Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-12/16/1975Southold Town Planning Board SOUTHOLD, L. I., N. Y. 11971 TELEPHONE 765-1313 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS John Wickham, Chairman Henry Moisa Alfred Grebe Henry Raynor Frank Coyle MINUTES December 16, 1975 A regular meeting of the Southold To~n Planning Board was held December 16, 1975 at 7:30 p.m. at the Town Clerk's Office, Main Road,Southold, New York. Present were Henry Moisa, Vice-Chairman; and members Henry Raynor, Frank Coyle and Alfred Grebe. Absent was Chairman John Wickham. Also present were Shirley Bachrach representing the League of Women Voters, Sherley Katz representing the Long Island Traveler-Watchman and Pete Campbell representing The Suffolk Weekly Times. Greton Estates. Gary Olsen, Esq. appeared representing the developers .......... 1 I ' I] I. Vice-Chairman Moisa opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Henry Raynor read the Notice of Hearing. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Section 276 of the Town Law, Public Hearings will be held by the Southold Town Planning Board at the Town Clerk's Office, Main Road, Southold, New York, in said town on the 16th day of December, 1975, on the question of the following: 7:30 p.m. Approval of the final map of subdivision known as "Greton Estates" owned by Peconic Homes Corporation, situated at Mattituck in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the southeasterly side of Grand Avenue where the same is intersected by the westerly side of land now or formerly of Otto L. Anrig; running thence along said land (1) S. 13o 42' 10" E. 452.05 feet and (2~ S. 14° 23' 20" E. 742.65 feet; thence S. 61° 54' 10" W. 299.84 feet; thence S. 59° 36' 10" W. 205.97 feet; thence N. ll° 51' 10" W. along land now or formerly of Michalecko 1034 feet to the southeasterly side of Grand Avenue and thence N. 42° 47' 20" E. along the southeasterly side of Grand Avenue 534.22 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING. Containing 11.798 acres, more or less. Planning Board -2- December 16, 1975 Any person desiring to be heard on the above matter should appear at the time and place above specified. Dated: December 8, 1975 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD JOHN WICKHAM, CHAIRMAN Mr. Raynor presented proof of publication from the Long Island Traveler-Watchman and The Suffolk Weekly Times. The following letter was presented under date of October 6, 1975 from the Highway Department. Gentlemen: I have reviewed the new profiles revised September 12, 1975 for use with roads with curbs and see no objections to these grades as shown. It is recommended that a recharge basin type "A" be required. If this type basin is recommended the fence and basin should be completed before final grading. /s/ Raymond C. Dean Supt. of Highways Mr. Moisa: Do we have the stamps of the Board of Health aud so forth? Mr. Olsen: No, we thought we would wait snd see what the Board recommends before we had them signed. Mr. Moisa: We have numerous letters on file as to changes and so forth which we won't read. As is customary, I will open the hearing to anyone that wishes to speak against this subdivision. Hearing none, is there anyone that wishes to speak in favor. Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq.: I am Gary Olsen, attorney for the applicants. This matter has been pending before the Board for some time and the changes recommended by the Board have been made as requested by the Planning Board, the Planning Board Engineer and the Superintendent of Highways. I respectfully request that it be approved. I was notified that a Type A recharge basin was requested to be shown on the map and I will tell my clients that this has to be done. Mr. Raynor: Do we have a Certificate of Disclosure as to Peconic Homes Corporation? Mr. Moisa: Yes - David Horton, John Grefe, William Grefe, Gerry Morton and Eugene Morton. Mr. Coyle: Has that changed any since then? Planning Board -3- December 16, 1975 Mr. Olsen: I don't know. I would assume since no change has been filed that it stands as is. If there have been any changes since that date I will make sure the Board gets a new disclosure affidavit. If there are no changes, I will let you know by letter. Mr. Raynor: This is being developed by Peconic Homes Corporation? If it is owned by a corporation, the map should show a corporate owner. The disclosure says David Horton is President and the map says he is the vice-president. It shows David Horton as the sole applicant in the application. On the disclosure he signs as president. Mr. Olsen: I will check and whatever it is I will straighten it out. Mr. Moisa: Is there anyone else wishing to speak? Ms. Sherley Katz: What is the average size of the lots? Mr. Raynor: 40,000 square feet. Ms. Shirley Bachrach: Is there a statute of limitations when an application has to be pursued with respect to the original date of the application? Mr. Raynor: If they just sit on it, there is no limitation. Ms. Bachrach: Five years wouldn't matter? Mr. Moisa: We have had quite a few that have gone three and four years. Mr. Raynor: Then they have to comply with the new regulations. Mr. Moisa: There have been instances where they have to change the size of lots where the zoning requirements changed. In order to have this signed we will have to have alot of things such as Board of Health and Department of Environmental Control stamps. There is no stamp from the surveyor about alteration of lot lines. This is a standard stamp by the engineer of no alteration of lot lines. We need a bond estimate and approval of the bond. If there is no one else, we will declare the hearing closed. On motion made by Mr. Coyle, seconded by Mr. Grebe, it was RESOLVED to give final approval to the map of the minor sub- division of James Dean (Minor Subdivision #111) located at Cutchogue, New York, and the vice-chairman be authorized to sign the map. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Moisa, Coyle, Grebe. Mr. Raynor abstained from voting. Planning Board -4- December 16, 1975 The following was read: RESOLUTION NO. 17 - DECEMBER 3, 1975 At the regular meeting of the Suffolk County Planning Commission, held on Wednesday, December 3, 1975, Commissioner Luchsinger moved for the adoption of the following resolution, seconded by Commissioner Rinklin. The vote was unanimous, eleven present. the Suffolk County Planning Commission is required to review proposed subdivision plats in accordance with Article XIII, Section 1333, of the Suffolk County Charter, and WHEREAS, it has been ascertained that clearing, rough grading, and the start of construction has begun on the sites of some of the referral subdivision maps prior to sub- mission to the Suffolk County Planning Commission, and WHEREAS, a proposed subdivision map may require modification of its layout or in its other elements prior to final approval for filing, and the commencement of such work on a proposed subdivision before all changes and modifications have been made in the layout and other elements of the subdivision map can have a detrimental effect upon the natural attributes of the site and can also result in a self-imposed hard- ship on the subdivider or developer, Therefore Be It RESOLVED, that the Suffolk County Planning Commission recommends to the Planning Boards of the Towns and Villages in Suffolk County that they adopt regulations or recommend the adoption of ordinances to discourage the practice of commencement of clearing, grading, and start of con- struction on the site of a proposed subdivision map before all reviews of the proposed plat have been made and all recommended changes and modifications have been acted upon. The following letter under date of December 9, 1975 to Messrs. Waimey and Driscoll was read: Dear Messrs. Saimey and Driscoll: I read with some concern the fact that Robins Island was being sold for development (Newsday, 10/10/75, page 6; 12/2/75, page 21). I have performed a preliminary archaeological survey of prehistoric Indian sites on Robins Island and I am concerned Planning Board -5- December 16, 1975 that the archaeological resources on the island might be destroyed before they can be properly investigated. The research report on the initial archaeological survey is currently being prepared for publication. The site plan for the proposed development as printed in Suffolk Life Newspapers (Week of November 23) would definitely threaten a number of Indian archaeological sites. It is hoped that per- mission to conduct further archaeological investigations could be granted at the earliest possible date in order to salvage as much data as possible. The Newsday article of 10/10/75 mentioned that building on Robins Island would not start for approximately 2-1/2 years. As the newspaper articles express your concern with the protection of environmental resources, I would appreciate it if we might discuss this matter more fully at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your interest in this matter. /s/ Daniel H. Kaplan Assistant Curator Anthropology (archaeology) Garview Point Museum Laurelwood Estates~ Section 2. Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq. appeared for the developer and Mr. Richard Hamil who is a property owner in the area. Vice-Chairman Moisa opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Henry Raynor read the Notice of Hearing. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Section 276 of the Town Law, Public Hearings will be held by the Southold Town Planning Board at the Town Clerk's Office, Main Road, Southold, New York, in said town on the 16th day of December, 1975 on the question of the following: 8:00 p.m. Approval of the preliminary map of subdivision known as "Laurelwood Estates, Section 2" owned by Martin Weglicki situated at Laurel, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at the northwest corner of a subdivision known as "Laurelwood Estates" filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office under file No. 5595; from said point of beginning running thence S. 21° 19' 27" E. 350.48 feet to land now or formerly of Daniel Hallock; running thence along land now or formerly of Daniel Hallock S. 50° 27' 48" W. 446.74 feet to a point; running thence along other land now or formerly of Daniel Hallock N. 32° 33' 42" W. 2,027.61 feet to the Long Island Railroad; running thence along land of the Long Island Railroad N. 33° 42' 13" E. 490.69 feet to land now or formerly of Kennith Leeds; running thence along land now or formerly of Leeds S. 37° 02' 12" E. 316.19 feet; thence N. 58° 44' 53" E. 129.07 feet; thence N. 49° 54' 23" E. 105.89 feet; thence N. 62° 48' 53" E. 75.24 feet; thence S. 9° 33' 07" E. 356.72 feet; thence S. 57° 35' 47" E. 213.31 feet; thence S. 76° 59' 07" E. 208.04 feet; thence S. 25° 34' 47" E. 138.58 feet; thence S. 44° 56' 47" E. 173.73 feet; thence N. 46° 57' 23" E. 180 feet to land now or formerly of T. Diachun; running thence along land now or formerly of Diachun S. 36° 56' 07" E. 141.26 feet to subdivision of "Laurel Park" S. 29~ll' 07" E. 150.08 feet; running still along land of "Laurel Park" S. 31° &8' 17" E. 262.33 feet to a subdivision known as "Laurelwood Estates"; running thence along land of "Laurelwood Estates" S. 56° 28' 43" W. 318.63 feet; running thence still along land of "Laurelwood Estates" S. 56~ 17' 13" W. 305.56 feet to the point or place of beginning. Any person desiring to be heard on the above matter should appear at the time and place above specified. Dated: December 8, 1975 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD JOHN WICKHAM, CHAIRMAN Affidavits of publication were presented from the Long Island Traveler-Watchman and The Suffolk Weekly Times. Mr. Moisa: Under date of September 18, 1975 we have a memorandum from Raymond C. Dean, Superintendent of Highways. There are three items mentioned. 1. That catch basins included at Woodside Lane Extension at junction of Wood Lane. e That provisions be made to drain water from west side of White Eagle Drive to recharge basins other than valley gutters since this is the main drive. 3. That the standard recharge basin be constructed. I believe that this has been all discussed and brought to the attention of the subdivider. All have been done. Being this is a preliminary hearing, we will hear from anyone that wishes to speak against this subdivision. Mr. Richard Hamil: It isn't a question of being for or against. At the time subdivision number one was put through containing 26 lots there was a 200 foot beach with a l0 foot right-of-way that was supposed to be reserved entirely for the 26 lots and the 3 other prior sales. Where are the beach rights for this addition? After selling these lots, will they pour down there? Mr. 01sen: No beach rights will be given to the second section. They have their own park and playground area. Planning Board -7- December 16, 1975 Mr. Hamil: Why does Eagle Nest Road make a turn to overlap to a private road? Mr. Raynor: That was established specifically for an emergency access for fire equipment. Mr. Hamil: You will never do it. As you make the turn there is a big bank and that is about ten feet high. The only thing you would encourage is people trying to go into the private road and using our beach. If these people were to pour down to our beach it would upset that quite considerably. Mr. Raynor: It would be done to highway specifications as long as it is within the subdivision. We have no control over what happens on the exterior of the perimeter. Mr. Hamil: You would have to come down to the embankment and come down a twenty foot road. You can already come down by Heather Place. You are coming dangerously close to swamp land when you come down there. Laurel Park comes to a point practically. The road as it exists is almost impassible. Mr. Olsen: This is something that was not originally on the map and was requested specifically by the Planning Board. Mr. Raynor: We request this many times because many of these private roads become public roads and the town has to develop these. Mr. Hamil: What is the status of the roads in the first section? Have they been turned over to the town yet? Mr. Raynor: No. Mr. Hamil: Is there any prospect of them being turned over in the near future? Mr. Olsen: Yes. Mr. Hamil: According to the topography of this map, Lot #33 will not be able to get sanitary facilities. Mr. Moisa: Actually, the contours of the map show three quarters of the lot ten feet or better so I don't think there will be any problem as far as sanitation is concerned. Mr. Hamil: There is a sluiceway that doesn't show on your map at all. It should be on the property of T. Diachun. Mr. Moisa: That is outside of the property that is being developed. Planning Board -8- December 16, 1975 Mr. Hamil: It is subject to flooding at high tide. There is a road that runs through the woodland that is entirely in a hollow. It would seem to be coming up through the recharge basin. Following that contour line, that is very generously dra~n because there has been alot of excavation on there. Has anyone been to the property? Mr. Raynor: I have been down to the property but I haven't been in that particular section. Mr. Hamil: If you follow Oakwood Drive, that road is subject to flooding and it goes through woods and down the hollow. When you come up to Railroad Drive over that embankment is quite a bit higher, too. I understand you are going to run a road parallel which will be the highway's problem. Yc~go a few hundred feet to the east and you are on the swampland of Brush's Creek. Mr. Raynor: This was a road designed to run parallel to the tracks. It will be a major feeder road. Mr. Hamil: I might point out that the Long Island Railroad back in the 1890's purchased alot of land to the north of their tracks. A road to the north would be considerably easier than to the south. My specific interest is in getting that over to Laurel Lane because there is a public beach at the foot of Laurel Lane. Mr. Moisa: Railroad Drive is being considered to go through. Mr. Hamil: This subdivision is about four to five hundred feet from Laurel Lane. That would make everyone in this area happy if you got that through to Laurel Lane so you would relieve any pressure to trespass on the beach from Section i and also from Laurel Park. Mr. Raynor: Mr. Hamil, did you hold this property prior to the present owner? Mr. Hamil: My father owned part of it. Mr. Coyle: If they do not have beach rights here they can still get out. Mr. Hamil: The temptation would be to go right down that right- of-way there. Somebody would have to be playing policeman and because I was here at the hearing on the first map and it was definitely promised that the beach was promised to the 26 lots and the 3 other people that own property. Mr. Coyle: That isn't under our duties. Mr. Hamil: That's true but I don't think you should set up a situation that arouses the community. Planning Board -9- December 16, 1975 Mr. Ray-nor: I think it would be a separate home owners associ- ation, one controlling the beach rights exclusive of the other. Mr. Hamil: Eagle Nest Court, that would be attempting to over-run Laurel Park to go to the beach. There is a little roadway to the creek there. We would have a policing function added with that road going around there. Emergency access will be a sandy twenty-foot road. You go on that road, you want to be very careful. The chance of getting stuck, you can get up to the top of the hill and that is all. That was dug up two feet behind the last two houses. Mr. Moisa: You are speaking of the twenty feet? Mr. Hamil: Yes. You would either have to condemn some of the Laurel Park property or you have to go after that corner lot in Section I of the Laurelwood Estates. Mr. Moisa: We felt if you had an opportunity to tie in with another subdivision it was the thing to do. Mr. Hamil: You can see the creek is coming very close to the road and any chance for privacy is going to be maintained only by keeping that woodland. Mr. Olsen: Would you like me to take this up with the engineer. The point is well taken. Mr. Moisa: We will take your comments onto consideration. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak against this subdivision? Hearing none, is there anyone that wishes to speak in favor? Mr. Olsen: I am the attorney for the developer. We have been working with the Board on this for approximately one year. It has been before the Planning Board Engineer and the Superintendent of Highways for comments and we have made the adjustments that that Board has recommended and I would respectfully request that the Board approve this on a preliminary basis. Anything I can do to work along with the Board in conjunction with Mr. Hamil's comments, I would be happen to do. Ms. Sherley Katz: How man lots are there? Mr. Coyle: Thirty lots on thirty-six acres. Mr. Moisa: There being no one else wishing to be heard, I now declare the hearing closed. Planning Board -10- December 16, 1975 Rath Lodge. George Stankevich, Esq. appeared. Vice-Chairman Moisa opened the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Henry Raynor read the Notice of Hearing. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that p~ursuant to Section 276 of the To~n Law, Public Hearings will be held by the Southold Town Planning Board at the Town Clerk's Office, Main Road, Southold, New York, in said town on the 16th day of December, 1975, on the question of the following: 8:30 p.m. Approval of the preliminary map of subdivision known as "The Rath Lodge" owned by John E. Rath, situated at Southold, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a monument at the intersection of the easterly side of North Bayview Road and the southerly side of Pine Neck Road and running thence from said point of beginning N. 86° 06' 50" E. along the southerly side of Pine Neck Road 442.87 feet to a monument; thence S. 03° 53' 10" E. still along the southerly side of Pine Neck Road 8.25 feet to a monument; thence N. 86° 06' 50" E. still along the southerly side of Pine Neck Road 210 feet to a point; thence S. 78° 53' 10" E. 70 feet, more or less, to the Creek; thence S. 78° 53' 10" E. across said Creek 130 feet, more or less, to a point on the easterly shore of said Creek; thence S. 78° 53' 10" E. along the land now or formerly of Light- house Development Corporation 210 feet, more or less, to the high water mark of Southold Bay; thence in a general southerly direction along said high water mark of Southold Bay to the point ~nere said high water mark strikes the northerly side of North Bayview Road; thence (1) N. 79° 35' 20" W. 365 feet, more or less, to a point; (2) N. 67° 20' 10" W. 390 feet to a point; (3) N. 05° 37' 20" ~. 762.40 feet to a point; (4) N. 05° 26' 40" W. 698.47 feet to the monument at the point or place of beginning, containing au area of 24.7 acres, more or less. Any person desiring to be heard on the above matter should appear at the time and place above specified. Dated: December 8, 1975 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD JOHN WICKHAM, CHAIRMAN Affidavits of publication were presented from the Long Island Traveler-Watchman and the Suffolk Weekly Times. The following recommendations of Lawrence M. Tuthill under date of November 12, 1975 were presented. Planning Board -ll~ December 16, 1975 Recommend: 1. That roads be lengthened to eliminate flag lots. 2. This should help-~reduce grade of 5% on Road "B" at north end. 3. That catch basins with 2 leaching pools be required at each end of road "B" and catch basins and leaching pools be required at the entrance. Comments: Suggest that 2 entrances be required since there are 20 lots. Mr. Moisa: We will open the hearing for anyone that wishes to speak against the subdivision. Ms. Shirley Bachrach: I have a question concerning the people who fish on the periphery of that property by the Goose Creek Bridge. Would that interfere in any way with their being able to get down to the water? Mr. Moisa: Not unless Mr. Rath gives them permission to trespass on that property. Mr. Stankevich: The people now can go within the town right-of- way and below the high water lines. They are on private property now and it is just a question of who is going to be the new owner. The rights of the public remain the same. There is always the problem when people build houses. Ms. Bachrach: It isn't the obligation of the town to notify any new owners about the rights of the public in using the water front? Mr. Stankevich: I have no objection to the Town of Southold telling the people of their rights. Mr. Moisa: Is there anyone else? Hearing none, is there anyone that wishes to speak in favor? Mr. Stankevich: I represent the owner, Mr. John E. Rath, a long time resident of this Town and a rather heavy taxpayer. His advancing years is the reason why he wants to sell this property. It has been on the market close to two years. It is such a beautiful piece of property that the price is such it is not easily salable. Therefore, he has made the decision to go the route of dividing the property much to his loss of an ideal. We have been before you for about a year with various conferences. At the last conference, Mr. Wickham indicated his concern for water. He suggested that easements be given the waterfront owners to permit them at some future time if they chose to move their wells in a westerly direction. We have done that on the sub- division plans, placed easements and the covenants will be amended to provide that any of the waterfront lots can place their wells Planning Board -12- December 16, 1975 within the easement or within the perimeter. The most desirable feature of any development would be the availability of public water. The closest public water for this subdivision would be in excess of 3500 feet away. The estimated cost of bringing water is well in excess of $70,000 because you have to put in an arterial main that would serve this subdivision and others. You have the alteration of a very substantial road and when you add that figure with the figure for installation of the service facilities within the subdivision and that would be $20,000 and up for the water mains. We have roads of approximately $40,000, electric from LILCO of about $10,000 and another $5,000 for telephone. All these added together make the project unfeasible. It is just out of the question economically to provide public water for this property at the sole expense of the landowner. If there were other subdivisions along the route there might be a chance in the future. It is impossible because the Oaklawn area is entirely developed and the individual homeowners already have their wells. In spite of that we put in our covenants that these lot owners must connect if it is made available. Last time the question of access and the shape of lots was brought up, what about so-called flaglots. Mr. Tuthill suggests the way to solve this problem is extend the cul-de-sacs and/or add another entrance. We believe the alternative to this would be to remove the fence and all lots have 150 frontage on North Bayview and Pine Neck. If he wanted a subdivision like this, he would have done this in the first place. He would have run the driveways on the main road and he could have shortened the cul-de- sac road and saved money. The only reason the developer took the more expensive alternative was to provide a type of closed community that would have relatively little impact on the sur- rounding area, maintain the existing screening and fence and extra wide lots and providing the layout of the road such that this house in the center would be an asset to the entire area. Esthetically this is the design that would be most beneficial to the people that would building and the surrounding community will not be burdened with driveways coming out in front of their houses. When you talk about an additional entrancway, we con- sidered running a road parallel and that was rejected because you cannot bring a road out on the southwesterly end of this subdivision safely because cars come off the Goose Creek Bridge and come at a high rate of speed and it is a blind entrance and cars come speeding around the corner and it is a blind entrance. You could punch the east end road through to Pine Neck Road but if we do you will cut down on the privacy of the home owners in this subdivision and we suggest since most lots are oversized and it is not a very substantial subdivision that this is not required by your regulations and not required in good sense because of the esthetics. This type of entrance format is rather expensive and the landowner has saved nothing except he is providing a better subdivision for the future residents. The lots he cannot sell immediately, he will sell at a greater value. It is not a situation where he is trying to squeeze out lots. Your regulations provide that in any case where you so choose, you can waive any Planning Board -13- December 16, 1975 requirement. I don't think you are waiving a requirement by approving this configuration because none of these lots are flaglots. My client feels so strongly that he would like a vote and the counter-proposal would be to remove the fence and cut do~rn on the appeal of the subdivision to some extent. To have through traffic is not going to enhance these lots. I have talked to Judge Demarest about the highway and the use of swales. He felt that he would want to consider it further when Mr. Dean comes back from vacation and he wants to sit down with Judge Suter but he feels if the drainage is adequate that this is a likely situation where again the community would be enhanced with the use of swales rather than curbs. It doesn't save the landowner money, but it does enhance the esthetics. If there is no need, it doesn't make sense to smash down trees for some type of drainage sump. On behalf of the landowner, I urge the present proposal be adopted on a preliminary basis so we can go forward and discuss it further with the highway committee and the other authorities. I would welcome at this time any questions from the board members and I tell you that the landowner is earnestly pursuing this sub- division, that it must be done for a number of reasons and I believe and think his plan shows that he wants to make the best proposal out of this and we welcome any suggestions and believe what we have presented meets the letter of your regulations. If you took the time to look through what we are imposing there is no question that this is going to be a fine asset to the community. Mr. Raynor: In your meeting with Mr. Monsell you have indicated that running any type of municipal water would be in the neigh- borhood of $70,000. Mr. Stankevich: Eight to ten for interior subdivision roads, $20 a foot ..... Mr. Raynor: Was that predicated on six or eight inch mains? Mr. Stankevich: I think it was eight inch. They are preliminary figures. If we went out to bid they would want to know when they are going to put them in because of inflation. Some years ago Mr. Rath wanted to put a main in and he could have had it done at $4 a foot and the town wouldn't let him do it to break the street. This was about 20 or 25 years ago. Mr. Raynor: In your covenants and restrictions, do you have any intention of setting up an age restriction? Mr. Stankevich: No, we think the prime restriction is going to be the price. I couldn't afford a lot here. Mr. Raynor: Do you have a copy on file? Planning Board -14- December 16, 1975 Mr. Stankevich: Yes, we do and we do intend to modify them that the waterfront owners would be able to use the easement for wells. Mr. Raynor: The alternative you mentioned of removing the fence, actually, it may be within the realm of the superintendent of highways to restrict the access to the lots to the interior road should you decide on the alternative of removing the fence. Mr. Stankevich: Both my client and I are relatively familiar with the development of land. He has built roads and it just makes good sense to have interior access. It will force the homes to face the interior road, it makes for a nice perimeter. Mr. Raynor: Even if the fence was removed you could still have your natural perimeter. It could be restricted. Mr. Stankevich: The fence gives a sense of privacy. Mr. Raynor: I don't think I would like it on the southwest corner. I would question the amount of high speed at which you could go around that corner. In looking at your park and play- ground area, there seems to be a question in my mind as to the portion within the subdivision, whether there is actually enough useable space. If you don't intend to restrict the age, I would presume there would be children on the property at one time or another. What hazard could there be with a footbridge? Mr. Stankevich: I think that the size of the park and playground area is more than adequate for this subdivision and it is prime property. When we first sat down we realized that making this park and playground reduces the privacy of the waterfront lots across from it. We think it is adequate in size because it really only serves ten lots. Any person on a waterfront lots would not go out. The people on the ten lots will not go out and camp and beach all day. It is not the type of situation where people make a day of it. I think the size of it is enormous. I can't envision twenty people out there unless they had a beach party. The use is restricted so no structure can be built. Mr. Stankevich read some parts from the proposed covenants and restrictions and Mr. Raynor requested a copy from the secretary. Mr. Raynor: I notice in the description you include the property indicated as creek. Was this deeded in, man-made or what? Mr. Stankevich: The original deeds included it in the area. I would assume the creek bottom to be owned by the Town of Southold but the area of the creek between is not included. Mr. Coyle: to connect do this? You mention that you are going to force these people if public water is made available. Can you actually Planning Board -15- December 16, 1975 Mr. Stankevich: He doesn't have a choice because the covenants so provide that when available the owner must hook up. It is enforceable in court. It is a covenant that runs with the land and provides that all utilities are underground and so forth. You can't prevent a person from breaking an agreement. Mr. Coyle: On test well #3, apparently they couldn't find any water. Mr. Stankevich: Yes. Mr. Coyle: You didn't think you should go out to Pine Neck Road because you destroy the look of the whole plan. There is a drive- way now that goes out. It is there. He also had a double entrance at his original gate. Now it comes in from two different directions. There are three entrances on different roads. Mr. Stankevich: We wanted a double entrance and some member said you can't have that, it has to be a fifty foot wide contiguous entrance. Mr. Coyle: flaglots. If you connected to Pine Neck it would eliminate two Mr. Stankevich: You have a road for through traffic. Is there such a need for it? Mr. Coyle: Are you planning on turning the roads over to the Town or keeping them private? Mr. Stankevich: I think that the landowner is of an age that he is not going to be in there to own this property and we left it up to the homeowners by majority vote. Mr. Raynor: I trust you will look further into this footbridge. Mr. Stankevich: It could be reconstructed. Mr. Raynor: I think one of the reasons our engineer has suggested the double entrance is if a tree went across the road you would immediately block ingress or egress for emergency vehicles. Mr. Stankevich: Your regulations do not rule out cul-de-sacs. I think in some cases they are good. Mr. Raynor: You still do not have a committment from the Town Highway Committee about swale design. Mr. Stankevich: This topography is suited for swales and if you start digging out drainage basins there will be problems. It is only seven feet to fresh water. Planning Board -16- December 16, 1975 Ms. Bachrach: Why was it necessary for these homeowners on the waterfront to move their wells? Mr. Stankevich: Mr. Wickham suggested there could be a problem because every piece of land fronting on salt water has a potential for salt water intrusion so we accommodated him. Our test wells show there will be no problem. We will accommodate as long as it doesn't hurt us. Mr. Raynor: Some of the property was filled at one time. Mr. Moisa: Is there anyone else wishing to speak? Hearing none, I will declare the hearing closed. Time Structures~ Inc. George Stankevich, Esq. appeared. Mr. Stankevich presented 12 copies of the revised sketch map. (It is denoted as preliminary on the maps but there has been no sketch plan approval.) Beaujolais Acres. George Stankevich, Esq. appeared. He is not yet ready to present the final maps because they will have to change from a 5-pool to 3-pool disposal system. Mr. Stankevich asked that the final hearing be waived when he presents his final maps. He was informed that the Board is in the habit of holding a final hearing on all subdivisions. Vardy. Sketch plan approval is being held up on this minor subdivision because the Planning Board has not had an opportunity to physically inspect the property. Luglio. Letter from Mr. Luglio was read indicating that he was:~nable to come to an agreement with Mr. Orlowski on the egress. Mr. Orlowski wants Mr. Luglio to improve the road at his own expense plus deed over a lot in the approved subdivision to Mr. Orlowski. This matter will be referred to Mr. Wickham as he has indicated he would contact Mr. Cron, the attorney, on this matter. Highland Estates. The letter from the County Planning Commission was read in this matter. They did not have any big obSection to this subdivision. Planning Board -17- December 16, 1975 On motion made by Mr. Coyle, seconded by Mr. Grebe and carried, the meeting was adjourned. Meeting adjourned at lO:O0 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MurieI Brus~ S~ecretary Southold Town Planning Board