Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-06/15/1987Southold, N.Y. 11971 (5~6) 765-19~8 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 15, 1987 The Southold Town Planning Board held a regular meeting on Monday, June 15, 1987 at 7;30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold. Presen't were: Chairman Bennett Orlowski,Jr. Member William F. Mullen, Jr. Member G. Ritchie Latham, Jr. Member Kenneth Edwards Town Planner Valerie Scopaz Planning Consultant David Emilita Executive Administrator Victor Lessard Planning Intern Melissa Spiro Planning Board Secretary Diane M. Schultze Absent: Member Richard G. Ward 7:30 p.m. Public hearing on the question of approval of the minor subdivision of Sal'and / San Andres, located at Main Road, Laurel for 4 lots on 22 acres. (tax map no. 1000-125-1-2.9) Mr. Orlow~ki: I will call this meeting to order, the first order of business is a public hearing on the question of approval ?f the minor subdivision of Saland / San Andres located at Main Road, Laurel for 4 lots on 22 acres. We have proof of publication i~he Suffolk Times, signed by Richard Williams and notorized by Mary Deegnan, and we have proof of publication in the Long Island Traveler Watchma~ signed by Pat Woods and notorized by Barbara Forbes. At this time, everything is in order for a public hearing and I will ask if there are any objections to this minor subdivision. Hearing none, are there any endorsements of this m~nor subdivision? Planning Board Page 2 6/15/87 Mr. Saland: i would just like to thank the Board for their cooperation and I can answer any questions you might have on it. Mr. Orlowski: Okay, are there any other endorsements of this subdivision? Hearing none, any one out there neither pro nor con but with information pertaining to this that would be of interest to the Board? Hearing none, any questions from the Board; Mr. Mullen (none); Mr. latham, (none); Mr. Edwards, (none); Mr. Emilita (none); Ms. $copaz (none); Okay, being no further questions, I will declare this hearing closed and thank you for coming down. On a motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Latham, it was RESOLVED that the Southoid Town Planning Board set Monday, July 6, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. at the southold Town Hall as the time and place for the next regular Planning Board meeting. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski,Mullen, Latham, Edwards On a motion made by Mr. Latham, seconded by Mr. Mullen, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the minutes of the regular Planning Board meeting of October 20, 198S. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski,Mullen, Latham, Edwards On a motion amde byMr.Mullen, seconded by Mr. Edwards, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the minutes of the regular Planning Board meeting of June 1, 1987. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski,Mullen, Latham, Edwards 7:45 p.m. Re-convened public hearing on the question of approve of the minor subdivision of Raeburn-Murphy located off a right-of-way from Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. Mr.~Orlowski: At this time, 7:45 p.m., I will re-convene a public hearing on the question of approval of the minor subdivision for Raeburn-Murphy located off a right-of-way from Bridge Lane, Cutchogue, recessed from June 1. I will go back to where I was and ask if there are any objections to this subdivision. (none) Are there any endorsements to this minor subdivision? Planning Board Page 3 6/15/87 Mr: Brue~: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, Rudolph Bruer, I guess I would just like to save the Board some time and re-itterate my letter to the Board of April 14, 1987 wherein I requested the application, and I endorse, that letter again and ask that the application be granted as applied for. Thank you very much. Mr. Orlowski: Okay. Are there any other endoresements of this subdivision? Is there anyone out there neither pro nor con but withtinformation pertaining to this subdivision which would be of interest to the Board? Ms. Scopaz: Mr. Chairman, has information come in with regard to the right-of-way which was asked for. Mr. Orlowski: Other than what Mr. Bruer already submitted. Ms. Scopaz: If I recall correctly at the last meeting there was a request for information about the right-of-way situation. Mr. Bruer: I think that might have had to do',with Mr. Angel. MS. Scopaz: is my recollection correct? Mr. Bruer :Not really. Ms. Scopaz: There was information with regard to the existing right-of-way as opposed to the proposed right-of-way. Mr. Bruer: The existing right-of-way, if I understand correctly, that is being used is a right-of-way that meanders over two or three different propoerties and there is a family there upon whose property it has meandered has objected to it. Now, Chicago Title has indicated to me, I don't know how many times, that there is an insurable right-of-way assuming that it is properly installed in place. The Zoning Board of Appels has granted a 28G-a access to the property immediatly to the east of Becky Johnson on the proviso that the right of way.is properly installed in its proper place so there is a proper right of way for access to the property and I have gone to great lengths to speak to a Thomas Shea who is a consellor to Chicago Title and they definetly are insuring the access to the property. It just has to be in the right Place. The road way as I said has to be moved and to the best of my understanding Ms. Johnson is doing that and has it staked and so on and so forth. Ms. Scopaz: I thought that a copy of the location of the right-of,way was supposed to be submitted for the Board. Mr. B ruer: I don't known if they have or not, I don't know if it is relevant in that I don't know if it is the position of the Board to get involved in title questions. Mr. Lessard: It is my understanding that it is on paper only Planning Board Page 4 6/15/87 Mr. Lessard: at the present time. Mr. Bruer: The Becky Johnson right-of-way is a right-of-way that extends from the existing right-of-way that the Raeburn and Murphy piece, and I forget the other gentlemen's name, and they have an additional.., the problem with the Johnson property is that the right-of- way stopped at a marker and they had to negotiate with the Bokina family for an additioal right-of-way so that they had and that i understand is on paper only Mr. Lessard: The north/south from Oregon Road it has to be physically put in Mr. Bruer: It has to be physically put in, that is true. Mr. Lessard: The only thing existing now is the fact that it goes to the west. Mr. Bruer: There is a road way and it meanders around the right-of-way that is on paper and the one that is on paper is the one that the Bokina's want and rightfully so. Mr. Orlowski: You have access over the one to the East. Mr. Bruer: Chicago is insuring my client that they have it, and they have insured the other property immediately to the west of which there is a house, minor subdivision which I think the Board is aware of. A mortgage given by a bank on it and the person has paid a lot of money for the property,and he believes he has it too. And, nobody has denied him the access and it is the same right-of-way, and it is the same p~operty. And, the right-of-way does come from the Baxter, it comes from two particular sales, the Baxter sale and another one. Mr. Orlowski: So, the Bokina right-of-way, actually going up is not going to be used. Just the Baxter right-of-way which is being used right now. Mr. Bruer: Well, i don't think that you are using the proper terms. There is a right-of-way from ORegon Road to the property and it goes over the Bokina property, but there is a very defined, it goes straight up, actually it is a right-of'way up to the Sound and it is a right-of-way over the property over the South of this property not quite to the Johnson piece it goes, if you look at this map, that you have here for the subdivision it shows you were the right-of-way goes, at that point where the right-of-way goes into the Raebrun piect that is where it stops as far as the Johnson piece. But, it goes to thatpoint. Mr. Orlowski: Alright, I believe we re-convened this hearing be Mr. Angel and Ms.Murphy had some questions. I don't see them here tonight or anyone representing them. Planning Board Page 5 6/15/87 Mr. Bruer: Mr. Chairman, all I can say is Mrs. Moore of my office has advised me that late this afternoon, approximately 5:00 p.m. Mr. Angel returned my call and said that if anything he would ]oin in the application. I have not spoken to him so I don't know and that is all I can say. Mr. Orlowski: We can take you r word for that. Mrs. Moore: That is what he told me. Mr. Orlowski: Okay. Any questions from the Board, Mr. Mullen, (none); Mr. Latham (none); Mr. Edwards (none); Mr~ Emilita (close it); Ms. Scopaz (none). Okay, being no further questions I will declare this hearing closed and thank you for coming down. **Mr. Angel, Esq. arrived at the meeting at approximately 8:45 p.m., the time which he believed the public hearing to be. The Secretary advised Mr. Angel that the Board had closed the hearing; however, Mr. Bruer noted that Mr. Angel would join in the applicatio~ if anything. Mr. Angel stated that he had no objections to the application and asked that the record be noted as such. Mr. Angel represents Mrs. Murphy one of the landowners in the application. On a motion made by Mr. Latham, seconded by Mr. Mullen, it was RESOLVED that whereas, a formal application for the approval of a subdivision plat entitled "Reydon Court" located at Southold (tax map no.1000 - 79-5-16) was submitted to the Planning Board on October 24, 1986 , and the application fee was submitted on October 23, 1986 and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held onsaid subdivision application and plat at the Town Hall, Southold, New York, on Monday, May 11, 1987 at 7:45 p.m., and WHEREAS, the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met by said subdivision plat and application, NOW, therefore, be itRESOLVED that the application.off. Daniel Marcucci for approval of said Subdivision plat prepared by Howard Young and last dated March 12, 1987, be approved and the Chairman be authorized to endorse approval on said subdivision plat, subject to the following conditions within six months from the date of the resolution: 1. Payment of the inspection fee, 5% of the approved bond estimate in the amount of $65,000. 2. Receipt_and acceptance of the performance.~bond,~ letter of credit or passbook in the amoun~ of $65,000 by the Town Board. Planning Board Page 6 6/15/87 3. Filing of the covenants and restrictions as approved by Town Attorney, Francis Yakaboski, Esq., with the Office of the County Clerk and submitting a certified copy of same to the Planning Board Office. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski,Muilen, Latham, Edwards On a motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Latham, it was RESOLVED that whereas, a formal application for the approval of a subdivision plat entitled "Ana G. Stillo" located at Orient, tax map no. 1000-14-2-26 was submitted to the Planning Board on April 20, 1987 and filing fee of S550 was also submitted on April 20, 1987, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on said subdivison application and plat at the Town Hall, Southold, New York on June 1, 1987 at 7:30 p.m., and WHEREAS, the requirements of the Subdivi~on Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met by said subdivision plat and application, NOW, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the application of Aha G. Stillo for approval of said subdivision plat prepared by Rod Van Tuyl, and last dated January 29, 1987, be approved and the Chairman be authorized to endorse approval on said subdivision plat, subject to the following conditions within six months from the date of this resolution: 1. Receipt and compliance with the resolution of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. 2. Notice of completion and approval of the access road i~provements as_per the Board of Appeals decsion of April 2, 1987. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski,Mullen, Latham, Edwards Winds Way Building Corp.- The Board held action on this proposed minor subdivision located at New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue subject to a submission and review of drainage plans as requested. Mr. and Mrs. Carmnie DiSpirito were present to discuss the site plan approval with condition of June 1, 1987. ~Mr. DiSpirito has submitted photographs to the Building Department which were in the file for the Planning Board review. On Ju~e 1, 1987 the Planning Board had conditionally approved the site plan for a two family dwelling at Young's Avenue, Southold with a 10' buffer for plantings. Mr. DiSpirito explained to the Board why he feld that this request should be amended. Planning Board Page 7 6/15/87 Mr. DiSpirto explained %hat he had no notice of the conditions which the Board were considering for the June 1, resolution. Mr. DiSpirto stated that an application for a one-family house would be permitte~ on this parcel without any need for. an application to either the Planning Board or the Board of Appeals, however, he choose to apply for a two - family. He further explained that with a one-family house there would be no request for screening and he resented the thinking that because he is building a two-family instead of a one-family home it will be an eyesore to the community and will require screening. He explained that this will be his families home as well. Mr. DiSpirito had submitted photographs for the Board's review with leggl two-familiy homes from Western Suffolk for the Board t9 get an idea of how a two - family would look. Mr. DiSpi~ito stated that he would incorporate the ideas of these home~ with his own and build something that he felt would not be an eyesore. The other photographs submitted indicated the existing screening on the properties adjacent to his. Mr. DiSpirto also stated that due to the elevation,on the properties, any screening would not do much anyway. Mr. DiSpirto s~ated that in the furture he would landscape the property, however, he wished to do that at his own discretion. He also felt that two-family was a benefit to the community since ~t provided housing for people and was larger than an apartment yet did not require that people actually own the land a~d maintain same which could be costly. The Board concurred wit~ Mr. DiSpirito's request and reasoning. On a motion made by Mr./Mullen, seconded by Mr. Edwards, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board amend the conditional resolution Of approval of June 1, 1987 for the site plan proposal for Carmine and DonnaMarie DiSpirito to delete the condition requesting tb_~at a landscape plan indicating a 10' buffer from the e~isting houses be submitted. The amended resolution will now rea~ as follows: "RESOLVED that th~ Southold Town Planning ~oard approve the site plan for Carmine and Donna Marie DiSpiri~o for construction of a two-family dwelling located at Young's Avenue, Southold, site plan survey dated as amended May 4, 1987, (tax map no. 1000-55-2-p/o 1)" Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski,Mullen, Latham, Edwards Mr. DiSpirito expressed his thanks to Victor Lessard, Executive Administrator, to has helped him with this project. Zahra/Tabor Site Plan (tax map no. 1000-140-3-4) - Mrs. Pat Moore, Esq. was present for the Board's review of this site plan. This w~s not on the scheduled agenda, however, Mrs. Moore requested that the Board review this. Mrs. Moore stated that she had submitted an application to the Board for Mary Tabor who is proposing an under three-hour day care Plan~ing Board Page 8 6/15/87 on PSke Street in Mattituck. She stated that initially she had gone to the Building Department and it was determined that Planning Board approval would be require~, the property is in a B zone. Mrs. Moore stated that the facility would be a day care,nursery facility, howover, the code right now does not allow for or specifically define nursery/day care center or even something similiar that could fit this catagory. Mrs. Moore stated that she believes personal service is tha closest and most general definition that this use could fall under. This use is permitted in a business zone, and Mrs. Moore stated that she had hoped to get the Board to agree with this. She stated that this is a service provided to families who need someone to care for their children. She stated that the code does not anticipate someone not being able to do something with their property, common law allows you to do anything with your property and zoning restricts that, however, there are cases that are currently coming out that if the code does not specifically include a use it is not excluded. Therefore, Mrs. Moore felt that just because a use is not specifically excluded or does not fit into one of the sections in the zoning, this does not mean that it is not permitted in the code. Mrs.Moore asked that the Board make, on their own motion, a request to the Zoning Board to tell which classification this falls under and she requested~that this be done on the Board's own motion so that a decision could be made on the determination of which catagory this falls under in a timely fashion. Mrs. Moore felt that with the Board of Appeal'S interpertation the Planning Board can be directed to approve or deny this application. Mr. Orlowski stated that the Planning Board will have to consult with counsel prior to any decision. Mr. Orlowski felt that the Board did not have any objection to the application as it is proposed, however, it was now known how the Board could handle this proposal with the existing zoning. Mr. Orlowski questioned if this could be classified as a school and Mrs. Moore stated that it wouldn't ~a~under therequirements of a school, it is in a sense a babysitting services. Mrs. Moore explained that this does not fall under the social services law which is a requirement of a school which goes more than three hours. Mrs. Moore stated that this will be for pre-school children who will be cared for for under three hours. Mr. Orlowski stated that this can start as a day care and then be expanded and the Board did not want to have any problems with regard to this. It was the consensus of the Board to refer to counsel and advise Mrs. Moore upon receipt of legal advice. The Breakers at Lands End (tax map no. 1000- 35-1-25): Mr. Henry E. Radnor, Jr. as agent, and Mr. Steve Hyman, project engineer were present for the Board's review and discussion of this proposal for 350 condominium unitS located at Greenport. Planning Board Page 9 6/15/87~ Mr. Emilita, Planning Consultant, requested information with regard to how the drainage system for this project is going to work, beginning with the diagram of the storage summary for pond system. Mr. Emilita's specific question begins with pond F leading into pond E, etc which builds up an increasing deficiet in storage. Mr. Hyman explained that the Town code requires storage from a6" rainfall, and pond F is for tributary area F, pond F is the most upstream~pond. This pond cannot store 6" The normal water level of the pond is the water level of the pond when there is no rain. Mr. Hyman explained that if it starts to rain there is an overflow structure so if it rained lightly it would go into the structure and into the drywell. As soon as the capacity of the drywell becomes exceeded the water level increases in the pond up to the high water level so the storeage that we are providing is between the normal and the high. At the high water level it is used~up-so that the overflow structure would empty into the next downstream pond. Mr. Hyman stated that more drainage is provided than is required and ai1 the deficiets are made up. ME. Hyman stated that this is for all drainage of the site except roof~area. Mr. Hyman stated that the roof drainage was based on a 2" rainfall which Mr. Emilita questioned. Mr Hyman stated that for any dry wells designed in any other Town he has based it on'.2" rainfall storage. Mr. Emilita questioned what would happen if we get a 6" rain onthe roof. Mr. Hyman stated that in the case the dry wells would be over taxed. Mr. Emitita stated that a,six inch rainfall should be expected to fall uniformly across the site. Mr. Emilita also questioned the ponds proposed and the existing pond which is to be deepened and widened, and what would be done With the excess material. Mr. Hyman stated that the applican'ts attorney, Mr. Lark, had spoken to Mr. Lessard with regard, and Mr. Hyman did not know what the applicant was proposing to do with the excess fill. Mr. Raynor addressed this question be answering that~the excess fill will be stockpiled and eventually be used onsite and with a permit from the Town will be trucked off site. Mr. Emilita questioned if there will be a provision for the containment of the stockpiled fill. Mr. Raynor staed that since the project will be done in phaSes the fill will be stockpiled in the latter phases until such time as will be used and self-contained on site. Mr. Emilita also questioned if a construction staging plan was submitted and how this would corresond~with.the site plan and marketing plan for the proposal. Mr. Raynor stated that this will not relate to marketing since this is subject tothe economy, however, the construction relates to the contract agreementwith the Village of Greeport for water and sewer. Mr. Emilita stated ~ha,~ this did not answer the concern with regard to final disposition and management during the construction stages. Mr. Emilita stated that he would like to have the Board consider this issue be final approval of this plan. Mr. Raynor stated that he felt that this would come under the jurisdiction of the Building Department at the time of permit with that department and would be not of importance at this time. Mr. Emilita, as well as, Valerie Scopaz, expressed concern with regard to Planning Board Page 10 6/15/87 the scenic easement agreement and the construction of ponds within that area, since this would mean that there is a disturbance of the terrain within the easement area. Mr. Hyman addressed the Chairman at this time and advised that he designed the roof drainage at 2" rainfall because that was what was discussed with the Board at previous meetings. Mr. Hyman stated that the 6" roof runoff could have been addressed in the ponds if that is what the Board had asked for, however, Mr. Hyman recalled that it was agreed not to since putting it into dr~wells would eliminate freezing in the winter. Mr. Orlowski stated that the Board felt that a drainage problem was apparent on the plan. No one in the Town, except for Mr.~ Emilita, really had the expertise to review this plan for drainage and the chairman did not want to endorse the plan if the drainage was incorrect. He stated that there is no provision for inspection fees to send an inspector our for inspections. The Board stated that they wanted to proceed cautiously with this proposal since it is the largest project in the Town. Mr. Orlowski questioned._if the applicant is willing to pay for inspections and review by an engineer. Mr. Raynor stated that this is not unreasonable. Mr. Orlowski stated that what the applicant has paid forinspections ($5000) will not be sufficient for the review which will be required. Mr~Ortowski stated that he was concerned and did not what to sign a map which had obvious~draiage problems. Mr. Raynor stated that there will be considerable inspections onsite when the prgject is started. Mr. Raynor stated that the 100' set back was discussed and it was decided that there would be no building in this area, no foundations wo~ld be constructed and it was stipulated that the~grade will toed away from the bluff. Mr. Raynor stated that for reasonable and ordinary expenses to protect the Town he did not see a problem for payment af inspection fee payment~ however, bonding would be a very time~consuming process. On a motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Latham, it was RESOVLED that'the Southold Town Planning Board obtain an estimate from lan engineer to review and give necessary input and advise the applicant~to, fund it accordingly so the project can move along in a professional manner. Discussion on the motion: Mr. Raynor stated that there was no problem with this, however, in order the adequately fund a project of this size, a signed site plan is needed. The applicant wiltnot be in a positin to go forward with what the Baord needs unless they have a proper instrument to bring to financial institutions. Mr. Raynor stated that that requires a signature on the part of the Board. Mr. Raynor stated that he saw no obejctions to the payment of inspection fees to protect~the Town for a reasonable and ordinary amount, however, he did see a problem if this delayed the signature on the map. Planing Board Page 11 6/15/87 8:30 p.m. On a motion'made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Latham, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board recess to executive session to confer with counsel with regard to possible litigation. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski,Mullei Latham, Edwards 9:00 p.m. On amotion~made by Mr. Mulien, seconded by Mr. Latham, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning ~regular meeting following the executive Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski,Mullen TheChairman read a proposed resolution Board re-convene the session. Latham, Edwards ~th regard to the Site Plan for the Breakers at Lands to Mr. Raynor for his consideration. The resolution is as follows, to wit: "RESOLVED that the site plan of the Breakers at Lands End be approved subject to a final review and continuing inspection by an ingineer or con'sulting firm to be appointed by the Pllanning Board of the Town of Southold and with the further proviso that the Planning Board, under the offices of its site plan review authority shall have the right to continue to review the project during its construction phase with the engineering and consulting fees for such proviso to be born by the applicant and subject to the further proviso that dry wells or other drainage facilities shallnot be placed or constructed within 100' of the buffer zone as skown on the site plan." Mr. Orlowski stated that the Board was intending to have an engineer review the project as it is under construction and as it is now. Mr. Raynor stated that there was nothing in this resolution which indicated that the Chairman would endorse the site plan. Mr. Orlowski stated that the site plan would be signed after review by the engineer, which could happen in the near furture. Mr. Raynor requested that he be allowed time to discuss the matter with counsel. See further discussion ~on 'Page 15. Cliffside Associates/Tide Markc (tax map no. 1000-45-1-1): On a motion made by Mr. Latham, seconded by Mr. Mullen, the following action was taken: Planning Board Page 12 6/15/87 Notice of significant effect on the environment Pursuant to the proVisiOns of Aticle 8 of the ENvironmental conservation Law, Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, the Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency, does hereby determine that the action described below is Unlisted and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION.OF~ACTION: This proposal is for 76 motel units located at County Route 48, Greenport, tax map no. 1000-45-1-1. The proposal is to be known as Tide Mark, principals are "Cliffside Assoicates". RESASONS SUPPORTING THIS DETER~INATION: (Dee also Positive declaration declared by ZBA for previous proposal Which has been revised) -i.~ A complete traffic study is necessary to properly assess the impacts at Route 25 and Chapel Lane, traffic safety and flow, and visibility of oncoming traffic from either a westerly direction or easterly direction within the "s-turns" along Route 25 (particularly at the highest spped permitted by law in this area). 2. A complete study is necessary as to the effects on the Long Island Sound due to soil erosion, alteration of surface drainage and water runoff caused by new construction, regarding and new roads. 3. A complete study is necesssary as to the impact of this new constructin, its disruptive effects on the neighborhood (including but not limited to nearby residences and existig nursing home residences); 4. A complete study is necessary as to the effects of the quality of ground waterwit~ water source such as a public water system with the Village of Greenport. 5. A complete study ~s necessary as to the effects of the quality of drinking ground water, pollution and the .surrounding environment by this project. 6.There is concern with regard to the bluff and beach which must be protected during and after construction. It is hereby requested that the applicant and/or his agent furnish our department as lead agency witha-Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in accordance with . theNYS DEpartment of Envirionmental Coservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Town Code ~ · ~ Planning Board Page 13 6/15/87 Further information may be obtained by contacting Dian~3 M. Schultze, Secretary, Southold Town Planning Board, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski,Mullen, Latham, Edwards On a motion made by Mr. Latham, seconded by Mr. Mullen, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board accept and request compliance with the memorandum from Planninq Consultant, David Emilita, of Szepatowski Associates, dated May 27, 1987 with regard to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted for the proposal of "Cliffside~Associates. / Tidemark. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski,Mullen, Latham, Edwards On a motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Latham, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board accept and request compliance with the correspondence from Highway Superintendent, Raymond L. Jacobs, dated May 27, 1987 with regard to the drainage for the major subdivision of James Cohill, located at Mattituck, tax map no .1000-107-1-2. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski,Mullen, Latham, Edwards Franis F. Adams (tax map no. 1000-3-3-3.~- Mr. Thomas McVann, Esq. was present to discuss this application to the Board for a lot line change located at Fishers Island. Mr. McVann explained why he was again coming before the Board for a lot line change on the property when the Board had previously granted a lot line change in December 1986. Mr. McVann stated that the property was under acontract of sale which is still pending and the contract vendee visited the property with the architect and they came to the conclusion of how they really wanted to develope the property. Mr. McVann submitted a copy of the rendering by the architect for the proposed residence to Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards questioned the proposed tennis court which is shown on Lot No. 1, and why they did not just eliminate that lot line and make one large parcel. Mr. McVann stated that it is three homesites under the Olmstead Plan'and the contract vendee, Mr. O~Brien, wishes to keep the estate and make it conform to zoning as well. Mr. McVann also explained that a gate house will be constructed on the lot with the tennis court, but Mr. McVann was proposing that his client keep the lots conforming with the zoning to avoid problems in the future. Mr. Edward stated that the east end of the Island is zoned for three-acre residential lots under the Master Plan and Zoning.Map update. Mr. Edwards recommended Planning Board Page 14 6/15~87 that the lots be made to conform to this zoning since it is close to being adopted. Mr. Edwards also noted that the previous lot line change which the Board approved in 1986 left all of the lots very close to three acres and now this proposal reduces lot no. 1 to just over two acres. Mr. McVan~ zoning an( it is not Mr. McVanI Mr. Edwar( than exis~ any actioi stated th~ Mr. McVan~ Conservat~ locatiOn~¢ Building was the c¢ for furthE stated that this would conform to ~the existing he was not aware of the proposed zoning, however, his client's intent to create any undersized lots. . stated that the lots are still large, however, is was concerned with the creation.~of lots 19ss .ing. Mr. Edwards recommended that the Board hold · on this prposal until further review. Mr. Edwards .t he is considering the future zoning of the Island. · stated that he had received Department of Envirionmental .on, DEC, approval and the DEC had approved the f the residences. Mr. McVann had also received ,epartment approval for the proposal. It was ~nsensus of the Board to hold~!this application r review. Local Law to Establish a Landmark Preservation Commission - The Board reviewed t~is proposed Local Law with regard to establishing a landmark preservation commission and noted that the Town Board had requested that the Planning Board refer their comments on this. Mr. Ortowski stated that he felt that the program should be voluntary and he felt that the criteria was too strict. Mr. Orlowski felt that the other Boardmembers should also review the law and submit their comments and it was the consensus of the Board to hold any recommendations until all of the members have given input. Frank Sawicki (tax map no. 1000-15-3-12.1): This proposal for a minor subdivision located at County Route 48, Southold was also pending before the Board of Appeals for insufficient lot width. This matter was to go'before the Board of Appeals June 18 for a public hearing. The Planning Board had no input at this time since the variance application for the insufficient width is the jurisdiction of the Board of Appeals and the Board had no other co~mments with regard to layout at this time. Samuel K.C.KoRper(tax map no. 1000-86-4-1.2) : Mr. Kopper appeared before to discuss this set off proposal located at Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, specifically wi!th regard to the access road improvements and approval which was a condition of approval of the set off. Mr. Will:iam F. Mullen,Jr., Boardmember, abstained from any discuslsion with regard to this since he is related to a potential buyer Planni] of one the Pi~ improw Kopper is too way alt this ml in the be hir( the Chi also st for ac( policy, Mr. Ko~ submit review on the was per Breake~ Continu Mr. Hen Lg Board Page 15 6/15/87 of the lots. The Chairman noted that Mr. Davlis and Lnning Board had requested that the right-of-way be ~d to a width of 15' for access to the lots. Mr. stated that the requirement for 15' with 3' shoulders stringent and that his prospective buyers feel this :o. He stated that he was very anxious to finalize ~tter and requested that the Board consider a reduction road width. Mr. Kopper also questioned who would ~d to do the road profile which was requested and ~irman advised the surveyor would do this. Mr. Orlowski ~ated that the Board has never varied from a 15' width ~ess roads. Mr. Latham stated that this is the Board's and they cannot vary from that. Mr. Orlowski advised ,per to have his surveyor prepare a road profile and it to the Board who would have Mr. John W. Davis it. Mr. Kopper also brought the Board up-to-date status of the Health Department application which .ding. s at Lands End: Fy E. Raynor, Jr. came back into the Board after discussing the proposed Board resolution with the applicant's attorney. Mr. Raynor stated that counsel had advised him that they should not go forward with the Board's proposed resolution at this time. Mr. Raynor stated that the attorney was concerned with the fact that the resolution did not specify a time to obtain the engineering review and no specific dollar amount of payment indicated. Mr. Raynor also stated that the attorney was concerned because the resolution does not guarantee the the chairman would endorse the survey, and without that the applicant can not go ahead with getting the necessaryfunding. Mr. Orlowski stated that the Board would not take any action on this tonight, but would schedule a meeting with the applicants to discuss this. Mr. Raynor thanked the efforst of the Board and concurred that a meeting scheduled in the near future with attorneys for all sides would be the best way to handle this. It was the consensus of the Board to schedule a meeting on this matter prior to any further action. Being no further business to come befor~e~.~t~e~,J~o~k~.d,_~n motion ma e ,atham, seconded the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. ResDect full~ ~ /~ ~ ~ ~~n~s~~rY Bennett Orlows~i%- J~ 'Chairman