HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-05/11/1987Southold, N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
The S~uthold Town Planning Board held a regular meeting
on Monday, May 11, 1987 at the Southold Town Hall, Main
Road, Sou%hold, at 7:30 p.m.
Present were:
Chairman Bennett Orlowski,Jr.
M~mber William F. Mullen, Jr.
Member G. Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Member Kenneth Edwards
Member Richard G. Ward
Town Planner Valerie Scopaz
Secretary Diane M. Schultze
Planning Consultant, James Bryer
Absent: Victor Lessard, Executive AdministratQr
7:30 p.m. Public hea~ing on the question of approval of
the?preliminary maps for the major subdivision of Long Pond
Estates, Section 2, located at Laurel Avenue, Southold.
Mr. Orlowski: I will call this_meeting to order, the firstt
ord~ of business is a public hearing on the question of
approval of the major subdivision of:Lohg ~nd Estates,
Section 2 located at Laurel Avenue, Soutohld. We have proof
of publication in the Suffolk Times, signed by Richard Williams
and notorized by ~ary Deegnan, we have proof of publication2in
the Long Island Traveler Watchman signed by Pat Woods and
notorized by Barbara Forbes. At this time, eve~thing in
the file is in order for preliminary hearing. I will ask~if
there are any objections to this major subdivision? Hearing
nons. Are there any endorsements of this ma~or subdivision?
Mr. HeD~y E. Raynor,Jr.: Mr. Chairman and the Board, ny
name is Henry Rayno~, I am the agent for Long Pond Section
2. The proposed subdivision is for 13 lots clustered with
retaining 6 acres of open space.~ The map you have before
you has been amended to reflect the report of Inspector
Davis as well.as the report of Ray Jacobs, Superintendent
of Highways. The applicant is presently pursuing before
the Village Board, water contracts for this section~of
the subdivision. The Planning Boardtldeclared themselves
lead agency and this received a negative declaration on
Planning Board Page 2 5/11/87
M~Raynor: on Jun~ 9, 1986 as wellaas sketch plan approval
on June 9, 1986. I believe this proposal is inncomplianc~
with botheth~dsubdivision regulations as well as the zoning
ordinance of the Town of South~ld. I would request~a
favorable deterimination. If ~he Board has any questions,
I would be happy to aid them with them. Thank youYvery
much.
Mr. Orlowski: Thank yQu. Are there any other endorsements
of this subdivision. Hearing none. Is there anyone out
there neither pro nor con but with information pertaining
to this subdivision ~hata~d be of interest to the Board?
Hearing none. A~y questions from the Board? Mr. Mullen,
(none); ~r. Latham, (none); Mr. Ward (none); Mr. Edwards
(none); Mr. Bryers (none); Valerie (none). Okay, being
no further questions, I will declare this hearing closed
and th~nkyou for~coming down.
On a motion made by Mr. Edwards, seconded by Mr. Latham, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday,
June 1, 1987 at the Southold T~n Hall, Main Road, Southold
as~the time and place for the next regular Planning Board
meetinq.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski,Mullen, Latham, Edwards. Ward
On a motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Edwards, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Plan~ing Board set Monday,
June 1, 1987 at 7: 30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main
Road, Southold as the time and~place for a public hearinq
onthe question of approval of the minor subdivision of Ana
G. Stilto 16cated at Orient.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Qrlowski,Mullen, Latham, Edwards,~'~a~d
On a motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconed by Mr. Ward, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planmi~g Board, following
a field inspection, recommend to the Buildinq Department that
a~tificate of occupancy be issued to the Main Street Market
Located at Southbld.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Edwards, Ward
Planning Board
Page 3 5/11/87
Litlian Vishno - The Board reviewed this ~proposal for 3 lots
on 19,298 square feet located at Corwin Street, Greenport.
The Board of Appeals was requesting input from the Board with
regard to this. Mr. Latham stated that he had looked at the
site and noted that the lots in the area ~ereatI~small. He
also noted that this would mean three extra lots for the Vilage
of Greenport water and sewer supply. Mr. Edwards and Mr. Bryer
had also inspected the site. They felt that the site was small
and coUld~,not support three building lots, as well as the
fact that this would set a precedent.
On a motion?made by Mr. Edwards, seconed by Mr. Latham, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning B~rd give the following
input to the Board of Appeals with regard to the minor subdivision
of Lillian L. Vishno located at Greenport:
1. The Board is not in favor of this proposal since
it would set~a~precedetn for further breakdown of smaller
lots in the area.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Edwards, Ward
/~ p.m. Public hearing on the question of approval of the
final maps for the major subdivision to be known as "Reydon
Court" ; developed by Daniel MarcuCci located at Reydon Dr~ve
and North Bayvi~w Avenue, Southold.
Mr. Orlowski: Okay, the next order of business is apublic
hearing on the question of approval of the major subdivision
of Daniel Marcucci to be known as "Reydon Court" located at
Reydon Drive and North Bayview Avenue, Southold. We have
proof of publication in the SUffolk Times, signed by Richard
Williams and notorized by Mary Dee~nan, we have proof of publication
in the Long~I~land Traveler Watchman signed by Pat Wood and
notorized by Barbara Forbes. At this time, everything is
· n order fo~ a final hearing. We have health,department approval
and at this time, I will ask if there are any objections to
~his major subdivision?
(At this time, Mr. Edward J. McGern,fOrmer~Rr~.s~. Reydon Shores,
tookt~he map from the file for his review and the review of
the homeowners of Reydon Shores who~were present.)
Okay, I will con~inue with any objections to this major subdivision?
MKr. McGern: Did you receive a letter from A~thony Generosa?
Mr. Orlowski: Yes.
Mr. McGern: Tony sent me a copy which I did not receive,
he sent it Federal Express and may I borrow that copy to read.
Planning Board Page 4 5/11/87
Mr. Orlowski: I don't have that one.
Mr. McGern: We'll omit the salutation. Since I am unable to attend
this hearing this evening, I have~asked my neighbor to present
this letter for me. Okay, that answeres that. My husband
and I respectfully request re-e~aluation of our request which
were mad~ by usc and many of our neighbors at the December
7, 1986 hearing. For the approval of the preliminary maps,
we ask that the property in question be developed in a manor
that is consistent with th~ existing development on the North~West
and South/West side, the last side is undeveloped. We strongly
request that the cluster be pa&ced at the Southern end of
the property, away from the long existing community on the
North side, this would be ~he community of Reydon Sh~res.
We a~ all aware of the ~ini~n ~he~e~ ~p~, this would
a~ least serve as a c~ucial buffer between septic systems.
The properties on the E~st~ ahd southeast sides are undeveloped
and on one side ther are only four houses. The Planning Board
is responsib&~ to serve the best interests of the Community
and its residents since the Board is responsible to the elective
conglomar~e and since we, Reydon Shores, are the ~nly taxpayers
group requesting consideration, our neighbores and I urge
that you honor our request of placing the building cluster
at th~ southern portion of the land. Thank you for your attention
to the above. Sincerely Louise Rebel. Now, this one is from
Anthony F.X. Generosa, former ~resident of Reydon Sho~es,
P~p~rty Owners Association. Dear Mr. Chairman and Honorable
members of the Board. I understand this matter is on your
agenda for~a~_public hearing ~hed~led ~orbee~h~ion~onda~
evening May 11, 1987. Unfortunately, I probabl~ will not
be able to attend, however, t wish to make an additional statement
to the Board as a resident of Reydon Shores, past president
of Reydon Shores Property ~ssociation and as respresentative
of the resident ~f resid~nts~of Reydon Shores. Unfortunately,
Mr. Generosa is an attorney and rather lon§ winded, but I will continue.
On December 8, 1986 in all the capacity set forth above I made my position
kno~rn to you and followed it up by letter to the Board onDecember 19.
Other residents of Reydon Shores made known their opposition to you in
writin§. Others made known their opposition be oral prsentation to you
at the December meetin§. I am puzzled by the proposal to locate the housin§
so close to boundaries of Reydon Shores. I can understand more easily
the reasons for proposin§ to build the houses so close to the houses
in Reydon Shores, if these houses were part of the Reydon Shores development.
It would make sense for convenience of access to Reydon Shores beach
and Marina, however, since this proposed development is not part of Reydon
Shores and there is no entitlement to the use of the beach and marina
it would make more sense to h~ve the cluster housin~ situat~.d at the
farthest feasible point from ~he existinE housin§ in Reydon Shores, it
is my concern as well as the concern of the rsidents of Reydon Shores
who abut ~his proposed subdivsion at such a close proximity to the existinE
houses in Reydon Shores might well create undo problems as far as fresh
water supply, drainage, and sewara~e. Of course, if the subdivision
were developed alonE traditional, not cluster, this potential problem
could be averted also. Very truly yours, Anthony G~nerosa. Thank you.
Planning Board Page 5 5/11/87
Mr. Orlwoski: Thank you. Are there any other objections to the proposal?
Robert Kruger: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, my name is Robert
Kruger. I too am a member of the Reydon Shores property Owners Association
and a property owner. I have listened for two evenings here and everyone
is saying the same things, you must be as tired of listening as we are.
But, it does make sense to someone, such as myself less sophisticated
than you in terms of zonig and so on, that if in deed we are going to
go to the cluster of the future then for heavens sake let's put the cluster
at the South end of the total property and have the egress and access
on Bayview not Reydon Drive which is a realitively small road. Of course,
our first concern would be to develop the land according to the conventional
and traditional and the property that abuts both sides. Failing that,
if the cluster must he with us, then put it at the South end with the
egress onto North Bayview.
Mr. Orlwoski: Any other objections?
Melanie Fiedler: My name is Melanie Fiedler I live on Reydon Drive, right
across the street from where the proposed housing will be . The road
that will come out of the cluster housing, is going to, I feel create
a traffic hazard. My husband was here at the last meeting and he is
a Southold Town Police Officer and stated that at that meeting. And
tbmy had mentioned putting the road at another location but when I look
at the map, the road is in the same locateion. I am talking about the
cluster the circle and the way it comes out. There is our horseshoe
Shapped driveway, Reydon Drive that is coming out and now a private road
on our side where DeFriest lives. Ail in one little section with cars,
kids, people walking and I feel it will be a traffic hazard. Thank you.
Mr. Orlowski: Any other objections? Hearing none. Are there any endorsements
of this subdivision?
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.: Good evening, my name is Pat Moore, from the
office of Edson and Bruer. I represent Mr. Marcucci and this subdivision
application. At this stage, we have gone through and received the health
department approval, we have received road improvements and drainage
improvements, the proposed drainage improvements. The bond has been
set and there are covenants and restrictions that were forwarded to this
Board for their consideration. I would like to state for the record
that this Board has considered each of the steps of the subdivision process,
the locateion of the road, the platting involved in these subdivisions
themselves. And, we are here to finalize what has been a very thought
out and thorough process all along. Thank you.
Mr Orlowski: Okay, are there any other endorsements to the subdivision?
Hearing none. Is there anyone here neither pro nor con but may have
information pertaining to this subdivison which may be of interest to
the Board.
Mr. Marcucci: My name is Dan Marcucci, I am the developer of the property.
As far as the road, on the original we did move the road 50' toward the
south. There was some discussion about the road, the lights, possibly
shining into someowns bedroom at that time, the road was moved up and
the engineer is here, Howard Young, who did the plans so if there is
any question, I here alot of discussion going on ab out that, it is a
matter of fact that it has been moved. And, Mr. Bruer, has pointed out
Planning Board Page 6 5/1%/87
Mr. Marcucci: that the Highway Department, on sevaral visits to the
site , has approved the proposed plan.
Mr. Kruger: May I ask the young lady.
Mr. Orlowski: This is not a question and answer hearing.
Mr. Kruger: She mentioned road improvements, which road. Reydon Drive?
Mr. Orlowski: I assume that is the road within the subdivision only.
Any other comments. Hearing none, any questions from the Board?
Doctor Karpas : May I, I just wanted to point out that the opening
of this road entering into Reydon Drive which is a narrow road, much
narrower than North Bayview which is onthe other side. This particular
opening will now be a forth opening all within 100' into this very narrow
drive. There are three now on the west side and this opening which will
no be serving seven houses will be coming opposite these other three.
So, the traffic, it will actually be like a four sided corner for the
multiple. Four corner section ona county Road.
Mr. Orlowski: Thank you, any other comments? Hearing none, questions
from the Board? Mr. Ward, none, Mr. Edwards, no, Mr. Mullen, none; Mr.
Latham, none; Mr. Bryer, none; Ms. Scopaz. ~
Ms. Scopaz: Can I just make one suggestion with regard to the'cluster.
Perhaps the residents would be ameniable to extending the open space
behind Lot 1, it presently exists behind all the lots except Lot 1, perhaps
you could extend the open spaceup and shorten lot 1, it is an oversized
lot, so you have more than enough lot area. If you put in a 50' wide
conservation easement not'to be disturbed. I understand the~property
is wooded, perhaps that would be a way of addressing some of their
concerns.
Mr. Orlowski: Okay, Being no further comments, I will declare this hearing
closed and thank you for coming down.
Mr. James Gray was present for a pre-submission conference to discuss
the site plan for mini-storage buildng located at Horton's Lane, Southold.
This application is also pending before the Board'of Appeals for a'~special
exception which is pending. Mr. William F. Mullen, Jr. abstained from
any discussion since he has a working relationship with Mr. Gray.
Mr, Orlwoski: Mr. James Gray has scheduled a pre-submission conference
to discuss the site plan for Pudge Corp. located at Horton's Lane, Southold
for construction of mini-storage buildings. Board to give input to the
Board of Appeals for a special exception which is pending right now.
Mr. Mullen: Mr. Chairman, I will refrain from any discussion because
I am involved with the applicant.
Mr. Gray: This was designed at one time for two-story and we stuck to
one story. The site plan stayed the same, but what I did is bring brocuhres
on the type of buildings that will be going in there.
Planning Board Page 7
Mr. Bayer:
Mr. Gray:
Mr. Bryer:
5/1!/s7
Why do you need sewage disposals then.
I don't.
Well, it says here that water supply and sewage disposal
systems will meet Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
Mr. Gray: If we ever put any thing like that in, but we are not going
to. I think that is a compulsary on all plans, the person who drew this
up is not an architect, he is an engineer. There is no bathroom at all
going in the unit.
Mr. Bryer: That is why I thought, maybe you can have that note erased,
it is misleading. It makes it look like there is going to be sewage
disposRts.
Mr. ORlowski: Right now, this is at the Zoning Board of Appeals for the
sue in the zone. They are asking also for some comments and that has
changed slightly from the two story to the one store. Does the Board
have any comments? Mr. Latham?
Mr. Latham, : I am not happy about the steel building.
Mr Gray: Well, I agree with you, but these buildings are absolutely
beautiful. They'do a nice job.
Mr. Latham: Yes, but in South01d.
Mr. Gray: It will be landscaped and there will be ground lighting
and I have gone over it with the Board of Appeals and you can get fire
trucks all around it. So, there is no problem there.
Mr. Latham; Can you covenant that these will not be converted into something
later.
Mr. Gray: No, I would tear them down if they were ever going to be changed.
It will only be open from 8 in the morning to 5 in the evening.
Mr. Edwards: Will it be lit at night?
Mr. Gray: Ground lighting.
Mr. Orlowski: Will there be a gate.
Mr. Gray: Yes.
Mr. Ward: This is a very intense site plan because of the parking requirements.
Is there any way to keeping the parking from spoiling the buildings.
Mr Gray: There will be a green cyclone along the buildng.
Mr. Ward: WEll, with buffering all around, with a one story building,
it will be much less of an impact than the previous proposal.
Mr. Gray: I would like to leave it open to the post office though, becuase
if the people going to the post office see that the buildings are there
they will use them.
Planning Board Page 8 5/11/87
Mr. Bryer: I agree with what Mr. Ward said, I think that much blacktop
will b~ a big problem and can't see that all that is needed. I would
rther see some of that parking area be eliminated with more landscaping.
Mr. Gray: Then, I will make a 10' or 15' buffer 'around.
Mr. Bryer: Did you determine why you need the number of buildings?
Mr. Grey: This will be built in phases. There are very vacancies throughout
the country and expecially the resort and college areas.
Ms. Scopaz: The parking spaces that are shown here, where will the actual
entrance to the buildings be.
Mr. Gray: On both sides.
Mr. Bryer; Benny, can I make one more comment. I would really like
to see something on the plan ofnot having chemicals stored in there because
that could create a problem with a fire. If you could put a note on
the plan tht we don't want any storage of chemicals there or something
like that.
Mr. Gray: I will have the architect draw up a letter to present to the
Chairman of the Board of Appeals, and perhaps we can review it with the
fire department.
Mr. Orlowski: You can't legally anyway.
Mr. Gray: There will be no storage of any chemicals or paint and if
anybody brings a boat in there they will have to do it with empty gas
tanks.
Mr. Lessard: I think you could control this with the lease that you
wll have to draw up.
Mr. Gray: We have that in the lease now and it meets all the insurance
requirements.
Mr. Carmine DeSpirito was present for an appointment before the Board
to discuss the site plan f.or construction of a two-family house at Young's
Avenue, Southold. This proposal received a special exception by the
Board of Appeals.
Mr. Orlowski: Site plan for Mr. and Mrs. Carmine DiSpirito, Board to
refer this site plan to the Building Department for certification.
This is for a two-family house and received a special exception from
the Board of Appeals. Good evening Mr. DiSpirito, I see you are going
to build~a two-family house. Do you have any problem withthe conditions
of the Board of Appeals. The approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Each dwelling unit apartment shall have a minimum area of 850~square
feet; 2. The second dwelling unit exterior entranceway shall not be
at the front road side. 3. The subject premises shall remain a minimum
area of 160,000 square feet as applied for this two-family dwelling use.
Planning Board Pge 9 5/11/87
Mr. Orlowsk~: This is new to us. It is a new structure. It is probably
one of the ~ew legal ones in Southold Town.
Mr. DiSpiri~o: I had gone back to the surveyor from the original site
plan which ~ had submitted to you, and there were alot of additions put
into this o~e that were not on the first one. So, these are all the
requirement~ that you should need.
Mr. Orlowski: We address the site plan, so you have all the site plan
elements on and you look like you have everything you need, for a two
family house anyway.
ON a motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Edwards, it was
RESOLVED that teh Southold Town Planning Board refer the site plan for
Carmine and Donna Marie DiSpirito locatd at Youngs Avenue, Railroad Avenue,
Southold for construction of a two-family dwelling to the Building Department
for certification. Site plan dated as amended February 25, 1987.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edward, Latham
S
George and Jane Kaytis
subdivision at Southold
r. Orlowski: Next we have George and Jane Kaytis, Board to give input
tothe Board of Appeals with regard to this set off of 40,000 square feet
from 2.361 acres at Paradise Point Road, Southold. Only comment is the
zoning board would have to decide if it is a hardship, any other comments.
Mr. Bryer; I think we should tell them that we don't approve it at all.
If we keep doing this it is just going to set a precedent and they are
just going to keep. I would check this out, I can't find that it has
ever been merged I went back as far as the assessor's records and I just
think if we keep, if we don't send over some comment to the Board of
ppeals, we will be destroying the 2 acre zoning. I just don't agree
ith it.
rs. Moore, Esq.: I would like to respond to that. I understand the
heory but you have to keep in mind that we are also trying to create
some mix and blend in the Town so that there are more than just two acres.
So that someone my age or any age can buy a lot. You just can not always
buy a two acre lot. Thank goodness for set offs because with out a
set off there would not be lots. That is what the purpose of a set off
is.
Mr. Bryer: I think the purpose of the set off was if a lot had been
merged because of common ownership or the same name or whatever, then
to split that back up. I don't think the set off was designed to make
smaller lots.
Mrs. Well, the Kaytis family all lives around there, they are all related.
Planning Beard
Mrs. Moore:
zoning, the
anticipate
Obviously,
say as a ma
technique
Mr. Orlows
that it is
it, we don'
a two - act
one-acre lo
Mrs. Moore:
less.
Mr. Orlowsk
Mrs. Moore:
Mr. Bruer:
acre zoning
~hen the Bo
oratorium.
oning quic
it, they el
later and c
one acre lo
lots which
Mr. Ward:
for it to b
think we ca
Enacted is
On a motio~
RESOLVED th
ko the Boar
Kaytis to s
Road, South
The
wit
It
Page 10 5/11/87
Had they anticipated that there was going to be a two-acre
y would have subdivided it alot sooner. Since you cannot
these things, they are coming to you to ask for a set off.
it is you decision. Please keep in mind that not just to
tter of course, no we don't want this. I think the plannng
nd consulting with the planners then you make a decision.
i: I think the biggest problem with Jim has brought up is
surrounded by two - acre lots. And, the large lots surrounding
want to cut the density on all those lots. It you have
lot that is worth 80,000 dollars does that mean with two
ts tht they each sell for $40,000.
No, but maybe $50,000 or $60,000 which is substantially
.: I would like to see it. That is not up to us.
THe proposed master plan calls for one acre.
You through out the two acre businss, if you look at two
in the Town of Soutohld. It was basically a political compromise
~rd, Town Board, was either going to do two acre zoning or
Politically expediencly of the time was to do the two acre
~ly. As a matter of fact when the Town Board orignially did
[minated all one acre lots and had tocome back three months
~ange it. I don't think it was the intent to eliminate all
~s, and you have to also consider taht there are one acre
~ave been grandfathered.
think your strongest point is that the Master Plan is calling
one acre and I think that should be your pitch. Well, I
pass that comment along. At this point that this is not
~t one acre that they should determine hardship.
made by Mr. Ward, seconded by Mr. Mullen, it was
~t the Southold Town Planning Board give the following input
I of Appeals with regard to the set off proosal for Geroge
~t off 40,000 square feet from 2.361 acres at Paradise Point
~ld:
Board does not endorse this proposal since it does not comply
the current or proopsed zoning.
also noted that most of the lots in the surrounding area
are 2 acres or more.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards, Latham
Planning Board
Page 11
5/11/87
Raeburn/Murphy minor subdivision
at Cutchogu~
Mr. Orlowsl
the covenai
proposal fc
proposal wa~
was over th,
This has be~
Lane in Cut~
and was sub
Suffolk CoL
Mr. Latham:
Mr. Orlowsk~
and they we~
Mr. Bruer:
Mr. Orlwos
Mr. Bruer:
Ms. Murphy
went and t
certificat.
adjoining
They divid
and a bran.
the c.o. tl
not encompa
deeds. Thi
best of my
they petiti
other words
recall at t
these two 1
udgement~
ay the prl
there have
So, in eff
owners, has
nave before
says that f
to comply w
The first c
recommendat
Zoning Boar
this proper
Subject to,
renovations
had 280-a a
way that se
right of wa
somebody ju
Board to consider the request of the attorney to override
recommended by the County Planning Commission and set this
a final public hearing. We already had one final, this
conditionally approved under one acre zoning. That conversation
telephone, and I have nothing in writing from our attorney.
~n around for quite some time. This is up at the end of Bridge
~hogue. This is an old subdivision that had a final hearing
ect to a few conditions which were not yet met. They were
Lty Planning recommendations that wer subject to that.
The plan never went through.
.: We had a final public hearing and there were conditions
'e not met, as a matter of fact, I guess they can't be met.
Would you like me to give-the Board a little background.
£: Sure, you can remember it.
Alright, this is a piece of property were a Ms. Raeburn and a
~ought a piece of property up there on the Sound and they
~y got a building permit and they put up a house and got a
of occupancy for the house. They there after bought the
~nd to the east and with that they divided into the property.
the house lot up there with a certification of occupancy
new mortgage from Citibank. It is to be pointed out that
~t was originally granted and is being used up there does
ss the property as it presently exists by way of separate
~ turned into be a three lot minor subdivision which to the
~nowledge through a petition action by way of a judge ih court,
~ned the property. They said Ms. Murphy gets tis one, in
Ms. Murphy and Ms. Raeburn, they don't get along. If you
~e time, I was not involved in it, but Mr. Stankevich represented
~dies at that time and I believe they were talking about a
~esented and the Supreme Court judge said that this is the
perty is period and whatever. The two lots that are vacant
~lso gone through two tax sales, separately conveying them.
~t, what it is saying is that the property is in two separate
been and the way it is laid out on the map. However, you
you in your file you have Mr. TAsker's letter of March which
~r this subdivision to be finally approved, you would have
[th the three conditions that were set bythe Board in 1975.
~nsideration is to take into consideration the County Planning
ions. Two, it would have to establish ~ccess by way of the
t~ The Zoning LBoard to the property immediately east of
~y has granted a conditional 280-a access. That is Becky Johnson.
there was a house on it and then they did very substantial
on it, 95% and they had to do everything over again and they
~cess on it, subject to her actually moving the right of
~vices those properties to its proper location. Becasue the
goes illegallY allover two or three pieces of property and
~t dug a trench for the electrical and ran it up to the house.
Planning Board Page 12 5/11/87
Mr. Bruer: But, I believe if everything is put in its proper right of
way, I spoke to Tom Shay of Chicago Title and we have guaranteed, znsurable
access. They made a settlement with Bokina, I believe, they are in the
stages, Mr. Cardinale represents Mr. Bokina and said it was in the works.
One of the conditions of than subdivision calls for a continuance of
a right through Ms. Murphy's piece I guess at that time to service Ms.
Johnson. Well, I am representing Ms. Raeburn and I have no control over
Ms. Murphy and my understanding is that there are hard feelings there
and I have been told Ms. Murphy wouldn't do anything to help her, Ms.
Johnson.' This gets us into the County recommednations and one of the
County recommendations was that lots 2 and 3 use the same stairway down
to the beach and as long as these people own it they will never have
any agreement and it will never happen. Ther is nothing I can do,on
behalf of Ms. Raeburn for the Murphy piece. So, I have to ask you, particularly
since Johnson now has access by way of the Bokina property.
Mr. Orlowski: That right of way is on Bokina property, east and west.
Mr. Bruer: Well, what happened, the record right of way goest to here
~hich is why the Planning Board toservice lot 3 made the existance of
the right here through lot no. 2 and one of the conditions was to continue
it through here and there is no way I can comply with that. It was different
in 1979 and this was done by judicial decree, also as I mentioned the
two tax bills.
Mr. Orlowski: We still need access to lot No. 3.
Mr. Bruer: Right, you would have to do that becuase it ends here. You
would have to leave it the way it is onthe map here.
Mr. Orlwoski: Since it is out of the subdivision, the Zoning Board will
still have to give its approval of the right of way.
Mr. lessard: yes.
Mr. Bruer: It is a conditional right of way.
Mr. Ortowski: The only piece that we will be approving is that little
piece that is in the subdivision itself.
Mr. Bruer: I think they did approve it subject to relocating and it
actually being legitimized.
Mr. Lessard: The Planning Board has the authority for the road within
the subdivision. It is my understanding that Lot No. 2 was cut in half
by a Supreme~Court Judgh.
Mr. Bruer: No, it was the divided between Lot No. 2 and Lot NO. 3.
Mr. Lessard: Well, it better stay that way.
Ms. Scopaz: I would like to address the Board, may I ask Mr. Bruer a
question. Is the person who doesn't want to cooperate (Murphy) has she
given her consent to your continuing with the subdivision?
Planning Board
Page 13 5/11/87
Mr. Bruer: To the best of my knowledge, no, I learned of this last October
when we were before the ZBA for the purposes of getting a variance through
the department and at this point, I think Mr. Bryer and Mr. Emilita gave
an opinion to the Zoning Board and said hey, wait a minite, this was
not an approved subdivision. And, I only knew it at that time, because
I was representing someone who was buying it, Ms. Raeburn is a New Jersey
resident and her attorney asked me to continue her application to get
it legitimized. Something had to be done.
Ms. Scopaz: Board should be aware that in cases where a justice or a
Supreme Court Decision subdivides property, and I don't want to use the
word subdivide, hut divide property amount two heirs, for instance, or
ina civil dispute, the property is divided. That doesn't necessarily
mean that it is recognized by the Planning Board as a subdivision. This
is only part of a civil actionand it does nt mean that the Planning Board
has to recognize it.
Mr. Orlowski: Well, we can finalize it and just worry about the subdivision.
On a motion made by Mr. Ward, seconded by Mr. Latham, it was
RESOLVED that theSouthold Town Planing Board override the County Planning
Commissionresolution with regard to the minor subdivisionof Raeburn/Murphy
located at Cutchogue pursuant to the request of the attorney for the
applicnat.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards,Latham
On a motion made by Mr. Latham, seconded by Mr. Edwards, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, June 1, 1987
at 7:45 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall as the time and, place for a public
hearing on the question of approval of the minor subdivision for Raeburn/Murphy
located at Cutchogue. This hearing is a re-hearing as the original approval
of the subdivision has not been finalized.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards, Latham
On a motion made by Mr. Ward, seconded by Mr. Latham, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board give the following input
to the Boa=d of Appeals with regard to the application for Irwin and
Sondra Thompson:
The Planning Board is not in favor of the lot line change which
would create an insufficient side yard; however, if the variance
application warrents approval by the Board of Appeals, the Planning
Board requests a 50' side yard distance be maintained between
any new building to the East (on other land now or formerly of
Thompson) and th~ existing building. The Board feels that it
is the intent of the ordinance that a 50' side yard be maintained
Planning Board Page 14 5/11/87
between buildings.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards, Latham
Raymond and Eleanor Kerester
subdivision at Southold
Mrs. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. was present as attorney for the applicants.
On a motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Latham, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare themselves lead
agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act for the minor
subdivison proposal for Raymond and Eleanor Kerester located at North
Bayview Road and Paradise Point Road, Southold. This will be coordinated
withthe Town Trustees.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orl0wski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards, Latham
Mr. Orlowski: The Board of Appeals has granted a varaince for insufficient
width. Since, this is on the Bay, we should refer this to the Trustees
for comments. Also, from the Zoning Board, in the Board approval subject
to the following conditions: number 1 was no disturbance of salt water
wetlands or wetland grases defined by Chapter 97 of the Town Code. No
construction or development or any other activities. You question that,
why did they do that Victor.
Mr. Lessard: Apparantly there are alot of wetlands through the middle
of it.
Mr. Bryer: There is.
Mr. Lessard: I think the position is that they do not want to destroy
wetlands to allow access.
Mr. Orlowsk±: The Zoning Board of Appeals in their approval and they
approved it, subject to , nodisturhance of saltwetlands or fresh water
wetland grasses as defined by Chapter 97 of the Code. No construction,
development or any other activities. No, I don't think you will develop
a road a long the Bay, development is what you are going to do. Or,
any other activities, so what does that mean.
Mrs. Moore: I think they mean when you'disturb the wetlands, then you
have to reapply.
Mr. Lessard: Evidently there are wetlands going across those wetlands
down there.
Mrs. Moore: We have a survey.
Mr. Lessard: They are saying to get to the buildable area, that does
not give you the right to destroy wetlands.
Planning Board
Page 15 5/11/87
Mr. Orlowski: Okay, we will set that for a field inspection and get
a claraificatin on that, just to make sure that we are reading this the
right way.
Mrs. Moore: Did you receive the survey, the Zoning Board had a survey
that they asked that we prepare showing the wetlands onthat particular
survey. Have you received a copy of that?
Mr. Orlowski: No. So, if you could get that to us for our inspection,
and review.
Winds Way Building Corp.
4 lots on 13.5 acres at Linden Avenue, Cutchogue
This proposal for final action following apublic hearing will be held
until the recommendations from the Suffolk County Planning Commission
are received.
Winds Way Building Corp.
4 lots on 11.88 acres at New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue
Mrs. Patricia C. Moore, Esq was present for this applicant. The Board
held final action on this proposal, following a final hearing, in order
to get more information with regard to the right-of-way. It was noted
that Inspector John W. Davis was concerned with drainage which must be
addressed in order to prevent drainage into the wetlands of the adjoining
property. Mr. Bryer and Mr. Lessard inspected the site. It was the
consensus of the Board that the right-of-way be extended through Lot
No. 4 tothe property line abutting the land of John and Anne Elak and
that leaching basins be installed onthe end of the head wall so that
the runoff will not cross the lot and drain into the creek. It was
also discussed that if the calculation of runoff could be obtained from
the farmland this information may he helpful in providing adequate drainage
for the right-of-way and site. Measures should be taken during and immediately
after construction on each lot to insure that eroded soil and other deleterious
materials will no~ he carreid into the marsh.
On a motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Ward, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planing Board grant a 90-day extension
on the filng of the final application for the major subdivision to be
known as "Charles Acres" located at Peconic, ( to expire 90-days from
the date of this resolution) pursuant to the request of the applicant
in order to receive Health Department Approval.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards, Latham
Plann.ng Board Page 16 5/11/87
On a ~ot.on made by Mr. Latham, seconded by Mr. Mullen, it was
RESOL 'ED that the Southold Town Planning Board accept and request compliance
with he access road report from Inspector John W. Davis, report No.
584, 'itnregard to the access road improvements on the right-of-way within
the m no subdivision for John Sepenoski, located at Peconic.
Vote ~f ~he Board: Ayes: 0rlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards, Latham
Sal P~at0 site plan
located at Greenport
The B~a ] reviewed this site plan for construction of an electrical contractor's
shop Lo. ~ted at Kerwin Boulevard, Greenport. Mr. Bryer stated that he
had i~s ~cted the site and saw a potential problem with regard to the
wetla~d] and fill which was prcpsoed on the site. Mr. Bryer stated that
plant s' ~cies are questionable with regard to the wetland and the limit
of th~ £11. It was noted that the plan had been certified by the Building
Depar:me~t. It was the consensus of the Board to request that the Town
Trust~es and Conservation Advisory Council inspect the site and the applicant
will ~e ~sked to stake were the fill will be placed.
On a
RESOL
with l
impro~
MacKe~
Vote
On a
RESOL
James
feet
Vote
~otion made byMr. Latham, seconded by Mr. Ward, it was
~ED that the S0uthold Town Planning Board accept and request compliance
inspector John W. Davis' report No. 585 with regard to the required
~ements on the access road within the proposed minor subdivisionfor
~zie, Ram Realty, Pelusolocated at Orient.
~f the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards, Latham
~otionmade by Mr. Latham, seconded by Mr. Ward, it was
~ED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the set off of
E. Cross located at Main Road, Cutchogue to set off 78,508 square
'rom 28.458 acres, survey dated as mapped April 3, 1986, subject:
1. Approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services,
pursuant to Article 6.
2. Review and consideration of the comments from the Suffolk
County Planning Commission.
f the Board~ Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards, Latham
Pudg~ Corp - It was the consensus of the Board to set this new proposal
for ~ field inspection. This is for 3 lots on 6 acres, 1 lot in the
B zone, located at County Route 48, Southold. Mr. William F. Mullen,
Jr., abstained from any discussion' since he has a working relationship
withthe applicant.
Plann~
Helmu~
subdi'
Mr.
reque~
Plann~
48, PI
subjel
they
a lan
parce[
to
Mr. Wi
if a ~
of no~
Mr. 0~
the 14
It is~
way s~
parcel
of wa
the ~
know.
Mr. Wi
Mr. L~
Mr. O~
Valer~
wek o~
have
that
The p
and w~
givinl
overr~
Mr. L~
Mr. W~
Mr. O~
is mo:
and h~
do%rfl .
being
Ms. S~
a mem,
ng Board Page 17 5/11/87
Hass -
'ision at Peconic
'lowski: Okay, next we have Helmut Hass, Board to consider the
~t of the attorney for the applicant to override the Suffolk County
~ng Commission with regard to this set off located at County Route
~conic. Okay, Suffolk County Planning has resolved to disapprove
~t to the following creation of a subdivision with substandard lots,
~ave the variance, for subdivision will result in the creation of
[locked parcel services by a right-of-way. Creation of a landlocked
· puts the Zoning Board of Appeals in an awkward position of having
Lnt a building permit for a lot under Sectin 280-a.
~rd: Just in answer to the one question of landlocked parcels,
!lag lot had been made, the comment would go away. They are concerned
having actual property on the road.
lowski: In the past and since I have been here we have always serviced
,ts in the subdivision with a right of way over the existing property.
~reating problems because the assessors are taking the right of
.nce it is a separate piece and picking it up as a single and separate
I know this very well, because I am fighting to get my right
' back. And, what Mr. Ward has said doing it withflag lots is probably
,st practical way, but in this case, being so narrow, a lot, I don't
Lrd: It could go with 10 or 15' it would be minimal
~ssard: I thought we always frowned on flag lots.
· lowski: We did, but we ran into all kinds of problems and now that
.e is here we will be reviewing that with our attorney in the next
· so. I don't have a letter stating that we override these. I
~he last letter, my clients pending application simply requests
~oard legalize what has been in continuing existance since 1968.
~rcel in question has existing access over County Route and is not
_11 not be landlocked since ther is an existing circular right-of-way
access to and from the highway. That is still not a request to
_de the Planning Commission.
~ssard: Is there going to be anything created behind this lot?
Lrd: It is a 290' right-of-way.
~lowski: Servicing one house it would be simple, a right of way
~e favorable with maintaince by four people rather than flag lots
Lving four roads going to one parcel. But, it does create a problem
tt the assessors office and what is happening is alot of these are
abandoned and going for tax sale.
~opaz: If the Board would like, I could research this and submit
to the Board or report with regard to the two options.
Mr. O~lowski: That would be good and the letter from the attorney must
Ptann:
speci:
On ~
RESOL
with
road :
Kings
Vote
Bein
by Mr
adj ou!
IRECEIV
THE SOU
DATE I-I,
_ng Board Page 18 5/11/87
~ically request that the board override the County.
otion made by Mr. Latham, seconded by Mr. Edwards, it was
~ED that the Southold Town Planing Board accept and requst compliance
inspector John W. Davis' report No. 589 with regard to the access
.mprovements for the access road Within the minor subdivision of
Bay Partners located at Orient.
,f the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards, Latham
no further business to come before the Board, on a motion made
Mullen, seconded by Mr. Orlowski, and carried, the meeting was
· ned at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~D TOWN CLERK
Diane M. Schultze, Secretary
Southold Town Planning Board
Town Town