Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-10/17/2011PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS MARTIN H. SIDOR Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III DONALD J. WILCENSKI 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 PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Present were: Monday, October 17, 2011 6:00 p.m. Martin H. Sidor, Chairperson William J. Cremers, Member Kenneth L. Edwards, Member James H. Rich Ill, Member Donald J. Wilcenski, Member Heather Lanza, Planning Director Mark Terry, Principal Planner Brian Cummings, Planner Alyxandra Sabatino, Planner SETTING OF THE NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETING Martin Sidor: Good evening, and welcome to the Southold Town Planning Board's regularly-scheduled monthly Public Meeting. Our first order of business is to set Monday, November 14, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, as the time and place for the next regular Planning Board Public Meeting. William Cremers: So moved. Donald Wilcenski: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor?. Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. Southold Town Planning Board Pa,qe Two October 17, 2011 PUBLIC HEARINGS 6:00 p.m. - Mellas & Smith - This proposed Lot Line Change will transfer 9,626 sq. ft. from SCTM#1000-79-6-4.6 to SCTM#1000-79-6-29. Lot 29 will increase from 15,000 sq. ft. to 24,626 sq. ft., and Lot 4.6 will decrease from 96,747 sq. ft. to 87,121 sq. ft. Lot 29 is located in the R-40 Zoning District and Lot 4.6 is located in the A-C Zoning District. The property is located at 935 Jacobs Lane & 340 Colonial Road, 991.72' n/e of North Bayview Road, Southold. Martin Sidor: If anyone from the audience wishes to address the Planning Board regarding this application, please step forward to either microphone, state your name and address, and print your name and address for the record. Martin Sidor: Hearing none ...... Donald Wilcenski: I make a motion we close the hearing. James Rich: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. Thank you. 6:02 p.m. - G.W. Meade Farm - This site plan is for the proposed construction of a 5,200 sq. ft. horse barn connecting to a 14,400 sq. ft. indoor arena for the keeping/breeding/raising and training of horses and a riding academy with 10 parking spaces. Also on the property are a 1,140 sq. ft. single-family dwelling, a 1,965 sq .ft. frame barn and a 700 sq. ft. frame building. The property is located at 1375 Ackerly Pond Lane, 1,100'_+ west of Lower Road and Ackerly Pond Lane, Southold. SCTM#1000-69-5-7.1 Martin Sidor: Anyone in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Board regarding this application, please step forward to either microphone, state your name and address, and write your name and address for the record. Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental, Consultant for the applicant: This is an application to redevelop an already existing horse farm that contains barns, horses, a single-family dwelling. We regard it as an upgrade to that facility. We note that the activities occur in an agricultural reserve area; there is a declaration on file that Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Three October 17, 2011 specifically permits the raising/training/breeding of livestock, including horses. The property contains a single-family dwelling that has been used as a stabling facility for up to 25 horses. The horses we are proposing here have been reduced by approximately ¼ down to 13. The owners, or prospective owners, would own three of those horses. Because it is a reduction in intensity of use, all impact that may be occurring today would be necessarily reduced if this project is approved. I think the Board is well aware of the property--well aware of the proposal--and this is a public hearing. I'd like to hear what the public has to say and I'm here to answer any questions you may have. Martin Sidor: Is there anyone else who wishes to address the Planning Board? Edwin Ward, 1405 Ackerly Pond Lane: I am a neighbor to the proposed horse farm. Obviously I like it the way it is and I don't want to see this large commercial establishment replace the quiet horse farm that there is. With that being said, I understand that this project is probably going to be allowed. I would like to address some of the problems I see and hope that some of them could be mitigated. The biggest issue I have is that currently the three residential houses there share a common gravel driveway. The horse farm also has use of that driveway. I would think that the bigger establishment, the commercial establishment is going to produce increased traffic and I would like to see a separation of the residential driveway and the commercial access road that they would be using. I think this is a reasonable request as a business of this type is going to have customers coming and going, horse trailers coming and going, deliveries. It's a narrow 10' gravel road; it usually has potholes in it-- we have to fill them twice a year. It takes a lot of effort just to maintain the little bit of traffic that it has now. Also, the kids walk to the bus stop at the end of the driveway and we walk to get the mail and walk into town, so it would be nice if it stays quiet. The three houses are ail fla.q lots; they all have access to the road. Years ago, when this was created, the Planning Board felt it was in the best interest to create this easement so that everybody used one road and didn't have three driveways. But things have changed now that one of the properties is going to be much different; it's not going to be mostly residential property with just some horses in the back. We'd like to see the Planning Board separate the driveways--have them use their current driveway-they also have their own driveway-and ultimately cede their right to use that road. This also gives us a bit of protection. There's a lot of unknown with this project; they may turn out to be good neighbors or they may be creating problems for us. At least this way if there is some separation, we can ultimately put up a hedge or a fence or do something to kind of create a barrier to minimize the problem. That's probably the biggest thing I'd like to see. As the gentleman who spoke before me said, there are covenants on the property that were created when the subdivision was created. I'd like to see that the Planning Board maintains those covenants. One that comes to mind specifically is that they are not to build any roads into the agricultural easement--yet the plan proposes building a road Southold Town Planning Board Pa.qe Four October 17, 2011 and a parking lot there. I think if we keep the length of the road short and the parking lot up front it minimizes the traffic issue and cuts down on the dust and also preserves the agriculture of the land (inaudible) instead of paving over that valuable land. The other covenants--some of them are less specific and aren't that blatant that they are being changed or requested to be changed, but I'd like to see the covenants remain intact and then work around them instead of changing the covenants that were put in place years ago to preserve the land. Obviously the horse farm is an accepted use for the agricultural area, but to minimize the effect of this riding academy and horse farm in the area I think would be greatly appreciated by the people who live there and have to deal with it every day. Thank you. Martin Sidor: Thank you. Patricia Moore: For the most part, Mr. Ward addressed some of their personal concerns with respect to the access, but technically, when I was reviewing the covenants and the easement--I just received a copy of the easement because again, it had not been microfiched properly into the record and I pulled the entire record of the subdivision. The original covenants were created and it was anticipated that this was going to be--it says "agriculture apportioned to prevent degradation or loss of aesthetic open space and Ag value." I think that when the property was reserved as an Ag area, there was a building envelope created towards the front--a large building envelope towards the front and a large agricultural reserve area which did not anticipate at least when the covenants were filed and when the homeowners bought into this three-lot subdivision, a large arena--enclosed arena--to be proposed. You have to I think reach a conclusion that the arena is an agricultural structure because otherwise it can't go onto the Ag reserve area. There seems to be a disconnect with respect to the covenants there. But also, with respect to the activities: the common road that is mostly a residential road and the access provided was intended for an open space horse farm. Now you are dealing with a much more intensified use with a year-round enclosed structure. The activity would be more year-round; less weather-dependent. You have horse activities that are horse shows that people come and board and take their animals by trailer very early in the morning and it can be very disturbing to residential homeowners. The request that Mr. Ward already placed on the record is to keep the agricultural--the horse farm activities--of the arena separate and distinct from the residential use of the driveway. I think it's possible; at the work session there was some discussion about how the road might be reconfigured. There was a very quick comment about "well, we may cut the shrubbery and cut the natural border that is east of the existing road system." But there appears to be an access point that is presently existing and if they straighten the internal road system, they can get access to the horse farm and not have to go beyond that. So, there could be a way of redesigning the interior site so that it segregates the more intensified use of the arena from the residential uses. Southold Town Planning Board Page Five October 17, 2011 In reviewing all the files, I also reviewed the Zoning Board transcript. They have not come to a decision yet because they are waiting for the SEQRA determination from the Planning Board. At the Zoning Board hearing, there was a statement that they are going to be housing 13 horses--which is fine--in their new facility, their new barn. But they don't provide any specs for the existing barn and that's where the existing horse stalls are. If in fact they are not putting their--my understanding is from staff not even from the transcript of the ZBA hearing--the existing horse barn now is going to be: call it decommissioned as a horse stall and be used for their agricultural, for I guess motorcycles, residential use, whatever his personal use. That's fine, but there should be some notation on the site plan that they are not actually housing horses in that barn. Right now that site plan seems very vague; there is nothing addressed with respect to the number of horses. The Zoning Board made a statement that they are housing 13 horses and that's for the new barn. If so, put it on the site plan. There doesn't seem to be any notation to that. Also, there needs to be a clarification of the site plan with respect to which buildings are being removed. The color site plan showed the buildings remaining; there's a barn that sits within the right-of-way area, and then there's a smaller. That colorful site plan, at least the one that I saw, didn't have any notations about the barns that were remaining or not remaining. The one that is at that intersection there, I understand is to be removed, but that site plan doesn't say it. So we need clarification on that. Again, you can now see the roadway there. The point was that the way the road is configured now, if they don't use the common driveway as an access point, that did not allow for a turning radius for the trucks. Well, that can easily be solved by straightening the road or providing a better access inside. It goes up the hill and then straight across to the parking lot. That makes sense and there is a way of protecting both the residential as well as not interfering with the horse farm operation. There were some comments from interested agencies as far as providing additional landscaping around the parking area. I thought that was a good recommendation and I would encourage you to include it. The concern here is not so much that these people may be very well meaning, very diligent and professional about their operation; there's always the possibility that they choose to sell their facility and their facility goes back to the less-than-optimum conditions that are presently. I think everybody--at least with the Zoning Board hearing--there was a lot of testimony with respect to the existing conditions being in very poor condition. So we welcome--I'm happy to see they are purposely trying to make improvements here, but there has to be a better way to preserve the residential uses from the agricultural uses. It's not just for this property owner, but it could be for the next operator of the arena. Again, an arena of 14,000-15,000 sq. ft. is not an insignificant structure. The activities of that arena certainly are an intensification of the agricultural use than the open space or what at least was anticipated at the time the subdivision was created that this was going to be a horse farm with paddocks and open space, not necessarily a large arena. Those are my comments; Very briefly reading through the easement, it is not very helpful with respect to the use of the common driveway for the arena. Again, you have to look at Southold Town Planning Board Page Six October 17, 2011 the conditions of the property at the time the easement was granted. None of this was anticipated or at least you couldn't tell from the record that any of this was anticipated when the easement was granted. Originally, I thought there was no easement; I pulled the deeds and there were no reservations. But I do acknowledge that there was an easement that was recorded for a 15' right-of-way, but the way it reads is for residential use, not for a much more commercialized venture. Those are my comments. I thank you for taking our comments. Brian Becker, 1435 Ackerl¥ Pond Lane: I would like to just reemphasize what was previously said in opposition of this project. Although I am aware of the possible change to what I have been accustomed to where I have lived for the past 17 years, I do have some concerns. I would also like to see our Covenants and Restrictions being held as far as the building envelope, as well as the agricultural easement. Again, just to repeat what Mr. Ward and Mrs. Moore just cited to you as well, I would like to see us establish a separate drive from our residential drive and incorporate a commercial drive. Thank you. Martin Sidor: Thank you. Anyone else from the audience? John Peters, 1465 Ackerly Pond Lane: Good evening. I'd like to thank the Board for visiting our property and taking a good hard look at what we see now. We do realize that there is a potential that our views could change. I'd like to start off by saying that seven weeks ago is when we started this process as a community. The three of us: Mr. Becker, Mr. Ward, and myself. The first thing we went to was the Covenants & Restrictions. Not having a legal background, but being able to read, we went through that document and some of the things that jumped out at us were not only the Covenants & Restrictions but also a letter from the original Planning Board April 1, 1991. In those minutes of that meeting, Ms. Hunt asked a question of Mr. Orlowski: "What are my rights with respect to a barn if I should need it?" I don't want to subdivide anymore, but what can I do if I need a barn? Mr. Orlowski's comment was that it would be handled in the Covenants. If you read the Covenants--and I'm sure that you have-- it's riddled with statements like "at the Planning Board's discretion." "Only by the Planning Board." "Things can't be mitigated or changed unless the Planning Board does so." I bring this point up because when I went to the ZBA meeting I started hearing different language: "As of right." I heard that "as of right" if they want to put up a barn they can. I don't hear "as of right" from the original Planning Board in any of the documents. The April 1, 1991 document is not followed up with anything. There isn't a second meeting after that. The only information that's available from that point on is the Covenants & Restrictions. The language within these Covenants & Restrictions is very strong. When we purchased our home and saw these Covenants & Restrictions, and my wife researched the original Planning Board letter, we felt comfortable that what we were buying is what we were gonna always see. We are the only lot up there that has a 50' environmental conservation easement. So we have 50' on the east side of Southold Town Planning Board Pa,qe Seven October 17,2011 nothing--just trees. We can take downed trees out, we can clean up the property, but we can't do anything; we can't cut the trees down and make a playground or barbecue area. We bought that knowing that this was going to be the way it was going to look. That's what convinced us this is the piece of property. Not to mention I was probably the only one I believe that bought from Mr. McGrath. I was told by Mr. McGrath "this is what you are going to look at forever." So I guess my question is--not being an attorney--what is the difference between the Covenants & Restrictions and the "as of right?" What came first, and is the other one grandfathered in? So if the Planning Board in its infinite wisdom in 1991 thought to write these Covenants & Restrictions as stringently as they did--and I believe the vision then was the open spaco not buildings--not that they said that barns weren't allowed--but they said barns could only be erected if the Planning Board gave its permission by majority. So when I was at the ZBA meeting, we started to discuss "as of right" and what they could do and what they couldn't do. Well, as good neighbors, we only found out seven weeks ago that this process had started in February with the Town and probably earlier with them planning on how they wanted their property to look. One of the things--why I mention the conservation easement--is that if you look at the plan--I believe the area where the barn and riding academy are-there's a substantial amount of trees that are proposed to be taken down. I didn't want to cut down mine. They're ugly trees, but they're beautiful to look at. I think that is against what the original Planning Board looked at when they said open space. I don't think they wanted those trees taken down. They certainly didn't want them on my side; I'm assuming that they didn't want them on the other side. Plus, we have another resident, if you take that down, his view is just as much as impeded as mine because I look at the front of the building, he'd look at the back of the building. I also would like to say that with respect to the driveway, if the Planning Board is looking at mitigating this property and saying the Ag use has to--they need a barn for their business and you approve something like that, I think the Ag use has to meet the standards of the neighborhood. I don't believe the existing neighborhood should meet the standards of their business. I think it was a selfish idea to use a residential driveway because you've been through--you have Iow cover. Tractor trailers are going to need more height. They're gonna have to make that turn, and our turn right now is tight. It's good for vehicles; it's not good for commercial use vehicles. So when we talk about giving them the right to have this riding academy, if we were to use another section of the property to give them a driveway, it's their business--it's their benefit. They receive the benefit from the parking, from the barn and from the riding academy. I don't see why we should be burdened with the excess traffic, the damage to the road or having to view--as my wife said--paving a parking lot right in front of us. We think that there are other alternatives that might be better used for their project. We took this as a community and we realized that maybe things are gonna change--change is not always bad. But we have to be part of the process--we can't be removed. And we felt a little Southold Town Planninq Board Page Eight October 17, 2011 apart because the first time we got to talk was the Zoning Board meeting and it went like that. Today we are here again and we are all trying to sing our praises of what we have and how we don't want it to change, and it seems to be--at least from my perspective--a little desperate. One of the things I'd like to do is make some suggestions on what we can do. One thing is if we kept the building and the riding academy to their existing building lot. If we relocated the parking lot so it's back on his property where their customers can put their vehicles, that would be an improvement. Changing the driveway is another one. Last but not least, revise, rewrite or add to the Covenants & Restrictions. We've heard about how many horses they need. We've heard the reason for the size of the riding academy. I'm assuming that it's all correct. We've been made to believe this is a "down-use" from 25 horses to 13. Unfortunately, at the ZBA meeting, no one was able to state when they had 25 horses. So to make it seem like it's this tremendous downgrade, I think is a push. But let me offer this: if they need 13 horses to support this purchase, which is a million plus for the land which the mortgage is being held by Mr. McGrath and probably another mortgage to build their building, I would suggest that we look at these Covenants & Restrictions and say "If you need 13 horses to support this, then from this day forward 13 horses is your limit. If you need 19,000+ sq. ft. of building to run those 13 horses, then that's what they remain with from this point forward." I believe that it's in everyone's best interest. Because the Covenants & Restrictions have been abused in the past. We know what Mr. McGrath brought to the neighborhood. He didn't participate in fixing the road he uses every day. He brought his commercial vehicles up. We thought he was a little tight on cash so we didn't push him. We did however bring a surveyor up and show him that he put his barn on our property, on our right-of-way. We let him do that because he said it was temporary. We thought "Forget Billy, do it for the horses." So we knew what we had. If we are going to move forward, we need some guidelines. The ZBA made a point: whatever they grant to the applicant can be pulled away if in fact the applicant doesn't adhere to what he says he is going to do. They threw that carrot out, but the problem with that is all over Southold we have Ag uses with residents quarreling and fighting--it's in the paper every week--we all know about them. It didn't affect us, so that was a glancing article we looked at but we didn't pay attention to. Now that it's us, and we want to be paid attention to, I think in order for us to be good neighbors, you can't make us the cops. We can't look at every application that they used. Let's say they want to move horses in the middle of the night. They're gonna shine their truck lights right through our bedroom. All of our bedrooms face that way. All the residents. So if we don't set some guidelines: some of the guidelines are no ambient lighting. I know the Town is in favor of that. No ambient lighting, no new buildings, a maximum of 13 horses, no night moves in transportation. Specifically, hours of operation when they can bring their people up to ride and do what they want to do so that when we call it nighttime and we have the five children in the neighborhood and we tell them to go to bed, they're not distracted by something that's right in front of them. I'd like to thank the Board for being Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Nine October 17, 2011 patient in hearing some of these things two and three times. But as you can imagine, this is our livelihood; this is where we live and we'd like to protect it and like to keep it the same way. If you need to, we will work with the Board and make some suggestions if that's possible, and we can all move forward. Thank you. Martin Sidor: Anyone else in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Board? Bruce Anderson: Just a couple of quick points: the first is that our application is what it is and it is subject to these Covenants and Restrictions that everyone has to live with. Those rights give us--when you talk about "our driveway," it's not just a driveway for the residents. There's no doubt that this property and facility enjoys the same use and benefit of that driveway as do the residents using that driveway. There's no question about that. There is no question that the applicant can build a barn. There's no question there are already existing barns on the property. The actual Covenant reads: "temporary or permanent structures or buildings shall not be placed or erected within and upon such premises without Planning Board approval." That's why we filed an application. "Structures including but not limited to fences or buildings which are deemed reasonably necessary as accessory buildings or structures for the utilization for said premises for bona fide agricultural production may be allowed subject to Planning Board approval." That's why we filed an application. Our point is that the structures that are proposed--including parking--are all located within the agricultural reserve easement area and all comply with zoning; they are all related. There is no doubt that they are bona fide agricultural production. You should know that we have taken steps to enroll this property in a certified agricultural district. You should know that horses in particular are specifically mentioned as agriculture in this easement. So, from the standpoint of having laid out this project, and having really done a lot of thorough homework before we involved ourselves in this process, we went through all these things and this is a project that we feel on its face complies in every respect to the Town's Zoning and the Covenants & Restrictions that were placed on the lot. I've heard a lot about this common driveway problem. It's not a problem for us, and I'm here to suggest that maybe as an accommodation to the neighbors we can utilize the same curb cut that we have now for the residents and bring a driveway straight along what would be the northern side lot line connecting up. We're happy to consider that if it resolves the dispute here. I think we could do it and that would be acceptable to us. The remainder of this is what it is: we are representing 13 horses but, like any farmer, we don't want to be bootstrapped with a whole bunch of what if's and additional C&R's. We've represented 13 horses, but uses can change over time and they should. We should adapt to the times. Farms and agriculture are commercial uses: all of them. So the notion that somehow that's a bad thing on a farm is a very dangerous road to go down. If you want your farms to be non-commercial, you will be in the business of growing houses. I feel very strongly that every farm--not only is it commercial, it should be reasonably profitable to support its use. Otherwise you will have no farms. So I do want to clarify that yes, this is a commercial operation just like any other farm in the Town of Southold or anywhere else for that matter. I think the plan is straightforward. Southold Town Planninq Board Page Ten October 17, 2011 I hope I have addressed the major concerns and I will answer any additional questions anyone may have. Mary Peters, 1465 Ackerl¥ Pond Lane: I was raised here in Southold. We bought the property at 1465 Ackerly Pond Lane after 20 years of saving and looking in Southold for the perfect property. I was raised on a farm; my mother raised horses; we had pigs cows, ducks, chickens and sheep. We bought this property because we love Southold, because we have the chance to work within a conservation easement and because we would always look at a beautiful horse farm. That's what I was promised by Mr. McGrath when he showed me the property and we agreed to purchase it. I would just like to say that (inaudible) we don't want to see Southold grow, we don't want to see changes to Southold. My parents came here; they made changes. My father is one of the founding fathers of the Horseman's Association, Jack Berkeley. He lives on the Main Road in Southold. He made changes in this town. He made changes so that Angus could be raised here and so that horses would need less property to exist on the existing farms. What we do want to see is that the Covenants & Restrictions that were put in place by the Planning Board in 1991 are respected--that we are respected as people who are trying to sustain agricultural and rural life in Southold. That's why we bought this property. That's all we're asking: that you respect the Covenants & Restrictions. Respect the fact that you're trying to raise horses and we're trying to raise children on that same property. We don't want to have to worry that if our children-- and there are seven little boys on this property and five dogs--are on our own driveway, our property. None of that property is owned by these property holders. That they're not going to be run over by a tractor trailer. That's what we are concerned about. Build within the easement. Respect the Covenants & Restrictions and give us guidelines that we can live with. We've tried to do that; we've respected those easements. We just want the same in turn. As someone who was raised here, I'm just asking for that respect. I appreciate the Board. Thank you very much for hearing us. Edwin Ward: I just want to clarify again the point about the common road. The horse farm does indeed have a right to use that road. However, the horse farm has road frontage on Ackerly Pond Lane as do all the residential houses; they're all flag lots, they all have 15' of road frontage. They could in theory all have their own driveways. However, when the subdivision was created, the Planning Board decided that wasn't going to look right; we didn't want three 15' driveways side by side. So they wanted this easement created so that everyone shared a common driveway. That wasn't the idea of the then-owner of the property, it was the idea of the Planning Board, who made that a condition of the subdivision that the easement was created. Today we face a whole different set of circumstances; we have three residences and we have a horse farm that is obviously looking to expand. It's going to be a different use of the road and I think it's reasonable to ask that the horse farm give up their right to that common driveway just as the Town Planning Board asked the then-owner back in 1991 to give up some of their property rights to create this subdivision. It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask that Southold Town Planning Board Page Eleven October 17, 2011 the horse farm give up their right to use this road, which isn't on their property at all, it's supposed to be on my property. Over the years it has moved a little bit and now it's on all three of our properties--it kind of winds through that 45' section. I think that is our biggest concern that we just want to keep that as a residential driveway. Again, also, like I said earlier, if we can separate it where the driveway is ours and they don't come on our driveway and they have their own area, it gives us some peace of mind that if things get out of hand or there are problems that we can create some type of barrier or we can distance ourselves from the problems and hopefully mitigate it. Whereas if they are going to be coming up and down that road every day, it's gonna be impossible to do that. The map shows that they come up our drive and they turn in where that Y is on the picture, but in reality there's gates and a fence all the way along the property and they do come up all the way down the road at times--not regularly, but it's conceivable that they could exercise their use of that road and drive the whole length of it all the way down past the two houses and up to my house if they deem it's necessary to gain access to a fence or to a back paddock or something. That's our biggest concern. So I hope that the Planning Board will take that into consideration. Thank you. Martin Sidor: Thank you. Is there anyone else from the audience? Dennis Swenkowski, 1055 Ackerl¥ Pond Lane: Good evening. I am in agreement with my neighbors. I live east of the horse farm. I can see it as an agricultural land (inaudible) the way it is now; I have no gripes about that. But when you start industrializing or commercializing something--and I don't know what true intent is here, I really don't. You're gonna build a huge barn and it's gonna take up quite a bit of space and it's gonna be an eyesore as far as I'm concerned. I don't know like I said the intent--what are you gonna have there? Once this is grandfathered in, what's gonna be there besides horses? Are you gonna have parties, bands? I don't know what you're gonna have there. That scares me. That's an infringement on my life, my property. It may affect me and my property somewhere down the line in the future. That's my thoughts on this, and I hope the Board judges this all relatively fair. I thank you for your time. Martin Sidor: Anyone else in the audience wishing to address the Planning Board? Any questions from the Planning Board at this time? Kenneth Edwards: Do you plan to have riding classes and lessons on the farm? Lucille Sullivan, G.W. Meade Farm: The simple answer to your question is "yes." Kenneth Edwards: What about horse shows? Lucille Sullivan: We do not intend to have horse shows. Southold Town Planning Board Pa,qe Twelve October 17, 2011 Martin Sidor: Does any other Board member have any questions? James Rich: do you intend to board horses for other people? Lucille Sullivan: We do. That is the purpose of the 13 stalls. At the Zoning Board hearing we testified that we already own three horses. But I do ride and train horses for other people until boarding of other horses is the intention of the additional ten stalls. We do not intend to do any rough boarding which is currently in effect now. William Cremers: One of the complaints we got was about horse manure. What are your plans for horse manure? Lucille Sullivan: Our plans for horse manure is to have a collection area and cart it off the site every week. I don't want horse manure accumulating either. Martin Sidor: Any other questions? There's a question about equipment. I think that would be in a separate building? Lucille Sullivan: There is an existing barn right now. The old historical barn which we intend to keep--that's the one the driveway wraps around. The stalls in that are very small; they are old and dated. I don't intend to use that for horses at all. When we say equipment, Brian likes antique tractors; we have a Harley Davidson. We plan on gutting it and using it as a workshop. That's our intended use. I don't really want that written into Covenants & Restrictions, but I'm telling you, the Board, and neighbors that's what we plan on doing thero putting toys in there. James Rich: I was more thinking about horse trailers and such. Martin Sidor: for the business. Lucille Sullivan: Oh. I didn't really actually figure out exactly where we were going to put the trailer. I have a horse trailer myself. I imagine some of the boarders may or may not. There's really adequate amount of space to put that. I don't have a definitive answer for you as far as exactly where we intend to put the horse trailers. Right now, they store them up alongside the existing barns. I don't know if that's the best place for them. I'd like to take them and put them out of the way. Martin Sidor: The only question I have is that seems to be focused on the size of the building that's being erected and a little bit of investigation that I've done seems to be the business plan for something similar to this whether there's one in Mattituck; there's one I know of in Riverhead, they seem to be that certain size structure. Southold Town Planninq Board Page Thirteen October 17, 2011 Lucille Sullivan: They are. My primary discipline is dressage. I explained this to the Zoning Board as well. Regulation size dressage arena is 66' wide x 198' long. So what we did is say I wanted a regulation size ring to ride in training, because when you go away to horse shows, that's what you compete in. So we came up with 70' x 200' because 70' was the size truck closest to the 66' wide, and then 200' long. It fits exactly the arena that I train in, so that I can compete in them. And yes, there's one on Roanoke Avenue that's very similar in size. The purpose of the size is because when you go away to horse shows and you compete, that's the size that you're doing all your movement in. So it's not--we didn't just decide we want to build a very big building. There's a purpose in what we are doing. Martin Sidor: Any other questions from the Board? Anything from the audience? I just want to state so that people understand the SEQRA determination: on a site plan approval, the resolution regarding this application will be decided later tonight. We will be deciding later tonight for the environmental review and not for the site plan decision. The site plan decision will be made at a later date after we consider all that was stated at this public hearing and submitted to us. Donald Wilcenski: I make a motion we leave the hearing open until the next public meeting. James Rich: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. Thank you. 6:04 p.m. - Crystal Clear Cleanin.q Corp. - This site plan is for the proposed renovation of an existing two story garage (2,400 s.f. total) to accommodate the offices of Cifarelli's Crystal Clear Cleaning Corp. in the LB Zoning District. There is no proposed change to the existing single-family dwelling; a proposed turf-block parking area is included. The property is located at 1335 New Suffolk Road, 1,300' +/- south of NYS Route 25 & New Suffolk Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-109-7-9.3 Martin Sidor: Anyone in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Board regarding this application, please step forward to either microphone, state your name and address, and write your name and address for the record. Southold Town Planning Board Page Fourteen October 17,2011 Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of the applicant: We have submitted to you a site plan for the alterations to the north side of the property: an unattractive cement block building that received Zoning Board approval to put a second story for the office area and private offices on the second floor and the secretarial space on the first floor, all related to the Crystal Clear window cleaning business that is presently at this point on the North Fork occupying space in Mattituck. They are relocating their facility to this property, which Mr. & Mrs. Cifarelli purchased. We submitted to you the final site plan which had incorporated all of the drainage calculations that had been the comments from the Town Engineer. We added planted buffers along an existing stockade fence. We have also added evergreen planted buffers along the north side of the property adjacent to what is now an existing gravel driveway for the farm in the back. We think we've given you all of the requests that were made in writing to us. You had some questions that I know you want responded to with respect to the parking situation, which I am going to defer to Mr. Cifarelli because we put all of that information on record at the Zoning Board when we appeared. We'll include for you what we had discussed with the Zoning Board. Before I turn it over, we do want to point out that we don't have parking proposed on New Suffolk Road. There has been no parking at any time on New Suffolk Road. You see cars there and they belong to the property owners to the west; one of the homeowners does not have a driveway at all, so he parks his vehicle on the road. There were some comments you asked with respect to whether we had our vehicles parked there. I'm told that we haven't parked any of our vehicles there; I think what you've seen or what has been commented upon are neighborhood cars. Lisa, why don't you put on the record how many vehicles you have on the North Fork and how your operation runs? Lisa Cifarelli: We have two offices: our corporate per se office where I work out of is on the North Fork. Our South Fork office is a rental building that we have in Southampton where the majority of our crew members punch in and out and the majority of our vehicles are kept since most of our work is in the Hamptons. At the North Fork office we keep about five or six vans; some of them go home to employee's houses, but on average we have five or six vans in the parking lot. Those leave in the morning and the office staff comes in, which consists of myself nine months out of the year and two office assistants. Other than that, downstairs is going to be their office space, upstairs will be my and my husband's private offices as well as what we have on our plan: there's a conference room which will really be my children's room when the school bus drops them off at the end of the day. They can spend their two hours in homework in the "conference room" which is really their playroom per se. Patricia Moore: I think also you just recently went to contract ....... Lisa Cifarelli: Yes. We are in contract for the property of this house. We were supposed to be closed by September 1, and that was switched back to September 21, and now they are working on trying to get the proper CO's on the house. As soon as Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Fifteen October 17, 2011 that is finalized then we will close on the property to this house and that will become ours as well so that we are not impacting too many neighbors per se. As far as people coming to the office--on a very, very, very rare occasion a customer might stop into the office for one reason or another. It might happen a dozen times a year literally. But for the most part everything is done via telephone. Like I said, once in a blue moon a customer will stop in and want to make a payment or set up an appointment, but that happens very, very seldomly. Patricia Moore: And the house to the south I think is occupied by .... Lisa Cifarelli: one of our employees family lives in that house, yes. Patricia Moore: Does that answer the questions that you had regarding cars, parking? Martin Sidor: Any questions from the Board? Patricia Moore: We hope that there won't be any opposition here tonight to this application. I am sure you are aware we have been on a very tight time frame. They are in the process of relocating and the lease on the property they currently rent in Mattituck has expired and they are just now continuing on a month-to-month basis in order for us to relocate. So we would ask respectfully if you could approve the site plan tonight. If there are no significant comments, we hope that you will approve the site plan as submitted. That way we can move ahead with the improvements. Thank you. Martin Sidor: Anyone else from the public who wishes to address the Planning Board regarding this application? Elizabeth McGrath, 1275 New Suffolk Road: I own the house directly next door as well as the house in the far northeast corner. The driveway that they are talking about to the right-of-way that I have access to runs directly alongside their property. I am very concerned about this type of a business in this residential neighborhood. I know that it's zoned light business, but I don't consider having seven parking spaces light business by any stretch of the imagination. I already have a ginormous problem with my neighbor directly behind him with my right-of-way and the appearance of it has been a ginormous issue for me. I rent the house directly next door and I have very lovely tenants there that I am sure are not gonna want to have vehicles going in and out of there at like 6:00 a.m., nor parking alongside the street. They are saying that it's going to be for their office use, but I know that they have at least ten vehicles or twelve vehicles on this side of the Island that they use. I don't understand how just five parking spaces are going to accommodate that from their business in Mattituck. I mean from what they have in the Mattituck office how they are going to be able to accommodate that on the property. Furthermore, this is a residential area and there's that property and the house they just bought, which was Bebe's old residential home Southold Town Planninq Board Page Sixteen October 17, 2011 and then there's the Wickham property. They are now using that as like a wedding facility. So that whole stretch of neighborhood right there is going to be: a window washing facility? One of my big concerns was what was going to happen with Bebe's Meeting House because no one is going to want to live there residentially; they're going to be between a Crystal Clear washing whatever it is and then you have Prudence and the Wickham situation. The whole weekend is like living next to Claudio's. I don't understand why any of this is going on New Suffolk Road. I understand you have a firehouse, the bank, a little bit coming in off the Main Road, the nursing home and that one house is also light business. But then you get into residential home upon residential home upon residential home and families and kids. I can't even believe that area is still going like that. I've had a problem trying to sell my little house before when there was nothing going on over there. Now there's gonna be a window washing facility with offices and cars and vans. It's going to devalue the property; not to mention the fact that my house that I live in--I drive by that property every day. That's my driveway. It's not just the farm in the back; it's my driveway, it's my right-of-way. It goes around to my home. So when I drive by there, I'm going to be basically driving by--I have a beautiful house. I'm going to be driving by a commercial facility in the middle of a residential area. I'm really not too happy. I was hoping that perhaps there would be a much larger buffer. When I look at that on the north side where those pine trees are; they are existing pine trees now. Those existing pine trees are cut up to here and there's a chicken wire fence because there's chickens from the neighbor. You can see directly into their property where they are gonna put a parking lot. I thought those were the existing pine trees, but she was mentioning that they are going to put a buffer? I don't know how they are going to do that because I know that this property is right on the property line of Mr. Turesco who owns the property behind. He's very disagreeable on every count. I've been dealing with this man; he tortures me. The right-of-way has been a ginormous issue for me. All he does is impede it with garbage and whatever. If he thinks that Mr. Turesco is going to allow him to do anything--bring a pie. Good luck with that, because it's not gonna happen. So I'm going to be looking at a chicken wire fence and a big old ugly gas tank and now a parking lot when I drive by to my home. That's all I have to say. Lisa Cifarelli: It's not on the site plan but we had talked about possibly--because we have a problem also with Turesco's property and his chickens and roosters and whatnot coming into our property. So we have talked about also the possibility of putting up a stockade fence. Actually, the existing stockade fence that is on the south side of the property--once we close on the property we want to take that fence down or another similar fence and put it up on the north side of the property. We are not the type of company that wants to make anything look worse. We are in business: image is our first priority and we are definitely going to improve on this property. We are not going to stick chicken wire up and all the stuff that's back there now. We have already discussed the possibility of putting a stockade fence up so that (1) people don't have to see our vehicles and (2) we can hopefully keep the chickens and roosters off our Southold Town Planning Board Page Seventeen October 17, 2011 property. We have no opposition along that property line putting a fence up where the palm trees are--it kinda looks like palm trees up there. Patricia Moore: The existing line of trees are mature pine trees? Lisa Cifarelli: Yes. Patricia Moore: The fence will probably there's some interference with the pines, so whether it's right on the property line or wherever it fits under the pines putting in the stockade fence along that area. Right now there's a large shed that's being removed. Lisa Cifarelli: It's gone. Patricia Moore: So that's not a problem. It's just a question of practically where you can put the fence: it can be a 6' fence. Preferably on the property line, but if it has to be offset from the property line depending on where the trees and the branches hit. Lisa Cifarelli: We might need a little help getting a sense of the property line. We already got in trouble for cutting vines growing into our yard. That could be an interesting situation. But hopefully what we can do is go along the property line. Patricia Moore: to the east is the Turesco's barn, which is right along the property line, almost the entire length of the property line. They have a dilapidated barn that looks like an oversize chicken coop, but I think it may be old farm worker housing that runs along the entire back of the property. It blocks views of everything from that side. As we said, they are the owners of the property to the south. They would control interference of residents to the south. Martin Sidor: Anyone else from the audience? Stacey Paetzel, 1080 New Suffolk Road: My husband Jonathan and I live diagonally across the street to the northwest of the proposed site. Coincidentally I have a business at 12900 Main Road in Mattituck which is the building over from the current Crystal Clear facility in Mattituck. I kind of have a lot of experience with what goes on at the existing site because I pass it every day when I go into my office and every day when I leave. Over the past year that I've been working in Mattituck there at my office, I've realized that they have quite a business; it's quite busy there. Since I found out that this application was going to be moving across the street I was actually surprised that type of use could be allowed in our residential neighborhood. So I looked up the limited business overlay district section in the Code, and a couple of things it said I didn't really feel like the Crystal Clear site could meet there. It said whatever use there must stay within the residential character of the neighborhood. Based on what the site looks like Southold Town Planninq Board Page Eighteen October 17, 2011 currently in Mattituck, didn't feel like it fit within the character at all. We have a lot of beautiful historic homes; it's a gateway down to New Suffolk; it's a designated bike lane. So I was really surprised that that type of business could move there. Secondly, traffic: use in the business overlay district must generate Iow levels of traffic. I spoke with the Planning Department and no traffic study has been completed for this property. I guess because we didn't want to ask the applicant to spend too much money on a traffic study which I can understand. It seems to me it would be kind of difficult to judge how much traffic a project like that would generate. With all that said, I understand that we may have missed our opportunity to comment on this huge thing in this area because this has already occurred with the Zoning Board. However, I still think that it's important to look at these elements with a new application coming to you. I believe it would require special exceptions. What I've been observing since I found out this application was coming--how many cars are typically at the Crystal Clear site averages between nine and thirteen. We counted nine Iogoed vehicles there. I don't know if they plan to change that when they move over to this facility, but that's currently--even in the past two to three weeks--what I've been observing. At least twelve parking spaces I think would really be required to accommodate that, and I only see five for the relocation of the office use and two for the residence. We're also concerned because when those vehicles come in and out every day, you're gonna have all the employees coming to pick up the cars and the trucks are already gonna be there. So then you're maybe sometimes gonna even have double that because the employees have to come and pick up the cars and then they're gonna be going out on our road. They have to come in to go to work and then they pick up the trucks and go out. They don't just kind of park and stay there all day. New Suffolk Road being concrete, every time a car goes on it, it goes ba-boom, ba-boom, ba-boom. So we're just concerned that if this is going on at 6 in the morning, 7 in the morning, it could be disruptive. If it were established that this use is coming, and Crystal Clear is coming to our neighborhood, a couple of things that as a landscape architect who prepares site plans quite often, especially on the South Fork, I had a few ideas for how we might be able to change it to function a little bit better. I think if you could eliminate one of the curb cuts there so you only have one access in, you could actually do a much better job of screening the parking area from the back. So if you eliminated the northeast access road in, and you only had the one access into the site, it would allow you a lot more ability to screen in the property. It would also prevent if there were overflow parking; I'm concerned that having two accesses would encourage there to be parking along the first access and then you would still have a way in and out of the site. So I don't know if there's a way to write into the restrictions that parking would be restricted to the rear yard as opposed to the front yard. Even though they said there won't be any parking on New Suffolk Road, I'm just concerned that there would be parking right in front of the property, especially if two access roads remain. I also notice that at the site in Mattituck they have a dumpster. I'm just wondering if there's going to be a dumpster proposed on this site and if so whether that might want to be added to the site plan and screened properly. Just in general, we had a chance to quickly review the planting plan. There's no species sizes, Southold Town Planninq Board Page Nineteen October 17, 2011 like minimum quantities or sizes listed on the plans. Those are our comments as far as that is concerned. I'd appreciate it if the hearing could be held open tonight so that we could have more time possibly to discuss some alternatives with the property owners. We're just concerned, we're not trying to make trouble. You guys seem like a really nice family. If you were living here with your family I think maybe we would feel a little more comfortable, but we know this is just your office and this is just where we live. So we welcome you to the neighborhood and hope you're gonna do great things, but we are just concerned and this is what this forum is for--to try to voice those opinions. So I apologize--it's nothing personal--but those are my thoughts and I appreciate your taking the time and listening. Thank you. Elizabeth McGrath: I just want to say regarding the northeast side of the property and screening, which would really, like I said I don't have right next door--you again would have the problem of Walter Toresco. Perhaps allow me to even put something up there because he's very difficult and if you try to do anything. My feeling is it's all screened off nicely--whatever is going on back there as long as it's within reason, but the way it is now, it's completely open where that little Y is and coming up the driveway to where that building is, that's open view to the little house that I own there. So the front yard of that house when they're sitting out on the porch, they're looking this way to that driveway so there's gonna be cars parked there, people coming and going, I mean it really disrupts the tranquility of your home. There is a front porch there and people use it. I used it when I lived there and enjoyed it very much. I lived there myself for about five years and there was nothing going on next door. Mr. Bebe was a lovely man and his business had ceased--he had retired and there was nothing going on there for many, many years, so it was very quiet. I just feel now that it's not going to be so quiet and tranquil as it was before. Again, Mr. Toresco is a problem with trying to do anything to make it look better. Martin Sidor: Anyone else from the audience? Anyone from the Planning Board? Kenneth Edwards: I think there have been enough questions asked and concerns that we probably should keep the hearing open until the next public hearing. Donald Wilcenski: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. Thank you. Southold Town Planning Board Page TwenW October 17, 2011 Patricia Moore: May I interject? I have no problem, I understand we have to address the concerns. What I would like to see is a productive possibly at a work session talk about some of the comments, recommendations that were made and we might be able to incorporate as many as what are reasonable feasible changes so that hopefully at the next meeting we have addressed all of the comments rather than holding it open and not really addressing anything until the next meeting. Martin Sidor: I wouldn't have it any other way. Patricia Moore: I'm sure. Thank you. SET HEARINGS Fishers Island Development Corp. & Malinowski - This proposed lot line modification transfers 0.16 acres from SCTM#1000-10-11-5.1 to SCTM#1000-10-11-3. Lot 3 will increase from 1.14 acres to 1.3 acres and Lot 5.1 will decrease from 2.01 acres to 1.85 acres. The property is located on a right-of-way off of Oriental Avenue, Fishers Island. Kenneth Edwards: Mr. Chairman I will offer the following resolution: WHEREAS, on June 21,2011, the agent, Stephen L. Ham, III, Esq., submitted an application for a Lot Line Modification on behalf of the owners, Fishers Island Development Corp. and Steve M. & Sarah B. Malinowski; and WHEREAS, this proposal will transfer 0.16 acres from SCTM#1000-10-11-5.1 to SCTM#1000-10-11-3; Lot 3 will increase from 1.14 acres to 1.3 acres and Lot 5.1 will decrease from 2.01 acres to 1.85 acres; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board sets Monday, November 14, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. for a public hearing regarding the map dated January 12,2011, prepared by CME Associated Engineering, Land Surveying & Architecture, PLLC. William Cremers: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries~ Southold Town Planning Board Page Twenty-One October 17, 2011 The Fields at Mattituck - This proposal is to amend the Covenants and Restrictions placed on the 15.49-acre agricultural open space for the Fields at Mattituck subdivision to allow a private road for residential use to be constructed through the open space, providing a second access for the lots in that subdivision. A second amendment proposed is to restrict the building envelope located on Bergen Avenue so that no residential development may occur there. The property is located n/o Bergen Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#1000-113-2-1.1 James Rich: Mr. Chairman, I will offer the following resolution: WHEREAS, this proposal is to amend the Covenants and Restrictions placed on the 15.49 acre agricultural open space for the Fields at Mattituck subdivision to allow a private road for residential use to be constructed through the open space, providing a second access for the lots in that subdivision. A second amendment proposed is to restrict the building envelope located on Bergen Avenue so that no residential development may occur there; be it therefore, RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board sets Monday, November 14, 2011 at 4:32 p.m. for a public hearing regarding the map dated August 2011, prepared by L.K. McLean Associates. Donald Wilcenski: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. North Fork Self Storage Carport - This site plan is for the proposed addition of an 1,800 sq. ft. carport on the existing 3.1 acre North Fork Self Storage site in the LI Zoning District where four existing buildings total 53,425 sq. ft. The 40' x 45' carport would be used as a staging area for customers to have temporary access to containers. The carport is proposed to be built on an existing asphalt area. The property is located at 50 Commerce Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-96-1-1.4 Donald Wilcenski: Mr. Vice Chairman, I will offer the following resolution: Southold Town Planning Board Pa.qe Twenty-Two October 17, 2011 WHEREAS, this site plan is for the proposed addition of an 1,800 sq. ft. carport on the existing 3.1 acre North Fork Self Storage site in the LI Zoning District where four existing buildings total 53,425 sq. ft. The 40' x 45' carport would be used as a staging area for customers to have temporary access to containers. The carport is proposed to be built on an existing asphalt area; be it therefore, RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board sets Monday, November 2011 at 4:$4 p.m. for a public hearing regarding the site plan dated July 19, 2011 prepared by DiGiovanni and Associates Architects. William Cremers: Second. Martin Sidor: All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. La Gran Villa Restaurant - This site plan is for the proposed modification of an existing 3,158 sq. ft. building to a 16-seat single service restaurant in the HB District. On the 19,857 sq. ft. (.48 acre) parcel, currently exist a dry store, medical office, Crystal Clear Cleaning Corp. office and storage. There are 22 existing parking spaces on site and no more are proposed. The property is located at 15000 NYS Route 25, +100' e/o Love Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#1000-114-11-12 William Cremers: Mr. Chairman, I will offer the following: WHEREAS, on September 8,2011, the agent, Robert Barratt, submitted a site plan application on behalf of Marina Recinos, La Gran Villa Restaurant, Inc.; and WHEREAS, this site plan is for the proposed modification of an existing 3,138 sq. ft. building to a 16 seat single service restaurant in the HB District. On the 19,857 sq. ft. (.48 acre) parcel, currently exists a dry store, medical office, Crystal Clear Cleaning Corp. office and storage. There are 22 existing parking spaces on site and no more are proposed; be it therefore, RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board sets Monday, November 14, 2011 at 4:36 p.m. for a public hearing regarding the site plan dated August 31,2011, prepared by Robert Barratt, P.E. Southold Town Planning Board Pa,qe Twenty-Three October 171 2011 Kenneth Edwards: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. SUBDIVISIONS - CONDITIONAL FINAL DETERMINATIONS North Fork Community Theater - This proposed lot line change will increase SCTM#1000-141-04-26 from 0.15 acres to 0.41 acres. SCTM#1000-141-04-32.1 will decrease from 2.613 acres to 2.35 acres. The property is located on the s/s/o Sound Avenue, 197.02' e/o Pacific Street, Mattituck. Kenneth Edwards: I will offer the following resolution: WHEREAS, this proposed lot line change will increase SCTM1000-141-04-26 from 0.15 acres to 0.41 acres. SCTM1000-141-04-32.1 will decrease from 2.613 acres to 2.35 acres; and WHEREAS, an application for a Lot Line Modification was submitted on November 22, 2010 by Reza Ebrahimi for the property located on the south side of Sound Avenue, 197.02' east of Pacific Street, Mattituck, SCTM#1000-141-04-26 &32.1, in the HB Zoning District; and WHEREAS, on March 29, 2011, the Southold Town Planning Board accepted the application for review; and WHEREAS, on May 31,2011, referrals were sent out to the Town Engineer, Suffolk County Planning Commission, Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Mattituck Fire District, and the Town Board; and WHEREAS, on June 14,2011, the Planning Board set a hearing; and WHEREAS, on June 23,2011, the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Mattituck Fire District reviewed the property and had "no comment"; and WHEREAS, on July 11,2011, the Suffolk County Planning Commission considered this to be a matter of local determination; and Southold Town Planninq Board Pa,qe Twenty-Four October 17, 2011 WHEREAS, on July 12,2011 the Public Hearing was closed; and WHEREAS, on August 2, 2011 the Suffolk County Department of Health Services reviewed this application and wished to maintain jurisdiction over the final location of sewage disposal and water supply systems, asked the applicant to submit an application to the Bureau of Water and Wastewater, and requested design flow specifications, information regarding subsurface soil conditions, and complete design details; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Town Code {}240-56 Waivers of Certain Provisions, may waive certain elements of the subdivision review if in its judgment they are not requisite in the interest of the public health, safety and general welfare. After reviewing the information submitted for this application, the Planning Board has determined that it is eligible for a waiver of the ERSAP, the Primary and Secondary Conservation Area Plan, the public hearing, and the Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plat steps of the subdivision process for the following reasons: 1. No new lots are being created; 2. The lots involved are either already developed or are being preserved as open space; 3. No changes will occur as a result of this lot line change that would affect the character of the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board performed an uncoordinated review of this Unlisted Action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.7 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Lot Line Modification Policy set by the Planning Board in February 2011, this application is eligible for decision from the Planning Board prior to receiving approval by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) as it meets the following criterion set forth in that policy: The transfer of land from an oversized parcel (larger than the minimum zoning requires) where the oversized parcel remains above the minimum lot size required, and where no new development potential will be created in the parcel to which the land is transferred; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposed action meets all the necessary requirements of Town Code §240 for a Lot Line Modification; be it therefore, RESOLVED, that the Planning Board, pursuant to SEQRA, hereby makes a determination of non-significance for the proposed lot line modification and grants a Negative Declaration; Southold Town Planning Board Page Twenty-Five October 171 2011 William Cremers: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. Kenneth Edwards: and be it further RESOLVED, that the Planning Board hereby waives the requirements of §240 to submit the ERSAP, Primary and Secondary Conservation Plans, the public hearing, Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plat steps; Donald Wilcenski: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. Kenneth Edwards: and be it further RESOLVED, that the Planning Board hereby waives the requirement for SCDHS approval prior to Planning Board approval; William Cremers: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. Kenneth Edwards: and be it further RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grants Conditional Final Approval on the maps entitled "Lot Line Modification Map of Property situate Mattituck" dated February 2, 2010 and last revised January 14, 2011 prepared by Nathan Taft Corwin III Land Surveyor, subject to the following condition: Submit draft deeds (prior to filin~l with Suffolk County) for written approval by the Planning Board that contain the following: a. a reference to the Planning Board approval of the Lot Line Modification; and Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Twenty-Six October 17,2011 b. a schedule (or schedules) with legible illustrations of the lot line changes made and that will be filed as a page (or pages) in the deed. Donald Wilcenski: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. SUBDIVISIONS - FINAL DETERMINATIONS Highland House, FI, LLC - This proposal is to subdivide a 4.56 acre parcel into 2 lots where Lot 1 = 80,390 sq. ft. and Lot 2 = 118,289 sq. ft. in the R-80 Zoning District. The property is located on the corner of Ocean View and Heathulie Avenues, Fishers Island. SCTM#1000-9-11-7.12 James Rich: Mr. Chairman, I offer the following resolution: WHEREAS, this proposal is to subdivide a 4.56 acre parcel into 2 lots where Lot I = 80,390 sq. ft. and Lot 2 = 118,289 sq. ft. in the R-80 Zoning District; and WHEREAS, on August 8, 2011, the Southold Town Planning Board granted Conditional Final Plat Approval upon the map entitled "Highland House FI, LLC Final Plan" prepared by Richard H. Strouse, P.E. of CME Associates Engineering dated June 18, 2010 and last revised on May 16, 2011, with four conditions; and WHEREAS, on October 6, 2011, the applicant submitted filed Covenants and Restrictions, the Administration Fee, and the Park and Recreation Fee; and WHEREAS, on October 12,2011, the applicant submitted ten paper copies and four mylar copies of the revised Final Plat with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services approval stamp; and WHEREAS, all the conditions of the Conditional Final Approval have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby grants Final Approval upon the map entitled "Highland House FI, LLC Final Plan" prepared by Richard H. Southold Town Planninq Board Pa,qe Twenty-Seven October 17, 2011 Strouse, P.E. of CME Associates Engineering dated June 18, 2010 and last revised on September 26, 2011. Kenneth Edwards: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. APPROVAL EXTENSIONS Latham, Edward -This is a proposed clustered conservation subdivision of a 127-acre parcel into 2 lots where Lot 1 would equal 124.05 acres of which Development Rights have been sold for 114 acres for agricultural uses only, and the remaining 10.05 acres will be restricted to agricultural use and is improved with agricultural buildings; and Lot 2 is equal to 2.95 acres and is improved with a single-family residence and garage in the R-200 Zoning District. The property is located at 31900 Main Road, Orient. SCTM#1000-19-1-7.4 Donald Wilcenski: Mr. Chairman, I offer the following: WHEREAS, this proposed standard subdivision will subdivide a 127-acre parcel into two lots where Lot 1 would equal 124.05 acres of which Development Rights have been sold for 114 acres and is improved with agricultural buildings and Lot 2 is equal to 2.95 acres and is improved with a single-family residence and garage in the R-200 Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board granted Sketch Approval on July 13, 2009 upon the map entitled "Survey of Property Situate: Orient", dated November 19, 2006, prepared by John C. Ehlers, Land Surveyor; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2010, the applicant submitted a request to the Southold Town Planning Board requesting a six-month extension of Sketch Plan Approval granted on July 13, 2009 because survey work is still being prepared; and WHEREAS, Sketch Plan Approval expired on January 13, 2010; and Southold Town Planning Board Page Twenty-Eight October 17,2011 WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board granted a six-month extension of Sketch Plan Approval from January 13, 2010 to July 13, 2010 upon the map entitled "Survey of Property Situate: Orient", dated November 19, 2006, prepared by John C. Ehlers, Land Surveyor, as permitted by Southold Town Code §240-14; and WHEREAS, Sketch Plan Approval expired on July 13, 2010; and WHEREAS, on July 11,2011, the applicant requested an extension of Sketch Plan Approval to allow the applicant to address Health Department regulations; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby grants an Extension of Sketch Plan Approval through January 13, 2012. James Rich: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. Bayberry Estates - This proposal is for a Standard Subdivision of a 50.0609-acre parcel into 18 lots and two (2) open space parcels where the lots range in size from 28,235 sq. ft. to 36,400 sq. ft. with the open space parcels totaling 35.0227 acres, excluding the wetlands, in the R-80 Zoning District. The property is located on the w/s/o Laurel Avenue approximately 150' s/o Yennecott Drive in Southold. SCTM#1000-55-6- 35 & 36 and 56-1-1 William Cremers: Mr. Chairman, I will offer the following: WHEREAS, this proposal is for a standard subdivision of a 50.0609-acre parcel into 18 lots and 2 open space parcels where the lots range in size from 28,235 square feet to 36,400 square feet with the open space parcels totaling 35.0227 acres, excluding the wetlands, in the R-80 Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board granted Conditional Preliminary Plat Approval on April 11,2011, and WHEREAS, Conditional Preliminary Plat Approval expired on October 11,2011 and Southold Town Planning Board Pa,qe Twenty-Nine October 17, 2011 WHEREAS, the applicant's agent submitted a letter on September 9, 2011 petitioning the Planning Board for a 6-month extension of Conditional Preliminary Plat, be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby grants an extension of Preliminary Plat .Approval through April 14, 2012. Donald Wilcenski: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. OTHER Re-issue Conditional Final Approval Southview Preserve - This proposal is to subdivide a 14.54-acre parcel into three lots where Lot 1 equals 44,735 sq. ft., Lot 2 equals 37,343 sq. f. and Lot 3 equals 42,470 sq. ft. with the remaining 11.53 acres of the property to be preserved as open space. The property is located on the s/s/o Main Bayview Road approximately 900' e/o Cedar Drive in Southold. SCTM#'s1000-87-5-21.7, 21.9 thru 21.13 Kenneth Edwards: I offer the following resolution: WHEREAS, this proposal is to subdivide a 14.54-acre parcel into three lots where Lot 1 equals 44,735 sq. ft., Lot 2 equals 37,343 sq. ft. and Lot 3 equals 42,470 sq. ft., with the remaining 11.53 acres of the property to be preserved as open space; and WHEREAS, on April 12, 2010 (amendment on May 11, 2010), the Planning Board granted Conditional Final Approval for the action; and WHEREAS, on April 12, 2011, the applicant's agent submitted a letter petitioning the Planning Board to extend Conditional Final Approval; and WHEREAS, on May 9, 2011, the Southold Town Planning Board denied the Extension of the Conditional Final Approval pursuant to Southold Town Code §240-25.C., which prohibits extensions of Conditional Final Plat Approval beyond 360 days; and Southold Town Planning Board Page Thirty October 17, 2011 WHEREAS, on May 20, 2011, the applicant submitted a new Final Plat Application meeting all requirements of the Town Code; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby grants Conditional Final Approval on the map prepared by Victor Bert, P.E., and Paul Racz, L.S., of Nelson and Pope, dated January 2006 last revised on October 9, 2009, with the following conditions: 1) The Suffolk County Department of Health Stamp has expired. Please up-date the stamp on the Final Plat. 2) The rights of others to use the 50' right-of-way running along the east side of the property are not changed or affected in any way by the granting of this approval. 3) Submission of the Performance Bond in the amount of $92,750.00 as prepared by the Southold Town Engineer on April 20, 2010 and required by Southold Town Code §240-32 Performance Bond: Performance Bond Estimate. The amount of the undertaking, secured by cash or certified check or other acceptable surety, will be based upon the Town Engineering Office's estimate of the total cost of the required capital improvements, including but not limited to road clearing, trail clearing, landscaping and drainage, plus a reasonable estimate of anticipated increased construction cost during the period of the life of the bond. The Planning Board shaft pass a resolution either approving or modifying the Performance Bond Estimate as recommended by the Superintendent of High ways. The Town Board shaft approve or disapprove the Performance Bond, subject to the review and approval of the Town Attorney. If the Performance Bond is approved, it shall be filed with the Town Clerk and the Town Clerk shaft notify the Planning Board, in wdting, of the Town Board's action. The Chair of the Planning Board shaft not sign a Final Plat until notification by the Town Clerk of the Town Board's approval of the Performance Bond. After construction of the public improvements covered by the Performance Bond and prior to the release of the bond, the developer shall prepare a set of the approved drainage plans and street profiles amended to indicate as-constructed information. The developer then may apply to the Southold Town Planning Board Pa,qe Thirty-One October 17, 2011 Town Engineering Office and/or Superintendent of Highways for a final inspection of the work. When the work has been completed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineering Office and/or Superintendent of Highways, they shall recommend to the Planning Board that the Performance Bond be released. If the Planning Board is in agreement with the recommendation, the Planning Board shall recommend to the Town Board that the Performance Bond be released. 4) Submission of the Administration Fee as required by Southold Town Code §240- 37 Administration Fee in the amount of $5,565 made payable to the Town of Southold. 5) Submission of a Park and Playground Fee in the amount of $14,000 made payable to the Town of Southold as required by Southold Town Code §240- 54(G). Donald Wilcenski: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. SITE PLANS - FINAL DETERMINATIONS Lieb Vines, LLC - This site plan is for the proposed conversion of an existing 5,569 sq. ft. agricultural storage building to a wine-tasting room and dry storage building, and includes a 12,122.86 sq. ft. bluestone parking lot and a 1,440 sq. ft. brick patio. The property is located at 13050 Oregon Road, 222' +/- e/o Cox Lane & Oregon Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-83-3-2.2 James Rich: Mr. Chairman, I offer the following resolution: WHEREAS, this site plan is for the proposed conversion of an existing 5,569 sq. ft. agricultural storage building to a wine-tasting room and dry storage building, and includes a 12,122.86 sq. ft. bluestone parking lot and a 1,440 sq. ft. brick patio; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted an application for site plan review on April 15, 2011; and Southold Town Planning Board Pa.qe Thirty-Two October 17, 2011 WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) (6 NYCRR, Part 617.5 (c) (7) has determined that the proposed action is a Type II Action as it falls within the following description for 6 NYCRR, Part 617.5 (c) (7) "construction or expansion of a primary or accessory/appurtenant, non- residential structure or facility involving less than 4,000 square feet of gross floor area and not involving a change in zoning or a use variance and consistent with local land use controls..." Due to the minimal addition of the 1,440 sq. ft. patio, the site is not subject to review under SEQRA; and WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011, the Planning Board, pursuant to Southold Town Code §280-131 C., distributed the application to the required agencies for their comments; and WHEREAS, on June 9, 2011, the Southold Town Architectural Review Committee reviewed and determined that the proposed building was acceptable; and WHEREAS, on June 23,2011, the Town of Southold LWRP Coordinator reviewed the above-referenced project and has determined the proposed project to be consistent with Southold Town LWRP policies; and WHEREAS, on June 27,2011, the Southold Town Engineer reviewed the above- referenced application and has determined that the proposed drainage meets the minimum requirements of Chapter 236 for Storm Water Management; and WHEREAS, on July 7,2011, the Suffolk County Planning Commission reviewed the above-referenced application and considered the site plan to be a matter for local determination with no significant county-wide or inter-community impact; and WHEREAS, on July 19, 2011, the Cutchogue Fire District determined there was adequate fire protection and emergency access for the site; and WHEREAS, on September 16,2011, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services approved the above-referenced site plan dated July 22,2011. It should be noted that the map stamped by the SCDHS contains minor differences from the site plan to be approved by the Southold Town Planning Board, therefore, any and all future reference to the approved site plan should be made to the map dated August 12, 2011 and containing the approval stamp of the Southold Town Planning Board; and WHEREAS, on October 14, 2011, the Southold Town Chief Building Inspector reviewed and certified the proposed site plan as a permitted use in the A-C Zoning District; and WHEREAS, all applicable requirements of the Site Plan Regulations Article XXIV, §280 - Site Plan Approval of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore Southold Town Planninq Board Page Thirty-Three October 17, 2011 RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board has determined that this proposed action is consistent with the policies of the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program; William Cremers: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. James Rich: Motion carries and be it further RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grants Approval to the site plan entitled "Lieb Vines, LLC" prepared by Jeffrey T. Butler on May 20, 2011 and last revised on August 12, 2011, and authorizes the Chairman to endorse the site plan. William Cremers: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. APPROVAL OF PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Board to approve the minutes of: September 12, 2011. Martin Sidor: Motion needed to approve the minutes of September 12, 2011. Donald Wilcenski: So moved. William Cremers: Second. Martin Sidor: Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. Does anyone on the Planning Board member wish to put anything on the record? Southold Town Planninq Board Pa,qe Thirty-Four October 171 2011 Kenneth Edwards: The Board extends its condolences to Carol Kalin in the passing of her mother. Martin Sidor: Well said. Do I have a motion to adjourn? Donald Wilcenski: So moved. William Cremers: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was ADJOURNED at 7:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lind a~R a nd o~d~'ph, T~l~a~C?id~ Se~cretary Martin H. Sidor, Chair'