Southold.
When particular subdivision is not requiring...
Mr. Ortowski: Is there any reason why you don't want to finish
the road?
Mr. Conforti: I want to finish the road. I have contractor who I
call three or four times a week. We are waiting for Long Island
Lighting Company. We paid them seven or eight month ago over one
hundred thousand dollars in certified monies and they started
the job two weeks ago. That is really not our fault. We have
been out of pocket for that amount of money for this amount of
time.
Mr. Latham: I took a ride there just last week and the roads are
3ust rough cut roads.
Planning Board Page 16 December 5,1988
Mr. Conforti: What happened was.., the gully is there because of
the Lilco instillation. They were in better shape until they
started cutting. They should be finished in about another week
or so. At which time the first course of asphalt will go on. It
would make sense to me, an and I am told by our engineer, and I
am told by the contractor who is doing the road improvements
that we would be better off for all concerned, if we put on one
lift of asphalt and not put the second lift on till Spring.
Mr. Latham: There is just sand down. There is no base down there.
Mr. Conforti: The base is going down after Lilco is out of there.
Mr. Mullen: Why don't we have our engineer's inspect this, say
in three weeks, at which time one layer should be on and Lilco
should be finished. You would be in a better position.
Mro Conforti: One other thing sir. And I appreciate that, Mr.
Mullen, but in the interim the letter of credit will expire. I
have to make an application for a letter of credit. It will only
take me a couple of days to turn it around, but I want to have
it in your hands before the last one expires.
Mr. Orlowski: We can do the review by the nineteenth.
Mr. Conforti: O.K.
Mr. Orlowski: Can I have a motion to send that to the Engineer?
Mr. Mullen: I make a motion to send this to the Engineer.
Mr. Latham: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any question on the
motion? All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Henry Arbeeny- Board to discuss
this application with the applicant. This major subdivision is
on 49.14 acres located at Southold. SCTM ~100~-59-7-31.
Mr. Bruer: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. We are basically
here to discuss the Bond Estimate. This is Mr. Arbeeny. When
this first came out I questioned the Board as to actually what
the bond estimate was. I was directed to speak to the Engineer.
We did call. I spoke to Mr. Dean. He said that this is basically
kind of like a wish list. In other words it was a list that the
engineer had in terms of a bunch of standards and it was the
Planning Board who would mark off and say which ones they don't
want. There was a gentlemen here earlier talking about his fifty
Planning Board Page 17 December 5, 1988
nine thousand dollar bond in respect to a road. We have now a
seventy nine thousand dollar estimate here and we are not even
putting in a road. I am not an engineer and I still don't know
what this means. I have asked Mr. Tuthil if he would come up
here and discuss it with the Board and maybe giving you his
opinion as an engineer, as to what to make of this sixteen item
estimate totalling seventy five thousand three sixty two fifty.
I think you all know Mro Tuthil and are aware of his
qualifications.
Mr. Orlowski: Yes, we are.
Mr. Mullen: Did you say a "Wish List"?
Mr. Bruer: That is exactly what I said. The indication was that
they sent you this based upon a standard that they have you are
supposed to cross off what you don't want. If you would review
your file you will find that up until this estimate here, that
there were only two recommendations. One by the engineer on
August 30th of 88, where he recommended one catch basin and two
leaching pools on lot one, and that was it. The Fire Department
came up with a recommendation of a fire well. Up until this
point there we had no idea that there be anything like this wish
list that popped up. I don't think any of these things are
required or necessary. This is a subdivision on two existing
roads, one a County Road and one a Town Road. We are not putting
in roads. Again, I would like Mr. Tuthitl to address the a...
Mr. Mullen: Before we get into that. I am slightly confused,
which isn't unusual. I have one bond estimate here of October
20th showing sixty six thousand five thirty. Then I have another
one of October 20th of seventy nine thousand one thirty?
Mr. Bruer: I never saw the first one.
Ms. Spiro: That was an error on Sidney Bowne's part. They put
the wrong name on the wrong bond estimate.
Mr. Mullen: I see, O.K. fine.
Mr. Orlowski: If this was your wish list what would you take off
of it?
Mr. Bruer: For instance they are talking about concrete curb for
eleven hundred eighty feet. We only have eight hundred and
something of road frontage and they're looking for eleven
hundred. We can't make the property bigger, maybe Mr. Arbeeny
would like that.
Mr. Mullen: Why don't you do this, if I may, what don't you have
your clerks, your engineer write us a letter going through the
sixteen items.
Planning Board Page 18 December 5, 1988
Mr. Bruer: Mr. Tuthill is here I would appreciate if you would
talk to him.
Mr. Mullen: I would prefer having it in writing.
Mr. Bruer: Since I am here, and went through the trouble of
asking him here I would appreciate the courtecy of letting him
speak and I will then address it.
Mr. Mullen: O.K. I would still request that after the fact to
have it writing.
Mr. Bruer: Absolutely.
Mr. Tuthill: First of all, my own opinion is that what is on
there now there should be no bond.
Mr. Orlowski: What about fire wells?
Mr. Tuthill: There is a twelve inch Main across the street. If
you need a fire well you would want to put a hydrant there or
something. To request this man to put in a twelve thousand
dollar fire well when there is a twelve inch main across the
street, I think that is harassment.
Mr. Bruer: You also made us put in a fire well down the road a
couple of hundred yards, a couple of months ago on a different
piece of property. Popadoupolas. This is the recommendation of
the Fire Commissioner.
Mr. Orlowski: A Fire Commissioner, you don't think is smart
enough to know if they need a well for fire protection or not?
Mr. Tuthill: When you have a twelve inch Main...
Mr. Orlowski: The Fire Commissioner asked for this.
Mr. Tuthill: Excuse me, because they ask for something do they
get it?
Mr. Orlowski: Yes.
Mr. Tuthill: Do you have to...
Mr. OrlowSki: Go along with their recommendations. Yes we do.
Mr. Mutlen: Let us assume we go along with your recommendation,
we don't put in these fire wells. If something happens, as a
loss of life, do you know who is going to be on the record for
not doing what we were suppose to do. I will never go against,
unless completely unrealistic, a fire department. I can't
understand why an item for approximately twelve thousand dollars
that can perhaps save someone's life...
Planning Board Page 19 December 5, 1988
Mr. Bruer: Why don't we pass on that.
Mr. Tuthill: Just a minute. If you are a fireman, and I am.
Mr. Mullen: I am too.
Mr. Tuthill: Alright, if you go with a fire well against a
hydrant, which is more valuable to you as a fireman? Which
would you rather hook up to, a fire well or a hydrant?
Mr. Mullen: Both of them. If we have the fire well in there and
if we have the hydrant then we have the protection both ways.
Mr. Tuthill: Of the two which is more valuable.
Mr. Bruer: Let's not get into an argument.
Mr. Tuthill: A fire well instead of...
Mr. Bruer: You got ninety tons of pavement in a subdivision that
we are not putting a road in.
Mr. Orlowski: I think you probably have a good case here. We
would like to have you put it in writing. First thing I would
want to stick with the fire well. I don't want to go against
that. The rest of it appears that we would like just to see the
comments in writing and I don't think we want to build up on
Kennys Road any more then it is as far as~construction other
then the drains that we are asking for. I think you don't have
any problems with that.
Mr. Bruer: I do, there are a couple of points that Mr. Tuthill
pointed out to me today with respect to the drainage. It is not
going to be on our property, it is going to be on the Town's
property. We don't have the recommendations of the highway
co~m~issioner. Where he got this thing, I don't know. If you look
in your file the only thing you ever talked about is the one
catch basin and leaching pools and a hydrant for the fire. I am
sorry we got off the subject from that. But the rest of these
fifteen other items, I think they are rediculous.
Mr. Latham: To my knowledge we never edited.
Mr. Tuthill: They told us that that is what is supposed to
happen. That you are suppose edited this thing.
Mr. Mullen: That is the first time we ever had that. I enjoy
that phrase "wish list". Matter of fact, I personally will
review this report very closely, Not just for this particular
bond estimate, for others too. We have no desire to hurt
anybody. That is why I specifically request it in writing. And
when you do give tit to us please give your reasons so we can say
not being engineer's, this is what psople say. They have the
Planning Board Page 20 December 5, 1988
expertise. What is this wish list. Believe me we will check this
out.
Mr. Latham: I never heard the phrase "wish list". That is the
first time...
Mr. Bruer: That is the way it came upon me. Some standards that
you had set up and that they automatically do this and it is up
to you to cross off what you don't want. That is the way it got
back to me.
Mr. Orlowski: We will look into that. As I said the fire well is
going to stay there and the drainage we had talked about.
Mr. Bruer: I can understand that but as I said the rest of it.
Pavement, Street Lights, Street Trees, protection of traffic.
Mr. Mullen: Put the rest of it in writing and we will deal with
it.
Mr. Ward: Street trees will stay there.
Mr. Tuthill: There are two things that I think that are wrong.
One you had asked the man to put in a catch basin. There is a
low spot in the property, but the water that is coming in is
coming off the Town Highway. I don't believe that this man
should be required to put in a catch basin in to collect the
water from the Town Highway. If he had a high hill, high
property and the water was running onto the street. Yes, then
you require it. But not when there is a hole on his property and
their water is running into it and then require him to do it
because there is a low spot there. You sure know that his water
from his subdivision is not coming on there. It is the water off
the Town Road. Because the water drains that way. That is a low
spot in the highway. That is the highway responsibility. I
checked the files and there is absolutely nothing in the highway
or any information at all in the Superintendent of Highways. He
has no knowledge of this subdivision. There is no correspondence
from him approving of what has been done in this subdivision.
Secondly, I would like to point out in reference to this fire
well. There has already been an approved pipe underneath the
road to supply water to one of these lots. Why not use that and
connect a hydrant there, rather then a fire well. I don't
understand that someone on this Board could say that a fire well
is equal to a hydrant. I do not understand that. Not when you
have a twelve inch main and the value of water there.
Mr. Ward: You said there is a...
Mr. Tuthill: There are previsions and it could be increased. If
you are going to put in a pipe across the road, it is not going
to make too much of a difference whether you go...
Mr. Bruer: He is paying for it, isn't he.
Planning Board Page 21 December 5, 1988
Mr. Tuthill: He is paying for it, but it is not going to cost
him twelve thousand dollars.
Mr. Arbeeny: Mr. Chairman, If I was to address the fire well in
writing also rather then just...
Mr. Orlowski: You would have to go to the Board of Fire
Commissioners.
Mr. Bruer: I really wouldn't bother addressing the fire well.
Mr. Edwards: The only way we would make that change, at least I
would, would be if we had a letter from the Southold Fire
Commissioners stating that they don~t want a fire well and put a
hydrant.
Mr. Arbeeny: O.K.
Mr. Orlowski: The Town water compared to a well. When the system
was down there wasn't any water coming out of a hydrant. And it
can happen.
Mr. Tuthill: I have been a Greenport fireman and I had nothing
but Village and water. I had not had a time when I had not had
water. I don't know were this statement is coming from sir.
Mr. Orlowski: Well you are taking it up with the wrong Board.
Mr. Bruer: Thank you very much.
Mr. Orlowski:John Xikes- Board to discuss this application
with the applicant. This site plan is located at Arshamomoque.
SCTM $1000-44-3-1.
Mr. Angel: Besides myself(Steven Angel), this is Robert Lawless,
he is the Architect for the site plan.
Mr. Orlowski: Do you have some questions?
Mr. Angel: Not really. I think our position is outlined in our
letters, sent back and forth to the Board. I can summarize them
for you.
Mr. Orlowski: Would you do that?
Mr. Angel: What we have here, is an application that was started
with a site plan. I guess he submitted an application about
twenty months ago. There were, I believe, two sets of revisions
and two different revised plans that were submitted. There was
some correspondence. I wrote the Board on October 19th in
accordance with your regulations and summarized briefly what had
transpired in this application as far as I could tell from
looking at your file and speaking to Mr. Lawless. Then I
Planning Board Page 22 December 5, 1988
requested approval in accordance with the previsions, I guess in
Section 100-133 of your code, which starts the time running for
you on site plan applications similar to the time frames on
subdivision. I got back a letter from the Chairman dated October
27th, which I believe says there has been no SEQRA review on the
application. Even though it has been pending for nineteen months
and refers to the necessity of a Health Department application
to complete SEQRA review. I commented on that on November 7th. I
took the position that I did not understand why you needed a
detailed application to the Health Department to make an initial
SEQRA determination. Then I appeared here on November 14th in
conformance to my original self invitation. And then on the 14th
you suggested that we come back on the 5th of December. And we
are back here, to deal with any questions you might have with
the site plan. I asked Mr. Lawless to come out from Yonkers so
that he can discuss any particular details. I have reviewed the
application and it seems to be conforming under the provisions
of the B-Light Business District. It haS been kicking around for
quite some time. It has, apparently, been a low priority item.
Our client, however, does not consider it a low priority item
and would like it to be expedited, so that he can proceed.
Mr. Ward: We basically have had a problem in reviewing this
because our preference for this site, I realize the current zone
is Commercial, our preference for this site is Residential. Our
comprehensive plan update is to identify with zones to be
residential. I would recommend tonight, if you want to persue
this, is to positive dec. it for traffic and other reasons. And
put it into that remedial. We have serious reservations about
this site for commercial. I just want to say where ~e are coming
from. I realize you have a right. It is a property ownership,
but in terms of the overall Town there is a sore point to it,
that it is commercial.
Mr. Angel: But, with all do respect, we have had a conforming
application before you for nineteen months, to make a initial
determination, well twenty months, of a positive declaration
under SEQRA when it conforms to all the requirements of
legislative zoning. The Board can't do that. It has been like
that for some time. I think it would be an arbitrary act. It
would just unnecessarily delay our client. It is essentially a
simple application. It may be that you do not agree with the
zoning. You are sort of stuck with it, currently.
Mr. Ward: I think we have to address the impact statement as to
what is happening.
Mr. Angel: My position is pretty well taken. I don't want to
bander any threats back and forth, but you understand my
position.
Mr. Ward: Yes, I do.
Planning Board Page 23 December 5, 1988
Mr. Angel: A positive declaration, a situation where you have
public water. The Health Department says it meets all their
requirements and it conforms to everything in your zoning
ordinance. It was chosen for this particular purpose. It could
turn out to be a dangerous act on part of the Town.
Mr. Orlowski: Do you have Health Department approval?
Mr. Angel: No. We have an application pending with the Health
Department.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. What is the pleasure of the Board?
Mr. Angel: For the record I renew my request for approval in
accordance of my letter of October 19, 1988.
Mr. Ward: I move that we have a positive dec. under SEQRA.
Basically, it is inconsistent with our long range planning and
also the fact that the traffic situation should be looked at
under SEQRA.
Mr. Angel: Who seconded it? You are waiting for Mr. Mullen to
come back?
Mr. Orlowski: Yes. Mr. Mullen, there is a motion on the floor
on the John Xikis site plan to positive dec. it. For reasons
that it is inconsistent with the adopted master plan by this
Board and the traffic situation. We have a motion made and
seconded?
Mr. Latham: second.
Mr. Mullen: I concur.
Mr. Orlowski: Ail those is favor?
vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Angel: You are putting something in writing?
Mr. Orlowski: Yes.
Mr. Angel: Thank you. Good night.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Mohrinq/Cardinale- Board to discuss
this application with the applicant. This minor subdivision is
on 15.902 acres located at Mattituck. SCTM 91000-122-3-1.1.
Mr. Philip Cardinale: Good Evening. I wanted to take the
opportunity to speak to you this evening. We have spoken to you
twice before on this in it's resurrected form. Just briefly the
Planning Board Page 24 December 5, 1988
facts for the Board. In September 11, 1984 sketch plan approval
was granted to the map you have in front of you. The Health
Department and Mr. M0hring and Mr. Cardinate went around till
May 10, 1988 with the water issues. Ultimately they approved and
stamped the map you have in front of you. A few days later on
June 10, 1988, I anticipated it and at the request from the
Board's staff we submitted a new application which essentially
was an application to waive the six months. We were way over the
six months, obviously, because we were in the Health Department
for three or four years. Your response on June 27, 1988 was that
looking at lot number four you are not in favor of being
situated between two different zones as was on the original
sketch plan, subsequently approve by the Board. We came before
the Board in August and later on October 17, 1988 and discussed
a possible resolution. In an August meeting the Boazd instructed
me to contact the Town Council, Jay Schondebare. Which I did and
foreworded to him a draft of the proposed covenants and
restriction, which would address the Board's concer~
specifically that it did not want to have a split lot. We did
that by sending him a covenant which I have here. Which you
should have a copy in the file. It indicates that the declaring
has made an application to the Town for approval of a
subdivision bearing premises at schedule A will be designated to
lot four as a condition for approval and acceptance of file for
the Town of such subdivision. If the declaring agrees that upon
expectance of filing, that the declaring shall within thirty
days make application for a set off of that portion of the
schedule A premises lying in the B-1 zone use district for that
portion schedule A in the A-Residential use district. So that it
is to provide two separate and district building lots, each
located fully within in its respective zoning use-district. I
spoke with Jay on several actions, subsequent to September. I
spoke to the Board on October 17th at the meeting. Basically,
the Board in that meeting indicated some concern as to if this
would be review a major by doing this. My conversation with Jay
and his review of the covenant indicate that he does not share
that concern. He feels that it is clearly filing a minor
subdivision. At that point we will then be going back through
the ordinary process of attempting divide an oversized lot only
with covenanting or promising that we will divide it in the
fashion that you directed us at that line. He indicated that he
did not have any problem with the covenant nor did he have a
problem with second concern by the Board. First, concern was to
get the covenant clear, that was in AugUst. The second concern,
in October was let's make sure that this is not going to be
viewed as a major. Jay has indicated to me that he does not have
either of those concerns.
Mr. Orlowski: What does the County say.
Mr. Cardinale: The County, I know that you were concerned that
did the County know when they approved it. Di~ they know what
this was zoned. That they did, if you look at the map that you
Planning Board Page 25 December 5, 1988
have in front of you. It is marked exactly that. They approved
lot number four with the zoning line indicated on it.
Mr. Orlowski: Going back in, it will be considered then as a
major subdivision will they change everything?
Mr. Cardinale: No, because when we go back in we will go back in
with an existing lot four and say to them we wish to divide. Not
only that we wish to divide lot four at that line in Order to
use parcel one as the business parcel and the rest of it as
residential zone. They have indicated to me, both Jay and the
County Health department viewed this as a minor subdivision.
Basically those two concerns were checked out by both of us are
O.K. The covenant he has cleared and also has indicated that it
is a minor. I don't know if he has told you about it. He has
talked to me on the phone. That may be the problem in the
confusion and communicating. I guess you do need a letter in
covering. He needs to give you a letter telling you what I said.
Mr. Orlowski: I think what you are going to find out from the
County is when you come back in, unless you come back
immediately, the County is going to look at it as a major
subdivision. I don't know how that is going to effect these lots
with the sewer and water or anything else or if it is going to
effect the four lot subdivision.
Mr. Cardinale: That seems to be what you and the Board were
concerned about. That was unclear to me ~whyyou wanted it filed
with the County. If it is filed, now I have to file it with the
.County as well. So it will be filed with the County and the
Town. At that point after it is filed I would submit a new map
with lot number four to the Board and to the County and say I
want to divide this six acre lot in two at this line. As I
understand it would be viewed as a minor subdivision of a
preexisting six acre lot.
Mr. Orlowski: We have had it before. We use to set off a parcel
and then we would go back with four lots and make it a five lot
subdivision. The County will come back to us and say even though
it is approved and signed and sealed it is now a major
subdivision.
Mr. Cardinale: And they would apply the major requirements. When
you say the County, you mean the County Health Department?
Mr. Orlowski: Yes. That is the thing we wanted you to iron out
because it wouldn't do either one of us any good.
Mr. Cardinale: You are concerned that they can open up the whole
map when I am submitting lot four. The problems you have seen in
the past have come from the County Health Department.
Mr. Orlowski: Yes, the County Health Department. They have told
us this is a major subdivision no matter what you have done in
Planning Board Page 26 December 5, 1988
the past. Which would be problems for you as well as us. They
say we don~t feel that you can do that, so don't do anything.
Mr. Cardinale: I had heard something that you look for a letter
from the Health Department. I said to Jay that you can see they
knew that, but you are raising a different issue.
Mr. Orlowski: Just so that they know that we are looking out for
these things.
Mr. Cardinale: I will tell them what we want to do and ask them
if they have problem.
Mr. Orlowski: We don't have any problem with ito We are just
trying to handle it from the beginning.
Mr. Cardinale: What I will do set up an appointment with the
Health Department and get back to you.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K.
Mr. Cardinale: Thank you.
Mr. Orlowski: One more thing that is not on the agenda. About
hiring Jane Rousseau to help in the office, so that Jill can
catch up on the minutes. We have to go to the Town Board and
request it.
Mr. Edwards: So moved.
Mr. Mullen: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: ~Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
Mr. Orlowski: Can we have a motion to adjourn?
Mr. Mullen: So moved.
Mr. Latham: Seconded.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor?
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Planning Board Page 27 December 5, 1988
Respectfully Submitted,
M. Thorp, Secretary
Southold Town Planning Board
~3~IVED AND FILED BY
THE ~ ~.
SOu l H~.~-LD TO¥/N
To~n ~erk, Town o~ Sou~hol8