Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-02/23/2009PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS MARTIN H. SIDOR Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES February 23, 2009 6:00 p.m. Present were: George Solomon, Vice Chair Kenneth Edwards, Member Martin Sidor, Member Heather Lanza, Planning Director Kristy Winser, Senior Planner Tamara Sadoo, Planner Rr, CEiV~ZD AFt~ 14 2009 Geor.qe Solomon: Good evening, and welcome to a special meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board. This evening we have a few things on our agenda and we will start out by a lead agency designation for Southwold Manor. SITE PLANS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Lead Agency Designation: Southwold Manor - This proposed residential site plan is for the construction of an age-restricted (55+) condominium community of 27 dwelling units, consisting of eight (8) residential multiple dwelling buildings, four buildings with a footprint of 7,573 s.f., and four with a footprint of 7,695 s.f. Each building contains three units ranging in size from 2,700 s.f. to 2,958 s.f. The site plan also includes the conversion of an existing single family residence into three (3) affordable housing units, one at 891 s.f., and two at 1,121 s.f., a 370 s.f. detached garage, a two-story, 2,246 s.f. amenities building and a swimming pool and deck area covering 2,887 s.f. on a 6.75 acre parcel located at 56655 NYS Route 25, on the north side of Main Road, approximately 829' east of Boisseau Avenue, in Southold. SCTM#1000-63-3-15 Ken Edwards: WHEREAS, this residential site plan is for the proposed construction of an age-restricted (55+) condominium community of 27 units, consisting of eight (8) residential multiple dwelling buildings, four buildings with a footprint of 7,573 s.f., and four with a footprint of 7,695 s.f. Each building contains three units ranging in size from Southold Town Planning Board Page Two February 23, 2009 2,700 s.f. to 2,958 s.f. The site plan also includes the conversion of an existing single family residence into three (3) affordable housing units, one at 891 s.f. and two at 1,121 s.f.; a 370 s.f. detached garage, a two-story, 2,246 s.f. amenities building and a swimming pool and deck area covering 2,887 s.f..on a 6.75 acre parcel; and WHEREAS, Albert & Rita Cohen are the owners of the property located on the north side of Main Road, approximately 829' east of Boisseau Avenue, in Southold, SCTM#1000-63-3-15; and WHEREAS, on October 21, 2008, the agents, Alfred Amato & Chris Read, Amato & Associates, P.C., representing the applicant, East End Resources LLC, submitted a revised site plan application for approval; and WHEREAS, on January 20, 2009, the Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.6(b)(2) and (3), declared its intention to be Lead Agency and conduct coordinated review of the Site Plan Application as amended; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has notified all involved agencies pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.6(b)(3) of its intention to act as Lead Agency and that Lead Agency must be agreed upon; and WHEREAS, no involved agency has expressed an interest to act as Lead Agency within the time period provided under 6 NYCRR 617.6(b)(3); be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Planning Board declares itself to be Lead Agency in conducting the review the Site Plan Application, as amended, under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Martin Sidor: Second. Georqe Solomon: All in favor? Ayes. GeorRe Solomon: Motion passed. Southold Town Planning Board Page Three February 23, 2009 PRELIMINARY PUBLIC HEARING SITE PLANS 6:01 p.m.: Southwold Manor - SCTM#1000-63-3-15 GeorRe Solomon: We are ready to start the preliminary hearing. This is a preliminary public hearing on the site plan application as amended and submitted by East End Resources, LLC. The Town Code requires a preliminary hearing for residential site plans. As the name indicates, the hearing is an initial opportunity for the applicant to present its plan to the public and for the public to present comments on the application. Please keep in mind there will be a full public hearing on this application after review is completed under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The Board has retained the services of an environmental consultant who is reviewing the application as part of the required environmental impact review and will be reporting to the Board shortly. The information provided to the Board tonight will be considered as part of the environmental review and the subsequent review of the application. Tonight is to hear from you and from the applicant. The Board will not be taking questions. With that, I would like to invite the applicant up to address the Board. Those of you that will be addressing the Board this evening, when you step up to the microphone, please state your name and your address. There is a form on the podium to write your name and address. Thank you. Christopher Read, 131 Country Club Drive, Shelter Island: Good evening members of the Board and general public. My name is Chris Read, I'm here on behalf of the applicant, East End Resources. I am counsel to Amato & Associates and we represent East End Resources. As stated, I am here tonight to present our application for site plan approval for Southwold Manor, an active adult condominium community. What that means is it's for residents 55 and older, and what we have are 21 market rate units, 3 accessory apartments and 3 apartments that are to be designated for affordable housing. That's 27 units in all. In the site plan, there are 8 new buildings, 3 units per building for 24 units, and then there's an existing house at the property, it's a lovely old colonial that is perfectly suited to be retrofitted to accommodate the 3 affordable units that we will be providing. The house is an old Bed & Breakfast, and it works well. In addition, it's one of the older houses in Southold. Upon completion of the project, we will offer to designate the house as a landmark historic building so that it can be preserved forever for Southold residents to enjoy and not change the corridor on Route 25. I'd like to make it clear that we are calling this application an "as of right build." What we mean by that is that our proposal in all respects, whether it's use or area, complies with the provisions of the Town Code that are applicable. In other words, there is no special permit needed; we are not requesting any variances, and the use and area that we are proposing in all respects complies with the Code. As I go through this application, I will be referring to different submission items. I think it will be easier if I just provided that all at once rather than interrupt. In addition to the submissions that I have provided, and I will read that in the cover letter so that it's clear what we are providing, we took a petition, we went to the surrounding property owners and to some Southold Town Planning Board Page Four February 23, 2009 property owners and to some of the folks that we know in the Town of Southold. We have 120 signatures, We are continuing to get signatures that show support. Everbody that signed this petition was signing something that reads as follows: "My signature indicates the following: I have seen the plans for the active adult ages 55 and older townhouse community known as Southwold Manor to be located at 56655 .Main Road, Southold, NY. I am aware that Southwold Manor includes 27 residential units, a clubhouse and a swimming pool. I approve of and support the development of Southwold Manor, and I believe that the proposed use and design is appropriate, attractive, and will benefit the Town of Southold." That petition was signed by 120 residents of the Town. I'll submit this. This has 118 but they are still coming in. To be clear with respect to the other things that I have submitted, enclosed is the Affidavit of Posting and Mailing, which includes copies of all certified return receipts, green return receipts, and a photograph of the sign posted at the property. There are visual simulation renderings and a statement of methodology prepared by Michael Berardesco Studios, some of those renderings I will be showing you tonight. There is a petition, as I just said, signed by 120 Southold Town residents indicating support for the application. There is an affidavit of Greg Schiavone, he is of RMS Engineering; he is a Civil Engineer duly licensed in the State of New York and principal in the engineering firm of Robertson Muller Schiavone Engineers. The affidavit states the following: "The site development plans which were submitted initially on November 16, 2006 comply with all aspects of the Town Code." The site plan prepared by RMS Engineering with a revision date of October 17 was also submitted to the Planning Department. It, too, complies in all respects with the Town Code. A memorandum from Greg Schiavone, RMS to the Planning Board referencing responding the comments of the Town Planning Board and the Town Engineer, and there is also a resume of Greg Schiavone. I also provided an affidavit of Theresa Elkowitz. She is a principal of VHB Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture. Her affidavit includes the following attachments: a resume, the full EAF form, a local waterfront revitalization program consistency assessment form, East End site plan application submission letter, Zoning and visual impact analysis dated October 2008, which includes development plans by RMS Engineering, visual representations of the subject site and surrounding area, visual representations of the Main Road corridor, property research documents, photographic simulations by Michael Berardesco, Stage I Archaeological Survey, Stage II Archaeological Survey, a Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Dunn Engineering, an ecological survey, a utility service availability letter, an.d correspondence from the Southold Town Fire Commissioner. In addition, part of that affidavit of Ms. Elkowitz includes East End's October 2008 sUpplemental application materials, a revised full FAF form, revised Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Consistency forms and an existing Resources and Site Analysis Plan. In addition, we are submitting a Traffic Impact Statement from Dunn Engineering, appraisal consultation report prepared by John Blaney, NYS Certified General Real Estate Appraiser (there is also a resume from Mr. Blaney), a letter from me of Amato & Associates in response to Planning Board questions and requests delivered by Ms. Lanza of the Planning Department on February 12. That letter is also submitted. That letter of mine includes a memorandum of Mark Michaels, a NYS licensed architect, provides a parking plan, it provides a revised bulk table, it also provides a resume for Mr. Michaels. In addition, there is an aerial that is prepared and Southold Town Planning Board Page Five February 23, 2009 certified by RMS which incorporates a scaled version of the site plan over the subject property so that you can see it in relation to the surrounding area. In addition, a topographical survey which provides additional curb cut information that was requested by the Planning Department. Those were the submission items; aside from the boring aspect of that, rll try to get to what we are proposing here tonight and discuss it. The property, before we get into the actual build, rd like to discuss the property itself. It's located on the Main Road, the address is 56655; it's in the Hamlet of Southold. It's a 294,000 square foot property, that's approximately 6-3/4 acres, it's just shy of seven acres. There is currently an existing house with appurtenant structures, detached garage and some storage sheds. The Hamlet Business zoning designation is one of the more permissible zoning designations that we have out here. In addition to single family homes or multiple dwellings, the property is specifically permitted to be zoned on this property for things like restaurants, retail stores, boarding houses, train stations, laundromats, cinemas, theatres, grocery stores, repair shops for appliances, electrical, plumbing, motorcycle repair shops, these sort of things that are actually commonly found in the hamlet. Our proposal is residential in nature. We are here tonight after a little bit of a long road and there's been a lot of interaction between us as the applicant and the Town Planning Board, the Planning Department as well as other agencies within and outside of the Town, so I just wanted to take a quick moment and just talk about the history of the application for one. We began the process when the applicant met in 2002 with former Supervisor Josh Horton, discussing just the preliminary nature of the application, what we were proposing to do. The application process was put on hold on August 20, 2002 with the enactment of a Town- wide moratorium. The moratorium was on all subdivisions with special exception use permits and site plans containing dwelling units, which is what we were proposing. In September of '03, with the moratorium still in effect, the Town accepted an Environmental Impact Statement which recommended extensive legislative changes and modification to the Code. The moratorium ended in February of '05, it was extended five times. During that time and based on the Environmental Impact Statement, the Code was revised. Also, at around that time the Town was seeking input from the residents about what's the future of Southold going to be like; what do we deem most proper; what do we deem as lacking, and how should we shape the Town, the Planning? There was-what you call a Stakeholders Committee, and each of the hamlets out here had a committee of Town residents that lived in those particular hamlets to discuss how Planning should be dealt with moving forward. On March 31, 2005 and on April 4, the Town Board conducted public hearings. On those dates, among other Stakeholders committees, the Southold Hamlet Stakeholders Committee presented its vision for Southold. Among the many things they discussed, there were two that were significant with respect to our application. There were two varieties of housing that were lacking and most needed, and those two varieties of housing were senior living, 55 and older, and affordable housing. In addition to stating that those were the two most needed and lacking types of housing in the Town, the Stakeholders Committee deemed that the most appropriate place to put this housing is within the Southold Town Planning Board Page Six February 23, 2009 Hamlet Center. So, based on the moratorium now ending, we come out with the Stakeholders Committee and we started the application process. We had a pre- submission conference, we did our building permit application through the Building Department, there were meetings with the Planning Department. We met with the Architectural Review CommLttee, and continued working together so that we could provide a full and complete site plan application. The official application was delivered to the Planning Department November 16, 2006. Our first Official submission (aside from our preliminary meetings with .Mr. Horton in 2002) came on April 11, 2005 when we submitted a pre-submission package to the Planning Department, the BuiLding Department and the Fire Marshal. We submitted our application on November 16, full and complete, and we proceeded with work sessions. The Planning Department sent the application out to other agencies within the Town and outside of the Town. Specifically, the application was sent to the Southold Fire District, the Suffolk County Planning Commission, Southold Town Landmark Preservation Commission, Suffolk County Water Authority, the Town Engineer and the Architectural Review Committee again. On August 2 of 2007, the Planning Board/Planning Dept. gave us their official comments to the application. It'was a comprehensive set of comments and it was provided at the same time that the comments from the Town Engineer were provided. Also in '07, the Planning Department and many members of the Planning Board did a site visit. So, around in late '07 we had the full comments and everybody had seen the property. On December 7 we submitted an official revised version of the site plan and on Feb. 20, 2008, we got an additional set of written comments from the Planning Board. I'd like to mention that on Feb. 20 when we received those comments, there were certainly some comments and then in addition to some comments, there were some directions and ideas that might make the site plan better overall. In other words, some of them weren't necessarily directives, but suggestions. Nevertheless, we reviewed every one of the comments and we incorporated every one of the comments that the Planning Board provided. At the risk of being somewhat redundant here, I just want to make it clear that those comments were in the form of a February 20 letter, and an October 7 letter. They also include the comments of the Engineer, and those comments were garnered and delivered to us with the benefit of having aLI of those outside agencies fully reviewed and provide their comments to the Planning Board. So with the Feb. 20 letter, all those comments we set to revise the application; that revision was comprehensive, it was significant, and virtually almost every aspect of the site plan and the buildings thereon were modified. So, before we got here tonight, we've had roughly ten work sessions, two pre-submission conferences, two hearings with the ARC, building plans and site plans have been reviewed and commented on by the Building Department, the Fire District, the Suffolk County Planning Commissioner, the Southold Town Landmark Preservation Commission, the Suffolk County Water Authority, the Architectural Review Committee, the Planning Department, the Planning Board, the Supervisor's Office and the Town ^ttorney. The building plans and the site plans that we are showing you tonight reflect changes that have been ongoing as we have worked with the Planning Board and the Planning Department. To that end, the buildings have been redesigned and reduced in size. Certain three bedroom units have been redesigned and reduced and they are now two bedroom units. Eight buildings have been reduced in size to accommodate one-car garages rather than two-car Southold Town Planning Board Page Seven February 23, 2009 garages, the accessory apartment units have been reduced from three bedroom to two bedroom units, the footprints of every building have been reduced by 5' and, rather than offering two interior layout choices (what I mean by interior layout is bath and bedroom counts and garage counts), we are now offering four different interior layouts which provide diversity in terms of living and diversity in terms of aesthetics. The main entrance to the property has been relocated; originally it was on the eastern side of the property where the existing garage is, now it has been moved to the center. Initially, there was a chromaglass system, a wastewater treatment plant. That's a wastewater septic system. That is being removed. All this was done pursuant to the comments of the Town. There was originally a southern turning circle; that has been removed. A proposed platform tennis court has been removed. Garden areas have replaced the platform tennis court. There was an entrance gate, security gate that had been removed. There was a proposed retaining wall, and the proposed original grades have been removed and changed to reflect, the final result now will reflect the current grade. The parking area located by the existing structure here was significantly reduced in size. Individual driveways throughout the plan have been reconfigured. The driveway system has also been redesigned to convert, where possible we are converting driveways that were all individual to shared portions to reduce the impervious surfaces. The amenities building is being redesigned to reflect mailboxes. The parking around the amenities building was also reduced. The entranceway, where it is now, was actually shifted yet again to avoid two existing walnUt trees that are on the Main Road. A 25' buffer has been provided around the perimeter of the property. That's broadly speaking; I'll get into that later. But such buffer constitutes approximately 60,000 sq. ft. and almost 1.4 acres, more than 20% of the property. Each of the buildings have been not only reduced in size but shifted and relocated. Sidewalks and walking paths have been added. Minor comments such as dumpster locations, air conditioning condenser locations have been relocated and screened. Additional structures, any place where there is a cutout (and I'll get into this later) there have been pergola and lattice structures that will provide additiohal screening from surrounding neighbors. So, after four years after the moratorium, and our continued efforts, we are here tonight with an application that we are very excited about: we are proposing the two housing types that are most needed and lacking in the town. We are putting them into place where the folks that live in the Hamlet have said it is deemed most appropriate. We comply in all respects with every applicable provision of the Town Code and, as I will get into now when I discuss the buildings, we have attempted and, in my subjective opinion, we have very much succeeded (the Architectural Review Committee has agreed with me), that we have provided traditionally designed, well-appointed design that is consistent with the Hamlet, consistent with the North Fork, and trying to stay with the understated traditional early American architecture, and I think we have done a good job. I will talk about the buildings for a moment and the way we were trying to design them. The thinking was: I grew up out here, rm from Shelter Island; rm very aware of the aesthetic qualities of the (inaudible) in particular. The thinking was that we wanted to provide housing that is convenient for say, retirees to live; but we wanted to certainly avoid the look that you see "up Island" of condominiums when there might be a sea of the same sort of siding, it might be plastic, and garage after garage after garage. What Southold Town Planning Board Page Eight February 23, 2009 we wanted to avoid is that sort of impersonal look, and provide what we think looked like individual houses that had individual personalities. There are only eight of these buildings: four of them will be designed in a sort of a shingle style, gable roof, and the other four are a Dutch colonial gambrel style. But what we've attempted to do is: rather than to put entrances along the front of each building, we have turned three sides of the building into front entrances. So, the middle unit of each building sort of looks.., there's only one front door; there's only one garage, it looks like a house when you're pulling up to it. This is the front of Building ^, the gable style. As you can see, what we have attempted here is, this looks like a single house. But when you look to the side, this is a different unit. They share a single back. But we tried to provide something that doesn't look like a sea of condominiums but rather sort of eight traditionally designed homes. With respect to both buildings: what we have is, Sixteen units'have three bedrooms and 3-1/2 baths and two car garages; five units have three bedrooms, 3-1/2 baths and one car garages; three units have two bedrooms, 2-1/2 baths and one car garages. In addition, these are eight of the ten buildings on the property, there is the existing house which, as I said, we are proposing to retrofit the interior but entirely preserve the exterior and then landmark it as an historical building. The amenity center is a small, modest size building but it too represents traditional architecture. The site plan itself, before I get into the specifics of the site plan, I'd like to note that the water is available from the Suffolk County Water Authority, natural gas is available, electricity is available, telephone and cable, all the utilities that are necessary. The road, this is a private road, this is not something that will be maintained by the Town, it's a private road to be maintained by the owners of the individual units. However, while it's a private driveway, I met with the Fire Marshal and we designed the road so that it is sized and designed to accommodate fire trucks; it's a 24' wide paved road that fits five cars across. In addition, the turning circle is appropriate and works for fire trucks: and trucks can come in and come out. There is a buffer around the entire property. Before I go into what we are offering or proposing with respect to the buffer, I think it's important to note what the Code requires. Specifically, the Code requires a 15' buffer along the boundary lines of a non-residential lot that borders on any Lot in a residential district. We are residential in use, so the required buffer set forth in the Code is not applicable to us. However, we've got commercial uses all around and they are all residential uses. We have provided a buffer that is 25' wide around the entire property with the following exceptions: obviously there is no buffer along the Main Road; there is a breach in the 25' buffer here, but this borders on a commercial lot, not a residential lot; and then there are a few places that, where driveways serving the individual units can back out to get out of their parking spaces, there are seven such places where the 25' buffer is breached. In places where the 25' buffer is breached by these driveways, there is a buffer that's maintained at 15'. So, we've got 25' surrounding most of the property and to those small exceptions, we do maintain the 15'. In addition, to provide the privacy that I think our community would like and our neighbors would like, those are precisely the areas where we developed those pergola and lattice structures which · will be used to screen any cars that are using those turnaround areas. The buffer area is already on site. We've got vegetation that can fill the buffer area. There are roughly 200 cedar trees that are on the property. This property was used for farming years ago, but it has been for the past decade or so, a little longer than that, there has been no Southold Town Planning Board Page Nine February 23, 2009 farming and we've got a bunch of natural cedar trees that are perfectly suited to be moved to the buffers so it's an instant evergreen screen. Just to reiterate so everybody is clear: this is where the existing house is, this existing house will accommodate the three affordable units. Right behind the existing house is parking facilities. The entire development is screened by a few things. The only access to this property is through Main Road. The existing house is here; this is a commercial lot with two buildings; there is a commercial lot here with a residence; and then there's a commercial lot here and here; this is a boatyard; this is a bakery. This first new structure is set back almost 200', actually more than 200' from Main Road. It is the only place where you see anything that's proposed as new. In addition, with respect to the surrounding property owners, we've made efforts to, in addition to what's required by the Code by sending notices and posting the preperty, we've attempted to contact and sit down with each of the surrounding neighbors. From my perspective, it has been a very positive response; I don't want to speak for anybody else, but we have had five abutting property owners sign that petition that we submitted. I'd like to move away from that and get into some of the more technical aspects of this site and its impact or lack of impact on the community. Provided with my submission was the traffic study (there is information set forth in there), but the conclusion is "minimal to imperceptible impact on the safety and operation of the roadway facilities." In addition there is an appraisal that was submitted by John Blaney, a certified appraiser, he is also the current vice chairperson of the Southampton Town Planning Board. The appraisal says that: "the development of the subject property will have no negative impact on surrounding property values." In addition, he adds that: "the development provides security surrounding owners that a more intensive permitted use, such as a shopping center, which could have a significant negative impact on surrounding property values, would not be developed." I had mentioned briefly the affidavit that we have submitted by our engineer, RMS Engineering. Specifically what it says is that all comments of the Planning Board and Town Engineer have been addressed. The site plan and engineering plans comply with all applicable provisions of the Town Code. The size and configuration of the individual driveways, Manor Drive, and all parking in terms of size and number as set forth in the site plan, comply in all respects with all applicable provisions of the Town Code as well as the comments and suggestions of the Town Fire Marshal. In addition, we have Environmental Consultant Terry Elkowitz of VHB Engineering, who has provided an affidavit. Terry and her firm have prepared the following documents, all of which have been submitted: an existing Resources and Site Analysis Plan (I am actually repeating myself now, I did go through this before, so I'll just do it briefly), an ERSAP, full EAF form, an LWRP Consistency Assessment Form and, in addition, that comprehensive planning study which I referenced before. Ms. Elkowitz' affidavit goes on to state that: "the proposed actions of the property would not result in a significant adverse impact to the environment. It would result in an imperceptible change to existing visual conditions, thereby maintaining the established character of the community." It is also noted that when you consider the exact location of the property (it's across the street from 7-11 and Mullen Motors), it's at the east end of the Hamlet commercial center. The environmental experts have noted that the proposed use here of a residential 55 and older Southold Town Planning Board Page Ten February 23, 2009 intense uses that are located along the Main Road to the west before you get into the residentially-zoned properties east of the property. So you have things like: a shopping center, a 7-11, a car dealership, various retail stores, a dry dock boat facility; those are all the things that abut what becomes residential as you move east. The proposed development here, which is residential in nature, is deemed by environmental experts as a wonderful transition from intense use to rural use. The planning study that I mentioned states affirmatively that the proposed development would not adversely impact aesthetic or cultural resources, has no significant adverse impact to the surface or ground water, no significant adverse noise impact could be expected; the subject site is not situated within a critical environmental area or CEA as it is known, or wild scenic or recreational river systems corridor. It is not situate proximate to any wetland or water bodies. No significant adverse ecological impacts are anticipated; the proposed action will not create a material conflict of the current plans, goals of the Town or existing zoning. The review of the proposed development indicates that it complies in all zoning code and both requirement respects, it provides a 25' vegetative buffer which far exceeds the requirement of the Town Code, if any, and buffers in the surrounding area. It meets the stated goals of the Town to provide senior and affordable housing in the Hamlet center, and the proposed action in sum would not result in significant adverse impact to the environment. I think that concludes my presentation. I hope it's been helpful to the Board and to the public. We think it is a wonderful proposal and we are looking forward to moving forward. Thank you. Georqe Solomon: Would anybody else like to address the Board? Please remember to sign in, state your name and where you are from. Benja Schwartz, Cutchoque: I apologize if I am a little tipsy today, but I was up last night reading 900 pages from the submissions of 600 pages from the developer directly, and then there were 300 pages of letters from all kinds of people in the file. So, I did a lot of reviewing. Not as much as the developer, having spent tens of thousands of dollars. I'd like to compliment you, Mr. Read, on the presentation. You spoke very well and not too fast, not as fast as our Supervisor. Anyway, that's the last good think I have to say. I am a resident of Cutchogue for over 50 years. I am very upset when I see things like a neighbor of mine who put in an application to build a wood shop on his property line. Not set back two feet or five feet, but on the property line, right up against his neighbor's garage, which is built on the property line. How can you do that? Oh, we build the wall and then we raise it up. That's not Southold Town to me. So anyway, I'm just someone who lives here that cares about the area and someone who has taken a close look at this application and has a little different perspective from the developer. Now, one thing the developer is doing right now is suing this Town. And in the papers for the lawsuit he says that the Town is not considering this development application proposal, that the Town just keeps wasting time with work sessions and comments and this preliminary hearing. This is analogous to an event, because there is nothing in the Town Code; it doesn't say what this preliminary hearing is for. We heard a little introduction from the Planning Board, but rd like to add that just because the Town Code doesn't say, doesn't mean that there isn't a meaning to the Code; the Code has a Town Planning Board Page Eleven February 23, 2009 meaning, the preliminary hearing is essentially a transfer of the public to become aware of the application and to review it and maybe comment on it and also the applicant. I'm not saying we've got a bunch of angels on our Town Board; at one of the work Southold sessions, the property owner came and wanted to speak and they wouldn't let her talk. Not for one minute, and I think that's wrong. But here we have a preliminary hearing; I don't know if the property owner is here tonight, are the property owners here tonight? They are. Well, it's nice to meet you. And good luck, I hope we can agree on something eventually. But right now I'd like to point out the applicant is not these property owners. The applicant is a corporation. The name of the corporation is East End Resources. The address of the corporation is Garden City. Well, because one of the principals of the corporation is an attorney in Garden City. He's also the law office that is the Plaintiff representing the corporation in the lawsuit against Southold Town. They are claiming they are entitled to $20 million. I don't want to get into all the details, but essentially I think they are accusing our Planning Board of dragging their feet. They just sent recently a letter to the Planning Board and said stop dragging your feet. But they didn't send that letter until after they filed the lawsuit. The lawsuit came first. It seems to me that's not the way we do things in Southold Town. We try to be informal and nice, but maybe we need to change a little, maybe we need to straighten up our procedures. Who is the Planning Board? The Planning Board represents our Town government. Town government represents all the Town people including the property owners and the developers who, in essence I believe they are in contract to buy the property owner, so they are sort of the legal property owners to be. Anyway, the Planning Board has to represent all of them. On the other hand, I am a citizen and I think I represent the public interest. The corporate interest is primarily dollar sign; that's what corporations do; they are there to make money. Whatever he is saying about this being a wonderful thing for Southold, we all know the primary purpose of this proposal and design is to make money. Nothing wrong with making money, but let's not forget the community interest, the common interest in our community of all the people who live here and the environment. I think one of the biggest problems, one of the reasons that there's a lawsuit is because there has been a failure of the Planning Board and this developer to communicate. I don't put blame on anyone, but in one of the letters, the developer writes about the Planning Department taking official action not to lobby to defeat the application by asking the Town Board to rezone the property. I'm glad the Planning Department is doing their job. Not to defeat the application; that's not their job, that's not what they're doing. That's what this developer tells you they're doing. You can't believe everything you hear. So, let's get into the specifics here. That's what they wrote: the Planning Department is officially lobbying the Town Board to change the Local Law for the purpose of defeating the application. In reality, what happened is the Planning Department proposed to complete the Town Zoning Code which was intended to have certain design standards for site plans, but the Town Board only got as far as design standards for subdivisions and they never got around to the design standards for site plans. So they did prepare them, but at the last minute the Town Board said we have to think about it some more and they postponed action on that. So in an application like this, one of the first questions is'how many condominiums, how many units. And in this case, what happened is they do what they normally do and split the Town Planning Board Page Twelve February 23, 2009 property up pretending they're going to subdivide it into different separate properties. You can have 24 different people owning. They came up with 24 lots. 10,000 sq. ft. per lot, 24 quarter-acre lots. Then they said oh we have to build affordables, oh well, they said on each on of these lots, in addition to the house, you could have an accessory apartment. So that's 24 more units. So they came up with this number 48. They claim, and they may be very right that our Town law says that they could have many units as there are houses. Our law says that the Planning Board is the one who determines. The Planning Board has been interpreting it all along and has always interpreted it to mean you get the yield, you get the number of lots: 24, not the 48. But this developer said, no, we are entitled to 48, but don't worry we are not going to ask for 48, we're only asking for 27. So, you're lucky. But that's something that happens all the time; the developer claims he's entitled to much more and then aren't we lucky that he's not asking for it. Anyway, the Planning Board objected to the number 27, developer insisted, Town Attorney conferred with the Planning Board and eventually 27 was accepted. So the developer got his way on that one. So there's something in the papers here that talked about the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Southold. It says that they tried to find it. Anybody surprised they couldn't find it? Well, somebody in the Town Clerk's Office didn't know where it was, so they went to the Planning Department and the Planning Department said that it's in the Town Clerk's Office and it's the Southold Town Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement. By the way, I know what that is, I'm an attorney and I studied Land Use Law. If anybody has any questions on Land Use Law, I'd be happy to try to explain it, but it can get complicated. Anyway, bottom line is the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Southold: what is it? Legally there are two types of Comprehensive Plans. New York State Legislature says the comprehensive plan is a written document. Unidentified Audience Member: How do you feel about the project? Benja Schwartz: One of the claims is that this project fits our Comprehensive Plan. Another claim is that it fits our Zoning Code. The Comprehensive Plan, I'll keep it short for you. Let me say that as a human being, not as a lawyer, and as your neighbor, I believe that the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Southold was made by the "great spirit." It was here before humans came here. Then humans started building things, and they created a de facto plan. There was nothing in writing, there was nothing on paper. Eventually came a day when people said maybe we need to put something on paper. Well, that really hasn't come to pass yet. There is no one document, or even if you put all the documents together, I think... George Solomon: Excuse me, could you please address the Board? Benia Schwartz: So, I apologize. The Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Southold is what we have, the buildings around' here. Does this fit in? Well, the developer claims that there are a lot of bigger buildings in Southold, and that's true. If you look towards the Southold Hamlet, there are a lot of bigger buildings; he has a list of them here. So, right around this property you have a lot of historic houses. Is this going to be an historic house? No. They are offering to preserve the historic house on the property, Town Planning Board Page Thirteen February 23, 2009 and I think that's very admirable and the right thing to do. I just wish they would give it historic designation now instead of waiting to do it until the end of the application. So, on the one hand, you have the big high density buildings in the Hamlet of Southold. On the other hand you have these historic buildings surrounding it. In the one direction, on the south and the west side of the property, is high density development. On the east and the north sides of the property are farms and Iow density residential. So this property is right in the middle. The question is: where does the Town of Southold go? Are we going to kick building out because we are close to the high density; sowhy not add more high density? Or are we going to build moderate size developments because we are bordering on the farms and the open land? In terms of the natural environment, a little advice for the developer: these plans propose moving 200 cedar trees that are on the property, rve had some experience moving cedar trees, it's not so easy. They have deep root systems and when you move a big tree you're taking a chance the tree might die, even if you do it with the best available equipment and technology. I work with the nursery industry out here, so I contacted Whitmore's Tree Farm. They told me it would cost more; the developer would have to pay more to move the trees from the middle of the property to the edge of the property than to buy new trees, have them brought in on a truck and plant them. So, if you have a sentimental value and you're willing to pay a premium of 33% more per tree; it costs approximately $3,000 to move a 20' tree. The proposal here calls for moving 200 trees between 20 & 35' high. 35' high requires a 6' root ball and could cost between $5,000 and $10,000. If you were going to move 200 trees at 20', that would be $600,000. Some of them are bigger; you're looking at a million dollars for moving trees. Now I know why he's suing the Town for $20,000,000. He needs money to move the trees. But, you know, the nature out here, if you don't understand it, it's something, and I don't think the response to the existing resource and site analysis plan here talks about the fact that this property is over a sole source aquifer. It talks about different kinds of aquifers: primary aquifers, and sole source, that's what we have in the entire Long Island, the only source of fresh water is the aquifer. The entire North Fork is a very shallow aquifer, where we don't have a lot of water. I didn't see any letter from Suffolk County Water Authority in the file saying that water is available to this development, and I question if SCW^ is already digging wells in Riverhead importing water into Southold Town. Where are they going to get the 5,000 gallons a day that this development is estimated to use? And where are those 5,000 gallons a day going to go after they are used? Into cesspools. Well, it says here it's OK because the property is not over a deep recharge area. Remember we don't have any deep recharge areas on the North Fork. All we have are shallow. It's not in a special groundwater protection area. I think the entire North Fork should be a special groundwater protection area. Since the site is situated over, oh, shallow flow systems under this site discharge to streams and marine waters. So that's where the water is going after it gets used. Now, I'm really not anti-development. Just two brief other things: there was a developer in Nassau County who wanted to build a mall, one of the biggest malls on Long Island, on a property that used to be owned by the Sero (sp?) Wire Corporation. Well, a coalition of citizens formed to fight it. They've been fighting it for ten years. They also had the financial backers. Geor.qe Solomon: Excuse me, Mr. Schwartz, but how does this pertain to the application? Town Planning Board Page Fourteen February 23, 2009 Benja Schwartz: Well, we are being sued. The Town of Southold, the public, this is a public hearing and the taxpayers are being sued by this developer and this developer is claiming that this Planning Board is just wasting time and they should get to business processing the application. Of course they mean just approving it. So, what happened up there is the town rejected the proposal for a huge mall. The developer came back and said I'll make it a little smaller. The town said OK; let's have a supplemental environmental impact statement on your new plan. The developer said no, I will sue. And he won in court. I was real upset by that for a couple of years. But this here, the Appellate Division in Brooklyn reversed that decision and said no: the court cannot substitute their decision for the town. The Town Board is the one that has the right to make the determinations of the interpretations of the meanings of Town Law, and our Code allows (and I notice the developer always puts it in quotes "as of rights") the maximum that you could put on this property. But there is no "as of right" on this property because there is an existing house there. So you couldn't get a building permit to build one single house on that property without first going through a subdivision. And a subdivision doesn't just go before a building inspector, it has to go to a quasi-judicial board and there's no "as of right" in this forum. The last thing I just want to mention is Sweetwoods in Port Jefferson Station. Not in Nassau County, we are getting closer in Suffolk. Sweetwoods in Port Jefferson Station: the developer built the model: a huge "McMansion" (not as big as these, not half as big as these), but he was sitting around for a couple of years. He couldn't even get anybody to come and look at them. So he eventually went back to the drawing board, redrew a smaller plan. He didn't even bother building a model. But now he's getting a lot of interest and he has lots that he is building on and it looks like most of them will be built with a smaller and a little less pretentious (inaudible). We need senior housing out here, I think we do. But we need senior housing that the seniors can fit into and can afford. This design is to put money in the pockets of the developer. Thank you. George Solomon: Thank you for your comments. Mr. Romanelli. And please, keep your comments to the subject matter. Thank you. John Romanelli: I think you did a great presentation. I can't imagine what else could be asked more on a project like this: what more could be reviewed. I was on the Town Board when this project came forward and I was also on the Southold Hamlet Stakeholders Committee. Every step along the way you describe in your presentation is the same as I remember how it came across. As a resident of Southold and a business owner of Southold, as a past Board member and as a Hamlet Stakeholder, I commend you; I think you did a great job, I think you ought to pass this, stop going nowhere and get it done. They've done their homework. So I hope you will move it along. Thank you. Roberta Lee: I live in Cutchogue. We've been following this so-called development which has a positive connotation to it. When Benja said he's not against development, we heard the snickering. It's not a developer, it's a builder. What is he developing? He's a builder. And what the builder is doing is speaking: it's supposed to convey this positive connotation about development, and what it is is "rape and run." Who comes Town Planning Board Page Fifteen February 23, 2009 into this community to build this? What does it do to the community? Does it hire Kolb Electric? Does it hire the oil company out here? No. According to the book that was given to the Planning Commission by this group, the Cutchogue group, was to point out the fact what happens: it's a book called "Leisureville" and we passed out a number of copies if you happen to remember. It says specifically that what happens in places like The Villages in Florida, that horror scene, what happens there is that they bring in unlicensed workers, they bring in people under the carpet, they bring in lousy workmanship, and what do they know? Because they think they're dealing with ditzy 55 and overs who just want to get rid of the grandchildren and the kitchen. So, therefore, you have a lot of shoddy workmanship and a lot of problems with that. More people should read that book: "Leisureville" that talks to you about exactly. Because what they want to do is cut their cost, split and run. Put ten cents into the community and it's a blight. It's a blight. Thank you. George Solomon: You're welcome. Would anybody else like to, Mrs. Beninati? Marie Beninati, 3070 Peconic Lane: I wasn't going to speak. I didn't have intentions of speaking but after hearing some of these comments, I really feel compelled to make a few statements anyhow. I am a realtor in Southold, and I talk to a lot of people: a lot of seniors who live here and would very much like to stay here. But they have large homes, waterfront homes, they want to cash in, they want to retire, they would like to put some money away and they would like to have a place to live in Southold. And you know what, there really isn't anything. There is nothing for these people to buy: a nice place, a decent place. The only thing that exists right now is Founders, and generally it's small; there's no garage, there's hardly any parking, there is nothing. So, where do these people go? They go to Maidstone Landing; they leave here. And these are people who have lived in Southold for years and years and years, who have contributed, who have friends. And they are not able to stay in their own community; they are not able to stay with their friends, they are .not able to go shopping where they normally go shopping. And this particular project, which isn't very large, is 24 units. It's within the code. And I think perfectly lovely, and I do know that it's a very well- respected builder. I don't think they are going to rape and run. I also think seven years is a very long time to hold up the owners of this property. I feel terribly sorry for the Cohens. This never should have happened. So, I would say to you: agree, compromise, do whatever it is that will satisfy the Planning Board, and do the right thing for the owners of the property, for the people who live in Southold, for the seniors who live in Southold who want to stay here. Give them a place to go. Thank you. Geor.qe Solomon: Thank you. Would somebody else like to address the Board? Herb Adler, Town Harbor Lane: I just have a few comments. One of them is that some of the people know that I was going to make some comments today. My major consideration will be last. I am a stakeholder currently of Southold, and I approve of the fact that this is going to be an affordable housing, though I also find affordable housing that is rental property is really not my idea of what the Town should be doing. It allows people to have no equity and is just another out of pocket cost. That's neither here nor there. But I did want to ask a question. On the notice it says 27 dwelling units Town Planning Board Page Sixteen February 23, 2009 housing that is rental property is really not my idea of what the Town should be doing. It alloWs people to have no equity and is just another out of pocket cost. That's neither here nor there. But I did want to ask a question on the notice it says 27 dwelling units age restricted 55+ people. Is the affordable housing for age-restri.cted? Do the age- restricted people get access to all the facilities of the property? Chris Read: With respect to affordables in general, we had a meeting in, it's been so long a road, sometimes the years sort of blend together. But at one point there was a meeting with the Supervisor, with the Building Department and the Town Attorney and all members of the Planning Board staff, and it was determined that it was memorialized in a letter that was sent back to all the folks in the town who were at the meeting, and it stated that the affordable housing portion of this project would be age- restricted. I think there were some affordable housing questions I think I was remiss with and I apologize and I don't mean to interrupt your time, but if I could just hit them quickly, I may be addressing your question. It's three units; this is what we perceive to be a community. In other words, the affordable housing provision in the front is part of the community. The community will have to pay for the upkeep of the community; when I say the community I mean Southwold Manor. So, there are going to be management fees, maintenance fees yet folks are.., if they want to participate, they may. With respect to affordables, it was written in an editorial in the paper that these are taxpayer- subsidized homes. That is 100% inaccurate. The houses are built: the Town Board sets a limit for how much those houses can be sold for. The Town Board from time to time can revisit that and raise and lower as they see fit. But the buildings will be built by the builder and the price will be set. There is no subsidy of any kind. Herb Adler: That doesn't answer my question; I am only interested in the original house on the row that is supposedly going to be landmark preserved. I have also been a previous Chairman of the Landmarks Preservation Committee so I have some interest in these things. That is going to be age-restricted? Chris Read: Yes. Herb Adler: Well, that I find deplorable. And that's not a comment on you; that's a comment on the Town. I just think that is abominable. But my main point is the traffic flow. Now I did look at the project a week ago, I looked at the blueprints and I looked at some of the backup, maybe I didn't look at all of it. But as I read the traffic reports, they only looked to the interior of the project; there was nothing about how traffic used on the Main Road. I just don't know what is going on. If you look at the Main Road, there is illegal parking just east of the 7-11. Nobody moves the big trucks that are unloading or stopping at the 7-11. If you come out of Town Harbor Lane, it's worth your life right now. What if you have another road coming out right across basically from the 7-117 I just don't know; to me there's something wrong if this isn't addressed in some way. So, I think I've basically said what I wanted to say. And thank you. Geor,qe Solomon: Thank you. Is there somebody else who would like to address the Board? Town Planning Board Page Seventeen February 23, 2009 Jenn HartnaRel, P.O. Box 1792: I am an Environmental Advocate with Group for the East End. We are an environmental advocacy organization; we have been working across the East End for over 35 years and we recently opened an office on Main Street in Southold. I'm here tonight to comment on this application and address the subsequent issues and then make some recommendations. The first issue I wanted to address was the sewage treatment on this property. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services adopted new standards, I believe in July of 2008. According to these new standards, if you did the math for 27 units, the proposal would be 3600 gallons per day over the allowed maximum flow on this property. Prior to the new standards being adopted, this application was still over the allowable flow and the applicant needed to acquire credits. So, whether or not this application is exempt from those new standards, that's not the point; the fact is that there is considerable sewage coming from this property and there needs to be a serious discussion of what is the best way to handle the sewage. Is it septic systems or is it the possibility that an on-site sewage treatment facility needs to be examined here. Now, do we know if there are private wells in the area that could be contaminated from the sewage generated from the site? That's one issue. The second issue that I'd like to speak about is how the yield was calculated. I know the applicant continues to use the phrase "as of rights". The application states that the standard yield derived from this pamel be 24 lots and 48 units allowed. However, we feel that the Town Code makes it clear that in order to arrive at this yield, sewers would need to be required. And sewers are not in this area. So then we believe that the Town Code yield would present 14 lots. And, if you double that using the accessory apartments: 28 units, not 48. So again, there is a considerable jump from 14 to 27 units. We believe this exemplifies an over-intensification of the site. The allowable building area is maxed out here. Again, this is a literal interpretation of the Code with the accessory apartments, but I think this Board needs to exercise some common sense here. These are not accessory units; these units are the same and I think that it's over-intensified here. Thirdly, the open space: there is no meaningful open space proposed on this site. The green areas appear to be managed landscape, aside from the buffers, and they are going to be irrigated. More than likely that's going to require fertilizers and pesticides. Again, this brings to question our water resoumes in the Town. And so we would recommend increased natural buffer areas for the site plan. I'd like to also address the size of the units. We believe that they are excessively large: 2700 sq. ft. to 2900 sq. ft. for residents 55 and older. Those are large units, and they are not commensurate with what is currently available in other communities for 55 and older throughout the Town. In fact, when the Suffolk County Department of Health Services amended their regulations, they use a standard: 600 sq. ft. to 1200 sq. ft. because that's the size of the units typically found in Suffolk County for 55 years and older. So, again, the size of the units brings to question community character issues and whether these units are going to meet the needs and provide a diversity of housing stock. Are they nice? Yes, they look nice. But again, they are very large for 55 and older. They are larger than my house. Lastly, with the issues that I brought up and Town Planning Board Page Eighteen February 23, 2009 given the magnitude of this application, we believe that there is potential here for significant environmental impact and we would ask that this Board issue a Positive Declaration when it makes a SEQR^ determination and mandate addressing environmental impact statement. We feel that the main purpose of a DEIS is to mitigate many of these impacts that I have addressed. For instance, energy efficiency: these are large units. Within the DEIS, lead standards could be addressed. Alternative site designs: smaller units, wastewater treatment, open space, community character issues should all be vetted out in this document so that we can arrive at the best possible design for the community. Thank you for listening to my comments tonight. Geor.qe Solomon: Would you please sign in? Jennifer Hartnaqel: Sure. Geor.qe Solomon: Wo~JId anybody else like to address the Board? Nancy Sawastynowicz, 1845 Fleetwood Rd. Cutcho.que: Good evening. I reviewed the EAF and I had a few questions regarding itl First of all, there is no name to the people that are going to be the developers, this corporation. I feel that is wrong in our Town; they did this on the project in Cutchogue also. I'd like to know who the people are that are going to be building these things, not the Garden City firm, but who is going to own those condominiums that's gonna be making the money. I think it should be in the record at our Town Planning file. I really don't think when the attorney called it "rural:" high density is not rural, I just want to get that clear. On the E^F, ~6, it asked if it's near any state or national historical places, he wrote "no" and it is right next door. The Vail/Scopaz house is on the registry, so that is wrong right there. I think that should be looked at and taken into consideration. Now, he says he's going to make that house an historical landmark. Will it be able to be approved if it's ail chopped up inside, I don't know; does anybody know? Did they make apartments on the inside for affordables? OK. So anyway, #6 is wrong. Then, on #8, the depth of the water table is 25' to 30'. So, I think there is a real problem with cesspools, and that's why he's calling it 55 and over, because they don't have to have treatment plants for sewage, because that's how these condos get there waste into high density. So, I think we should really address the water table and the usage of sewer. On #B, it said how many acres of vegetation, trees and growth would be removed. Well, he said 4-1/2 acres is going to be removed out of 6-3/4 acres, so where are the 2-1/4 acres? This was a little hard to figure out how he counts. Then on #6, he didn't even answer the question; he has a star there saying he'll determine based onthe timing of the permit process. That has nothing to with how long the construction of this will take; he should have answered that, he just can't leave blanks because we don't know when we are going to approve or disapprove the permit. So, he left all of #7, A, B, C and D all blank. I think that's very important to the Town; we should know that, we can't let him leave blanks on this important form. Then I was really concerned with the amount of garbage they are going to generate: 3.4 tons per month. So, they're going to use the Cutchogue Transfer Station, but then he's saying there will be no septic into the sanitary landfill. Well, no sewage is gonna go there, so where will it go? He writes "no" in #16D; when it's time to put in the cesspool, where is it gonna go? Town Planning Board Page Nineteen February 23, 2009 So, then I think that should be, I mean I know that's why they are going 55 and older, so they could get away with sewage treatment. You've gotta look into that, their overall water table, I still have a water well, I do not want city water, it's nasty. Then, on Page 7 of 21, #18, will the project use herbicides or pesticides? He says yes. We have to start addressing that. Why do they have to use pesticides? They have a perfect lawn. I never use a pesticide ever, and my lawn is perfect. So, we have to address #18; I think there's a time now we have to really protect our water table. The amount of water a day: 4,530 gallons a day. Has Suffolk County Water Authority given approval for this amount of water? Does anybody know? He said something about Suffolk County Water Authority, but I don't know if he's gotten approval. I guess they'll give him approval when he gets site plan approval, right? OK. So then I'm just reminding the Board that we are importing water now from Riverhead. We don't have enough water here for what we have now. The Suffolk County Water Authority has put that in writing; I have copies of that letter saying we have enough water for what's here now. So, if we are going to be pumping in that much water for this development, we have to really deal with the sewage; I think it's time. Another thing: in the paper, the developer wrote that they are going to add to the tax base of our town. We know for a fact that condominiums get a break on the tax rate when they are in our Town, so we will be covering the bill for most of the taxes for these places. And then I had just a few more on that EAF that I was really concerned with. He said that on #8, the proposed action is compatible with adjoining and surrounding land uses within ¼ mile. So where is the high density like this developer wants that's compatible on #8? He says yes. So I think the whole form, we need to do, I mean I just looked at it briefly and I saw all these things and rm not really a land person, I just live here. So I think if I can find this, we gotta really take our time. And they have no right to sue us; we have a right to really worry how we develop the future of our town. This is #12: Will the proposed action result in generation of traffic? He says no. I mean, come on. We know that it will generate traffic. Anybody can figure that one out. So, I'm just here to say we have to worry about the water and the traffic. That's all for now; I just appreciate you guys for letting me go on and on. Thank you. Geor.qe Solomon: You're welcome. Would anybody else like to address the Board? Peter Hughes, 1290 Hill Road, Southold: I would like to speak in favor of this project for several reasons. One: I believe it's consistent with the Stakeholders report that called for housing for our senior citizens: those over 55 and also affordable housing. Two other points: as far as our taxes are concerned, in the school district of Southold, I can't speak for Mattituck or Cutchogue school district, but in the school district of Southold, 65% of our taxes go to the school district. If this project was in place today, our school taxes would be lower and not higher. I think the impact upon Town services is minimal with this type of community. Parking: again, I'm not too concerned about it; they are looking at both Colonial Village and Founders Village: most of those people walk to Town and the automobile impact on the town is minimal. They are not driving their cars all over the place. I think much of our traffic problem is a result of day trippers that are Town Planning Board Page Twenty February 23, 2009 coming out here to both our vineyards and shops, which is important to our businesses. I am not complaining about that, but that I think is the major cause of most of our traffic problems. And finally, I get a sense from many of the comments that there is a resistance to change. When you think back, this Town changed since 1640 with the Reverend Young and the first settlers in this Town, and has been changing ever day since 1640. I'm not sure where you want to freeze it. If itwas in 1840, 1940 or 1958, we are going to have to deal with change; it's going to keep on occurring and you have a challenge as to how to do that rationally. Thank you. Geor.qe Solomon: You're welcome. Would anybody else like to address the Board? Marian Salerno, 400 Hill Road: I am a resident of Southold. I am also a Southold Hamlet Stakeholder. We have very much wanted to promote this type of housing in the hamlet center. I don't like to see a lot of growth myself on the one hand. On the other hand, we have to have some type of growth, and there is really a need for this type of residence, I think. I am very much in favor of it. Thank you. Geor.qe Solomon: You're welcome. Would anybody else like to address the Board? Chris Read: Without taking too much more of the Board's time or the public, there were just a couple of things that were raised and I think that whether or not they are outside of the purview of the code, they are still legitimate concerns, and I would like to answer them. With respect to Ms. Lee, your concern about outside builders coming in and going away: these buildings were designed by a building company, Reed Custom Homes. They have been building on Shelter Island, a little bit on the North Fork. Reed Custom Homes is the builder on this. The petition that was submitted comes from a lot of the suppliers and the workers, the tradesmen that Reed Custom Homes has been working with for years and years: Southold Quarry, Corazzini, Scott Clip, Briarcliff Landscaping, Riverhead Building Supply which is in town, our carpenters, our plumbers. Virtually, with a few exceptions of folks who live in say, Manorville, the entire workforce for this builder I would call local. By local I mean Shelter Island and the North Fork. Water is available at the property; we have a water availability letter from the Suffolk County Water Authority. We have submitted our applications to the Suffolk County Water Authority and to the Health Department. We have gotten comments back from both. The comments are minimal. There are no credits that are going to be needed for our proposal. There are no sanitary credits, so I don't know where that's coming from. It complies with the standards that are set by the Health Department. We know that because we have met with the Health Department a few times and we have their comments, which are minimal. The square footage of these units is not 7500 or 7900 as was stated; 2700, they are not. There are three different unit types here and they range in size from approximately 2300 units to the largest one, which is 2510 sq. ft. They are comfortable living spaces. The objective term: who needs how much space, I don't know. These are designed for folks who prefer to live on one floor. So the downstairs has a master bedroom. It has a kitchen; it has your living facilities. Other than that, there's an upstairs that is modest. The size of the first floor, to be specific; no unit is above 1550 sq. ft. on the first floor Town Planning Board Page Twenty-One February 23, 2009 living. They are all below that. So, approximately 1500 sq. ft. of single floor living that accommodates not only young people, but people can age in place here. The first floor will accommodate living and that's sort of the design that we have been creating and that's been the feedback from the folks that live in Town that have shown us interest in purchasing these. So I do, regardless of a subjective opinion of unit size and what is appropriate, these comply with the Code, they are approximately 1500 sq. ft. on the first floor, and they are not 2700 sq. ft. Benia Schwartz: Sir, can I ask you a question? Georqe Solomon: You have to address... Are you finished, Mr. Read? Chris Read: I am finished. Georqe Solomon: Thank you. If you'd like to address the Board, Mr. Schwartz, come up and address the Board. Benja Schwartz: I want to ask a question and you said the Board is not taking any questions. Georcle Solomon: That's correct. You can ask it and we will take it under consideration. Benja Schwartz: I see. His universal design incorporated into the plan, the proposal. Does the Board understand: does the Board know what universal design is? George Solomon: I believe I do. Benia Schwartz: Well, I hope so. I'd be happy to tell you if you'd like. George Solomon: I don't think it's necessary. Benia Schwartz: I don't think the other members of this Board know what that term means, and their relationship to an age-restricted community. But it also applies to unrestricted developments. It means that when they build the property, it's suitable for all ages and of course this is not, it's designed only for active adults, not for seniors but active adults. Thank you. Geor.qe Solomon: Is there anybody else who would like to address the Board this evening? Rob DeVitol 2055 Jacobs Lane, Southold: I have a couple of questions. I understand that there is a problem with city water, town water, in the Town of Riverhead. Is that correct: that there is a shortage of water in the Town of Riverhead? Do you want to answer that? Town Planning Board Page Twenty-Two February 23, 2009 George Solomon: What does that have to do with...? Rob DeVito: Is that a fair statement to make, that there is a water shortage of town water? George Solomon: I don't know that for a fact. Rob DeVito: OK, but it was also said I believe by Mr. Read that Suffolk County Water Authority is going to grant permission to supply water, is that correct? Heather Lanza: Yeah, I think that... Rob DeVito: All right, do we have a copy of that letter; that we'd like to read. Can you present that here, so that we may read that for ourselves? Geor.qe Solomon: If you'd like information that's in the file, sir, you can FOIL the file and you can have the whole entire file or any part of it. Rob DeVito: OK. The other question I had was: there were some questions brought about the effect of sewage emanating from this development. It was indicated that the Health Department, I believe, has given clearance on this, that they have approved this? Is that the case? In other words, that this project has met all the health requirements for the disposal of sewage, is that correct? Does anybody know? Is there any documentation that we can see, or do you have any documentation here that we can read? You don't have anything now here to show us? Because if you're gonna present statements that well, the Water Authority will give us permission, or the Health Department has met these approvals, they we should be able to see them here and now. I think that's a fair statement to make. So, we don't have any documentation to show these approvals? You have nothing here now. The other question I have is: (maybe it's relevant, maybe it isn't) but if this project is approved, what's gonna stop other developments from coming in here and buying up all this other land that's zoned residential, and do the same thing. I grew up in Patchogue, and I worked on the west end of the County. As a boy, I remember my village was all rural. In a matter often years, it was all developed. All it is is asphalt, concrete steel buildings; there's nothing left anymore. That's why I came out here and I could see the same thing happening here. Because I grew up there, we were all told: eh, it's only a little development, don't worry about it. Eh, it's only a little strip mall, don't worry about it. You're gonna have the same thing happen here unless you people realize what you're doing here, you better get on the ball and you better get with it. That's all rm gonna tell you. George Solomon: Thank you for your comments. Is there anybody else that would like to address the Board? If there's nobody else that would like to address the Board this evening, I would entertain a motion to close the hearing. Ken Edwards: So moved. Martin Sidor: Second. Town Planning Board Page Twenty-Three February 23, 2009 George Solomon: All in favor? Ayes. Geor,qe Solomon: Good evening everybody. There being no fu~her business to come before the meeting, it wasADJOURNEDat 7:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~eorge ~6 oml~, V~ce Chair Linda RandolPh,~Transcrib~ng Secretary