Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-05/29/2001PLANNING ~@-~D IV~I~iB~t~S BENNETT ORLOWSKI, gR. Chairm~n ~LLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD CAGGIANO P.O. Box 1179 Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1938 Fax (631) 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTItOLD MINUTES May 29, 200'1 Special Meeting 4:30 p.m. Present were: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Richard Caggiano '~ William J. Cremers George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Craig Turner, Planner Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer Carol Kalin, Secretary Mr. Orlowski: Good evening. I'd like to call this meeting to order. PUBLIC HEARINGS Subdivisions: Mr. Orlowski: 4:30 p.m. - Reynold Blum at Peconic - This proposed clustered set-off is for 2 lots on 14.81 acres. Development Rights have been sold on Lot 1 for 11.98 acres, The property is located on the west side of Peconic Lane in Peconic. SCTM#1000-75-5- 1 Are there any comments on this set-off? (There were none.) Any questions from the Board? (There were no questions from the Board.) Hearing no questions, I'll entertain a motion from the Board to close the hearing. Mr. Latham: So move. $outhold Town Planning Board Pa,qe Two May 29, 2001 Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Latha'm. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? The motion carries. (The hearing was closed at 4:36 p.m.) Does the Board have any pleasure? Mr. Cremers: Mr. Chairman, I'll offer the following - WHEREAS, this proposed subdivision is for a 2.83 acre set-off from a 14.81 acre parcel, on the west side of Peconic Lane in Peconic; and WHEREAS, Development Rights have been sold on the remaining 11.98 acres; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8), Part 617, did an uncoordinated review of this unlisted action, made a determination of non-significance, and granted a Negative Declaration on December 4, 2000; and WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said subdivision application at the Town Hall, Southold, New York on May 29, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Chapter 58, Notice of Public Hearing, has received affidavits that the applicant has complied with the notification provisions; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant final approval on the maps, dated February 12, 2001, and authorize the Chairman to endorse the maps. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? The motion carries. $outhold Town Planninq Board Page Three May 29, 2001 Mr. Orlowski: 4:35 p.m. - John Sidor - This minor subdivision is for 3 lots on 21.97 acres. The Development Rights will be purchased by the Town on the 13.296 acres of Lot No. 3. The property fronts on the north side of CR 48 and the south side of Wickham Ave. in Mattituck. SCTM#1000-107-10-6 Mr. Orlowski: Are there any comments on this minor subdivision? Unidentified Person in Audience: We own the property next door and I have a question about the road that goes right next to the Belletti property. I can't see where it's - I don't want it close to mine. Mr. Orlowski: The road? Unidentified Person in Audience: There's a dirt road there. Mr. Orlowski: Can we have your name for the record, please? Unidentified Person in Audience: Belletti. Abigail Wickham, Esq.: Would you like me to clarify that? Mr. Orlowski: I guess you should. Abigail Wickham, Esq.: Hi, my name is Gall Wickham. I represent the Sidors. I think what he's questioning is an old right-of-way that actually pertains to Catherine Sidor's farm and not John Sidor's farm. The 50 feet to the east of Mr. Belletti's property - between Lot #1 on Wickham Avenue and the Belletti's property- is, I think, what he is referring to and that is not a road per say; it's access to Wickham Avenue for the Development Rights portion of the farm. There's a farm road that's been there for many years that goes through there and that's merely set aside as a little wider than 50 feet for access by the farm to Wickham Avenue but there's no road, improved road, shown on this map. Mr. Orlowski: It's just access to the Development Rights parcel. Ms. Wickham: Just access, yes. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Does that answer your question? Mr. Belletti: There's always been a discrepancy between us and Mr. Sidor about who owns the farm road. I just don't want a house close to the property. I want it to be a farm forever- that's what 1 want. We've got too many houses and golf courses around here as it is. Mr. Orlowski: It's just an access to the Development Rights parcel, it's an Open Space parcel that can't be built on. Southold Town Planninq Board Page Four May 29, 2001 Mr. Belletti: I don't want it turning into a road, if you will. John is welcome to it anytime - I don't care about that. I don't want people going back and forth down that road. I'll close it off and they'll have to go a different way. Mr. Orlowski: He's got to access the property somehow. Ms. Wickham: He's referring to a portion of property that is not owned by him. Mr. Belletti: Three-quarters of that road belongs to us. It's a weird piece. It's not a square piece. (Simultaneous discussion in the audience.) Mr. Orlowski: You could call it a flag lot for the Development Rights parcel but it's a preserved parcel. I don't know what traffic you are going to see there. Mr. Belletti: I don't want to impose certain standards if you've got the right-of-way if there's a grape farm there, going back and forth on that road - I don't need that traffic through there. (Unidentified woman speaking in the audience.) Craig Turner: He's got a right to use the property for access. Ms. Wickham: That right-of-way actually benefits the Sidor property. Mr. Turner: Yes. Ms. Wickham: It encumbers the Belletti property. Mr. Turner: Yes, he has a right-of-access over your property to use further access to the farm. There's not really much we can do about restricting access over that right-of-way. We really can't address someone else's property that's adjacent to it. Mr. Belletti: So, who has rights over that road - me or Mr. Sidor? Mr. Turner: You both do. It's on your property, therefore, you have access but if he has deeded access to it as well, he is allowed to travel over it. Mr. Belletti: Is there deeded access, John? I've never seen deeded access. (Discussion in audience.) Mr. Orlowski: At this time, the Board is entertaining a subdivision of the property. Any access is in the deed and that's strictly a legal matter for the two of you to work out. $outhold Town Planninq Board Page Five May 29, 2001 Mr. Orlowski (con't.): We're looking at a subdivision here. We can't say whether to cut off access to any property. Mr. Belletti: He's got access to (CR) 48. Mr. Orlowski: Yes, but he's also has access to Wickham Avenue. The deeded part you have to work out with Mr. Sidor. There's nothing we can do. Mr. Belletti: What I'm trying to say is, if there is, it was only permission for the Sidors - no one else. Mr. Orlowski: We can't entertain that though. They're subdividing the lots and Mr. Sidor is selling the Development Rights on the rest and keeping it open space. (Simultaneous discussion in audience.) Mr. Orlowski: If everybody's going to talk at once, we need some names. We're on tape. We can't do anything about it here. What we're doing is subdividing off two lots and we'll entertain any questions on the subdivision part. As far as legality and access, that's strictly between the two of you. Any other questions or comments? (There were none.) Does the Board have any comments? (There were none.) Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Latham: So move. Mr. Cremers: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questiOns on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? The motion carries. (The hearing was closed at 4:44 p.m.) Mr. Cremers: Mr. Chairman, I'll offer the following - WHEREAS, this proposed subdivision is for 3 lots on 22.6 acres between Wickham Avenue and County Route 48 in Mattituck; and WHEREAS, the Sale of Development Rights is proposed on 13.296 acres; and Southold Town Planninq Board Page Six May 29, 2001 WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8), Part 617, declared itself Lead Agency, made a determination of non-significance, and granted a Negative Declaration on May 23, 2000; and WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said subdivision application at the Town Hall, Southold, New York on May 29, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Chapter 58, Notice of Public Hearing, has received affidavits that the applicant has complied with the notification provisions; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant conditional final approval on the maps, dated March 7, 2001, subject to the fulfillment of the following condition. This condition must be met within six (6) months of the resolution: 1. A Covenant must be filed prohibiting further subdivision of the 5 acres on Lot #3 left out of the Development Rights Sale. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? The motion carries. Mr, Orlowski: 4:40 p.m. - Catherine Sidor - This proposal includes 2 lot line changes and a clustered set-off. The lot line changes are to subtract 33,273 sq. ft. from the original 21.08 acre parcel and to add 13,172 sq. ft. to an adjacent parcel to the west and 20,101 sq. ft. to an adjacent parcel to the east. The lot to be set off is 0.966 acres. The Development Rights will be purchased by the Town on the remaining 19.347 acres. The property fronts on the north side of CR 48, the east side of Mary's Rd. and the south side of Wickham Ave. in Mattituck. SCTM#1000-107-10-1,3 & 4 Are there any questions or comments on this application? (There were none.) Hearing none, are there any questions from the Board? (There were none.) Hearing no questions, I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing. Southold Town Plannin.q Board Pa.qe Seven May 29, 2001 Mr. Caq.qiano: So move. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? The motion carries. (The hearing was closed at 4:46 p.m.) Mr. Latham: I'll offer this, Mr. Chairman - WHEREAS, this proposed subdivision is for a .966 acre set-off and two lot line changes for 20,101 sq. ft. and 13,172 sq. ft., on the south side of Wickham Avenue, east of Mary's Road in Mattituck; and WHEREAS, the Sale of Development Rights is proposed on the remaining 19.347 acres; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8), Part 617, declared itself Lead Agency, made a determination of non-significance, and granted a Negative Declaration on May 23, 2000; and WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said subdivision application at the Town Hall, Southold, New York on May 29, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Chapter 58, Notice of Public Hearing, has received affidavits that the applicant has complied with the notification provisions; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant final approval on the maps, dated March 7, 2001, and authorize the Chairman to endorse the maps. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? The motion carries. $outhold Town Planninq Board PaRe Eight May 29, 2001 Site Plans: Mr. Orlowski: 4:45 p.m. - Pindar Vineyards - This proposed site plan is for a 34,000 sq. ft. winery storage building. The property is located on Route 25 in Peconic. S CTM# 1000-85-2-14 Are there any comments or questions on this site plan application? (There were none.) Hearing none, are there any questions or comments from the Board? (There were no questions or comments from the Board.) Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing. Unidentified Person in Audience: This is on site plan and its use with wineries? Mr. Orlowski: It's on this application. Unidentified Person in Audience: O.K. In reference to other perspective situations for future wineries, does this set a precedent? Mr. Orlowski: Do you want to step up to the microphone and ask the question? Unidentified Person in Audience: Yes. My name is Chris Baiz. I'm a vineyard owner/operator here in the Village of Southold. I have some concerns in terms of some of the issues involved with the Pindar situation, in particular, and the way it may impact other wineries that are either existing or in the future in terms of their issue of how they are codified or nomenclatured under the Building Department and other aspects. I'm not sure whether this is the appropriate time or what not but I think there are some issues here that, if this sets a precedent or establishes a precedent, I find in various Laws of the State of New York that the local issues contradict the State Laws and I would like to raise those issues, if this is the appropriate time. Mr. Orlowski: Well, the hearing right now is basically on the Pindar Winery storage building. They are allowed to build a storage building; it's an agricultural use. They've met all the criteria. It conforms to everything that's in the Code right now. It meets all the setbacks. It went to Architectural Review. So, anything you would want to do or are thinking of in regards to the wine industry, you would have to go before the Town Board or the Code Committee to address those concerns. But, right now, this application meets all the criteria. Mr. Baiz: O.K. Alright, but this is not to set a precedent for others at that point in terms of whether buildings are called agricultural use or commercial use. Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Nine May 29, 2001 Mr. Odowski: Any agricultural building is probably a commercial-type building but with an agricultural use. The Town is promoting the agricultural preservation and without buildings, I don't know how agriculture would survive. Mr. Baiz: I just want to note here that in addition to - because I've heard some things swirling around that farming is farming and wine making is not farming and yet, the New York State Tax Laws define wine sales and wine making as farming and the buildings that wines are either stored in or processed in are deemed to be qualified agricultural properties and not commercial properties or commercial buildings in essence and whether that if one were to use existing agricultural buildings on a farm vineyard for these activities, that they are not swept into the element of commercial buildings based upon the existing laws in the State of New York with regards to farming including the sale of wine which the Tax Law says right here. Mr. Orlowski: Well, I agree with you that an agricultural building is that - it's an agricultural building and it is in an Agricultural Zone and conforms to everything in our Code. I'm not sure what you're looking at for the future but this application - Mr, Baiz: Fm looking for full farm winery development in the future and that they're not, in terms of the Tax Law and Ag. and Markets Law and the Alcohol and Beverage Law, come under one category and then under the Building Department, come under another category. Mr. Odowski: Yes, well, in the Building Department it comes in under a building on an agricultural piece of property. Mr. Baiz: In the Tax Law of the State of New York it says that those buildings that are there for wine storage and wine production qualify as agricultural buildings. Mr. Orlowski: And they should. Mr. Baiz: Right. Not as commercial buildings. Mr. Odowski: Exactly. Mr. Baiz: O.K. I just want to make sure that we're there for any future - all future - farm wineries. Mr. Orlowski: Same as years ago when we had all the potato acreage and they built potato buildings. Mr. Baiz: It's interesting: In the Tax Law they talk about not only all sorts of various traditional agricultural uses of buildings qualify as agricultural buildings but they also talk about buildings for the use and production of maple syrup, cider and the sale of wine from a farm winery; buildings and structures used to process the sap and the syrup, the Southold Town Planninq Board Page Ten May 29, 2001 Mr. Baiz (con't.): apples into cider or grapes into wine are considered qualified agricultural products even though the property is used in processing. Mr. Orlowski: I totally agree with that. Mr. Baiz: So, the making of these end products is not a manufactured process; it's an agricultural process. Mr. Orlowski: Right now, that's the way we look at it and I don't look at it any other way. Mr. Baiz: Is there an issue in other areas of the Town Government where it might not be? Mr. Odowski: Not here. Mr. Turner: If the Building Department looks at it differently, that's the Building Department. The Building Department makes the determination if something needs a site plan. Then it comes to us for the site plan. Mr. Baiz: Why would the Building Department determine that there is a need for a site plan? Mr. Orlowski: It's spelled out in the Code that everything needs a site plan except for a residential house. Mr. Baiz: Even existing use buildings? Mr. Orlowski: No. Anything that comes into the Building Department to get a Building Permit. Mr. Baiz: O.K., very good. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Any other questions or comments? (There were none.) I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Caqqiano: So moved. Mr. Cremers: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Latham. Mr. Odowski: Opposed? The motion carries. (The hearing was closed at 4:56 p.m.) Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Eleven May 29, 2001 I'll make the resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, do an uncoordinated review of this unlisted action. The Planning Board established itself as Lead Agency, and as Lead Agency, makes a determination of non-significance and grants a Negative Declaration. Mr. Cremers: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? The motion carries. Further - WHEREAS, this proposed site plan, to be known as site plan for Pindar Vineyards, is to construct a 34,000 square foot storage building; and WHEREAS, Dr. Herodotus Damianos is the owner of the property known and designated as Pindar Vineyards, Route 25, Peconic, SCTM#1000-85-2-14; and WHEREAS, a formal application for the approval of this site plan was submitted on May 14, 2001; and WHEREAS, this site plan was certified by the Building Inspector on May 14, 2001; and WHEREAS, this storage building will be used to store wine and wine and farm equipment; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Committee has reviewed the elevation drawings and the Planning Board has accepted their recommendation for approval; and WHEREAS, the Town Engineer has reviewed the drainage calculations and the Planning Board has accepted his recommendation for approval; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Chapter 58, Notice of Public Hearing, has received affidavits that the applicant has complied with the notification provisions; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore Southold Town Planning Board Page Twelve May 29, 2001 RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board authorize the Chairman to endorse the final survey, dated May 22, 2001, subject to a one year review from date of Building Permit. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Mr. Orlowski: MotiOn made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? The motion carries. MAJOR AND MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, LOT LINE CHANGES AND SET OFF APPLICATIONS Final Determinations: Mr. Orlowski: Rockcove Estates - This major subdivision is for 23 lots on 28.315 acres located on the north side of Middle Road (CR45); approximately 500 feet west of McCann Lane in Greenport. SCTM#1000-33-3-19 Mr. Cremers: Mr. Chairman, I'll offer the following: WHEREAS, this subdivision received conditional final approval from the Planning Board on March 20, 2000; and WHEREAS, all of the conditions have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board authorize the Chairman to endorse the final surveys dated October 10, 2000. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowskh Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? The motion carries. Southold Town Planning Board Pa,qe Thirteen May 29, 2001 Mr. Orlowski: Wildberry Fields - This major subdivision is for 10 lots on 22.3886 acres, located on the south side of Sound View Avenue; 289 feet west of Clark Road and the north side of C.R. 48; 320 feet west of Clark Road in Southold. SCTM#1000-51-3-12.2 & 12.4 Mr. Cremers: Mr. Chairman, I'll offer the following: WHEREAS, this subdivision received conditional final approval from the Planning Board on December 13, 1999; and WHEREAS, all of the conditions have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board authorize the Chairman to endorse the final surveys dated November 21,2000. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? The motion carries. Mr. Orlowski: I have nothing left on my agenda. Would anyone like to put anything on the minutes of this meeting? (No one responded.) If not, we will adjourn and go into a Work Session. Mr. Cremers: I make a motion to adjourn. Mr. Ca.q.qiano: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? The motion carries. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. enne OcfdwsM; Jr., Chaii'man Respectfully submitted, Carol Kalin, Secretary