Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-05/11/2009PLANNING 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 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Present were: PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Monday, May 11, 2009 6:00 p.m. Martin H. Sidor, Chairperson William J. Cremers, Member Kenneth L. Edwards, Member Joseph L. Townsend, Member Heather Lanza, Planning Director Mark Terry, Principal Planner Tamara Sadoo, Planner Kristy Winser, Senior Planner Carol Kalin, Secretary RECEIVED ~ ~'~'~'~ /2:/~, ,~/// JL1N 8 200g SETTING OF THE NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETING Martin Sidor: Good evening, and welcome to the May 11th meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board. For our first order of business, I will entertain a motion to set Monday, June 8, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, as the time and place for the next regular scheduled Planning Board Meeting. Joseph Townsend: So moved. William Cremers: Second. Martin Sidor: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion passes. Southold Town Planning Board Page Two May 11,2009 PUBLIC HEARINGS 6:00 p.m. - Sutton~ Alexander & Trac¥ - This proposal is for a standard subdivision (re-subdivision) of two parcels totaling 2.444 acres into 2 new lots, where SCTM#1000- 78-9-54 will decrease in size from 1.820 acres to 1.421 acres (61,899 sq. ft.), and SCTM#1000-78-9-78 will increase in size from 0.624 acres to 1.023 acres (44,587 sq. ft.) in the R-40 Zoning District. The property is located at 1160 North Bayview Road, 111.56 feet northeast of Liberty Lane and Victoria Drive, Southold. Martin Sidor: If there is anyone who wishes to address this application, there are microphones on either aisle. Please step forward and give your name and address. Eileen Powers, 230 Columbia Road, Southold: I own a home in Reydon Heights: that is the neighborhood directly affected by this application. By way of background, I am an attorney. I am familiar with Planning and Municipal Law. I am a former Town Attorney for the Tov~n of Southampton. I have my own office in Riverhead and I work with the Town Attorney's Office in Southampton for four years. I have had an opportunity to review this application and I am here to express my objection to it. I frankly don't care whether the property is subdivided, except insofar as it affects what they refer to as a right-of-way, which is that portion of Victoria Drive in our neighborhood that extends out to North Bayview. I had a chance to look at the letter from the applicant's attorney which I absolutely disagree with. His title representative I think it's self-serving and it is baseless. It's ,not supported by the law and it's certainly not supported by the facts. The fact is that this portion of Victoria Drive, which they are referring to as a right-of- way, is in fact a right-of-way in some of the deeds in the Reydon Heights area. They are looking to diminish this right-of-way which was deeded to the original property owners of Reydon Heights more than 50 years ago. It has benefited all of Reydon Heights since that time. It's also, however, and more importantly, a roadway on the filed may for Reydon Heights. With that filed map comes rights for everybody who owns a lot in that subdivision. We have a petition here signed by just about every property owner in the Reydon Heights subdivision which details their use of the property. Some of them are here to tell you tonight. I can tell you from my own experience, I have lived in the neighborhood since 1997 and we regularly use that right- of-way. Just days before I found out about this, the intentions of this applicant, I was on the right-of-way with my children riding their bikes through there. We ride our bikes through there, we walk through there, and we drive our cars as a back exit from the neighborhood. So, for them to talk about reducing it to a 4-5' right-of-way and not diminish our rights is just out and out wrong. It's not supported by the facts. Regardless of whether it's a road or not, that right-of-way has been used in the condition it's in for at least the time that I'm there, and some of my neighbors have been there for 20 years, and some of them have been familiar with it for up to the 50 years. I know that my predecessor in title used it because we discussed it at the closing long before anybody thought about making extra lots and using it. By rights, the entire... and really, you don't have to take my legal advice on it because I'm not here to give you legal advice; I'm here to tell you how I feel about it as a property owner in there. So, get Southold Town PlanninR Board PaRe Three May 11, 2009 the legal advice on it from your Town Attorney. You have a Town Attorney. Mr. Vandenburgh obviously has an interest in what he is doing here because he certainly hasn't pointed out to you that this is a roadway on a filed map that has not been abandoned nor could be abandoned if they wanted to because it just simply doesn't meet the test. It's a roadway that has been used for the last 50 years, rm not sure why the Planning Board would even consider using that in any calculation of their property. This is a right-of-way or a roadway that was purchased from the County recently; they only purchased what the County owned, which is a roadway. The 50' X 400' technically shouldn't be allowed to be calculated in any subdivision application because it is a dedicated road use. I can promise you that (look), if you are going to do this--give them a subdivision based on a reduced or diminished use of the right of way--I am telling you right now I am not going to sit around and watch them take the property rights of the people that live in our neighborhood. So there is going to be litigation over it if that's the course that they take. And there is no reason for this Planning Board to give them something that they haven't established that they are entitled to. If they want, let them go and seek a declaration about their rights from the Supreme Court. Let them ask them what they are entitled to. Because they run the very real risk that the entire 50 X 400' right-of-way is going to be declared (inaudible) so everybody in Reydon Heights they way we think it was intended during the subdivision. But I just want to address one more point and I will let my neighbors talk, because you don't have to take my word for it that it's a roadway; all you have to do--I'd like to make it part of the record: you can go to Hagstrom's, you can go to Mapquest, everybody recognizes this part of Victoria Road as a road. Because that's in fact what it is. It didn't stay in the condition it's in by not being used. You can actually go and see the tire tracks, you can see where there's (inaudible) grass in between where the tires would be and there's dirt and sand in the other area. The roadway is clearly used; you don't have to take anybody's word for it, you can look at Google Map, you can look wherever. But this idea that it somehow--which I just want to address--is not a described easement, which is one of the issues that their title guy brought up. It's just plain wrong. It is described by their own definition as being bounded on the west by a certain property which is the property of my neighbors in Reydon Heights. And then it's said that it runs from Main Bayview to North Bayview, which is Victoria Drive, and it continues to Victoria Drive out to North Bayview. And then it says: "as shown on the proposed map of Reydon Heights". It couldn't be more described. There's actually a picture of it, describing it as 50' wide and 400' long. It couldn't be more described. They are trying to manipulate the language in the deed to somehow reduce the property rights of me and my neighbors. So, we implore you to seek your own legal advice on this, to look at this and to support our rights as property owners, because that roadway belongs to all of us in Reydon Heights. If it affects their subdivision, then that's just how it is. They should not be allowed to take our property rights in order to somehow enhance their own. I am happy to answer any questions if you have any. rd like to make the petition a part of the record and these maps that we have. I will let my neighbors speak while I organize these. Martin Sidor: First of all, I agree we need further legal opinion. Second of all, this meeting is not to be Closed tonight. We are seeking public input. Southold Town Planning Board Page Four May 11, 2009 Eileen Powers: Thank you. So we can still submit things for the record after this: great. Do you have a copy of the original subdivision map that shows the (inaudible)? (inaudible) Martin Sidor: Is there anyone else? Thomas (& Claire Kennedy), 900 Victoria Drive, Southold: Good evening. We live in the Reydon Heights community. We purchased our home in 2005; we live there with our three children. We always consider what we actually call the "dirt read" as being a second egress/ingress to the Reydon Heights community. Personally, I do use this read on a regular basis. In vehicles, on my bicycle, jogging with my children and walking. I believe under the Town Code that would be described as "passive recreation". This portion of the roadway goes directly to North Bayview extension and directly across from North Bayview extension is preserved land. So it's an access for us to there, plus an access for us to beaches and other parts of the community where our children have friends. So, it's a way for them safely to transfer out to other friends' houses where they can have play dates and then come home. This paved portion of this property which the neighborhood children, including my own, use for ball games; they play sidewalk chalk; they ride their skateboards and bicycles. I feel safe because it is not part of the main portion of the roadway; it's more or less described like a cul-de- sac. So, we know it is an enclosed area where the kids are off the portion of the roadway not hindering vehicle traffic. It's safe because we can also see them and I believe that would be "active recreation". One of our neighbors in the subdivision is leaving, and the kids were fortunate enough to get a basketball hoop from the neighbor and the neighborhood kids dragged it down and they regularly play basketball down there. The ball is left there for the kids and the net is up there all the time. Day in and day out after school, you see kids using the paved portion of the roadway, and I believe that would fall under "active recreation". (Inaudible) that many other people who are in the Southold community use this dirt road to drive through: bike, walk and jog. We see this on a regular basis; it's done almost daily where you'll see people have usage and just not the people from the Reydon Heights community. The paved portion of the roadway is also used for parking at times when people on the roads have guests: if they are having some kind of functions, it's (inaudible) where a street like Victoria Drive that's blocked up with vehicles, other vehicles can use that portion of the roadway for parking. It is also maintained by the Town; it's plowed and sanded in the winter, the paved portion, and it's also the street sweepers in the spring come by and sweep off the sand. It's also a pickup and drop off point for brush and leaves in the fall and the spring. The dirt read is maintained partially by myself and other members of the community. There is a portion of grass that is mowed by members of the community; there is pickup of debris, pickup of any kind of brush and leaves that's done on a routine basis. I believe that the petitioners proposed changes would greatly and significantly impact our neighborhood and the surrounding community where we would be inconvenienced by the reduced usage that we have become accustomed to. Most importantly, it's a matter of safety. I'm a Suffolk County Police Officer. One of my Southold Town PlanninR Board PaRe Five May 11, 2009 responsibilities is: I'm a member of the Crisis Action Team. I have specialized training where I would respond to natural disasters, terrorist attacks and different kinds of mobilizations throughout the County. If I had no way to get out except the second egress, if that was blocked off, I would not be able to perform my function. There are other police officers who live in this neighborhood, and there is also a volunteer fireman who lives in this neighborhood too, which the community depends upon in a time of need to go out in disasters in a time where we would need to get out. By reducing our usage of that it would be impossible if, in the event of any kind of tree blockage or any kind of flooding on Main Bayview Road, which is our main ingress and egress to the subdivision. It is flood-prone. In the past, I believe, during a hurricane storm, the dirt road was the only way in and out of the Reydon Heights community for more than 50 households. We have a State-certified day care in one of our residences where children are dropped off day in and day out. Again, as a matter of safety, if Main Bayview the portion was blocked off, there is no way for children to get in and out to be reunited with their'parents. Catholic Charities has a group home for handicapped women also in the Reydon Heights community. Again, people who would need to get in and out in the case of an emergency if we didn't have a second access to get in and out, which could be a problem. We have many elderly and young people who reside here and there could be a need someday to use that roadway for rescue services. It is aesthetically beautiful. For those of you who haven't seen it, it's a part of our community. Throughout the seasons you see the changes, you see the beautiful green as that's blooming now; you see during the summer, during the fall you see the changes, and in the winter it's just very peaceful to walk through there; it's a nice way to start your day or end your day, with your family, by going through there. Again, it is a source of convenience. It's a reminder of the rural past of our Town. We all (inaudible) Southold at different times throughout the years and we all enjoy, it brought us here because of the beauty. Today it connects us as a community, the dirt road. Again, its use you'll hear from many of my neighbors; it's used by all in different capacities day in and day out. It's also a commitment to the preservation for the future. Land usage has always been an issue here in Suffolk County and in the Town of Southold which has really taken a keen awareness to the resources that are shrinking. This road represents that past. I'll say that my wife has any additional comments. Claire Kennedy: Just the fact that I was born in Greenport HOspital so I've been around for awhile. I'll be 40 in September. As a child growing up I lived in the area right on Main Bayview; I didn't actually live in Reydon Heights, we moved in 2005. But I've always used that as a child, walking through with my mom and dad. We've driven through it, walked through it, biked through it, even before I belonged to the Reydon Heights area, and I currently still do use it: drive through it, bike, walk--I don't jog. But, yes, I do use it as well, and I just wanted to let you know that. Thank you. One other thing: my mom and dad still use it as well. They've wrote letters as such and I'd like to give you those as well for the record. Martin Sidor: Thank you. Eileen Powers: I just want to clear one thing up. There's a paved portion that Tom Kennedy was talking about. Isn't part of what they are referring to as the right-of-way. Southold Town Plannin,q Board Pa.qe Six May 11, 2009 So, part of what they are considering right-of-way in this road to be reduced to a 4-5' foot path, at least 50' of it is actually paved over and it's probably 50' wide also in that area. So you might want to go and take a look at it. Martin Sidor: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Barbara McLau.qhlin, 1075 Victoria Drive, Southold: Good evening. My property is adjacent to Mr. & Mrs. Sutton. rve been there since 1997, and I just wanted to say that I use that road very frequently, rma cyclist, I ride my bike down that read, I've driven down the road, I've cleaned debris off that road, trimmed back some of the overgrowth. In fact, I just had a landscaper a couple of weeks ago: there were vines on the Sutton's property that were choking my trees and into the road, and I had those removed and removed downed trees from the area so that people could pass through. The road is used quite a bit by my neighbors, and I agree with all that it's just a lovely recreational road. Lots of people walk with their children and play in front of my home. I hope to see that you will investigate this and do the right thing. Thank you. Martin Sidor: Thank you. Next? Joyce Gri.qonis, 470 Columbia Road: I just wanted to mention that we have had some rescues in the neighborhood and any of the EMT's that have to come from Goose Creek area will come through that right-of-way. Also, UPS, Cable and LIPA use the road, too, as access to our neighborhood. We walk 3 or 4 or 5 times a week on the road. I use it to cut through. I grew up in the neighborhood right around the corner on Goose Creek; I've been using it since I was 4 or 5 years old with my father and other neighborhood kids walking around. I don't know anybody in the neighborhood who doesn't use it weekly if not daily. But it's really important for EMT's from the other areas to be able to cut through into our neighborhood if they need to. One more thing: we just bought the house, our one year anniversary will be June 2. The HREO ad online said that we had two right-of-ways to two different beaches, and that was listed as one of the right-of-ways. So, if this is closed down, we are going to have to have our house re-assessed. Martin Sidor: Thank you. Alex Sutton, homeowner: Just a couple of things I'd like to clarify. I think we're proposing that we do a subdivision and our map shows that there is a dirt path and there's a right-of-way there. So, I think that our proposal doesn't in and of itself take away anybody's rights. I don't think we are addressing closing a roadway; I believe the letter that the lady who is an attorney mentioned may have some language (inaudible) what a roadway or right-of-way could be interpreted as in terms of its width. But our plan just cites the road as it is and doesn't propose moving it, altering it or adjusting it. We just would like to use some of the property within that existing lot to create our subdivision and we really don't have any strong plans to change the right-of-way. We have no plans right now to change the right-of-way. We are trying to create a plan to create a subdivision. The piece that is paved that is currently being used as a Southold Town P annin.q Board Pa.qe Seven May 11, 2009 basketball court: that's a relatively new event. About a month and a half ago by my estimate--maybe a month ago--somebody put a basketball hoop up on our properbj without asking us. We haven't objected to it; wedon't really mind that somebody's using it as a basketball court. But it is our property, and that portion is actually wider than 50', so regardless of what the outcome of the determination as to what the right-of- way width was and what that parcel would be, we would potentially have the right to restrict the usage of that portion of that right-of-way if we wanted to. I don't think we really do, but the fact that the Town plows it because perhaps they don't know that it's a piece of private property or not, I don't think would be particularly relevant. The fact that people are using our property as a dumping place to put their debris in the fall, we look at that as a nuisance. We put our debris in front of our house on our property which is I believe what you are supposed to do. So I don't think that would be a benefit to maintaining it: the rights of the neighborhood to use it. It is our understanding, and we could be wrong, but when we did reseamh, it is our understanding that there are approximately five residences within the subdivlsion, which goes back to t 965, that have a right-of-way across the property. The right-of-way is undefined otherwise I believe except for ingress and egress. Clearly there is historic use there; most of the time it is pedestrians, bicycles, and horses. There are cars that drive up and down it; I have seen a UPS truck on it. As the property owner, I'd like to limit the use of the read to the people that have the right: if that's all of Reydon Heights, that's fine; if it's the five houses, that's fine. I really don't mind people going up and down the read. Would we like the traffic to be less? Sure, we have three children, they play on the road. Do I want cars driving up and down that read? No, I don't really want cars driving up and down that road. Does it bother me that there are cars driving up and down that read? Not particularly, but would I rather there not be a UPS truck driving up and down that read? Sure, I would rather that. So we would probably want to put up a sign that says: "private right-of-way" or "private property". I can't imagine how we could restrict it in any other fashion that would be legal, and we have no plans to. There is a significant amount of garbage that shows up on the read and my wife cleans up. Now somebody did come in there and clean it up the other day, probably a week ago, or two weeks ago. That is the first time we have noticed that over the course of owning the house, which is coming up on about our two-year anniversary. I guess you may need to get a legal opinion before you can proceed with this. I believe that the rights of the people in Reydon Heights are sustained by the map the way it is defined right now with the 7-1/2' or 10' roadway/dirt pathway/right-of-way that is there now. So, we believe that there is additional property that could be used as part of the subdivision without impeding the rights of the people as (inaudible) tonight. That's just what I wanted to say. Thank you. Martin Sidor: Thank you. Is there anyone else? As I said, the hearing will be kept open. Information will be gathered. Eileen Powers: Apparently this basketball court that everybody is spending all their time talking about is on the (inaudible) portion and the actual Town-owned portion of Victoria Drive: it's actually on some other private property there, not on his property. I find it interesting that he would get UP and tell you he doesn't intend to effect it, yet he submitted legal papers telling you how he is going to reduce it to a 4 or 5' footpath and he tells you right now he wants to cut off read traffic from the read. It's my position that Southold Town Planning Board Page Eight May 11,2009 they intend to get this subdivision forced through with the road intact and then take it from there because they think at that point they have assured themselves whatever profit they intend to make on the property. Martin Sidor: Thank you. Yes, in the back. Alex Sutton: The legal paper that I believe she is referring to is the finding of the gentleman that insured our title on the property. We asked him to forward his opinion as to how he interpreted the roadway. Other than the fact that that's an attached document as his interpretation of what that roadway is, we have not stated that we are turning the roadway into a 4-5' wide right-of-way. So, I don't believe it is part of our obligation in that the document is attached, it's not our opinion but simply his opinion, which we might or might not take under advisement in considering what the right-of-way means. I don't believe that the finding of the Planning Board on whether or not we would subdivide the property would allow us to do anything further in terms of restricting the right-of-way in any fashion. In other words, your finding on the subdivision would not be a legal statement as to what our rights are as to our right-of-ways. Martin Sidor: Thank you. Lillian Foss, 135 Liberty Lane, Southold: My home is adjacent to the Town of Southold property which borders on the section of land we talked about on Victoria Drive. My children are in their late 30's and 40's. I guess they've been playing there since they were really little, so it's basketball hoops and chalk and all the fun things that happened a long time ago before Tom's children started enjoying that land: we hear them all the time, and it's a good thing to hear. But I'd also like to address the fact that this debris is left on that road and that's their property. You know what? The debris is left on the side of the road which is really the Town property. And it isn't left on the road itself, which I understand is his at this time. I started walking in that area in the '40's when it was just a path and it was an abandoned golf course. Then my father bought property there in Reydon Heights in the '50's and put up a house in the '60's. Thank you. Martin Sidor: Thank you. Anyone else? Going once, going twice... Tom Kennedy: In hearing Mr. Sutton's presentation, I am really puzzled in that the documentation we received and what's being planned, I don't think we are fully hearing what the intentions are. Also, I think in his statement he's stating that the Planning Board doesn't have the ability to tell him how to maintain this roadway. But again I think that everyone in the neighborhood and everyone who. has spoken tonight has presented a clear case for the need and the necessity of keeping that open. I don't understand legalese as well as many other people, but there was one document that we had received that was an appendix in the application which on Question 14: "Is the private site used by the community or neighborhood as an open space recreational area?" It was checked off "no". I'm presuming that this was something that was submitted as part of the application. In addition, it talks about bringing the portion of the dirt road that we had spoken about earlier, down to a foot path. Where I see that and again, rm not a lawyer and I'm not a planner, but it seems to coincide with the new Southold Town Piannin.q Board Page Nine May 11, 2009 proposed lot line where it will kind of be the dirt road at its current width, and it's shrunk down to a smaller portion where the other lot will be: 7-1/2'. Again, this came from the title company: "the present use of the dirt path of 7-8' (inaudible), it would therefore be within the Sutton's discretion to alter the size to no less than approximately 4-5' width in location upon the Sutton's parcel." What we're asking again is that the road be maintained in its current form to allow the members of Reydon Heights and the community, but also I'm hoping that the decisions that are made is something that would be honored in the future. Thank you. Martin Sidor: Thank you. Yes, in the back. Joseph Merkel, 975 Victoria Drive, Southold: I've been living there since 1992. I'm currently the president of the Reydon Heights Civic Association, so I represent all the people in there, I've been on the phone to many people, rve been in touch with their opinions and issues. Just want to tell you a little story of how important that right-of-way is: when we first moved here in '92, I don't know if you remember but we had northeastern storms, a Halloween storm, if you remember. The tides had never come that high in a long time, but it flooded right over Goose Creek. The school bus got the kids home earlier because they had it flooded bad that time. So they dropped the kids off and now the road flooded. The kids were trapped at home by themselves; there was no way for us to get through there. So luckily, I drove around the long way, went through the back way over near the bridge, the Goose Creek Bridge. There was a drive up through that right-of-way there because the other way by Waterview Drive was totally flooded out about 3-1/2' of water easily, or more. That was the only way into my property there. So, I was able to go and comfort the kids who were young school graders and by themselves at home in a pretty fierce storm that lasted about two days. So, that's just one incident I wanted to refer. Almost everyone else described everything else. I was just talking to friends today that lived in the area that I work with. I remember back 25-30 years ago or even more, 40 years ago, using that right-of-way with young kids. So, it's been there for a long time. So, really take this into serious account of what's being projected here and how it's going to affect this whole entire neighborhood that's been living in peace here; it's a very nice community up there. Martin sidor: Thank you. Someone mentioned they had something to bring to the Board? Some papers? Eileen Powers: Just for the record, what we are presenting to you the current maps from Mapquest that shows Victoria Drive all the way through to North Bayview, the current Google map which shows Victoria Drive all the way through to North Bayview, the current map from Microsoft Virtual Earth which shows it all the way through to North Bayview and the current Google Earth photo satellite which shows that Victoria Drive goes all the way through to North Bayview. We also have a petition signed by 60 some- odd people who use this portion of Victoria Drive out to North Bayview. Some of them are actually easement holders also over the roadway. Tom Kennedy: Just for the record, adding on my notes as well to the record, as well as three letters that were addressed to the Planning Board regarding this proposal. Southold Town Planning Board Page Ten May 11, 2009 Martin Sidor: OK. Thank you. Richard Vandenburgh: I am actually the attorney for the applicant, the Suttons. I certainly understand the apprehension that we are hearing about the fact that there's this easement and what's going to happen to this easement. So I just want to try and maybe give a little bit more perspective from when we initiated the application. We've always recognized that there is this roadway/pathway/dirt path, whatever you want to call it: we've always recognized that it's been there. We've never ever proposed to the Board in any of the prior work sessions that we want to do anything other than leave it just the way it is. That's been our approach, is to say this is a pathway. Some people will call it a roadway; certainly there are cars that do drive down it. I tried to drive down it once in my truck and as I did the branches on both sides scratched the side of my truck. Apparently the UPS driver, that doesn't bother him. I understand the aspects of the safety issues and that sort of thing, and certainly we are hearing from other neighbors that they've used it and have an interest in using it for emergency ingress and egress and other issues. I can tell you that my client has absolutely endorsed the fact that it should be a scenic causeway, it should be a footpath; it should be a bike path, because it's absolutely beautiful. They don't disagree with that. But I just want to make sure that it's clear that we've never ever said that we are looking to terminate this easement. It's about 7-1/2 to 8' wide from front to back and we essentially tried because I have not found (but it doesn't mean that it doesn't potentially exist) anywhere where the actual metes and bounds, in other words an actual dedication of this particular parcel to the Town. Yes, it was outlined as a potential dedicated roadway in a subdivision map, but I haven't found anywhere where the deed actually conveyed that parcel to the Town. I did find a deed that conveyed all of the other roadways, Victoria up to Liberty, to the Town. While this may be somewhat semantical in terms of what does that mean, what doesn't it mean, the bottom line is, in terms of trying to address the concerns, is that there's not an intention to terminate what exists there. I mean, if there's a way to enhance the beautification of its use, (inaudible) my clients would rather do. They don't want, which they've experienced, the cars with young kids parked there because it is very secluded, with drinking of beer and beer cans on the side of the road. They want to avoid that. They'd like to try and do something to avoid that. So if there was a way to having it utilized in a fashion that would promote security and actually address the actual needs of the people in the community, that's what they want to do. But they are Simply, as we said before, addressing the easement as it existed and there are Supreme Court cases that say we don't want to restrict that, we want to leave it the way it is, we want to make sure that the community and those that have used it in the past continue to have that right. So I just wanted to go on the record to say that during the course of our work sessions and our progress to this point, we've never said that we wanted to terminate or reduce what exists. Thank you. Martin Sidor: Appreciate that. Thank you. Joseph Townsend: I'd like to ask you a question. At the meeting you are saying that you did not represent that this would be largely restricted or restricted to foot or bicycle? Southold Town Plannin.q Board Pa.qe Eleven May 11, 2009 Richard Vandenbur.qh: We were hoping that we could actually have it be such that it would be;. because we understand that the people that my clients have seen regularly are the pedestrians, the bicyclers, the horse riders. Yes there is this periodic car, there is this periodic late at night cars parked there with their lights off, but it's not been used such that you would think of it as a regular, where you have more than, you know, I mean more than just one car a day traveling over that roadway. Again, it's not that we've set up vidbo cameras to monitor this thing or anything like that. But we wanted to be able to use it in a way that it continues to be an easement as it exists, which is about 7-1/2 feet wide. There was talk about if we could, in order to avoid the derelict use of the roadway, doing something to limit the traffic, but we've heard from the neighbors that there are enough of those neighbors here that would find that offensive, so, I mean obviously that would be something that we are not going to be able to do. The Supreme Court cases that exist say that we can't limit the usage that the servient easement holder has had and has enjoyed, and we're not going to do that because that would invite litigation; and certainly my clients aren't interested in litigating with their neighbors. Joseph Townsend: Thank you. Martin Sidor: Briefly. Eileen Powers: I will be brief, because this is rather disingenuous on their part to suggest in one breath when my neighbors and I are speaking that they have intended to leave it alone while they were doing this all along. The legal fact remains, and this is what you need to address with your Town Attorney: they bought a 50' x 400' roadway from the county. The only use they got, the only property rights they got when they purchased it from the county is that which the county had to give, and that's a roadway. That is a roadway; quite frankly it shouldn't even be used in the calculation for their new lots they're that trying to create. They bought a roadway that's being used by everybody here, and that's what they should have. Martin Sidor: I thank you for your information. Ken Edwards: I'd like to entertain a motion to keep the hearing open. Joseph Townsend: Second. Martin Sidor: Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. Thank you. In summing up, this hearing is not to be closed; all the information will be taken and processed. Southold ToWn Plannin.q Board Page Twelve May 11,2009 6:06 p.m. - Conklin.q Point Estates - This proposal is to subdivide a 7.725-acre parcel into four lots, where Lot 1 equals 29,869 sq. ft., Lot 2 equals 29,869 sq. ft., Lot 3 equals 29,869 sq. ft., Lot 4 equals 29,869 sq. ft. and the open space parcel equals 4.1 acres, excluding the area of wetlands. This project includes the transferring of 37,882 sq. ft. of buildable lands from SCTM#1000-53-4-44.3 onto the subject property for the purposes of establishing yield. The property is located on the w/s/o Kerwin Boulevard, approximately 575' w/o August Lane in Greenport. SCTM#1000-53-4-44.1 & 44.3 Martin Sidor: Anyone wish to address the Board on this matter? Jeffrey Butler, Professional Engineer, offices located 206 Lincoln Street, Riverhead: Members of the Board, good evening. I am here on behalf of the applicant Anthony Posillico, who is actually here with me to answer any questions. The subject parcel is located on the west side of Kerwin Boulevard, adjacent to and to the south of the railroad tracks. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 7.725-acre parcel into four residential lots of approximately 30,000 sql ft. each, leaving an open space of about 4.98 acres. The parcel is zoned R-80 and is currently been improved with a single family dwelling which is located on proposed lot #3. The parcel has on it a wetland area which is about .82 acres in size, which reduces the upland area to 6.902 acres. What the applicant is proposing~ is to take the buildable area from lot #1 from the map of August Acres which he has title to, and add it to the buildable area of this parcel to bring the effective yield up to 7.76 acres or 38,184 sq. ft. This brings the yield on this R-80 zoned site up to 4 lots. Our developable area, which the 4 lots equally occupy, is based on 40% of the upland area of the primary parcel, not both parcels (just to be clear on that). A little background: this process started in 2004 when the applicant went to the Trustees with an application for a single family dwelling on the secondary lot, Lot~l on the map of August Acres. Through a joint effort by the Trustees and the Planning Staff, it was suggested that although a project could be approved on the secondary lot, Lot #1 of August Acres, it would better suit the community and the Town if this lot was left to accept storm water overflow from the adjacent sump which sits in between these two parcels. And possibly it could be used in the future for storm water retention. At this time, we have an approval from the Trustees and the DEC. Our Health Dept. approval is only awaiting SEQRA determination from this Board. I am here to answer any questions. I also have correspondence I received from one of the neighbors at 1185 Kerwin Boulevard which rd like to give to the Board. Their concern as the property owner of 1185 Kerwin Blvd. which is basically adjacent opposite proposed Lot ~ on the other side of Kerwin Blvd. on the east side. Their concern was the driveway location for Lot #4, and we are very flexible on that driveway location in terms of where it would go in the future and try to make ingress and egress from his lot as simple as possible, as well as our own, because of the, there's a hump on Kerwin Blvd. that creates a little bit of a blind spot for traffic, and we are sensitive to that. So I'd like to pass that correspondence along. Heather Lanza: Jeff, can you show us which lot is right in the letter on the aerial here? Jeffrey Butler: Which lot is 11857 Southold Town Plannin.q Board Pa.qe Thirteen May 11,2009 Heather Lanza: Yes. Jeffrey Butler: If you look at the aerial, we have 5 dwellings, I'm not even sure that it's an issue; I believe that his lot is this dirt road here. I think he may be over here, which would not even be an issue. We haven't located the driveway. I just had received this correspondence from him after mailing him a copy of the map and I just wanted to make it clear to the Board that we don't have any problems locating that driveway to not abut his ingress and egress. But I think that he may have misinterpreted the map, and I believe that his driveway access is further to the south from Lot ~4. I believe it abuts the open space. Joseph Townsend: So, it may be a non-issue. Jeffrey Butler: Correct. Any other questions? Thank you. Martin Sidor: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this matter? Hearing none, I think Bill had a good idea. Maybe do a visit. Heather, we'll schedule something. Kenneth Edwards: I'd like to entertain a motion that we keep the hearing for Conkling Estates open. Joe Townsend: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. 6:10 p.m. -Chase Bank, Mattituck - This proposal to subdivide a 2.818-acre parcel into two lots where Lot 1 equals 49,262.82 sq. ft. in the B Zoning District and Lot 2 equals 63,480.41 sq. ft. in the R-40 Zoning District. The property is located at 10300 NYS Route 25, approximately 120' e/o Marlene Lane, on the s/s/o NYS Route 25 in Mattituck. SCTM#1000-143-3-33.2 Jennifer Porter: I am an attorney with Gibbons and our address is One Pennsylvania Plaza, 37t" Floor, New York, NY: lam here tonight on behalf of the applicant, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, in connection with this application for a two-lot subdivision to split the property located at 10300 Route 25 into two lots, Lot #1 being the front lot, which would be approximately 1.131 acres and Lot #2, the rear lot, the flag lot, which will be approximately 1.457 acres. This subdivision is (inaudible) in connection with Chase's proposed development of Lot #1 with the Chase Bank and drive-through and the' (inaudible) site improvements. We were previously before the Planning Board and received sketch approval on February 10. Since that point in time we have complied Southold Town Planning Board Page Fourteen May 11, 2009 with all of the conditions of sketch: we have submitted preliminary road and drainage plans, we have submitted a draft declaration of restrictions and covenants listing various obligations on our part including payment of the playground and recreation fee, agreement to the condition that we will no longer or no further subdivide the lot and various other conditions. We have also gotten verification from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation that there are no historical or cultural resources at this site. And so we are simply here tonight for our Public Hearing. And we are here to answer any questions that you may have; we have our site engineer, Bruce Babbit from Savick & Murray, and we also have our site architect, Ken Garvin from JRS Architects. Martin Sidor: Thank you, Is there anyone else who wishes to address the Board? Are there any questions from Board members? Hearing none, I need a motiOn to close the hearing. Joseph Townsend: So moved. Kenneth Edwards: Second. Martin Sidor: Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. Kenneth Edwards: I'd like to entertain the following motion: WHEREAS, this proposal is to subdivide a 2.818 acre parcel into two lots where Lot 1 equals 49,262.82 sq. ft. in the B Zoning District and Lot 2 equals 63,480.41 sq. ft. in the R-40 Zoning District; and WHEREAS, an application for sketch approval was submitted on October 24, 2008, including a sketch plan prepared by Thomas K. Wicks, ES., and Thomas E. Murray, P.E., dated July 11, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board reviewed the plans at their November 17, 2008 Work Session; and WHEREAS, the Office of the Southold Town Engineer, on December 5, 2008, provided comments to the Planning Board on the proposed access to the site; and WHEREAS, at'a meeting held on Monday, February 9, 2009, the Southold Town Planning Board acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.7, established itself as Lead Agency for this Unlisted Action and granted Sketch Approval upon the map entitled "Standard Subdivision of Chase Bank, Mattituck", dated July 11, 2008 and last revised January 26, 2009, prepared by Thomas K. Wicks, L.S., and Thomas E. Murray, P.E.; be it therefore, Southoid Town Planning Board Page Fifteen May 11, 2009 RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.7, as lead agency, grants a Negative Declaration for the proposed action. William Cremers: Second the motion. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded, any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. 6:15 p.m. - Peconic Land Trust, Oret:lon Road - This is a proposed conservation subdivision of a 12.5056-acre pamel into two lots. 'Lot 1 equals 2.5056 acres (with existing residence and Development Rights intact). Lot 2 equals 10 acres from which The Town of Southold purchased the Development Rights in March 2007 for the purpose of farmland preservation. The property is located at 3305 Oregon Road, 53' w/o Elijah's Lane On the n/s/o Oregon Road, Mattituck. SCTM#1000-94-3-1.3 Martin Sidor: Does anyone wish to address the Board on this matter? Any questions from the Board? Joseph Townsend: I move we close the hearing for Peconic Land Trust. Kenneth Edwards: I second the motion. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded, any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. CONSERVATION SUBDIVISIONS, STANDARD SUBDIVISIONS, RE- SUBDIVISIONS (Lot Line Changes) Final Determinations: Aylward/Akscin - This application is for a lot line modification per a Stipulation of Settlement, dated July 1, 2008. Mr. Aylward will receive a deed to a parcel of land on the westerly and northerly boundaries of his property containing .73 acres (SCTM#1000-89-1-3.1) to be merged with his residence parcel of 1.84 acres for a total lot size of 2.57 acres. Mr. Akscin will receive a deed for the northerly 3.48 acres (SCTM#1000-89-1-1) which will require access approval over an existing and improved Southold Town P annin.q Board Pa.qe Sixteen May 11, 2009 30.5' wide easement across land owned by Suzanne Sullivan Fraser. The properties are located 650' w/o the intersection of South Bayview and Cedar Beach Roads in Southold. Joseph Townsend: WHEREAS, an application for a lot line change was submitted on October 2, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Town of Southold Planning Board granted conditional final approval on December 8, 2008, upon the survey map, dated July 29, 2008, prepared by Barrett, Bonacci and Van Weele, PC, subject to the following condition: The filing of new deeds with the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk pertaining to the lot line change and, upon filing, submission of a copy of each to this off.ice; and WHEREAS, a copy of the new deeds filed with the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk pertaining to this lot line change were provided to this office on March 17, 2009; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby grant Final Approval on the survey dated July 29, 2008 prepared by Barrett, Bonacci and Van Weele, PC, and authorize the Chairman to endorse the maps. William Cremers: Second the motion. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded, any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. Re-Issue Conditional Preliminary Determinations: Sterlinfl Harbor at Bayview - This proposal is to subdivide a 14.1529-acre parcel in the A-C zone int° five lots where Lot 1 equals 49,652 s.f., Lot 2 equals 41,302 s.f., Lot 3 equals 42,550 s.f., Lot 4 equals 41,056 s.f. and Lot 5 equals 410,845 s.f. and includes a 40,944 s.f. building envelope and 369,901 s.f. of preserved area. The property is located on the n/s/o Main Bayview Road, 300.21' e/o Midland Parkway in the Agricultural Conservation Zoning District (A-C) in Southold. SCTM#1000-88-2-15 Southold Town Planning Board Page Seventeen May 11, 2009 William Cremers: I will offer the following resolution: WHEREAS, this proposal is for a standard subdivision to subdivide a 14.1529-acre parcel into five lots where Lot 1 equals 49,652 s.f., Lot 2 equals 41,302 s.f., Lot 3 equals 42,550 s.f., Lot 4 equals 41,056 s.f. and Lot 5 equals 410,845 s.f. and includes a 40,944 s.f. building envelope and a 369,901 s.f. preserved area; and WHEREAS, on January 9, 2007, the Southold Town Planning Board granted Conditional Preliminary Plat Approval on the map prepared by John T. Metzger, L.S., dated October 22, 2005 and last revised on November 8, 2006; and WHEREAS, Conditional Preliminary Plat Approval expired on July 9, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board has reviewed the application for Final Approval; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby agrees to re-issue Conditional Preliminary Plat Approval on the map prepared by John T, Metzger, L.S., dated October 22, 2005 and last revised on November 8, 2006, for the following reasons: 1) There have been no changes to any of the requirements of Southold Town Code Chapter 240, Subdivision of Land, since this application first received Conditional Preliminary Approval on January 9, 2007 which would impact the above-referenced application or require that any changes be made to the above-referenced application. No new information has been submitted by the applicant or the public which would impact the above-referenced application or require that any changes be made to the above-referenced application. Kenneth Edwards: Second the motion. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: The motion carries. Kenneth Edwards: I'd like to offer the following resolution: WHEREAS, this proposal is for a standard subdivision to subdivide a 14.1529-acre parcel into five lots where Lot 1 equals 49,652 s.f., Lot 2 equals 41,302 s.f., Lot 3 equals 42,550 s.f., Lot 4 equals 41,056 s.f. and Lot 5 equals 410,845 s.f. and includes a 40,944 s.f. building envelope and a 369,901 s.f. preserved area; and Southold Town Planning Board Page Eighteen May 11, 2009 WHEREAS, on January 9, 2007, the Southold Town Planning Board granted Conditional Preliminary Plat Approval on the map prepared by John T. Metzger, L.S., dated October 22, 2005 and last revised on November 8, 2006; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 2007, Conditional Preliminary Plat Approval expired; and WHEREAS, on May 11, 2009, the Southold Town Planning Board re-issued Conditional Preliminary Approval on the map prepared by John T. Metzger, L.S., dated October 22, 2005 and last revised on November 8, 2006; and WHEREAS, an application for Final Plat Approval was submitted on January 9, 2007; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, June 8, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. for a final public hearing on the Final Plat prepared by John T. Metzger, L.S., dated October 22, 2005 and last revised on February 19, 2009. Joseph Townsend: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Opposed? The motion carries. APPROVAL OF PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Martin Sidor: We need a motion for the approval of the Planning Board Minutes of the Regular Meeting on April 13, 2009 and a Special Meeting on April 27, 2009. Kenneth Edwards: So moved. William Cremers: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: The motion carries. We need a motion for adjournment. Kenneth Edwards: So moved. William Cremers: Second. Southold Town Planning Board Pa,qe Nineteen May 11, 2009 Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: The motion carries. ****************************** There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was ADJOURNED at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Linda Randolph, Tr~nslcribing Se(:retary Martin H. Sidor, Chair RECEIVED /~.:/~ JUN 8 200~ · Southold Town Cler~.