Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-06/08/2009PLANNING 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 PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Present were: Monday, June 8, 2009 6:00 p.m. Martin H. Sidor, Chairperson William J. Cremers, Member Kenneth L. Edwards, Member George D. Solomon, Member Joseph L. Townsend, Member Heather Lanza, Planning Director Mark Terry, Principal Planner Tamara Sadoo, Planner Kristy Winser, Senior Planner Carol Kalin, Secretary SETTING OF THE NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETING Martin Sidor: Good evening, and welcome to the Southold Town Planning Board regularly-scheduled monthly meeting. For our first order of business, I would like to entertain a motion to set Monday, July 13, 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: I have a motion and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes· Martin Sidor: Motion passes. Southold Town Planning Board Page Two June 8, 2009 PUBLIC HEARINGS 6:00 p.m. - SterlinR Harbor at Bayview - This proposal is to subdivide a 14.1529-acre parcel in the A-C Zone 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 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 Southold. SCTM#1000-88-2-15 Martin Sidor: If anyone wishes to address the Planning Board on this topic, please come forward to the microphone on either side of the aisle, state your name and address and direct all your comments to the Planning Board. Bob Boerqesson, 670 Seaward Drive, Southold: I really am not here to change anything about their plans or anything else, except that my lot and my four neighbors on one side and the other side of me are at the far northwest part of the property and there is a 30' buffer zone that's said to remain natural there, which is on the west side of the farmland preserve that's in there. We are humbly requesting that maybe they'd make that closer to a 75-90' buffer zone. There's a stand of pine trees in there, and the map says "remain natural", but the pine trees actually go out about 90'; they're about 22 years old. They were planted there, I believe, in 1987 by the nursery that was there. When he started to remove trees for planting, he sort of spaced them out, so it's quite attractive: pine trees that are still rural-looking The only concern we have in asking for more of a buffer zone against the farm-preserved property is that if they indeed did sell that Lot #5, and somebody decides to put either a vineyard or whatever use, there would be farm machinery much closer to our back line. We'd rather have less distance for spraying insecticide, that kind of thing. We just thought if they could possibly buffer it with the natural pine trees that are there right now, we'd really like to have them entertain that thought. Are there any other questions on it at all? Martin Sidor: (To Board) Does anyone have any questions? No. Thank you. Bob Boer.qesson: OK. Thanks very much. Martin Sidor: Does anyone else wish to address the Board on this matter? Patricia Moore, Esq.: My client and I were just talking. He believes that the line of trees is a beautiful line of trees that he would actually like to preserve. I think while he is the owner of the property, that land will be preserved and those trees would remain. My concern for him is that a farmer who goes in there, hopefully they don't need that area. It's an interesting dilemma we have, which is: are we going to have agriculture or are we going to have preservation of the trees? My client wants to preserve the trees; I don't know that ~Ne want to keep it as a 90' buffer. That seems a little overkill. But we can certainly put a set-off in our Ag Covenants that are being drafted. We could certainly put in language about preservation to the extent possible of the mature trees that are along the northwest side of the property so that it's not taken out immediately. Southold Town Plannin.q Board Page Three June 8, 2009 Martin Sidor: Heather, is that being addressed as one of the points we are going through with the attorney? Heather Lanza: We were going with 30', but with this comment, and if the applicant wants to do it, we can discuss it. Patricia Moore, Esq.: I don't know that the line of trees is the entire length there. You'd like the entire length? If he's agreeable, I have no (inaudible). Any other comments? Bob Boer.qesson: (inaudible off-mike) Patricia Moore, Esq.: The area he is describing is pretty much in line with the back of the building envelope on Lot #5, which is between Lot #6: it's about midway on Lot #6. Oh, that's right. So, #5 is also part of #6 and #7 is part of #6. Martin Sidor; I'm sorry, no one is speaking into the microphone; we're not getting ...... Patricia Moore, Esq.: It's a little difficult with the subdivision next door; one of the lots has been split. So, where Lot #6 is split, between #5 and #7, seems to be about where the tree line would be. Bob Boer.qesson: Right. Yes. So that's pretty much in line with the other side of what looks like (inaudible) Patricia Moore, Esq.: OK. Martin Sidor: Good. Thank you. He seems amenable. Is there anyone else who Wishes to speak? Hearing none, a motion to close the hearing? Joseph Townsend: So moved. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby closes the final public hearing for the proposed Standard Subdivision of Sterling Harbor at Bayview. William Cremers: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion seconded, any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion passes. Southold Town P annin.q Board Pa.qe Four June 8, 2009 6:05 p.m. - Cichanowicz, David - This proposal is to subdivide a 24.82-acre parcel into 4 lots where Lot 1 equals 73,336 sq. ft., Lot 2 equals 73,336 sq. ft., Lot 3 equals 19.415 acres upon which the Development Rights have been sold to Suffolk County and Lot 4 equals 2.0 acres. The property is located s/o NYS Road 25, 1,506 feet e/o Indian Neck Road and n/o Leslie Road in Peconic. SCTM #'s 1000-85-3-10.2 & 97-10-2 Martin Sidor: Anyone who wishes to speak to this application, please step forward. Wil am Go,q,qinsl Law Firm of GO.qq.qins & Palumbol 13105 Main Road1 Mattituckl NY: Good evening, I am here in support of the application. I represent David Cichanowicz. We ask that this be approved. Thank you. Martin Sidor: Thank you. Anyone else? Hearing none, may I have a motion to close? Kenneth Edwards: So moved. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby closes the final public hearing for the proposed Conservation Subdivision of David Cichanowicz. William Cremers: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion seconded, any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Hearings Held Over From Previous Meetings: Conklin.q Point Estates - This proposal is to subdivide a 7.725-acre parcel into four lots, where Lot I equals 29,869 sq. ft., Lot 2 equals 29,869 sq. ff., 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 land from SCTM#1000-53-4-44.3 onto the subject property for the purpose of establishing yield. The property is located on the w/s/o Kerwin Boulevard, approximately 575' w/o August Lane in Greenport. SCTM #'s1000-53-4-44.1 & 44.3. Martin Sidor: Anyone who wishes to address this, please step forward to either microphone. Hearing none, I will have a motion to close the meeting. Joseph Townsend: So moved. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby closes the preliminary public hearing for the proposed Standard Subdivision Conkling Point Estates. William Cremers: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion seconded, any discussion? All in favor? Pa.qe Five Southold Town Planning Board Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion passes. June 8,2009 Sutton, Alexander & Tracy - 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. ftc) in the R-40 Zoning District. The property is located at 1160 North Bayview Road, 111.56' n/e/o Liberty Lane and Victoria Drive in Southold. Martin Sidor: Does anyone wish to speak on this subject? Claire (& husband, Tom) Kennedy of Southold: We just wanted to read our letter that we are going to submit for the record: "Dear Members: As stated on the record at the May 11,2009 Planning Board open meeting, we are strongly opposed to any action that would diminish our property rights and access to the dirt road portion of Victoria Drive. The Sutton proposed re-subdivision, which is located adjacent to the Reydon Heights community, clearly infringes on the property rights and uses that we as members of the Reydon Heights community are accustomed to. We have conducted our own extensive research of Town and County records, deeds, historical documents, and have had numerous conversations with various Town and County departments. Our research indicates that the parcel purchased by the Suttons is in fact a 50' x 400' roadway with right-of-way granted to members of our community more than 50 years ago by then owner Edward Nidds. Since then, the road has been used and maintained as a second ingress and egress to our community by pedestrians, bicycle, personal and commercial vehicles and even horses. Emergency vehicles have used the roadway to access our community during fire, rescue and police-related incidents. Approval of this re- subdivision would severely limit, if not eliminate our usage of this roadway. If the Suttons desire an additional lot on their property, we. believe that the roadway should be removed from the proposal and submitted to ZBA for their consideration. In making your decision, we hope that you consider the points we made during the May 11, 2009 meeting. To reiterate, please consider the roadway's past and current usage, our desire for land preservation, our collective and individual property rights and the public safety issues as they impact the 45 families of the Reydon Heights neighborhood and surrounding community." Thank you. I also just wanted to submit some other letters from neighbors that were unable to attend the meeting tonight. And then we also have a photograph of the road sweeper just recently, actually May 15, sweeping the paved part of the road. Martin Sidor: Thank you. This meeting will be held open. I would ask that if there is any new information to be presented tonight; we've gone over this, so I really don't want to rehash. Southold Town Plannin.q Board Page Six June 8, 2009 Joyce Gri.qonis: I'm a resident. I won't rehash, but it's a road. Tom Kennedy: The meeting will be held open. There are a number of residents who couldn't attend tonight who had expressed interest. Again, there's been extensive research that we've conducted and a lot of it has been shared with the Board at this time. Are there any questions for us that you have? Martin Sidor: Do you have that information? Tom Kennedy: Some of it is here and it will continue. If the meeting is going to be held open, we will continue to bring it to the Planning Board to be held on the record. There are a number of members of the community here tonight; I don't know if anyone has anything else. Martin Sidor: If there's anything different that we haven't heard. Tom Kennedy: There is one person in particular who is running a little late, if we could hold open for a few minutes to allow her. She does have some additional new information that we would want to get on the record tonight. With apologies, I know this is a little tight. Here she is. Eileen Powers, 230 Columbia Road, Reydon Hei,qhts: I'm not sure who else spoke here today, but I have a letter right now, I'll give you a copy before the end of the day for the file. I expressed my frustration earlier today to your Planning Staff with how the meeting was.., how this entire process and this public hearing were conducted. Because unless I missed something the first time we were here, there was no presentation of the application at all from anybody. And then after we got up and spoke, the applicant responded and basically told us that we misunderstood his application, which generated a response from one of the Planning Board Members to correct the applicant. Just as a matter of due process, and I'm not sure what the record would be here because there doesn't appear to be anything other than our comments and then the response of the applicant. So, we don't really, we only have what little information we received in the Notice of Public Hearing, and then what information we were able to garner from listening to the response of the applicant and very little from Planning Staff. So, I can just tell you from my point of view that I find the whole thing frustrating. I don't know where you're going with the application; if you're gonna deny the application and leave our road alone, well then it's fine with me. I'm not really interested in changing the way you do business out here. But other than that, this is supposed to be due process. If we don't understand what the application is because there's no presentation, I don't know how we're expected to respond. Joseph Townsend: I'll just make a comment. It's a two-lot subdivision request. In that request, there is some reference to the property that concerns most of you. The right- of-way. Eileen Powers: Private road. Southoid Town Planning Board Page Seven June 8, 2009 Joseph Townsend: Right. At that point, in the work session, we had discussed the mechanics of that. What the right-of-way would be, and there was a representation made about what the impact would be on the community; what the existing use was. What we have done in terms of the announcement is no more or no less that we did on any two-lot subdivision. We don't normally go into the details of the work session. What came out during the hearing was very valuable to us. I think, with the issue of concern here, we learned about existing patterns of use and so forth relating to those properties. But in terms of notifying you or having the applicant-and the applicant did discuss it, in fairness to the applicant, while we were here, that aspect of it. But I don't think it represents a departure from procedure or a departure from good hearing practice. We discussed the subject of the application: which is a two-lot subdivision, where it was, the metes and bounds, dimensions and so forth. We did not go into the details of the work session meeting, but clearly you were all notified and were concerned about it, so you are here. Those questions had come up in the work session and we weren't going to approve this thing until we found out the answers about the usage of the right-of-way and so forth. That is not going to be done without hearing or doing more research on it at the work session. We're not going to close it now because of the interest in this and the concerns. George Solomon: One of the other things that is available to you as a homeowner in the area is the Freedom of Information Act. You are entitled to come down to the Planning Board Office and FOIL all the information, the entire file that's there for your own research purposes. That's the basis of which we go under when we have a hearing: that this is all open public information that's necessary, even our work sessions are open and in public. So, if there is something that's on the schedule that you need to understand of what we spoke about at the work session, there are notes and the entire file is open to you as a resident or anybody has the capability to go down to the Planning Office and receive all the information that we are using to make our decision. Eileen Powers: Are your work sessions tape recorded? George Solomon: No, they are not. Eileen Powers: Because we did make an effort to educate ourselves about what the application was, and I know I asked Mrs. Kennedy if she had the time to come down here and to ask for minutes of the work session because we couldn't really get a handle based on what the representations made by the applicant and ...... George Solomon: But the whole entire file is available to you. Eileen Powers: I understand that, but we were told there were no minutes from the work session meeting where all of this took place. I spoke with Tamara this afternoon on the telephone to try to get a more clear picture about what you have, but she told me I should have been going to the work sessions all along, which is way beyond what a homeowner is responsible for doing. The purpose of the public hearing and the notice provision is for us to be able to come down hear and find out what's going on at the public hearing. The onus is not on me to go and research. This is a public hearing. Southold Town Planning Board Page Eight June 8, 2009 George Solomon: Yes it is. Joseph Townsend: They didn't have any requirement to come to a work session. George Solomon: No they don't have, but what I'm saying to you is once the notification of the hearing is here and you want more information that's disseminated at this hearing, then it's up to you to go to the Planning Department and FOIL the information that's there. Eileen Powers: We did. OK. Look, we did a tremendous amount of work on this application to get where we are now. My point simply was, and I'm not looking to change any of your practice, I don't want to argue or fight with you over this, but I'm telling you that I've been practicing law for almost 20 years and I do a fair amount of municipal law and I appear in front of boards on the East End of Long Island all the time. Just to make sure that I wasn't like, you know, losing my mind, I made phone calls in the last week to find out if I'm wrong or do other boards in fact have applicants present their applications so that the people attending the meeting can understand what the application is, and I was told in no uncertain terms "absolutely yes"; they all present their application and then the Board asks them questions that they think would be relevant to people in the public. Then the public is invited to speak at it. So, you don't have to do things the way everybody else does it, but this all came up as a result of the frustration of not having a clear position of what the application was when we were here, and having Mr. Sutton contradict the package that was sent to the people who were given notice, and then to have one of the board members contradict Mr. Sutton. So there was no clear picture about what it was, and look, this is a very simple issue I think now, I think it should have been simple all along. Even to this moment, you keep referring to this as a right-of-way. While certain people have a right-of-way in their deed which is deeded, the majority of the homeowners in Reydon Heights actually have all of them have deeds which reference their right to use Victoria Road which, at the time that was made, went from Main Bayview to North Bayview. And the fact, you know even in my conversation this afternoon with Tamara, there doesn't seem to be a full understanding that a road is a road whether it's private or public. It has certain characteristics. Victoria Drive, where it's unpaved, and where it has not been dedicated to the Town, is still very much a road. It didn't lose its characteristic as a road by the purchase, and there's no law that would say otherwise. So, if you're gonna say now to us "we understand it's a road, you can stop your work", we will. Otherwise, we're gonna continue to come here and try to fill you in. Joseph Townsend: OK. I don~t want to contradict anything you're saying. I'm just saying that it's shown and described as a road on several maps and so forth, and to that degree it's true. But not to be picky, you may have rights over that road, but you don't have ownership of that road. That would be a little more clear cut. But you do have, I mean, based on what I'm seeing, you have rights of way. Now, to get back to the other question, I know you defer to your experience as attorney; I've been Mayor or Town Board for the last 30 years and I've presided over a lot of hearings and been part of a lot of hearings. We're talking about a two-lot subdivision. It's not like a major Southold Town Planning Board Page Nine June 8, 2009 subdivision or a major plan where you have somebody come up with boards and scales and so forth. That is definitely a practice. But a two-lot subdivision you generally read what is proposed, and that was done in this application as well as in all the other applications. Generally you don't have this level of interest of course. BUt I submit that with the notification, the purpose of this hearing has been fulfilled. No one was kept in the dark as to what was happening, largely as a result of the information that came out at this hearing. We're not going to pull a fast one and close it up: we're gonna keep it open. So, just the fact that there are not chalk boards and so forth and various forms of Eileen Powers: Not interested in chalk boards. I just wanted to know if you intended to take the entire road into his attempted subdivision; that's what the issue was, because we never got a clear answer. Whether he was trying to reduce it to a footpath or he was going to change the character of the road. He has his own tax map number, he has been recognized by the Town of Southold ...... Martin Sidor: We know that. It's a process we're working through. And I just want to state right up front, there was no irregularity during this process. Eileen Powers: No, no, no. I'm not saying there was. Martin Sidor: There seems to be some confusion. Eileen Powers: No, no, no. I'm sure you do this in all of yours; I'm just expressing frustration that there wasn't a more clear picture presented to the people. Look, this isn't your typical subdivision because you are contemplating taking a roadway that is used by 40 or 50 homeowners in a community and letting him add it to his lot Joseph Townsend: That was not represented to us at the--I don't want to get into it. Eileen Powers: You don't want to get into what? Joseph Townsend: I'm saying that we are not saying OK this was an active you know right of way that was used by vehicles and so forth. Martin Sidor: We are aware of that. What we are seeking tonight is any new information out there. And we were just told that you had some new information to bring to us. Eileen Powers: Well, I can present you with a title report and the reason I didn't pay the title examiner to do the report is it's not for my own information because I'm aware of what the state of the law is, I was a title examiner for years, I understand how to read that. We've done the research, we have every deed. But for yours, if it's going to, if you're going to keep this open and it will be part of the public record, we're happy to provide our own independent, we'll pay for title examination so that you can understand that this is in fact a road. I don't know what work you've done with your Town Attorney or whatever, but I haven't heard any feedback from you and I don't understand why that Southold Town Planning Board Page Ten June 8, 2009 is; why there's not any--how do you feel about it? Do you believe it's a road? Do you believe that we have rights over the road or not? And why can't we know that? Martin Sidor: You're asking me? It's a work in progress. OK, and we're getting to the information, we're looking for feedback. We came to that part of this process where we're looking for public information. We are well aware there are some questions within this, on this plan. Eileen Powers: It's a two-way street. Martin Sidor: That point was made, yes. Eileen Powers: We're entitled to know. This is the purpose of the open meeting. Joseph Townsend: A hearing is a hearing, it's not necessarily a two-way street. Eileen Powers: But there has to be some kind of public record. So I don't want to argue with you, I just want to know where you're going with this; do I have to miss something every single Monday that you have a meeting? Geor.qe Solomon: We haven't made a decision yet. Eileen Powers: I understand that. is there going to be public discourse before you do? George Solomon: Well, that's why we're here today. Eileen Powers: You're here to listen to me you just said today. Georqe Solomon: And anyone else that has additional information. Eileen Powers: Right. Mark Terry: The fact that we are holding the hearing open is an invitation for public discourse. So you'll have an opportunity at the next public hearing to also present new information. But right now, the Planning Board and Planning Department are assessing the situation, we're meeting with the Town Attorney, we're meeting with our Assistant Town Attorney. We're trying to resolve this in a very clear written format and a series of recommendations to the Planning Board. So, right now, they are at information- gathering stage, and thank you for bringing that information forward that you brought forth today. Eileen Powers: OK. We'll see the planners I guess to file then a FOIL request to make sure we understand all the information being presented to you. So far it doesn't seem like we're getting the entire picture. Not that it's anybody's individual fault, but we don't have the whole picture. Martin Sidor: OK. Thank you. Southold Town Planning Board Pa,qe Eleven June 8, 2009 Richard Vandenbur.qh, Esq., Foster & Vandenbur.qh for the applicant, Mr. Sutton: For the record, I just, whether it be in front of this Board through the course of the evening or at any time outside, I am happy to speak with anybody from the community and try and clarify any of the miscommunication. If that's what anyone wants to do, I'm happy, Mr. Sutton and I are happy to talk to anybody. If any neighbor would like to talk to us to find out what we are thinking or how it's comprised or what have you, we are happy to do that. I just wanted that to be clear. It's not like we're tight-lipped about anything. We're trying to get to the end of this, trying to resolve it. So, anyone who would like to talk to me, I'm happy to talk to anybody. George Solomon: I have a question for you. The right-of-way that's there now, are you proposing to make any changes to that at all? Richard Vandenbur.qh, Esq.: No, we're actually, what's there right now I actually went and physically surveyed it myself. From the edge of one rut to the edge of another ranges anywhere from 7-1/2 to 8'. We are not looking to change that access. We have never ultimately said basically that if that's the access, that's a road; there were discussions early on in the planning about: "it is what it is". We'll leave it there. If anything, we're happy to define more of exactly the width of that particular dirt road that's been used for 60 years. So, we're not looking to necessarily do anything to limit it or restrict it. All we're looking to do is, because it's been used as essentially 8-10' if you want to call it; there are some larger trees that have been there for 20+ years that are no more than 10' wide. We're looking to utilize some of the yield from that lot as part of our application for the two lots. We're not looking to restrict anyone's right of way for vehicles to get in and out of that access, be it 10' or something else that we can accommodate, all of the neighbors collectively, that's what we want to do, that's what we want to try and do. But what I've been told which I think I'm not sure how to read it is: well, "forget it; it's 50'. You don't get to use any of the 50'. So, go to ZBA." That's the response that I'm getting. I don't think that's necessarily a resolution. It's certainly an avenue, it's certainly an option. But the fact is it's been this dirt road 8' wide for 50- 60 years. We're not looking to change it. We don't want it to develop any further; we don't want it to be paved. We want it to keep it in its rural character. I think that's what Reydon Heights wants as well. So I'm not sure why we can't reach that resolution. But we're going to keep trying. Martin Sidor: Thank you. Tom Kennedy: For the record, I need to clarify. The attorney over the last month has either misspoke or purposely misled this Board and other Town departments in the belief that there is some kind of compromise or something that's being worked out outside of this process. I don't know if that's intentional, but it's caused this cloud of confusion amongst people that we encounter in our research. Again, I respect the Board's process in fact again that you're in an information gathering and that it's presented on the record. I for one will speak to you on the record or when the conversation is recorded because as a matter of fact, you have presented yourself on more than one occasion to other people and misspoken what our intentions are. It's Southold Town Planning Board Page Twelve June 8, 2009 clearly been stated by myself on more than one occasion and my wife and the time that we're putting in to give you a full and clear picture so you can make the decision that you feel is right for the community and everyone else involved. Again, I thank you for your time. I have a letter from another resident I am just going to add to the record. Martin Sidor: Thank you. By the way, no one is being misled. Richard Vandenburgh: I would just like to tell Mr. Kennedy I'm sorry if he is interpreting what I've said in the past as being misleading: it's not my intention to mislead anybody. I will say that yes, I think I have an attitude and whether that's come across in a confusing way of trying to find resolution to this problem, that's what I'm trying to do. We did propose in a letter to Ms. Powers, who is one of the spokespersons for the neighborhood, a proposal for a resolution. I have done that. I'd like to think positively that there's a way to resolve it. But if I've said anything to specifically make you believe that rm trying to mislead you, I apologize. That's not my intention. I'm trying to find resolution to your concerns which I think are all valid. ALI of the concerns are valid; the fact that you want that roadway to stay a roadway, to stay that dirt road, to provide you that access, I can tell you right now that the Suttons have no problem with any of that. Martin Sidor: Thank you. We need to get this meeting back to point. Is there any new information or different information? EiLeen Powers: I just want to respond to, again, Mr. Vandenburgh, because ..... Martin Sidor: I don't want to go into that kind of discussion. There's nothing to be gained. We are trying to gain some information, some facts here. Eileen Powers: It appears that the attitude is a little different when we get up and speak and when he gets up and speaks. He's up here to tell you that, well then let me have my say here, because he's up here telling this Board and telling everybody Ln the room that they intend to keep this road exactly as it's been, and that simply is not true. In his letter to me dated May 20th--and this is contrary to the conversation I had with him and contrary to the conversation he had with members of my neighborhood outside of the last Planning Board Meeting~-he said he wants to, his proposal is that we get to have a 10' easement. Our 50' road gets reduced to a 10' easement which has its own implications because an easement is not the same as a road. This is a road on a subdivision map filed by this Board--your Planning Board--aLbeit 50 years ago. And he wants us to be able to use it as a pathway for pedestrian, bicycle, equestrian and necessary vehicular access. So now he's gonna determine, or somebody else under this easement, when it's necessary for us to drive our vehicles over a road that is on our subdivision map which is on file with this Planning Board. The whole idea--you have to understand our frustration--we get called in here at the last minute; you people have been sitting around a work session table with the applicant and his attorney having conversations about this application. Martin Sidor: That's exactly right. Southold Town Planning Board Pa.qe Thirteen June 8, 2009 Eileen Powers: For all this period of time. And nobody in Southold Planning walked down the hall to the Assessor's Office to find out that in fact it is a roadway in the Town of Southold. It has been treated by the Town of Southold as a roadway for 50 years. To this minute you keep talking about a right-of-way. And while certain people have a deeded right-of-way over it, this is in no uncertain terms a roadway and it carries very specific rights to the people in Reydon Heights. My own deed says "the right over Victoria Drive"; everybody in my chain of title. And that is true of most of the people if not all of the people in our subdivision, which is approved by the Southold Planning Board. So you have to excuse our frustration that for months the Southold Planning Board has been contemplating an application that would take a roadway that we have rights over, absorb it into somebody's lot, reduce it to either a simple easement or a footpath which, let me tell you, down the line, this is only the beginning of what he'll do. Once he gets it to 10', he will further encroach. He has made no secret of the fact that he doesn't want traffic on there. He has stopped our friends and neighbors from driving on the roadway. I understand your frustration that you have a public hearing that you think should take five minutes and that we want to come and have our say. Martin Sidor: No, I didn't say that. Eileen Powers: But you repeatedly call it a right-of-way when it's in fact a roadway. And it's frustrating for us because the application has not been made clear, even now. You intend to take a piece of property that is a roadway, that has its own separate identity as a roadway; that has its own tax map, and you want to eliminate that, absorb it into his lot, give him additional yield and give us a right-of-way to cross over until he decides that's no more. And that's what our frustration is. When you cut off the homeowners, it's frustrating to us. Joseph Townsend: Thank you. Just one comment: this will be a matter of law. It will come down to an interpretation probably, it sounds to me. We are going to continue to work on the legal end. On the one hand, you have people that have it in their deed descriptions that they have rights over this road, and on the other hand you have a deeded owner of a road that acquired it from the County. So, I think what we have to do is do that. That's going to be part of the analysis, as well as a review of the information that's being presented here. Bill Griqonis, 470 Columbia Road, Reydon Hei.qhts, Southold: Question: has anybody from the Planning Board been to that site? Martin Sidor: Yes. Bill Griqonis: Did a member of the Assessors' Office go with you? Martin Sidor: No. Bill Griqonis: As far as Town law goes, they are the ones that have control over whether a road is a road, correct? The Planning Department can't say whether a road is a road. Southold Town Plannin.q Board Pa.qe Fourteen June 8, 2009 Geor.qe Solomon: It's in the deed. Bill Gri.qonis: That says it's a road. And did that deed, when it was purchased by the County by the Suttons say that it was to remain a road, or do you have a copy of that deed? Did they submit that? I believe that deed said it was supposed to remain a road. If you do make determinations, what Mark Terry said, how will you notify us? Will you notify us in writing? Or will it be at a--because obviously we don't get it at a public hearing because you don't tell us anything here. So, if you are making determinations, how will we find out as the residents of Reydon Heights. Joseph Townsend: Well, it will be on the agenda. Bill Griqonis: That's exactly what we are talking about; we come here and it's on the agenda, we don't get any information. Joseph Townsend: Basically, I don't know if we can specifically notify interested parties of something coming up; I'm assuming you'll be here. Bill Gri.qonis: This will go back to... our community was only notified because one person abuts that property. So, they only actually placed that notification of the meeting for one person to see. George Solomon: When a decision is made, a resolution will be read into the public record at a public hearing. Bill Griqonis: But at that point, once a resolution is read... Georqe Solomon: And voted on by the Board, then you'll have your answer right then and there. Bill Gri.qonis: So all we can do is go to the... Joseph Townsend: The other thing is we're going to be bringing it up at a work session at some point; and anybody that wants to come in if they call they could come in to that work session. Heather Lanza: You don't have to call. Work sessions are public. Joseph Townsend: Well, call to know if it's going to be on. Heather Lanza: It's also on the internet. Bill Gri,qonis: Did the Planning Board look at the two lots that they propose and say, why don't you reduce the size of one lot and make them two lots where they don't have to include the road, because there's enough acreage there to make two lots. Or, in the other case, don't use the road and then yes, they'd have to go to the ZBA. Southold Town P annin.q Board Pa.qe Fifteen June 8, 2009 Heather Lanza: That's part of what we're assessing right now. We're assessing that right now. We're gathering all the information and we'll look at yield. Bill Grigonis: Thank you. Warren Knudsen, 265 Liberty Lane, Southold: When I first saw the proposal on the map (inaudible). The first 20' off Victoria Road said "proposed 25' right-of-way" and after that 25 or 30' it turns into a proposed 3-1/2' right-of-way. It's the first time in my life I've really heard of someone buying a lot and issuing right-of-ways to the public. There has got to be a reason they're proposing right-of-ways and it would seem it's gotta be so we can negotiate and somehow reduce the size of this road, reduce the size of this right-of-way as it exists, get it down small enough so we can take that acreage, 20,000 some-odd square feet, bring it over to our existing lot and get our one- acre zoning for each house. I've never heard of someone issuing rights-of-way for no reason, arbitrarily. If it proves that this is a 50' x 400' right-of-way, that's 20,000 sq. ft., It can't be reduced to a 3-1/2' path for bicycles, for donkeys or mules or any other reason. So there are technical aspects of this that have to be looked at very closely. Thank you. Martin Sidor: Thank you. Anyone else? Hearing none, I need a motion .... Geor.qe Solomon: I'll make a motion to keep the hearing open. William Cremers: Second. Martin Sidor: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion passes. Thank you for your time. CONSERVATION SUBDIVISIONS, STANDARD SUBDIVISIONS, RE- SUBDIVISIONS (Lot Line Changes) Final Determinations: Nadherny, Thomas & Patricia - This lot line change is to accommodate a side yard set-back requirement of 15 feet for the R-40 Zone. The existing house on SCTM#1000- 70-5-34 sits on the property line of the adjacent parcel, SCTM#1000-70-5-35. Both lots are owned by the Nadhernys. In order to accommodate a requested second floor addition on the existing house, the ZBA has granted a side yard setback variance conditioned upon Planning Board approval of a lot line change which would create a 9' side yard set-back for the eastern side yard of SCTM#1000-70-5-34. Both lots would Southold Town Planning Board Pa.qe Sixteen June 8,2009 remain conforming in overall lot size for the R-40 Zone. The property is located at 1025 Pine Neck Road, 1,175' w/o Oaklawn Avenue in Southold. Kenneth Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I will offer the following resolution: WHEREAS, an application for a lot line change was submitted on September 26, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Town of Southold Planning Board granted conditional final approval on January 12, 2009, upon the survey map, prepared by John T. Metzger, Land Surveyor, dated January 3, 2007 and last revised on October 28, 2008, subject to the following condition: The filing of new deeds with the Office of Suffolk County Clerk pertaining to the lot line change and, upon filing, submission of a copy each to this office; and WHEREAS, a copy of the new deeds filed with the Office of Suffolk County Clerk pertaining to this lot line change were submitted to this office on May 7, 2009; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby grants Final Approval on the survey prepared by John T. Metzger, Land Surveyor, dated January 3, 2007 and last revised on October 28, 2008. William Cremers: Second. Martin Sidor: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Ghassemi, Sy & Catherine - This proposal is for a conservation subdivision of 31.0137 acres into four lots where Lot 1 equals 25.7355 acres, from which the Development Rights are proposed to be sold to Suffolk County for the purpose of farmland preservation, Lot 2 equals 2.379 acres, Lot 3 equals 2.6488 acres and Lot 4 equals 1 acre in the R-80 Zoning District. The property is located on the n/s/o NYS Route 25, approximately 831 feet w/o Rocky Point Road in East Marion. SCTM#1000-31-1-1. Joseph Townsend: WHEREAS, this proposal is for a Conservation Subdivision of 31.0137 acres into four lots where Lot 1 equals 25.7355 acres, upon which the Development Rights are proposed to be sold to Suffolk County, Lot 2 equals 2.379 acres, Lot 3 equals 2.6488 acres and Lot 4 equals I acre, in the R-80 Zoning District; and WHEREAS, an application for sketch approval was submitted on June 30, 2006, including the sketch plan prepared by John T. Metzger, L.S., dated April 21, 2005; and Southold Town Planning Board Page Seventeen June 8, 2009 WHEREAS, September 29, 2006, Suffolk County Planning Commission comments were submitted and adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board for the proposed subdivision; and WHEREAS, the proposal meets the conservation subdivision criteria and is hereby classified as a conservation subdivision pursuant to Chapter 240 of the Town Code; and WHEREAS, on November 3, 2006, the applicant submitted a revised sketch plan prepared by John T. Metzger, L.S., dated April 21, 2005 and last revised on August 28, 2006; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2007, 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, as lead agency, granted a Negative Declaration for the proposed action; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2007, the Southold Town Planning Board granted Conditional Sketch Approval upon the map prepared by John T. Metzger, L.S., dated April 21, 2005 and last revised on August 28, 2006; and WHEREAS, on October 11, 2007, a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) Tidal Wetlands Permit was issued for the proposed conservation subdivision; and WHEREAS, on August 12, 2008, the Southold Town Planning Board granted a retro- active extension of Conditional Sketch Approval upon the map prepared by John T. Metzger, L.S., dated April 21, 2005 and last revised on August 28, 2006, from August 13, 2007 to February 11,2009; and WHEREAS, on November 21, 2008, Suffolk County Department of Health Services issued a permit for the proposed conservation subdivision; and WHEREAS, all the conditions of Conditional Sketch Approval have been met; and WHEREAS, on December 3, 2008, an application for Final Approval was submitted; and WHEREAS, on February 9, 2009, a public hearing was held and closed on the Final Map; and WHEREAS, on March 5, 2009, the applicant submitted a final version of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions; and WHEREAS, on May 4, 2009, the applicant submitted a final version of the Road and Maintenance Agreement; and Southold Town Planning Board Page Eighteen June 8, 2009 WHEREAS, on May 7, 2009, the LWRP Coordinator determined that the proposed action is consistent with the LWRP policy standards; and WHEREAS, on May 27, 2009, the applicant submitted certified copies of the recorded Covenants and Restrictions and Road & Maintenance Agreement; and WHEREAS, all conditions have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board and the applicant hereby acknowledge and agree to the "Note" listed on Pages 1 of 2 of the "Clustered Conservation Subdivision" map for the property of Sy and Catherine Ghassemi: "The approval of the subdivision shall not be valid if the Sale of the Development Rights Easement is not completed and a copy of the recorded deed is not submitted to the Town of Southold Planning Department"; Kenneth Edwards: Second the motion. Martin Sidor: Moved and seconded. All in favor? Ayes. Joseph Townsend: and be it further RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby reserve the right to revoke Final Approval of the Clustered Conservation Subdivision for the property of Sy and Catherine Ghassemi should a copy of the filed deed of the Sale of Development Rights Easement not be submitted to the Southold Town Planning Board within six months of receiving final approval pursuant to the following: 1. Southold Town Code §240-2 (A), (B) and (C) - Subdivision Purpose; and 2. Southold Town Code §240-56 - Planning Board Authority; Kenneth Edwards: Second the motion. Martin Sidor: Moved and seconded. All in favor? Ayes. Joseph Townsend: and be it further RESOLVED, that in the event that the applicant cannot comply with submission of the filed Sale of Development Rights Easement, the applicant may request no more than one additional six-month extension from the Southold Town Planning Board which may be granted by resolution; Kenneth Edwards: Second the motion. Martin Sidor: Moved and seconded. All in favor? Ayes. Southold Town P annin.q Board Page Nineteen June 8, 2009 Joseph Townsend: and be it further RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby grants Final Approval upon the map prepared by John T. Metzger, L.S., dated April 21, 2005 and last revised on May 15, 2009. Kenneth Edwards: Second the motion. Martin Sidor: Moved and seconded. All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. Peconic Land Trust, Oregon Road - This proposal is for a conservation subdivision of a 12.5056-acre parcel 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' west of Elijah's Lane, on the north side of Oregon Road in Mattituck. SCTM#1000-94-3-1.3 George Solomon: WHEREAS, this proposal is for a conservation subdivision of a 12.5056-acre parcel into two lots where Lot 1 equals 2.5056 acres (with existing residence and Development Rights intact) and Lot 2 equals 10 acres from which the Town of Southold purchased the Development Rights in March 2007 for the purpose of farmland preservation; and WHEREAS, an application for sketch approval was submitted on November 7, 2008, including the sketch plan prepared by John C. Ehlers, L.S., dated October 6, 2008; and WHEREAS, on December 8, 2008, the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.7, determined that this is an Unlisted Action requiring an uncoordinated review; and WHEREAS, on JanuarY 12, 2009, the Southold Town Planning Board established itself as lead agency and, as lead agency, made a determination of non-significance and granted a Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, Sketch Approval for this application was granted on JanuarY 12, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Mattituck Fire District reviewed this application on JanuarY 15, 2009 and determined there was sufficient fire protection; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board has reviewed the proposed action under the policies of the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program and determined that the action is consistent as outlined in the December 2, 2008 memo prepared by the LWRP Coordinator; and Southold Town Planning Board Page Twenty June 8I 2009 WHEREAS, on February 20, 2009, an application for Final Plat Approval was submitted, including the final plan prepared by John C. Ehlers, L.S., dated October 6, 2008 and last revised on February 17, 2009; and WHEREAS, on April 3, 2009, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services issued a permit for the proposed conservation subdivision; and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2009, the applicant submitted a Final Map prepared by John C. Ehlers, L.S., dated October 6, 2008 and last revised on March 15, 2009; and WHEREAS, on May 11, 2009, a final hearing was held and closed on the final map; and WHEREAS, all conditions have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board determined that this action is consistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program; William Cremers: Second. Martin Sidor: Moved and seconded. All in favor? Ayes. George Solomon: and be it further RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby grants Final Approval upon the plan, prepared by John C. Ehlers, L.S., dated October 6, 2008 and last revised on March 15, 2009. William Cremers: Second. Martin Sidor: Moved and seconded. All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS Batta.qlia, Joseph & Heidi - This is a standard subdivision of 95,846 sq. ft. into two lots where Lot One is 41,280 sq. ft. and Lot Two is 54,074 sq. ft. in the R-40 Zoning District. This site is located on the w/s/o Hobart Road, approximately 1,059 feet n/o Terry Lane in Southold. SCTM#1000-64-3-3. Southold Town Planning Board Page Twenty-One June 8, 2009 William Cremers: WHEREAS, this proposal is to subdivide 95,846 sq. ft. into two lots where Lot One is 41,280 sq. ft. and Lot Two is 54,074 sq. ft. in the R-40 Zoning District; and WHEREAS, an application for Sketch Approval was submitted on November 3, 2008; and WHEREAS, on January 21, 2009, the Board of Trustees approved a permit under the provisions of Chapter 275 of the Southold Town Code, the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold; and WHEREAS, on February 23, 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 the Unlisted Action; and WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request to the Southold Town Planning Board, dated March 31, 2009, for permission to obtain a permit to demolish his existing house and a building permit to construct one single-family dwelling on Lot 2 of the subdivision prior to Final Approval being granted for this proposed subdivision; and WHEREAS, subsequently, at a Work Session on April 13, 2009, the applicant requested a demolition permit for an existing barn on Lot 2 for the purposes of re- location of the structure off site; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Southold Town Code §240-6(C) General Application Procedure: "No construction, improvement, grading or clearing of/and or other disturbance of existing conditions shall be commenced or undertaken on land for which an application has been fi/ed pursuant to this chapter until final approval of the application has been granted, except as expressly provided herein"; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Southold Town Code §240-56 Waivers of Certain Provisions: "The Planning Board shall have the authority to modify or waive, subject to appropriate conditions, any provision of these subdivision regulations, if in its judgment they are not requisite in the interest of the public health, safety and general we/fare, except where such authority would be contrary to other ordinances or state law"; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board agreed to waive the restriction on disturbance of existing conditions prior to Final Approval of the subdivision, as outlined in §240-6(C), to allow for the removal of the existing barn from Lot 1 in a resolution dated April 27, 2009; and Southold Town Plannin.q Board Pa.qe Twenty-Two June 8, 2009 WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board finds that the following reasons support a decision to waive the restriction on grading and construction in Town Code §250-6(C) for Lot 2 prior to the subdivision receiving Final Approval: The applicant has submitted an application for Sketch Plan Approval for a two lot standard subdivision where the proposed lots are conforming with the zoning district. The Board has agreed that the demolition of an existing residence and a building permit to construct a single-family dwelling on Lot 2 will not affect the outcome of the overall subdivision; and The location of the lots is not likely to change from the initial sketch plan submitted a. There is no clustering requirement in the Town Code for lots less than 7 acres, and b. The Planning Board is not requiring that the lots be clustered on this parcel, and c. The lots have access to the existing road, therefore, no new road will be created. 4. The building envelopes of the proposed lots will be able to meet all required setbacks, including setbacks to wetlands; and The proposed Lot 2 is already improved with a single-family residence - demolition of this house and construction of a new one instead on the same lot will not change the existing conditions of the site in a way that would affect the outcome of the subdivision; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby agrees to waive the restriction on disturbance of existing conditions for proposed Lot 2 as shown on the map of the proposed standard subdivision for Battaglia entitled "Standard Subdivision of Joseph & Heidi Battaglia", prepared by Nathan Taft Corwin III, dated May 28, 2008 & last revised April 18, 2009, stamped received by the Planning on May 15, 2009, prior to that map receiving Final Approval by the Planning Board, to allow for the removal of the existing dwelling, and allow the applicant to begin construction of a single-family dwelling on proposed Lot 2 only. This resolution is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must obtain the appropriate demolition and building permit from the Building Department; and 2. By the granting of this resolution, the applicant loses any non-conformities that may exist on site; and 3. The applicant shall identify significant trees on the plan and indicate how they will be protected during demolition and construction on site. Southold Town Planning Board Pa.qe Twenty-Three June 8, 2009 4. The applicant shall obtain and adhere to all applicable permits and their conditions, including the Board of Trustees and the NYS DEC; and 5. The applicant agrees that any work performed on site does not guarantee Final Approval and cannot be utilized in an argument of vested rights; and The waiver of the restriction on disturbance of existing conditions extends only to the area of proposed Lot 2 that is necessary to accomplish the demolition of the existing house, and construction of a new single-family dwelling. No clearing of vegetation beyond that area necessary for those actions is allowed; and No clearing of trees, shrubs or other vegetation on either lot beyond that necessary to accomplish the demolition of the existing single-family dwelling is authorized by this resolution. The clearing necessary must not be greater than (but ideally will be less than) the clearing restrictions for lots as set forth in Sec 240-49, meaning no more than 50% of the lot may be cleared of trees, shrubs and other vegetation. Any other buffers or clearing restrictions that may be in the DEC and Town Trustees permits must be met as well; and The newly constructed house must conform with all Town Codes and setbacks, including setbacks to wetlands, and setbacks to the lot lines of the proposed Lot 2 of the subdivision; and The applicant is not authorized by this resolution to disturb any other existing conditions on the subject parcel prior to Final Approval of the subdivision by the Planning Board. Kenneth Edwards: Second the motion. Martin Sidor: Moved and seconded. All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion passes. Martin Sidor: We need a motion for adjournment. Kenneth Edwards: So moved. William Cremers: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Southold Town P annin,q Board Page Twenty-Four June 8, 2009 Ayes. Martin Sidor: The motion carries. There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was ADJOURNED at 6:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, L~olph,~r~'a~a ry Martin H. Sidor, Chair