Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-08/31/1981HENRY E. RAYNOR. Jr. Chairman JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI. Jr. GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM. Jr. William F. Mullen, Jr. Southold, N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE 765- 1938 A regular meeting o~ ~he Southold Town Planning Board was held at 7:30 p.m., Monday, August 31, 1981, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Present were: Chairman Henry E. Raynor, Jr. Member GJ~Ritchie Latham, Jr. Member William F. Mullen, Jr. Member Bennett Orlowski, Jr. 7:30 p.m. Public Hearing on the question of the approval of the minor subdivision of Paradise Point Corporation located at Southold. Present was William Smith, acting agent for Mr. Schuddy and M'r. Hallenbeck, part of the Corporation. Mr. Raynor read the legal notice of hearing and presented proof of publication in the Suffolk Times. Mr. Raynor: In reviewing the files, we have the following items: Number one, receipt from town clerks office in the amount of filing fee of $100.00, correspondence from this board approving the sketch plan of the minor subdivision set this evening as the time, his metes and bounds description, correspondence from both the applicant's broker and from the building inspector, short environmental assess- ment form pertaining to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, statement concerning no grading, new road construction, new drainage structures to be forth coming, application for the approval of the pl~t, notice of legal hearing. There are no letters from the Super- intendent~of Highway as this subdivision requires no new extension of town roads or services. As is the policy of this board, we will ask this evening if anyone would like to speak in opposition to this proposed subdivision entitled Paradise Point Corporation? Hearing ~ none, Is there anyone present who would like to speak in favor of this proposed subdivision entitled Paradise Point Corporation? Mr. William Smith: I am acting as agent for the Paradise Point Corporation and Mr. Schuddy and Hall~nbeck, part of the Corporation and anyone not familiar with it, the four parcels-.we are talking about are only going to be added to final map lots that were do~e in the past, in fact 1967, I believe. These four lots will have this extension added to them but, there can only be buildings on the filed maps that are up in the woodlands and will be below that. That is what the owners have agreed tc, and that is what. we are here for, I believe. (2) August 31. ~Jdl Mr. Raynor: Thank you Mr. Smith. Is there anyone else present this evening who would like to speak in favor of this proposed subdivision? Hearing none, what Mr. Smith has said actually ties up an excess of 10 acres of prime wetlands, so that. is one more step in the fact that we have been able to preserve what is down and I think.this type of subdivision pretty well speaks for itself. Whatever the determination of the board, would be subject to the consideration of the Suffolk County Planning recommendations and subject to any recom- mendations from other agencies with State Environmental Quality Review Act. Is there anyone this evening who has any information per- taining to this subdivision that may be neither for nor against, but should be brought to the attention of this board at this time? Hearing none - Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, Mr. 0. rlowski, Do you have any questions? (Ail Negative) There being no further questions or comments from the.board, we will deem this hearing closed. Thank you gentlemen for coming down this evening. On motion made by Mr. Orlowski, seconded by Mr. Multen, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare itself lead agency in the matter of the minor subdivision of Paradise ~-6~-~-~_~-~.~.i.oD~ located at Southold under the State ~nviro~mental ~uality Review Act. An initial determination of non-significance has been made. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Raynor, Mullen, Latham, Orlowski On motion made by Mr. Latham, seconded by Mr. Mullen, it was RESOLVED to set 7:30 p.m., Monday, September 28, 1981 at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, as the time and place for ~3P3~lk~.won the question of the approval of the minor sub- division of Harold E. Tuthill. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Raynor, Mullen, Latham, Orlowski Smith, Carter, Blanchard Minor Subdivision request for a change of name from Richard A. and ~orthea E. Howard to. Richard A. and Martha Howard was tabled until next meeting , as the Fishers Island BQard membe~ was not present. On motion made by Mr. Latham, seconded by Mr. Mullen, it was RESOLVED to ap~r__ove the Nicolas Fontana minor subdivision, located in Mattituck, subject to the Suffolk County Planning recom- mendations. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Raynor, Mullen, Latham, Orlowski (3) August 31, 1981 7:45 p.m. Public Hearing on the question of the approval of the minor subdivision of Marie Cassidy, located at Arshamomaque, New York. Mr. Raynor read the legal notice of hearing and presented proof of publication in the Suffolk Times. Mr. Raynor: In review of this file, we have a notice of receipt from the Town Clerk's Office, in the amount of filing fee $100.00, we have a notice from the New York State Department Environmental Conservation on the basis of the information presented, above reference proposed appears that a permit be required by New York State Department Environmental Conservation law Article, 25, pro- posed therin, recommended that the ta~ section map be included in this lot, be submitted when this application be first made. The enclosed applications, questionare, Environmental Assessment Form, for preparation of a petition for permit, and it is signed by Robert N. Thurber for Donald J. Larkin, per Administrator. I also have in the folder an application for 'the approval of plat, short envoronmentai assessment from, statement.covering grading, road construction and drainage, transmittal of Suffolk County Department of Planning, correspondence from our board to New York State Depart- ment of Environmental Control, pertaining to SEQURA, correspondence from Suffolk County Department of Health Service: I am in receipt of your letter dated June 24, 1981, and we are in agreement with your determination of lead agency status. Due to the nature of the area, prior to commenting on the sanitary facilities, we would normally request a test well and test hole. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office., Royal R. Reynolds, Public Health Engineer, legal notice, metes and bounds description, correspondence setting resolution for tonights hearing. Again there is no town road con- struction proposed for this minor subdivision, ~there is no correspon- dence from Superintendent of Highway's office. It is a policy of this board on Public Hearings, we will ask if there is anyone present this evening who would like to speak in opposition to this proposed minor subdivision for Marie Cassidy? Hearing None, is there anyone present this evening who would like to speak in favor for the m&nor subdivision of Marie Cassidy? Hearing none, is there anyone presen~ this evening that has some information pertaining to this proposed subdivision, would you come before the board at this time. Hearing none, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham? (Nagative) Being no further questions, we will deem this hearing closed. (4)~ August 31, 19~t Penny and Johnson minor subdivision - Mr. Latham and Mr. Mullen gave a report on t~field inspection made on this property. It was noted that this major subdivision has been divided into two minor subdivisions. The lot plan for Mr. Penny is for 148 feet, rather %hat the required 150 feet, totaling just about a full acre on two of the lots. Their proposed plan will result in five lots rather that six. On motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Latham, it was RESOLVED that the minor subdivision entitled Robert Johnsc~D & George L. P__e. nny 1~, remain as proposed, with no fu~her subdivisions in the future on any of the parcels. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Raynor, Orlowski, Latham, Mullen On 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 Minor Subdivision of David A. Geula, was submitted to the Planning Board on March 31, 1981, and an application fee of $100.00 was paid on August 3, 1981, and WHEREAS a public hearing was held on the map of said subdivision at the Fishers Island School, Fishers Island, New York on August 12, 1981, 1:15 p.m., and WHEREAS, the requirments of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met by said subdivision plat and application, Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that, the application of David A. Geula for ~roval of said subdivision plat prepared by ~handler, Palmer & King be approved and the chairman be authorized to endorse approval on said subdivision plat. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Raynor, Orlowski, Latham, Mullen On motion made by Mr. Latham, seconded by Mr. Mullen, it was RESOLVED to amend the minutes of the meeting on Fishers Island that, a meeting width the Highway committee, the Superintendent of Highways, and the Southold Town Planning Board, it was the concensus that, there will be a waiver granted for the construction of blacktop in the width of 28 feet, on the subdivision entitled Honeysuckle Hills. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Raynor, Ortowski, Latham, Mullen On motion made by Mr. Latham, seconded by Mr. Mullen,~it was RESOLVED that on the basis of the Fishers Island Utility Co., minor subdivision having no objections to the Suf-~lk County Planning recommendations, that the chairman be authorized to endorse approval on said map. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Raynor, Mullen, Orlowski, Latham (5) August 31, 1~± 8:00 p.m. Public Hearing on the question of the approval of the min~ subdivision of Robert C. Nelson, Jr. located at Bayview, in Southold. Abigail Wickham represented th~ Goose Creek Lane Association. Mr. Cuddy represented Mr. and Mrs. Robert C. Nelson. Mr. Raynor: 8:00 p.m., public hearing, which was recessed on Fishers Island on the question of approval of the minor subdivision on Robert C. Nelson, located at Bayview. As this was erroneously set forward to be had on Fishers I~land, we had many people that requested that we recess this, which we did after reading through the metes and bounds description. As is the policy of this board we will ask it there is anyone . before I do that, let me do the file entirely. We did this on Fishers Island. I think it is incumbent that we do this again. We have a town clerk's receipt for Tooker, Essecks, Hefter, and Cuddy in the amount of $50.00, corres- pondence resetting this hearing for this time and place, proof of publication from Suffolk Times, that this was readvertised, corres- pondence from applicants attorney, application for the approval of pla% in duplicate, I have also, a deed to property, correspondence from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, with regard to State Environmental Q~ality Review Act: I am in receipt of your letter dated June 10, 1981. We are in agreement of your determination of lead agency status. Prior to commenting on the water supply of septic system, a test well and a determination from State DEC concerning wetlands would be necessary. Please do not hesitate to contact us. Royal R. Reynolds. We have a receipt from Suffolk County Department of Planninq. The Suffolk County Planning Commission at its regular meeting o~ August 5, 1981, reviewed the proposed subdivision plat entitled, Minor Subdivision, Robert C. Nelson, Jr., referred to it, pursuant to Section 1333 of the Suffolk County Charter. After~d~e study and deliberation it resolved to approve said map subject to the following six conditions listed necessary to help preserve the natural and aesthetic attributes of the waterways of Goose Creek: 1. No lot shall be changed in any manner unless so authorized by the Southold Town Planning Board. 2. Ail stormwater runoff created by the development and im- provement of this tract shall be retained within the site by adequate drainage structures and shall not be discharged directly into the waterways of Goose Creek. 3. No sanitary disposal facility shall be installed or con- structed within 100 feet of the waterways of Goose Creek. 4. No residential structures shall be located within 100 feet of the dredged canal bordering the northerly side of the parcel. 5. Approval of this subdivision shall be made subject to its meeting the requirements and standards of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. (7) August 31, 198~ Abigail Wickham con't, but, I wanted the Board to be aware of the conditions on that access because it is shown as part of the map and is part of description of your subdivision. The understanding that, Mr. Cuddy can correct me if there seems to be any discrepancy, is that a permanent barrier of gate has been e~ected at the existing termination of this right of way right about at the end of the . where the dredge canal is shown. It is a 10 foot wide chain link fence, with a gate in it. The gate is 10 feet wide and that is to be kept locked accerding to the agreement. The keys to the gate would be delivered to the owners of these properties that is currently be- fore you on the subdivision, and to be used only by those properties for access, not for through access, so that the gate would have to be kept locked when they weren't using it. The main concern, I think, of the road association was the through traffic there~ because it can be used as a short cut to get to Southold, that apparently in the past,when it was open,had been used by kids going through and drag racing. Mr. Raynor: This gate then, is a controlled factor, it has been respiked? Abigail Wickham: Yes, then also a method of settlement in terms of the dispute as to the legalities of using the right of way. Mr. Mullen: How long ago was that gate put up? We ask because we were down there, I guess what, six or eight weeks ago. Abigail Wickham: Mr. Zaner, could you come up? This is the president of the Association, he might answer it. Mr. Zaner: About two years but, we had a ckain across there for many many years but, the idea in this litigation was that we put up a line that could be opened and closed. The other one was just a chain that couldn't be moved without a sledgehammer. Abigail Wickham: I would also like to, just for the Board's infor- mation make them aware that this, the use of this gate and accesses to the lane would terminate in the event that there were a town ap- proved road, and from North Bayview Road, over the access that you have just described so it is a . Mr. Raynor: Based on the submission, it would be substandard, it wouldn't have to be dedicated. Abigail Wickham: No, I understand that, I don't know if there is any property around that might someday be developed but, only if there were a town approved road, would it terminate, but iL is terminable. Those are the basic prcvisions, I don't know if you have anything to add, but I want you to be aware that, that I think the Goose Creek Lane Association is primarily concerned that the Board be aware of this limitation on this right of way as shown on the subdivision and that that not be the primary access. Mr. Raynor: Would you indicate once more for us what you're asking not to be the primary~cce~. Abigail Wickham: Yes, this right cf way from this side. (6) August 31, 1~ 6. The above conditions, with the exception of condition number five, shall be filed as covenants and restriction in the office of the County Clerk. Signed by Lee Koppetman and signed by Charles G. Lind, Chief Planner. We have an inspection report from our inspector John W. Davis, on review of the right of way road to this minor subdivision, comments one, the road is approximately 1320 feet in length from North Bayview Road to the driveway at a house on the West side of the road, which is on the property adjacent to the S~uth side of the subdivision. 2. The one way road is stabilized with gravel at a depth of two inches, plus or minus, for a width of eight feet, plus or minus, to the last driveway and appears adequate for light traffic. 3. The Van Tuyl survey shows 1424 feet from North Bayview Road to the Nelson subdivision. The north end of the road should be extended the necessary distance to the subdivision, including the 25 width shown for access to subdivision lot number one, from the right of way. 4. Recommendations: road to 10 feet in width, b. Stabalization widened with three feet of gravel, excuse me, three inches of gravel. three, for extended section, remove topsoil, replace with bankrun and stabilize with three inches of gravel, d. clear small trees that are too close to the road for turning around of emergency vehicles. Emergency vehicles should be designed to turn around in driveway. John w. Davis, correspondence from this ~.oard to 3~ applicants attorney, correspondence up to the Suffolk County Depart- ment of Planning, copy of metes and bounds description, legal notice, correspondence from this board to our inspector, correspondence to New Yo~k State DEC declaring lead agency under SEQURA, copy of Short Environmental Assessment Form signed by Mr. Cuddy and Mr. Nelson, statement of grading, road construction and drainage and accompanying maps, It is the policy of this board, we will ask if anyone present this evening would like tc~ speak in opposition to this proposed minor subdivision of Robert C. Nelson Jr.? Abigail Wickham: If I might address the board, not necessarily in opposition, but I would like to discuss with the board, a matter effecting the roads to this right of way. My name is Gail Wickham, and I represent the Goose Creek Lane Association, which is concerned with the road way shown on the map to the East of this property, that connects with the North Road to Bayv±ew. Mr. Raynor: Could you indicate to the board exactly where on the map? Abigail Wickham: On East side here, and it is shc~wn on the schematic as going out here and it connects with this road right past the bridge. I don't know whether this has been reviewed at previous meetings on this subdivision and that is why I would like to bring it to your attention. There had been apparently a very long history of litigation concerning the right of this property ©wner to use that right of way, and that has been going on a very long time and apparently is in the process of being resolved through the settlement stipulation (8) August 31, 1~ Mr. Raynor: From the Northeast in? Abigail Wickham: Yes. Mr. Rayncr: O.K. Then it is not dedicated as the primary access, in fact, it is not dedicated or intended to be accessed at all. Abigail Wickham: That is what they are concerned about. The gate is right about here, somewhere, I don't know, I can't tell you ex- actly, but I just wanted that to be in you minutes. Mr. Raynor: Is there aDyone else present this evening who wcuid like to speak in opposition to this proposed minor subdivision? Hearing none, alright, is there anyone present this evening who woui~ like to speak in favor of this proposed minor subdivision? Charles Cudd~: Yes, I would. I am Charles Cuddy, and I represent Mr. and Mrs. Nelson. I have no correction or really addition to what Miss Wickham said regarding the stipulation, except that, I think you should know that the stipulation is part of a c~se that was in Supreme Court, Suffolk County, if you want to refer to it at any time. The case was Robert C. Nelson Jr. and Ann Marie Nelson, plaintiffs, against Samuel Ebstein, Herbert Rosenburg, and others, which is re- ferred to as that el, as defendants, and there is a stipulation which indicates just essentially what she said. Guest: We can't hear you. Mr. Cuddy: I said there is a Stipulation that indicated essentially exactly what she said. I have just one request of the board. You made a recommendation with regard to the improvement of the road. There is no dollar figure that accompanies that, now I ask you to get a figure because it is my belief, that you are asking us, if I understand it correctly, us being, Mr. Nelson, for his two lots to improve a distance ~f about 1400 feet. If we are includin~ 1400 feet, two feet wide, three inches deep, I think that we are ~mproving somewhere in the neighborhood, dollar wise, of five to seven thousand dollars, and if that ~s so, I think that is onerous upon us having two lots at the end of tkat right of way. There are ~ther people that have lots along there. I have no objection, as well as Mr. Nelson doesn't, to ~mproving at the end of %he area as suggested by the engineer. We do have some objection, though,~a very serious ob- jection to improving the whole length, I think that is burdensome upon him. If that is to be done and the board f~els compelled to have us do that, then I would ask the board to reserve decision so we might further discuss it with the board because if that is necessary, I would like to bring in our own engineer to indicate exactly what the figures would be. Mr. Raynor: What I read, Mr. Cuddy, was not a recommendation of the board, it was the recommendation of the field inspector. Mr. Cudd~: I understand, I am just responding tc what you indicated that recommendation is, and ~ understand what he is doing,, but I think it is more than we should have to do, that's all, then there would be a problem~ As of right now, we are certainly not asking for the right of way that Miss Wickham has just indicated was her concern. (9) ~Au~o~ust 31, 1981 Mr. Cuddy con't We have a right to go over it, but we are not asking that that be the primary access, but that right of way is an imprcved right of way, and we would become involved with that right of way, if we felt we would have to improve the whole length of this right cf way, because I think that is more than we should have to do. That's all, otherwise I would ask the board to approve it after considering that, but if the board feels compelled to have us do the whole right cf way, then I would ask the board to reserve their decision and let us come bac~ and discuss it once more. Mr. Raynor: Well, the board won't make any decision with regard to it tonight, but I must say we weigh very very heavily, the recom- mendation from our inspector and if you have anything that you should add, that should be put in, within the. 45 day period, in fact, you should have £t submitted to us prior to the next meeting, which I believe is the 14th of September. Mr. Cuddy: O.K. Thank you Abigail Wickham: I would like to ask a question, if I may, does Mr. Nelson plan to make any improvements to the Goose Creek Lane Road? Mr. Cuddy: The road that you are talking about? Abigail Wickham: Yes, on the east. Mr. Cuddy: Not. . Not that I am aware of . NO. Abigail Wickham: This is Mr. Nelson? Mr. Cuddy: No, it is not Mr. Nelson. Mr. Raynor: Is there anyone else present this evening who would like to speak in favor of this proposed minor subdivision? Hearing none, is there anyone present this evening that may have some information that should come before this board that may be neithez. for nor against th~s proposed subdivision but should become part of tkis public hearing? Millicent Gossner: Henry, is lot number one a flag lot? Mr. Raynor: I guess you would say it would vary with you~ definition. Usually a flag lot is defined with having a right of way in excess of width and length of the lot that it would transverse. It could be interpreted almost any way Millie, but generally the flag or the stem of the flag would give greater distance th~u~ the intiial first leg of the lot itself° Any other question concerning this subdivision? Hearing none, Mr. Mullen, questions~ Orlowski? ., Mr. Latham, Mr. (Negative) there being no further questions, we will deem this hear- ing closed and thank you for coming down. (10) August 31, 1/~1 ~ - Mr. Cron appeared on behalf of Nina Stevens. He stated his objection to the county recommendation #10, and asks the Planning Board to over ride the question Of liability of two common lot owners, as the county gives no real reason as to why they are necrssary, He expressed his dissapproval on the County's com- ment to include provision to extinguish the right of way in the event that a proposed East-West Master Plan road is ever constructed. He did not want this commeDt to be made a part of the conditions of the Planning Board. He had no objections to the possibility of dedicat- ing this road. Mr. Cron- David Brawner -stated that the four lot minor subdivision, having buildable lots, is not something th~% is going to be covenanted to remain an open space. The Board stated that it needs an explanatio~ from the county, and requested a draft covenant to convey back to the county, along with a copy of the covenants pertaining to the natural preserve. Cove Beach Associates - Mr. Cron stated objection to the Town Engineer's recommendations # 5 and # 8. Item #8, recommends that all drainage be fenced. The matter has been referred to the Town Attorney. The Town Council agree that, should the roads be built and dedicated, they cannot accept anything but fenced drainage. If the roads remain pri- vate, it is the clients option. Mr. Cron suggested that, there should be covenants made to that effect. Tke Board requested a letter explaining this situation. Hopefully, the Town Council will provide the Town Attorney with something agreeable for a different type of recharge. Item #5 requires the Planning Board to have a work session for a final determination. Peconic Ba~ ~ Gardens - Mr. Cron objects to Item ~4 on the county recommendations. He requested that the Planning Board over ride the recommendation of 100 foot set back lines. He feels local deter- mination is sufficient. Green Briar Acres Mr. Cron asked that the Board make a recommenda- tion to the Town Board on this subdivision, for release of the bond. He would like to resolve this~mattero St~. ephen Shilowitz - Mr. Cron asked for an appointment for the Sept- ember 14, meeting to discuss this new site plan. Armand Bartos - Mr. Price speaking on behalf of his client, informed the Planning Board that he had applied to 'ZBA for access pursuant to ' Town Law 280-A, requesting that he be allowed to sell a part of this property. The division of lots that were granted, were grandfathered, except for lo% #2, as this was labeled as an access variance. Having sold lot #1, hewcu"~ ~±o like to sell lot ~2, but needs a Vacant Land Certificate of Occupancy. This has been denied because it needs planning board approval. The Planning Board will consult with the Town Attorney for a possible set-off. returR Czartosieski~ It was the concensus of the board to/%the ZBA's request in order that correct procedure may be followe~. Reiche/Issac Edwards - Mr. Price ~-~e~n from Mr. Ed' special exception from the ZBA fo industrial, subject to site plan lots put together does not have 2 industrial zoning. One of the sp. the future, if there was a reques would have to apply for the same The Board will make a field inspe, forward a copy of the ZBA determi Staller Site Plan Presubmissio that they be given enough% time t~ Point Road, in East Marion, New Y~ On motion made by Mr. Orlowsli, sc August 31, 1981 peaking on behalf of Reiche Bros. yards and Mr. Tedes~hi received ~ the automotive repair shop, zoned tpproval. This site, with the two ]0,000 square feet required for ~cial exceptions was that if in for another variance, that they ~pecial exception again~ ~tion, and requested that Mr. Price ~stion to the Planning Board. conference, The Board asked study the proposal~located on Rocky ~k. ~conded by Mr. Latham, it was RESOLVED that the Southold TOwn Planning Board declare itself lea~ agency under the State EnvirOnmental Quality Review Act for the Major Subdivision entitled EdWard Speeches, located near Greenport, New York. An initia~ ~etermi~ti~ 6f non-significance has been made.~ Vote of the Board: Ayes: Raynor, Orlowski, Mullen, Latham Mr. Rayncr appointed Mr. Latham az.d Mr. Mullen to do a field inspec- tion on the property of Edward Sp~.eches. On moticn made by Mr. Orlowski, s~ RESOLVED that the proposed mJ Ebert, Mattituck Holding Com~an_~_, than a minor subdivision. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Re Highland Estates - Mr. Raynor app¢ to do a field inspection on this ~ Board their findings at the Sep~e~ issue a CO? ZBA referral of Jon C. Kerbs and Z ~-~_e_~L--~t-~a~-~h~-c~ens~ f-~ ~ommendations for a detailed conded by Mr. Latham, it was nor subdivision entitled Katherine be pro~essed ss a "set-off'" rather ynor, Orlowski, Latham, Mullen inted Mr. Mullen and Mr. Davis roperty and to report backttotthe ber 14, meeting. Is it suitable to i_lliam Lakowi~z_z_~lliam and Ann the Board to return their request(ZBA) explanation from them. On motion made by Mr. Orlcwski, s~conded by Mr. Mullen, it was RESOLVED to approve off-str_~eet~rkin~ for John and Mary Pietrodanqelo's floral_§hop, subject ~-~ns~?r Davi~T--~etermi~a~ ~ ~'e~essary - construction. This is subject to a one year review. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Raynor, Orlowski, Latham, Mullen ~12) August 31, 1~ On motion made by Mr. Orlowski, seconded by Mr. Mullen, it was RESOLVED that the site .~an _entitled The Cove, be sent to the Building Inspector for_certifi~cation. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Raynor, Orlowski, Latham, Mullen Change of Zone, ARthony J. and Dorothy A. DeMaula, William Tsigakos and Peter Brountzasv The Board to field inspect the areas on September 10, 1981 at 11:00 and report their findings at the September 14, meeting. It is the concensus of the $ou~hold Town Planning Board that, all future meeting appcintments will be limited to proposes given tc our secretary one week pricr to the scheduled meeting. Only those items listed, and a~ an appointment time given for those items, will appear on the agenda. All items to be discussed will be confirmed by her prior to the meeting, if desired. This policy is being established so that, eac~ appointment may get total time and attention to those proposals listed. A discussion was held on the possible sale of Orient Point for a major site plan. Ther~ being no further business to come befo~the Board, Mr. Mullen made e motion, seconded by Mr. 5atham and carried to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Henr~ E. ~ynor~~-r~m~n Respectfully submitted, Susan E. Long, Secretary